Creation/Evolution Quotes:Mechanisms #4: Natural selection (1)
Creation/Evolution Quotes:
"Thus for example the recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as Kettlewell has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centres and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the colour of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but `evolution'? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which colour or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?" (Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November, p.51. Emphasis in original).
[top of page]"These misconceptions stem largely from the metaphorical ways in which the concept has been expressed, even by Darwin himself ... But as Darwin noted, such poetical expressions can lead us to view natural selection as "an active power or Deity," omniscient, omnipotent, and, depending on one's point of view, either beneficent shaping species into perfect form or malevolent. ... Natural selection, however, has none of these qualities. It is not providential, it is neither moral nor immoral, it carries no ethical precepts - "it" is not an active agent with physical properties, much less a mind. It is no more than a statistical measure of the difference in survival or reproduction among entities that differ in one or more characteristics, Selection is not caused by differential survival and reproduction; it is differential survival and reproduction, and no more." (Futuyma, Douglas J. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, State University of New York, Stony Brook], "Evolutionary Biology," [1979], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Second Edition, 1986, p.150. Emphasis in original) .
[top of page]"Here, I assume without proof that natural selection was the key evolutionary mechanism and that, consequently, the organic world is to be understood as highly adapted." (Ruse, Michael [Professor of History and Philosophy, University of Guelph, Canada], "Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1988, p.131).
[top of page]"In any case, if we repudiate creationism, divine or vitalistic guidance, and the extremer forms of orthogenesis, as originators of adaptation, we must (unless we confess total ignorance and abandon for the time any attempts at explanation) invoke natural selection-or at any rate must do so whenever an adaptive structure obviously involves a number of separate characters, and therefore demands a number of separate steps for its origin. A onecharacter, single-step adaptation might clearly be the result of mutation; once the mutation had taken place, it would be preserved by natural selection, but selection would have played no part in its origin. But when two or more steps are necessary, it becomes inconceivable that they shall have originated simultaneously. The first mutation must have been spread through the population-by selection before the second could be combined with it, the combination of the first two in turn selected before the third could be added, and so on with each successive step. The improbability of an origin in which selection has not played a part becomes larger with each new step." (Huxley, Julian S. [late grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, former Professor of Zoology at King's College, London, and founding Director- General of UNESCO], "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," [1942], George Allen & Unwin: London, 1945, Fourth Impression, pp.473-474).
[top of page]"But, say the neo-Darwinians again, natural selection is the only mechanism we observe in present-day nature. But again, if this were so, we should still have no right to say that the only mechanism we see at work now is the only one that has been at work in all the long past of the living world. Nor, for that matter, is it the only "mechanism." ... Because the chance-variation/ natural-selection schema, which through Darwin's work first convinced the world that evolution did in fact happen, still holds-the mind entranced, absorbs into itself all evolutionary data, and at the same time rejects all data not so absorbable." (Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.51. Emphasis in original).
[top of page]"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."(Pinker, Steven [Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA]., "How the Mind Works," [1997], Penguin: London, 1998, pp.162-163. Emphasis in the original).
[top of page]"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species." (Augros, Robert [philosopher] & Stanciu, George [physicist], "The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).
[top of page]"But as a logical theory Darwinism collapses because the keystone of the system, selection carried out by death, is an illusion." (Tetry, Andree [Professor, Ecole des Hautes Etudes and Associate Director, School of Advanced Studies (Biology and Ethology), Sorbonne University, France], "Theories of Evolution," in Rostand J. & Tetry A., "Larousse Science of Life: A Study of Biology Sex, Genetics, Heredity and Evolution," [1962], Hamlyn: London, 1971, p438)
[top of page]"FOR as long as he can remember Stuart Kauffman [Kauffman, Stuart A. [Theoretical biologist, Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA] has held a deep conviction about nature: that natural selection cannot be the sole or even the most important source of order in the biological world. Almost three decades ago, Kauffman, then a young medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, set out to prove he was right and that the rest of the biological community was wrong. `What I found was profound,' says Kauffman. `I knew that then and I'm still convinced of it.' ... `The results were so powerful, and seemed to confirm what I felt instinctively must be true, that I dismissed natural selection as being totally unimportant,' says Kauffman." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Order For Free," New Scientist, 13 February 1993, Supplement, pp.10,11)
[top of page]"Darwin and evolutionism stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientists. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth. For Darwin's answer to the sources of the order we see all around us is overwhelmingly an appeal to a single singular force: natural selection. It is this single-force view which I believe to be inadequate, for it fails to notice, fails to stress, fails to incorporate the possibility that simple and complex systems exhibit order spontaneously." (Kauffman, Stuart A. [theoretical biologist, Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA], "The Origins of Order: Self- Organization and Selection in Evolution," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1993, p.xii).
[top of page]"The creationists so animating one another, the lay public, and our contemporary court system today rest uneasy with Darwin's heritage. Natural selection, operating on variations which are random with respect to usefulness, appears a slim force for order in a chaotic world. Yet the creationists' impulse is not merely misplaced religion. Science consists in discovering that point of view under which what did occur is what we have good grounds to expect might have occurred. Our legacy from Darwin, powerful as it is, has fractures as its foundations. We do not understand the sources of order on which natural selection was privileged to work. As long as our deepest theory of living entities is the geneology [sic] of contraptions and as long as biology is the laying bare of the ad hoc, the intellectually honorable motivation to understand partially lying behind the creationist impulse will persist." (Kauffman, Stuart A. [theoretical biologist, Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA], "The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1993, p.643)
[top of page]"If deterministic constraints exist, then certain regularities or trends in the large scale pattern of evolution should be evident. Yet very few studies have addressed this problem. One main reason is that natural selection is strictly a local mechanism and hence inherently unable to account for any global trend or pattern. Another reason is that evolutionary pattern itself is the product of inference from available data. Where inference is habitually made under certain presumptions, the resulting pattern becomes correspondingly biased. A case in point is the phylogenetic classification of organisms" (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm," Academic Press: London, 1984, p.7).
[top of page]"We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework-the natural selection of random mutations-is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance." (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573- 591, 1979, p.573).
[top of page]"Yet, clearly, evolution is not a "fact" in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. Without a time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved from reptiles....Nor can we prove that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth...." (Bowler, Peter J. [Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science, Queen's University, Belfast], "Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised Edition, 1989, p357).
[top of page]"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection would assert that all organisms, and especially all those highly complex organs whose existence might be interpreted as evidence of design and, in addition, all forms of animal behaviour, have evolved as the result of natural selection; that is, as the result of chance-like inheritable variations, of which the useless ones are weeded out, so that only the useful ones remain. If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose: as Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the peacock, and behavioural programmes like the peacock's display of his tail, which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural selection." (Popper, Karl R. [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, pp.345-346. Emphasis in original.).
[top of page]"From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinian selection represents a process whereby advantageous mutants spread through the species. Considering their great importance in evolution, it is perhaps surprising that well-established cases are so scarce; for example, industrial melanisms in moths and increases of DDT resistance in insects are constantly being cited. On the other hand, examples showing that negative selection is at work to eliminate variants produced by mutation abound." (Kimura, Motoo [founder of the Neutral Theory of Evolution, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan], "Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution," The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1976, p260)
[top of page]"Darwinians cannot simply claim that natural selection operates since everyone, including Paley and the natural theologians, advocated selection as a device for removing unfit individuals at both extremes and preserving, intact and forever, the created type. The essence of Darwinism lies in a claim that natural selection is the primary directing force of evolution, in that it creates fitter phenotypes by differentially preserving, generation by generation, the best adapted organisms from a pool of random variants that supply raw material only, not direction itself. Natural selection is a creator; it builds adaptation step by step." (Gould, Stephen J., [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory," Science, Vol. 216, 23 April 1982, pp.380-381).
[top of page]"The failure of neo-Darwinian theory is therefore one of misplaced emphasis. Evolution is seen to take place by the natural selection of random genetic mutations; inherent in this assumption is that the phenotypic variations corresponding to the genetic variations are equally random. On account of this, one has no recourse but to assign to natural selection the "creative" role in evolution." (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573-591, 1979, p.589).
[top of page]"In other words, if horses have evolved-and few are those who would like to deny it-and if an explanation of this transformation through random mutations alone is excessively unlikely- as indeed it seems to be, since the great majority of mutations so far observed are adverse or even lethal-then it must be the automatic selection in each generation, of very slightly advantageous variants that has built up the otherwise astonishing result. But how, one may ask, do we know this? If mutation alone cannot explain the evolutionary process- the origin of life, of sentient life, of intelligent life- why is natural selection-the elimination of the worst mutations, a negative and external agency- the only conceivable alternative?" (Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.50. Emphasis in original).
[top of page]"NATURAL SELECTION is a very grim natural reaper. Darwin made the bold claim that, at the very heart of evolution, many small deletions in bulkmany small wanton deaths- feeding on the throwaway optimism of minor variation, could, in a counter- intuitive way, add up to something truly new and meaningful. In the drama of traditional selection theory, death plays the star role. It works single- mindedly by attrition. It is an editor that knows only one word: "No." Variation counterbalances the one- note song of death by giving birth to the new in cheap abundance. It too knows only one word: "Maybe." Variation cranks out disposable "maybes" in bulk, which are immediately mowed down by death. Bulk mediocrity is dismissed by wanton death. Occasionally, the theory goes, this duet produces a "Yes!"-a starfish, kidney cells, or Mozart. On the face of it, evolution by natural selection is still a startling hypothesis. Death gives room for the new, it eliminates the ineffective. But to say that death causes wings to be formed, or eyeballs to work, is essentially wrong. Natural selection merely selects away the deformed wing, the unseeing eye. "Natural selection is the editor, not the author," says Lynn Margulis. What, then, authors innovation in flight and sight?" (Kelly, Kevin [Executive Editor of Wired magazine], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp.479- 480. Emphasis Kelly's).
[top of page]"How do new species arise? Darwin's original idea, that new species arise gradually from the action of natural selection over time, is now seriously in doubt. In fact Darwin was disappointingly vague and inexplicit about the actual mechanics of speciation (despite the title of his magnum opus). The events which lead to the 'creation' of new species are still largely a puzzle. Is selection alone strong enough to bring about new, distinct sexually isolated species in the wild? Is this process necessarily a gradual one, or may new species arise quite abruptly? The results of thousands of experiments and observations from nature are ambiguous natural selection may be strong enough to create adaptations, but some recent experiments suggest that selection may actually be irrelevant in the origin of species. There is also a wrangle over the speed at which new species are formed-the latest results implying that this may be sudden rather than gradual." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, pp.22-23)
[top of page]"No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or removes it from our sight." (Kelly, Kevin [Executive Editor of Wired Magazine], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475)
[top of page]"Few contemporary paleontologists would deny that natural selection controls the direction of evolution, but many would seek additional factors to account for the rapid evolution that characterizes the early diversification and radiation of groups and the early stages in the elaboration of major new structures. The great longevity of many groups and the minor evolutionary changes they exhibited pose another problem." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, 1988, pp.4-5)
[top of page]"But many biologists, looking at evolution over longer time intervals, have noted that species are rarely modified consistently in one direction long enough for significant evolutionary change to accumulate. Even the Galapagos finches seem to oscillate, not really "going any where" in an evolutionary sense. The reason is that short-term environmental change tends to be cyclical, so natural selection is not likely to keep pushing a species in any one particular direction long enough for new species or major new adaptations to evolve. Furthermore, every species is broken up into local populations, each of which belongs to a different local ecosystem-making it even less likely that natural selection will modify the entire species in any particular way as time rolls on." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Evolution and Environment: The two faces of biodiversity," Natural History, June 1998, pp.54-55)
[top of page]"To the question, "What happens to species when environments change?", the standard post-Darwinian answer became, "They evolve." Species become transformed to meet the new conditions-provided, of course, they are well stocked with the necessary genetic variation on which natural selection may act to effect suitable evolutionary change. Failing that, the fate is extinction. Here we have imagination colliding with common sense- and, worse, with empirical reality. Given the benefit of some 130 years of post- Darwinian scrutiny of the natural world, it has become abundantly clear that by far the most common response of species to environmental change is that they move -they change their locus of existence." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.64)
[top of page]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed to be creationists.
Copyright © 1999-2002, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated. Created: 28 August, 1999. Updated: 25 March, 2002.