Evolution Handbook

Chapter 9a:

Natural Selection

Why Natural Selection only makes Changes within Species

This chapter is based on pp. 347-391 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 154 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

A fundamental teaching of evolution is that every living thing in our world—whether it be a plant, animal, or bird,—evolved from other creatures, which ultimately originated from dust, rock, and water.

According to Darwinian evolutionists, this "evolving" was accomplished by "natural selection." *Charles Darwin said that natural selection was the primary way that everything changed itself from lower life forms and new species were produced.

In the years that have passed since Charles Darwin, this theory of "natural selection" has continued as a mainstay of evolutionary theory.

In this chapter we will carefully consider natural selection, what it can do and what it cannot do. This is an important chapter; for, along with fossil evidence (chapter 12) and mutations (chapter 10), natural selection ranks at the top in the esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity of these three, and the whole theory falls apart.

STILL DEFENDED BY SOME—(*#1/6 Evolutionists Defend Natural Selection*) It is a remarkable fact that some evolutionists still defend their natural selection theory. But we will discover why so many have abandoned it.

DARWINISM: THE BASIC TEACHING—When a plant or animal produces offspring, variations appear. Some of the offspring will be different from other offspring. Some evolutionists (Darwinian evolutionists, also called "Darwinists") declare that it is these variations (which they call "natural selection")—alone—which have caused all life forms on our planet: pine trees, jackals, clams, zebras, frogs, grass, horses.

"So far as we know . . natural selection . . is the only effective agency of evolution."—*Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 36.

"Natural selection allows the successes, but ‘rubs out’ the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual."—*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.

In this chapter, we will learn that this statement is wishful thinking in the extreme, with no scientific support in its favor. On the face of it, the statement is false merely from the fact that evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. If even half of the random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging. But *Ruse views all changes as being selectively positive. In addition he ignores other scientific facts, such as the powerful one that the closest thing to natural selection (gene reshuffling) never goes across the species barrier to produce a new species.

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is ‘opportunistic,’ in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.

How can total randomness select only that which is better, and move only in advantageous directions? Random occurrences never work that way. Yet in the never-never land of evolutionary theory, they are said to do so.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#2/38 Scientists Speak about Natural Selection*) Earlier in this century, a large number of evolutionists rebelled against this theory, saying that natural selection has never given evidence of being able to change one species into another—and is not able to do it. They recognized that so-called "natural selection" (actually random changes within the true species) cannot produce cross-species change. These "neo-Darwinists" decided that it is mutations which accomplish the changes, and that natural selection only provided the finishing touches.

In this chapter we will discuss natural selection; and, in the next, mutations. When you have completed both chapters, you will have a fairly good understanding of the subject.

Keep in mind that, although evolutionists offer many theories and evidences, they admit that the only mechanisms by which evolution could occur is natural selection and/or mutations. There are no others! It matters not how many dinosaur bones, ape skulls, and embryos are displayed in museums; if natural selection and/or mutations cannot produce evolutionary change, then evolution cannot occur. It is as simple as that.

DEFINITION OF TERMS(*#3/5 Natural Selection is a Useless Concept*) Here are some basic definitions that are needed at this point:

1 - Evolution by natural selection: A plant or animal evolves by natural selection only when those processes enable it to cross the species barrier and produce a new—a different—species. But changes occurring within a species are not evolution.

2 - Species: In these studies, we will generally refer to the word, "species," as the fundamental type; but there are instances in which the basic type (the "Genesis kind," see Genesis 1:12, 21, 25) might refer to genus instead of species. Plant and animal classifications have been made by men, and errors in labeling can and do occur. There are about three dozen different breeds of domesticated house cats, but a few taxonomists list most of them as different species. Yet it is generally recognized that they all are in the cat family, Felidae, the genus Felis, and the single species F. catus (some authorities call that species F. domesticus). In general, all life forms within a true species can usually interbreed.

There are over a hundred different breeds of dogs; yet biologists uniformly recognize that they are all in the same species.

Yet there are exceptions even to that. In some instances, variant forms within an otherwise almost identical species type will not interbreed, and are then classified as sub-species.

3 - Variations: Variations in the offspring of a creature can occur by Mendelian genetics, that is by simple rearrangements or assortments of the existing DNA molecules within genes. This is what neo-Darwinian evolutionists refer to as "natural selection." All variations always occur within basic types (species); they never go across those types—and produce new types or species. Therefore no evolution occurs. Producing new breeds of animals or varieties of plants is not evolution, because the species did not change.

Some species have a broad gene pool, and are thus able to produce many varieties or breeds (such as dogs and chrysanthemums). Others have a small one (cheetahs have an extremely small one). Changes in color, bill length or shape, etc., can occur within a true species because it has a large gene pool. But a new species has not been produced.

4 - Mutational changes: Occasionally changes in offspring occur because of a mutational defect. Such alterations always weaken the individual that has them. A mutational change is not a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the code information. The result is that the perfection of the code has been damaged. The resultant offspring are weaker and they are more likely to die off.

5 - Survival of the fittest: Organisms are damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution—the evolving of one species into another.

First we will consider examples put forward by evolutionists as evidences of evolution by natural selection (1 - It Does Not Occur). Then we will turn our attention to the reasons why natural selection cannot produce evolution (2 - Why it Cannot Occur).


Species evolution never occurs by means of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal kingdoms for examples of cross-species evolution (by any means, natural selection or otherwise!), and have been unable to find them. What they have found are some interesting examples of variations WITHIN species. These they present to the public and in schoolbooks as "evidences" of evolution.

We will briefly examine several of these evidences.


EC288.jpg (127743 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

1 - PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary "proof" of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.

"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.

Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:

"Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth."—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.

"One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.

Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.

Evolutionists point to this as a "proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.

There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.

There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularia. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.

When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."—*Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

Let us consider this matter more closely:

Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!"

For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.

This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.

"This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage; but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."—On Call, July 2, 1973, p. 9.

In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.

Two leading British evolutionist scientists said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:

"We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.

*Grene adds this:

"The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as Kettlewell has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?"—Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.

There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary "research photos" were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees!

2 - RESISTANT FLIES AND BACTERIA—Another example of what evolutionists declare to be evolutionary change by "natural selection," is the fact that certain flies have become resistant to DDT, and some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics. But here again, the flies are still flies, and those bacteria are still bacteria; no species change occurred. In reality, there were various strains of flies and bacteria, and as certain ones were reduced by DDT, other resistant strains reproduced more and became a majority. When DDT is stopped, after a while the various strains bounce back. (Additional information on "immune" flies and bacteria in chapter 10, Mutations.)

3 - PIGEONS—Pigeon breeding first became popular in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century. Pigeons can be bred to produce the most astonishing variety of shapes and colors. There are dark pigeons, light pigeons, pigeons that twirl as they fly, and pigeons that have such showy wings they no longer can fly. But they are all pigeons.

Since *Darwin did not bring any live Galapagos finches home with him, he decided to work with pigeons instead. He joined two pigeon clubs, learned how to breed pigeons and then set to work. Studying them on the outside and inside as well, Darwin learned that, although there are seven basic varieties of pigeons, all the pigeons breed with one another. All were pigeons and sub-species of one basic species type: the rock dove. Darwin was not able to get his pigeons to become some other kind of species, although he tried very hard to do so.

If, after years of effort, *Charles Darwin with his evolutionary brilliance could not change a pigeon into something else, why should he imagine that the pigeon could do it by itself?

Not only was the barrier of fixity of species there, but Darwin sadly discovered that, if left to themselves, all the pigeon varieties gradually returned toward the original pigeon: the bluish rock pigeon (Columba livia). And that, itself, tells us a lot.

CHANGES BACK AND FORTH—Evolutionists strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another,—the new creature cannot evolve back into what it used to be!

Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back and forth. This includes changes from white to dark peppered moths—and back again, changes from one pigeon shape and color to another and back again to the basic rock pigeon type, and changes back and forth in bacteria. All these are supposed to prove evolution. But in each of these instances, we only have changes within a species,—and we have changes back and forth within that species.

4 - GRAPES AND APPLES—An article in *World Book Encyclopedia cites the 1849 discovery of the Concord variety of grape as an example of evolution. Then it gives four other examples:

"Other sports . . as such variations are called, have produced hornless cattle, short-legged sheep, ‘double’ flowers, and new varieties of seeds."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1972 edition), Vol. 6, p. 332.

Obviously, all the above examples are only variations within species; none go across species. They are not caused by mutations. All of your children will look like you, but each will vary in appearance from one another. That is variation within species, not evolution across species. It is a re-assortment of the DNA and genes, but nothing more.

In the 1920s, a man in Clay County, West Virginia, discovered an apple tree in his backyard with apples that tasted fantastic. He sent one to Stark Brothers Nursery,—and the Golden Delicious was the result. Every Golden Delicious apple tree in the world originated from seeds from that West Virginia tree.

Neither the Concord grape or the Golden Delicious apple was a mutation. Both were the result of naturally reshuffled genes. Both were "natural selection" at its best, which is always, only, variation within species. If they had been the result of mutations, the result would have been weakened stock whose offspring would tend eventually to become sterile or die out.

5 - GALAPAGOS FINCHES—During *Charles Darwin’s five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles [965 km] from the mainland of South America. He found several different finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits, diet, and little crossbreeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet these Galapagos finches were all still finches. When Darwin arrived back in England, a friend declared to him that this was very significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across types had indeed occurred.

If you will personally examine all the Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find that they do indeed look just about alike. They are sub-species of a single parent species that, at some earlier time, reached the island from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico, finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the California Academy of Science in San Francisco. One scientist, Walter Lammerts, who carefully examined this collection, described their similar appearance (Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 355, 360-361).

When he wrote his book, Origin of the Species, *Charles Darwin gave many examples of variation within species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory; and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abandon it.

Scientists acknowledge that all dogs descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far greater differences among dogs than there are among Darwin finches or than most other sub-species in the world. All biologists classify dogs as being in the same species.

Many other examples of variation within species could be cited. In south central Africa the Pygmy and Masai tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people in existence today; the other the tallest. Both are human beings; only the height is different.

Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations, they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.

Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend:

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.

LAMARCKISM(*#5/7 The Error of Lamarckism*) An important 19th-century error was the theory of *Jean Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829), later called "Lamarckism." It is the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, and was solidly disproved by *August Weismann in 1891, when he cut the tails off 19 successive generations of rats—and their offspring continued to grow tails! Later still, when the inheritance of characteristics was found to depend on the DNA genetic coding and not habits or environmental circumstances, the reason why Lamarckism could not work was then understood.

Lamarckism teaches that one animal grew an organ for some reason—or no reason at all,—and then passed that organ on to the next generation, which was stuck with it.

Here are several additional examples of acquired traits, which were never passed on to offspring: (1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result. (2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size. (3) The Flat-head Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.

Within each species there is a range of possible changes that can be made through gene shuffling within the gene pool of that species. That is why no two people look exactly alike. But this variational range cannot cross the species barrier. The DNA code forbids it.

Here is a very important fact, which evolutionists do not want you to know: In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), *Darwin repudiated natural selection as hopeless and returned to Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as the cause of evolution.—The one who gave us so-called "natural selection," as a means of evolution, later gave up on it as a way to produce evolution!

INSTINCT—Before concluding this section, mention should be made of the word, "instinct." This is a most wonderful word for explaining away facts which are uncomfortable. The astounding migration of birds, and the amazing flight paths they take—are explained away by calling it merely "instinct." The mental abilities of tiny creatures, which involve definite decision-making processes, is shrugged off as "instinct." That only pushes back into the past something evolutionists do not want to confront today. We will not take the space to discuss this further,—but take time to think about all the wonders in nature which are dismissed as merely "instinct."


NEVER ACROSS TYPES—Plant scientists have bred unusual varieties of roses, corn, chrysanthemums, etc., but never do any of their experiments go across basic types. As we study wildlife, we find the same thing: Never does one basic species change into another species.

Neither plants nor animals produce new types, nor is man able to apply special breeding techniques and produce from them something that crosses the species barrier. It just cannot be done.

Modern molecular biology with its many discoveries of DNA has added immense confirmation to the great law of heredity. Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.

HORSE AND MULE—Consider the horse. There are many types of horses: large horses, fast horses, work horses, miniature horses,—but each one is obviously a horse. Well, then, what about the mule? A mule is a cross between two species, the horse and the donkey. In a few instances such crosses between two species can occur. But it is a cross, not a crossover. The horse can reproduce more horses, the donkey can reproduce more donkeys. But when a female horse and a male donkey crossbreed, the mule that is produced is usually sterile. But in those rare instances in which a female mule does have offspring, they revert back toward the horse or donkey species. A horse and a donkey are very close to the same species; and it is only for that reason that they can crossbreed and produce a normally barren mule.

There are several instances in which similar species are crossbred:

"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed.

There is no evidence that at any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed from other species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic new changes would have had to occur thousands and thousands of times. More on this in the chapter on Fossils and Strata.

EC300.jpg (559522 bytes)  EC300b.jpg (441412 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE AMAZING EYE—(*#6/39 Those Marvelous Eyes*; cf. #7/21 and #10*) Men presume a lot when they declare that evolution occurred. Not only new species would have had to invent themselves, but also the organs within those different species!

For a moment, think of what is involved in the eye. This is a very remarkable structure; yet evolution teaches that the eye slowly developed over millions of years,—and that this miracle of random production of a complete eye occurred at least three times: in the squid, the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and the arthropods (insects).

"Consider the eye ‘with all its inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal [a complex chemical]. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.

*Charles Darwin had a difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was enough to make him ill. He also said this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190.

"The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 98.

Then there is the wing. Evolutionists tell us that the wing evolved four separate times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an unplanned, random accident.

SYNTROPY—In order for a creature to live, eat, survive, and reproduce, it must be perfect. It cannot have only part of its structure, but must have all of it. And that structure must be totally complete. Of the millions of DNA codes within its cells, essentially all must be there in perfect lettering and sequence in order for it to live and function. This coding requirement is called syntropy, and it stands as another barrier to evolution across basic species.

Natural selection within a species may work fine,—but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but the traits had to be there to start with.

"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September 1978.

Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use.

*Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist, but he recognizes that natural selection could not possibly produce evolution:

" ‘Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.’ ‘Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.’ "—*Ibid.

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution; for the trait was already at hand.