As so often is the case, one of Eric Anderson’s comments got me to thinking. Here it is:
in those extremely rare cases when we know what actually caused the differential survival, we can point to the actual cause without ever invoking a label of “natural selection” to help explain the process. And in those cases in which we don’t know what actually caused the differential survival, attaching a label of “natural selection” does not help us get any closer to an explanation. Indeed, more often than not it obscures.
I decided to test this. As Michael Behe discussed extensively in The Edge of Evolution, we know what causes Plasmodium to develop antibiotic resistance. Chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium is due to a fault in a transport protein that moves the poison into the organism’s vacuole.
OK. Let’s test Eric’s assertion.
Explanation 1: When a strain of Plasmodium develops antibiotic resistance due to a fault in a transport protein that moves the poison into the organism’s vacuole, that strain has comparatively higher reproductive success than strains that have not developed such resistance.
Explanation 2: Plasmodium strains that develop antibiotic resistance due to a fault in a transport protein that moves the poison into the organism’s vacuole are more fit, and that fitness is selected for by natural selection.
How is explanation 2 superior to explanation 1? If it is not superior, why is it necessary?