Login

Join for Free!
118336 members


Natural selection is proven wrong

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby gamila » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:31 pm

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown
Natural selection is proven wrong for 4 reasons

You can read the complete refutation of natural selection here

published 2009

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits 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

3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right

Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005


seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion


THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG


BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG


BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

GAMAHUCHER PRESS WEST GEELONG, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
2009
There are four points which show natural selection [NS]is invalid or wrong
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits 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
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
TO GIVE DETAIL
Natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

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


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)


Note the terms “favorable” “ unfavorable” and “common” are subjective value laden theory laden and relative terms. All open to varying ideological interpretations

it is stated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections ... _contested

“evolutionary theory itself has been entirely uncontested in the field of biology and is commonly described as the "cornerstone of modern biology”
Evolution takes place via two process according to evolutionary theory
Natural Selection and genetic drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. The first is natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits.[2][3] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.

points which disproves natural selection
1_punctuated equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species experience little change for most of their geological history, showing stasis in the fossil record, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).”

Charles Darwin noted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

“The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—“
now the current thinking notes that speciation or punctuated equilibrium contradicts Darwin theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

“Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection”

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
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
Note Gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species And below Gould talks about phylum BUT scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is


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.[3"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless
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.”

NOTE
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”



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


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

2_The Cambrian explosion disproves natural selection
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”
but the cambrian explosion contradicts natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Cambrian explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere”
species appeared from no where
“The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere,”
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”
now even Darwin saw this as destroying his theory

“The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]”
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days. "Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.) Today, Gould writes, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”
NOTE
Even the arch evolutionist Dawkins states the Cambrian explosion is a major problem and gives support for the creationists
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).
NOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
“Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution:”
note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils
thus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

“Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated ... s_theories

“who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.”
As it stands right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
if there is no evidence to prove NS that is just to bad
and you cant live in hope the evidence will show up
As it stand right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
darwin saw
if you have an abrupt explosion of species out of now where ,that invalidates NS-the geological evidence cannot be found to support NS so empirically it is not suppported -thus invalidated -up to the present time

This sudden appearence of new species has been explained as speciation but as we saw speciation mean NS is wrong
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... losion.htm
“some scientists believe there was indeed an explosion of diversity [cambrian explosion] (the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory elaborated by Nils Eldredge the late Stephen J. Gould - Models In Paleobiology, 1972
note that at the time of Darwin the cambrian explosion was evidence that refuted his theory all the religious people had to do at the times was refer to science itself for refutation of evolutionism ie the cambrian explosion and lack of EVIDENCE for natural selection
3)
NOW NS is invalidated by the fact that unfavorable traits are transmitted and can become common – THERE ARE MANY GENETIC DISORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ie the gene for breast cancer
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,




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


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

Note some say that harmful genes can be transmitted so long as they accompany good genes or have beneficial results. But this is not what NS says –

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

seeing bad genes can become common in the population this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common in the population
NS. Also concepts of “good” and harmful/bad “rare” “common” are subjective value laden ideological terms which can mean different things to different people.

Now NS is about favorable genes being transmitted and becoming common
and unfavorable genes becoming less common
Now unfavorable killer genes ie breast cancer genes can and are transmitted and are common in the population-thus invalidating NS
Young women mums and grandmother are killed by it ie breast cancer genes It occurs in women of childbearing age and they transmit it to their daughters. Some say a gene that kills after child bearing age does not invalidate NS. The fact is the gene for breast cancer kills Young women mums and grandmother. It is an abuse of language to say such a deleterious gene which kills all ages of women is not bad or unfavorable

Some argue that NS or survival only matters up to the point where you survive long enough to reproduce These people seem to think humans are a species of octopus or salmon If all human women died after giving birth to children the kids would die as well-thus humans would not survive
Kids need living parents to survive if the mothers died after birthing the kids would die Take mammals if the mammal mother died after giving birth the off spring would die and mammals become extinct

Also kids can only survive if there are adults around to look after them
now adults can be mum and dad and also grandparents
Note In africa with the adults dieing of aids it is the grandparents bringing up the kids. All members of the human population play their part in the survival of the species- humans are not a species of octopus or bacteria or amoeba or salmon



EVIDENCE FOR COMMON HARMFUL GENES IN THE POPULATION

Research has shown the breast cancer genes are common and may lead to other cancers – all of which invalidates NS

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


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)


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”
MORE EVIDENCE
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person –even child bearing women

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5689

“But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn't mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person”

“The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don't mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.

“Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.”

“Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet”

“With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations”

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer

“Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts”

“BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other types of cancer during their lifetimes”

“Additionally, BRCA1 mutations are associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Mutations in the BRCA2 gene are associated with an increased chance of developing male breast cancer and cancers of the prostate and pancreas. An aggressive form of skin cancer called melanoma is also more common among people who have BRCA2 mutations.”

“Inherited changes in several other genes, including CDH1, PTEN, STK11, and TP53, have been found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer”

“Some research suggests that inherited variants of the ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, and RAD51 genes, as well as certain versions of the AR gene, may also be associated with breast cancer risk. Not all studies have shown these connections, however. Of these genes, ATM and CHEK2 have the strongest evidence of being related to the risk of developing breast cancer”
MORE EVIDENCE –THAT HARMFUL GENES ARE COMMON
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 738782_ITM
“2001 MAY 25 - (NewsRx Network) -- New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.”

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/G ... rders.html
“There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis”
4)

Now some people seem to think that Genetics can account for the generation of new species

lets be logical
there are only two possibilities
1)the generation of new species is random process
or
2) there is some purpose or design programmed into the genes/DNA such that the generation of a new species takes place in a certain manner

when you think about these alternatives
logically then genetics cant account for the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

THUS IN SUMMARY
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals ith traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see above 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
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion and speciation




APPENDIX
SPECIES PARADOX

The first humans Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able
so who did Cain mate with

similarly
who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species


either

1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work











ISBN 1876347783

Last edited by gamila on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:08 am, edited 4 times in total.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby Twila » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:18 pm

wow thats amazing.. I just got done studying darwin's NS theory....

Im going to have to print this out and ask my teacher about it. our books are brand new(ordered this year new too) he's going to freak. I never really doubted it. hmmm.. this is interesting


thanks Ill read up on it some more
"Courage is not always a roar, but sometimes a quite whisper at the end of the night saying 'I will try again tomorrow'"
User avatar
Twila
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: iowa ... in the middle of no where

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby gamila » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:37 pm

read this about the cambrian explosion
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) The Cambrian period (thought to have started 540 million years ago) is a huge evolutionary enigma. Scientists at one time postulated that evolution of phyla took more than 75 million years. Even that period of time was vastly insufficient for this major evolutionary step. Now Darwinists believe that this happened in a few million years. Supposedly nothing but blue-green algae and bacteria lived for billions of years and then in a geologic instant all of the major types of animals sprung into existence! This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm


Postby biohazard » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:43 pm

Oh for crying out loud, where do all these people spawn from? :P

For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones: if you can live and have offspring with a bad trait (such as a gene for breast cancer), it's all fine with natural selection. It doesn't mean a flying **** whether you have bad traits as long as you have enough good ones to survive and have offspring, who in turn have offspring etc etc.

Breast cancer has not been a problem for humans in the past, because people simply died before it had time to have an effect, and because it requires many genetic and environmental factors to kick in, so on a large scale as far as human populations are concerned, it's a mere nuisance.

Breast cancer (and cancers in general) have a marked impact on human life at the moment because we live much longer and are exposed to more environmental pollution nowadays, but it has nothing to do with natural selection not working. If breast cancer or any other such condition starts wiping out fertile women, for example, you will for sure see that trait becoming more rare, by means of natural selection.

That was just to cover one mistake in those claims by the starter of this thread, someone else please handle the rest. I'm getting tired of explaining these things ever again.
Last edited by biohazard on Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Postby biohazard » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 pm

On a side note, the link (and the "article") mentioned in the first post is a complete joke. I bet the author doesn't have any of the academic degrees mentioned in the intro, because even a five-year-old child with half a brain could come up with more coherent article with better reasoning than what is in that text.

Hell, that text is ultra-poor even on your average creationist's standards.

So don't waste your time on that text, it's a hoax. If someone wants to ask their teacher about evolution vs. creationism, please choose a better article (probably ANY other article). Showing that to your teacher will make him cry no matter whether he actually supports evoltuion theory or creationism...
Last edited by biohazard on Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Postby canalon » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:32 pm

Interesting points:
-The author has a very long list of title, but none of them relevant with science. He might have read a little bit on the subject before writing and
- Wikipedia can be a convenient place to start searching for information, but one should always try to go back to the original source, and (I might be too demanding but who knows...) actually try to understand it rather than just dealing with a 2 lines quote.
- I know, we all make typos but a minimum amount a proofreading would at least prove that you actually care about what you are talking about.

1/ I do not see why the Cambrian explosion would invalidate the NS. In fact in an earth that was still relatively empty, an early explosion of plenty of life form has nothing to be surprising.

2/ Darwin himself talk about the generation of new traits, and the modern synthesis (which while still using Darwin's framework has seriously improved the mechanistic details of the evolution theory) explains that extensively

3/ The definition of favourable and unfavourable are highly relative in the darwinian theory, hence the existence of traits currently perceived as unfavourable does not mean that there was no good reason for those to be maintained. And the fact that there are no real alternative is avery excellent reason. Example our spine sucks for bipedal position, really, but making it really better would require massive changes in our body plan that are much more likely to be detrimental than to increase your fitness. While backpain when you age as limited impact on our reproductive ability.

4/ Why not?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Postby biohazard » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:33 pm

canalon wrote:3/ The definition of favourable and unfavourable are highly relative in the darwinian theory, hence the existence of traits currently perceived as unfavourable does not mean that there was no good reason for those to be maintained. And the fact that there are no real alternative is avery excellent reason. Example our spine sucks for bipedal position, really, but making it really better would require massive changes in our body plan that are much more likely to be detrimental than to increase your fitness. While backpain when you age as limited impact on our reproductive ability.


Oh, I love this section! This is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn't come up with any good examples at the moment of my first reply.

You need to understand the mechanisms of evolution to a certain degree before you can start thinking about some seemingly contradictory parts of evoltuion, but ufortunately many who criticize the theory of evolution so much don't always understand the underlying basics at all (the whole context is of course extremely complicated, but even the basics get you pretty far). Thus, examples as quoted above are very nice for explaining the situation!
User avatar
biohazard
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby gamila » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:47 pm

you say

1)
1/ I do not see why the Cambrian explosion would invalidate the NS. In fact in an earth that was still relatively empty, an early explosion of plenty of life form has nothing to be surprising.


read this
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm

Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days.

While many of scientists have commented about the "missing links" in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths." (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)


you say 2)
For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones:


based on your own wordsn NS is wrong as it says bad harmfull genes should become less common

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”



read this

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/30/2529713.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”


http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
The problem has become more acute as recent studies in developmental biology make clear that mutations expressed early in development typically have severely deleterious effects, including mutations in crucially important "master regulator" or hox genes. The problem has led to what geneticist John F. MacDonald has called "a great Darwinian paradox." He notes that genes that vary within a populations affect only minor aspects of form and function, while genes that govern major changes - the very stuff of macroevolution - apparently do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism. (McDonald, "The Molecular Basis of Adaption: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observations," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1983 14:93)
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:40 pm

Current human evolution is atypical and standard natural selection doesn't necessarily apply.

Modern medicine allows people with harmful disorders (asthma, diabetes, etc) to live long prolific lives, and pass their genes on to the next generation.
In a more "natural" setting, these people would die much sooner, leaving no offspring or severely damaging the fitness of their offspring.

In a broader sense, I suppose you could say that the fitness benefits gained from our increased mental capacity far outweigh the other accumulated genetic disorders. In which case NS still applies to humans, just in a very broad abstract sense.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:44 pm

This is worse than a hoax; it's complete garbage. At least a hoax makes an effort to be believable, whereas no reasonable person would believe the article posted here.

As Canalon said, the author has a lovely collection of degrees, but not a single one of them has anything to do with science. If you want to push this issue, find sources from respectable biologists with PhDs or at least MS degrees who are trying to say that natural selection is false. I'd be willing to bet you won't find even one.

How does the cambrian explosion invalidate natural selection? The link you posted gives no evidence at all as to why it wouldn't have happened. In fact, if you studied the molecular and genetic histories of developing life from its origin up through the cambrian period, you'll find that it's really not hard to believe at all, especially given that multicellular life was still very new at that time. A "phylum" can be reduced to little more than a body plan, and with the first multicellular organisms came life's first experiments at putting multiple cells together into a single organism. Just play around with some legos for a bit and you'll see that there's plenty of different ways to put various building blocks together, and this combined with the relative emptiness of the earth that this time makes it very believable that, as soon as the first multicellular life forms appeared, there would be an explosion of biodiversity as all sorts of phyla (body plans) evolved to take advantage of the many unexploited niches available.

To claim that the presence of cancer invalidates natural selection is foolish. As Astus pointed out, the real reason we have such a problem with it is because our level of medical technology has developed to a point where people who, in the wild, would be "naturally selected" are actually remaining alive longer than nature intended and thus having problems that aboriginal humans never had to deal with. Astus's proposal that our mental capacity outweighs other problems (such as cancer or the poor spinal column that Canalon pointed out) certainly has some merits, but I would instead claim that it is wrong to apply theories of natural selection to a human population that no longer lives in nature.

As for the generation of new species, I would like to know how this cannot be accounted for. Given that we know mechanisms by which mutations can produce new DNA sequences, and natural selection works on those traits, selecting favorable ones, until over time the entire genome of the population is altered.

In conclusion, I would recommend that you do some serious research into evolutionary science by looking into some serious sources, not relying on half-baked articles conjured up by amateurs who don't even have an associate's degree in the relevant field.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby canalon » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:33 am

gamila wrote:you say 2)

For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones:


based on your own wordsn NS is wrong as it says bad harmfull genes should become less common

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”


You completely miss the point. You see cancer as bad because it kills you however evolutionary it is of very little relevance. Good or bad are not part of the evolutionary vocabulary. The key concept here is fitness, which can roughly be translated as the ability to transmit gene to the next generation.
Or as you might know, most cancer happen in the latter year, when many people have already procreated, so the cancer will not affect their fitness, so there is no evolutionary pressure to remove a gene that will cause it from the gene pool.

On the other hand a gene that would allow you to live very healthily untill 120 years old, but with reduced fertility, although quite good from a human point of view, would probably quickly be removd from the gene pool, because it will directly reduce the fitness of the (in?)fortunate carriers of the gene.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby alextemplet » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:17 am

To add to what Canalon said, one might also consider that cancer-causing genes would be very, very good from an evolutionary point of view because they guarantee that people will die after they are no longer able to reproduce. It would be very bad, from the standpoint of natural selection, to have a large population of geriatrics that would amount to evolutionary parasites by consuming resources while contributing nothing in terms of additional offspring or possibly even work to support the offspring of others. In evolutionary terms, it is much better that individuals die as soon as they are no longer able to breed, thus removing competition for resources and giving the younger generations an opportunity to thrive.

So, interestingly, one could argue that high rates of cancer actually proves the validity of natural selection as a biological theory.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests