Natural selection

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1036

Natural selection is one of the supporting mechanisms for the Theory of Evolution. The basic way that it is supposed to work is that as the environment changes, the life form has to adapt with mutations that help it survive, or it dies off. Example: If you take a animal that is used to living in the hot climate of Africa, and put it in the cold weather of Greenland. Unless it grows more hair, and it’s body speeds up the metabolism to make more body heat, it will likely die. And the next generation won’t even be born with the adaptations. So the ongoing process of evolution cannot happen. But if the animal adapts then the next generation will more than likely get those traits.

Intelligent creation is where a animal was created already with the information, or not, in it’s DNA to adapt to such a situation as explained above. If it does have the information in it’s DNA, then it will survive. If it does not, it will die.

If Natural selection is true, then every situation concerning it can be explained. But Natural selection has many problems that only intelligent creation can explain. I will make a short list below:

Symbiotic Relationships is just one problem. In the supposed evolution process, plants came before animal or insect life. And there has to be enough plants to make oxygen for the developing atmosphere. The problem is 75% of the existing plants on the planet require pollination. Pollination is done by insects. Insects were not around yet so any plant that required pollination died with no offspring. A perfect example of this problem is the problem of disappearing bees (bees dying due to pesticides etc…). Bees pollinate 70% of the food baring plants that humans and animals depend on for food. If the bees become extinct, so will most all life on earth. Natural selection cannot explain how this relationship between plants and certain insects came about. Nor how plants made it until certain insects arrived to pollinate them.
Complexity in design of biological organs and complex systems. To say that a animal taken from Africa could survive the weather in Greenland through the process of natural selection is to say that biological cells have an intelligence to know exactly what is needed. How would biological systems or cells know that the body needs to grow more hair, or speed up the metabolism in order to stay warm enough to not die? Where is this information coming from? Another example is the eye. without going into detail about how real complex it is, I will touch on some things that most people don’t even think about.

How do the biological cells and existing system know where the eye should go?
How do the biological cells and existing system know what size and shape to make it?
How do the biological cells and existing system know that a special part of the brain is needed to process the information the eye will send it?
How do the biological cells and existing system know how that part of the brain will be able to process the information so we can see?
How do the biological cells and existing system know that clear fluid is needed to fill the eye so that light can pass through it?
How do the biological cells and existing system know that the fluid needs to be a certain pressure to keep the inflated but not damage it?
How do the biological cells and existing system know that according to size the lens needs to be a certain angle in order to focus?
I could go on and on for every system, and every organ. Example: Every system in the human body is interdependent upon another in order to work. There are 9 major systems in our bodies and not one of them can work without the other systems working at the very same time. So in other words. In the evolution process they would all have to evolve and be working at “exactly” the same time. This is impossible for 2 reasons. 1) Evolution Process does not have perfect timing to accomplish such a feat. 2) Every system has a different complexity which means no 2 system would require the same amount of mutations to evolve. The more mutations the more time. The more complexity in each mutation the more time. And this problem is not just for humans, but every living creature. Evolution would have to have perfect timing times how many creatures live on this planet.

So are biological cells and systems this smart to know exactly how to evolve, where to evolve, and when to evolve? Evolutionists think so with zero evidence to prove any of it. They believe that natural selection replaces all problems. This is also why they don’t like the word complexity. To test how natural selection cannot explain these things just ask some simple questions

How did natural selection determine where the eye should go for each living creature? You see there is no randomness evidence that eyes were anywhere else as trial and error during the evolution process. Natural selection sopposedly got it right the first time.
Which systems in the human body evolved first and how did it function until the other 8 major systems evolved? The common cop out answer is that they evolved all exactly at the same time. What you say to that is ask: So what you are saying is that evolution has perfect timing? You see perfect timing is admitting to intelligence because you have to be able to know when.
etc…

Basically all you have to do as a creationist is study the human body and all the parts that make each system work and you will have endless debates that will reaffirm you faith in a Creator. And once you get that going then study the problems associated with systems and problems when man tries to fix things.

Example #1: Heart valves can leak , and become clogged with calcium buildup. When the heart valve is replaced with animal tissue or mechanical one. The person has to take blood thinners for the rest of their lives. The reason for this is because man cannot make heart valves as perfect as the Creator so that they don’t cause blood clots by damaging blood cells during the opening and closing process. How did the evolution process know to evolve heart valves so precisely as to not damage blood cells? You see in this it has to be perfect the first time. There were no blood thinners during the stages of evolving heart valves. So if it was not right when heart valves were needed, offspring dies and species becomes extinct.

There are several areas in human and animal bodies that if not right the very first time, species dies. And when it has to be right the very first time, natural selection does not even apply.

Example #2: The heart muscle is a special muscle. It never gets tired. If the supposed evolution process did not evolve this special muscle, the first lifeform to have a heart would die when born. This muscle also requires a special balance in our bodies of several chemicals in order to function like it does and not get tired. How did the biological cells that evolved know to have this chemicals already balanced in our bodies ready for this special muscle? Then the heat valves have to be perfect. Then the electrical part of the heart has to know what rhythm the heart needs to beat, and at what beats per minute. The heart has to be the right size in order to pump enough volume for a particular body size. etc…

Studying the human body and how everything works. And the problems that happen when they don’t will give the creationist easy arguments against evolution.

Natural Selection

http://whoisyourcreator.com/topics/natural-selection/

Natural selection is nothing more than an elimination process that weeds out less fit organisms AFTER a genetic change has made a distinguishable change in them. To reiterate, there must be a genetic change FIRST before natural selection can differentiate more fit from less fit, so evolutionists are back to square one with trying to come up with some type of mechanism that might actually cause new or more complex features and organs to appear:
“To explain biological design, we need more than Darwinism…natural selection does not initiate evolutionary changes in design.”
Kenneth V. Kardong, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Washington State University, Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution (1995), McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, Third Edition, 2002, pp. 13-14.

Natural Selection is based on one premise only: The organism that produces the most survivable offspring wins. You don’t get the prize for being smarter, bigger, faster, etc., unless you are reproductively superior. Think about that for a bit … Until a final new and improved trait or feature is fully developed, why would anything be successful at survival if it starts changing its form?

Attempting to make natural selection more than it actually is, evolutionists write endless articles that use every angle to make it sound more complicated. In fact, many evolutionists claim now that it’s so complex that even students and teachers can’t even grasp it:
“Evolution: Education and Outreach,” Volume 2, Number 2 / June, 2009, “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions.”
“The unfortunate reality, as noted nearly 20 years ago by Bishop and Anderson (1990), is that ‘the concepts of evolution by natural selection are far more difficult for students to grasp than most biologists imagine.’ Despite common assumptions to the contrary by both students and instructors, it is evident that misconceptions about natural selection are the rule, whereas a working understanding is the rare exception.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807×22/fulltext.html

What Natural Selection Can Do:

Natural selection can preserve a change in an existing trait or feature by having organisms with that change survive and reproduce at a higher rate.

What Natural Selection CAN’T Do:

Natural selection DOES NOT ‘initiate’ genetic processes. It only responds to a change by eliminating organisms that are less fit within that population. Natural selection CAN’T differentiate between organisms unless there was a genetic change FIRST that would make an organism more fit or less fit than its predecessor.

“The apparent “order” with which organisms seem to be distributed in nature results from the elimination of the “wrong” phenotypes, not necessarily the selection of better adapted ones.”
Jeffrey H. Schwartz / Bruno Maresca, “Sudden Origins: A General Mechanism of Evolution Based on Stress Protein Concentration and Rapid Environmental Change” (See PDF)
NATURAL SELECTION IS AN ELIMINATING MECHANISM, NOT A CREATIVE ONE!

The best known example of natural selection is the observation of the Galapagos Island finches. The average beak size of the finches increased temporarily by about 5% due to the gradual loss of smaller seeds, which forced them to eat larger seeds. The finches did not develop a new trait or feature, there was just an increase in the average size of an existing feature because finches that had larger beaks survived at a higher rate than ones with smaller beaks. But also note that the average beak size went back to the original size when the smaller seeds were available again.

For argument sake, let’s say the smaller seeds never came back. Each new generation of finches might have a continued increase in beak size, but the beak would NEVER continue to increase in size past a point of survivability, such as it being too large in relationship to its supporting head, body, etc. It is also an observable fact that, without controlled breeding, specialized breeds ALWAYS turn back to their original and more basic form.

Note that most evolutionists are all but silent when asked what genetic mechanism produces novel features to arise.http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

Hoping that you won’t notice this dodge, they now have turned the focus primarily on natural selection. By using this strategy, evolutionists expose their own ignorance and the fact that evolutionary-based science is a menace to education, medical research, and scientific progress:

“’We are not promoting a belief system,’ says Horwitz. ‘Our goal is to help kids understand natural selection as a mechanism for evolution, whether they believe in it or not.’”
NTSA Reports, “Preparing Students to Learn About Evolution”, December 10, 2009, National Science Teachers Association Online.
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=56811
“Indeed, most biologists now agree that natural selection is the key evolutionary force that drives not only evolutionary change within species but also the origin of new species. Although some laypeople continue to question the cogency or adequacy of natural selection, its status among evolutionary biologists in the past few decades has, perhaps ironically, only grown more secure.”
“Testing Natural Selection with Genetics”, January 2009, Scientific American Magazine Online.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection&print=true

What is Natural Selection Really? 1


Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this “mechanism”, the Darwinist elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.
Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole “modern synthesis” framework.

Simply put, Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits. Conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking any weakening traits.
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as “the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population.”
It is well known that natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, constitutes a tautology. It survives therefore it is fit. It is fit therefore it survives.
This is still controversial and often debated simply because the modern Darwinist does not like being told his major foundation stone for the whole of Darwinian theory is circular reasoning.  Darwinism is in fact based on several logical fallacies like this.  Another common Darwinian fallacy goes like this:
Species A is morphologically very similar to species B, therefore they are biologically related or have some evolutionary common ancestor.  Modern molecular biology and genetics has proved this wrong (like so many other standard Darwinian claims). That specific error is almost a definition of the logical fallacy called “undistributed middle”.
So they, as usual, merely deny the reality of it  and go on arguing over as if debating it using this or that sophism changes anything of the truth of it.
Without going into the origin of this now ubiquitous term, I’ll simply say that it was an idea spawned and developed by creationists, not atheists. Darwin took the term mostly from Edward Blyth a British zoologist who had written on the subject long before his “Origin”, as had others. Indeed, according to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837.  From a creationist viewpoint. (Eiseley L.C., “Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection,” in “Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X,” E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.50)
Darwin basically took the idea changed it to his own view and “ran with with”, bringing it to the very pinnacle of his theory of evolution.
It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on.
Well, let’s get to the reality of what Natural selection really is. Using Mayr’s definition of “removed from the population“: In a word, natural selection is  “death”!
This should be extremely obvious, since removed = dead, but for the Darwinian mindset, most of the time, nothing logical is obvious.  Real selection is not anything being selected at all, its all about things being filtered out of the environment by death and that’s all.  Death rids the “unfit” species from the world.
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary filter.
This is easily seen by the fact that if one removes death, there would be no such thing as natural selection at all. Not in any Darwinian sense, thats for sure.
“Selection” is thus a very poor choice of words for death. Don’t you think? It’s almost the equivalent of the Grim Reaper.  The selection is implies choice, but nature has no mind to enable it to choose anything at all.  Some things die, that’s it. And it often has nothing to do with fitness.
Again, this is not hard.
So the fact that Darwinian fundamentalists treat natural selection like some sort of wizard able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, creating all the estimated 13 million living species on earth, is rather amazing.  You may even find it amusing, and indeed it would be if not so serious and error.
By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn’t all its cracked up to be.
Here’s the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth?

1) https://borne.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/what-is-natural-selection-really/