Survival Of The Fittest – Why You Should Believe In Creation …And Not Evolution

by / February 26, 2017

Why should you believe in creation, and not evolution? I mean, scientifically speaking. Haven’t we proven that evolution is a fact?

Survival of the fittest to reproduce, or “natural selection,” is considered to be the driving force behind evolution. It seems pretty simple: the sickly gazelle will get eaten while the healthy gazelle gets away. Since the sick gazelle is, well, dead, it can’t reproduce and pass along its genes. The healthy gazelle lives to reproduce so the next generation gets the genes of the healthy gazelle. Theoretically, over time, the gazelle species gets stronger as the weaker, sicker ones are weeded out over the generations. Is “survival of the fittest” behind the supposed process of molecules-to-man evolution?

Well, evolution requires the addition of massive amounts of brand-new genetic information. After all, you can’t get from an ameba to an astronaut without adding instructions into the DNA for brand-new features like arms, a complex brain, and an advanced circulatory system. Does survival of the fittest produce this information? No, it doesn’t!

Survival of the fittest acts on information that was already there in the creature’s genome. It doesn’t create any new information. It simply eliminates already existing information. Here’s a hypothetical example. Suppose some brown and white rabbits make their way up to the Arctic. These bunnies have the genetic information in their DNA to produce a wide range of colors. But which fur color will do best in the Arctic environment? White of course. The browner the rabbit, the easier it is for a fox to see it and turn it into lunch. So the genes for brown rabbits are eliminated by the foxes until only white bunnies are left. And white bunnies breeding with other white bunnies will produce what?…you guessed it—white bunnies! Soon practically all the rabbits in the Arctic will be white.

In this example, did evolution just occur? After all, the rabbits changed from brown-and-white to just white. Well, there were some physical changes but Darwinian evolution didn’t happen. You see, no new genetic information was added to the rabbits’ DNA. They already had the information for white fur. It just took environmental pressure from the foxes for the brown-fur genes for to be eliminated. The rabbits STAYED rabbits, and they didn’t gain anything new that they didn’t already have.

Survival of the fittest is considered the driving force behind evolution and yet it can’t add new information into the genome—something evolution has to do if it wants to go anywhere! Survival of the fittest doesn’t drive evolution. It’s simply an observable natural process that works on the information that’s already there.

Actually, there’s no known process that can produce brand-new genetic information. And if you can’t get new information — you can’t evolve.

Just one more scientific reason that you shouldn’t believe in molecules-to-man evolution. It takes a LOT of faith.

I’m David Rives, Truly, the Heavens Declare the Glory of God.


LIKE David’s FB page here:
FOLLOW us on Twitter:
VISIT our official website for tons of free information:
David Rives MUSIC:
For the TBN show “Creation in the 21st Century”:

Evolution: The Grand Experiment | Book | Dr. Carl Werner | MB


Evolution: The Grand Experiment critically examines the viability of Darwin’s theory.

The following two tabs change content below.
David Rives
With a unique combination of creation science and Biblical astronomy, David has built a solid case for our Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ–and the world is taking notice. Host of the weekly TV show "Creation in the 21st Century" on TBN, and author of the book "Wonders Without Number".

One Comment

  1. Excellent! Although “information” is a tricky concept, the essential point is correct: natural selection only selects out failures, it can’t produce truly new complex advantageous systems or parts. Thanks to good design, including epigenetic factors, an attribute that was lost somewhere along the line might be reproduced again, but in the long run, a process of random variations being filtered by the varying pressures of survival and reproduction will end up with losses that cannot be recovered, with few if any new additions of any kind.

    Change is not a simple quality that can reach any potential simply by adding more. You can change a color until it is saturated or white, but it won’t become another color. You can mix colors to get a full spectrum, but a color is not going to become a sound unless you add some fancy electronics. If you use pigmented liquid like paint, you can use a lot and let it dry to create depth, but it will have no special pattern (just a natural rough circular shape) if you don’t use your intelligence to give it one. Water will form intricate snowflakes under the right conditions, but they are static and restrained to certain kinds of patterns by the molecular bonds of H2O. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and whirlpools are dynamic and have a circular center, but they are made of nothing but moving air and/or water and other than the general circular swirl they are chaotic.

    Outside of living things, nature does not produce anything with systematically organized, dynamic complexity, and living things only come from the previous generation of living things. Only the most advanced human-designed objects share this quality with living things, but living things also operate autonomously, grow by a complex process of adding diverse elements, repair themselves, and reproduce themselves! It is amazing that living things can reproduce the many complex parts and systems of the parents in the next generation. The “evolutionary” process of genetic variation and natural selection works to adapt living things to a range of randomly-changing, generally cyclic conditions, but there is nothing in it to provide for the design of complex new parts. When evolutionists credit “evolution,” “nature,” or an organism (over generations) for coming up with an amazing “design,” they are often describing something that our observations of nature have never shown to be possible!

Your Commment

Email (will not be published)