Natural selection is proven wrong

[gamila]

gamila I'm curious about how you think those fossils got there - and what process other than natural selection is to blame for them?

I'm curious about how you think those fossils got there

i dont know
but i think the extra oxygen present due to the cynobacteria gave a big boost

as for NS I think it may work alright in some cases within species but i dont think -for reasons given in other threads -that it cannot account for new species generation

[alextemplet]

Wow. Gamila actually gave an intelligent answer instead of just posting the same quotes again. Could it be that people can change?

[AstusAleator]

Thank you for a straightforward answer, and thank you thank you thank you for not spamming more quotes.

[futurezoologist]

You’re getting better gamila.

The key point I don't think that you understand about the generation of new species is that a group of the original species has to become isolated from the main population(besides some asexually reproducing bacteria etc.), for example, a species of rat may be distributed all over a low lying island with a few hills, if the sea levels were to rise so that only the hills protruded from the sea then the populations would be separate, this event now allows for mutations of genes which will not affect the original populations. So the isolated rats will slowly become different from the originals through mutation, for example one rat may have mutated and gain spots which help it to camouflage better and have a lower chance of being taken by eagles, so the spotted rats would become more common. Through mutations like these the rats would eventually become so different that we could recognise them as different species (i.e. they couldn't breed---that’s the most accepted definition anyway). I hope that helps.

[gamila]

Through mutations like these the rats would eventually become so different that we could recognise them as different species (i.e. they couldn't breed---that’s the most accepted definition anyway). I hope that helps.

your statement is meaningless nonsense
as colin leslie dean has shown biologists dont know what a species is

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

[AFJ]

Futurezoo wrote:
The key point I don't think that you understand about the generation of new species is that a group of the original species has to become isolated from the main population(besides some asexually reproducing bacteria etc.)

FZ, those who do not go along with this are aware of the theory of speciation. The weakness of this theory is logistics and mechanics.

1) You were speaking in context of one adaptive variation within one genus or species. In contrast, to isolate every species--there is not enough space upon the earth to account for the multitude of species.

What would be the supposed means of seperation?

Why would it just happen to seperate along lines of common organisms? There is much mixing of all the varied kinds of organisms now--they are not all going to "naturally" seperate from one another.

2) Look at the example of isolation in breeding. They have more recently bred small cattle which are more cost effective for the farmer. If you introduced larger cattle back into the population of these cattle there would be large and small cattle in a few generations, and eventually all large again because the larger bulls would dominate. New traits in a separated population are not a closed door for interbreeding with the original species. It only takes one of the original to bring the trait back.

3) Wherever the mutation took place there would be originals around no matter which population the mutation was in. Though variations could happen, mutations would tend to stay on the periphery as they do today, unless they give an environmental advantage. Today many variations within a genus are neutral as far as environmental advantage.

4) How do you explain speciation of immobile plants ? They do not have legs, and please do not say that insects and/or wind did this. Cross-pollination does not apply as an example, because it will only work within a common genus like irises or related genus within a family.

5) Please do not misunderstand me, there are cases where variations arise within a genus by apparent isolation. This is truly a discovery that Darwin made. But the problem is that with little evidence he jumped to a conclusion and attributed this as a means of all species.

[futurezoologist]

there is not enough space upon the earth to account for the multitude of species.

If there were no lack of room then evolution would not happen, species would not be out competed so we would still have just about every mutant species whether it was beneficial or not --- competition leads to evolution.

they are not all going to "naturally" seperate from one another.

yes they are. One common example is geographic isolation.

It only takes one of the original to bring the trait back.

Isolation...

Today many variations within a genus are neutral as far as environmental advantage.

Almost impossible to get a 100% neutral mutation, please enlighten me to these 'neutral mutations'.

How do you explain speciation of immobile plants ? They do not have legs, and please do not say that insects and/or wind did this.

Wow, AFJ please think a liitle harder before posting next time. Loads of possible circumstances. One example is the large land which turns into lots of smaller islands due to sea level rise, i hope i dont need to explain further.

But the problem is that with little evidence he jumped to a conclusion and attributed this as a means of all species.

Nope, Darwin had all the evidence in the world. I believe that is what you are doing right now-- jumping to conclusions with no evidence or thought.

FZ, those who do not go along with this are aware of the theory of speciation.

I believe that i could reasonably conclude with you above comments and those of gamila in other topics that you both are an exception to this rule you have made, but don't feel bad almost all creationists think they understand these processes fully --- 90%, i have found do not.

[gamila]

If there were no lack of room then evolution would not happen, species would not be out competed so we would still have just about every mutant species whether it was beneficial or not --- competition leads to evolution.

it has been pointed out by colin leslie dean
that biologists dont know what a species is
so
all this talk of species this species that speciation is meaningless nonsense
from your classification ie species you cant locate a species to investigate
as you dont even know what a species is

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

Since the 1990s articles have appeared that make the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving the species problem. [22] [23][20][24][25]

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

[Jesse2504]

A species is an evolutionarily independent population or group of populations

These populations can be categorized generally in three ways:

Biological: Reproductive isolation between populations, this includes prezygotic and postzygotic isolation.

Morphospecies: Morphologically distinct populations

Phylogenetic: Smallest monophyletic group on phylogenetic tree


This makes it difficult to always describe a species or judge the validity of a new species, but the same problem is analogous to mental health. We can define depression as having symptoms of x and y but deciding whether an individual is effected is difficult, not to say that term depression is meaningless.

[gamila]

This makes it difficult to always describe a species or judge the validity of a new species,

fact is
biologists dont know what a species or phylum are

[biomom]

What an interesting topic! I look forward to reading more of these to prepare for some grad school discussions

I do agree that as far as the modern human race is concerned, natural selection has been greatly altered with advances in medicine. For instance, the rise in the occurrence of children with peanut and other food allergies does not follow a NS model. But, without medical intervention, we'd see natural selection occurring with the unfortunate deaths of many children.

[gamila]

But, without medical intervention,

the so called medical intervention has only really been around in a sophisticated form for about 60 years
as the post points out there are heaps of genetic disorders and heaps of harmful genes in the human gene pool
which must have been in the gene pool long before medical intervention could have intervened

ie breast cancer genes have been in the gene pool long before the rise of modern medicine women have been dying from it for a very long time