> Home

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“The apparent “order” with which organisms seem to be distributed in nature results from the elimination of the “wrong” phenotypes, not necessarily the selection of better adapted ones.” —Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Bruno Maresca “Sudden Origins: A General Mechanism of Evolution Based on Stress Protein Concentration and Rapid Environmental Change,” The Anatomical Record (Part B. New Anat.) 289B: 38-46, 2006. (See PDF)

Natural Selection

The design part of evolution is in the elusive mechanism of unguided genetic change that has yet to be found, NOT in natural selection. Natural selection is nothing more than an elimination process that weeds out less fit organisms AFTER a genetic change has made a distinguishable change in them.
To reiterate, there must be a genetic change FIRST before natural selection can differentiate more fit from less fit, so evolutionists are back to square one with trying to come up with some type of mechanism that might actually cause new or more complex features and organs to appear:
"To explain biological design, we need more than Darwinism…natural selection does not initiate evolutionary changes in design."
Kenneth V. Kardong, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Washington State University, Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution (1995), McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, Third Edition, 2002, pp. 13-14. 

Natural Selection is based on one premise only - The organism that produces the most offspring wins. You don't get the prize for being smarter, bigger, faster, etc., unless you are reproductively superior. Think about that for a bit … Until a final new and improved trait or feature is fully developed, why would anything be successful at survival if it starts changing its form?

Attempting to make natural selection more than it actually is, evolutionists write endless articles that use every angle to make it sound more complicated. In fact, many evolutionists claim now that it’s so complex that even teachers don’t grasp it:
“Evolution: Education and Outreach,” Volume 2, Number 2 / June, 2009, “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions.”
“The unfortunate reality, as noted nearly 20 years ago by Bishop and Anderson (1990), is that “the concepts of evolution by natural selection are far more difficult for students to grasp than most biologists imagine.” Despite common assumptions to the contrary by both students and instructors, it is evident that misconceptions about natural selection are the rule, whereas a working understanding is the rare exception.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807x22/fulltext.html

What Natural Selection Can Do:

Natural selection can preserve a change in an existing trait or feature by having organisms with that change survive and reproduce at a higher rate.

What Natural Selection CAN’T Do:

Natural selection DOES NOT ‘initiate’ genetic processes. It only responds to a change by eliminating organisms that are less fit within that population. Natural selection CAN’T differentiate between organisms unless there was a genetic change FIRST that would make an organism more fit or less fit than its predecessor.

• “The apparent “order” with which organisms seem to be distributed in nature results from the elimination of the “wrong” phenotypes, not necessarily the selection of better adapted ones.”
  Jeffrey H. Schwartz / Bruno Maresca, “Sudden Origins: A General Mechanism of Evolution Based on Stress Protein Concentration and Rapid Environmental Change” (See PDF)

NATURAL SELECTION IS AN ELIMINATING MECHANISM, NOT A CREATIVE ONE!

The best known example of natural selection is the observation of the Galapagos Island finches. The average beak size of the finches increased temporarily by about 5% due to the gradual loss of smaller seeds, which forced them to eat larger seeds. The finches did not develop a new trait or feature, there was just an increase in the average size of an existing feature because finches that had larger beaks survived at a higher rate than ones with smaller beaks. But also note that the average beak size went back to the original size when the smaller seeds were available again.

For argument sake, let's say the smaller seeds never came back. Each new generation of finches might have a continued increase in beak size, but the beak would NEVER continue to increase in size past a point of survivability, such as it being too large in relationship to its supporting head, body, etc. It is also an observable fact that, without controlled breeding, specialized breeds ALWAYS turn back to their original and more basic form.

Note that most evolutionists are all but silent when asked what genetic mechanism produces novel features to arise. http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

Hoping that you won’t notice this dodge, they now have turned the focus primarily on natural selection. By using this strategy, evolutionists expose their own ignorance and the fact that evolutionary-based science is a menace to education, medical research, and scientific progress:

• “Indeed, most biologists now agree that natural selection is the key evolutionary force that drives not only evolutionary change within species but also the origin of new species. Although some laypeople continue to question the cogency or adequacy of natural selection, its status among evolutionary biologists in the past few decades has, perhaps ironically, only grown more secure.”
  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection&print=true

	“Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results.” Penn State, “Hundreds Of Natural-selection Studies Could Be Wrong, Study Demonstrates,” Sciencedaily.com website, March 3, 2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330200821.htm  "To explain biological design, we need more than Darwinism… natural selection does not initiate evolutionary changes in design." —Kenneth V. Kardong Professor of Zoology and Biology at Washington State University, Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution (1995), McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, Third Edition, 2002, pp. 13-14.  "But many biologists, looking at evolution over longer time intervals, have noted that species are rarely modified consistently in one direction long enough for significant evolutionary change to accumulate. Even the Galapagos finches seem to oscillate, not really 'going anywhere' in an evolutionary sense. The reason is that short-tern environmental change tends to be cyclical, so natural selection is not likely to keep pushing a species in any one particular direction long enough for new species or major new adaptations to evolve. Furthermore, every species is broken up into local populations, each of which belongs to a different local ecosystem — making it even less likley that natural selection will modify the entire species in any particular way as time rolls on." —Niles Eldredge Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natual History, Evolution and Evironment: The Two Faces of Biodiversity, Natural History, June 1998, p. 54-55.