Natural selection is proven wrong

[biohazard]

You do realize the Cambrian era was quite a few years ago? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we don't know all about the environment and species living that time? Just because it looks more difficult to explain than certain other periods in history doesn't disprove evolution or natural selection.

There are several reasonable explanations for this event that are in line with the theory of evolution. For example, each year there are findings of pre-Cambrian organisms that have been unknown this far and may prove to be the ancestors of those more advanced organisms that allegedly "appeared from nowhere". The whole phenomenon has possibly been a sum of many factors and only because we do not know all of them (yet) hardly gives a reason to doubt natural selection.

Actually Wikipedia, which you so eagerly keep quoting, lists many factors that help to explain the Cambrian explosion. Maybe you should look at the whole picture instead of choosing few isolated lines or chapters that seem to support your view when taken out of context.

[alextemplet]

thus we have at the cambrian period are rapid speciation

And the problem with this would be???

Actually Wikipedia, which you so eagerly keep quoting, lists many factors that help to explain the Cambrian explosion. Maybe you should look at the whole picture instead of choosing few isolated lines or chapters that seem to support your view when taken out of context.

Seconded.

[gamila]

And the problem with this would be???

read dean

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

[alextemplet]

Your entire argument is based on natural selection only being able to work on DNA that is already present in a population, but this is where mutation comes into play for creating new genes for natural selection to work with. Thus you entire argument is like a castle built on sand, doomed to collapse.

[gamila]

Your entire argument is based on natural selection only being able to work on DNA that is already present in a population, but this is where mutation comes into play for creating new genes for natural selection to work with.

fact is speciation a new species has new genes not present in the antecendent species so they could not have been passed on as NS says -thus you own words show NS is wrong

[wbla3335]

gamila, let me try to walk you through this. Evolution is based on two principles: descent with modification and natural selection. "Descent with modification" just means that new muations are inherited from parent to offspring. Darwin didn't know the source of modifications, but modern genetics understands it well. New mutations in DNA happen all the time. Errors during the replication of DNA when a cell divides, radiation from a variety of natural and man-made sources, various chemicals in the environment - these can all cause mutations. When they happen in germ cells (sperm and eggs in sexually reproducing organisms, or anywhere in unicellular organisms that reproduce by simply dividing), these new changes are inherited. Now, natural selection. This seems to be where you are having trouble. You say that natural selection only acts on traits that are already present. You are absolutely right. But you must admit that there is variation within species. No two people are the same. Dogs are a good example, too. Look at all the different breeds within a single species. Where did this variation come from? Mutations. One here, one there, one now, one later. They accumulate in populations over time. Long periods of time. This is what natural selection acts on. Some individual or combinations of variations help an organism to survive and reproduce. Some don't. Most are pretty neutral. Nature selects those that help, and weeds out those that don't - perhaps not quickly, but statistically over time, this is what happens. New species don't arise overnight. Imagine a species that has a large range where environmental conditions vary (including purely physical conditions such as climate, and nonphysical conditions such as the community of other species present). A population of that species in the eastern part of that range lives in an environment that is somewhat different than what a population in the western part of the range lives in. "Nature" is different in the east and the west. Natural selection will therefore select for different traits in the two populations that are already present in the species. These two populations will therefore become somewhat different over time. If the flow of genetic material (sex) between these populations is somehow prevented, the two populations will continue to diverge genetically to the point where if they were to meet again, their genomes are sufficiently different that they can no longer interbreed. By our definition, they are different species. Voila.
Now, the Cambrian explosion. This "explosion" occurred over a period of 40-50 million years. It's called an explosion because relative to other geological eras, a lot of new forms did indeed appear. If you look at the fossils from one site, e.g. the Burgess shales, you do see forms appearing "suddenly" without evidence of intermediate forms in lower strata at the same site. This is probably because conditions at that site were not conducive to the preservation of fossils in the lower strata. You must try to understand how fossils are formed. Not every organism that dies gets fossilized. You need an environment where sediments can cover a dead organism (quickly) and conditions that will prevent its complete destruction once buried. This doesn't happen everywhere at all times. The fossil record is very spotty indeed. Dead organsims only get fossilized here and there, now and then. And we certainly haven't looked everywhere on this planet. The search for intermediate forms is very slowly finding a number of "missing links". People used to claim that the gaps in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, apes and humans, etc., etc. were evidence against evolution. These gaps, though, are slowly being filled by new discoveries. We've only been at this fossil-hunting game for a very, very short time. More and more fossils from the Cambrian are being found from periods earlier than those where many new forms "suddenly" appeared. But nowhere (yet) has anyone found a single site representing the entire Cambrian that might contain all early, intermediate, and later forms.
So please have patience, and an open mind.

[gamila]

You say that natural selection only acts on traits that are already present. You are absolutely right. But you must admit that there is variation within species. No two people are the same.

i am not talking about variations in a species but complete new species with complete new genes the new species differs from the older species because it has new genes-never before seen
thus NS can account for it as it only deals with genes already present


http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress ... evolution/

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy

[gamila]

before you can talk about speciation you have to know what a species is
and there is no agreement

so you cannot argue as you all do that speciation does not make NS wrong- untill there is a definition

The processes leading to the origin of new species have long been of interest and often a source of debate, e.g., whether ecological barriers to gene flow are essential for populations to diverge into distinct species

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... rtid=22088

Because MMR influences the rate of mutation as well as recombination, this pathway may be important with respect to speciation - defined broadly as the process of genetic divergence of populations - whether or not one favors a species definition that is based on recombination potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

now purely from the NS formulation speciation shows it to be wrong
ie NS is about genes already present being passed on
as such
it cant account for a completely new species-with new genes never seen before

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress ... evolution/

Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.

[alextemplet]

fact is speciation a new species has new genes not present in the antecendent species so they could not have been passed on as NS says -thus you own words show NS is wrong

And where do you think these new genes came from? Mutations!

I find it interesting that you dropped your argument about cancer almost as quickly as that was explained to you. In fact you still haven't answered my question as to what (if anything) you found wrong with my analysis. Have you conceded this point or are you simply neglecting to answer it? For that matter, you also haven't presented any legitimate scientific sources to verify your claims. As much as I love wikipedia, it doesn't even come close to counting as a scientific source.

Another question I would like to ask is what theory you wish to propose in place of natural selection, and what evidence you can put forward for it.

[gamila]

For that matter, you also haven't presented any legitimate scientific sources to verify your claims.

what is this

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney's Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these "weak alleles" that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
"Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk," she says.
"They are all small pieces of the puzzle."
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
"These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer," she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
"They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end," she says”

[alextemplet]

what is this

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney's Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these "weak alleles" that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
"Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk," she says.
"They are all small pieces of the puzzle."
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
"These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer," she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
"They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end," she says”

It's an ABC News article, written for a popular audience, that just happens to have absolutely nothing at all to do with natural selection.. By "legitimate scientific source," I was thinking more along the lines of a peer-reviewed journal that is actually relevant to the topic of our discussion. Nature would be a good place to start, but there are plenty of others. Heck, I'd even settle for an article from Scientific American or National Geographic at this point. Even if they're not peer-reviewed journals, they at least usually make an effort to ensure that their articles bear some resemblance to verifiable facts.

[gamila]

It's an ABC News article, written for a popular audience, that just happens to have absolutely nothing at all to do with natural selection.. By "legitimate scientific source,"

if you followed the link you will see it is legitamate

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 529713.htm

The finding, published today in Nature Genetics, involved more than 80 research institutions collaborating with the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and cancer patients from 16 countries, including Australia.