National Geographic, as part of their Resource Library and in an entry entitled Natural Selection, states what seems to be the obvious: “Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.” (cite in next quote).

National Geographic is correct by noting that natural selection is “a process.” This fact seems obvious, and is, until one asks an evolutionist to describe this process. The description of a process of natural selection is easy for all the unfit and unadapted organisms that get eaten, starved, or suffer an environmental change.

But what about all the adapted and fit organisms born into the world that live their lives peacefully and happily reproducing? What does natural selection do for them? When asked that question, evolutionists suddenly become irritated. The question itself is said to be that of a simpleton who needs to be educated in evolutionary theory.

If pressed further, evolutionists start maintaining that natural selection is not a process, it is merely a … (fill in the blank). But standard evolutionary theory holds that natural selection is a process, and National Geographic agrees.

Thus, we ask again, what does natural selection–as a process–do for all the organisms born into this world adapted and fit to reproduce? Is natural selection really “the engine that drives evolution?”

Let’s examine National Geographic’s description of the natural selection process and see if we can find what natural selection does to effect evolutionary change in organisms. Here is National Geographic’s main paragraph attempting to do just that:

Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection

Sounds very “sciency.” Right? Somewhere in that paragraph National Geographic explained what natural selection does to change organisms over time. Right? Surely, if we were to parse out this paragraph carefully we would find the insight needed to understand Darwin’s “keystone” process of natural selection. Right?

Wrong.

Below we have numbered all seven sentences of the paragraph above. Let’s go through each one and see what we can learn about natural selection.

(1) Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change.
(2) Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways.
(3) This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others.
(4) Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce.
(5) These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring.
(6) Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population.
(7) Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

Sentence (1): This sentence introduces us to natural selection as “the process” through which populations organisms “adapt and change.” Note the reference to “populations.” Modern evolutionary theory focuses on “population genetics” and “genetic drift” in populations, and the like. This is not a wrong way to look at populations, but in view of “the process” we must note (as National Geographic does) that all change happens at the level of the individual. Presumably, then, natural selection plays some role in “adapting” and “changing” individuals. We will see.

Sentence (2): This sentence is true and self-evident. Natural variation is virtually always due to genetic variation that offspring inherit from parents. This is Darwin’s “descent with modification.” So far, natural selection has done nothing.

Sentence (3): This sentence is true and self-evident. The genetic variation inherited by offspring produce traits in the offspring. Some traits are better suited to the environment than others, meaning some traits (like dark-colored moths, long-necked giraffes, and drought-resistant flowers) are better suited to survive. So far, natural selection has done nothing.

Sentence (4): Here it gets interesting. We read about “individuals with adaptive traits–traits that give some advantage. Consider: How did these individuals get these “adaptive traits”? From sentence (2), as well as using observation and common sense, we know that these adaptive traits arise due to the inherited genetic variation in the individual. And it is these inherited traits that make it more likely that the organism would survive and reproduce. So far, natural selection has done nothing.

Sentence (5): Because the individuals that inherited “adaptive traits” tend to survive and reproduce, the traits can pass them to their offspring. So far, natural selection has done nothing.

Sentence (6): This sentence is self-evidently true. But note: natural selection has still done nothing! All that has happened is parents producing offspring with inherited traits that lead to survival, and more offspring.

Sentence (7): What process of natural selection? Natural selection has done nothing in this described process.

Let us illustrate the fact that in the process described above natural selection plays no role. Note that the same observations in nature described above can be identically described as “nothing happening” to adapted and fit organisms. Here is a more observationally and scientifically accurate version of the process in the same seven sentences with our changes in bold text:

(1) When nothing happens to adapted and fit organism, they freely reproduce. Over time populations of these organisms can can continue to adapt and change.
(2) Individuals in a population are naturally variable at birth, meaning that they are all different in some ways.
(3) This variation means that some individuals are born with traits better suited to the environment than others.
(4) Individuals born with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. That is, nothing happens to them to prevent them from freely reproducing.
(5) These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring.
(6) Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population.
(7) Through this process of nothing happening to adapted and fit organisms, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

We see, then, that natural selection actually does nothing! If natural selection did not exist, the process described in sentences 2-6 above would proceed just the same. Because in these descriptive steps natural selection plays absolutely no role.

The Natural Selection Paradox is confirmed.

As an aside, we note that National Geographic’s article on natural selection is an excellent example of teaching by implication/inference, which abounds in the field. Careful educators and evolutionists imply certain abilities of natural selection, leading students to naturally infer that natural selection has the implied ability.

The National Geographic article continues this implication/inference tactic:

Darwin and other scientists of his day argued that a process much like artificial selection happened in nature, without any human intervention. 

Ibid.

A process “much like” artificial selection? A process “much like” artificial selection needs an intelligent selector. Are students to infer there is some unspoken, subtle selector at work?

Without any “human intervention”? The implication is that there is an “intervention” by something or someone. Are students to infer there is some other kind of mysterious intervention at work by something or someone?

Reader beware. There are powerful interests trying to lie to you.