Natural selection is the opposite of evolution

People who defend evolution (aka, “evolutionists), often do so by playing word games. I could cite many examples, and I'm sure I will in future posts, but perhaps the most flagrant case of this is how they conflate the terms “evolution” and “natural selection” as though they are the same thing. Here's an example I've used in the past:

Countering the widespread view of evolution as a process played out over the course of eons, evolutionary biologists have shown that natural selection can turn on a dime -- within months -- as a population's needs change. In a study of island lizards exposed to a new predator, the scientists found that natural selection dramatically changed direction over a very short time, within a single generation, favoring first longer and then shorter hind legs. [ScienceDaily, 11/18/2006]

Notice how they change from saying evolution to natural selection in the same sentence! Tsk, Tsk. Because of the careless way these terms are often used, people sometimes become confused about their meanings. What's worse is that textbooks will often times present examples of natural selection as evidence for evolution. In this post, I'm going to explain the key difference between the two.

In the creation account, the Bible says that God created the various plants and animals according to kinds. Genesis 1:24-25 says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” There is a lot that can be said about biblical kinds, and I'll definitely be addressing the subject many times in the future. For now, though, a kind is basically a group of animals originally created by God that would reproduce together. It roughly (not exactly) resembles the term family used in modern taxonomy. A single kind can include numerous species.

https://unsplash.com/@hannah15198

An example of a kind might be the dog-kind. Animals in the dog-kind would include domestic dogs, wolves, and coyotes. Wolves and coyotes are different species according to biologists but they can breed together and produce fertile offspring – so I'm not sure why they're considered separate species //RKBentley scratches his head//. Anyway, I like to use dogs for illustration because most people are familiar with dogs. Dogs can be large or small, fat or skinny, long or short haired, and come in many different colors and patterns of fur. Using dogs, I'm going to show you how natural selection works.

Natural selection is a blind judge that tests the physical traits of creatures to see how well they are adapted to an environment. Suppose I took a pack of mutts containing dogs of all sorts, then released them into the wild. Natural selection would immediately begin her work. The dogs that lacked the instinct or ability to hunt would quickly starve. In a wooded environment, dogs with brown fur might be better camouflaged which would help them sneak up on prey or hide from larger predators (like pumas or bears). In a snowy environment, lighter colored fur might be more advantageous. Their hair must be long enough to give them warmth and protect them from sun burn yet not so long as to overheat them or harbor disease carrying insects. Their bodies should be large enough for them to overpower prey but not so large as to require more food than is available in that area. Everything about the dogs will be tested: their sense of smell, their eyesight, their hearing, even the shape of their ears. The dogs that have the features best suited for that environment will tend to survive longer and have more pups; the dogs not well suited to that environment will tend to die sooner and have fewer pups. The advantageous features will be begin to take over the population and the features not suitable to that environment will begin to disappear.

Over several generations an interesting thing occurs – the pups will all begin to look alike having similar size, hair length, color, patterns, etc. When all the dogs possess enough traits in common that they can be identified as belonging to the same group, some might call it a new species. Notice what has happened, though: only traits already present in the population could be selected. Unsuitable traits are removed. Favorable traits continue. That's all natural selection can ever do – remove traits unsuited to the environment.

Once a species becomes adapted to an environment, it is less diverse than the ancestral population. What might have happened if I released a pack of Irish Setters into the wild, instead of a motley band of mutts? Well, Irish Setters would tend to only have pups that looked like themselves. Where a pack of mutts might have pups of all different colors, Irish Setters will tend to only have red pups. They are specialized and less able to adapt to new changes in their surroundings. We're beginning to see a problem with evolution. Do you see it yet?

Imagine what would happen if I released my hypothetical mutts into an environment containing lots of blue? There are blue plants, blue reptiles, blue fish, blue insects, and blue birds but there aren't any blue dogs. Having blue fur could be an advantage in a predominately blue environment so let me ask you, how long would it take natural selection to create the color blue among dogs? Don't think too hard because I'm going to tell you: you cannot add colors to a population by continuously removing colors. It doesn't matter how long it continues. “Millions of years” is not some magical formula that turn a frog into a prince or a dog into a blue dog.

For evolution to happen, populations would have to acquire traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, you would have to add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. Yet according to evolution, the first supposed living thing didn't feathers or hair. Neither did it have scales, skin, bones, blood, or organs of any sort. To turn a molecule into a man would require a billion-years long parade of new features continuously being added generation after generation. For evolution to be possible, animals must acquire new traits.

Do you see the problem now? Evolution requires animals to acquire new traits yet natural selection can only remove traits. Populations can change over time (i.e. a wolf becomes a dog) but populations cannot evolve over time (i.e. a fish becomes a frog). This is why evolutionists want to hold out examples of natural selection and call it evolution. They want to use something that does happen (natural selection) as evidence for something that never happens (evolution). They want you to believe that continuously removing traits can actually add traits.... just give it enough time! That's rubbish. It's poppycock. It's foolishness and we should not give ear to such a lie.

Natural selection is the opposite of evolution!