Natural vs. unnatural selection: Consider the ceaseless yap of the lap dog and be warned

In "Actually, the goal posts were just pulled up. Too much trouble to move...", I linked to Jonathan Well's comment on subtle attempts to change just what Darwinian evolution means, to avoid disconfirmation of any particular model. You know, first it's natural selection only, then, lo and behold, group selection is allowed, then Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics), then gene swapping ...

First junk DNA proved Darwin was right, then when it turned out not to be junk, you can be pretty sure, it will still prove Darwin was right. Darwinism has become a catch-all for a tired, worn-out theory, hysterically popular in the academic culture, with no real foundation for why.

Anyway, Mike Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution, comments on my notes on the obviously unsupportable claim that artificial selection (= animal breeding) supports Darwinian evolution (random mutation acting on natural selection):

Anyone can breed a weird dog (I mean, assuming they have basic knowledge of canines).

But nature has a funnel.

There are only certain ways that dogs can really live in the wild.

For example, a greyhound can run faster than a wolf, because he doesn’t have heavy jaws - but what happens when he catches up with the prey?

Someone throws him a bag of Science Diet for Adult Working Dogs, right?

Human interventions almost always assume that we protect the life form from the normal routine of nature – otherwise there would be no reason to bother.

And nature is limited to certain routines. A wild animal that cannot feed itself will die.

But a Bassett Hound can live as long as its owner is willing to pay for advanced veterinary medicine, necessitated in part by the odd way the creature was bred.

If all the dogs in the world ran away, 50 years later, you would likely see only nature's usual wolfhound type.

Anyway, Flannery comments,

Jonathan revealingly quotes Mirsky in his excellent piece: "As Darwin did before him, Coyne noted that the development of new breeds through artificial selection is a good model for the evolution of new species by natural selection."

The model wasn't good when Darwin presented it and it cannot be improved in Coyne's re-telling. From the very beginning (even in the famous Ternate Letter of 1858), Alfred Russel Wallace pointed out, "in the domesticated animal all variations have an equal chance of continuance; and those which would decidedly render a wild animal unable to compete with its fellows and continue its existence are no disadvantage whatever in a state of domesticity. Our quickly fattening pigs, short-legged sheep, pouter pigeons, and poodle dogs could never have come into existence in a state of nature, because the very first step towards such inferior forms would have led to the rapid extinction of the race; still less could they now exist in competition with their wild allies. The great speed but slight endurance of the race horse, the unwieldy strength of the ploughman's team, would both be useless in a state of nature.

If turned wild on the pampas, such animals would probably soon become extinct, or under favourable circumstances might each lose those extreme qualities which would never be called into action, and in a few generations would revert to a common type, which must be that in which the various powers and faculties are so proportioned to each other as to be best adapted to procure food and secure safety,--that in which by the full exercise of every part of his organization the animal can alone continue to live. Domestic varieties, when turned wild, must return to something near the type of the original wild stock, or become altogether extinct." Wallace never would agree with Darwin on this point and it would lead to other more significant disagreements later.

Besides, AT BEST all domestic breeding examples merely established one thing: GUIDED and DIRECTED variation.

Maybe I am a Wallacist?

Actually, the goal posts were just pulled up. Too much trouble to move...

Widely hated embryologist Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution notes, in "Moving the Goal Post" that one outcome of constantly changing definitions of what constitutes Darwinian evolution is to make it difficult to evaluate the track record of any of them.

As a biologist, I have written on this subject. In the June 2009 issue of Scientific American, Mirsky quotes me:

Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. Here’s part of a December 31, 2008, posting by Jonathan Wells on the Web site of the antithetically named Discovery Institute: “Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory. And this sort of speciation has never been observed.”

Actually, however, Mirsky mis-quotes me. I did not “argue that speciation has never been seen.” What I wrote in 2008 was:

The best way to find “evolution’s smoking gun” would be to observe speciation in action. There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants—all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.” But observed cases of speciation by polyploidy are limited to flowering plants, and polyploidy does not produce the major changes required for Darwinian evolution. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory. And this sort of speciation has never been observed.

More: The central claim of Darwin’s Origin of Species was that an unguided process of natural selection acting on minor variations is sufficient to produce new species (“speciation”), organs and body plans—indeed, every feature of every living thing, at least after the origin of life. But Darwin had no evidence for natural selection; all he could offer were “one or two imaginary illustrations.” Instead, Darwin’s argument (which was also heavily theological) relied on an analogy with artificial selection. Domestic breeders had been showing for centuries that existing species can be modified—sometimes dramatically—by selecting only individuals with desired variations. Darwin simply argued that such a process, if extended over geological time, could accomplish much more.

Despite the title of his book, however, Darwin never solved the origin of species. Neither have his followers. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” 1

(Of course, Wells will be accused of quote mining - which means telling the public what Darwinists tell each other in science journals.)

More evil Disco stories below.

Book News: When upping the ante means uping the anti ...

Stephen Meyer Ups the Ante With Signature in the Cell

As we are ever quick to point out, the case for Darwinian evolution has been crumbling in recent years as scientific research points to design in nature. Now a unique, new argument for intelligent design is about to revolutionize the debate over evolution.

On June 23, Dr. Stephen Meyer's long-awaited Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) will break open the radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information.

Learn more about the book at the new website, SignatureInTheCell.com, and look for continuing updates at Evolution News & Views.

Podcasts in the intelligent design community

Warning: The evil Discovery Institute is behind this.

1. Darwin Doubting in the UK: Columnist, Doctor and Author James LeFanu

Anika Smith

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part one of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. Dr. LeFanu shares his perspective as someone who straddles two worlds, encountering science on a micro level in his practice as a medical doctor, and reflecting on the broader aspects of science and medicine as an author and columnist for the UK's Daily Telegraph. Dr. LeFanu explains why he doubts the too-simplistic Darwinian account, where the "facade of knowing" is daily challenged by the inescapable complexity of life.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

2. Rediscovering the Mystery of Ourselves: Part Two With Science Writer James LeFanu

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part two of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. According to Dr. LeFanu, one of the problems with Darwin’s theory and where it stands today is that it presupposes that the argument is closed, draining interest and fascination from the question of our origins.

Dr. LeFanu discusses the problems with the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of the eye and how the development of genetics has brought our attention to the deep inscrutability of the nature of genetic structures and the origin of life. Can natural selection acting on random mutations account for these features? Listen in as Dr. LeFanu explains how science is on the cusp of this intriguing moment, rediscovering the mystery of ourselves.

Listen to part one of the interview here.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

Note: This next one goes better with background information sponsored by the villains at Uncommon Descent. Basically Darwinists in Spain have discovered that there is a contrversy, and the pop media went wild. The thing about pop media is that they lack curiosity. If last year's top Darwinism vs. ID story about the Altenberg 16 didn't apprise them, nothing will.

Now back to the evil Discos:

3. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Part One

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Rich Akin from Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, who shares why he founded the organization for Darwin-doubting doctors and the misinformation about his organization on Wikipedia. Listen in as Dr. Akin explains more about PSSI International.

If you are a physician or surgeon who dissents from Darwinism, please consider joining PSSI International here.

4. PSSI International Adventures With Darwinists in Spain, Part Two

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin continues his interview with Rich Akin, the founder and CEO of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) International. Dr. Akin shares stories from his adventures in Spain, where PSSI International stirred up trouble with Darwinists and caused a tempest that is still raging today.

For background information on Dr. Akin's stories, click here.

Five Critical Things You Must Do with New Media

Yesterday, at Write! Canada 2009, the annual conference sponsored by The Word Guild I gave a workshop on the way the new social media are changing the publishing world, and how writers might adapt. I made some notes and said I would put them up at Future Tense, the Canadian Chrtistian writers' blog on thechanging industry.)

One caution: I am not an expert. I am in the process of working it out myself, and hope to share what I have learned so far.

1. Understand the difference new media make. Keep reading →