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.”
Are intelligently designed experiments using already present features in already-existing bacteria and viruses really examples of molecules-to-man evolution?
The young-earth creationist view has been so maligned in popular culture that many people think creationists deny basic facts of life.
The viceroy is a colorful butterfly that is known to mimic other species. But it is not just a tasty option that looks like the unpalatable models it mimics.
A study looked at the colors of lice on the feathers of numerous varieties of pigeons. According to the authors, the research was proof of evolution. Is it so?
Darwin reasoned that if animals can be selectively bred by man to produce certain traits, then nature can select for limitless traits by natural selection.
Scientists from Northwestern University have developed a mathematical model that may help explain animal ornamental mysteries.
When Charles Darwin studied finches from the Galápagos Islands, he attributed their variations to natural selection. Is there any truth to his claims?
Evolutionists declare stickier toes reveal the path up the evolutionary tree.
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.
Creationists believe in natural selection.
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.