Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?

AiG ^ | February 9, 2009 | Georgia Purdom

[GodGunsGuts]

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:

[muawiyah]

Inasmuch as Polar Bears are just a variety of Grizzly Bear, why should we surprised at this?

At the same time Pandas are also bears, and no matter how many times you try to breed them with a Grizzly, all that's going to happen is the Grizzly is going to pick up an STD, and maybe dinner!

[Tublecane]

Natural selection is an actual scientific theory. Evolution, on the other hand, is impossible to test. Most of the time the latter sounds a whole lot more like one of the soft sciences, like sociology or anthropology. You know, broad generalizations that may or may not be true.

This may be overstating the case, but if natural selection is the Special Theory of Relativity, at times evolution is the guy you know who says, “It’s all relative, man,” a lot.

[CottShop]

[[I would say that this is (to a large extent) the stand of ID’ers and Creationists. “We don’t know” but some of us believe the Bible has the answers.]]

I wouldn’t say that- ID science knows a great deal about how the things were created, they also know a great deal about whether or not nature is capable of creating systems as complicated as metainformaiton and other IC components of life- We can learn and know a great deal about the how, enough so that when taken together, all the evidneces point conclusively to the need for an intelligence behind hte ID and IC that we find. When enough evidence points both to the impossibility of nature doing the thing, and to the need for an intelligence, it htne becoems unreasonable to keep acceptign that nature could have caused the IC that we are findign and udnerstanding.

[Tublecane]

“By that reasoning adding new words to a language is also just selecting from existing information provided the same alphabet is used.”

I don’t think that’s true. Much of the time, yes, new words are just new letters for old ideas. But there are these things we call neologisms, which are supposed to be new words for new ideas. Not that I think everything people label neologisms are really new (there’s nothing new under the sun). But it stands to reason.

[ElectricStrawberry]

So, if you take the white footed mouse that lives among the beach grass in the sandy dunes on Cape Cod......the white footed mouse has a brown coat.

One of ‘em has a single random mutation in the DNA sequence of one of the genes that controls coat color.....and this mutation alters the gene such that it is expressed as a blond/albino mouse.......or even just a lighter color. This isn’t something “that was there to begin with”, this is a random mutation in one base pair that happens to get expressed in the phenome.

That mouse, through natural selection...the owls and other predators hiding in the pitch pines aqnd scrub oak couldn’t see ‘em as well, has a higher genetic fitness and say 100 generations down the line, both the phenome and genome of that particular mouse species in that particular hectare of studied beach has changed compared to their woodland cousins half a mile away............not because of something that was “already there”.....because of a mutation in one base pair of a gene that is expressed and passed on to the next generation.....that happened to benefit the genetic fitness of the individual (due to natural selection).....and creating a new focal subspecies.

That’s not “natural selection”......that’s “evolution” (a change in the inherited trais of a population) that includes “natural selection” as a mechanism to increase genetic fitness and incorporate a mutated gene into the population.

....but that isn’t possible, eh?

[CottShop]

[[Seems to me that evolution is impossible to prove and so is creation.]]

Creation isn’t impossible to prove- Again, when there is enough evidence that shows that it is impossible for nature to create the ID and IC that we see- then htere is only one other possibility- Causation by an intelligence- To state that it is impossible to prove creation is to say that it is impossible to solve mysteries where an intelligence is behind hte clues and causation. Forensic scientists prove intelligent causation all the time without ever id’ing the designers of hte causations.

[CottShop]

speciated bears- big difference- Pandas have a loss of info that prevents breeding with other bears- speciation is still microevolution, nothign more- they are still bears. Now, if they sprouted wings and scales, and sonar, then you’d be talking something- but they don’t- they remain bears that have lost info- not gained info- non species specific info- whgich would be absolutely essential for macroeovlution to happen

[CottShop]

[[One of ‘em has a single random mutation in the DNA sequence of one of the genes that controls coat color.....and this mutation alters the gene such that it is expressed as a blond/albino mouse.......or even just a lighter color. This isn’t something “that was there to begin with”, this is a random mutation in one base pair that happens to get expressed in the phenome.]]

Yes it was- here’s the catch- the info in the metainfo was always there to begin with to allow species psecific changes, and to deal with changes to the genome in a very species specific manner. species specific metainfo allows and deals with changes within species specific parameters- We know htis htrough 100’s of years of genetic experiments, breeding programs, and etc- species have very specific paramters which are controlled by their own unique species specific metainformaiton which is forward looking inthat it anticipates change within hte parameters-

.

[From many - one.]

Pandas aren’t bears.

[count-your-change]

Natural selection definition from Answers.Com:

“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 characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.”

Then the traits (hunting methods, diet, social structure, physical characteristics) of an animal like the African
lion are the result of natural selection for the environment it lives in.

These traits must be superior to any that have been “weeded out” so to say because these traits are present and others are not. Fitness for survival is proved by survival, (ahem)

But then what can we say of the cheetah that that survives along side the African lion?

They hunt the same game, in the same environment while having very different traits. For example:

The cheetah, being very fast, outruns it's prey.
The lion relies more on the quick charge to catch prey.

The cheetah tends to live alone when adult unless the female has cubs.
The lion tends to live in groups.

The cheetah is slim and long-legged.
The lion is shorter-legged and heavier.

The cheetah is quite at home in a tree.
The lion will climb trees only occasionally.

So which one has natural selection preserved as best adapted for their environment?

[SeeSharp]

What gets really interesting is if a whole new alphabet and a whole new language suddenly appears. That would be the equivalent of speciation.

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at. In genetics there are only four "letters" in the alphabet and the alphabet never changes. Both variation within a species and variation between species are nothing more than variations in the pattern of those four letters.

[jimmyray]

Pandas aren’t bears.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ailuropoda
Species: A. melanoleuca

They are in the "Bear" family

[muawiyah]

Of course Pandas are bears. DNA tests prove it to be so. It's the Red Panda that is not a bear ~ that particular creature is a Raccoon.

Raccoons, bears, wolves (including dogs), all other canines, and cats, are CARNIVORES ~ and are related one way or the other.

[muawiyah]

Unfortunately, so far, we have not yet identified a single gene that causes/results in speciation.

Just looking at some stuff the other day on insertion of mammalian nucliae into other mammalian eggs, depending on the species of the egg (e.g. from a mouse, from a human, from a cow) different genes are turned on at different stages in the nucleus, and that can make all the difference in development past a certain number of cells.

The researchers found you can't just take a human nucleus and stick it in a mouse egg. Doesn't work.

They reported that thousands of other things don't work either.

I suspect they are on the track of where the information rests that differentiates species, and that it's not in the nucleus, or in the various vacuoles and inclusions inside the cell membrane, but in the centriole which connects the nucleus to the cell membrane, or maybe even in the cell membrane.

That's probably where some pretty powerful biological data processors are maintained as well.

[CottShop]

[[Pandas aren’t bears.]]

according to Nat Geo they are- didn’t you watch their ‘bear evolution’ show last night? Their scientifically innept show? Accordign to htem, they all evolved from one species- a tree dweller more like an opposum thana bear- The san diego zoo also thinks they are bears http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html

There is however some doubt- as you know, genetics, while somethign might be ‘similar’ there are still billions of differences for which nature can not account for

[ElectricStrawberry]

That's not the manner in which the lame article meant "that was already there"......they meant that in the manner of the color gene was already there and just not being expressed in large numbers. Yes, there are species specific issues concerning genetics and population biology and exactly which random mutations will or can be incorporated into the species' genome, but that in no way has anything to do with altering a specific gene through a specific mutation to produce a specific change in expression in a viable offspring.....a change that was not previously a part of the genome. Most often than not, a DNA base pair mutation has either no affect on gene expression or creates a non-viable offspring which is removed from the gene pool....as a built in defense mechanism.

No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.

That was the claim and that information most certainly did not "already exist" in any manner other than "yes, the DNA sequence and genes already existed, yes the enzymes already existed and yes the base pairs already existed for the enzyme to screw up in replication and toss in the wrong base-pair"...but it was not in the "information" to begin with ...it wasn't part of the DNA sequence or the genome/phenome in any manner...it's a new gene altered from an already existing gene and a new DNA sequence because of a single base-pair mutation that happened to alter the genome without altering viability but altering genetic fitness.......and I don't get how anyone could say that "it was already there" when it very simply was not "there."

Ironically, I don't know genetics off the top of my head as much as I used to 10 years ago, but in my many years of schooling (including genetics and population genetics) and working in a biological field (protein chemistry)...I've never not once heard the term "metainfo" concerning genetics, evolution, DNA, Chromosomes...and neither has the intern sitting next to me that just took genetics at Northeastern last semester.....and upon looking up this foreign word........I get "creationontheweb.com" as the #1 hit concerning genetics/evolution and don't see anything else other than IT stuff (that call it metadata) and am not wasting any more time looking into that word as it makes me smell a creationist creation......just like ID is a creationist creation to seem non-creationist.....but be creationist.

[CottShop]

[[ut that in no way has anything to do with altering a specific gene through a specific mutation to produce a specific change in expression in a viable offspring.....a change that was not previously a part of the genome.]]

You just described a trait change- which falls fully within species specific parameters and is not infact an addition of new non species specific addition of information which is required for macroevolution.

[[Most often than not, a DNA base pair mutation has either no affect on gene expression or creates a non-viable offspring which is removed from the gene pool....as a built in defense mechanism.]]

Precisely- these are hte parameters - the species specific paramters of hwich I speak- You are not adding any info- you are simply changing info already present, but which again, fall within the paremeters of species specific microevolution- losing info isn’t akin to gaining non species specific info an essential requirement for macroevolution

[[it’s a new gene]]

No it isn’t a ‘new’ gene- it’s an altered gene- the info was altered- not created from nothing.

[[and I don’t get how anyone could say that “it was already there” when it very simply was not “there.”]]

It WAS there- it simply got altered- and that alteration again, falls squarely within species specific informaiton and allowances. This is what limits how far info can be changed, and which prevents species from moving beyond hteir own kind- the only way to do that would be to introduce non species psecific info that introduce info beyond the paramters for the species.

[[I get “creationontheweb.com” as the #1 hit concerning genetics/evolution and don’t see anything else other than IT stuff (that call it metadata) and am not wasting any more time looking into that word]]

That’s the article you shoudl read- whether you like the implicaitons or not, you opinion should NOT bias you agaisnt the informaiton included in that article for if it does, then you display not objective inquirey, but subjective bias. Metainformaiton can not arise naturally- there are two huge discussion here on FR under the title ‘The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE’ here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2172630/posts

and “Life’s irreducible structure” here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts

[[it wasn’t part of the DNA sequence or the genome/phenome in any manner]]

Again, yes it was- it simply got changed- if you have a bike, and hte manufacturer manufactures straight peddles for awhile, but later the machinery has a mistake happen, which results in the production of bent peddles, these are still peddles- al lthe info present, but a slight change causes the produciton to come out with bent peddles. The mistake hansn’t introduced info not specific to that ‘species’ it simply gets changed, and you certainly can’t claim the machinery underwent a change that results in the production of anythign other than peddles ie: macroevolution- this is simply a case of ‘microevolution’ inthat info already present gets changed-

Not hte best analogy- I’ll work on better one tonight- but we’re certainly not seeing any macroevolution goign on when traits get changed and still fall squarely within species specific paramters- By hte way- the metainfo is forward looking and antyicipates change, and adjusts on the fly- not just adjusting that which is changed, but EVERY system and subsystem that gets affected by the change- again, all anticpiated by hte metainfo that HAS to be present first-

You really should read those articles and discussions I linked to- VERY itneresting if you can read it objectively without simply dismissing everythign right fro mthe start

[From many - one.]

“Bear” is a genus: Ursus.

Panda is a different genus.

[From many - one.]

see post 38

[Oztrich Boy]

If tigers aren’t cats, what are they?