Answers to Questions - Creation vs. Evolution

Doesn’t survival of the fittest and natural selection prove Evolution?

NO. Survival of the fittest AND natural selection are both real, but they have nothing to do with MACROevolution. Keep in mind that in Darwin’s day, there were no electron microscopes, medicine was in infancy and essentially he (and others) had to look for "evidence" easily visible. A common "textbook" example is the "Peppered Moth" which showed survival of the fittest. As time and generations of moths passed, color of nearly all moth’s wings switched from white to black to white again - as changes in the environment (soot pollution) made them more or less visible to predators (depending on the color of trees - see Creation vs. Evolution). This example (and many others) relate to MICROevolution - change WITHIN a species. There were always both black and white moths. The proportion greatly shifted as the surviving ones had more of the "right color" genes.

ALL creatures have such a survival system pre programmed into DNA from the outset. Two brown eyed parents can produce a blue-eyed child. Skin color, hair color and many other traits are programmed (often remaining hidden) for generations. Does this mean a fish can become a frog? Of course not. The change from one reproducing species to another is MACROevolution and NO evidence supports it. The Peppered Moth example is a simple adaptation from what God preplanned. Incidentally, humans CAN "force" ends of the spectrum with selective breeding. Man developed both the species of Chihuahuas and Great Danes through selective breeding. (Yet neither would survive long if placed in the wild.)

Return to Questions