Let’s listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical
creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific
news headlines:
E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse
evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in
beach mice?
E: Yes, isn’t it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in
action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.
E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don’t
you think that’s a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?
C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms “evolution” and
“natural selection.”
E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives
evolution.
C: Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution;
you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can
supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution
requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with
information that already exists.
Natural selection is an observable
process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different, though some
mistakenly interchange the two. So let’s take a closer look. There are two
major questions to answer:
1. How do biblical
creationists rightly view the observable phenomenon of natural selection?
2. Could this process
cause the increase in genetic information necessary for molecules-to-man
evolution?
What Is Natural
Selection?
Below are some definitions evolutionists use to define “natural
selection.” The problem biblical creationists have with these definitions lies
mostly in their misapplication, as noted by the bolded phrases.
Evolutionary change based on the
differential reproductive success of individuals within a species.1
The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each
successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species become better
adapted to their environment. Also known as “survival of the fittest,” natural
selection is the driving force behind the process of evolution.2
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s
theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment
tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to
succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated (also
see evolution).3
From a creationist perspective natural selection is a process
whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective of their
genetic makeup) survive better than others in a given environment or under a
given selective pressure (i.e., antibiotic resistance in bacteria). Those with
certain characteristics live, and those without them diminish in number or die.
The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is
nondirectional—should the environment change or the selective pressure be
removed, those organisms with previously selected for characteristics are
typically less able to deal with the changes and may be selected against
because their genetic information has decreased—more on
this later. Evolution of the molecules-to-man variety, requires directional
change. Thus, the term “evolution” cannot be rightly used in the context of
describing what natural selection can accomplish.
What Is Evolution?
This term has many definitions just as “natural selection” does.
Much of the term’s definition depends on the context in which the word
“evolution” is used. Below are some recent notable definitions of evolution
(note the bold phrases).
Unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an
inherently, or at leastdirectional manner.4
The theory that all life forms are descended from one
or several common ancestorsthat were present on early earth, three
to four billion years ago.5
The “Big Idea” [referring to evolution] is that living things
(species) are related to one another through common ancestry from
earlier forms that differed from them. Darwin called this “descent with
modification,” and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use, especially
with members of the general public and with young learners.6
All of these definitions give the same basic idea that evolution
is directional in producing all the life-forms on earth today
from one or several ancestral life-forms billions of years ago. The last
definition is especially intriguing because it indicates that an ambiguous
definition of evolution should be used with the public and with children. Most
creationists would agree partially with the idea of “descent with modification”
in that species we have today look different from the original kinds that God created (i.e.,
the great variety of dogs we have now compared to the original created dog
kind). The advantage with using such a broad definition for evolution is that
it can include any and all supporting models of evolution (such as traditional Darwinism,
neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) and can spark the least amount of
controversy in the public eye.
Historical Background
on the Discovery of Natural Selection
Many people give credit to Charles Darwin for formulating the theory
of natural selection as described in his book On the Origin of Species.
Few realize that Darwin only popularized the idea and actually borrowed it from
several other people, especially a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth.
Blyth published several articles describing the process of natural selection inMagazine
of Natural History between 1835 and 1837—a full 22 years before Darwin
published his book. It is also known that Darwin had copies of these magazines
and that parts of On The Origin of Species are nearly verbatim
from Blyth’s articles.7
Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions.
Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind
forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds, that all modern
species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by
conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate
creation from animals. This is especially important since humans are made in
the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals (Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural
selection as a mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His
creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is very different
from Darwin’s view. Darwin wrote, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write
on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.”8
Is Natural Selection
Biblical?
It is important to see natural selection as a mechanism that God
used to allow organisms to deal with their changing environments in a
sin-cursed world—especially after the Flood. God foreknew that the Fall and the
Flood were going to happen, and so He designed organisms with a great amount of
genetic diversity that could be selected for or against, resulting in certain
characteristics depending on the circumstances. Whether this information was
initially part of the original design during Creation Week before the Fall or
was added, in part, at the Fall (as a part of the punishment of man and the
world by God),9 we
can’t be certain. Regardless, the great variety of information in the original
created kinds can only be attributed to an intelligence—God.
In addition, natural selection works to preserve the genetic
viability of the original created kinds by removing from the population those
with severely deleterious/lethal characteristics. Natural selection, acting on
genetic information, is the primary mechanism that explains how organisms could
have survived after the Fall and Flood when the world changed drastically from
God’s original creation.
Let me take a moment to clarify an important theological point so
there is no confusion. Deathentered the world as the result of sin.
Death, therefore, is in the world as a punishment for man’s disobedience to God,
and it should remind us that the world is sin-cursed and needs a Savior. Death
is not a good thing but is called an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).
But recall that God, in His infinite wisdom, can make good come
out of anything, and death is no exception. God is able to make good come out
of even death itself. Natural selection, though fueled by death, helps the
population by getting rid of genetic defects, etc. In the same way, without
death Christ wouldn’t have conquered it and
been glorified in His Resurrection.
So what can natural selection accomplish and not accomplish? The
table on the next page displays some of the main points.
|
Natural Selection Can
|
Natural Selection Cannot
|
|
1. Decrease genetic information.
|
1. Increase or provide new genetic information.
|
|
2. Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment.
|
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
|
|
3. Act as a “selector.”
|
3. Act as an “originator.”
|
|
4. Support creation’s “orchard” of life.
|
4. Support evolutionary “tree” of life.
|
The evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species
are descended from one common ancestor (which itself evolved from nonliving
chemicals).
The creationist orchard,10 which
shows that diversity has occurred within the original Genesis kinds over time.11
Natural Selection and
Dogs
Let’s illustrate the possibilities and limitations of natural
selection using the example of varying fur length of dogs (designed variation).
There are many different dog species—some with long fur and some
with short fur. The original dog kind, most likely resembling today’s wolf, had
several variants of the gene for fur length. L will be the variant of the gene
representing long fur, and S will be the variant of the gene representing short
fur.
The original dog kind most likely would have been a mixture of the
genes specifying fur length, including both L and S. Because of this makeup,
they also most likely had the characteristic of medium fur length. When the
original kind (LS dogs) mated, their genetic variability could be seen in their
offspring in three ways—LL for long fur, LS for medium fur, and SS for short
fur.
If two long-fur dogs then mated, the only possible outcome for the
offspring is LL, long fur. As can be seen in the example below, the long-fur
dogs have lost the S gene variant and are thus not capable of producing dogs
with short fur or medium fur. This loss may be an advantage if these long-fur
dogs live in an area with cold temperatures. The long-fur dogs would then be
naturally selected for, as they would survive better in the given environment.
Eventually, the majority of this area’s dog population would have long fur.
However, the loss of the S variant could be a disadvantage to the
long-fur dogs if the climate became warmer or if the dogs moved to a warmer
climate. Because of their decreased genetic variety (no S gene), they would be
unable to produce dogs with short fur, which would be needed to survive better
in a warm environment. In this situation, the long-fur dogs would be naturally
selected against and die.
When the two dogs representing the dog kind came off Noah’s Ark and began spreading across the
globe, we can see how the variation favored some animals and not others.
Using the points from the table for what natural selection can
accomplish (seen above), it can be seen that:
1. Through natural
selection, genetic information (variety) was lost.
2. The long-fur dogs
survive better in a cold environment; they are less able to survive in a warm
environment and vice versa.
3. A particular
characteristic in the dog population was selected for.
4. Dogs are still dogs
since the variation is within the boundaries of “kind.”
Natural selection of designed variation within the dog kind is not
an example of evolution because it does not lead to the formation of a
different kind of animal such as a horse, bear, or human. Instead, it is
evidence of God’s grace in supplying for His creation in the altered
environments of a post-Fall, post-Flood world.
Natural Selection and
Bacteria
Another example of natural selection is that of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. Such natural selection is commonly portrayed as
evolution in action, but in this case, natural selection works in conjunction
with mutation rather than designed variation.
Antibiotics are natural products produced by fungi and bacteria,
and the antibiotics we use today are typically derivatives of those. Because of
this relationship, it is not surprising that some bacteria would have
resistance to certain antibiotics; they must do so to be competitive in their
environment. In fact, if you took a sample of soil from outside your home, you
would find antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
A bacterium can gain resistance through two primary ways:
1. By losing genetic
information, and
2. By using a design
feature built in to swap DNA—a bacterium gains resistance from another
bacterium that has resistance.
Let’s take a look at the first. Antibiotics usually bind a protein
in the bacterium and prevent it from functioning properly, killing the
bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have a mutation in the DNA which codes
for that protein. The antibiotic then cannot bind to the protein produced from
the mutated DNA, and thus, the bacteria live. Although the bacteria can survive
well in an environment with antibiotics, it has come at a cost. If the
antibiotic-resistant bacteria are grown with the nonmutant bacteria in an
environment without antibiotics, the nonmutant bacteria will live and the
mutant bacteria will die. This is because the mutant bacteria produce a mutant
protein that does not allow them to compete with other bacteria for necessary
nutrients. The “supergerms” are really “superwimps.”12
Let’s clarify this some by looking at the bacteria Helicobacter
pylori. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylorihave a mutation that
results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally
converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the
antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can
live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones
that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring.
Now let’s take a look at the second method. A bacterium can get
antibiotic resistance by gaining the aforementioned mutated DNA from another
bacterium. Unlike you and me, bacteria can swap DNA. It is important to note
that this is still not considered a gain of genetic information since the
information already exists and that while the mutated DNA may be new to a
particular bacterium, it is not new overall.
Using the points from the table for what natural selection can
accomplish, it can be seen that:
1. Through mutation,
genetic information was lost.
2. The antibiotic
resistant bacteria only survive well in an environment with
antibiotics; they are less able to survive in the wild. (It is important to
keep in mind that the gain of antibiotic resistance is not an example of a
beneficial mutation but rather a beneficial outcome of a mutation in a given
environment. These types of mutations are rare in other organisms as offspring
are more limited in number; therefore, there is a greater need to preserve
genetic integrity.)
3. A particular mutation
in a bacterial population was selected for.
4. H. pylori is still H.
pylori. No evolution has taken place to change it into something else—it’s
still the same bacteria with some variation.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, rather than being an example of
evolution in action, is another example of natural selection seen properly from
a biblical/creationist perspective.
Speciation—A Possible
Outcome of Natural Selection
A species can be defined as a population of organisms produced by
a parent population that has changed so significantly that it can no longer
interbreed with the parent population. Using the example of dogs, it is
possible that long-fur dogs might change sufficiently (other changes besides
fur might also be selected for living in cold environments) to the point that
they can no longer mate with short-fur or mediumfur dogs.
Although evolutionists claim that speciation takes long periods of
time (millions of years), they are often amazed at how fast species can be
observed to form today. Speciation has been observed to occur in as little as a
few years as seen in guppies, lizards, fruit flies, mosquitoes, finches, and
mice.13 This
observation does not come as a surprise to creationists as all species alive in
the past and today would have had to be produced in fewer than 6,000 years from
the original created kinds. In fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic
factors) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation
within each kind. Such effects are largely responsible for generating the
tremendous diversity seen in the living world.14
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a
different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat. Speciation works only within
a kind. Evolution requires natural selection and speciation to give rise to new
kinds from a former kind (e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation,
however, leads to a loss of information, not the gain of information
required by evolution. Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural
selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution.
Conclusion
When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for
evolution, it is important to define terms. Evolutionists and biblical
creationists view these terms differently, but it comes down to how we
interpret the evidence in light of our foundation. Do we view natural selection
using God’s Word as our foundation, or do we use man’s truth as our foundation?
The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically
and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows
organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable
reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within
the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.
Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation
within the created kind—a horizontal change. For a molecules-to-man
evolutionary model, there must be a change from one kind into another—a
vertical change. This is simply not observed. We have never seen a bacterium
like H. pylori give rise to something like a dog. Instead, we
simply observe variations within each created kind.
Evolution requires an increase in information that results in a
directional movement from molecules to man. Natural selection cannot be a
mechanism for evolution because it results in a decrease in information and is
not directional. Speciation may occur as a result of natural selection, but it
only occurs within a kind. Therefore, it is also not a mechanism for evolution
but rather supports the biblical model.
Natural selection cannot be the driving force for molecules-to-man
evolution when it does not have that power, nor should it be confused with
molecules-to-man evolution. It is an observable phenomenon that preserves
genetic viability and allows limited variation within a kind—nothing more,
nothing less. It is a great confirmation of the Bible’s history.
Help keep
these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
Footnotes
1. Michael A.Park, Introducing
Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 2nd Ed., glossary,highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html,
2002. Back
2. National Geographic’s
strange days on planet earth, glossary,www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/N.html. Back
3. Dinosaurs—glossary of
terms,www.internal.schools.net.au/edu/lesson_ideas/dinosaurs/glossary.html. Back
4. S.J. Gould, What does
the dreaded “E” word mean, anyway? Natural History 109(1):
28–44, 2000. Back
6. Eugenie C. Scott,
Creation or evolution?
www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp. Back
8. Letter from Charles
Darwin to Joseph Hooker, Darwin Archives, Cambridge University, July 13, 1856. Back
11. Creationists often
refer to each kind as a baramin, from Hebrew bara =
create and min = kind. Back
No comments:
Post a Comment