Something fishy
Article author: Jay Zeke Malakai
Article editor: Jay Zeke Malakai
Introduction
For the vast majority of my life, I have been subjected to scores of Evolutionary propaganda. It was in the books that I read, it was in the DVDs and tv shows I watched, and most importantly it was in the lessons I learned in school. In my final days as an atheistic Evolutionist, a teacher, whom we will refer to as Mr. Lee, took a small group of us from the main science class to teach us the same lesson, away from the very noisy, very naughty remaining class members. The topic of Mr. Lee's lesson was Evolution and natural selection, and in the lesson, he used a very simple explaination of natural selection. It was this very lesson that made me question whether or not Evolution was all that great, and in this article, I will use the exact same explaination (with my own drawings) to show how Evolution and natural selection are two very different things.
Step one
Mr. Lee turned on the overhead projector and presented, on the board, a picture of several fish. Just like in the image below, some of these fish were green, and easily visible. The rest were blue, just like the watery background, giving the impression of camoflague in their environment.
Step two
Because the blue fish were camoflagued, but the green fish were not, the blue fish were much more likely to survive. The green fish, however, stuck out like a sore thumb.
Step three
The green fish, being more visible than the blue fish, were less successful, and were easily outcompeted by the blue fish. The green fish were picked off by predators and eventually went extinct.
Step four
This left the blue fish running unopposed for the food sources, and they quickly multiplied, passing on their advantage, and thus, according to Mr. Lee, Evolution could continue.
The question
This is a good explanation of Natural Selection, and even as a Christian who believes in both the Bible and science, I am more than happy to say this is sound science. It is exactly what we observe in the world today: The animals with a survival advantage will generally do better in certain environments than those without it, and those without it will likely struggle, or even die, leaving the survivors to propagate their genes. However, this demonstration does not demonstrate Evolution. See, while Natural selection is true, it is a culling process. It doesn't create anything new, it only destroys what already exists. That being said, how did the blue and green fish get here in the first place? How did they evolve?
What is Evolution really?
Evolution is, obviously, a creative process. The entire reason Evolutionists still profess Evolution is to explain the origins of the various kinds of animals on the Earth (and us) without having to accept the obvious conclusion that they were created by God. Evolution is, essentially, a family tree. It is intended to explain how man got into a world where, previously, there was no man. It supposedly explains how fish came into a world where, previously, there were no fish. It is supposed to explain how birds came into a world where, previously, nothing had feathers.
Natural selection, however, does not explain these things, as we have just demonstrated above. The demonstration began with two types of fish, and it ended with one type of fish. This makes natural selection a culling process, the exact opposite of Evolution. Therefore, the existence of natural selection is insufficient to explain Evolution.
Conclusion
The difference between Evolution and natural selection is literally the same as the difference between creation and destruction. Evolution is a creative process, whereas natural selection is a culling process. To this day, Evolutionists still claim that natural selection is Evolution, but as we have just demonstrated, this is not true. Evolutionists have yet to provide positive evidence of actual Evolution, or give a working explanation of how one kind of animal could transition to another.
Come moth it
A similar explanation of natural selection, masquerading as an explanation of Evolution, is the peppered moth experiments. This experiment is viewed as a classic demonsration of "Evolution in action". Pollution from the industrial revolution darkened the tree trunks where the moths lived. The moth comes in two forms: light and dark. The dark moths were better camoflagued against the trees when they rested, but the light ones were not, leaving them vulnerable to birds, who could easily spot the free meal.
However, not only does this demonstrate natural selection rather than Evolution, the whole experiment was fake! It is not known where the moths rest during the day, but they generally cannot be found on tree trunks. Instead, the moths were actually glued to the tree trunks. They were already dead...
