Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
The supposed vehicles of evolution are mutations, natural selection, and other mechanisms that—when combined with that pixie dust of time—allegedly led to the development of all life forms present today. However, natural selection merely redistributes or reduces preexisting genetic information, and mutations often corrupt the information.
The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.
Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information. It simply doesn’t work that way. Instead, it filters information that already exists. The general theory of evolution is the idea that single-celled organisms gained new genetic information over millions and billions of years, and eventually arrived at “higher life-forms” such as man.
If living things such as plants have been observed to adapt to their environment—isn’t that evolution? Adaptation of plants does not prove evolution.
Distinguishing natural selection from Darwinian evolution (the latter combines natural selection with the idea that all life has an ancestor in common) is one of the primary challenges modern creationists face in the origins debate. Experimental confirmation of natural selection is interpreted as proof of Darwin’s theory.
Living things, like plants, finches and lizards, have been observed to adapt to their environment—isn’t that evolution?
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is often touted as proof of evolution, but is it really? After all, the bacterium remains a bacterium!
Are mutations—copying errors in DNA—the driving force for biological evolution? Or do they represent the sad reality of a sin-cursed world?
Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.
Survival of the fittest is not evolution. It is a fact of life in a world that has been tainted with death and bloodshed since Adam rebelled against his Maker.
Evolutionists often refer to natural selection as equivalent to biological evolution. Is this claim warranted by the observation evidence?
“Maybe it is survival of the fittest, maybe some of us are meant to just give up, and maybe that would help the species.”
Natural selection is controversial among many scientists, both in evolutionary and creationary circles.PDF Download
Evolutionists declare stickier toes reveal the path up the evolutionary tree.
This third installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013).PDF Download
In this three-part ~35,000-word response, Guliuzza (2014a, b, c) fails to clearly define his terms and/or use them consistently.PDF Download
This second installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013) on a series of Acts & Facts articles.PDF Download
This paper responds to a 2013 Jeanson paper critical of a series of Acts & Facts articles published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).PDF Download
Hawaiian cricket “evolution” into stealth mode saves them from extinction.
Evolutionary experts assert finches should be “protected” from surviving through hybridization if it leads to un-speciation.
Natural selection does not produce new genetic information that leads to different types of birds.
So, how did the zebra get its stripes?
Creationists believe in natural selection.
Is the cane toad invading Australia the latest example of “evolution” in action?
Natural selection, the force driving so-called “survival of the fittest,” is at the heart of both evolutionist and creationist explanations for life’s diversity. But in one strange case, natural selection is not at work on an animal.
Scientists have run one of the largest-scale tests of natural selection ever. Does the result do anything to convince us of Darwin’s theory?
Could caterpillar communication have come from ambulation?
Darwin suggested that if a graded series of organisms, each with some sort of eye, can be found then this would mean that the eyes could have been produced by natural selection.
At the beginning He made them male and female—emphasis on the “and”?
It’s yet another rock-solid proof of Darwin’s theory—at least in the eyes of Darwinists.
Britain’s leading newsmagazine weighs in on “one of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues.” Uncalled-for, ugly allegations aside, we have to, ironically, wonder about the “truth” of that statement.
One story this week takes a close look at an examples of “evolution” in nature. But is there anything that can’t be explained through the biblical model of origins?
The rate at which humans evolve is 100 times faster than it was 5,000 years ago, reports ScienceNOW on a human DNA analysis project reported on in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.
Apparently the newest evolutionary icon is the friendly, hefty St. Bernard dog breed—or so hints a University of Manchester press release carried by PhysOrg.com.
Evolutionary scientists believe that potatoes were the "fuel" by which the early humans survived long enough to evolve further.
Robots at the University of Lausanne are the latest evidences mobilized in support of evolution.