If you watch and listen closely, you will notice a remarkable thing. Each time evolution proponents are cornered with any facts which can scientifically prove their position is impossible, they change the subject. Not one scientist or educator who believes in evolution can support their position with facts. Rather they resort to opinions and interpretation, and theories. When the ice on which they are treading is full of cracks, and they are about to fall through and drown, they will quickly change the argument to another subject. Many time they will bring up natural selection as one of their diversionary tactics.
In an argument attempting to overcome the statistical impossibility of evolution, evolutionists almost inevitability inject the concept of natural selection. Natural selection has this wonderful and “magical” power to convince the listener to ignore the statistical facts. They imbue NS with great powers to rescue the otherwise impossible theory of evolution. But let us evaluate exactly where and how and why NS operates. And let us examine exactly what magic power it might have to support a biochemical process such as evolution.
Natural Selection is indeed a very attractive theory. In fact, it can and does occur in the natural world. But as to whether Natural Selection proves evolution, that is entirely another matter. We have already discussed some of the differences separating natural selection and evolution in another thread. But we will now address the idea of whether natural selection even supports evolution at all… or whether in fact, it is much more supportive of the creationist viewpoint.
The greatest argument against continual evolution is the lack of any evidence of positive mutations. In order for evolution to occur, there must be vast, incalculable numbers (quintillions upon quintillions) of positive mutations. Worse yet, these positive mutations must occur more or less sequentially. In fact, for any one single protein to be upgraded or changed in any way would require dozens of simultaneous positive point mutations. Such a thing is impossible. It has never been observed, and nothing even approaching it has ever been documented in a laboratory. But don’t worry, NS to the rescue. It is as if by believing it, atheists can make it so. Kind of like Peter Pan and Wendy’s ability to fly. It’s magic.
The proteins which make up humans and other living beings are complex, 3-dimensional structures. Their function is usually dependent on their shape, not just their chemical nomenclature or chemical/atomic sequences. As a result, a mutation of one or two genes is millions of times more likely to result in a dysfunctional protein or a nonviable organism, than a new functional protein. In other words if you mutate a gene/DNA that controls a protein, the first thing that will likely happen is the DNA will not function at all. The second thing that might happen is it would change the shape of the protein so that the protein cannot function at all.
So the argument of the evolutionist falls flat on its face again. and the reproducing organism either reproduces itself, or it recreates a damaged, defective, or deficient version of itself, or it does not reproduce at all. There is no newer, better, more advanced version. There is NO evolution. And this is exactly what we see in nature!
If it cannot happen even once, it certainly cannot happen quintillions of times (which is what it required to advance and evolve a species into another species). No amount of magical evolutionary pixie dust can change the facts.
Oh. And one more thing. Of course evolution proponents will NOT tell you that NS would actually prevent evolution, if it were possible for evolution to occur. Picture for a moment the supposed intermediary form (missing link) between dinosaurs and birds. in order to progress from rugged dinosaur to delicate bird, many changes must occur. Hind legs must shrink or atrophy. Forelegs must lengthen, lighten, and become both stronger and more flexible (wings). Bones must become hollow (heavy birds can’t fly). Lungs must enlarge. Heart must become more efficient. Brain (cerebellum) must enlarge and reflexes improve on a vast scale to control flight. Scales must undergo hundreds of changes to develop into feathers, and skin must develop oil glands to lubricate and keep feathers from breaking down. And for that matter the “bird” must learn to preen to distribute the oil among the feathers.
Enter the term “hopeful monster” first used by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. Picture now a creature halfway between. Picture the “dinobird”. Perhaps it has small hind legs but no wings yet. Or wings but no larger brain. Or hollow (fragile ) bones without flight yet. Perhaps it has ALL these things, but no feathers. Or perhaps it has even developed (magically) all these things plus feathers, but doesn’t have the oil glands necessary to keep the feathers from rapidly breaking down, or the inherited coordination to fly. This could go on for pages and pages. The point is NATURAL SELECTION would eliminate all these hopeful monsters from any evolutionary line long before they could propagate. They would never be able to keep up with or out-compete the other birds or dinosaurs or small mammals already present.
So even if abiogenesis (life from nothing) were possible and even if evolution were biochemically possible (which it is not) and even if a self replicating unicellular organism could have created itself from a bunch of left handed amino acids, Natural Selection would come along and immediately snuff it out.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
1 Cor. 13:4-6 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.