Natural Selection 2 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word �selection� implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism�s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic�s effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b. �[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.� Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, �A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,� Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

�The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.� Stephen Jay Gould, �The Return of Hopeful Monsters,� Natural History, Vol. 86, June�July 1977, p. 28.

c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, �How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,� Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127�135.

d. Eric Penrose, �Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics�A Case of Un-Natural Selection,� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76�83.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, �Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,� Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

�The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.� Francisco J. Ayala, �The Mechanisms of Evolution,� Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.