Another mainstream science organization agrees with The Natural Selection Paradox. One of the greatest testimonies to how idealogy can blind critical thinking is shown when mainstream scientists attempt to describe how natural selection works. Inevitably, as indicated by many mainstream organizations (see, www.naturalselectionparadox.com) these organizations actually show that natural selection does nothing (for adapted/fit organisms that survive to reproduce)!

The Natural History Museum in London, England, offers one of the most impressive collections of natural history on Earth. Known as the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, the museum’s collection is home to life and earth science specimens comprising some 80 million items within five main collections: botany, entomology, mineralogy, palaeontology, and zoology. And, of course, it is a major science institution promoting human evolution by natural selection.

Surprisingly, however, the Natural History Museum agrees with Creation Reformation that natural selection did nothing to cause or explain any evolutionary change in any ancestor of all current living things. (This is The Natural Selection Paradox). Any reader of their explanation of natural selection can see this.

The Natural Selection Paradox, and the Natural History Museum’s affirmation of it, is premised on the following fact. If evolution is true, then every single ancestor in the unbroken evolutionary lineage of every current species was born into this world adapted and fit to survive to reproduce.

Below we quote verbatim the museum’s answers to questions relating to natural selection. To explain how the Natural History Museum affirms the The Natural Selection Paradox, we have added bracketed numbers to each sentence of the response to questions on their website. Our explanation for each numbered sentence is below.

On a page asking the question What is Natural Selection?, we read the following:

[1] Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.

[2] Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success.

[3] This process causes species to change and diverge over time.

[4] Natural selection is one of the ways to account for the millions of species that have lived on Earth.

On the same page in answer to the question How does natural selection work?, we read the following:

[5] In natural selection, genetic mutations that are beneficial to an individual’s survival are passed on through reproduction.

[6] This results in a new generation of organisms that are more likely to survive to reproduce.

[7] For example, evolving long necks has enabled giraffes to feed on leaves that others can’t reach, giving them a competitive advantage.

[8] Thanks to a better food source, those with longer necks were able to survive to reproduce and so pass on the characteristic to the succeeding generation.

[9] Those with shorter necks and access to less food would be less likely to survive to pass on their genes.

Finally, in answer to the question What is an adaptation? we read the following:

[10] An adaptation is a physical or behavioural characteristic that helps an organism to survive in its environment. 

Any critical reading of the museum’s explanation will show that natural selection, in fact, does nothing to explain the evolutionary development of any current species. For those who do not see this, we explain sentence by sentence.

[1] Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. This may be a true statement, but it says nothing about the role of natural selection for all organisms born adapted and fit for their environment. We are interested in what natural selection does as a “mechanism” of evolution for all the organisms of interest to current species. That is, what did natural selection do for any organism born into this world adapted and fit to survive?

[2] Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This is a true statement, but natural selection plays no role in this observation. That is, adapted organisms are not the ones “removed” by natural selection (i.e., short-necked giraffes). This statement is true even if natural selection did nothing. The question remains what does natural selection do for all organisms born adapted and fit for their environment.

[3] This process causes species to change and diverge over time. What “process”? The only process described is that of adapted organisms surviving to reproduce and pass on their genes. This process does not involve natural selection. This process would happen identically if natural selection did nothing.

[4] Natural selection is one of the ways to account for the millions of species that have lived on Earth. This may be true, but it’s truth is not supported by the explanation provided. All the examples of natural selection provided are examples of the death of organisms that arrived on Earth due to unfavorable hereditary descent with modification. It is the survivors that are in the ancestral line of all current species, and natural selection did nothing for them.

[5] In natural selection, genetic mutations that are beneficial to an individual’s survival are passed on through reproduction. This is the question, not the answer. This statement would be true without the first three words. Consider: if natural selection did nothing, wouldn’t those individuals with beneficial genetic mutations survive and reproduce? If not, why not? In other words, this statement describes the fate of individuals not touched by natural selection.

[6] This results in a new generation of organisms that are more likely to survive to reproduce. What is “this”? “This” is, in fact, the exact result achieved if natural selection does nothing.

[7] For example, evolving long necks has enabled giraffes to feed on leaves that others can’t reach, giving them a competitive advantage. Note that “evolving long necks” is solely the result of inherited genetic mutations. Those giraffes who descended with inherited modifications to have long necks survived because natural selection did nothing to kill them. Natural selection did nothing for the long-necked giraffes. Their evolutionary fate is unchanged and unaffected by the death of the shorter-necked giraffes. The long-necked giraffes live their lives as if natural selection does not exist; it is irrelevant to their evolutionary development.

[8] Thanks to a better food source, those with longer necks were able to survive to reproduce and so pass on the characteristic to the succeeding generation. This statement may be true, but is says nothing of anything attributable to natural selection. If natural selection did not exist, this result would be identical.

[9] Those with shorter necks and access to less food would be less likely to survive to pass on their genes. This statement may be true, and the result is due to natural selection. But this result plays no role and has no impact on the fate of the adapted, longer neck giraffes. And it those giraffes that are important to evolution. It is a continuous chain of survivors that makes up the evolutionary lineage of all created beings.

[10] An adaptation is a physical or behavioural characteristic that helps an organism to survive in its environment. This is true, but it has nothing to do with natural selection. Adaptations are due solely to genetic inheritance and nothing else.

Not surprisingly, therefore, we see that a mainstream science organization affirms The Natural Selection Paradox. This is because The Paradox is a statement of surprising reality, and any attempt to explain what natural selection does in nature will affirm it.