The Blog

With artificial selection there is a goal in view, and it is a intelligently guided process. In artificial selection there is an intelligent choice of breeds, and the same breeds are intelligently guarded from detrimental processes. With natural selection there is no goal to be reached, and it is a blind process. There is no intelligent choice of breeds, and they are not guarded from any destructive processes.

Confusing intelligent with non intelligent processes is a common mistake for Darwinists. In other words, even when scientists intelligently manipulate creatures with an end in mind – which is the antithesis of the blind Darwinian process – macroevolution still does not work.

If intelligent scientists are unable to break genetic barriers, why should we expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?

Another reason why natural selection is ineffective is cyclical change. Not only are there genetic limits to change within types, but the change within types appear to be cyclical.

In other words, change within types simply shift back and forth within a limited range. For example, if you have ever studied biology, you have heard some reference to the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Many textbooks utilize this example in order to portray macroevolution as truth to students in this country.

Darwin’s finches had varying beak sizes, which correlated with the weather. Larger beaks helped crack larger, harder seeds during droughts, and smaller beaks worked fine when wetter weather brought an abundance of smaller, softer seeds. When the weather became drier, the proportion of finches with larger beaks grew relative to the smaller-beaked finches. The proportion reversed itself following a sustained period of wet weather.

We must notice that no new life forms came into existence; only the relative proportion of existing large-beaked to small-beaked changed.

Notice that also that natural selection cannot explain how the finches came into existence in the first place.

In other words, natural selection may be able to explain the survival of a species, but it cannot explain the arrival of these finches.

Personal Reflection:
Can natural selection be the plausible explanation behind the irreducible complexity of living things?