Natural selection is proven wrong

[robsabba]

Gamila, I've not sure what you're arguing here. I don't want to post something until I now what I'm responding to. Can you help me out? I think it might be one or more of the following:

a. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is not a complete description of evolution.

b. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is completely wrong: natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

c. Natural selection as we now understand it is not a complete description of evolution

d. Natural selection as we now understand it has nothing to do with evolution

e. Natural selection as we now understand it does not exist: it does not happen.

Or feel free to offer your own sentences if these are not exactly what you're trying to get at.

Regards,

Paul

FYI: Gamila is not going to respond... he has been banned (finally). One of his famous contentions was that all of biology was garbage and probably all of sciecne too because you cannot prove anything and all opinions are the same, or some such post-modernism nonsense. He was just aTroll.

[Asyncritus]

Gamila

The most effective and ruinous refutation of evolution theory comes in part from the Cambrian explosion, as you've shown.

The other part, in my opinion, comes from the phenomena of instinctive behaviour of all kinds, beginning with the processes required for life (such as eating in animals) and moving upwards to things like the annual arrival of the cliff swallows on March 18th (apart from leap years) and their departure on Oct 23.

Their journey is about 7,500 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in California, one way. The details beggar the imagination, and leave natural selection swallowing an awful lot of dust.

I've put a number of them up on my blog, and I invite you and other readers to visit for fuller details of this one and a number of incredible others.

www.got.to/belligerentdesign is the address.

Asyncritus

[jonboo]

ok, where to start. darwins origin of the species is not a complete description of evolution b/c they didnt have knowledge of genetics so he didnt know how variations were passed to offspring. natural selection is the means by which evolution is possible. nat sel. is based on genetic mutations that allow new traits to form and the individuals with those specific traits that are favorable are more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on the genes for that trait to their offspring. nat selection does select for genes that are also present, those genes are present and enter a pop through genetic drift. those new genes are due to MUTATIONS. through generations natural selection, along side with isolation of a sp. by geographic, ecological, or smypatric barriers does create new sp. i wish u werent such and idiot and i had more time to devote to this argument b/c evolution may not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but nat sel is the means to which evolution does occur.....

[jumma]

this is a very interesting post

[BDDVM]

I'm curious about how, without selection, did drug resistant bacteria come to be so much more common than they used to be?
Incidentally if you are going to deny evolution you really should avoid new antibiotics for resistant infections if you are going to be intellectually honest.

[jumma]

Dean makes a very cogent point about 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

[canalon]

Dean or Gamila never made a cogent point beyond that of proving their lack of understanding of molecular biology. By Resurrecting a dead thread and making pointless comment without bringing any new argument by yourself, you are proving that you are worse than them. I suggest you go an study biology now. Do not feel that you need to come back.

[jumma]

I suggest you go an study biology now. Do not feel that you need to come back

ok
but first please tell us
how genetics explains the starting process that starts the mutation=in the first place
we are told it is a random process due to such things as radiation chemical virus etc so please tell us how genetics explains why such things as radiation chemical virus etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process


or again
we are told that new species comes about due to random mutations
so tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

ok
so once the mutation has happened generics may explain the unfolding process
but
please tell us how genetics explains the process that starts the mutation in the first place

in other words tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

[OdinsRaven]

The Sun

[canalon]

Mutations are not a controlled process, they arise because of errors during the replication process because the enzyme are not perfect. Environmental damage to the DNA (UV, chemicals, etc ) are there and do damage DNA. Viruses do insert themselves in the DNA for their own purpose, they do not care about consequences for the host, and they can damage DNA.

None of that is controlled by genetics. Just like car accidents, cancer due to smoking and many other things that can nevertheless affect your life. As I said, go learn some biology, and stop making a fool of yourself.

[jumma]

Mutations are not a controlled processEnvironmental damage to the DNA (UV, chemicals, etc ) are there and do damage DNA. Viruses do insert themselves in the DNA for their own purpose, they do not care about consequences for the host, and they can damage DNA.

you are avoiding the question i will ask again

please tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

so once the mutation has happened generics may explain the unfolding process
but
please tell us how genetics explains the process that starts the mutation in the first place

in other words tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

[ughaibu]

you are avoiding the question i will ask again

Canalon didn't avoid the question, the question was addressed by pointing out that its presuppositions are mistaken. In short, you didn't ask a genuine question.

please tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

Personally, I'm quite interested in the nature of your mistake. You appear to think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, is responsible for life. To clarify things, please specify:
1) what you mean by "genetics"
2) what manner of set of statements you consider to constitute an "explanation"
3) what statements and made by whom, espouse the claim that "genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves"
4) who the "us" you speak for are.