When Charles Darwin observed Natural Selection and proposed that it was the alternative to divine creation, the world stood in awe of his amazing insight. But I am here today to show that Darwin’s guess was completely the reverse of reality. Darwin was a good observer, but a failed prognosticator. He failed to interpret reality and he distracted, fooled or misled generations of the most brilliant minds.
So it is time to take stock of the truth about natural selection.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both published their concepts of evolution in the same year. They had both travelled to strange and exotic places and observed creatures which were new to their audiences. The mystique of their amazing travels and the authority which they could purvey on the basis of their experiences outside those of other men, gave their ideas an undeserved level of credibility.
What Charles Darwin observed on his six year voyage as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle was ‘diversity’. He observed the same process which breeders had known for centuries.
The Bible records the selective breeding activities of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, almost 4,000 years ago. So the creation or refinement of diversity through breeding activities is nothing new.
Darwin observed finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, as if he was discovering something profound and new. He certainly was observing diversity and the results of selective breeding by the natural isolation of animal communities. In this work he was not remiss.
Rather than selection by human agency, such as animal and plant breeders would do, Darwin celebrated nature’s ability to provide the selection process. Here, without human intelligence, the process took place regardless.
Darwin’s religious perspective (seeking to prove creation without a creator) prompted him to an interpretation that misled generations of the world’s best minds. Darwin, happy to find an alternative to the reality and presence of an all-knowing and holy God, postulated that ignorant and mindless ‘nature’ could take a hand in the selection process. This allowed room for something other than an intelligent and divine creator.
Here Darwin stopped being an observer and became an interpreter. But every interpreter is influenced by his underlying premises. No scientist operates in a vacuum, but in the context of his or her frame of reference. Darwin’s frame of reference was antithetical to true science. His religious notions, when woven with his scientific observations, took on a scientific significance that has beguiled the world ever since.
Now We Know
Darwin was blind to many realities which we now know. He considered the cell to be a very simple entity. We now know that the simplest cell is more complex than a modern highly integrated city. Darwin imagined that the fossil record held evidence it did not contain. Darwin imagined that such processes as sexual relations contributed to the process of transformation of the physiology of a creature (sexually transmitted physiology into adult organisms).
Charles Darwin was patently wrong on these and many other accounts. As a prognosticator he was a miserable failure. As a hypothesiser he was a miserable failure. As a theorist he was a miserable failure. He was a good observer and there he should have stopped.
The Underlying DNA
What Darwin did not know is that the underlying DNA code does not just describe the organism as it is observed and as it currently functions, but that DNA also contains a much more vast scope of possibilities for the organism.
From an evolutionary point of view each new and discreet function is seen as advancement. It is seen as the ‘emergence’ of something new.
And there evolution is patently deceptive and patently wrong.
Evolution seeks to explain the creation of new features. But that creation happened only once, by a supernatural act of a supreme intelligence. No evolution has happened in the beginning or since. No evolution will ever happen. It is a fool’s notion.
What is really happening is that no new features are created, but the features which have already been gifted into the organism’s DNA are able to be activated or deactivated by the breeding process.
Each new and discreet function within an organism is not a creative process but a process of activation or switching, so that previously unseen features are now displayed. However, there is no new information within the organism. Nothing new has been created.
That is why the evolutionists are at a complete loss to explain the ongoing creative process. There is no such process! Evolutionists point to natural selection, as Darwin did, with the religious conviction that such an invocation will bring along a favourable fairy to solve their problem. But they are empty handed.
Of Breeds and Breeding
Any breeder knows that while you may be able to cross come creatures sexually the new animal may be sterile. This sterility factor is the means by which scientists are able to identify the genetic relationship between apparently similar kinds.
The mule is an example of a cross that creates a sterile animal. Dog breeders have proven the wolf as the ancestor to the modern dog breeds by this sterility factor.
“A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)….”In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.
Note in the quote from Dr Fox that the wolf and dog can be successfully bred together (hybridised) but the fox and dog cannot. There is an underlying DNA connection between the wolf and all the varieties of dog. There is no underlying DNA connection between the fox and dog. By this it can be determined that the dog was not bred from the fox, but from the wolf.
Full Genetic Complement
Note also that the fully hybridised dog variety still contains “innumerable wolf genes”. Hybridisation does not even have to involve the “loss of information” which many creationists refer to. It is possible to have remarkable hybridisation of a species and yet to have the entire underlying DNA intact. The function is not necessarily the addition or removal of DNA elements but the activity of “gene expressors” which effectively flick the switch to turn on or turn off certain genes.
Thus Brisbin notes that there is no discernible DNA distinction between dog breeds, despite the obvious physiological distinctions which we readily recognise.
“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. … there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990
The Truth About Natural Selection
Natural Selection is just a fancy term for breeding that takes place without human involvement. The truth about natural selection is that it is not in any way related to the mythical concept of evolution. Natural Selection, as is the case with all breeding and cross-breeding, involves activation and deactivation of the pre-existing, and continuing DNA information contained within the organism since the entire genus was created.
There is no new information. Darwin and all who follow after cannot postulate a valid scientific process for the creation of new information, because there is no such process. There never has been such a process. There is no need for such a process.
God created the vast library of genetic options into the various kinds when He created them and we have had much amazement ever since as we have explored the limits of that genetic variety.
Modern science attests to this reality. The DNA of dogs and the DNA of the Galapagos Tortoise are all evidence for initial creation.
For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com