Natural selection is proven wrong

[MolecularBioFTW]

I love how people just flock to anyone whose opinions agree with their own. They're so quick to defend even the most poorly written "science" article I have ever read. First off, the author of this article doesn't even have degrees in science. Psychology is not a science no matter how much people in that field believe it is. To sum it up, this person is not qualified to write anything credible about evolution, much less anything about biology. Secondly, anyone who even remotely cares about credibility will list appropriate sources which does not include Wikipedia or www. genesispark .com. Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

It's also amazing how people can still argue against some basic principles of natural selection given the fact that wikipedia links were posted to those principles. Wikipedia may dumb it down a lot for the general population but apparently, people still have problems comprehending the material presented.

Natural selection is driven by primarily by sexual selection where those who live longer are more likely to have more offspring who inherits their genes, both good and bad. Bad genes are eliminated from the gene pool of a population when those with the bad gene cannot produce offspring to carry that gene to the next generation. In the case of breast cancer genes, cancer is not a condition that has limited the reproductive capabilities of individuals with those genes. Additionally, cancer has only been a problem that has arisen from people living much longer lives.

[MolecularBioFTW]

I must indefinietly agree: NS is a completely disprooven theory.
I must say that you could disproove evolution just off of your second reason. NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.
If so, where would the genetic information come from to advance a species so as to make it better? I mean, genetic information cannot just pop out of the blue by chance!!!

Hmmm I couldn't resist just debunking another ignorant opinion. New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc. For example, hemoglobin and myoglobin are both proteins in our blood that carry oxygen but deliver that oxygen under different conditions. Hemoglobin delivers that oxygen as needed by normal functions of the cell but when the cell requires much more oxygen such as during exercise, the myoglobin delivers its oxygen when the oxygen concentration drops enough. These two proteins are coded by two genes that had a single ancestral gene which duplicated itself as a result of random chance. At first, the genes would've been exactly the same and coded for the same exact protein but as random mutations changed both genes over time, the resulting proteins became different. Hence "new" genetic information.

[gamila]

Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

Dean is not a creationist and dos not believe in ID

but
Newton was religious
he believed in god
thus he was a creationist
does that make f=ma wrong

[gamila]

New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc.

but

as Sophyclese wrote:

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[canalon]

as Sophyclese wrote:

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

Using for support of your theory a quote by a poster that show such a blatant ignorance of biology as Sophyclese as can be deduced by a quick scan of his post history give your argument as much strength as this famous quote:

Mummy! Mummy! Mummy!

to my defense of Natural selection. And put you in a very similar level of understanding. In short your stupidity reached rock bottom, and then you kept digging...

[MolecularBioFTW]

Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

Dean is not a creationist and dos not believe in ID

but
Newton was religious
he believed in god
thus he was a creationist
does that make f=ma wrong

Believing in God doesn't automatically make you a creationist. I'm a practicing Catholic and I have a degree in biology yet I think Genesis is full of crap. Why do creationists run to defend the material in the old testament? We borrowed it from the Jewish. There's better ways to devote your time and energy like volunteering to help others or taking a science class and becoming less ignorant. At the very least, becoming more coherent in your arguments for defending your ignorance.

Using www. genesispark .com as support for his view points is pretty strong evidence that Dean is a creationist since the whole concept of the park is to promote intelligent design to Christian creationists. Besides the original reason for my criticism of www. genesispark .com is that it is a terrible source for any type of article especially a research article written by a pseudo-scientist. You don't earn credibility by writing a half-assed article.

To Dean,

Go learn how to write a science article. You can find plenty of examples in reputable texts such as the Journal of Medicine. I'm sure you know several since you mailed your article there to be published and they pretty much laughed at you and told you to go away. Since I'm assuming you wouldn't be able to pick out the structure from the journals given how you wrote your article, I'm going to list it here just for you. The structure goes as follows: Abstract, Background, Procedure, Results, Discussion, Sources. Abstract is where you list the general idea of what you did and what you found out from doing it. The other sections are pretty self-explanatory... I hope. Otherwise, it's very sad and you deserve all the pity a lot of people are giving you.

[MolecularBioFTW]

New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc.

but

as Sophyclese wrote:

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

It's adorable how badly you put together your counter arguments. Of course Darwin didn't write about how new genetic information is created in his "Origins of the Species" because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA and is passed to the next generation wasn't discovered yet. What's amazing is that Darwin figured out the concept of evolution and natural selection without that information. It's akin to walking up to a Craps table in Vegas and walking away a winner with no clue how to play Craps.

The beauty of natural selection is that it is completely random how new genes are generated and which ones do get generated. When individuals who are the most fit pass on their genes to the next generation, they not only pass the genes that do get expressed but any other random mutations of their "in-progress" genes as well. At some point, a few of the descendants from that individual will mutate an "in-progress" gene to a functional gene that gets expressed. If the expression of that gene increases their ability to survive and have more offspring, it will become more prevalent in that population. If it decreases their ability to survive, then that functional gene will get phased out within several generations.

I also think you need a good lesson on how new species are generated. The first rule of species development is that no individual becomes a new species, only populations can become a new species. Another rule is that new species emerge from existing species which themselves may have become a new species as well depending on the circumstances. The most prevalent method to generate new species is population isolation where subsets of a population are cut off from the rest. This allows different random mutations to occur in both populations and given enough time, the two populations will develop into different species. A great example of this is the sea-life down in Panama. When North and South America connected millions of years ago, it created a divide between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. This also divided large populations of many aquatic species into two. Researchers have found that for every species of fish, shrimp, etc. on the Pacific side, there is a related species on the Atlantic side. Genetic analysis shows the two corresponding species are related yet they are two different species because they cannot produce fertile offspring.

[gamila]

"Origins of the Species" because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA

fact is
this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[MolecularBioFTW]

"Origins of the Species" because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA

fact is
this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Wow you again reiterate the same point about the site's definition of natural selection. My original point is that not only do expressed genes get passed on but also "in-progress" genes which aren't expressed yet. It is when these "in-progress" genes do get expressed that they either become selected for or against. By the way, genes that get expressed are what you would consider traits. Another thing I should point out to you is that traits aren't always what the organism looks like. Most of the functional genes in any organism code for metabolic functions such as transporters, regulatory proteins, inhibitors, etc.

I think you're too stupid to understand the concept of traits or the very nature of arguments and counter-points. If you're going to quote me, at least quote a full sentence so people can read it in context. Sentence fragments make people think I'm an idiot like you.

[gamila]

Wow you again reiterate the same point about the site's definition of natural selection. My original point is that not only do expressed genes get passed on but also "in-progress" genes which aren't expressed yet.

but note these genes are already present

NS did not create the genes it only passess them on

fact is only traits already present are passed on by NS

NS does not create a new species it only passes on traits which are already present in a species

as Sophyclese wrote:

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[MolecularBioFTW]

Wow gamila is like a broken record. The genome of most multi-cellular organisms consists of a lot more than just functional genes. New genetic information is created at random through many processes including mutation, gene duplication and etc. I'm gonna simplify this so that even you can understand it. Natural selection is a driving force for evolution because it eliminates individuals with harmful genes and the ones with helpful genes are left to pass on their genes to the next generation. When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard), they are then subjected to natural selection as well. If they are helpful, they'll become common among members in that population within several generations. If they are harmful, individuals with that gene will be eliminated and thus not pass that gene to the subsequent generations.

Jump forward about a million years and the descendant population of that original species will be genetically different and might even be so genetically different that it could be classified as a different species. New species are not always splitting off from a common ancestor even though that is the norm in many cases. Sometimes a new species comes about as a progression from an old existing species that is "replaced."

[gamila]

When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard),

NS does not create new genes it only passes them on

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism