The question is asked: “Is natural selection a real phenomenon?” There are biologists who believe that the very term “natural selection” is a pure tautology. By definition, natural selection is the survival of the fittest. And who are the fittest? The fittest are those who have survived. Therefore, “natural selection is the survival of those who have survived.” So some biologists say that natural selection is a pure tautology.
There is another group of biologists who believe that natural selection is a real phenomenon. However, today biology has only managed to obtain one example that unequivocally shows that natural selection exists.
What is that example? It is the example of the butterfly Biston betularia. This butterfly lives in England, and before the industrial revolution, out of its two forms: light and dark, over 90% in 1850 were light forms. And then the industrial revolution came, with all the products it brought.
And changes occurred, so that by 1950 we have the opposite situation, where now over 90% are dark individuals. What is this about?
Before the industrial revolution, the trees in England were covered in lichens. Lichens are a symbiotic (symbiosis – mutual living) combination of fungi and algae. And each component can be separated and independently cultivated, but when they grow together, they form a lichen. This is a large group of organisms now classified as a separate species.
So, in England, before the industrial revolution, there were white lichens, so the light-colored butterfly individuals were hard to notice, compared to their predators, the animals that eat them. And then birds, of course, predominantly hunted the dark butterflies. When the dark one falls on the white background, it is visible. But what is important is that both the dark and the light form existed simultaneously.
And with the industrial revolution, lichens die off and the trees become dark, stripped, because there are no lichens. So now the opposite happens: the dark individuals are not noticed, while the light individuals are very noticeable. And then the predators hunt, clearly, the light individuals.
This is the only example described so far, but certainly sufficient, which shows that natural selection is a real phenomenon.
Is natural selection then the creator of evolutionary novelties? First, it should be remembered that natural selection does not mean evolution. Some think that if they prove that natural selection exists, they have proven evolution. No one here, in this example, has evolved, no one has progressed. We had two starting forms of butterflies, dark and light. With what you started, that is what you finished with. Only the frequency of certain variants of a species that already exists changes, not the transitional variant which is a candidate for a new species.
Therefore, natural selection only explains why a certain phenotype or class of phenotypes survives more successfully with a change in the environment, or why certain ones survived, not how they came into existence. Therefore, natural selection explains why the most adapted survive, not why they are like that. The fact that the most adapted survive does not explain “how they came into existence.” Selection is more of an answer to the question of adaptability than of origin.
Natural selection, in and of itself, is not a generator or creator of evolutionary novelties, but it only exposes certain variants, as in this case with the butterfly. Variants do not arise under the induction of the environment, but randomly, by chance, through the combination of genetic material, something that already exists in the genetic pool of a species.
Here is a short experiment that will demonstrate that the variant that survives did not arise under the influence of environmental factors.
If we have a strain of bacteria that is sensitive to a certain type of bacterial virus, and now we sow these bacteria onto a nutrient medium, and we get a carpet of bacteria; and now, with a sterile stamp (a stamp with a plush top) you press the bacteria onto a substrate with a virus (meaning, you transfer billions of bacteria to a substrate where the virus lives), you will get only a few bacteria that will grow on that new substrate. And they are, clearly, resistant to that virus.
How did they come into existence? Did they arise because of contact between the bacteria and the virus, or did they arise earlier, without contact? That is important. How to distinguish that now?
This is an archaic experiment. But, the experiment is fundamental, important. Scientists precisely copied the bacterial carpet from a substrate without a virus to a substrate with a virus, and they got resistant ones. Then, they returned to the previous substrate that had never seen a virus and planted the imprint on the substrate with the virus, and from the previous substrate with the virus on which resistant forms were obtained, an imprint was also planted on the substrate with the virus. What are the predictions now? If the theory is correct that change is induced in cooperation with the environment, then we will get a few resistant ones. And if it is true that they (the bacteria) were resistant before they came into cooperation with the environmental factor, we will get full bacterial growth.
So, we have a multitude of bacteria. And now, in contact with the virus, some of them become resistant. This is one theory. If we take them from a substrate that has never seen a virus, by the same logic we will get some resistant ones. Only when they come into contact with the virus will they become resistant.
And if this is not true, if it is true that these were already resistant, resistant to that virus before they came into contact with the virus, then we multiply them (they are still resistant), and when we plant them on a substrate with the virus, they show all resistance.
Out of a billion planted, we have a billion resistant ones. So, it is a matter of initial resistance.
The specific experiment showed that this second one is true. So, they were previously resistant, and the selective pressure pulls out those that are already resistant, not that selection makes them so. Selection does not generate something that does not already exist. It only pulls out the variant that survives in that environment.
To understand the mechanism of resistance, we will give an explanation. We have a bacterium, which has a protein that is recognized by the virus. That protein is determined by the X gene. And now, a mutation in the X gene changes this protein, so the virus can no longer recognize it and bind to the bacterium. So, they were resistant because the mutation was already there, and the virus can’t attack them. Therefore, it is not the virus that entered the bacterium that created them like this.
For evolutionary change, natural selection is not enough, but something else is needed that generates variants that natural selection will favor or disfavor. You know the saying: “Do fish have lungs because they came out of the water (and need lungs to breathe) or did they come out of the water because they already had lungs?” What use are lungs if they are in the water? Obviously, we cannot think that they can come out if they don’t have lungs. How can they leave the water if they don’t have developed lungs, nostrils, legs, and so on? On the other hand, what use are lungs while they are in the water?
Therefore, natural selection can only explain microevolutionary changes in a population, and this involves changing the frequency of certain variants of a type that already exists, or we can even say “species.” Although the term biological species is different from the term used in the Bible, the only way, in fact, to transition from that microevolutionary change, which no one disputes, or variation within one type, to the transition to a new type, say, from fish to amphibian, is possible only by evolutionary extrapolation. Thus, microevolutionary changes are extrapolated to the macroevolutionary scale.
The basic question is, in fact, “do limits exist in the variability of species?” In principle, there should be nothing against certain extrapolations. But, extrapolations must be adjusted to situational limitations. Extrapolation cannot be done without considering the situation.
To explain: I am now running, let’s say, 5 km/h. But, after a month of training, I guarantee that I will run 10 km/h. How fast will I run? Twice as fast. In two months, I run 20 km/h. And you can imagine, according to an extrapolation that doesn’t know limitations, in a year I will run…
It is true that there is a certain variability within a species, but this variability always has some limitation. A species is such a plastic category, you can twist it this way and that, it is variable, but invariant. You can “knead” it in various ways, but a cat cannot turn into something else.
Here it would be useful to make a distinction between the biblical and biological understanding of the concept of species. A biological species is a group of populations of individuals that are truly connected by reproductive bonds (and according to the creationist concept, potentially as well), and are reproductively isolated from individuals of other populations. This means, dogs and cats cannot interbreed reproductively.
According to the creationist concept, or the concept based on the biblical account, “species” is something else. Here it may be better to use the term “basic type” or “created species.” This is something different from a biological species. The definition of the basic type is still developing, but we could say that it generally presents several requirements. First, there must be true fertilization, which means that the genetic material of both parents must equally participate in determining the offspring, but complete embryonic development does not have to occur. Fertile offspring are not required.
For example, when crossing a horse and a donkey, we get offspring (mules and hinnies), where the contribution of both parents is evident, but the offspring are sterile. So, a horse and a donkey are two different biological species, but belong to the same basic type.
Thus, when defining the basic type, crosses that lead to sterile offspring are recognized, because it has been experimentally shown that one mutation (a small change in the genome) can lead to sterility. Furthermore, for the type, it does not matter whether the cross occurs freely in nature or artificially, whether it happens rarely or often. And finally, indirect crosses are also included.
For example, bio-species A does not cross with bio-species C, but it crosses with B, and B crosses with C – then A, B, C belong to the same basic type.
What is important, the basic types (created initially in the form, most likely only one pair of individuals) are designed in such a way that they had a large potential for variability, so they were not primitive, but they had a very complex genome. All the changes that selection later extracted were already “contained” in the genome. God created “species” that can adapt to different living conditions. They were not fixed.
So, the created species is a category that is capable of adapting, but only relatively to adapt to changes in the environment (there is no life that could adapt to boiling water), and this ability is given at its creation, because before natural selection acts, it possesses the genetic potential for producing variants that will allow relative adaptation.
Let’s say, you have a desert. Who can survive in the desert? Only plants that have a series of adaptations: reduced leaves, developed chlorophyll in the stem, thick cuticle, deep roots. And this cannot develop through natural selection because natural selection already eliminates all variants that do not have this. A plant cannot come to the desert and “now I will extend my roots a little.” There is no such thing. However, if there is a variant that already has deep roots, it will survive in the desert.
And finally, it should be noted that when experimentally studying the action of selective pressures and selection itself, it is often forgotten that the experimental example cannot be applied to what is real in nature. Because, in the experiment, we select bacteria. Be careful, you have a billion bacteria, copying genetic information is not perfect, and let’s say, if we have one nucleotide change out of a billion nucleotides, we get a mutation. So, if you have a billion bacteria, maybe it will happen that some nucleotide changes in some gene and a mutation occurs, and you will extract that mutation through selection. And now, let’s apply this to whales if we can.
So, during the very study of selection, the selection of the object that will be studied is carried out. So, for one mutation to occur, you need a billion whales. They would fill the entire ocean. Who will explain the origin of whales (and there are no transitional forms at all)?
Look, first you have aquatic organisms. Then, according to evolutionary theory, these organisms perfectly adapted to the aquatic environment, and now they are adapting to life on land. And then, the organisms adapted to land return to the water. And now, we have organisms living on land. In relation to whales, they are microscopically small. And let’s say, that the evolution of these small land mammals into sea mammals started, and that this evolution led to something gigantic, but still not a whale. And let’s imagine now how large the population of “half-whales” would have to be for a “favoring” mutation to occur. That’s why evolutionary biologists make up for the population by long time periods. Simply put, you don’t have billions of whales at once, but over a period of 1,000 years.
Do you know what death for evolution is? What is the definitive proof against evolution? A short history of the Earth. Because if the Earth, or life on Earth, or if the processes on Earth are 6 thousand years old, then evolution doesn’t stand. That’s why geology has always been a vase for evolution. First it was Lyell, then Darwin. First Lyell with uniformitarianism, then Darwin with his gradual changes.
Now we will explain with one example how, actually, natural selection preserves only what is finished, what is perfectly adapted, and doesn’t create anything new. And our favorite example is with flying reptiles.
Flying reptiles originated from non-flying reptiles. You know, in evolution, you have that birds originated from non-birds, mammals originated from non-mammals, flying reptiles from non-flying ones, which were absolutely adapted to terrestrial life. (A little later we will talk about mutations.)
We hope that you have understood what natural selection is. It is not some generator of something new. That means, natural selection can only operate with something that already exists. Environmental factors do not induce the creation of novelties, but only natural selection extracts something that really, truly exists.
That means, we have reptiles that are perfectly adapted to terrestrial (land-based) life. When looking at the anatomy of the alleged ancestors from which flying reptiles originated, it can be seen that there was a dramatic change in the skeleton of the forelimbs, so that the phalanges of the fourth finger particularly developed.
In us, the phalanx is this small bone in the finger, but in horses, it is something else. The horse runs (this is the most perfect gait) on the tip of the finger. We have quite a primitive gait. We step with the whole foot. Carnivores (cats and dogs) step with their whole toes, and ungulates (hoofed animals) step only on the tips of their toes. That is why they have the most graceful, the most beautiful gait. Our ballerinas try to imitate what “nature has already invented.”
That means, in flying reptiles, compared to their alleged ancestors, we have a dramatic development of the fourth finger. This fourth finger developed and elongated so much that it exceeded the length of the whole body. And then it is assumed that a skin duplication developed that formed the wing. Today, there is only the initial and finished form. There are no so-called “missing links,” “missing links.” Sometimes this was translated as “lost links.”
You see how strange that term is, a subjective term: “lost links,” as if they really existed, and then they got lost. That does not exist. There is no transition. And according to Darwin’s explanation of the origin of new evolutionary novelties, there should be thousands of transitions from an animal that does not fly to an animal that is capable of flying. Because it is not enough just to have wings. There also need to be developed centers in the brain.
“And now let’s think a little like evolutionists. We have an animal that is already adapted, super well adapted to terrestrial life. And now, in the population of such animals, one appears in which a mutation has exactly affected the gene that determines the length of the phalanges, and a slightly longer phalanx develops.
And now, we have a minor change in the length of the finger. The question now is: ‘How can selection act on a minor change?’ Because, it is not clear how this animal would now have an advantage over all its ancestors, beat them in the struggle for survival, and leave offspring, just because it had a slightly longer fourth finger? But okay, we assume that it won.
And now, in the population of those who won, the mutation hits exactly the same gene (we will soon talk about mutations, how they are destructive changes), and it leads to the fact that this finger is elongated a little more. And behold the miracle, now those who are a little longer, they again defeat all their ancestors who die out, and these leave their offspring. And again we get longer, longer, and now we have a long finger.
At the same time, genes mutate that lead to the development of skin duplication. Also, by some miracle, centers in the head develop, but that animal still cannot fly. And imagine that animal which goes and drags those wings behind it, and defeats all its ancestors.
That does not exist. Either the structure allows the animal absolute adaptation or that structure does not exist. Natural selection is there to eliminate freaks. Natural selection explains to us ‘why do imagined structures not exist?’, but ‘why do real ones exist?’, that natural selection cannot explain.
Therefore, natural selection explains to us ‘why we do not see a lizard today that pulls heavy wings?’ This is explained by natural selection, and ‘why does a real, concrete lizard exist?’, this natural selection cannot explain.
And that ‘concept of half-structures’ is completely illogical. Because, what does ‘half-diaphragm’ mean? Reptiles do not have a diaphragm, and mammals have a diaphragm. What does ‘half-diaphragm’ mean? How did selection select the half-diaphragm? Or ‘half-wings’, ‘half-jaws’, ‘half-hearing apparatus’. In the organism itself, there is an internal correlation between the parts of the body. Because, for example, in bees, if the entire apparatus for pollen collection is not developed, that function means absolutely nothing, not even some completed structure, if it is not in correlation with other structures. Only if the entire apparatus is developed (if the maxillae, honey stomach… are developed), only in that sense does it have any significance. But, if it is not fully developed, it is meaningless.
You cannot have an egg in a shell if the entire metabolic machinery for producing uric acid, not urea which is soluble in water, is not developed. Natural selection only explains why some imagined forms do not exist, and why some real, concrete forms exist, that natural selection cannot explain.
As for improvement through artificial selection, from a biological aspect, man has not improved, but deformed domestic animals. It is different that we are breeding for what suits us, but if we let them fight with those species over there… For example, a cow that is only selected for milk, if we let it live with some cow in Durmitor… It is easy to keep those cows there in Holland – mild climate, stable, and so on. Let’s let her live there, let’s see what will happen in Durmitor.
They say: ‘The English only deal with their own work. He is, for example, a pharmacist. What does he care how the carburetor works? There are auto mechanics who take care of the carburetor.’ He drives on the highway, his car stops, he runs 50 meters, has an ‘SOS’ phone, calls the first garage, this one brings the car from the garage, drives his, fixes it, returns it to him, and he continues his journey and does his work.
And I ask that Englishman, if he drives there up Kolašin, and when his car overheats, and steam bursts out in all directions, he would have to know not just about the carburetor, but he would have to know everything.