Evolutionists are a curious lot. As I've engaged them over the years, it has always been my sincere hope that I can help them see the truth. Many times, I've raised points that are so blatantly obvious that I'm surprised they can deny them with straight faces. Yet they do deny them. When they deny them, it's usually through their conscious effort; that is, evolutionists stubbornly object to reasonable points because they are committed to their worldview and therefore will patently reject listening to anything that might contradict it. However, there have been a few occasions when evolutionists come so close to seeing the truth that I think they could stumble right into it – even without my help.
I came across an article online that talked about Darwin's Finches. Here is a paragraph from the article talking about speciation.
“[I]ndividual organisms having a phenotype characteristic providing an advantage in staying alive to successfully reproduce will pass their phenotype traits more frequently to the next generation. Over time and generations the traits providing reproductive advantage become more common within the population. Darwin called this process "descent with modification". Adaptive radiation, as observed by Charles Darwin in Galapagos finches, is a consequence of allopatric speciation among island populations.”
I believe this may be the best summary of natural selection that I've ever read from an evolutionist. The only suggestion I would make to improve it would be to change, “descent with modification” to “natural selection.” I could even almost live with “descent with modification” except that the term has been too closely identified with “evolution” for too long. Of course, the author was quoting Darwin's description of the process so I can understand why it's written the way it is.
Organisms adapt to their environment. Natural selection occurs by “nature” sifting through traits present in a population and eliminating those which are not conducive to that environment. Eventually, all the individuals within a population will begin to look alike and could be called a “species.”
What really struck me by this evolutionist is the next paragraph:
Darwin also correctly understood that the variability allowing adaptation already existed in the finch population, though its genetic (genotype) reason was not yet known by science at the time. Nature was NOT "producing" the variation within the finch populations - it already existed. Rather, nature "selected" from among the population variation the traits that better fostered survival and reproduction, a process known as "natural selection".
Wow! This evolutionist has nailed it. Natural selection can only act upon traits already present in the population. In other words, natural selection can make several species from a single kind, but it cannot create novel features for the kind. Natural selection – at best – is only a mechanism that can rearrange already existing traits. Using one of my favorite animals, bears, as an example, natural selection can shuffle existing bear-kind fur color to make different combinations – like all black, all brown, all white, black/white, and black/brown. However, natural selection cannot add new fur colors – like green or blue.
At last, here is an evolutionist that seems to get it. However, he fails to grasp the obvious problem this presents for evolution. If natural selection can only select from existing traits, the obvious implication is that all the potential for variation must have already been present in the ancestor. That comports well with creation; it's the opposite of evolution.
The theory of evolution is supposed to be a progression of simple to complex. The supposed common-ancestor-of-all-things did not have fur. Neither did it have scales or feathers or even skin. It didn't have bones or blood or organs of any kind. Evolution, therefore, requires that organisms acquire new traits. You can't get from an amoeba to a man without adding new features every step of the way and natural selection simply can't do that.
If you want to promote the story of evolution as history, you need to be talking about a mechanism besides natural selection. If I were an evolutionist, I would be talking non-stop about trait adding mutations. Mutation is the only mechanism that makes evolution seem viable. However, trait adding mutations are exceedingly rare – if any exist at all. Therefore, evolutionists dishonestly conflate natural selection and evolution like they are the same thing. They trumpet any example of “change” as though it's evidence for common descent. Shame on them!
In the end, this evolutionist, who was so close to the truth that he could touch it, walked right by without seeing it. He went on to say, “The process [of natural selection] guides evolution across the entire Tree-of Life.” Natural selection did not turn fins to feet nor feet to wings. It's rather dastardly to talk about the beaks of birds and turn it into a discussion of molecules and men.