Evolution Examined
In examining the doctrine of evolution, the inevitable question always arises, "How did evolution start, and what made it continue?" Answering this question involves a study of what is known as the "mechanism" of evolution. Webster defines "mechanism" thusly:
A process of technique for achieving a result; a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry, the fundamental physical, or chemical processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon.
In other words, a "mechanism" is a device which supposedly caused or prompted change and which produced evolution.
It is very important that evolutionists have a mechanism. G. G. Simpson, a famous evolutionist who is Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at Harvard University and former Chairman of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, said this:
It is one thing to know that evolution has occurred, and quite another thing to explain how and why it has occurred. In the how and why are the problems that are still under inquiry and that still occupy the attention of students all over the world. (The Meaning of Evolution, p. 11)
Therefore, if the evolutionist cannot cite a reliable "mechanism" for his theory, the whole doctrine of evolution falls on its face.
Evolutionists generally cite two mechanisms for their theory: natural selection and mutation. In this article, we want to investigate both of these mechanisms and see if they are as true as some would have us believe.
Charles Darwin, of course, formulated the theory of "natural selection." Please read once again the summation of Darwin's theory in article I and then read the theory in Darwin's own words:
Can it, then, be thought impossible, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those who are injurious,
I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. (The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, Mentor Paperback Edition, pp. 87-38)
According to Darwin, five phenomenons compose the process of natural selection. Natural selection is dependent upon each of these phenomenons so that if one phenomenon does not actually happen, natural selection cannot happen. Let us, then, examine each of the five phenomenons.
(1) Variation. Of course, we must all agree that there is variety within the same "kind" of plant or animal. No one human being, for example, is like another. However, Darwin's theory of natural selection requires a great variety. It is known and admitted by reputable scientists that not as much variation exists in the wild forms of plants and animals in nature as in artificial breeding (such as Darwin conducted). Therefore, if the variation within a "kind" as lower than Darwin expected, the chances of natural selection occurring are lower than Darwin thought.
(2) Overproduction. Again, we must agree that many "kinds" of animals produce far more offspring than can possibly survive. A well-known example of this phenomenon is the codfish. Although each female lays 6,000,000 fertilized eggs, approximately two survive to maturity. Of course, this is certainly not true in all "kinds" of animals, and this once again limits the probability of natural selection.
(3) Struggle for existence. Darwin believed that because of "overproduction", there would be a great competition to live (or, a struggle to exist) because of, mainly, the limited food supply. In other words, many would die because mass starvation. However, scientists have since concluded that starvation is rarely the cause of death in wild forms of animals in nature. On the contrary, science has shown that, instead of competition, there is co-operation between animals of the same or closely-related species in securing food. Therefore, this phenomenon has been discarded, even by many evolutionists, as playing any part in producing evolution.
(4) Survival of the fittest. Darwin stated that as a result of the "struggle to exist," the stronger or superior animals would naturally consume the limited food supply and leave the weaker, inferior animals to die. This theory has been opposed on every side for several reasons:
(a) In the first place, there does not occur the struggle for existence that Darwin taught.
(b) Also, there are many cases where the fit do not survive. This can be seen often in a litter of puppies. It is the runt that often lives, while the strongest-looking of the litter dies. This, then, proves that chance (or circumstances of environment), more often than not, controls whether an animal lives or dies.
(5) Inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin taught that the fittest reproduce, and their offspring will inherit the characteristics which made its parents superior or stronger, Of course, this belief is rejected today. Science has shown that a romantic character (i.e., changes in a generation due to environment ---e.g., a runner's strong legs) must be individually acquired and cannot be inherited or transmitted.
You can see, then, that three of the five phenomenon required by natural selection are highly doubted by virtually all scientists and are actually rejected by many. Also, the theory of natural selection as a while has difficulties:
(1) The theory of natural selection contradicts itself. As the occurrence of natural selection becomes more intensive, the number of varieties within a species becomes fewer because of the more intensive struggle for existence. Thus, there is that much less chalice of the development of another species. On the other hand, as the occurrence of natural selection because less intensive, the process of evolution is slowed down if natural selection is evolution's mechanism.
(2) If natural selection occurred at a high intensity, it could eliminate a species. In other words, the struggle for existence may become so intensive that the species might "struggle itself" into extinction.
Any honest inquirer, I believe, can see the many contradictions with true science that are in this theory of natural selection. These difficulties are admitted freely by all true scientists. Therefore, it has never been scientifically proven that natural selection caused or produced evolution — it still remains a theory. And all the huffing, puffing, and horn-blowing of evolutionists cannot change that truth!
However, many evolutionists turn to another "mechanism"--mutation. A short background study of biology is essential to the understanding of this theory. All living organisms are composed of cells. Each cell has a number of structures called "chromosomes." Each human cell has forty-eight chromosomes (twenty-four pairs). Arranged in linear order on each chromosome are small bodies called "genes." Although chromosomes can sometimes be seen through a powerful microscope, genes cannot. Genes contain hereditary traits that are passed onto the offspring. With the background, we can now understand a simplified definition of "mutation"--a change in the genetic structure (i.e., a change of some type in the genes) of a reproductive cell resulting in the development of a new or different characteristic in the offspring.
Of course, it would be foolhardy to deny that mutations occur — they do. This is a far cry, however, from proving that mutations caused or produced evolution. There are several difficulties with the mutation theory:
(1) Virtually all mutations result in an inferior organism. Most mutations either kill the mutant organism immediately or are responsible for its death eventually. Notice what Herman J. Miller of Indiana University, who won the 1946 Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said: "Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them as all bad." (Time Magazine, 11/11/46, p. 96) Friends, this is not evolution — this is devolution (or, a development downward instead of upward)!
(2) Science has shown that there is very little chance for the preservation of a mutation in a species. Frequent reverse mutations (i.e., mutations which change an organism back to its original condition) would greatly decrease the probabilities for evolution if mutation were evolution's mechanism.
In view of these foregoing difficulties, I believe that anyone can see the folly of thinking that mutations caused evolution. Even the evolutionists themselves are forced to admit the improbability of this mechanism. Julian Huxley, probably the foremost evolutionist of our day, is a case in point:
We should clearly have to breed a million strains (a thousand squared) to get one strain containing two favorable mutations; and so one, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing a million.
Of course, this could not really happen, but it is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds against getting a number of favorable mutations in one strain through polre chance alone. A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it: and that would take three volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print! Actually this is a meaningless' large figure, but it shows what a degree of improbability natural selection has to surmount, and can circumvent. (Evolution in Action, by Julian Huxley, pp. 4142)
Mark it down that when the evolutionist must admit what Mr. Huxley just said--they are really hurting!
There are many people who are willing to believe in evolution with these preposterous improbabilities and then have the brazen nerve to turn around with their next breath and ridicule and sneer anyone so gullible as to have a "for our faith" that God created the heavens and the earth. But one day these same men will be on their knees, bowing to the God they now deny and pleading for His mercy! Young man or young lady--don't let this fate befall you!
-501 Sexton Court, Campbellsville, Ky. 42718