Natural Selection Is Useless in Science
Can anyone name any real, true thing that Darwin’s phrase “natural selection” has done to further understanding of nature?
Brace yourself. We’re going to say that natural selection is useless for science. Secular scientists will scream. Even some creationists will harrumph. But you need look no further than scientific journals and science news sites to see that it is true. Natural selection is a storytelling plot that contributes nothing to real, useful knowledge about nature. It’s like colorful frosting, but not the cake. It’s like graffiti on a wall that does nothing to hold the building up. It’s like a gaudy pattern on a hot-air balloon, but not the heat engine that lifts it.
If scientists ditched the phrase natural selection entirely, science would go on just fine. In fact, it would go on better without all the distractions offered by this empty, useless phrase that Darwin invented. Here’s our challenge: can you name any one, true, real thing that “natural selection” has added to our understanding of the world? While we wait for a response, it’s time to back up our audacious claim with specific examples from the science news.
Articles Employing “Natural Selection” with No Added Value
Spotting evolution among us (Science Magazine). We’ll start right at the top with the premiere science journal in America, Science, the voice of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in a paper published just this week. Writer Ann Gibbons uses the phrase natural selection (hence NS) a whopping 13 times, determined to show that it helps scientists make sense of the world. Does NS advance science, a goal for which the AAAS is named? Remember now, we are looking for understanding, not storytelling. We must overlook the fluff of a high perhapsimaybecouldness index (PMCI) We want some meat in the science. Where’s the beef?
- “In addition to unearthing archaic DNA, the studies are pinpointing genes that natural selection may now be winnowing out of the gene pool and other genes—for example those linked to fertility—that it may be favoring.” The phrase “may not” is just as suitable as “may” here. Come back when you have the beef.
- “The pair wondered whether other gene variants affect survival so dramatically—and whether natural selection is weeding them out.” Come back when you stop wondering and have evidence.
- “When it comes to natural selection in humans, most studies have only been able to detect dramatic cases thousands or millions of years ago in genes of known function.” Circular reasoning. Those studies assume natural selection did the work. None of the researchers witnessed millions of years, let alone thousands.
- “Now, Pickrell and Przeworski wondered whether they could detect genetic variants that affect survival today—and whether natural selection in recent generations has been weeding out harmful ones or favoring beneficial ones.” Come back when you stop wondering and have proof. Is NS doing this by intelligent design? What is it, a god?
- “Nearly all the variants they examined persisted at the same frequency even into old age, suggesting they had no large effect on survival. That implies natural selection has efficiently weeded out harmful variants, even if they act only in old age—perhaps, Przeworski speculates, because the variants curb older men’s fecundity. Or perhaps the hypothesized benefit that healthy grandmothers confer on grandchildren was at work.” High PMCI. Well, which is it? Too vague to be scientific. And since everything dies, there’s no way to blame it on NS. This is not NS; it is differential death. No new information. No innovation. No progress from molecules to man.
- “The researchers concluded that natural selection has not yet had time to eliminate these two alleles, perhaps because changes in the environment and human behavior only recently made them deadly….” More perhapses. Darwin was not trying to eliminate things. He was trying to say NS causes bacteria to evolve into man. Cliffs in the environment are deadly, too. Is that an example of NS?
- “Natural selection may have preserved those variants even though they shorten life span because they also boosted fertility.” More storytelling and speculation.
- “But researchers have been unable to tie those trends to underlying genes to get direct evidence of natural selection.” NS theory is doing a great job helping our understanding, isn’t it?
- “The UK Biobank allows us to show that natural selection not only took place in the past, but it’s still ongoing,” Visscher says. More circular reasoning. Visscher is studying genes “thought to increase fertility.” But fertility is no guarantee of progress in fitness. The offspring could all be afflicted by worse traits, and some mammals with low fertility survive just fine. Now read the very next sentence:
- “Teasing out natural selection from other factors shaping genes can be tricky, however, especially when multiple genes work together to influence complex traits, such as height. About 5000 gene variants simultaneously influence a person’s height, some boosting it, some reducing it….” This undermines Visscher’s assertion. He has no way to establish NS as the cause of increased fertility. It’s just his preferred explanation – a story – out of thousands of potential alternative explanations.
- “Berg and others suggested natural selection had favored tallness in the Yamnaya or their ancestors, and ancient DNA reveals that the Yamnaya were tall.” Wait for it:
- “It’s true people in northern Europe are taller on average, but there is no evidence this has anything to do with natural selection,” Berg says.” Gotta love this natural selection. It’s as substantive and nutritious as cotton candy.
- “Although UKB data cast doubt on natural selection’s role in that case, they do suggest that evolution has favored genes for shortness in pygmy populations on the island of Flores in Indonesia.” What? Evolutionists imbibe NS smoke and become racists again? For shame!
There you have it. Ann Gibbons had a PERFECT opportunity to show that NS adds value to our understanding. Between the admissions of ignorance you saw only speculative assertions. BAD bluffing assertion were offered in one sentence only to be taken away in the next. Everything is vague, imprecise speculation heavily seasoned with may, perhaps, and could. Such words are unworthy of scientific understanding.
If you buy these evolutionists’ stories, we have a resort vacation to offer you on the Isle of DeBris.
We have more examples to share to prove our contention that NS is useless, but we wanted to start big. More will be forthcoming, followed by examples of good biological science that completely ignores NS. Meanwhile, offer your best example of NS adding some value to science. Go ahead; give it your best shot. But you had better read up on some of our earlier articles about NS first, so that you don’t fall into the pitfalls of shallow thinking.