Natural selection wrong due to transmission of harmful genes

[EASTstroudsburg13]

I don't think that makes the entire theory incorrect if you just cite the transmission of harmful genes. If there are other broad reasons, than maybe I'd believe it. And natural selction doesn't mean that no harmful genes will be floating around.

[gamila]

If there are other broad reasons, than maybe I'd believe it.

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

It is as though they were just planted there [cambrian explosion], without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229)

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
but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit

this sites definition of NS is

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

so

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

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

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

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]

transmission of harmful genes shows natural selection is wrong


http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedo ... ology.html

There are over 500 genetic diseases. Many are recessive mutations and they develop only because both parents contribute the same recessive gene to their child. Some common genetic diseases include cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, and sickle-cell anemia

Genetic Disorders Common Among Hospitalized Children.
Genomics & Genetics Weekly
| May 25, 2001
The new findings and their potential implications were presented April 30 to the 2001 Pediatric Academic Societies and American Academy of Pediatrics joint meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.

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.

[mith]

Genetics say that genes are transmitted indiscriminately, you can't/don't select which gene to put in your egg or sperm. Therefore you'd always have transmission of certain genes regardless of harm/benefit.

So why is the gene still around? Obviously natural selection says we should kill all carriers of sickle cell anemia. Right?