Mutations create variety in a population, and Natural Selection culls out the unfavorable results. But does this process lead to macro evolution? or micro evolution? Let's check it out.

British peppered moth

Species can and do change over time. At least some of them do. One historical example is the British peppered moth. This variety of moth has made its home in Manchester, England for, well, as far back as anyone can remember. They sport a distinctive light speckled grey coloration on their wings. They perch on trees much the same color as themselves, thereby blending in nicely with their background.

Back in the 1840's, Manchester was developing into a major center of British industry. Factories blackened the local vegetation with soot and other pollutants. Against the dark soot covered trees, the lightly covered pepper moths stood out like beacons for bird predators. As you can well imagine, the moth population plummeted. That, however, is not the end of the story.

By 1848, darker colored peppered moths began showing up. By the middle of the century, the darker variety had almost completely replaced the lighter pigmented forms in the polluted areas. In unpolluted areas, lighter colored pepper moths remained common. What do you make of it?

Evolutionists point to it as a good example of natural selection in action. If you read a book on evolution, you are likely to run across the peppered moth as proof of their theory. But when you think it over, it really doesn't prove much of anything.

Peppered moths can vary anywhere from jet black to almost white or any range of shades in between. If lighter shades are suddenly more vulnerable, certainly, darker shades will predominate. But for all practical purposes, they are still the same old pepper moths they always were.

They didn't gain any new organ, nor did they lose any old one. All we find is a change in the proportion of colors, and even that is temporary. Once the pollution cleared up, the population returned to its predominate peppered light grey look. Was there any permanent change? No. Was there any "evolution?" Certainly not.

Breeding programs

Breeding programs are similar dead end tales. Breeders choose chickens that produce larger eggs, cows that yield more milk, and corn with higher protein content. But sooner or later breeders run into a natural barrier. Chickens can produce eggs only so large, cows can only give so much milk. Further genetic manipulations prove useless.

In the last century, breeders improved the quality of sheep's wool and raised the level of sugar in beets from 6 to 15 percent. Then it reached its natural limit. Every breeder knows that selective "improvements" whether plants or animals can only go so far. Furthermore, if you discontinue the artificial selection, the "improved" traits will quickly revert back to what they were before the experiment began. As far as evolution is concerned, it's just another potential example that doesn't pan out.

Insecticides

What about insects? Don't they develop resistance to pesticides such as DDT? Isn't this an example of natural selection? Whenever a new insecticide is introduced, the first few applications are very encouraging. A small amount kills a lot of pests. Nevertheless, in a large population of insects, you can count on a few to be genetically immune to the chemical spray.

Those favored pests will multiply and gradually replace those killed by the insecticide. Consequently, the same chemicals will become less and less effective over time. Resistance to one or more pesticides has been recorded in more than 100 species. What has changed? A population of insects, which had a few individuals genetically immune to a particular pesticide, has been replaced by a population in which all, or nearly all, are immune to the same pesticide.

Even that minor change is not permanent. Discontinue the pesticides and the insects tend to revert back to what they were before. Once more, no lasting change. And no evolution has occurred.

Bacteria and Antibiotics

The same story is repeated with bacteria and antibiotics. New antibiotics tend to destroy the vast majority of bacteria. Some are immune. They survive, reproduce, and replace the old strain. When the antibiotic is discontinued, the bacteria eventually revert back to their old susceptible strain. Permanent change does not occur. Of course that is lucky for us. We can use the same antibiotic to destroy most of the bacteria again.

About now you might be wondering if Natural Selection ever works as advertised. The answer may be found on the Galapagos Islands.

Darwin's Finches

Charles Darwin collected 13 species of finches on his visit to the Galapagos Islands. The birds had an uncanny resemblance to one another. In fact, the only noticeable differences were their size and beaks. Why different beaks? Darwin observed that the specialized beaks allowed the birds to feed on different foods.

Those with short stout beaks were capable of cracking tough seeds, while the ones with smaller beaks could handle the easier-to-crack seeds. One species had a long thin beak and used it for eating insects. Still another group with a different beak used cactus needles to poke grubs out of cracks in wood.

These birds were spread all over the Galapagos Islands, usually one specialized beak per island. How do we account for it? Today practically everyone agrees, Darwin was witnessing the direct results of natural selection.

This is how the scientists explain it. At one time, one species of finch made its home in the Galapagos Islands. That species probably originated on the South American mainland, then migrated to the islands. More than likely, the water level rose until the birds could no longer fly the distance between the islands.

Originally, say the theorists, the finch population displayed a good deal of variation in their beaks. When the birds became isolated, they had to make do with whatever resources were available on their island. Those fortunate enough to find food they could eat with their particular variety of beak survived. Those who couldn't feed on the local fare died. Their type of beak perished with them.

As you can well imagine, after generations of this "beak-cleansing process," the only thing left would be a pure strain of beak well suited to each island's local food source. The distance between Galapagos Islands prevented crossbreeding between the finch populations. Differences accumulated, and separate species developed.

Here is something that may surprise you. Both naturalists and the religious side agree with everything we have said so far. A few dissent, but most concur. Some call it micro evolution, while others say it is adaptation.

Let's briefly restate what we have just said. An original population of finches with genes for various shapes of beaks goes through the natural selection ringer and comes out as several different species of finches with just one variation of beak each. What we wind up with is a variety of birds, each less adaptable than the original.

That's a far cry from a full-blown evolution scenario where something like a bacteria mutates and natural selects its way into a whale, an elephant, or a man. Of course, that is exactly what naturalists believe happened. They call it macro evolution, but peppered moths, breeding programs, insecticides, bacteria and antibiotics, fruit flies, and finches do not prove their case.

Adaptation or micro evolution works on a limited scale. Yes, peppered moths might turn a darker shade of color; fruit flies might be mutilated into odd forms; and finches might be develop different shaped beaks. But a darker colored moth is still a moth. A mutilated fly is still a fly. And a finch with a different beak is still a finch, even if they can't interbreed with other types and are classified as different species.

No new organs are to be found in the moth, the fly, or the finch, and no old organs have been lost or replaced. All three are basically the same animals they always were. Changed? Yes. But a limited change. Design seems to be the explanation down to about the classification level, genus. Below that, genetic variation allows for adaptation and survival. It looks like design and variation were both built into the original plan.
Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.