Letters: Evolution debate, Part III

In response to Jason Cassella’s Viewpoint article: It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion concerning the difference between evolution and natural selection. The two are not the same.

To quote Dr. Georgia Purdom, who holds a PhD in molecular genetics from Ohio State University 2000: “Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have – one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.”

She goes on to say “Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two.”

Yes, we see many species of fish, but they are still fish. One could say that about any animal. But that is not molecules-to-man evolution. That is variation within the kind that God has inserted into that animal’s genome in the form of “information” in that genome to begin with. Evolution, or the complete change of one animal into another completely different animal has never occurred. It’s the same with bacteria and antibiotics. To quote Dr. Purdom again, “Another example of natural selection is that of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Such natural selection is portrayed as evolution in action, but in this case, natural selection works in conjunction with mutation rather than designed variation.”

I have not seen anywhere that a transitional form has been discovered between an ape and a human. There have been some attempts to make an ape out of a man and vice-versa, but as far as I know, all have failed.

They have either been fakes nor mistakes. The definition of homo sapiens: The category that includes modern humans, Neanderthals, and other extinct human groups.