Natural selection wrong due to transmission of harmful genes

[gamila]

It is shown Natural selection is wrong due to transmission of harmful genes

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

'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'

natural selection 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”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

NOTE HARMFUL GENES SHOULD BECOME RARE
BUT
HARMFUL GENES ARE BECOMING QUITE COMMON


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

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Genetic-Disorders.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”

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

“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.”


“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

[alextemplet]

Haven't all of these questions already been addressed in another thread?

[futurezoologist]

If all human women died after giving birth to children the kids would die as well-thus humans would not survive

Human children can survive without their parents.
I have a friend who lost her parents a few years ago and she is doing just fine living with her aunt.

which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia,

Sickle cell anemia helps people to survive against malaria.

as a younger woman, you start out with a much lower risk of breast cancer to begin with than that of the older women involved in the studies. (To make a rough comparison of odds, the average 35 year old woman has a 1 in 622 chance of developing breast cancer, while a 55 year old woman has a 1 in 33 risk -- quite a large difference.)

-http://www.earlymenopause.com/breastcancer.htm

And I'm sure if you poked around a bit you could probably see the average childbearing age is quite low.


If breast cancer rates are increasing(which i see you have no evidence for) then i could have a perfectly explainable reason, for example it could be that because the average age of childbirth is increasing there will be more women dieing before they have children.

[gamila]

Sickle cell anemia helps people to survive against malaria.

the full quote says

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

I have a friend who lost her parents a few years ago and she is doing just fine living with her aunt.

aint she lucky
the full quote says

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

If breast cancer rates are increasing..

it not a matter of them increasing it is a matter of the harmuful genes being transmitted and being common when NS says they should become rare

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.”


“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

the fact is there are common harmful genes being transmitted when NS says they should be come rare

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more thantwo-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.
There are more than6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births.

[futurezoologist]

Name trait which is increasing(be specific) and hard evidence that if is, and i will explain it for you.

[AFJ]

Gamila,

Appreciate your research. I really give you a point on the fact that humans will tend to keep genetic disorders in the gene pool because of our natural care for children until adulthood. Medical technology would also preserve disorders for obvious reasons.

Here's some food for thought. Even with 6000 genetic disorders, the stability of the genome in our created kind is evident. We hear often of the negative part of NS, that is the "struggle for survival." There is also a positive side -- sexual competition which "strengthens the herd." One can easily see how this happens.

1)The kinds (baramin) stick together by natural affinity toward one another. The creator puts this within them. This affinity works toward a genetic purity by "grouping" the baramin together--and why not if the creator is organized? Genesis 1 shows that in organizing the creation He separated certain things from one another to produce organization. I might also add that this separation is exactly what breeders do to produce purity of breed.

2)Secondly, the strongest tend to dominate in animals. One male tends to dominate over several females in many mammals, and he competes by strength to have this right. In humans there are many more factors which come into play because of our intelligence and heart, but I think a sort of refined sexual competition is evident.

[gamila]

Appreciate your research. I really give you a point on the fact that humans will tend to keep genetic disorders in the gene pool because of our natural care for children until adulthood. Medical technology would also preserve disorders for obvious reasons.

which shows NS is wrong as NS says such harmful genes should be rare not common

[AFJ]

And the thing I see is that these are reoccurring mutations--which are repeated in the population. But not necessarily passed from father to son. They are latent within our genetic material though.

This fact and the fact that they are called disorders kind of flies in the face of evolutionary thought. Evolution would require adding new information to the genome and then positively affect the phenotype. These mutations are negative.

This would be predictable in a creation model, as sin entered the world, and by it death. There should be negative disorders and sickness in this model.

[futurezoologist]

gamila Said:
which shows NS is wrong as NS says such harmful genes should be rare not common

No NS talks of traits which give the organism a lower chance of reproduction(some definitions say survival but that is not correct). What AFJ was trying to explain to you is that the human race is nurturing the sick/weak so they they have close to the same chance as others of survive.

AFJ said:
And the thing I see is that these are reoccurring mutations--which are repeated in the population. But not necessarily passed from father to son.

You see wrong. We have isolated gene groups that cause such mutations.
First link i saw:
http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/Frame ... nes-f.html
Some are mistakes in protein synthesis, meiosis/mitosis etc. but you cannot deny genetic disorders.

AFJ Said:
Evolution would require adding new information to the genome and then positively affect the phenotype. These mutations are negative.

You just contradicted yourself.

AFJ Said:
I really give you a point on the fact that humans will tend to keep genetic disorders in the gene pool because of our natural care for children until adulthood. Medical technology would also preserve disorders for obvious reasons.

...

AFJ Said:
This would be predictable in a creation model, as sin entered the world, and by it death. There should be negative disorders and sickness in this model.

Wow so god punished the human race by cursing some to be crippled for life, cancers and all that stuff does he now? That's news to me.

[gamila]

No NS talks of traits which give the organism a lower chance of reproduction(some definitions say survival but that is not correct).

this definition is from this very site

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... _selection

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

[Gavin]

Hi Colin. Remember me? We've met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You're just the latest. The guy's not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You're certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you're stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I'll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin

[futurezoologist]

this definition is from this very site

And why would that make it correct? I certainly do not rely on this site for my source of biological understanding(besides the articles). The assumption made by that definition is that increased chance of survival = increased chance of passing on genes, this is not always the case.