Natural selection ends in absurdity or nonsense

[jumma]

Natural selection ends in absurdity or nonsense

A definition of natural selection states

”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)

Now the notion of harmful traits/genes ends in nonsense as harmful is a subjective value laden notion as this author points out thus Natural Selection ends in absurdity or nonsense

as in one case it is be argued that genes which stop reproduction are harmful but in another case the same genes it is argued are not harmful

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu ... d-or-wrong

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Now some claim that if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause - has a genetic disorder ie breast cancer has a child then the genetic disorder was not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because it did not hinder her from reproducing, but the women might have had another 20 years of reproducing left if she had not died so then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing up to menopause ie her full reproductive term And again if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause- dies before reproducing then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction - but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable traits/genes ends in absurdity or is ridiculous


Likewise a male can reproduce from puberty into old age so even though he has already reproduced any genetic disorder that stops a man from reproducing into old age it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped him from reproducing for his full reproductive term

EVIDENCE FOR COMMON HARMFUL GENES IN THE POPULATION
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu ... d-or-wrong

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”

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Now some claim that if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause - has a genetic disorder ie breast cancer has a child then the genetic disorder was not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because it did not hinder her from reproducing, but the women might have had another 20 years of reproducing left if she had not died so then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing up to menopause ie her full reproductive term And again if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause- dies before reproducing then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction - but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable ends in absurdity or is ridiculous


Likewise a male can reproduce from puberty into old age so even though he has already reproduced any genetic disorder that stops a man from reproducing into old age it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped him from reproducing for his full reproductive term


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”

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

So if some of those kids admitted to hospital with an underlying genetic disorder died before reproducing, then from the above claim that would mean those genes were harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because the kids did not survive to reproduce, but if some of the kids [and others did not] survive to reproduce due to medical intervention then it would be claimed those genes were not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a kid dies before reproducing because of inherited genes then it is claimed that the genes were harmful or unfavorable-because they stopped reproduction- but in another case a different kid with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or not unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

[wbla3335]

I invite forum members to copy and paste just about any portion of jumma's quotes into a search engine (with quote marks to get more relevant results). This stuff has been around for years and has made the rounds of many forums (including this one - hi gamila, how's the weather down under?). The author has a variety of guises and invariably gets banned by moderators for failing to engage in rational discussions. So, engage this guy if you like banging your head against dense objects.

[jumma]

I am looking for a rational debete how about discussing this rather than avoid it by adhominums

Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction - but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable traits/genes ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

[Rap]

Ok, I'll bite - Your definition of a harmful gene is wrong - a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.

If I have a pair of dice, the average value I will roll is 7. If I roll a 3, that does not disprove the statement. You have to roll the dice many, many times and take the average. A harmful gene is one which, if you look at many, many organisms that have it, it reduces their average ability to reproduce. One success does not disprove the statement that the genes are harmful.

[david23]

Lets just have a nice discussion about natural selection, because it cant get rid of ALL THE BAD genes in a population, ok, it just cant. Does that put a stop to the op's thread

[jumma]

”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)

you both say

Lets just have a nice discussion about natural selection, because it cant get rid of ALL THE BAD genes in a population, ok, it just cant. Does that put a stop to the op's thread

a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.

then you both admit NS is wrong which says bad genes should become less common



http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu ... d-or-wrong

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

as the author says

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[Rap]

then you both admit NS is wrong which says bad genes should become less common

No, I never said that. If you put words in my mouth, then this will not be a rational discussion, and I will walk away.

[jumma]

No, I never said that. If you put words in my mouth, then this will not be a rational discussion, and I will walk away.

yes you are correct i appologise
but
you said

a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.

and as noted
THERE ARE MANY GENETIC DISORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ie the gene for breast cancer which reduce the probability of reproduction



but NS says

”natural selection, a process that .... causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

thus NS is wrong
as harmful genes ie that reduce the probability of reproduction are common

it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[david23]

so according to your entire premise when the individual with the bad genes die the overall number of bad genes in the population drops till it's all gone? That sounds so dandy and simple to you doesnt it.

[Rap]

but NS says

”natural selection, a process that .... causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

thus NS is wrong as harmful genes ie that reduce the probability of reproduction are common

No, Futuyma is wrong, or at least misleading. A standard counterexample is sickle cell anemia. There is a pair of genes that can cause it, one from the mother, one from the father. Each gene can be SC or non-SC. If you have two non-SC genes, you are susceptible to malaria (harmful). If you have one SC gene and one non-SC gene, you have protection against malaria (good). If you have two SC genes, you have SC anemia (harmful). In a malaria environment, the SC gene never goes away, but neither does the non-SC gene, because the combination of the two produces protection against malaria. By the same token, lack of resistance never goes away, and neither does SC anemia.

Perhaps a mutation or genetic engineering will produce a gene that provides protection without any drawbacks. Then NS says that the SC gene will diminish and disappear. Until that happens, SC anemia in a malaria environment will persist. Perhaps malaria will be eliminated for some population, or members of an SC population move (or are moved) to a non-malaria environment. Then NS says the SC gene will diminish and disappear over time in that population. In this sense Futuyma is right.

[jumma]

so according to your entire premise when the individual with the bad genes die the overall number of bad genes in the population drops till it's all gone?

my point is

it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[jumma]

No, Futuyma is wrong

a lot of people dont think so
just have a look at how many sites cite him

google has 48 pages of cites for the quote
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22n ... 24&bih=636