This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don't get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel. If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Evolutionists claim that Natural Selection and mutation have the power to Evolve ever more complex creatures with more organization and information in their cells.  Is there any truth to that claim?

• Natural selection shows Evolutionism's stories to be scientifically impossible.

The four assumptions of the notion that Natural Selection could drive Evolution from molecules to man:  

• Assumption #1: New innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution can be added to the DNA through natural processes.  (see video above)
• Assumption #2: All species will produce more offspring than will be able to survive to reproduce more offspring, and a population of any species will continue to reproduce at an exponential rate under the best conditions.  
• Assumption #3: "All organisms will vary in their ability to survive and reproduce."  
• Assumption #4: "Some aspect of the ability to survive and reproduce are genetic and are passed on to the next generation."  (This third assumption is the most important for this concept of natural selection driving evolution from molecules to man.  
 

The problems with Natural Selection:  

• Problem #1: It is impossible to test scientifically--there is no way to apply science to Natural Selection.  
• Problem #2: The complexity of fitness makes research difficult, and it makes any scientific results questionable because of such factors as the possiblity of contamination of samples.  
• Problem #3: It is difficult for Evolutionists to accurately quantify the term Natural Selection in a meaningful way.  Natural Selection has become a catch-all expression--basically meaningless.  
• Problem #4: "... natural selection either helps to keep a population stable, which means no change, or it will drive it to form a new species with a lesser amount of genetic variability and eventually to possible extinction.  When you think about it, natural selection could be considered an integral part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in which everything if left to itself will eventually break down and decay over time.  Now the question that has to be asked is: "How does natural selection support evolution which requires an ever increasing amount of genetic information or variability?"  It doesn't!"   What is a species?  The surprising answer.  
• Problem #5: Natural Selection has no means of adding new information (which would be needed if we are to accept the idea of molecules to man Evolution) since random mutations do not add information to anything.  (see video above)

(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

"A designer's approach to explain adaptation differs from an evolutionary biologist's approach. The differences are evident when you flip things around and force designers to explain design performance using evolutionary language. How long would NASA's lead engineer keep his job if he explained to the President that the reason for the heart-wrenching loss of space shuttles Challenger and Columbia was due to "strong negative selection," while the Endeavor was favored by "strong positive selection"? In the world of design, would anyone tolerate mystical explanations like that?    No." ~ source: Engineered Adaptability

 
As you consider all sides of Natural Selection, not just allowing yourself to be brainwashed and allowing peer pressure to form your opinion, you can begin to consider the following as viable:  God originally created everything thousands of years ago rather than the popular idea of millions of years ago.  Everything was very good at that time and there was no death before disobedience to God.  God placed a large amount of information to be used for variation within the original genetics of living things.  God directed Noah to select the animals with a greatest amount of variation still intact to survive the flood in the ark.  After the flood, most animals rapidly reproduced and dispersed to different parts of the Earth.  Being isolated, rapid speciation occurred with the normal loss of genetic information. As a result, natural selection pressure caused extinction of many species.  

The Information problem:

New innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution would need to be generated by natural means.  It never happens.

The following chart makes it plain that every instance of supposed increase of information that is used by Evolution's evangelists is an example of NO increase in information.  Evolutionist's claims for adding information fall into three categories.  These are the 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.  See: The 3 Rs of evolution  

Using an analogy of a train, Evolution hopes to go from Missouri in Central U.S. to California.  However, the train is going the wrong direction toward New York, with each small change being the result of a loss of information or simply a rearrangement of what is already there.  The evolution train’s a-comin’

When faced with this dilemma, the dogmatic evolutionist will often be surprised that new, innovative information would have had to have been added to the cell for even the smallest step of evolution between kinds (not species, but kinds, for example, the dog kind: wolves, coyotes, spaniels; or the cat kind: lions, tigers, Siamese). So you may hear them say that they don't know what you are talking about. The more informed will insist that information is added. They will bring up one example after another of loss of information. They may say that since cell duplication takes place any change to either cell is an increase in information. That is not true. (read more) No increase in information has ever been observed. There are no examples of information being added to a cell by natural processes. Information only comes from information. See: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information.