THE GREAT SWINDLE

The dictionary provides us with two relevant definitions of evolution, one more general in its scope, and one more commonly known and specific to Biological Evolution in particular:

(We will get to the first, more general definition, and the concept of 'uniformitarianism' inherent in both biological and geological theories of evolution currently in vogue today, further on in our discussion of Geological Evolution).

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

The second part of the above definition is a description of the theory of biological evolution, of which Charles Darwin's best guess as to 'natural selection', (and the derivative concepts of 'survival of the fittest' and 'struggle for survival') as being the mechanism by which such evolution takes place, is the most widely known and accepted by people in general.

At the outset, a clear distinction must be made and understood in our minds between the theory of evolution itself, and Darwin's concept of 'natural selection'.

The basic theory of biological evolution, as propounded not only by Darwin but by others as well, simply asserts that the various species of life came about, not as a result of instantaneous creation all at the same time (or any other way), but by way of one species, through gradual changes, eventually 'evolving' into a new and distinct species, which in turn allowed for yet another species to evolve from it, and so on and on.

The concepts of 'natural selection' (and subsequent derivative concepts of 'survival of the fittest' and 'struggle for survival') were simply Darwin's (and others) guesses as to how such evolution operated and took place.

One could easily accept evolution as a basic concept, and yet still not accept the concept of 'natural selection' as being the mechanism by which such evolution actually operates. There are other possible explanations as to how evolution operates (assuming one accepts the concept of evolution in the first place). We will go more deeply into this in the following section on Non-Darwinian Evolution.

DARWINIAN 'NATURAL SELECTION'

Now as to the Darwinian Theory of 'natural selection' being the mechanism by which Evolution operates.

First off, it must be clearly and frankly recognized that that is precisely what it is - a theory .

And, something needs to be shouted from the highest mountaintop!

Darwin's guess as to 'natural selection' was most likely wrong  !

Despite the persistence in the general domain of the acceptance of Darwin's guesses as to the method by which evolution operates as being correct, many of even the most ardent advocates of the theory of evolution, itself, today reject his theory as being valid.

While there aren't even enough FACTS to either prove or disprove the theory of biological evolution itself, many of those who do subscribe to the theory agree that there are now a sufficient number of demonstrable FACTS to conclude that if evolution actually does take place, it does not do so by means of 'natural selection' (or 'survival of the fittest'). If life does evolve, it does so in some other way.

This is not to say that occurrences which would fit within the meaning of the concepts of 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' do not exist in nature. They quite provably do, as we will next discuss.

But it is to say that such occurrences as do exist in no way support the concept of 'natural selection' as the mechanism of evolution, or the theory of evolution itself.

For purposes of clarity and full understanding, we must first define what biologists call a 'species'. A species, among other things, but in essence, consists of 'all the members of a life form which are capable of interbreeding with one another and producing fertile offspring thereby'.

If two individuals cannot interbreed with one another and produce offspring, they are not of the same species. And, even if they can produce offspring, if that offspring isn't itself fertile and fully capable of breeding and producing further offspring, then the initial pair were not of the same species.

For example, a human and a gorilla could conceivably mate, but they cannot produce offspring as a result. Therefore, they are not of the same species. And, while a horse and a jackass can breed and produce a mule, the mule is sterile and incapable of further reproduction. Therefore the horse and jackass are not of the same species either.

(And this definition, itself, being of human creation, is arbitrary - as covered earlier in our discussion of the scientific method. There are other factors by which species could be differentiated, which would result in a different definition. Indeed, if we were to look at the truly fundamental qualities of life, and base our distinctions upon them, we wouldn't find any differences of sufficient merit to make any distinctions at all. We would have no definition of species, because we wouldn't find the necessary differences and distinctions upon which to base that definition.)

If species to species evolution takes place at all, that it does not take place by way of Darwinian 'natural selection' or 'struggle for survival' is shown by the following analysis of the FACTS as we now know them to be.

The only manner in which 'natural selection' (and 'survival of the fittest' and 'struggle for survival') can possibly operate and apply in nature is by way of:

• Breeding Competition
• Competition for Resources
• Predation

These factors induce a situation in which genes for the 'strongest' and 'best' traits (in terms of a species' survival as a species) are 'selected in' for dominance in reproduction, and the 'weaker' traits are 'selected out' and become recessive.

Breeding competition always takes place within a given species, and almost alway among the males of that species.

In lesser developed life forms (non-vertebrates) the 'winner' in this competition is quite often simply a male who happens to get 'lucky' by simply still being alive and in the right place at the right time. If he happens to possess some trait which helped keep him alive long enough to reproduce (rather than just pure luck), then survival of this trait in his offspring is a definite plus for those offspring and the species as a whole,

In more developed life forms the competition is often by way of combat (or intimidation) between the males for the right to mate with the females. Again, discounting such 'luck' as might involved, such traits of strength and vitality possessed by the winner being the only traits allowed to reproduce is no doubt beneficial for the species' survival.

However, does such improvement by way of breeding result in an entirely new  species? Perhaps a better one, yes. But a completely new and different one?

(It is true, as professional animal breeders know, that breeding can, indeed, produce new and different strains of a particular species. But it is still the same species.)

Competition for resources between members of the same  species operates in pretty much the same way as breeding competition. Those individuals with the more successful traits in this regard tend to survive and reproduce, while those less endowed tend to die off before they can reproduce.

Competition between the members of different  species for the means of survival (eg., a rosebush and a dandelion competing for a place in the sunlight and for water, or an antelope and a rabbit competing for available vegetation) might very well result in one species being more successful than another in terms of survival, even to the possible extent of one species becoming extinct as a result.

But does it result in either species evolving into a new and entirely different species? The rose bush does not become a redwood tree and the rabbit does not become a lion as a result of such competition - do they?

At most, such competition might result in both species improving themselves for such competition, by way of each species 'selecting in' its more adaptive traits and 'selecting out' its less successful traits.

To the extent that one species feeds upon another for its survival, again, no species evolution is induced in either species thereby.

With respect to a predator species, this is simply one aspect of resource competition as discussed above.

It is a fact that many predators (eg., lions and wolves) do select out of their prey herd those individuals who are most vulnerable and, therefore, most easily caught. That is to say, they select out the young, the old, and the infirm or diseased. But, this fact has no evolutionary impact.

The fact that the young and the old are relatively more vulnerable has no bearing on their relative fitness or lack of it for the survival of the species. It is only an indication that they are at a stage of life wherein they are, indeed, most vulnerable. Cutting off their ability to reproduce by their being killed isn't going to somehow improve the genetic quality of their species (unless the stages of youth and old age can somehow be bred out of a species).

And, culling the infirm of a species by predators has no evolutionary impact either. If the infirmity is due to an accidental injury, such as a broken leg, that fact has no bearing on the relative value of that individual's genes to the species as a whole (unless, of course, fortuitous accident can be prevented by breeding).

If the infirmity is a congenital one, inherited at birth, the individual likely wouldn't have survived childhood anyway, even without the intervention of a predator. It would likely have been abandoned by its mother and died of natural causes before reaching maturity.

And even if it did somehow manage to reach maturity, it wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. Only the soundest males are allowed to breed, and they will reject an unsound female.

With respect to infirmity due to an acquired disease, it would seem that the culling by predators of such an individual would improve the genetic stock of the species by cutting off that individual's ability to reproduce, and thereby reducing the species' susceptibility to that particular disease. However, the diseased individual's infirmity, once again, would likely prevent him from being able to breed anyway, as a result of the breeding competition.

But, and most importantly, with respect to our discussion here of the theory of evolution, none of this has anything thing to do with one species somehow evolving into a new and different  species. A more adaptive and therefore survivable existing species, yes. A new species, no.

There has been much talk about a 'missing link', which is supposed to have been an earlier species from which both Man and the apes directly evolved. Yet, after all the digging that has taken place, it hasn't been found.

Twice, earlier in the 20th century, it was supposedly found. After further and calmer investigation, one such 'find' was deemed to be an error, and the other an outright fraud.

More recently, we have yet another such 'find' out of Africa, which has been named Lucy by those who see her as being that heretofore elusive 'missing link'. (Honest, folks, this is the "real" thing, this time).

But, this latest 'find', as with all  the evidence of evolution so far, is simply far too weak as evidence, to constitute proof  of either being what it is claimed to be, or of evolution itself. Its persuasiveness as being the 'missing link' is far more powerful in the minds of those who already "know" evolution is a "fact", than it is in the mind of one not already previously convinced of evolution before even considering its persuasiveness.

In short, those convinced of the "fact" of evolution, simply close their minds to, and refuse to accept, even the possibility that the reason the 'missing link' hasn't yet been found (under circumstances sufficient to constitute scientifically demonstrable proof   that such is what it is), is simply that it doesn't, and never did, exist.

After all, to accept this as being even a possibility, would be to accept the possibility that the whole theory of evolution itself is total balderdash. And that possibility is not so easily acceptable to one already fully committed to the theory.

When looked at from a broader view, it can be seen that all  of the process of 'natural selection' is actually a matter of resource competition, with breeding competition and predation playing a role in that competition for resources.

It can also be seen that the process is, in essence, not so much one of competition between individuals within a species, or between particular species, as it is a struggle within each, and all, species for survival within the total environment in which each and all of them live.

And the operative word here is 'survival'. Survival of what? The species.

In short, natural selection results in either survival  of a species, or non-survival. It can operate only on what is available for it to operate on - already existing species. It cannot operate on what isn't there.

It does not (because it cannot) create new species.

EVIDENCE AGAINST DARWINISM

Not only does Darwinism fall short of the mark on its own terms, taking into account only the types of evidence most favorable to it, there is much evidence which directly contradicts it (which its proponents would prefer not to notice).

There is no evidence of any such evolution taking place today.

This is a significant point. There is simply no evidence  of species evolution taking place today, and no one is even claiming there is. All such indications as there are of such evolution, all look to the past.

(And, as we have just discussed, with all the archaeological digging that has taken place right up until this very moment, there is no scientifically demonstrable proof   that any such evolution has ever taken place).

On the other hand, there are observable finds in archaeological diggings, over and over again, which, if taken at face value, and not forced into a preconceived interpretation based upon a preconceived theory, tend to indicate that previously healthy and thriving species suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth, almost overnight.

The dinosaurs are the most notable, but far from the only, examples of such sudden extinctions. And, please note, this was not a gradual change from one species to another. It was a sudden, perhaps even cataclysmic, extinction of total species.

And, there are almost an equal number of finds indicating the appearance of a new and distinct species of life, just as suddenly and quickly. Up to a certain point there is simply no evidence of the existence of such a species. Then, all of a sudden, there they are, fully developed.

Of course, the evolutionists assume that there must have been some prior development, and that they simply haven't yet been able to locate evidence of it ('missing links'). But, that is nothing more than an assumption. There is no proof of it, or even evidence; not even weak evidence. There is none.

And, there have been incidents observed in which mutation has apparently taken place.

Mutation is the sudden and extensive change of a species into something drastically different from what it was before, which change takes place within the time frame of one or two generations. The offspring are so different from their parents or grandparents that they are no longer even of the same species.

(Such mutations as have been observed are believed by some, with fairly good reason, to have been caused by exposure to excessive amounts of radiation).

These mutations do, in fact, fit within the definition of evolution. They are, indeed, one species changing ('evolving') into another species, and thus, in this instance, we do  have scientifically demonstrable evidence of 'evolution'.

But, this is the only demonstrable evidence that evolution takes place, and it evidences only this type of 'evolution'.

With respect to the general concept of evolution itself (both biological and geological), there are, indeed, observable facts which, if interpreted in a particular way (there are  other ways to interpret them, as discussed below), do tend to prove evolution as a reality. But, these facts provide, at most, merely a tendency toward such proof, and then only when looked at from the basis of that preselected interpretation.

In terms of FACTS which sufficiently meet the rigors of scientific demonstration such as to prove  the theory as a FACT, the theory of evolution is as wanting as is the concept of Creation derived from a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Judeo \ Christian Bible.

(In essence, neither of these concepts is based upon scientifically demonstrable evidence sufficient to constitute scientific proof  of their tenets. BELIEF in either concept, evolution or Biblical Creationism - or any other theory about cosmic development for that matter - is, at base, simply an act of FAITH. To claim any more for either theory than simply being the personally held BELIEF that it is, is to enter into the realm of Erroneous "knowing").

And, as we have demonstrated, the Darwinian concept of 'natural selection' as being the mechanism by which evoulution takes place, is simply not correct.

NON-DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

With respect to the general theory of biological evolution, without the complications of Darwin's erroneous guesses on the subject, we will go into the subject in conjunction with our discussions on Geological Evolution and Alternatives To Uniformitarian Evolution in the next sections.