Ants disprove evolution in many ways, but the most powerful evidence against "natural" evolution is the very fact that ants do not dominate the earth today. Survival of the fittest gets thrown out the window because ants out number mankind by the millions per person, yet have not taken this 'advantage' in any of their environments. Why? Had evolution been attributed to survival of the fittest, ants would eat more than just larger insects, occasional reptiles or small mammals, they'd dominate and control the world. They'd regulate the food chain in every facet of lifeform as they do with leaves, insects and larger creatures.
But something keeps their role limited, their food choice under control. They work in commonality with the balance of nature, instead of for the betterment of the species. However, it is quite interesting that their work in the balance of nature does work for the betterment of their species, yet how could they have known it?
We not only see stasis in ants over 200 million years (Evolution Standard Time), but we see how they are confined to a limited role in the balance of nature. This is just one kind of creature with numerous diverse species or types, but it is one which has, in the longterm natural evolution scenario, defied what natural evolutionists or Darwinists would've expected. In fact, had Darwinism been correct, I highly doubt Darwin would've lived to write "Origins of Species" or "The Descent of Man" or that I'd be typing this post right now.
Because had natural evolution been true, this would indeed be the "Kingdom of the Ants".
This page was last updated February 9, 2007.