Natural selection is commonly regarded as a fundamental mechanism of biological evolution, without which the theory itself would lack support. Yet, does this concept truly align with what we observe in nature? Do the terms selection and natural meaningfully capture the interactions between organisms and their environments in a way that can be verified?
Natural selection – a controversial concept
American evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, a leading authority in the field, admitted:
‘Natural selection has always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory. Many people who have no problem with evolution bridle at the thought that it’s all driven by a mindless and unguided natural process… [N]atural selection wasn’t widely accepted by biologists until about 1930. The main problem was, and still is, a paucity of evidence… It’s this difficulty that leads Dawkins to observe that natural selection is on wobblier legs than the other tenets of evolutionary theory.’1
A review of the research literature reveals a lack of consensus on the definition of natural selection. Darwin described it as a power,2 while other evolutionary scholars have variously defined it as a process, a law, a mechanism, or a concept.
This ambiguity prompts fundamental questions among researchers. What, in practical terms, does natural selection do to organisms at any given moment? How does it bring about change? If it is a process, how does it differ from the natural development of traits within organisms?
These questions remain unanswered.
Intelligence attributed but nonexistent
For Charles Darwin, natural selection served as a replacement for a divine creator, providing an explanation for the countless traits in living organisms that seem purposefully adapted to specific functions. Since choice implies intention and intelligence, the term ‘selection’ is central to Darwinian theory, as it lends a sense of purposeful direction to an otherwise mindless natural process.
Darwin led many to believe that selection could occur without an active agent making choices. This view was likely easier for him to embrace, given that scientists of his era had no knowledge of DNA or the complex inner workings of cells. In his words:
‘I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term .. Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. ↑ We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action.’4
Selection, however, does not possess a mind akin to the human intellect. Environmental conditions are not active forces that operate externally, nor do they function like breeders, deliberately favouring some organisms while rejecting others. It is the organism’s response, rather than environmental pressure itself, that determines the outcome. Yet Darwin attributed near-divine qualities to natural selection:
‘It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers.’5
Who ‘selects’?
Dr. Greg Graffin, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, once expressed that:
‘The trick is: how do you talk about natural selection without implying the rigidity of law? We use it as almost an active participant, almost like a god. In fact, you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings and you’d think you were listening to a theologian. It’s a routine we know doesn’t exist but we teach it anyway: Genetic mutation and some active force chooses the most favorable one.’6
Similarly, Harvard’s leading evolutionary authority, Ernst Mayr, in his book What Evolution Is, expressed the same truth:
‘The conclusion that these privileged individuals were selected to survive requires answering the question: Who does the selecting? In the case of artificial selection, it is the breeder of animals or plants… But no such factor is involved in natural selection.’7
A few years later, Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution Is True wrote:
‘And although I said that natural selection acts, this is not entirely accurate. Selection is not a mechanism imposed on populations from the outside.’8
Darwin himself, in response to requests for justification of the term ‘selection,’ admitted in a subsequent edition of his book On the Origin of Species in 1872:
‘In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term… It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?’9
There is no controversy in discussing gravity, as gravitational attraction is a measurable and well-documented phenomenon—unlike natural selection. Even artificial selection has its constraints. Scientists have never been able to produce two entirely distinct types of organisms from a shared ancestor. Similarly, despite thousands of years of selective breeding, they have yet to create a horse capable of reaching speeds of 150 km/h.10
Evolutionists often portray natural selection as a mechanism capable of overcoming any biological challenge. However, no research has reliably measured or confirmed its supposed influence. In reality, the ability to respond to ecological challenges lies within organisms themselves—what is more accurately described as adaptation, as explored here.
Moreover, an organism’s ability to adapt is not always dependent on survival or death. Selection, by definition, eliminates unsuitable DNA from the gene pool through the death of less fit individuals. Yet, in practice, it is sufficient for organisms to develop traits that suit a particular ecological niche in order to thrive.11
Conclusion
The term ‘selection’ is inherently misleading. Both selection and natural portray interactions between organisms and their environments in ways that are impossible to verify empirically. What is typically described as selection is actually the manifestation of genetic capabilities already inherent within organisms. The concept of natural selection is thus unjustifiably employed to assign intelligence to a mindless environment, as an explanation for the apparent design observed in nature.
By the way, we recommend reading the articles:
- Why Were Extinct Trees the Most Complex?
- The James Webb Space Telescope and Its Surprising Discoveries
- The Transformation of Fins into Limbs
- The Problematic Evolution of the Whale
- Pangaea – The Supercontinent That Broke Apart
Footnotes
- Coyne, J. A., 2010, The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory?, The Nation, 10 May.
- Darwin, C., 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, London, John Murray, p. 61.
- Endler, J., 1992, Natural Selection: Current Usages, Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, p. 220.
- Darwin, C., 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, p. 61.
- Darwin, C., 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, p. 84.
- Biello, D., 2010, Darwin Was a Punk, Scientific American, 303(5), p. 28.
- Mayr, E., 2001, What Evolution Is, New York, Basic Books, p. 117.
- Coyne, J. A., 2009, Why Evolution Is True, New York, Viking, p. 117.
- Darwin, C., 1872, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 6th ed., London, Senate, p. 63.
- Guliuzza, R. J., 2011, Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection’s Idolatrous Trap, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, November, p. 14.
- Guliuzza, R. J., 2012, Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Answering Questions About the Fallacy of Natural Selection, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, February, p. 15.
Based on: R. J. Guliuzza, ‘Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Recognizing Missed Warning Signs,’ Acts&Facts, Institute for Creation Research, May 2011, pp. 12-15.
© Source of main image: Canva.
The portal EvolutionOfThinking.org, created by the Research and Education Institute, focuses on education and the dissemination of knowledge related to research on various aspects of human well-being.
