Image credit:Darwin LaganzonviaPixabay.

Its tiring to keep correcting evolutionists misuse of terms. Artificial selection is the opposite of natural selection. One must not conflate the two. The difference should be self-evident, but somehow it isnt.

Consider a paper from four chemists and physicists at New York University, Mutations in artificial self-replicating tiles: A step toward Darwinian evolution (Zhou, Shaet al.,PNAS).

In nature, mutation is the first step of evolution, where itprovides the genetic variation for the natural selection to act.Here we takea system of artificial self-replicating tiles, DNA origami, that exhibit templated reproduction.We can generate a small fraction of mutationsby introducing a mismatch in hybridization between parent and daughter.We can modifythe origamifunctionalitytoaffect the growth rate of the mutated species, giving it less or more evolutionary advantage, and to become dominant in several generations.The introduction of mutationsinto an artificial self-replicating system provides new directions for research into self-assembly processes. [Emphasis added.]

This is not a step toward Darwinian evolution. Its a step in the opposite direction. If they really wanted to take a step toward Darwinian evolution, they would walk out of the lab and let come what may. What will happen is an increase in entropy.

InThe Mystery of Lifes Origin(see theexpanded edition, published in 2020), Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen emphasize the error of investigator interference in origin-of-life experiments. When Zhouet al. say, Herewe introducemutationand growth advantagesto study the possibility of Darwinian-like evolution, they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinism. Calling their work Darwinian-like evolution when they are pulling the strings is a contradiction in terms.

In an attempt to be charitable, lets see if they understand the self-contradictory nature of their claim anywhere in the paper. The concluding paragraph sums up their research:

We have developed an artificial systemof DNA origami tiles of two species in whichwe can controlthe growth rates separately.Adding the abilityof one species to mutate into the other, we have studied the evolution of the system where onlyone species is seeded.When growth rates are equal the systemevolvesto a steady state of equal populations.When one has the competitive advantageof faster growth it quickly becomes the dominant species, even when it only results from a mutation from the originallyseededand exponentially growing species.This is the expected result and a most elementary example of Darwinian evolution but here in an artificial self-replication system.

Alas, the contradiction remains.

This is not to say that experiments with artificial selection have no educational value. Such experiments, like the computer simulation Avida (discussedhereandhere), have served a purpose by showing the limits of randomness. Instances of investigator interference can be pointed out, to falsify brash claims that an ill-conceived simulation represents Darwinian-like evolution. Indeed, some design advocates have createdcomputer simulations of their ownto illustrate the limitations of the mutation/selection mechanism when more realistic parameters are specified.

Evolutionary algorithms can also lead to scientific results with practical value. Zhouet al.speculate on what further research with their evolving DNA tiles might bring forth:

It opens the door to the use ofhuman-made systems, devices, and materials that evolve to have desired properties. In a given environment mutations allow the creation of a set of species and evolution picks the species which grows fastest in that environment, mimicking nature but with artificial constructs.

If something useful comes out of such experiments, well and good but it will not be because of Darwinism. Who makes the systems, devices, and materials that evolve? Who decides what are desired properties? Who sets the artificial constructs that yield potentially useful products? Clearly human designers are doing all of it. They set the mutation rate, and monitor outcomes to pick winners and losers. Evolution does not pick the species that grows fastest; designers do that by deciding with foresight what the desired properties will be, and tuning the settings to get the highest yield.

Employing chance as a tool does not defeat ID. In most card games, the deck is shuffled first. The players dont know what cards will turn up in their hands, but they know the rules of the game and they learn strategies to win. In an artificial selection process that makes use of chance variations, Darwinism stops when an intelligent mind interferes and does the selecting.

Here, we report the study of the mutation and evolution of anartificialself-replicationsystemof DNA origami dimer rafts. This represents a first step toward using such mutations towarddirectedevolution of anartificialsystem and illustrates some of the basic principles ofnatural selection. Wedesignedtwo self-replicating species AB and CD which share the same replicationprocedure, but with acontrollablegrowth rate.

When the authors have started and ended with flawed premises, any conclusions will be dubious. Look how theydesigned the self-replicating species. Look how theydirectedthe evolution. Look how they call it anartificialsystem. They set theprocedures. Theycontrolledthe parameters. On what basis can they say that their work illustrates some of the basic principles of natural selection? Theres nothing natural about it. They were the selectors from start to finish. Indeed, they admit that pure randomness would lead to error catastrophe without their continual investigator interference.

Mutation and population domination bythe fittest specieswould amount tonatural selection in this artificial system.[???] With an eye toward usingthis process for directed evolutionand the fact thata high mutation rate leads to an Eigen catastrophe, or a species does not persist long enough to take advantage of its evolutionary advantage,we have kept the mutation rate low,although not yet as low as in living systems.In the present casea low mutation rate is particularly importantin that the forward and reverse mutations are equally limiting the final ratio of the species with high and low growth advantage.

One has to chuckle at phrases like natural selection in this artificial system and interventions like setting a low mutation rate so as to keep the system from Eigen catastrophe.

If you are controlling the mutations and selecting the outcomes, you are not doing Darwinism. Criticisms like this have been leveled against Darwin disciples for over a century, but they fall on deaf ears. Why is the message not getting through?

See the rest here:

Confusing Artificial Selection with Darwinism - Discovery Institute