Natural selection is frequently used by evolutionists as a magic wand that can accomplish anything that they need to. However, the capacities of natural selection are assumed and the most critical have never actually been demonstrated. Genetic algorithms, a type of computer program that uses a selection process to search through possibilities for a solution, have been touted by evolutionists as evidence that natural selection can make universal common descent evolution possible. However, when these algorithms are analyzed and compared to natural selection, they show that natural selection is completely incapable of doing the job the evolutionists require of it.
Genetic algorithms are computer programs that use a combination of random changes in selection towards a defined objective to calculate solutions to problems. They can be as specific as actually defining the result such as the weasel program, which starts with a random sequence and selects improvements by comparing it to the phrase “Methinks it is like a weasel.” However. it can also have a goal that will work well defined but is not specifically stated. In this case, the purpose of the algorithm is to calculate that result. The claim is often made by evolutionists that this demonstrates the viability of natural selection, however, what is often missed is the fact that genetic algorithms have a well-defined goal which natural selection does not have. In fact, it is this well-defined goal that allows a genetic algorithm to find the results it is looking for despite astronomical odds against coming up with it by random chance.
The specificity of genetic algorithms can range from 0 to 1. That is from absolutely no specificity whatsoever to being completely specific about the exact outcome. Ultimately, you get out of genetic algorithms what you programmed them to look for, no less and no more. How specific you are in your search algorithm determines how specific the result is going to be. It is only those that are highly specific (extremely close to 1) that were able to overcome extremely improbable odds. The fact that natural selection is defined as having no goals, indicates a specificity of 0.
It turns out that Natural Selection itself is not a physical process that was being used by Darwin as a metaphor, comparing what goes on in nature to the process of selective breeding. The big difference is that selective breeding is directly the result of an intelligent agency where the breeder selects which animals to breed together. The natural world, not being an intelligent agent, is not capable of engaging in actual selection. Consequently, Charles Darwin was simply using a term as a metaphor to avoid a detailed description of what would have to be occurring in nature.
There are three main sources of variation within living things on Earth. These are mutations, genetic recombination, and epigenetics. Epigenetics is it turning on and off of genes to determine whether or not they are expressed. This process can occur in response to environmental conditions and also be inherited. Recombination is the reshuffling of copies of genes found on different copies of the same chromosome. These first two are useless to universal common descent evolution because they only deal with existing genetic information. Mutations on the other hand are random changes in the nucleotides of the DNA. Proponents of universal common descent need to rely on these mutations even though their random nature tends to destroy generic information.
The pressures on variations in traits from all three of these have been demonstrated to be quite capable of optimizing a group of organisms living in a given environment for that environment. Even mutations while being degenerative can sometimes provide a benefit in a specific environment. A good example of this is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In such cases a mutation in the enzyme being attacked by the antibiotic can prevent the antibiotic from attacking it, however, the same mutation prevents the enzyme from doing its job within the organism as well. Furthermore, all indications are that these variations have limits on how far they can go. This is particularly true of epigenetics and recombination which do not alter the content of the DNA.
The point is that the best observation we have demonstrates the ability of organisms to adapt to changes in their environment but nothing more. There is no evidence that natural selection or any mechanism operating on DNA can produce the gigabytes of new complex specific genetic information necessary for universal common descent to be possible.
Help support these articles.
Donation: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=YTU2FM3NTFR7Y
Making purchases on Amazon through this link: https://amzn.to/47WnzAs
