Bill Nowers writes:
Darwin started it, the intentional blurring of microevolution into a belief of macroevolution. Darwin collected hundreds of specimens during his two year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle. How many of these specimens were indicative of macroevolution? If you guessed none, correct, go to the head of the class. Even Darwin's most famous specimens, the finches, did not show the slightest indication of being anything but finches.
Darwin confused survival of the fittest with macroevolution. Survival of the fittest is true for two reasons. First, it is circular reasoning. Who are the fittest? The ones that survive. Who are the ones that survive? The fittest. It is also common sense. Of course the species, or individuals within a species, that are best suited to the environment or existing conditions will tend to survive more often than those less suited.
Watch Evolution vs. God
Over 1,084,915 Views
But this has nothing to do with evolution. Macroevolution would require offspring with new genetic information, not present in either parent. This would have to be through some kind of mutation at the cellular level. Darwin knew nothing about microscopic complexity of living cells, or he might have presented a completely different theory.
A mutation is nothing more than a mistake in a cell's reproduction. To think that an accidental mistake, repeated hundreds of thousands of times in succession, over millions of years, could lead to the amoeba to man evolution is nothing less than a fantasy. But what choice does a poor evolutionist have? Either believe this fantasy or give up being an atheist. This, most will not do.
William E. Nowers, Creation & Evolution Studies Ministry, and on the Virginia Christian Alliance Board of Advisors