The claim that 'natural selection makes conscious selection' is one of the worst frauds in history

The idea that the strongsurvive by protecting themselves against
dangers in the natural environment, while the weak are overcome by
environmental conditions and dangers.
Darwinists reduce this to organs and structures.They maintain that if
mutations take place and a useful structure emerges as the result of
mutations, then that willnaturally be selected from among other,
unsuccessful structures, and that as a result of that selection
process the correct structures and organs will come into being.
They reject the idea of chance when it comes tothis subject. They say,
"Mutations come about by chance, but natural selection determines
theuseful outcome." They try to give the impression that a logical
thing is going on through the idea of the selection of the most useful
alternative from many possibilities.
Points that refute this claim:
It is impossible for any mutation to take place that benefits a living
thing or improves its physical structure. Mutations are 99%
deleterious and 1% haveno effect at all. No usefulmutation HAS EVER
BEEN OBSERVED. It is therefore impossible for "natural selection to
select on thebasis of useful mutations."
Natural selection is not a conscious mechanism. It has no
consciousness with which to select the best from the mutations that
arise.
Even if the most useful structure is selected by way of natural
selection,this state of affairs will still bestow no new structure on
a life form. Fast-running zebras survive while the weak are hunted
down, but this will never turn zebras into tigers.
It is impossible for natural selection to act according to a
pre-determined plan. That would be to claim that natural selection is
conscious. It is a grave error of logic to maintain that random,
unconscious events are actually conscious. But inorder to escape the
embarrassing effect of their claims of chance, Darwinists try to give
theimpression and deceive people into thinking that natural selection
is conscious.
Darwinists claim that natural selection must plan an organ such as the
eye before any such thing exists, know all its properties beforehand
and bring about all the requisite stages according to a plan WHILE
NEVER MAKING ANYERROR. It must act according to a specific plan,
making no errors, until an eye emerges. It must produce a succession
of perfect structures, create a brainthat sees the image and a
consciousness to interpret what it sees. And it must do all these
things simultaneously. It is of course impossible for unconscious
atoms todo this. But that is still what Darwinists insist onclaiming.
Darwinist confessions regarding natural selection
Charles Darwin:
The difficulties and objections may be classed under the following
heads: ... Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for
instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by
the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and
structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the
one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a
giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an
organ so wonderful as the eye? (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species,
Chapter VI, "Difficulties of the Theory.")
J. Hawkes:
I have difficulty in believing that the dazzling beauty in birds,
fish, flowers, etc., came about by natural selection. Beyond that, he
asks the question whether human consciousness can be theproduct of
such a mechanism. In his article, finally, he concludes that the human
mind that produced the blessings of civilization, and the creative
imagination that immortalized those such as Socrates, Leonardo da
Vinci, Shakespeare, Newton and Einstein cannot be the gift of the law
of the jungle called the "struggle for survival" tous. (J. Hawkes,
"Nine Tentalizing Mysteries of Nature," New York Times, no.33, 1957)
Dr. Colin Patterson:
No one has ever produced a [new] species by mechanisms of natural
selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current
argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (Colin Patterson,
"Cladistics," BBC, Interview with Brian, Peter Franz, 4 March 1982.)
In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe thatDarwin
has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random
mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random
mutations have turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a
tautology. (Arthur Koestler, Janus : A Summing Up, Vintage Books,
1978, p.185)
Pierre Paul Grassé:
The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is
simplythe observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of
genotypes, geographicaldistributions. Often the species concerned have
remained practically unchanged for hundredsof centuries! Fluctuation
as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of thegenome,
does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many
panchronic species. (Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution On Living
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Information, Academic Press,
January, 1978)