I live in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville lies on the banks of the Ohio River which borders Indiana. Like many bordering states, the people of Louisville have a sort of friendly rivalry with the people in IN. I could tell you a hundred jokes about Indiana but today I'm only going to tell you one.
One day, a Hoosier (people from IN are called, “Hoosiers”), decided he was going to start his own business. He knew about a farm in KY that grew delicious watermelons so he drove his truck across the river and bought a truck load at the cheap price of 3 for $1. He drove back home and set up a roadside stand where he sold them for 25 cents each!
The watermelons were very popular and the man sold out very quickly. He drove back to KY for more and those too sold out almost immediately. This went on for a couple of weeks and the man began driving back and forth nearly every day for more watermelons. It wasn't long, however, before the man began to notice he had less money after each trip.
The man's father stopped by to see how his son was doing. The struggling marketer told his father how the watermelons were very popular and sold like crazy but he still seemed to be losing money. Of course he also told him about the great price he was getting on the watermelons in KY. The father scratched his head for a while and considered the situation. Suddenly, an idea occurred to him. He slapped his son on the back enthusiastically, “Cheer up, boy, I've got it! What you need to do is buy a bigger truck!”
They say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Where this Hoosier went wrong seems fairly obvious but I'm going to explain it just in case anyone missed it (after all, there may be Hoosiers reading this). He was buying watermelons at 33.3 cents each and selling them for 25 cents. In other words, he was losing 8.3 cents on each watermelon. You will never make money by losing a little bit at a time – it doesn't matter how long you do it. A bigger truck only means he would lose money faster.
Natural selection is an observed phenomenon where traits not suited to the environment are removed from the population. In the famous, peppered moth example of “evolution,” birds would eat light or dark colored moths as environmental factors changed. Over time, the ratio of light/dark moth in the population would change and evolutionists call any type of change, “evolution.” According to evolutionists, these little changes (microevolution) will accumulate over time to become big changes (macroevolution). It's lie number 5 of the five lies evolutionists tell.
My question to evolutionists has always been, “how long would birds have to eat one color of moth until new colors appear?” The significance of the question usually escapes them but the answer is obvious. You cannot create new colors by continuously removing one color. It doesn't matter how long you do it. It would be the same in a population of white and black mice, if someone continuously killed the white mice. Eventually it would be a population of only black mice. The descendant population will have fewer colors than the original population. Duh!
For evolution to occur, new traits have to be added to the population. For a dinosaur to become a bird, you have to add feathers. The supposed first ancestor did not have feathers. Neither did it have hair or scales or even skin. Nor did it have bones, blood, or organs. For a bacterium to become a bird, there must be a continuous parade of novel features added. That is the only way for one kind of creature to become another kind.
Evolutionists love to bring up examples of natural selection and say it's evolution. They believe the change just needs to happen for a long enough time. If natural selection REMOVES traits and evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits, then we have a problem. Natural selection is the opposite of evolution. Continuously removing traits will never add traits no matter how long it continues. It's like trying to make money by losing a little bit at a time. The idea that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution is a joke. It's a joke funnier than the one above because the one above is fictional and the evolutionists are serious.
I agree that populations change. I don't agree that “change” over a long time could ever amount to evolution. Time is not the savior of evolution. Time is the “bigger truck” of evolution.