In the nineteenth century, Darwin observed that animals physically change, in order to adapt to the environment. These changes are transmitted to the offspring. So for example, you have finches with different beaks, depending on the location where they live.
Let’s think, for example, about a pack of dogs traveling to a cold environment. Dogs with long hair will be advantaged over dogs with short one. This makes more easy for dogs with long hair to survive, they will live longer, and have more chances to reproduce. So this is a natural selection that selects long-haired dogs. If we invert the conditions and set up a warm environment, vice-versa, short-haired dogs will be advantaged over long-haired ones. Environment makes a selection over the species.
We can observe and demonstrate natural selection, but natural selection is not equal to evolution.
Starting from natural selection, Darwin draws further conclusions that, if you give enough time to this process, you can see an animal changing kinds.
For example, polar bears, live on fishing. They will have mutations in order to transform their posterior legs into a tail. This will make them able to swim better and catch more fish. This process ends up mutating the bear into a whale.
For evolutionists, natural selection is proof of their theory. The first thing that happens here is to confound natural selection and adaptation (diversification of one kind), with macroevolution (change of kind).
But the fact that creatures can change, doesn’t necessarily mean that evolution is true.
Natural selection makes the dog have long hairs in a cold environment, but it doesn’t make the dog transform into a bird.
Let’s say that a lizard is changing into a bird. This means that it should acquire brand new, non-existing genetical information to form feathers, wings, flight navigation systems, etc..
The problem with Darwin’s conclusions is that he did know anything about genetics, as at his time this branch of science did not exist.
Darwin’s idea is that if the man can breed dogs and other farm animals in order to improve them, also nature could improve animals in order to make them fitter to survive.
While breeders use intelligence to select animals by their traits, such as size, strength, and physical appearance; the limits of what can be selected are set by the characteristics already present in the creatures’ DNA, nature would process the species by pure chance.
Many years after Darwin, genetic science, revealed that genes from a species, compose a gene pool. This is a limited set of genes that determines a kind.
Natural selection operates on this limited existing gene pool. Genes that are not in that pool, can’t be selected because they are not available. They do not exist in that particular kind. So, for example, you don’t find genes for feathers in dogs.
If we think about the huge variety of dogs, every dog is different from another, but there is a limit to what a dog breeder can achieve.
They can select for example fur color, leg size, etc.. but they can’t select from what is not there. For example, they will never breed a flying dog with wings. Because there are no genes in dogs’ gene pools that contain that kinds of features.
To make an example, when you go to a buffet with your friends, you and your friends, can choose between different foods, and make different combinations in your dish, but you cannot choose food that is not on the buffet table.
Let’s make an experiment: we take a deck of cards. We have 52 cards, divided into 4 different suits: clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades. Cards numbers are from one (ace) to ten. Then we have the king, the queen, the jack, and the jolly.
We shuffle the deck, and we distribute all the cards into two decks. Each deck is different from the other and all the cards are found in one of the decks.
Each time we repeat this game, we get different decks, with different sets of cards, but the cards inside them are always the same contained in the main deck we are splitting.
You can do this forever, but you’ll never get a new suit (for example stars), the number 20, or a new character (for example Spiderman).
Natural selection is like that: the dog is always a dog, and the bird is always a bird.
So natural selection is a selection. A selection selects features from an existing group. The number of combinations is always the same or can become less. So how this process could ever add more features to the group?
To patch the theory, Neo Darwinism introduces the concept of genetic mutations. These mutations would produce and create new genes, on which selection would operate, selecting the best ones for survival.
But when it comes to reality we can see that genetic mutations are simply an error of copy of the original DNA. This will more probably break the code than improve it. Mutations make the DNA worst and not better. We can see it in genetic diseases that affect humanity.
If we compare the information in DNA to a computer code, we can see an example of it.
Computer code needs to be written in an extremely precise way in order to generate a working program. If you only miss a symbol you get an error, and the program will not work. The idea of improving the DNA by having a random mutation in it is like thinking to randomly change some symbols in the computer code mentioned above and, not also still have the program working, but also have an improved version of it. This is not possible.
0 REM "ORIGINAL PROGRAM"
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD!"
20 GOTO 100 REM "VARIATION2"
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD!"
20 G1TO 100 REM "VARIATION 1"
10 PRINT "HELLO ;ORLD!"
20 GOTO 10Corruption of DNA code only brings chaos. The bigger the corruption the worst the problem. Think about what happens in our example when you randomly change 10 characters in the code!
If you don’t understand code, you can do it with any sentence that has a meaning. Take the sentence “John eat the apple”, and change one character randomly, can you still have a meaningful sentence? Or you get a spelling error?
Today we are able to manipulate genetics. For example, you can get a pink rose, by using a mutation to delete some of the red pigment, but this is not introducing a new feature. This is obtained by subtracting from an existing one.
There is no observable experiment of macroevolution. There is no proof of macroevolution. This is because macroevolution is impossible.
The Bible, instead, makes sense of what we observe in nature. In Genesis 1, God created all animals to reproduce according to their kinds. He gave a different gene pool to each kind. This gene pool is very rich and allows us to see a huge variety of species.