Natural selection, coupled with chance mutations, does not create the necessary information.

Evolutionism is based upon the extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution. This extrapolation, however, is not justified. Why? Because mere change or variation in an organism is not enough. For macro to occur there must be the creation of new, complex organs. In other words, there must be the creation of new genetic information analogous to the creation of multi-volume encyclopedias. Variations within kinds (microevolution) involve only existing information. For macroevolution to be valid, it must be shown that it is capable of producing massive amounts of new information. Information is a message that conveys meaning, and a living cell has a tremendous amount of it. Where does it come from?

Macroevolution, remember, is about massive changes over eons of time resulting in the formation of new and complex organs, body plans, and life-forms. This involves new organs, new genes, and new types of plants and animals, all the way up to humans. What we need to see proof of is not variation in kinds or even reproductive isolation (speciation). What we must see is the evidence that natural selection and chance have actually created new information. This has not been observed anywhere. But this is what the concept of macroevolution is based upon. Where is the scientific evidence for it? Can scientists actually prove that mutations or any other natural processes are capable of providing vast quantities of new genetic information that would result in all the various phyla? They haven’t done it, but they continue to tell the story anyway.

There is not one, specific example that can be given of an evolutionary process that is known to create mass amounts of new information. Again, when evolutionists cite their "examples" of evolution, they always cite examples of microevolution. That is what can be observed. But ask for an example of macroevolution, and you’ll get a speculative story based upon philosophical and methodological naturalism. Plus, you might get vilified as a religious nut who doesn’t believe in science or reason.

The problem is that showing cyclical variation does not demonstrate how you get specific kinds of plants and animals to begin with. Examples of observed evolution are always micro, but microevolution works on the premise that the organisms are already present with their gene pool. What macroevolution requires is proof that new organisms are actually created, and that this new genetic information is created by natural selection and chance mutation. And this is the proof that it is missing.

Natural selection "selects," but this process cannot create new information. Mutations are random, and seldom "good," but even these do not add the necessary information into the existing gene pool. Therefore, macroevolution is pure speculation without any real empirical basis. Evolutionists must rely only on micro and then extrapolate from that their macro theory without distinguishing the two. This information problem is a serious one for evolutionists. Macroevolution does not adequately explain how new organisms and body plans are created. For instance, where does the complex cell come from in the first place? Macroevolution cannot explain it.

Should one object, we ask this question: can you cite one, specific example of an evolutionary process that is known to create mass amounts of new genetic information? Citing an example of microevolution won’t do it. We need proof that new genetic information is created by the natural selection and chance mutation process.

To this point, it has only been assumed, not scientifically verified. Yet this seems so fundamental. Why aren’t evolutionists asking this question of themselves?