As Promised: Natural Selection

This post is a follow up to the February 8, 2009 post Called "Old Blue Eyes". If you haven't read that yet, or maybe it's been awhile since you last read it, go read it and then come back and read the rest of this. It will make more sense if you do.

Since a discussion on natural selection begins with living organisms already in place, I want to remind the reader to keep in mind the question of how did any life appear in the first place? More than that, why is there anything at all in reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? When we discuss any topic of biology I think we should do so within the framework of logic and the most important law of logic is that something cannot come from nothing. It violates the law of non-contradiction and I welcome anyone who can give me proof positive that shows where something did come from nothing.

I'm about to ask you a question and want you to carefully think about it. I mean really, think about it. If ever there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not even God, what would there be today?

What Secular Science Teaches:
Science teaches that natural selection, also known as survival of the fittest, is evidence for the idea of molecules mutating over time to become more and more complex life forms. The life forms that develop and adapt best are the ones that survive.

In scientific circles when one talks of natural selection, it is understood that you are talking about evolution and the most influential thinker in this space was Charles Darwin. Darwin in fact formed his initial ideas about natural selection from the previous work of Edward Blyth. Blyth wrote that an organism may possess some inheritable trait or characteristic which in a given environment gives that organism a greater chance of passing on its genes to the next generation. Over generations that trait or characteristic has a good chance of becoming more widespread in the population. Darwin’s continuing work theorized that in such ways creatures become more adapted and better suited to the environment in which they find themselves.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:
Darwin believed this “fine tuning” to the environment to be a process that was creative and without limits. He saw new varieties that given enough time would create new characteristics and given even more time would evolve into a totally new creature.

I ask you to think about that in light of the “something from nothing” question. What Darwin is theorizing is that given enough time a life form will create characteristics in a world where those characteristics never existed before. In a world where there is no such thing as seeing or sight, and never has been prior to that point in time, a life form’s genes somehow determined that it needed to see in order to survive and over time the eye was created. Remember, science teaches us that life was formed when lightning struck a primordial tidal pool that contained previously inanimate random molecules (see my January 13, 2009 post called "Close Only Counts With..."). It is believed that the first life on earth was in the form of blue-green algae. But, prior to that point there was no life and certainly no genetic information because there were no genes. No DNA.

Alternative Theory:
The alternative theory is that adaptation is degenerative. I believe this is true because this is the process that is actually observed in nature. What is observed is that life adapts by the elimination of genetic information.

The price paid in adaptation is always a permanent loss of information and once it is lost it cannot be regenerated. It starts with a parent that contains all possible combinations in it’s genes and natural selection “specializes” offspring into different kinds, but never creates new information that was never there to start with.

A simple example of this can be seen in the breeding of animals; for example dogs or horses. From a parent that contains a broad selection of genetic characteristics you breed out the traits you don’t want and keep the traits you do want in order to achieve the desired results. Once it’s achieved you can’t go backwards. The only way that new genetic information can be introduced back into the animal is if you interbreed the one kind with another kind. But the genetic information wasn’t crated from nothing.

Consider these two theories in terms of what is most logical. Is it Darwin’s “uphill” limitless process that proposes that the eye, lungs, feathers, and all the specialized variety seen in life today arose from a world where those things never existed before and in which the genetic information was not in existence? Or that natural selection is in fact a process of culling, of choosing between several genetic traits that are already in creation.

I contend that the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. So where did all the variety we see come from? I say, that given the more logical explanation that natural selection is a degenerative process starting with a genetically broad parent, doesn’t the creation account given in the Bible make more sense now? God didn’t create all the variety we see today. While God is The Creator (the original cause) of all the firsts of everything (the effects), He started by creating a genetically broad first. There was one or maybe a limited few kinds of dog, cat, lion, turtle, bird, fungus, algae, etc. Over time these life forms changed given their environment, but only by the removal of genetic information that was already there.

The same is true for humans. The first man and woman were created by God and they contained all of the genetic information for all people. Over time as people spread over the earth, environment, diet, etc. caused the removal of some genetic information, which resulted in specialization. One example is skin color; originally the first people contained all the genetic information and probably had dark skin. Not black, not white, but more likely dark brown. Those who migrated to colder climates adapted by losing the genetic ability to produce melanin, the bio-compound that's found in dark skin. The darker the skin, the more melanin; the lighter the skin, the less melanin. Those on the equator kept the genes that produce melanin and therefore have the darkest skin. This is needed because it’s hot and the body needs to produce more sweat to keep cool and darker skin absorbs heat and produces more sweat. Not sweating when it’s hot reduces the survival rate. The further away from the equator one is the lighter the skin because sweating in the cold is not good for survival.

Did you know that the biological differences between all people groups on earth; white, black, yellow, brown, so-called "red", is less than .1%. Blacks have more melanin, Asian's eyes are like that because they simply have a little more fat in the skin surrounding their eyes, etc. All very minor surface feature differences. Also, notice I said "people groups". I try not to use the term "races" when talking about different people because I believe we all descended from one man and one woman and therefore there is only one race; the human race. We are all technically related. Darwin's view of evolution, if true, would support discrimination. I mean if we all came from different slime pools what's to stop me from enslaving you or even killing you. I mean after all, it's survival of the fittest!

If your interested I have an explanation for why there are different people groups and languages. I'll post that at some point in the future.