“Development” and normal “growth” are not evolution. “Evolution” is often used to include the development and progress in inventions and industry, in such phrases as “the evolution of the telephone” or “the evolution of the automobile.” The proper word to express such thoughts is “development.”
Darwin defines organic evolution (p. 523, Origin of Species) as “the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one . . . primordial form.”
Commenting on the views of Lamarck, Darwin approvingly said, “He upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species . . . all change in the organic world being the result of (natural) law and not of miraculous interposition.”
The LINE OF DESCENT from the lower to the higher forms of life is often given (with some variations) as follows: Protozoa — primitive metazoa — worms — fish — amphibians — reptiles — birds — mammals — man. Some recent Zoology textbooks (as Storer and Usinger) no longer refer to “a line of descent” but they speak of “specialized forms” that descended from some supposed ancestral lines (now non-existent) from which all present forms of animal life arose. This is a meaningless evasion — an alternate approach that solves no problems. But always, the transmutation from the lower form of life to the higher pre-supposes the gradual change by natural, resident forces, unaided by any external, supernatural intervention.*
*Many today hold to a modified theory of evolution — “Theistic evolution.” It is based on the assumption that the higher plants and animals developed from lower forms of life, and that this was God’s way of creating all higher forms of life, including man. This we are convinced is not in accord with either the facts of nature or Scripture, hence must be rejected.
The Bible Teaching Set Forth
The Bible clearly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth, and all forms of life on earth, including man. He created plants and animals in various “kinds” (families and genera) and gave each “kind” the power to reproduce, but only “after its kind.”* (See Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 25, 26-27).
* The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for “create” is bara and infers Divine power. The Hebrew word for “kind” is min and obviously refers to a related group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. It corresponds more to our word “genera” than “species” for some “species” according to recent classifications, do interbreed, with fertile offspring.
The statement that life as created by God should “bring forth after its kind” does not preclude the bringing forth of a great variety of that kind. For example, we have the canine “kind” in which are the related dogs (of many varieties), foxes, wolves, and hyenas.
Unfortunately, much confusion has resulted from the use of the word “evolution” to denote mere improvement of a species, or the development of new “varieties” within the species. Obviously, there are many “varieties” within each species — but to develop new varieties is definitely NOT evolution. Evolution teaches the change, or transmutation, via a generally slow, gradual process of mutation, of one genus into another, the lower into the higher. It does NOT refer merely to the “improvement” of a species. The controversy then is NOT over the “improvement” of a species by interbreeding, nor the development of different “varieties” within the species, but over the evolution of a NEW genus or “kind,” the new developing from the old, the higher from the lower.
Although there are some exceptions to the rule, the usual definition for “species” is that it is a population (a closely related group of animals or plants) which interbreed and produce fertile offspring.” **
** See p. 4, “Evolution in the Genus Drosophila,” Patterson and Stone; p. 120, “Systematics and the Origin of Species,” Mayr; p.122, “Readings in Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics,” Prof. H. H. Newman, University of Chicago Press.
According to this definition of “species” given by many scientists, the fertility of the offspring is proof that the parents were of the same species. Without change of species there can be no evolution — and without fertility there can be no descendants! Populations of different “kinds” (using the Bible word) will NOT interbreed — hence there are no offspring; and sometimes there are offspring of distinctly related “species” in which the offspring, like the mule, are sterile. The Creator has so made life that it interbreeds only in closely related species or genera; and as soon as interbreeding is attempted between more distantly related species or genera, the offspring is sterile and an impassable roadblock is put up so that it becomes impossible for one genus to transmute into another!
We now are ready to give a brief statement which is a key phrase that explains the operations and limitations of the divinely-given law of life, first revealed in Genesis 1. In nature we find endless variety within the species or genera; but absolutely NO CHANGE from one genus to another. Summed up, the laws governing all life prove there are:
“MUTATIONS” BUT NO “TRANSMUTATIONS” *
* Geneticists usually call this “macromutations.”
by which we mean that there are many varieties within any group, but there can never be one “kind” of life (genus) mutating (changing) into another.
We now call attention to three fundamentally important facts:
(1) Practically all species exist in great variety. (2) The generally recognized phyla (major groups) of life are static; there is no evidence whatever of change from one phylum to another by evolutionary processes. (3) Practically all so-called “proofs” of evolution offered by evolutionists are merely “mutants,” variants, minor changes within the same species.
Let us now examine evidence for these three facts:
(1) Practically all Species exist in great variety. Variety is the law of the Creator. In trees, no two leaves are exactly alike; in humans, no two fingerprints are identical; not even two snowflakes, out of the trillions that have fallen, are alike.
As we know, species are divided into sub-species, varieties, strains, races, breeds. In the dog species well over 100 distinct breeds of dogs are recognized — but who ever heard of a dog changing into another “kind” of animal? We see then many “horizontal” differences, but no “vertical” changes from one genus into another.
In fact “all animals and plants mutate,” so scientific breeders can produce cattle without horns, white turkeys, seedless grapefruit, and many other varieties seemingly superior to the original stock, but all within the limits of the original “kind.” *
*In nature too we find the development of “varieties,” though the process is usually much slower than when man does it. Flies in this country have wings; but the only flies to be found on the storm-swept island of Kerguelen, in the southern Indian Ocean, creep around without wings, or little stubby vestiges of wings — but they are still flies. Scores of similar phenomena can be recounted — but such variants induced by environment always stay within the confines of their own “kind.”
We should note also that man has been able to hasten, in some instances, the process of breeding new varieties of animals and developing new varieties of plants by artificially producing mutants through the use of radiation, heat or chemicals. Mutations in barley and corn have been produced by X-raying seeds. But all such mutations remain in the same genus as the seeds that were treated. Mutations are almost always harmful.
In every realm of life the story is the same. More than 20,000 new species of protozoa have been discovered with the aid of the compound optical microscope.
There are “80,000 species of snails” — and they are all snails!
Even in such obvious forms as the tiger, many variations occur in nature. It is large and long-haired in some sections; smaller and shorter-haired in India; and very small in Sumatra.
In mankind we see the same phenomena: one species, Homo sapiens, with many races: and with no two individuals — not even identical twins — exactly alike! One writer points out there are usually ‘46 chromosomes in each adult cell, and these (not counting the variations possible through the interchange of the many genes in each chromosome) make possible 17 million combinations of human characteristics!”
(2) There has never — there can never — be any change by evolutionary processes, from one “kind” (genus) to another.
In the countless billions of living organisms and dead fossils there has never been seen the slightest tendency to advance out of the confines of the original “kind” to which each organism belongs. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn determination not to evolve. This has been called “fixity of species” and is a commonly observed phenomenon. Here are a few of the many hundreds of competent scientists who bear witness to this fact.
Prof. Coultre, University of Chicago, said,
“The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is that it cannot originate characters; it only selects among characters already existing.” *
* This dictum is a truth of vast importance. “Natural selection” and “mutations” may slightly alter “characters” (organs; qualities) already existing, but they never introduce NEW “characters” — hence there are innumerable “mutations” and minor changes within the species, but there is no such thing as transformism from one genus to another.
Sir William Bateson, F. R. S., British naturalist who died in 1925, said, “We cannot see how the differentiation into species came about. ‘Variations’ of many kinds, often considerable, we witness, but no origin of species.”
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), French “dictator of biology” in Napoleonic times, firmly maintained the doctrine of the fixity of species. Since his death, no facts have been discovered that in any wise militate against the fundamental principle he stood for. Incidentally, France, to this day, has NOT accepted the theory of evolution with the zest this country has.
In recent times, Dr. Austin H. Clark, F. R. G. S., said: “The greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning. . . . No animals are known even from the earliest rocks, which cannot at once be assigned to their proper phylum or major group. . . . A backboned animal is always unmistakably a backboned animal, a star-fish is always a star-fish, and an insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day. . . . If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates, . . . that these major groups, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that they do at the present.”
At a later date, when Dr. Clark (recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists) was biologist of the United States National Museum, he stated bluntly that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong “on almost all vital points.” “So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups, arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex. . . .Appearing as a distinct creation.”
Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., erstwhile Professor of Zoology, University of California, says, “Geographic variation as a model of species formation” will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. “Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof. . . .yet it has been universally accepted” (p. 211). “There may be wide diversification within the species. . . . but the gaps (between species) cannot be bridged. . . . Subspecies do not merge into the species either actually or ideally” (see pp. 138, 183, The Material Basis of Evolution; Yale University Press, 1940). He says, further, “Nowhere have the limits of (any) species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, which also includes sterility” (p. 168, Ibid).
Prof. T. H. Morgan said, “Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.” (p. 43. “Evolution and Adaptation;” McMillan, 1903).
Yves Delage, renowned biologist, said, “If one takes his stand on the exclusive ground of facts. . . . the formation of one species from another has not been demonstrated at all.”
Darwin himself confessed, “Not one change of species into another is on record.” “We cannot prove that a single species has been changed (into another).” (Vol. 1, p. 210; “My Life and Letters.”
Without “transmutation” the theory of evolution is as devoid of proof as any other fairy tale.
(3) Practically all so-called “proofs” of “transmutation” (macromutations) offered by evolutionists are merely mutants, variants, minor changes within the sample species.
We have before us a half dozen articles in recent magazines that seek to offer “proof” of evolution; every one of them merely cites mutations made within the species. All such mutations are as commonplace as varieties of chickens and as meaningless. We quote from a few of them:
In the May, 1957 “Scientific American” is “A Study in the Evolution of Birds” by H. N. Southern. He calls attention to the fact that some guillemots have heads that are all black, and others, having white rings around their eyes, are called “bridled.” He takes several pages to describe this phenomenon: “The frequency of the bridled character varied consistently with the latitude: at the southern end of the range, in Portugal, not a single speckled (bridled) guillemot was seen, but northward the proportion of bridled birds increased fairly regularly until it reached more than 50% in Iceland. . . . It was obvious that in some way the bridled trait, or something associated with it, conferred a considerable advantage in the northern part of the range” (p. 130).
We all know that “variations” in birds are as commonplace as the different breeds of pigeons.
In another article in the “Scientific American” on “Evolution Observed,” by Francis J. Ryan, he states that though “almost nowhere in nature can we see evolution in action . . . we are now beginning to realize that objective in the laboratory. . . . With bacteria as subjects we have actually been able to observe evolution in progress.” *
* He explains that though a human generation is 20 years, for bacteria a generation is only 20 minutes, so in two years bacteria can grow through “more generations than man has in a million years.”
After admitting that “although bacteria will mutate, they are really remarkably stable,” he said that they “obtained successively fitter and fitter types through 7,000 generations.” They developed strains resistant to penicillin when the environment contained penicillin and strains resistant to streptomycin when the environment contained streptomycin! Every doctor in the land knows that bacteria soon become penicillin resistant, when penicillin is used repeatedly, but they still remain the same genus of bacteria as they were before!
Actually, all they demonstrated is the well-known fact that bacteria as well as other forms of plant life will mutate under different environments. But after their experiments these scientists still had BACTERIA! Such mutations, produced in bacteria, whether by man, or by nature, are no more proof of evolution than to assume that because one can breed yellow dogs and black dogs he can from them eventually breed tigers.
Darwin himself was deceived by a similar phenomenon: variations in 14 species of finches, and other animals, on the Galapagos Islands. “He reached the conclusion that since variation in individual characteristics existed among the members of any species, selection of some individuals and elimination of others must be the key to organic change.” (See “Charles Darwin,” Scientific American; also “Darwin’s Finches,” Scientific American). Since Darwin’s time it has been abundantly proven that mutations and variants are confined to their “kind” and do NOT lead to transmutation.
A few years ago Life magazine had a series of articles on “Evolution.” They too sought to demonstrate “evolution” by examples of what they termed “evolution through isolation” and “evolution through adaptation,” which were nothing more than natural mutations. They gave the example of “five species of birds of Paradise” found in different locations in New Guinea. These five species had minor variations of color — but all were birds of Paradise! In seeking to prove “evolution through adaptation” they gave as an illustration the gray and brown lizards that live in the White Sands Desert. They were different colors — but both were still lizards. Let us remember that the law of life is: MUTATIONS (varieties in the species), but no transmutation from one “kind” (genus) to another — hence, there is no evolution!
The evidence proves the Bible teaching to be correct: though there are many varieties in each species yet each genus persists in breeding “after its kind,” stubbornly refusing to do otherwise.
Both “natural selection,” and “chance mutation” have been ruled out as possible explanations of the so-called “evolutionary process.” Charles H. Hapgood presents these facts:
“It is still widely supposed that the principle of NATURAL SELECTION explains the origin of new forms of life. The truth is, on the contrary, that the impossibility of explaining evolution through natural selection, without the assistance of some other factor, became obvious to geneticists about the year 1900. Statistical studies by J. B. S. Haldane and others showed that the amount of time that would be required for new traits to become established in a series by natural selection alone was so immense that even whole geological periods would not suffice to produce new species. As a way out of the difficulty it was suggested that mutations might account for more rapid changes in life forms. It soon became evident, however, that the very great majority of all mutations, since they are random, must be harmful and will be eliminated, in due course, by the process of natural selection itself. The net result of mutations, therefore, must be to SLOW DOWN, rather than to accelerate, the process of evolution. The time element is by no means the only problem left unsolved by evolutionary theory. . . . “ (The Earth’s Shifting Crust, by Charles H. Hapgood, Saturday Evening Post, 1-10-’59).
So modern science has eliminated both Charles Darwin’s theory of evolutionary changes through “natural selection,” and the more recent theory of comparatively rapid evolutionary advances through “mutations.”
SURVIVAL OF THE UNFIT
John R. Howitt, M. D., London, England says: “I would like to point out that the theory of Evolution is accepted by faith alone, for three-quarters of the record is missing and the gaps in the remaining portion are unbridgeable. The modern concept of Neo-Darwinism is based upon the occurrence of mutations plus natural selection. But as mutations are almost invariably inferior to the original stock this would constitute the Survival of the Unfit, whether in the usual habitat of the species or in an unusual one. And selection could only select, and never initiate any new characteristics. Neo-Darwinism illustrated the almost unbelievable extent to which scientists have been forced to retire in order to maintain the hopeless, materialistic theory of Evolution. As Arthur N. Field has pointed out, evolution is based ‘upon belief in the reality of the unseen: belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off.’ “ (Quoted in, Karl Marx as an Evolutionist).