In Part I, I discussed how evolutionists change the definition of evolution to indoctrinate their audience. It’s indoctrination because they change the definition without informing their viewers and without defining their terms, so the meaning is blurred. This misleads people into thinking it’s all the same.

When it’s convenient, evolution takes millions of years. And when it’s convenient, evolution happens rapidly, from one generation to the next. In fact, any kind of change is considered evolution. Therefore, evolution over millions of years must be true, right? Well, that’s what evolutionists want us to think, but not so fast. If we analyze the details, evolution becomes an untenable concept, and that’s what I’ll present in this article from IFL Science.

To see how the definition changes, consider the headline: “Want modern proof of evolution? Look at the elephants of Mozambique.” Then the article begins, “Evolution is often portrayed as an achingly long process, taking generations upon generations of small changes accumulating over a timeline too long to appreciate in a single, puny human lifetime.”

What is being described here is evolution as defined by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” They’re talking about origins… a theoretical idea or belief system in which these elephants from Mozambique are related to ancient microbes, bacteria, sponges, fish, amphibians, etc. And if you want proof that this is true, then they suggest that poaching over a 15-year period reduced the number of tuskless female elephants from 18.5 percent to 50.9 percent, and this is all the evidence you need!

Notice they are now using a different definition of evolution in which evolution is simply “Descent with modification from pre-existing species” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2024). These elephants aren’t evolving into something else, nor are they evolving into a different species. Tuskless females already existed at the beginning of the study. What we see is a greater percentage of tuskless females due to selective pressure (poaching). We see modification from pre-existing elephants.

This is natural selection at work. Natural selection selects from whatever genetic information is available in the genome and passes it along to the offspring, and those that survive are fortunate enough to pass their genes on to the next generation. And if the females with tusks are eliminated from the population before they can reproduce, then there will be fewer of them remaining. Thus, obviously, there will be more tuskless females over the course of time. This has nothing to do with elephants being related to anything other than elephants. This has nothing to do with fish breathing oxygen through gills and turning into land animals that breathe air through lungs- or if such a process is even possible. There are no new forms appearing in this elephant species, no new morphological traits or body plans, and no new physiological characteristics. So where’s this proof of evolution they promised?

Evolutionists, as we can see, like to start with a broad, vague definition of evolution, ignore the specifics, hope no one notices when they use slight-of-hand, then drive home their conclusion with something tangible. In this case it’s something observable they point to, and this observable evidence is intended to mask the unobservable process of evolution, which supposedly takes millions of years.

Interestingly, they do credit natural selection, but the implication is that it’s the same thing as evolution. In Part I, I explained how they cannot be the same thing. One is a mechanism of the other, so there is a real, tangible distinction.

So don’t be fooled when evolutionists claim they have proof of evolution. Their proof amounts to a fallacious argument, and if we understand it, then we can pick it apart and expose it for what it is… a modern mythology.

Evolution can and should be rejected. We can recognize that female tuskless elephants are increasing while rejecting the notion that elephants are related to fish. We don’t have to believe both.

I’ll close this two-part series by spelling out some of the various fallacies and misleading arguments used by the author in this article.

1: Hasty generalization- The article suggests that the phenomenon of tuskless elephants in Mozambique conclusively proves evolution in a broad, universal sense. While this example demonstrates natural selection in action, it does not, by itself, encompass the entire concept of evolution, which involves processes occurring over much longer timescales and through various mechanisms.

2: Appeal to novelty- The phrase “modern proof of evolution” might imply that older, well-established examples of evolution are less valid or relevant, which is not true.

4: Post hoc ergo propter hoc- The statement might be interpreted as suggesting that ivory poaching directly caused evolution. While poaching created selective pressure that favored tuskless elephants, it did not “cause” evolution itself but rather accelerated a preexisting genetic trend.

I certainly find it fascinating to study how animals change over time, but change doesn’t imply evolution in the broad sense. Such implications are assumed by evolutionists, but are not substantiated by the evidence, and this article is a wonderful example of how natural selection is not evidence for evolution.

I believe God created animals to reproduce after their kind, and this is what we observe. Elephants are reproducing elephants. Exactly what we’d expect if the Bible is true.