1

Natural Selection and Evolution

Summary Booklet: KCC Creation & Apologetics Camp

4-6th August 2017

The History of Natural Selection

Ever since Charles Darwin published his famous book, “On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection” in 1859, natural selection has been considered

synonymous with evolution. With natural selection being observed and proven to

occur, many consider this as positive proof of evolution itself. The failure to

understand the distinct role of natural selection in evolutionary theory has

brought about – in public perception at least – the idea that any observed change

in a species over time is evolution at work.

Natural selection certainly does play a key role in a

general theory of evolution. Darwin envisaged natural

selection as the driving force of all evolutionary

change; the creative mechanism which adapted and

diversified all life. However, natural selection was not

a new concept, and decades prior to Darwin’s theories, creationists like Edward

Blyth had ably demonstrated the reality of natural selection. While the mechanism

itself was well understood, what it was able to achieve was somewhat more

speculative, and while Blyth considered it to be a preserving force to maintain

species, Darwin thought it was a creative force which changed species, and

moreover, this change was without limit.

At this stage, uniformitarianism was a popular idea in geology – that many small changes over a very long

time had brought about current geological features. Darwin imagined that natural selection had operated in

the same way, bringing about the present diversity of life from a single common ancestor. While this sort of

extrapolation backwards (or forwards) in time is a valid way of developing scientific hypotheses – that is,

using the logical principle of inductive

inference to make generalisations from

specific data – it is only as valid as the

assumptions upon which it rests. In this

case, Darwin’s assumptions were

threefold:

(1) The mechanism of change in the

present (i.e. natural selection) was

the same mechanism operating

throughout all evolutionary time,

(2) Life had been evolving for millions

of years, and

(3) It was necessary to explain the

existence and diversity of life

through natural processes alone.

Figure 1. Charles Darwin described the role of Natural Selection on speciation in his famous 1859 book, On the Origin of Species.

Figure 2. Creationist Edward Blyth described Natural Selection in a series of scientific papers 1835-1837.

Figure 3. Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis rested on a number of key assumptions, ultimately based upon unverifiable ideology.

2

In order for his general theory of evolution to hold, all three assumptions

would need to hold. Digging deeper, all three were ultimately based upon the

ideological presupposition of Philosophical Naturalism (the belief that only the

natural exists; nothing supernatural), and so evolution involves an element of

faith in worldly philosophy which most Christians rightly oppose (Figure 3).

Philosophical considerations aside, however, a modern understanding of genetics

refutes this first assumption, as shall be demonstrated.

Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel is considered the “father of modern genetics”

for discovering the laws of genetic inheritance. Although his work was largely

ignored and forgotten in his lifetime, it was rediscovered in the 20th century and

combined with natural selection to form the “modern synthesis” of speciation.

The Genetics of Natural Selection: Wolf Example

While most genes are identical between members of the same species (in this case, wolves), some vary,

and these alternative genes are referred to as alleles. If each varying gene could be represented by the

number of a playing card, then each allele would be the alternative suits or colours which that number could

have. If we consider five genes in particular (Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5), and suppose that each gene has two possible

alleles (black or red), then although every wolf will possess each of the numbers in their “hand” of five cards,

the colours will differ from wolf to wolf. Whenever two wolves mate, then the hand of each offspring are

sampled from the hands of both parents shuffled together (Figure 5).

Let’s assume that those five genes are

involved with hair length in wolves, and in

particular, that the “red” alleles are for

short hair, and the “black” alleles are for

long hair. The more red cards a wolf has in

its hand of cards, the shorter its hair will

be; the more black cards a wolf has in its

hand, the longer its hair will be. If most

wolves originally had a good mixture of

black and red cards, then they’d have

medium-length hair on average.

Let’s say we want to put the original wolf population into one of two very different environments – either

a cold arctic environment, or a hot desert environment (Figure 6). In the arctic environment, let’s say that

only wolves with 3 or more black alleles can survive the cold and reproduce, and similarly let’s say that in the

desert environment, only wolves with 3 or more red alleles can survive the heat and reproduce.

Figure 4. Gregor Mendel published the laws of genetic inheritance in 1865.

Figure 6. Placing the wolf population into a different environment where a certain hair-length is favoured will mean that only individuals with favourable genetics will survive and reproduce.

Figure 5. For each of five different genes, the "hand" of any wolf will have either a red or black allele. In this diagram, the offspring of these two wolves could have any allele from either parent, but here the 2nd allele must be black and the 3rd allele must be red.

3

After a single generation in the arctic, wolves with too

many red cards will be “selected against” by natural

selection, leaving a population with a higher frequency

of black alleles (Figure 7). If we let those wolves continue

breeding for many generations, the frequency of red

alleles would become less and less. In fact, by chance

some red alleles may disappear completely from the

population, so for some particular genes, only the black

allele remains (Figure 8). When this happens it’s called

“fixation” – one allele has become fixed through the

entire population, and the alternative allele has been

lost. After many generations we might end up with a

breed of long-haired dogs which have many of their hair-

length genes fixed at the black allele. We might see a

similar story for the wolves which we put in the desert;

a breed of short-haired dogs with many red alleles fixed.

Now what would happen if we put those hairy

dogs in the desert, or put the short-haired dogs in

the arctic, and let them breed for many

generations? Over time, would the hairy breed of

dogs begin to look like their short-haired cousins,

or vice versa? Would either breed even begin to

look like the original medium-haired wolf?

Because of fixation, neither breed can return

to the original wolf kind with its full variety of

alleles, and they certainly can’t go further and

develop into the ideal short- or long-haired

breeds (Figure 9). Fixation means that natural

selection is a one-way street in which genetic

variation is only lost and never gained. Figure 9. Natural Selection is a one-way street. Here, the "hands" of the wolf population can be shuffled and “hands” of the two dog breeds can be drawn, but not vice versa.

Figure 7. After one generation in the arctic environment, some offspring have been selected against (not having >2 black alleles). The remaining individuals will have a higher frequency of black alleles, and will start to look hairier on average than their parents.

Figure 8. After many generations in the arctic environment, some genes have become “fixed” with the black allele (genes 2, 3 & 5 here).

4

When we consider the family tree of all dog breeds from an original wolf-like ancestor (Figure 10), we see

what general evolution expects to see: a single species diversifying into a huge array of different sub-species,

each with different physical characteristics (phenotypes). However, when we consider what’s occurring

behind the scenes at the genetic level, we know that each of those breeds has lost a lot of genetic variation

due to fixation. Phenotypic variation has increased, but genetic variation has decreased, which is the opposite

of what evolution requires in the long-run.

Natural selection is therefore not evolution on a small scale (i.e. they are not quantitatively different), and

it should therefore not be referred to as “micro-evolution”. Rather, natural selection goes in the opposite

direction and is a completely different type of thing to evolution (i.e. they are qualitatively different).

Darwin’s first assumption that natural selection was an adequate mechanism to explain large-scale evolution

simply doesn’t hold.

Mutations to the Rescue?

Of course, modern evolutionists do not appeal to

natural selection alone, but also appeal to random

mutations as the source of genetic variation. Mutations

do occur, and they do indeed increase genetic variation,

but it is not the sort of variation which evolution requires,

because it does not create new information. Rather,

mutations are like static on a radio transmission; they’re

adding extra sound, but it isn’t of any use; it’s just

random noise. Worse still, it deteriorates the existing

signal!

This unfortunate reality has been and continues to be

consistently demonstrated in all scientific studies into

Figure 10. The “evolutionary tree” of dogs shows an increasing variety of breeds with their own characteristics (phenotypes), but by natural (and artificial) selection, genetic variety is decreasing due to fixation. Evolution requires an increase in genetic variation.

Figure 11. Mutations just add "noise" to the DNA signal.

5

random mutations. The unifying characteristic of these mutations is that they

all involve loss, and this loss generally falls into three different categories:

(1) Loss of feature/function. Something is completely removed or disabled.

(2) Loss of efficiency. Something remains in operation, but is less effective.

(3) Loss of regulation. Something which would usually be controlled to

operate only in certain circumstances is now operating much more or

less than it should.

There is another class of mutations which are non-random, such as those

involved in the creation of antibodies by the immune system. These

mutations are highly controlled to deliver specific outcomes, much like a

computer program might use a random number generator (RNG) to perform

a specific role in the software. And in the same way that a RNG cannot create

its own software, neither can non-random mutations generate the genetic

information that evolution requires.

There is not yet a single example of a mutation which can provide the sort

of increase in genetic variation which general evolution requires. All the while,

natural selection continues to drain the pool of genetic variation, constantly

losing the very sorts of alleles which evolution would need to generate!

Valid Inference

In order for a scientific hypothesis to

graduate into an established theory, there are

several key things it has to achieve. The most

basic requirement is that its inductive

inference must be valid, that is, that empirical

(measurable) data sufficiently and consistently

supports the hypothesis. According to Darwin,

natural selection (a process which could be

measured) was sufficient to cause all

evolutionary change from a common ancestor.

However, Mendelian inheritance means

that genes are discrete units (like single playing

cards), and so genetic information can be lost

by fixation, as our wolf example showed. So the

visible increase in phenotypic diversity we can

measure in dogs, Galapagos finches, and other

kinds of organisms actually goes hand-in-hand

with a decrease in genetic diversity. Therefore

natural selection is not a sufficient mechanism

for all evolutionary change as Darwin assumed;

the inductive inference is invalid, and Darwin’s

hypothesis is falsified (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Mutations must increase genetic information at a faster rate than it's being lost, yet no mutations can create the sort of information that’s needed.

Figure 13. Given current scientific data (i.e. selection and mutations), we can infer a creationist hypothesis. However, if the data can’t (yet) be used for inference, then an evolutionary hypothesis is invalid, and so evolutionists are caught between a rock and a hard place.

6

However, the evolutionary hypothesis has not been abandoned, but an auxiliary hypothesis has been

introduced to prop up Darwin’s idea, that is, that mutations are a sufficient source of genetic information.

Now random mutations must be shown to generate novel genetic information, not just deteriorating noise,

if they are to qualify as a sufficient mechanism. However, no information-creating mutations have yet been

observed in scientific studies, and so there is still nothing to extrapolate from.

A Creationist Perspective

On the other hand, things are looking increasingly positive for a creationist position. With the “modern

synthesis” of speciation and modern studies on mutations, creationists are in a strong position to validly infer

a creationist hypothesis (Figure 13).

The decrease in genetic information

associated with speciation means that we can

extrapolate backwards in time to organisms with

very high genetic variation. Naturally, there will

be a limit to how much information can be

contained within a genome, and so there will be a

natural limit to how far back an organism’s family

tree can go (Figure 14). This fits very nicely with

the biblical record of “created kinds”.

The universal testimony of scientific studies to

the degrading, information-losing effects of

mutations also means that we can extrapolate

backwards in time to organisms having high-quality genomes with much higher functionality, efficiency, and

regulatory control. Due to mutation rates being unexplainably high (at least to evolutionists), the

extrapolation must actually go back only to recent history. Again, this fits well with the biblical record, and

with the effects of the biblical Fall in particular.

Conclusions

Much of what both the general public and the scientific community consider to be examples of evolution

are simply examples of natural selection, and nothing more. These perspectives have not caught up with the

historical merger of Mendelian genetics with speciation – the “modern synthesis” – in which natural selection

works to reduce genetic diversity, not increase it.

With the process of natural selection now being qualitatively different from large-scale evolution, rather

than quantitatively different, the scientific method of inductive inference which Darwin employed to derive

his evolutionary hypothesis from observational data can no longer be validly applied. In addition to the

wealth of studies into random mutations failing to provide a single case of novel information which is

necessary for large-scale evolution, the theory is not only without philosophical basis as it was in Darwin’s

day, but is also without scientific basis nowadays.

Modern data is increasingly friendly to a creationist perspective. Valid inductive inference leads us to a

hypothesis of recent ancestral kinds with high genetic diversity and highly functional and robust genomes,

which aligns with the biblical record of creation and the Fall.

Figure 14. Speciation is better represented by (a) the “creationist orchard” than by (b) the “evolutionary tree”, because increasing genetic information backwards in time will reach a natural limit.

(a)

(b)

time

7

Key Points:

The Theory of Natural Selection was developed and described by scientists like creationist Edward Blyth,

decades prior to Darwin’s theories.

Natural selection has therefore always been compatible with creationism.

Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis rested on a number of assumptions, both scientific and philosophical.

Scientifically, he assumed natural selection to be a mechanism of limitless diversification.

Philosophically, he assumed that only natural mechanisms were allowed to explain life.

Modern genetics reveals that natural selection reduces genetic variation, not increases it as Darwin had

imagined.

Increases in phenotypic (physical) diversity are associated with decreases in genetic diversity.

Natural selection works in the opposite direction to evolution.

Natural selection alone is sufficient to describe the vast majority of speciation we observe nowadays,

such as the family trees of dogs, finches, etc.

It is erroneous to refer to such family trees as “evolutionary trees” or “micro-evolution”.

Mutations increase genetic variation, but it is noise, not information.

Phenotypic change resulting from mutation always involves loss.

Neither natural selection nor random mutations have ever been observed to generate novel genetic

information.

There is no data to support an evolutionary hypothesis via the scientific method of inductive

inference. Therefore evolution is without a scientific basis.

Instead, the data supports a creationist hypothesis of created kinds with high genetic diversity, and

rapid genetic decay due to the Fall.

Session: 3B (Saturday 5th 11am)

Topic: Genetics / Evolution vs. Natural Selection

Speaker: Matthew Price

Creation & Apologetics Camp, 4-6th August 2017

Karakariki Christian Camp (KCC), Waikato, NZ

Organised by FoCMI Hamilton (Friends of Creation Ministries International)

Email: cmi_hamilton@clear.net.nz