A correspondent referred us to the February 2009 National Geographic. On inspection I find that this issue presents no evidence for evolution, despite its well-illustrated article about Darwin. In the article we are told that Darwin found the fossils of giant sloths and giant armadillos. He knew of much smaller, living relatives, and postulated that the giants had evolved into the smaller relatives. From this base he leapt off into fanciful assumptions unsupported by any good science.
Modern genetics has shown that within the gene pool of every creature is a range of possible variations, which express themselves when the environment alters. Darwin knew nothing about genes. He imagined that variability within a species was almost infinite. Modern science has discovered the barrier, an absolute barrier, beyond which a species can never go. Darwin was wrong.
Darwin made the same mistake when he observed finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environment and natural selection allowed the finches to adapt and change slightly, but they remain finches, and can all interbreed. Different beak shapes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.
Fossils of extinct creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of extinction. When a series of intermediate forms is found, showing how one distinct species has changed into another, then Darwin might be considered correct, but no transitional series have ever been found. The problem is, there is no known mechanism whereby information in the DNA can increase in complexity. All DNA loses information, gradually. It never increases, which is what it would need to do to cause a species to evolve upwards. God said, in Genesis, that everything He made would produce "after its kind" and that is precisely what life continues to do. Variation is not evolution. It is a selection process from already present genes. If there are no new genes to choose from, a species remains stable and is conserved indefinitely.
