Stats: 3,192,058 members, 7,946,605 topics. Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 10:16 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Understanding Natural Selection (586 Views)
Natural Selection, Darwin, And The Biblical Worldview / The Power Of Alaba Gospel Selection Mixtape With Johnwealth Music And Allbaze / Natural Selection And Macroevolution (2) (3) (4)
Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 4:37pm On Jul 10, 2020 |
Understanding Natural Selection Clarifying the Confusion by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on February 16, 2016; last featured May 7, 2018 ![]() Foreword On the grassy plains of East Africa, a herd of Grant’s gazelles meander slowly in the afternoon sun. Suddenly, the herd dashes off in unison—with a streak of spotted fur in hot pursuit. The healthy gazelles easily escape the hungry cheetah, but a sickly and weak gazelle at the back of the herd pitifully succumbs to the carnivore’s devices. Has “natural selection” struck again? And why does it matter to the creation/evolution debate?
The term natural selection has been defined clearly for over 150 years. Charles Darwin put the term in the title to his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and he articulated what he meant in the text of his seminal work: "But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection."1 Evolutionists to this day define it much the same way (but without the Victorian verbosity): "The differential survival of and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics."2 Thus, “survival of the fittest”3 or “survival of the fittest to reproduce” is the standard definition of the process termed natural selection, and it finds no conflict with the text of Scripture.4 Ever since the fall (Genesis 3), living things have been dying and killing each other, and the self-evident fact of natural selection is perfectly consistent with the Bible. Natural selection has happened, and it continues to happen every day. In fact, the concept of natural selection was first articulated, not by an evolutionist, but by a creationist nearly a quarter century before Darwin published his most significant work.5 Furthermore, as biblical creationists, we must affirm that the term natural has been used from the earliest days of formal scientific inquiry to describe God’s upholding of the universe through the laws of nature. For the Christian, nature is simply shorthand for God’s providential operation of the creatures and creation we see around us.6 In our example above, the culling of the sickly gazelle removes its unique genetic contribution from the overall genetic pool of the gazelle population, potentially preventing propagation of its genetic mutations from spreading. In addition, repetition of this predation cycle over time could alter the ratios of genetic varieties in the gazelle species, potentially leading to the formation of a new species. Thus, natural selection is an observable fact that can participate in the process of variation and speciation within the original kinds of animals that God created. Unfortunately, evolutionists have taken a straightforward truth and co-opted it for their anti-biblical purposes: "[Natural selection] provided an entirely natural, mechanistic explanation for adaptive design that had been attributed to a divine intelligence."7 In the evolutionary worldview, natural selection and mutations are the primary driving forces resulting in the evolution of all living things from a single-celled common ancestor over billions of years—without any divine intervention. In essence, atheistic evolutionists substitute natural selection for God Himself! The misuse of this term shouldn’t intimidate biblical creationists. After all, people have been co-opting terms for anti-biblical purposes for millennia. Even today, unbelievers justify gay “marriage,”8 abortion,9 and all sorts of other sins in the name of “Christianity.” Yet no Bible-believer would logically conclude that, because sinners wrap the cloak of “Christianity” around their vices, the entire Christian religion should be thrown out. Instead, we would all agree that the abusers of the term should be exposed, and the correct definition should be restored and emphasized to prevent error from spreading. The same principle holds true in the realm of natural selection. Just because unbelievers co-opt the term for their anti-Christian purposes doesn’t mean that natural selection isn’t real or that the term should be thrown out. Instead, biblical creationists should point out the ability of natural selection to remove the sickliest individuals from a population and to preserve the least degenerate and most well-adapted organisms,10 and we should also emphasize scientific inability of natural selection to evolve the diversity of life from a common ancestor.11 We should also expose the logical fallacies that evolutionists employ with natural selection in an attempt to buttress their case. For example, when pressed for evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, evolutionists often cite examples of natural selection. This is an equivocation fallacy since natural selection has been deftly substituted for evolution mid-argument. These two terms have very different definitions. NATURAL SELECTION IS A FACT, BUT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FROM A UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR IS NOT. Furthermore, natural selection—the survival of the fittest to reproduce—actually works in the opposite direction of molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection eliminates variety, and goo-to-you evolution requires an ever-increasing growth in variety.12 Thus, natural selection is a fact, but Darwinian evolution from a universal common ancestor is not—despite the evolutionists’ best attempts to use the former to prove the latter. Nevertheless, some biblical creationists have fallen into the evolutionists’ equivocation trap and have attempted to refute evolution by throwing out the concept of natural selection entirely. On occasion, we are asked what we think about such efforts. In short, while well intended, such attempts end up being logically unsound, scientifically erroneous, and theologically deficient. At first pass, these arguments have an intrinsic appeal. For example, Randy Guliuzza,13 a medical doctor and engineer by training, has prominently appealed to design analogies to argue against the existence of natural selection and for a process that he terms “programmed filling.”14 According to Guliuzza, in the human design process, it’s the engineers who do all the work in trying to solve a problem, and the problem contributes nothing to the solution. Extrapolating this process to our gazelle example above, Guliuzza would argue that the gazelle represents the engineer, and that the life-and-death attack by the cheetah represents the problem to be solved. Therefore, Guliuzza would argue that the survival of the gazelle depends entirely on the gazelle’s ability to “solve” this “problem” and has nothing to do with the environment. In fact, Guliuzza takes his analogy so literally that he has denied any role whatsoever for the environment: "Whether creatures live or die depends on their ability to generate information from their DNA to produce specific traits that fit environments . . . diversity depends solely on variables inside the creature."15 He even denies the existence of natural selection: "natural selection—is a phantasm."16 While Guliuzza is well intentioned in his efforts to rebut evolution, his analogy fails on several counts.17 First, creatures are not human engineers—by definition. In our example, the gazelle cannot, by sheer will, change its DNA to improve its metabolism, restructure its physiology, and grow longer legs to outrun the cheetah. Furthermore, creatures reproduce, and engineers rarely have to solve problems with self-replicating devices. In our example, even if the gazelle could change its DNA, grow longer legs, and survive, how would that information be passed to its offspring? For that to happen, changes would also have to occur in the animal’s egg or sperm. Second, even if we loosen the analogy and make God the ultimate “engineer,” God is not a human engineer (He’s much greater), and His creation and design acts encompass more than animals. He designed the environment as well, and He sovereignly rules it and even summons it on occasion to perform His will (e.g., the flood, the Red Sea crossing, etc.). To say that a creature’s survival has nothing to do whatsoever with the environment is to rob God of His glory. It’s not the fault of Pharaoh’s soldiers that they drowned. Their death is not a failure to adapt, a failure to remember to wear buoyant armour, or a failure to excel in their swimming lessons. Rather, God deliberately killed Pharaoh’s men with the waters of the Red Sea as an act of judgment on them and an act of salvation on Israel. In our example above, confusing causality also misses explicit Scriptural truths about the acts of God in history. Since the gazelles and the cheetah are modern, post-Flood creatures, they exist in a world judged by God at the fall (Genesis 3). As we all know, death and bloodshed are part of the curse under which we still live, and the purpose of the curse is an ongoing reminder of the realities of sin, of God’s anger against sin, and of the need for salvation. To blame the death of the gazelle on a failure of the gazelle to grow longer legs—rather than on the deliberate design of the cheetah to kill (in a fallen world)—is to miss an important reminder of critical gospel truths. Third, it is well-documented observational science that certain aspects of animal diversity—e.g., their genetics—depend on environmental variables. Textbook observational science shows how UV light and radiation induces specific types of DNA damage. In fact, tests to measure environmentally induced DNA changes have existed since the 1970s.18 Changes to the DNA sequence effectively result in increased genetic diversity. ASPECTS OF ANIMAL DIVERSITY DO DEPEND ON MORE THAN VARIABLES INSIDE CREATURES. Environmental variables also participate in the expression of more visible traits. For example, in certain bird species, the action of sea water initiates the expression of a salt gland. Though the gland is encoded by the creature and not by the environment, the gland doesn’t become expressed until environmental variables (e.g., salt water) trigger its appearance.19 Clearly, aspects of animal diversity do depend on more than variables inside creatures. In short, biblically, Guliuzza’s claims deny that God sovereignly uses the environment and the natural order to accomplish His work in the post-fall world in which we live. Scientifically, his claims are demonstrably false by virtue of prior scientific findings that are both testable and repeatable. Thus, the process of natural selection—the survival of the fittest to reproduce—is a fact that highlights the providential care of God over a fallen creation and brings glory to His power, judgment, and salvation. We embrace the proper use of this term, and we reject Randy Guliuzza’s erroneous claims about the nonexistence of natural selection. Source |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 7:10pm On Jul 10, 2020 |
Ignorance is when you allow someone else to read a book and tell you their own interpretation or understanding of it. It's like the pastors tell you what God has to say because you are incapable of reading the Bible yourself or claiming you are not worthy to go up the mountain with Moses, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel! Thankfully, those as described above are in the minority and are obviously not selected, naturally or unnaturally. For those that are or wish to be selected, consider reading The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin by yourselves. And while you are at it, read God's criteria for selecting and wonder if it is natural. 1 Like
|
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 8:21pm On Jul 10, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU:Yet, evidence shows many living organisms descending from prior species. budaatum: |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by Heathen777(m): 1:55am On Jul 11, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU: If evolution by natural selection does isn't factual, then explain to me how antibiotic resistance happens? |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:59pm On Jul 11, 2020 |
Heathen777: A bacterium can gain resistance to certain antibiotics either by losing genetic information or from another bacterium that already has resistance. This is natural selection in action not evolution. ![]() |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by sotall(m): 7:21pm On Jul 11, 2020 |
. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by Heathen777(m): 2:56am On Jul 12, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU:Antimicrobial mutations could also be by base substitutions, deletions, and insertions. It is not necessarily by deletion. And even if it was only by deletion it doesn't mean it can't be considered as evolution, (some species evolved that way) Antimicrobial resistance can develop naturally as the evolutionary response of continued exposure to antimicrobials. Natural selection means that organisms that are able to adapt to their environment survive and continue to produce offspring.] As a result, the types of microorganisms that are able to survive over time with continued attack by certain antimicrobial agents will naturally become more prevalent in the environment, and those without this resistance will become obsolete Over time most of the strains of bacteria and infections present will be the type resistant to the antimicrobial agent being used to treat them, making this agent now ineffective to defeat most microbes. With the increased use of antimicrobial agents, there is a speeding up of this natural process. This is literally what evolution is. EVOLUTION is a change in gene frequency of a notable percentage of a given population. Can't you grasp that simple concept? 1 Like |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 7:22pm On Jul 12, 2020 |
sotall: OLAADEGBU: 1 Like 1 Share
|
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 9:51pm On Jul 12, 2020 |
sotall:I'd like you to see it as some stating how ignorant they are so they can be taught. They of course do not know they are ignorant. |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 10:07pm On Jul 12, 2020 |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 10:15pm On Jul 12, 2020 |
This must be your way of ignoring buda, by continuously pointing me to a thread that pits knowledge against God. Personally, I wonder how an ignorant [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11&version=NIV]Jesus would have made satan scuttle off[/url], and how you are ever going to get wisdom if you remain ignorant. OLAADEGBU: OLAADEGBU: |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:00pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
budaatum: What knowledge is against God? ![]()
|
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 2:16pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU:Go read the thread you signposted and perhaps you'd understand that its claiming knowledge is opposed to godliness, instead of God being all knowledge. But I guess that assumes you can read which you obviously can not since for some reason you can't even see. |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 3:04pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
budaatum: Any knowledge that teaches you not to fear God is not of God. |
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by budaatum: 3:47pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU:Let us know if the knowledge below is not of God.
|
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by OLAADEGBU(m): 4:57pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
budaatum: Not if it is quoted to suit a diabolic narrative. ![]()
|
Re: Understanding Natural Selection by evanslaw: 10:47pm On Jul 19, 2020 |
OLAADEGBU:. Please can you answer this .... Men Who didn't die in the Bible I am not a great believer in religion, I do believe in a creator, this doesn't mean I have not read big parts of the Bible. In this readings I have come across three people who apparently didn't die. One was Enoch who it says was taken by God to Heaven without having died, then we have Elijah who was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire with horses of fire. These are the two most known of the three who did not die, but there is another who did not die, something clearly stated in the Bible and yet I have read a lot of authors all of them having some way of saying it is metaphorical, that this person was in reality a leader of a church with does not die. But the Bible literally says he not only was created without father or mother but that his life is endless. Of course I am talking of Melchizedek. This is what is said about him Hebrews 7:1-4: 1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Now this Melchizedek is the one person for whom there is no answer, we have someone who apparently is eternal, he just doesn't die, remember Jesus died, his great miracle was that he overcame death after being dead. But in Melchizedek we have someone who is still around, someone who is eternal, this is one of the great mysteries of the Bible, who is this person, he must be incredible, imagine what he must know. I for one would love to meet him or learn from him. He is the one thing nobody can get around, they try to say it is not literal it is allegorical, but come on the Bible is the word of God so Melchizedek has to be what the Bible says he is. I have been told that he is Jesus, wrong answer Jesus is God's son so he has a father, he also had a mother so Melchizedek is definitely not Jesus.I have always been interested in Melchizedek, he is the greatest mystery in the Bible, if the Bible is the world of God we have to face the fact that Melchizedek is exactly what the Bible says he is. I wonder if anyone has any concept about him, I would love to hear opinions about this. Remember he appears in Genesis, in Psalms and in Hebrews, he is not a one time thing, he shows up in different Bible epochs |
(1) (Reply)
The Parables of the Kingdom of God / Dear Pastor, Look Well Before You Predict 2021 – Peju Akande / What Is The True Definition Of Love?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 96 |