14-06-2026, 03:13 PM
Abuses of the concept of natural selection abound not only in science news articles but in research papers in major scientific journals as well. It’s time for a remedial course.
At best, natural selection allows the fortunate to continue existing. I say fortunate, because a mindless process could not care what exists or not, and there is no guarantee that survivors will represent an improvement over what existed before; the survivors might be lucky bums. At worst, natural selection (hereafter NS) commits the fallacy of personification, ascribing the power of choice to impersonal happenstance. This makes as much sense as speaking of “natural voting.” NS doesn’t care who wins. NS is not a person. Extinction is just as valid an outcome of “selection” as innovating a new organ, eye, or wing.
Does Positive Selection Exist?
The only kind of selection useful to evolutionists is positive selection, the preservation of alleged “beneficial variations” (usually genetic mutations, which are overwhelmingly deleterious). Sometimes this is called “directional selection” (assuming the direction progresses up the tree of life). Think of the upward steps required to get from bacteria to brain. Evolution needs progress up the tree of life, and for that, it needs voluminous instances of innovation or novelty that might help the organism climb another step on Mount Improbable. Can accidents produce new organs, tissues or body types? Such wishful thinking works in Spiderman and Mutant Ninja Turtles but does not belong in science.
The positive selection Darwinists need are innovations that trend upward. All scientists — even the most ardent creationists — accept variation within limits. Examples abound, such as color variations in flowers, wing patterns in butterflies, and size differences in theropods.
At best, natural selection allows the fortunate to continue existing. I say fortunate, because a mindless process could not care what exists or not, and there is no guarantee that survivors will represent an improvement over what existed before; the survivors might be lucky bums. At worst, natural selection (hereafter NS) commits the fallacy of personification, ascribing the power of choice to impersonal happenstance. This makes as much sense as speaking of “natural voting.” NS doesn’t care who wins. NS is not a person. Extinction is just as valid an outcome of “selection” as innovating a new organ, eye, or wing.
Does Positive Selection Exist?
The only kind of selection useful to evolutionists is positive selection, the preservation of alleged “beneficial variations” (usually genetic mutations, which are overwhelmingly deleterious). Sometimes this is called “directional selection” (assuming the direction progresses up the tree of life). Think of the upward steps required to get from bacteria to brain. Evolution needs progress up the tree of life, and for that, it needs voluminous instances of innovation or novelty that might help the organism climb another step on Mount Improbable. Can accidents produce new organs, tissues or body types? Such wishful thinking works in Spiderman and Mutant Ninja Turtles but does not belong in science.
The positive selection Darwinists need are innovations that trend upward. All scientists — even the most ardent creationists — accept variation within limits. Examples abound, such as color variations in flowers, wing patterns in butterflies, and size differences in theropods.
![[Image: DSC05383-Editb742b4b47b71f691.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/cHBqm1zw/DSC05383-Editb742b4b47b71f691.jpg)
