So-called "natural selection" cannot possibly change one species into another—and without such species change, there is no evolution. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Planned Breeding vs. Natural Selection: 1
Evolution Is Based on Random Accidents: So-called "natural selection" is accidental subspecies change
Selective Breeding Cannot Produce Cross-species Changes: If laboratory technicians cannot do it, surely evolutionary accidents cannot either
Randomness Could Never Produce Our Species: So-called "natural selection" is senseless change
Darwin's Infatuation: He kept hoping against hope that his idea might prove true
The Difference Is Intelligent Purpose: The breeder works toward an objective
This material is excerpted from the book,
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Natural Selection.
So-called "natural selection" is accidental subspecies change.
It has been said that breeding experimentation by mankind has provided one of the best evidences that evolutionary theory is true. It is true that plant and animal breeding has seemingly produced better varieties, but planned breeding and "natural selection" have little or nothing in common.
If laboratory technicians cannot do it, surely evolutionary accidents cannot either.
"Natural selection" is nothing more than random variation in plants and animals. In total contrast, is `artificial selection' or selective breeding. Evolutionists point to the results of selective breeding as an example of what natural selection accomplishes. But there is a vast difference between them.
Several points should be kept in mind, among which are these: (1) The results of breeding never cross the species line; they are always improvements within a species. (2) There is a limit to how much change can be made. Beyond that limit, no further changes can be made. The wall imposed by the genetic code cannot be penetrated. (3) "Improvements" through breeding may improve certain qualities, but others will be weakened. The original was generally stronger and more vigorous than the "improved" varieties. (4) After being left alone for a time, the improved varieties will slip back toward the original pattern. (5) The very fact of success in breeding points out that intelligent minds caused it, by careful observation at each step. It is just that: "selective breeding."
So-called "natural selection" is senseless change.
The evolutionist's "natural selection" is totally different: It involves no intelligence, no planning, no design, no purpose,—yet it is supposed to change chemicals into trilobites, trilobites into turtles, turtles into turkeys, turkeys into tapirs, and tapirs into mankind.
Selective breeding and Darwin's "natural selection" are two different things:
"Artificial selection is often considered as a means for testing population genetic theories. But there remains, in my opinion, serious doubts about the role that artificial selection could or should play. Dobzhansky argued that [point].
"Darwin used artificial selection as a model for the natural process; a mathematical theory of selection must almost necessarily be derived for experiments on artificial selection.
"This belief, however (and its doubtful conclusion) rests on the implicit hypothesis that artificial selection necessarily simulates some natural selection process. One could only confirm this hypothesis by studying first the natural selection process extensively and then examine how well artificial selection simulates it. But if one could study the natural process in the first place, then one would not need any simulation, unless the simulation process could be better controlled (and provided the controls do not change the effects of the simulation process much from those of the natural process)."—*G. Wassermann, "Testability of the Role of Natural Selection Within Theories of Population Genetics and Evolution," in British Journal of Philosophy of Science, (1978), Vol. 29, pp. 223, 235.
He kept hoping against hope that his idea might prove true.
Basing much of his thinking on the excellent results that men were having in breeding new types of roses, pigeons, etc., *Darwin was infatuated with the possibility that chance changes in an organism, which he termed "natural selection," might be able to produce worthwhile variations across species.
"At the same time, however Darwin fell into the traps that Fischer warns against. First, he was so enchanted with the similarities that he paid little attention to the obvious dissimilarities (presence of a guiding intelligence in artificial selection, plus the breeders' concentration on the micro changes rather than on the big gaps). Second, he offered the analogy as a proof.
"Although the analogy had nobly performed its function in stimulating Darwin's imagination, it furnished no evidence of the correctness of Natural Selection. It has historical interest, but it was not essential to the understanding or proof of Natural Selection. Alfred Russel Wallace did not need it to reach the same conclusion as Darwin; to the contrary, McKinney (1972, pp. 144-145) shows that he rejected the analogy . . "—Norman Macbeth, "Danger: analogies ahead," in Rivista de Biologia (Biology Forum (1986), Vol. 76, pp. 191, 194.
Natural selection is not "selection," for no purpose nor intelligent thought was involved. A mind is required in order to select.
"It is important to note that in all these processes there is no `selection' in the proper meaning of the word. It is unfortunate that Darwin ever introduced the term, `natural selection'; for it has given rise to much confusion of thought. He did so, of course, because he arrived at his theory through studying the effects of selection as practiced by man in the breeding of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. Here the use of the word is entirely legitimate. But the action of man in selective breeding is not analogous to the action of `natural selection,' but almost its direct opposite, as Woltereck (1931), in particular, has pointed out.
The breeder works toward an objective.
"Man has an aim or an end in view; `natural selection' can have none. Man picks out the individuals he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characters he seeks to perpetuate or enhance. He protects them and their issue by all means in his power, guarding them thus from the operation of natural selection, which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if possible his goal.' Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we miscall `natural selection.' "—*E. Russell, The Diversity of Animals, (1962), p. 124.
Natural selection has no selector.
"Artificial selection, practiced by breeders of agricultural plants and domesticated animals, has commonly been used as a model of the action of natural selection. However, in Lerner's words, `Natural selection has no purpose . . For any given generation, natural selection is a consequence of the differences between individuals with respect to their capacity to produce progeny . . Artificial Selection, in contrast, is a purposeful process. It has a goal that can be visualized.'
"Natural selection can and does take place in domesticated and laboratory organisms, and in mankind, under all sorts of natural and artificial conditions. Artificial selection is man-made, however. Natural selection has no selector; it is a self-generated outcome of interactions between organisms and their environments."—*T. Dobzhansky, *F. Ayala, *G. Stebbins, and *J. Valentine, Evolution, (1977), p. 97.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the NEXT PAGE to conclude this topic (Planned Breeding vs. Natural Selection: Part 2 of 2)