Artificial Selection vs. Natural Selection

[Rational Agnostic]

It often surprises me how readily creationists accept the fact that humans can greatly modify species via artificial selection (breeding) yet fail to recognize the tremendous modification powers of natural selection. Artificial selection occurs when certain individuals with desirable characteristics are selected for breeding. Initially, the differences between these individuals and other individuals are so minuscule that they are barely perceptible to the untrained observer. However, man's repeated selection of desired traits in these individuals leads to relatively rapid evolution, as is clearly demonstrated in the case of domesticated dogs. All domestic dogs evolved from likely only one or two common ancestors, and, it is easy for everyone (creationists included) to accept that all varieties of domestic dogs evolved from this ancestor via artificial selection. Natural selection works in the same manner as artificial selection with two primary differences: 1) It has a much greater time period to work with (billions of years vs. hundreds or thousands in the case of artificial selection). As a result, a much larger degree of evolution (including speciation) has time to occur. and 2) Obviously, the species that are able to survive long enough to leave offspring are the species that are selected; therefore instead of "desirable" traits being selected; it is traits that lead to survival.

These are quite obvious facts and very easy to understand. We can see natural selection acting to some degree over our lifetimes, and we can easily observe the ramifications of selection in an artificial sense with regard to domestication. This is the compelling argument that Darwin used to introduce the topic of evolution in The Origin. It is a very simple and obvious fact that selection does lead to modification (as can plainly be seen with many manmade examples). The question for creationists, then, is: Why do you accept evolution by artificial selection, yet do not accept evolution by natural selection, when they are both proven modifiers? I know that the likely answer will probably be "micro-evolution occurs in species, but one species cannot evolve into another." However, this is incorrect. Given enough time, differences between individuals within a single species lead to varieties within that species (due to natural selection). Eventually, natural selection acts on these varieties, and these varieties will become new species. The new species will eventually become new genera etc. Natural selection is a powerful mechanism for macro-evolution when applied over immense time-spans, and we know via radio-metric dating techniques that there has been more than enough time for this degree of evolution to occur.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It often surprises me how readily creationists accept the fact that humans can greatly modify species via artificial selection (breeding) yet fail to recognize the tremendous modification powers of natural selection. Artificial selection occurs when certain individuals with desirable characteristics are selected for breeding. Initially, the differences between these individuals and other individuals are so minuscule that they are barely perceptible to the untrained observer. However, man's repeated selection of desired traits in these individuals leads to relatively rapid evolution, as is clearly demonstrated in the case of domesticated dogs. All domestic dogs evolved from likely only one or two common ancestors, and, it is easy for everyone (creationists included) to accept that all varieties of domestic dogs evolved from this ancestor via artificial selection. Natural selection works in the same manner as artificial selection with two primary differences: 1) It has a much greater time period to work with (billions of years vs. hundreds or thousands in the case of artificial selection). As a result, a much larger degree of evolution (including speciation) has time to occur. and 2) Obviously, the species that are able to survive long enough to leave offspring are the species that are selected; therefore instead of "desirable" traits being selected; it is traits that lead to survival.

These are quite obvious facts and very easy to understand. We can see natural selection acting to some degree over our lifetimes, and we can easily observe the ramifications of selection in an artificial sense with regard to domestication. This is the compelling argument that Darwin used to introduce the topic of evolution in The Origin. It is a very simple and obvious fact that selection does lead to modification (as can plainly be seen with many manmade examples). The question for creationists, then, is: Why do you accept evolution by artificial selection, yet do not accept evolution by natural selection, when they are both proven modifiers? I know that the likely answer will probably be "micro-evolution occurs in species, but one species cannot evolve into another." However, this is incorrect. Given enough time, differences between individuals within a single species lead to varieties within that species (due to natural selection). Eventually, natural selection acts on these varieties, and these varieties will become new species. The new species will eventually become new genera etc. Natural selection is a powerful mechanism for macro-evolution when applied over immense time-spans, and we know via radio-metric dating techniques that there has been more than enough time for this degree of evolution to occur.

I can't speak for all creationists, but as a skeptic of Darwinism- yes, we generally agree with the observable, testable, repeatable i.e. scientific parts of micro adaptation

We can selectively breed dogs, in an intelligently guided process, and demonstrate the limits of adaptation at which point serious health problems arise.

As for dogs evolving from an ancestor- what ancestor? it was long believed to be grey wolves, but as in so many cases, this is looking more and more questionable even within mainstream evolutionary biology.

"primary differences: 1) It has a much greater time period to work with (billions of years vs. hundreds or thousands in the case of artificial selection)"

We agree with the necessity for great periods of time in this hypothetical process, and Darwin considered this crucial also- the problem is that these time periods keep shrinking the more the fossil record is clarified.- The gaps and appearences becoming ever more abrupt- hence the rise of punctuated equilibrium etc- which at least recognizes the problem even if it doesn't actually present a solution.

I understand the temptation to extrapolate superficial direct observations into comprehensive explanations, that's what gave us erroneous assumptions of classical physics.
The genetic apple falls not far from it's tree, but this likewise does not adequately account for the larger observed reality.


This forum software allows for some variation in size, color, shape of text- just like the literal digital code in DNA does for dogs, and we can select the variations we want for different circumstances. We could also theoretically let the computer pick random values and let the best be 'naturally selected' by us- and eventually arrive at the best combinations- right?

But Darwinists can certainly understand why tweaking these variation parameters can never create the very software that supports this adaptive capacity! They can also understand that randomly mutating the underlying code supporting this capacity with no specific goal, will never create an altogether different/ let alone superior software application, it will only corrupt and crash it

i.e. micro adaptation to macro evolution is NOT just a matter of scale, it's an insurmountable logical paradox inherent to such nested hierarchies of information systems

The question for Darwinists then is: why accept these inherent limitations in one hierarchical digital code structure, but not the other? when they are also demonstrated in direct experiment as well as the fossil record?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It often surprises me how readily creationists accept the fact that humans can greatly modify species via artificial selection (breeding) yet fail to recognize the tremendous modification powers of natural selection.

Nothing surprises me about them. They are rather predictable.

 

[Skwim]

It often surprises me how readily creationists accept the fact that humans can greatly modify species via artificial selection (breeding) yet fail to recognize the tremendous modification powers of natural selection.

It isn't so much a failure to recognize the tremendous modification powers of natural selection, but a requirement not to. In order for creationists to maintain their opposition to evolution and all its mechanisms it's imperative they deny them, regardless of their explanatory strengths. So, to the creationist it doesn't matter one wit what evidence there may be in support of evolution because their need to hold fast to their beliefs requires them to automatically reject it as meaningless.

THAT SAID, depending on the creationist---not all of them think alike---there may be an acceptance of evolution and its mechanisms. Creationists such as those who adhere to the AiG line of speciation do admit that after the flood there was a tremendous amount of evolution going on among animals. (They don't address other life-forms such as plants and fungi.) It's the only way they're able to account for vast number of species now populating the earth considering the limited number of life forms that could have fit aboard the ark. They call it "New Species from Ark Kinds." Amusingly, while they admit that new species did arise after the flood, they can't bring themselves to use the term "evolve." The closest they let themselves come is to use the word "form."

The constant rate at which species form has profound implications for the present. First, it implies that species are still forming. For example, in felids, since one new cat species has arisen approximately every 120 years, we can expect to see another felid species form in the next 120 years.
source​

However, if I recall their story correctly, before the flood all the various forms of life ("kinds," thank you)) were put on earth as-is by god. Interestingly, they say these pre-flood creatures may not have looked anything like any of their progeny now roaming the earth.

As for dogs evolving from an ancestor- what ancestor? it was long believed to be grey wolves, but as in so many cases, this is looking more and more questionable even within mainstream evolutionary biology.

Curious as to where you got this information. Although the classification of the domestic dog is still not settled, some believing it should remain classified as a separate species Canis familiaris along side the wolf Canis lupus, while others feel it's a sister subspecies, Canis lupus familiaris to the wolf, Canis lupus lupus, I haven't come across any information indicating it didn't evolve from wolf stock.

.

.

 

[Altfish]

I once again refer to Bertrand Russell...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt"
I think that says it all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I once again refer to Bertrand Russell...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt"
I think that says it all.

hear hear!


“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..."