Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?

AiG ^ | February 9, 2009 | Georgia Purdom

[tickmeister]

The only evidence for intelligent creation is circumstantial, powerful though it is. There is no direct evidence for the existance of that intelligence other than that the universe seems to be here. Even if it was created by intelligence, it may not have been a god. Might have been a very smart guy from Alpha Centauri or somewhere.

[cookcounty]

No, Evolution equires the widespread introduction of new genes, in high frequency. Most frequently cited "examples of evolution" have to do with the loss of genetic information.

Birds losing teeth, cave-fish losing vision, horses developing a single toe, are not examples of evolution.

No new genetic information is necessary for these changes, indeed they pretty much require a loss of genetic information.

[GodGunsGuts]

Which is actually what the bible/creation science predicts—devolution!

[CottShop]

could have been but not likely

[CottShop]

I’ve seen hte dude from centurion and he’s dumber than a box of rocks- couldn’t fight his way out of wet paper bag either

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What about the evolution of amoebas? Isn't that a great in-your-face indisputable example of evolution right before your eyes? The best evolution scientists of the time said so:

The doctrine of organic evolution is the doctrine that animals and plants are slowly transforming, producing new kinds; that they have done this in the past and are continuing to do it now. It does not deal with something transcendental, something metaphysical; it deals with processes as real as the running of a stream or the growth of a tree. Organic evolution, then, is a physiological process, like the digestion of food; it is something that is occurring at all times, including the present. The doctrine of organic evolution means simply that if you lived long enough you would see organisms begin as simple creatures, change shape and structure as a growing plant does, become diverse, transform repeatedly, until from one or a few types many would be produced. You would get dissolving views of amoeba transforming to creatures having more definite structures and greater complexity; of Hipparion becoming a horse; of an ape-like creature becoming a man.

In a human lifetime or in many human lifetimes we could not expect these changes to be great. Geological time is enormously long and evolution is prodigiously slow. The doctrine of evolution would therefore not lead us to expect to see widely diverse creatures produced. The popular demand that we should see a cat, or the offspring of a cat, transformed into a dog, or an amoeba into a vertebrate, is not in accord with the doctrine of evolution. We cannot expect in a lifetime to see new "species" produced. All that the doctrine of evolution leads us to expect is that there should appear slight hereditary changes, so that from a single race there are produced a number of hereditarily diverse races, differing slightly.

Do we find this? Studies of this sort have been made of a number of organisms. What was found in such a study made by the present writer may be set forth as a type.

It is common to suggest that amoeba or some amoeba-like creature is the original stock from which animals descended; "from amoeba to man" is a common phrase. It is of interest to examine amoebas from this point of view. Are amoebas still transforming, producing other kinds of animals? Some of the amoebas are naked and formless, so that the detection of any slight hereditary changes would be almost impossible. Others have shells of definite form and structure, furnishing excellent opportunity for the detection of hereditary alterations. These shelled amoebas, though they closely resemble the naked ones, are designated by other names. One called Difflugia corona (Fig. 1) was selected for observation and breeding... A new generation is produced about every two to four days, so that in the course of a year or two many generations may be followed through thousands of descendants produced from one individual.

Do these thousands of descendants all remain hereditarily alike. Or do they gradually and slowly diverge, becoming hereditarily different, as the doctrine of evolution sets forth?

This was studied by allowing a single individual to reproduce for many generations, until it had produced thousands of offspring. In the early generations of such an experiment, hereditary changes cannot be detected. The offspring often differ from the parents in certain respects, but most of these differences appear not to be inherited. The next generation shows similar differences, but as the generations increase in number we find that certain diversities accumulate and become hereditary. In some descendants the spines become longer; in others they remain shorter. In some the bodies are larger; in others they are smaller. Different combinations of size of bodies and of length of spine appear. These differences are inherited. In time from the original single individual a number of diverse stocks have been formed.

What the doctrine of evolution asserts is therefore true for Difflugia. It does gradually transform and produce new races. If this is what evolution means, we have here seen evolution occurring.

Remember that there are two opposite doctrines. One holds that the constitution of organisms is permanent; that they were created as they are and do not change. The other, the doctrine of evolution, holds that the hereditary constitution slowly changes as generations pass; that a single race differentiates in the course of time into diverse ones; that from one stock many are produced. The critical observations that have been made on these minute living organisms through the passage of generations substantiates this theory; they do change and differentiate into diverse races as generations pass. The facts observed are what the doctrine of evolution demands, not what the opposed theory demands.

The evidence of evolution has been read in the rocks and the structures of plants and animals, but under the microscope Dr. Jennings is able to follow evolution not as a theory but as a thing that is actually taking place. --Frances Mason, editor.

--Herbert Spencer Jennings, Can We See Evolution Occurring?, Creation and Evolution, pg. 24--33, 1929.

[tickmeister]

Actually, nothing is likely. It has always seemed to me that the only reasonable situation would be if nothing at all existed. We look around and see a universe that is a million orders of magnitude more complicated than we can understand. If we throw up our hands and just say “God did it.”, we are then postulating the existance of a God who is several orders of magnitude more complicated than what we actually see as the universe.

I would be happy believing anything for which there is a shred of actual evidence. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen it yet.

[From many - one.]

You sound thoughtful, so let’s play genetics...

Remember I said speciation is not an on/off switch so:

east to west (oversimplified):across a flat continent eastern squirrels can breed with midwestern squirrels and midwestern squirrels can breed with western squirrels. But eastern squirrel can’t breed with western ones. How many species? Now kill all the midwestern ones from a major fire. How many species?

ring: same idea but forming a ring, the ends of which can’t breed (google “ring species” and check several different ones)

for dogs: line up the breeds by size: each can breed with the adjacent but not with the one 3 sizes down...the kicker here is the artificial breeding. Left to themselves they’d even out over time

Plants cause confusion by developing species complexes, often using polyploidy (instead of having chromosomes in pairs, some members of the complex will have them in threes or fours, and some can breed and some can’t.

You might also google “recent speciation” for more fun.

Oh, and Lesser Pandas are more closely related to raccoons than to bears. Different family. That, and things like the rose/pear example show why I’m a stickler for not using common names as a basis for showing relationship. Also, right now there are some arguments for putting the larger pandas into their own family. Don’t know who’s winning. If you go to the “Tree of Life Web Project” you’ll see them listed twice.

[jimmyray]

Great article to simplify spiciation is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I disagree that speciation is the same as evolution, though, espcially interns of the rise of entirely new Genus', more or less. I am a firm believer that all human kind came from 4 pair some 4500 years ago, all dogs came from a single pair and all bears came from a single pair, etc. some 4500 years ago.

I completely agree with you on the common names of animals. "Red Pandas", aka lesser panda, fire cat, firefox, etc. is apparently related to a racoon, while the Giant Panda is apparently related to a bear.

[jimmyray]

dur. Proof reading I should have learned in 7th grade!

espcially interns = especially in terms

[GodGunsGuts]

The problem is, we don’t see it in the fossil record either.

[From many - one.]

For my own purposes I always distinguish between those who accept Genesis as literal as an act of faith, and those who argue with the science. I have no problem at all with faith.

When I had students like you I simply requested that they be willing to learn what scientists think.

As for speciation not being evolution, well, by definition it is. From the timeline you give, extremely rapid evolution is required for the pairs at the genus or family level to have diversified to the degree we have today.

If I may respectfully suggest, consider your acceptance of Genesis literally as an acceptance of the miraculous which is God's territory, and don't worry about where science differs. Someday, somehow, they'll come together. Sort of (re science) “gee this is nifty, wonder how it will all play out.”

[jimmyray]

As for speciation not being evolution, well, by definition it is.

What many on both sides of the debate misunderstand is that the definition of "evolution" must be decided upon for meaningful debate to continue, which is why I specifically mentioned that "I disagree that speciation is the same as evolution, though, especially interns (sic) of the rise of entirely new Genus', more or less."

Evolution simply means change. The development of "new species" is simply variation on a theme. A bear is still a bear, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly, and e.coli is still e.coli. What I, and creationists in general, have trouble with is the single cell to man grand evolutionary scheme. This is based on conjecture, assumption, and the bones of a few dead animals that we "believe" were ancestors of present living creatures. One look at the current skull shapes of just bears (http://www.skullsunlimited.com/ursidae.htm) and if any one of these were extinct, and alleged to be some 2.4 million years old, it would be held up as the "ancestor" of the modern bear. I don't buy it.

My favorite is the "Coelacanth", which was once held up as the "ancestor" of the amphibian, but after we caught some alive, has been relegated to an evolutionary dead end. I am convinced that is we found the so called "transitional" fossils actually living today, the same would occur.

I have no problem at all with science per se when it is falsifiable, but most of the mud to man evolutionary scheme is not falsifiable, but is rather based on faith, much like my Christianity.

Jesus lived on earth some 2000 years ago. To that practically everyone agrees. The New Testament then records that he claimed to be God, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, and had nature under his command. He said he came to be a sacrifice for my (our) sins, and suffered death on a cross. In order to prove his claims, he resurrected his own body on the 3rd day, and showed himself to many to prove it. This is all attested to in the pages of the NT, by the martyrdom of 11 of the 12 apostles who could easily have falsified it (why die for a known lie?), and by the changed lives of millions, mine included. Can this be absolutely falsified, no. We have only eyewitness testimony, and each person has to evaluate it's veracity. Then, faith is required. Just like evolution. Depends on who you trust.

The NT has not changed since it was written; "science", by it's very nature, is constantly changing to accommodate new findings. What was voraciously defended as scientific fact yesterday is easily dismissed for new scientific fact to be maintained today. Cest la vie.

Have you carefully considered the claims of Jesus Messiah?

[CottShop]

[[I would be happy believing anything for which there is a shred of actual evidence. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen it yet]]

Sure you have, you just don’t want to accept God’s word for it. While htere might be a ‘smart person’ out on Centurion, that person would notbe capable of violating laws such as chemical, biological, mathematical and natural laws in order to ‘create’ life. The evidnece of the supernatural is all around us- from hte tiniest life forms to htem ost complex, and as has been stated many many times here on FR, ID science doesn’t need to show God, they simply need to show His work scientifically, and with a perponderance of evidneces, it hten becomes the most reasonable explanation, especially in light of hte fact that this God has revealed Himself throughout hte ages physically, and now, in the church age, spiritually to billions of His people. He has also revealed His work in the very science evidences we study.

There is a htread on FR called ‘Life’s Irreducible Structures’, and it looks at hte fact that life could not have started from scratch naturally, nor could life’s higher complexities have simply evolved- no matter how that evolution might have been manipulated. There is a thing called metainfomraiton which MUST exist before any lower informaiton can work coherently with the whole system- that htread is wel worth a read to understand that life simply could not evolve a hiearchal system of higher and higher complexities without a system of metainfo inplace first- Metainfo is the informaiton about information that must exist before lower information could even begin to work in tandem with other lower informations- This is a pretty powerful case for hte need for an itnelligent designer who superceeded the laws of nature-

Noone is simpyl throwing up their hands in dismay and saying ‘God-did-it”- We are providing hte evidnece that He MUST have done it, and that nature is incapable of creating the irreducible hiearchal structures of life. As God said in His word, His fingerprints all all aroudn us for anyone objective neough to see for htemselvs IF they honestly want to observe them. As well, what does the fossil record objectively show us? Continuity? Or Discontinuity? The answer is discontinuity IF we follow hte evidnece WITHOUT extrapolating beyond the actual evidences and creating scenarios based purely on a priori assumptiosn about naturalism being the causation for all life via common descent. As well, what do genetics show us? The answer is that species started out pure in the not too distant past, and gradually, because of mutaitons, became less and less pure. The mitochondrial EVE project traced this purity back to a few female individuals whos genome was quite pure- and it was noteworthy that the closer they got to modern times, them ore ‘corrupted’ the genome became- this again follows along perfectly with a fully functional fully created life that hence degrades over time- it is not consistent with descent with modification.

No- the evidneces are all around you- the question is, are you objective enough to recognize them

[From many - one.]

I’ll address only two parts of your post:

The scientists’ definition of evolution is the only one that is relevant because it is the scientific theory we’re discussing. That’s not arrogance, it’s just the same as the chemists’ definition of acid. If you’re talking chemistry, an acid expression doesn’t qualify.

As for your question about my religion, I keep that rigidly private on this forum, it’s way too venomous for me. Aside from you I’ve seen virtually no posters I’d consider Christian in their posting style.

The only thing I’ll specify is that God was not writing a biology textbook and was speaking to people of the time in a language they could understand.

[jimmyray]

The scientists’ definition of evolution is the only one that is relevant because it is the scientific theory we’re discussing.

According to a strong Evolution based website, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html, The definition is all over the place, and the writers lament as to the inaccuracy of various definitions as posited in dictionaries, textbooks, and in the public. They settle upon this definition:

When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.)

I what I was intending to convey above is that pretty much everyone aggrees with that aspect of the definition. However, they go from that definiton to the following extrapolation:

When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

This is where the fundamental separation occurs, as I don't follow or agree with that assertion, though I do understand the reasoning behind it.

Aside from you I’ve seen virtually no posters I’d consider Christian in their posting style.

I appreciate the sentiment, and that is a guiding principle for how I discourse on these forums, in my persoanl e-mail, and in everyday discourse. It is a sad point that you have seen no other "Christian" posting styles - an indictment of the Christian poster, eh?

I am always learning from this site, and sharpening my research and reasoning skills. I have become aquainted with many different viewpoints, opinions, and resources, such as talkorigins. What does not kill by faith only makes it stronger. I also find it interesting the number of logical fallacys and debating errors that are made, especially ad hominem, ad antiquitatem, ad logicam and ad verecundiam. I go out of my way to avoid any logical errors, so most of my errors are just plain old ignorance! I also try to recognize and admit where I am wrong, which has happened more than once,

[From many - one.]

Thanks for a very pleasant and challenging set of exchanges.

I’m going to have to slow down, I rarely post this often, and, since I’m working from home, need to give good measure.

I will be back, maybe much later today, maybe tomorrow. You’ve brought up several interesting points that I’d like to address.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

My favorite is the "Coelacanth", which was once held up as the "ancestor" of the amphibian, but after we caught some alive, has been relegated to an evolutionary dead end.

Personally I am a great fan of Bathybius... "Bathybius... is a vast sheet of living matter enveloping the whole earth beneath the seas."

[From many - one.]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say that your “favorite is the coelacanth, but there’s a very nice article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:

Nuclear protein-coding genes support lungfish and not the coelacanth as the closest living relatives of land vertebrates — PNAS
Address:http://www.pnas.org/content/101/14/4900.full

It’s a bit of a hairy read, but a good example of how scientists worked out the (most probable according to current thought) relationship between coelacanth, lungfish and land animals. You can get a lot just by reading the introduction and disussion at the end and looking at the diagrams.

If I’m off in the wrong direction here, let me know. As I said, I’m not at all sure what makes coelacanths your favorite.

Next break I’ll go into nested hierarchies, DNA and what makes a different genus. Unless you have more questions on coelacanths.