Seems like an odd title – we’ve been taught that they are the same thing. At least, that Natural Selection is the vehicle that makes Evolution possible.
An honest examination shows that Natural Selection actually disproves Evolution.
In previous blogs, I deposited that Darwinian evolution was an unproven theory that is being used to attempt to negate the idea that there is a Creator – It is past time to provide the evidence.
National Geographic defines natural selection as:
. . . the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.
Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/natural-selection/).
Disclaimer: I am not disputing that “natural selection” takes place, nor that it can give rise to new species. I will argue that natural selection is not a catalyst for the evolution of organisms to become different and/or better organisms.
Darwinian evolution teaches that man evolved over millions of years from primordial goo through several animal states. This evolution had thousands of steps as that goo developed beneficial mutations that enabled it to better survive, which traits were passed on to each of its many ancestors, which also had beneficial mutations (or, as Kent Hovind states it, “From goo to you, by way of the zoo”).
Natural selection does not provide the actual mutation, it only determines what is better for the organism or worse, giving benefit or handicap to the organism. It then “selects” the better because the worse is more likely to die off sooner. The definitive statement about variations fails to recognize that these variations are a loss of genetic material, not an enhancement of genetics.
Let us look at an actual scenario rather than unsupported claims.
The wolf is the ancestor of all domesticated dogs. The Great Dane and the Yorkshire Terrier (which look nothing alike) are part of the same species, but the wolf and the coyote (which do look alike) are not of the same species.
The genetics of every organism have traits (e.g., large or small, dark or light) that they received from their parent organism. Some genes are referred to as “dominant” (physically visible) and the others as “recessive” (present, but not physically visible if there is a corresponding dominant gene).
If we say that “A” (or “a”) is one trait and “B” (or “b”) is another, then we see that both of these fictional parents have dominant and recessive genes. This is overly simplified since the number of genes that determine an organisms overall development is over a million.
Using just these three traits, we have 27 different gene combinations (3 x 3 x 3 = 27), of which only ten are depicted. If you took all the million plus genes and did every combination, then you are looking at a rather large number.
Going back to our much simpler illustration, let us look at one trait – hair. If two dogs have genes for both short hair (“S”) and long hair (“L”),
then the puppies have the possibility of several gene combinations.
The Short hair pup and the Long hair pup have less genetic variation than their parents have and the only way for their children to regain that variation is to mate them with another dog that has that variant. Mating the Long hair dominant dog with another Long hair dominant dog will produce a long-haired dog.
This is the essence of dog-breeding. Breeders mate specific dogs in order to eliminate certain traits. Mating dogs with small tails, over time, eliminates the trait for long tails inside that breed.
This is obviously not Natural Selection since the Breeders (an intelligent designer?) made the selection, but in both cases, it is a choice that eliminates information, not adds information.
Atheists ask, “How could Noah have gotten all the thousands of species on the ark?” The answer is, “He didn’t.”
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:19-20
“After their kind”.
Kind: [H4327] (miyn / meen) from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e. species:–kind.
Strong’s Hebrew Concordance
Noah wasn’t required to take great danes, poodles, and beagles. He needed to take a ‘dog kind’ which became the ancestor of all the dog breeds we have today.
The next protestation is then, “How could we get all the dog breeds in only 4300 years?” Breeders are able to get ‘pure-bred’ animals in only hundreds of years. The varieties of dogs and their adaptation to their climates is simple to imagine.
Dogs have several litters of pups in a normal life span. Those pups grow up and have several litters, most of which all have several litters, which continues for thousands of generations, culminating in lots of dogs.
The dogs obviously don’t stay in the same place (anyone who thinks so has never driven around their neighborhood for hours searching for a dog that escaped the yard). As they moved to different climates, natural selection would favor the traits that gave it a better chance of surviving in that new climate.
Dogs that migrated into colder climates would be more successful with thicker, longer hair and dogs that migrated into hotter climates would be more successful with less, or shorter, hair. The longer the dogs stayed in these areas, the less likely the other trait would manifest itself, until it was completely eliminated from the gene pool for those specific dogs.
Once, again, this is natural selection, but it is not evolution. We are looking at a loss of information, not the gaining of new and/or superior information.
Natural selection requires lots of information, some of which is eliminated over time. This is what the Biblical, creation model would suggest, but it is not compatible with the evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin that is still taught in our schools despite its many, substantial, flawed concepts (just one of scores of articles that can be found on the subject is at What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools? – Evolution News and Science Today)
The complete title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, is a fairly racist sounding inscription. Of course, it sounds racist because it is.
That is the topic for a future blog.
Darwin claims (and teachers teach) that his theory scientifically explains how species originated and improved over ‘lesser’ evolved species. This is just not true (or as I like to call it, “a damn lie from the pit of hell”).
His example of big-beaked finches and small beaked finches benefiting from the climate of the Galápagos island group did not demonstrate what the finches evolved from. They were still finches – some with large beaks and some with smaller beaks. Just like human schnozolas.
Science introduces vast amounts of time to try to overcome the problems of evolving from a ‘lower’ to a ‘higher’ species, but that just compounds the problem of natural selection, loss of information, and gene mutation (which is almost never beneficial to the organism).
Natural Selection argues for a superior organism that changes over time to become a less diverse organism through the loss of genetic material. This probably explains how the first humans were able to live as long as 900+ years. It also argues for Yahweh’s instruction to not marry close relatives (if you believe the creation narrative, you believe we are all related) after over a thousand years of inter-marriage (ostensibly, Adam’s children marrying each other, Abram marrying his half-sister, etc.).
Darwin ignored Yahweh’s directive and married his first cousin (which was still commonplace among European ‘elites’). The upper-class did not want to dilute the superiority of their progeny by marrying commoners.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Charles Darwin, 1871
The Darwin’s ten children were frequently ill and three did not survive to adulthood. Of the seven that did survive, some reports say that three were infertile.
The couple’s son, Charles, passed away while just a toddler, daughter Henrietta was bedridden for years with digestive illnesses, and Horace and Elizabeth suffered from frequent convulsions. It seemed that every child had at least some malady, leading Charles to despair, “We are a wretched family & ought to be exterminated.”
https://allthatsinteresting.com/emma-darwin
Evolution and Natural Selection are not kindred spirits as atheistic scientists and other elites want us to believe. Natural selection begs for an original, intelligent designer that created something ‘near perfect’ that corrupted over time. That sounds too much like “God” to those that do not want to believe in a higher power or the laws that He has instituted.
Evolution must unquestioningly be taught in our schools because evidence of a Creator weakens their claim to a superior intellect as long as someone or something is substantially wiser. Scientists, politicians, and other ‘influencers’ are the gods of this world and they do not want the next generation to believe otherwise.
They will, and have, use the media, the courts, and other means of intimidation to stop any questioning of their Darwinian religion. Exposing children to any legitimacy of the existence of God opens the door to Godly morality (which they do not wish to be bound by) and the promise of an afterlife (which evolutionary theory cannot account for).
Evolution is their religious dogma and must never be questioned – especially by facts and evidence.
