|
Introduction
to the Mathematics of Evolution Chapter
7 Natural
Selection and Common
Descent "We are in the process of
creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot
sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can
provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and
the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural
ideal." Carl Bernstein, Natural Selection "Natural
selection," also called "Survival of the Fittest," is one of the
two foundations of the theory of evolution.
The other foundation is the way species change, which originally was
based on morphology (i.e. a study of the physical features of an animal), but
is now based on random mutations of DNA. Natural
selection claims that a "fit species" will survive better than
"less fit species." What
exactly does a "fit species" mean?
Science generally defines a "fit species" as a species which is
better able to reproduce or for some other reason has more offspring. However,
the "average man on the street" defines "fit species" as a
species which is able to eat or kill its competitor species or in some other
way is able to survive better than its competitor species. In a
nutshell, if a new species is able to survive, because of natural selection,
this new species is able to get a foothold in the animal kingdom. This in essence elevates the overall standard
of membership in the animal kingdom. Once
the overall standard of survival increases, the next new species has an
opportunity to be even better. This
increasing "standard of survival" is claimed to escalate until
eventually natural selection, coupled with random mutations of DNA, led to human
beings. To better
understand why natural selection is part of the theory of evolution, let us
consider an example from the automobile industry. This
example will show how natural selection fits with random mutations of DNA. The Contest Suppose
there are ten car manufacturing companies, called Company One to Company Ten. All ten of them have totally inept
employees. The "car companies"
represent different species. The
"inept employees" represent random mutations of DNA. Let us
compare natural selection to a contest between 10 cars (one car made by each
company) and their ability to climb a long and steep hill. The goal of
the contest is for one of the cars to climb to the top of this very high hill
(the top of the hill represents the creation of human DNA by evolution). All ten car
companies have totally inept employees. The
employees are lazy, they never work, they are not trained at all, they totally
resist any training, they don't obey orders, they don't understand a single
part of the car - and don't want to know, they rarely come to work, and when
they do come to work they are either sleeping or eating or watching TV, and so
on. For many
thousands of years none of the companies can create a car which has an engine
that starts; much less can climb to the top of a hill. Finally,
after many thousands of years, and by pure accident, one of the car companies,
Company One, is able to start their engine and climb 1%
up the hill. Suppose, by
natural selection (natural selection in this case is the ability of the car
companies to financially survive) the other 9 car companies go out of business. Now suppose
that ten new car companies come on the scene.
They are called Company Eleven thru Company Twenty. Almost all of the employees of these car companies
came from Company One, which is by now a very big company with a lot of inept
employees. Now there
are employees in eleven car companies which are totally inept. There is a
new race up the hill. Suppose Company
Thirteen, by pure accident, is able to get 2% up the hill. At this point the other ten car companies
(including Company One) soon go bankrupt. Now the
only car company is Company Thirteen and most of its employees came from
Company One. But Company Thirteen has
employees, regardless of where they came from, which are just as inept as the
old Company One. Company
Thirteen grows and grows even though its cars can only get 2% up the hill. Now ten more
new car companies come on the scene, named Company Twenty-One thru Company
Thirty. Almost all of their employees
came from Company Thirteen. There is a
new race. In this race Company
Twenty-Five gets 3% up the hill. The
other ten car companies soon go out of business. This
process continues until there are a hundred races and one of the cars from
Company One Thousand-Seven gets to the top of the hill. It took many, many thousands of years for
this race to be won. The Assumption The above
example explains how natural selection aids in evolution. Only the "best" car company
financially survives. In essence,
when a superior species shows up on the earth, natural selection is the
mechanism which guarantees the survival of this new species. By new
species leap-frogging over one another, the overall
mixture of species improves over a period of many million of years. Because over
time natural selection preserves better and better species, you get a better
and better mixture of species on the earth and eventually you end up with human
beings. So what is
wrong with natural selection? First of
all, consider that in the above example, natural selection is irrelevant until
the car companies build their cars. In
other words, natural selection works
during the hill climb, not during the manufacture of the cars. Natural
selection did not make the employees of the car companies any less inept. In the
world of biology, new genetic material can only be made by random
mutations. The sequence needed by
evolution is this: 1) Random
mutations make new genes and new species (this is where the car companies build
their cars using inept employees), 2) Natural
selection preserves the new species if it survives better than other species
(this is the hill climb). But what if
#1 above never happens? What if random
mutations are not effective at creating new genes and new species? The theory
of evolution assumes item #1 creates a fantastic amount of new genetic
material. The assumption which allows
natural selection to work is that DNA gets better and better and better by
purely random mutations. But note that
natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with making random mutations any
more favorable. Natural selection does
not protect any "correct" section of DNA from becoming the victim of
a mutation. Natural
selection has nothing to do with new genetic material being formed or the
introduction of new species. Natural
selection is only useful after the new species already exists. Natural
selection only works after random mutations have created new species. After the new species is walking around the
earth, trying to survive, then and only then does
natural selection become a factor. But
natural selection has nothing to do with the creation of new species. The reality
is that random mutations never create new genes or any other part of DNA. Much of this book will discuss this very
issue. Thus, if
random mutations never create any "improved genes" (i.e. a gene which
leads to the creation of a superior protein) then natural selection is never a
factor in evolution. Let us go
back to our car example. Let us
suppose that over the time period of 600 million years, not a single car
company is able to get their engine to start.
Natural selection is never able to operate and crown a victor. Natural
selection only works when the cars are on the side of the hill. Natural selection doesn't work until the
battery, the starter and the transmission all work - and there is gasoline. If any of these things fail, natural
selection has no function. Suppose ten
car companies started the contest, and 600 million years later, these same ten
car companies are still making cars unable to have their engines start, or
their transmissions work, or their starters turn over, etc. Thus, in
600 million years, natural selection would have had nothing to do. When talking
about evolution, natural selection is totally useless unless random mutations
are able to create new and improved species.
But as this book will show, random mutations are never able to create a
new gene or a new species. The bottom
line is that natural selection is totally irrelevant in the support of the
theory of evolution unless the DNA mutations problems of evolution can first be
dealt with. In other
words, until it can be shown that mutations of DNA could have created new
genes; many, many, many millions of times; the entire issue of natural
selection is moot (i.e. irrelevant). Some people
ask the question: "Doesn't the vast number of species which have existed
on this earth prove that DNA has been mutating and new genetic material has
been formed by random mutations?" Actually,
this question is a paradox. The vast
number of species which have existed on this earth is a proof that random
mutations were not involved. It is
doubtful random mutations could have created a single, very simple single cell,
much less the complex DNA of humans. What about
God? Some might ask: "Why would God
create so many species which have so many common morphological features?" First of
all, species have to move in one of four main ways: walk on two legs, walk on
four legs, fly or swim. Of course there
are other ways, but these are the main ways that most advanced animals move. When you
design millions of animal species, but only have four modes of transportation,
there is going to be a lot of morphological similarities. For
example, think about automobiles.
Automobiles have four wheels.
There have been many hundreds of different automobile designs by many
different manufacturers. But note that there
are a lot of physical similarities between cars made by different
manufacturers. The point
is a person cannot use natural selection as an evidence for the theory of
evolution until they can prove that random mutations of DNA could have produced
all the species which have existed on this earth, in the time period since the
Cambrian Explosion. In other
words, random mutations of DNA would have had to create millions of different
species, each with a unique DNA (by definition) in order to even be able to
talk about the importance of natural selection. Natural Selection is
Non-Differentiating Another
problem with natural selection is that there is nothing in natural selection
which is differentiating. In other
words, natural selection is a concept which applies equally well to the concept
of Creation. For
example, if God had created all the species on earth, natural selection would
still be in force. This is because
species which are more powerful, faster, smarter, etc. will have a better
chance of surviving. But in this case,
natural selection did not start operating until God created the species. Thus, when
science looks at situations where one species is wiped out by another species;
or they look at a species which has survived when other species didn't survive;
this is not an evidence for the theory of evolution because natural selection would work no matter
how the species got on the earth or how the species became extinct. Natural
selection, or survival of the fittest, simply does not differentiate between
the theory of evolution versus the theory of creation.
Natural selection simply means that
superior species survive. Natural
selection is ignorant in the sense that it
has no idea how the animals came to be, it only operates on the animals
which exist at any given time. Natural
selection doesn't know, and doesn't care, how the animals came to be; it simply
waits for animals to exist. Thus,
whether the animals came to be by random mutations of DNA, or whether the
animals came to be by creation, natural selection would work exactly the same. Thus,
natural selection cannot be used as "evidence" for the theory of
evolution. It is non-differentiating. Common Descent One of the
most often used "proofs" of the theory of evolution is that of
"common descent," meaning that the similarities in physical features;
and thus similarities in DNA; between different species; is a proof of the
theory of evolution. For
example, in a recent pamphlet issued by the National Academy of Sciences, is
this quote: "... species that appear to be
more distantly related from their positions in the fossil record are found to
have correspondingly greater differences in their DNA than species that appear
more closely related in the fossil record." "Science, Evolution and Creationism," by the This theory
is called "common ancestry" or "common descent." To
understand some key concepts; suppose you studied every automobile model made
in the world, which is still being sold as new (i.e. they are not "used
cars"). Furthermore,
suppose you visited the factories which make all of these cars, and you watched
how they were made. Then,
suppose you additionally studied every automobile model which is no longer sold
as new, including many antique cars. Suppose you
also studied all of the historical reports you could find which discussed the
manufacturing plants and processes used to create cars which are no longer
being manufactured. Would you
see similar features in the new automobiles and old automobiles and the way
they are and were manufactured? Of
course you would. Would you
see progression and changes in features over time in such things as: engine
designs, steering wheel designs (including new functions, such as a built-in
cell phone controls, volume controls for the radio, speed controls, etc.), tire
compositions, the shape of glass, fender designs, air conditioning, etc.
etc. Of course you would. Would you
conclude that the new automobiles had a "common ancestor?" Most likely you would, and most likely you
would be right. Modern
automobiles are "descended" from very old antiques. Modern automobiles have "evolved,"
to use the term loosely. The problem
is that every automobile which has ever existed on this earth was designed by intelligent beings. In this case, the intelligent beings are
human beings. The point
is that when we see the "evolution" in automobiles, in fact it was not evolution by random design;
it was evolution by intelligent design. People got smarter and smarter as they were
designing automobiles. Thus, even when you see similarities and
progression in features; intelligent design can be the cause. In fact, when you see so many similarities
between manufacturing and the end product, you would conclude that intelligent design had to have been
involved. This is not to imply, however, that God
was learning things as He created the species on this earth. He knew everything long before this earth was
created. The "order" that
science claims the species on this earth appeared is largely based on the assumption of the theory of
evolution. The real order that species
appeared on this earth for the first time is unknown. Human
beings progress in their knowledge (they do not progress in terms of their
intelligence), but God does not progress in His Knowledge or Intelligence. Are Commonalities in
DNA Differential? So how does
the DNA of different species differentiate between the theory of evolution and
creation science? Just like "natural
selection" is non-differentiating, because it has nothing to do with the
origin of the species; finding similarities in the DNA of different species is
also non-differentiating, but for an entirely different reason. That reason
will now be explained. How can the
scientific establishment claim that they know that DNA was not designed (i.e.
intelligently designed)? What is their
evidence? Their
evidence is that DNA sequences are predictable
and consistent between species (i.e. between the physical features of
species). Well, if
DNA was designed by God, then the design of the DNA would probably be predictable and consistent
between species!! Is this what you would
think? In fact, if
the design of DNA is predictable and consistent, this is overwhelming proof that DNA was intelligently designed. But
fortunately for the scientific establishment, Darwin, who knew nothing about
DNA, but knew a lot about homology (i.e. the shapes of animals) came up with
the concept of common ancestry, which is now called "common descent." Even though
By using the intelligent design of
DNA, combined
with homology (similar shapes will be generated by similarities in DNA), the
scientific establishment can pull the common descent feather out of their cap
and claim that DNA which is
intelligently designed (i.e. it is predictable and consistent) is proof
of evolution (i.e. a proof of common descent). But when
the evolution establishment claims that predictable and consistent DNA design
is a "proof" of common descent; they do not stop there; they continue
to talk about how predictable and
consistent DNA is a proof of
evolution, meaning it is a proof that intelligent design is false. This is
nonsense. They claim that the very thing
(intelligent design); which provides their evidence for common descent; is
false (i.e. they claim that intelligent design in false). The
evolution establishment should be grateful and thankful to God for providing
intelligently designed DNA (or else humans would not exist). But does the evolution establishment thank
God? No, they ignore Him and they use
the works of God to pretend that God does not exist (i.e. to prove evolution)
using clever logic!! Let us
summarize this: 1) Because
of intelligent design by God, there is predictability
and consistency of DNA design, 2) Because
there is predictability and consistency of DNA design, the evolution
establishment claims this is proof of common descent, then 3) The
evolution establishment claims that the proof of common descent is a disproof of intelligent design. Thus, the result of intelligent design is
turned into a disproof of
intelligent design by using clever logic. If science
would simply say that predictability and consistency of DNA is
non-differentiating between creation science and evolution, all would be
well. But they do not do that. They do not even admit that with the issue of
natural selection. They act like natural
selection would not be true if God existed; and they claim predictable and
consistent DNA design would not exist if God existed. These
claims are absolutely inexcusable. The
evolution establishment seems to forget that if DNA was designed by God, the DNA so designed would also be
predictable and consistent. Apparently
the NAS believes that if DNA was
intelligently designed, it would not
be laid out carefully, predictably and consistently. Ponder that carefully. But such is the tilted logic of the
scientific establishment. A creation
scientist would look at exactly the same data and conclude that the
predictability and consistence of DNA is proof
of "intelligent design." But
"intelligent design" would imply God exists. So the data of creation scientists (which is the same data as the evolution
establishment) is rejected as being "unscientific." Of course, by definition, everything that
points to God is "unscientific" because God is excluded from
"science." Thus the
data that supports the theory of evolution is "scientific;" but the
same exact data (which also supports intelligent design) is
"unscientific." In addition
to theses things, it should be noted that there are huge, huge, amounts of data
in the DNA of millions of different species.
Carefully selected data which supports your theory can easily be found (and data which
doesn't fit your theory can easily be
ignored). DNA
templates are used by the body to create proteins. Proteins are used to create the functions of
cells. Cells are what are used to create
the functions of the animal. Thus, if
two animals have the same functions they would have the same kinds of cells,
and thus the same kinds of protein structures in the cells and thus
similarities in DNA. This would be true with intelligent
design or evolution. It is ludicrous to use DNA to prove
DNA wasn't designed by God! God would
have gone through the steps in the prior paragraph to design DNA. Ponder this
carefully, what features of DNA would a scientist use to prove that DNA was not
intelligently designed? Can we
humans design DNA yet? No, we can't; so
how can we claim we can "prove" DNA was not designed by God? Suppose
scientists get to the point that they can design DNA for extinct species. If they ever get to this point, it would only be because they studied and
copied ideas from the DNA of existing species. When and if
scientists can design the DNA for extinct reptiles, will they then say that the
DNA which they carefully designed,
over many decades, and was copied and pasted from existing DNA, is a proof that
DNA was not intelligently designed? If they
want to get published in a scientific journal, they will have to figure out
some way to claim that the DNA they
intelligently designed is a proof that human DNA was not created by God's intelligent design!! Does this make any sense? If
scientists did design the DNA of an extinct species, would the DNA be
predictable and consistent? Of course it
would, because they designed it by stealing ideas and DNA from living species. In short, the
consistency of DNA design can be used to prove intelligent design or the
consistency of DNA can be used to prove common descent. But the
consistency of DNA design cannot
be used to disprove
intelligent design any more than it can be used to disprove common descent. This debate
is a "draw." It is a non-differentiating phenomenon. And that is the point. No matter what similarities and patterns
exist in the DNA of various species, any "proof" there is evidence of
common descent is also proof that the DNA was intelligently designed by
God. And vice versa. The
"winner" in the debate will not be the team with the best evidence;
it will be the team which has the most power in the media. That is why a person never hears that this
issue is a non-differentiating issue. And this is
why you see such ludicrous concepts as claiming that consistent and predictable
DNA design is a disproof of
intelligent design. It is not "evidence" for
evolution, and it cannot be
"evidence" for evolution, because it is non-differentiating between
evolution and intelligent design. The bottom
line is that both natural selection and common descent are non-differentiating. |