Basic HTML Version
Certainly natural selection might explain why an organism survives or dies. But, it
cannot explain where the organism carne from in the first place.
that we evolved, albeit against
fantast ic odds, then observes that
we do exist, and therefore, con–
eludes that we evolved . Utter
nonsense!
In spite of these counterargu–
ments, the following facts stand.
Fact one:
If all the stars in the
universe had 1
O
earths, and if all
the earths had oceans of "amino–
acid soup," and if all the amino
acids linked up in chai ns 100
acids long every second for the
entire history of the universe, even
then the c hance occurrence of a
given very simple protein would
be extremely improbable.
But what if a protein did form by
chance? Would that be life as we
know it ? Is that all there is to this
temporary physical life-a blob of
protein? ls a dead dog alive because
he has protein? No! Protein is j ust
one small piece of an intricately
complex puzzle.
What About Natural Selectlon?
Evolutionists freely admit that an
organism {like you and me) is an
extremely unlikely collection of
molecules (including proteins) .
However, they claim that natural
selection is the fundamental proba–
bility sieve which makes unli kely
collections of molecules like you
and me possible.
Is this true? No! Natural selec–
tion deals with the surviva l or
extinction of an organism, not how
the organism originated.
Certainly natural selection might
explain why an organism survives
o r dies. But, it cannot explain
where the organism carne from in
the fi rst place. As one man aptly
put it, "Natural selection may
explain the survival of the fittest,
but it cannot explain the arrival of
the fittest."
In order
to see that this is the case, we'll use
the evolutionist's analogy, that of a
sieve.
Suppose you had a mixture of
sand, pebbles and rocks and put it
into a sieve. The pebbles, rocks and
coarser particles would be trapped
by the sieve, while the fine sand
would pass through. Would anyone
seriously suggest that the sieve had
produced the fi ne sand ? Would
anyone say that the sieve explained
the origin of the fi ne sand? Ridicu–
lous! The fine sand was there all
along-in the mixture.
The same is true of the process
of natural selection. Given many
forms of physicaJ life and given cer–
tain environmental condit ions, the
animals and plants that are more
suited to the environment-more
fit to survive-will survive. Those
that are unfit to survive will die
out. But note that natural selection
does not explain the origin of the
original mixture of plants and ani–
mals.
A c lassical example of natural
selection is the increase in the
number of dark moths and the
decrease in the number of Iight
moths in parts of Britain after
the I ndustrial Revolu t ion. Did
natural selection produce dark
moths? Absolute ly not! A mix–
ture of dark and light moths exis–
ted a ll along. However, indus–
trialization produced soot and
di rt on trees, buildings and other
objects so that the dark moths
had better camouflage than the
light ones-the dark ones were
more fit to survive. The sieve of
natural selection allowed the dark
moths to pass through while the
light ones were trapped.
Does natural selection reall y
make unlikely collections of mole–
cules like you and me possible?
Fact two:
Natural se–
lection- like a
sieve-can only "produce" as out–
put those organisms that already
exist as input.
What About Mutatlons?
Couldn't mutations produce gen–
uinely new forms of life for input in
the natural selection "sieve"? No!
This has never been demonstrated.
True, variation within a given spe–
cies can- and often does-occur.
Wi tness the fantastic variety of
dogs that has "evolved"-largely
under man's guidance-over many
centuries. Yet a dog is sti ll a dog,
and no dog has ever been observed
to change into any other form of
life.
Scientis ts, in an attempt to pro–
duce "new and improved" species,
have bombarded many forms of
physical life with intense radiation
designed to "speed up" the muta–
tion process. This they have suc–
ceeded in doing- but only in the
rarest case has a mutation been
considered "desirable," and in no
case has an alteration of species
occurred .
For instance, numerous muta–
tions of the Drosophila fruit fly
have been induced . One remark–
able group of fl ies bad four wings,
instead of two. A beneficia! muta–
tion? Hard ly.
Jt
turned out that the
four-winged fties could not fty.
You might, as a matter of bl ind
fa.ith, believe that mutations are
responsible for changing one spe–
cies into another, but science has
no evidence whatsoever for such a
belief.
Fact three:
Mutations are strict–
ly limi ted and cannot produce gen–
uinely new forms of physicaJ life.
Let's put it all together. Fact one
establishes that every organism is
an incredibly unlikely collection of
(Continued
onpage 39)
21