Stunning Video of Evolution in Action: Disingenuous and Untruthful


For many years, evolutionists have been putting forth their assertion that evolution is a matter that is closed. They say that science has proven the evolution is true and the whole world should accept their findings. When we investigate what scientists claim is proof for evolution, we find that it is far from conclusive and only proves that cells, animals, and plants, may adapt to their environments. There is no scientific proof, anywhere, that proves that one species has evolved from another species. Scientists state that because we can observe evolutionary adaptability, this means that special evolutions is also possible. Although the two are diametrically opposed to each other, the two are linked together: asserting the one proves the others. Adaptability cannot validate that a singular species may mutate into a completely different species.

This kind of evolution, is after all, what we all want to see proof for, not whether it is possible for adaptability to environment can occur. The entire premise of evolution is to prove that God is not necessary; that man evolved from a lower life form. In this effort, science has never, and will never succeed. Many notable scientists today with stellar credentials, who have categorically stated that evolution by species, is not possible.

In this video by “The Atlantic,” the viewer can see the adaptability of bacteria, right before their eyes. The Atlantic did not provide a video of any species evolving into a human being, nor show any fossilized remains that exist in the entire history of earth, that displays one species, evolving into another species.

 There Are Two Types of Evolution:

Most people are not aware that there are two types of Evolution. The first is called “Micro Evolution” and is defined as changes within the species based on adaptability to environnement, lack or abundance of food supply, predators or availability of suitable mating partners. “Micro Evolution” is observable today in many different species as they adapt to their environments and other factors.

The second type of Evolution is called “Macro Evolution” which is defined as one particular kind of species that evolves over a long period of time, say millions of years, into a completely different species. Macro Evolution has never been observed anywhere, at any time. There are no fossils in the geologic record that have ever shown one kind of species evolving into a different kind of species, say a Dinosaur evolving into a bird, or an ape into a man.

I found an interesting article on the MSNBC website written by John Roach which is a classic example of the problem that Evolution has in being able to become viable and true. The following article goes to great lengths to show us “Seven signs of Evolution in Action”.

The problem is that all seven of these examples are of Micro Evolution, evolving within a particular species for adaptability purposes. Not one of the following seven examples show any proof of Macro evolution where a species is seen evolving into a completely different species. This is important because the entire point of Evolution is to show that apes evolved into man.

I present the following seven examples of evolution in action to make the prevailing point that Evolution from one species into another does not happen, has not happen, not will it ever be found to have happened. Case in point, seven examples given here, not one of which is of any species evolving into another species. Notice as each of the seven examples are given that each one is only of a particular species adapting to environment by making changes to itself to fit that environment.

“Seven Signs of Evolution in Action”

MSNBC, by John Roach

Scientists around the world are celebrating the 200th birthday of British naturalist Charles Darwin, who was born on Feb. 12, 1809. Darwin’s groundbreaking 1859 book, “The Origin of Species,” proposed the theory that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection. Organisms most suited to their environment survive and reproduce, passing on their advantageous traits to offspring. Organisms that cannot compete go extinct. Though this theory remains a hot potato in the culture wars, it forms the foundation of modern biology.

Darwin’s finches evolve

The seed-crushing bills of little songbirds called finches, which were adapted to various niches throughout the Galapagos Islands, proved integral to the formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. And the birds haven’t stopped evolving. For example, the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), shown here, recently downsized its beak to exploit small seeds more efficiently after a larger finch arrived on its island and began competing for food. The smaller beaks on the smaller birds allowed them to thrive, while the big birds ate all the big seeds and nearly went extinct, scientists say.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Humans influence natural selection

Is human activity “natural”? Scientists say human activity is indeed affecting the evolution of other species. In one example, the human preference for large snow lotus plants, which are used in traditional Tibetan and Chinese medicine, has meant that only the smaller plants go to seed. Hence, the snow lotus is getting smaller. In another example, scientists have found that human preference for trophy game such as big fish and caribou is driving these species to become smaller and reproduce at younger ages.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Human evolution speeding up?

With more people crowding into ever more ecological niches over the past 10,000 years, humans appear to be evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, according to scientists. What’s more, as people adapt to different regions, cultures and diets, they are becoming increasingly different from people elsewhere. For example, Europeans have evolved a tolerance for dairy products into adulthood, whereas people in China and most of Africa have not.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Butterflies rapidly evolve resistance to killer bacteria

A population of tropical butterflies on a South Pacific island evolved resistance to a killer bacteria in the span of a single year — a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. The bacteria infects females and selectively kills males before they hatch. The strategy reduced male Blue Moon butterflies to just 1 percent of the population. But just 10 generations later — a year’s time — males made up nearly 40 percent of the population. Scientists said the rebound is due to the evolution of a so-called suppressor gene that keeps the killer bacteria in check.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Toxic toad evolves longer legs

A toxic toad, introduced in 1936 to wipe out a beetle species wreaking havoc on Australia’s sugar cane crop, has become an uncontrollable pest itself, evolving longer legs to help it hop across the country at an ever-increasing clip. For their first 20 years or so in the country, they spread at a pace of 6 miles per year. They now cruise at about 30 miles per year. Why? Researchers found that the toads leading the cross-country march had legs that were 6 percent longer than those of the stragglers. The added length gives more speed, which permits the long-legged toads to secure the best habitat at the newly conquered terrain.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Intermediate form supports flatfish evolution

Flounder, sole, halibut and other flatfish have long struck biologists as evolutionary oddities: Both their eyes are on one side of the head, an adaptation that allows them to lie flat on the ocean bottom while keeping their eyes on the lookout for passing prey. The transition happens in the youth of flatfish, one eye migrating up and over the top of the head. Opponents of evolution argued that this curious anatomy could not have evolved gradually, as suggested by the theory of natural selection. That’s because there would be no advantage for an intermediate form —a fish with an only partially migrated eye. But now scientists have found those intermediate forms in museum collections. The 50 million-year-old fossils, including Heteronectes chantei shown here, have a partially displaced eye.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

Lizards lose limbs

Australian lizards called skinks are dropping their limbs to become more like snakes. And, according to a genetic family tree, some skinks have gone snaky in just 3.6 million years, relatively fast in evolutionary time. Scientists said the skinks’ lifestyle appears to be driving the change: They spend most of their time swimming through sand or soil. Limbs are not only unnecessary for this, they may be a hindrance. Once a skink goes snaky, they never go back, the researchers add. One of the snakelike skinks is shown here.

Notice, no evolution into another species, just evolution within the species.

I think you get the idea. Do you see what kind of nonsense evolutionist have been feeding us for decades? Their contention is that since we can see the above evolution within the species, that this is proof that evolution from one species into another species is also possible. This is a pretty big stretch by any sense of the imagination to go from growing longer legs so a frog can hop faster, to growing an entirely different body all together which is not the same species that it was before.

This is the foolishness that evolutionists would have us believe. Carried to the extreme, the evolutionists teach that because we do see the kinds of evolution within a species that helps them adapt to their environment, then an ape could evolve into a man. The problem is that an ape is classified as a completely different species than a man. None of the seven examples given above are any species evolving into another species. This is what they are teaching our kids in school and this is the lie that has been sold to unsuspecting Americans for several decades now. Evolution from one species into another species has never been observed to occur anywhere.

The Lack of Evidence from Evolution

The empirical evidence against the evolution of one species to another, is staggering. When we examine the fossil record, we find that paleontology does not support Macroevolution. It is in the area of transitional forms of the fossil record that the greatest evidence is missing. For many decades, those who have insisted that one species can evolve into a completely new species, as a matter of fact, have demanded that the history of life through evolutionary processes has taken place through gradual adaptive changes. Today, paleontologists understand that the fossil record does not support this theory.

The fossil record reveals that there are two features, which demand the conclusion that macroevolution—where one species evolves into a different species—is not possible, given the current data.

Stasis: Most of the species of the known world display no directional changes during their record of life here on earth. The animals which are observed in the fossil record remain the same, with little to no change or movement in a direction towards a new species.[1]

Sudden Appearance: The fossil record indicates that in any given local area, no species arose gradually by any process of steady transformation from its previous ancestors. All species appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.[2]

Charles Darwin wrote in “The Origin of the Species,” that the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, should be truly enormous. In fact, the fossil record reveals exactly the opposite. There are no graduated chains of species to be found in the geologic record, which are valid.

Zoologist Mark Ridley commented on the stunning void that exists in the fossil record to support evolutionary intermediate species:

The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example.”[3]

After 150 years of Darwin’s theory of evolution, we have a rather large collection of fossils throughout the world. Instead of confirming the theory that any particular species can evolve into new species, the facts reveal the opposite. As more discoveries are made and increasing numbers of fossils are added, Darwin’s theory fails time and time again to provide any evidence to prove that evolution of a species, is possible.

The informed reader will watch these videos, read these articles, and look for proof that scientists have proven that a new species has evolved from an existing species. Until this time, why do we permit evolutionists to permeate our schools and universities with unfounded scientific facts, and discredit those who say that God is the source of all life; who made man in His own image and likeness?

I will leave you with a second interview between former Atheist leader, Dr. Antony Flew and Dr. Benjamin Wiker that took place on August 30, 2001. The following are a few of the excerpts from this very interesting exchange.[4]

Wiker: You say in “There is a God” that “it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery.” Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a “two decade migration,” as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn’t there a point in the “argument” where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that “There is a God” after all? So that, in some sense, you really did “hear a Voice that says” in the evidence itself ” ‘Can you hear me now?'”

Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”

For more information, read the book: “A Universe From God,”by Robert Clifton Robinson, available at Amazon

[1] Stephen Jay Gould, “Wonderful Life,” New York, 1989
[2] Ibid.
[3] Mark Ridley, “The Problems of Evolution”, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, page 11.
[4 Read the entire interview with Dr. Benjamin Wilker at:


Categories: Adaptability Evolution, Evolution, Evolution of Species, Special Evolution

Tags: , ,

Post your comment or argument.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: