Nineteenth-century English poet Alfred Tennyson famously described nature as "red in tooth and claw."¹ But were claws and teeth originally intended to draw blood, or were they used to eat vegetation?

How much time would evolution need in order to make a mouse the size of an elephant?

Since this kind of evolution supposedly occurs too slowly for biologists to observe, one place to look for answers is in the fossil record. But in order to answer this particular research question, a team of evolutionary biologists made some large assumptions.

Observing animals on the Galapagos Islands supposedly helped Charles Darwin come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection. But none of these animals have fulfilled the evolutionary interpretation Darwinists have placed on them, and recent evidence of a supposedly extinct Galapagos tortoise fills the same bill.

Evolution maintains that as more time passes, living things evolve to acquire better and more useful traits. As such, shouldn't the loss of a useful trait, such as eyesight, be regarded as the opposite of evolution? Not so, say recent news reports on blind fish.

Editor’s note: several important questions have been received by ICR’s editorial staff in response to our series in Acts & Facts addressing natural selection.¹ This article answers those questions.