The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is natural selection proven wrong?  (Read 16819 times)

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« on: 19/04/2009 11:14:01 »
Natural selection is defined to be
Quote
”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)


Natural selection is proven wrong for 4 reasons





1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
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
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below  where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits  and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer  are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates  NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

You can read the complete refutation of natural selection here

published 2009

newbielink:http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Natural_selection.pdf [nonactive]

Quote
THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG


BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
 M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)
 
THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG


BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
 M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

GAMAHUCHER PRESS WEST GEELONG, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
2009
There are five points which show natural selection [NS]is invalid  or wrong
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
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
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below  where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits  and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer  are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates  NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion




TO GIVE DETAIL
Natural selection
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection [nonactive]

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]


”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)


Note the terms “favorable” “ unfavorable” and “common” are subjective  value laden theory laden and relative terms. All open to varying ideological  interpretations

it is stated
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_controversial_or_contested [nonactive]

“evolutionary theory itself has been entirely uncontested in the field of biology and is commonly described as the "cornerstone of modern biology”

Evolution takes place via two process according to evolutionary theory
Natural Selection and genetic drift

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]

Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. The first 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. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits.[2][3] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.

 points which disproves natural selection
1_punctuated equilibrium
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium [nonactive]
“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species experience little change for most of their geological history, showing stasis in the fossil record, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).”

Charles Darwin noted
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium [nonactive]

“The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—“

now the current thinking notes that speciation  or punctuated equilibrium contradicts Darwin theory

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium [nonactive]

“Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection”

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
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

NOTE
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”




newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]


”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)


2_The Cambrian explosion  disproves natural selection
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”
but the cambrian explosion contradicts natural selection
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion [nonactive]
Cambrian explosion
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion [nonactive]
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere”

now the explosion of new species in the cambrian period shows something other that natural selection is at work

species appeared from no where
“The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere,”

now  even Darwin saw this as destroying his theory

“The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]”
NOTE
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion [nonactive]

“Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution:”

note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils
thus
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution [nonactive]

“Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:”

all Darwin could say was
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Relation_to_Darwin.27s_theories [nonactive]

“who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.”
As it stands right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
if there is no evidence to prove NS that is just to bad
and you cant live in hope the evidence will show up
As it stand right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
darwin saw
if you have an abrupt explosion of species out of now where ,that invalidates NS-the geological evidence cannot be found to support NS so empirically it is not suppported -thus invalidated -up to the present time

note that at the time of Darwin the cambrian explosion was evidence that refuted his theory all the religious people had to do at the times was refer to science itself for refutation of evolutionism ie the cambrian explosion and lack of EVIDENCE for natural selection
3)
NOW NS is invalidated by the fact that unfavorable traits are transmitted and can become common ie the gene for breast cancer

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,


newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]


”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)

Note some say that harmful genes can be transmitted so long as they accompany good genes. But this is not what NS says – so that fact in fact invalidates NS. Also concepts of “good” and harmful/bad are subjective value laden ideological terms which can mean different things to different people.

Now NS is about favorable genes being transmitted and becoming common
and unfavorable genes becoming less common
Now  unfavorable killer genes  ie breast cancer genes can and are  transmitted and  are common-thus invalidating NS
 Young women mums and grandmother are killed by it ie breast cancer genes
It occurs in women of childbearing age and they transmit it to their daughters. Some say a gene that kills after child bearing age does not invalidate NS. The fact is the gene for breast cancer kills Young women mums and grandmother. It is an abuse of language to say such a deleterious gene which kills all ages of women is not bad or unfavorable


Research has shown the breast cancer genes are common and may lead to other cancers – all of which  invalidates NS

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]


”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)


newbielink:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/30/2529713.htm [nonactive]

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”

4)

Now some people  seem to think that Genetics can account for the generation of new species

lets be logical
there are only two possibilities
1)the generation of new species is random process
or
2) there is some purpose or design programmed into the genes/DNA such that the generation of a new species takes place in a certain manner

when you think about these alternatives
logically then genetics cant account for 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

THUS IN SUMMARY
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
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
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see above  where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits  and the eradication  of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer  are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates  NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion and speciation
 















ISBN 1876347783

Mod edit - formatted the subject as a question
« Last Edit: 23/04/2009 12:18:06 by BenV »


 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #1 on: 19/04/2009 14:06:31 »
Oh please. Another person who does not understand evolution, yet considers themselves qualified to reject it.

You cannot honestly, on scientific grounds, fully understand evolution and still not accept it.

Please do some more reading. You will find that your objections to the theory are not at all valid.

Mods - please consider banning this user before this turns into another Asyncritus-fest
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #2 on: 19/04/2009 16:33:31 »
Quote
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
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
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below  where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits  and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer  are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates  NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

You say 4 reasons but all i can see is 2

Cancer and the generation of new species with the only period of time used as evidence being from the Cambrian explosion.

Im not an expert on any of the subjects but lets give this a go

Cancer:

Obvious answer. We have medicine and medical procedures which can on occasions eradicate cancer,prolonging the life of those afflicted allowing them to reproduce and therefore pass on their genes.

New species explosion during the cambrian period.

The period was 500 millions years ago, i am not really surprised the evidence for Natural selection for this time period is incomplete.

There are also probably 100's, or 1000's of fossils of previously unknown species still to be found.

The fossils and rocks may have eroded away.

What was the earth like just before this period. Was this a period of high geological activity preventing fossils from forming or surviving.
 
The ancestors of the  "NEW SPECIES" may have been made from soft bodies or of a make up that prevented them from forming fossils.

It is also very easy to quote sources of information from the Internet. Makes life very easy i suppose not having to do any work yourself.
« Last Edit: 19/04/2009 17:17:42 by ukmicky »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #3 on: 19/04/2009 17:13:25 »
Speciation just isn't a problem and anyone who says it is has clearly mis-understood all of natural selection. So I'm not sure why I'm bothering to post this... however...

On the question of cancer - cancer in evolutionary terms just another genetic disease, there are lots of those... the cancers which are known to be familial (certain breast cancers, for example) are mostly diseases of middle and old age - note that we think of 30 as terribly young to develope cancer but many people died much younger than that from all sorts of other causes, especially women who so often died in childbirth. Any disease that affects an individual whose children are already independent is unlikely to affect their ability to reproduce successfully. (Infact - and I have no reason to think this other than that is seems plausible - if an individual didn't have to support their aged parents and grandparents it just might improve their chances of successfully rearing their children).

Points 1 and 4 are the same, not only does the poster not understand the theory he/she/it claims to disproove, they haven't even read their own post. Muppet.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #4 on: 19/04/2009 18:22:45 »
Evolution itself has evolved. Darwin merely noticed it first and explained some of its realities. Thousands of scientists have since added to and modified the original concepts. We are still finding new things about how animals and plants evolve. There was a recent discovery that different species can share genetic material by means of a virus vector. This last discovery alone involves hundreds of scientists.

This wiki article describes the process
Quote from: the link
Viral vectors are a tool commonly used by molecular biologists to deliver genetic material into cells. This process can be performed inside a living organism (in vivo) or in cell culture (in vitro). Viruses have evolved specialized molecular mechanisms to efficiently transport their genomes inside the cells they infect. Delivery of genes by a virus is termed transduction and the infected cells are described as transduced. Molecular biologists first harnessed this machinery in the 1970s. Paul Berg used a modified SV40 virus containing DNA from the bacteriophage lambda to infect monkey kidney cells maintained in culture.[1]
« Last Edit: 19/04/2009 18:27:48 by Vern »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #5 on: 19/04/2009 19:07:59 »
Strange for a creationist to go for natural selection specifically as a target, it's so easy to prove it happens...
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #6 on: 19/04/2009 19:14:32 »
Strange for a creationist to go for natural selection specifically as a target, it's so easy to prove it happens...
Exactly; the engineers who study the process can actually use it to produce new species, such as the new soy and corn products. :)
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #7 on: 19/04/2009 19:21:58 »
According to:

COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
 M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

(hmm.. no institutions quoted above there...make your own conclusions...)

Not only is Evolution wrong, but so is Mathematics.
This is from Colin...

"Godels incompleteness theorem ends in meaninglessness. A case study in the view that all views end in meaninglessness. As an example of this is Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Gödel is a complete failure as he ends in utter meaninglessness. Godels theorems are invalid for 6 reasons: he uses the axiom of reducibility- which is invalid, he uses the axiom of choice, he constructs impredicative statements - which are invalid ,he miss uses the theory of types, he cannot tell us what makes a mathematical statement true, he falls into 3 paradoxes (Read criticism section first starting at page 43-52 part 2, then back to 37 part 1)"


Mathematics is wrong when Colin says there are 5 reasons why evolution is wrong and quotes 4. Or is that arithmetic is wrong?

This fellow is hilarious..check him out just for fun in your search engine. Sadly, truth is that obviously some of his flock take him seriously.


 

Offline stereologist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Stereothena
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #8 on: 19/04/2009 22:35:03 »
The Cambrian explosion event leads to what?

"and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s"

That's a good sounding sentence which could easily be misunderstood by a reader. I assume that the writer is referring to phylums. The uninformed might think that land animals existed, or birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals, trees, or grass existed.

"The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere"

Here we have the sneaky word seemingly in there. The 'explosion' is probably not the quick event that the word suggests. The 70 to 80 million years is more time than the Cenozoic age we live in. Evidence today suggests that some animals existed before the Cambrian.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #9 on: 20/04/2009 00:43:28 »
The beginning of the Cambrian began about 550 to 600 million years ago. The earliest known live is about 4.3 BILLION years old. Up until the Cambrian, life had evolved from very simple blue-green algae to testate amoeba & sponges. That is almost as great an advance as sponges to man. The slow advance just picked up speed, it didn't suddenly happened.
 

Offline stereologist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Stereothena
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #10 on: 20/04/2009 04:14:13 »
Creationist often misconstrue the evidence, the data out there. I recall reading a few years ago about the discovery of sponge fossils in a phosphate deposit in China. The author suggested that the site had been overlooked because of an assumption that fossils would not be found there.

This pushed back the first known appearance of sponges. So the 'explosion' time period has been widened.

It should be noted that the Cambrian 'explosion' is often mentioned by Creationists. What about when life moved onto land? That 'explosion' of life forms is not touched on by Creationists.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #11 on: 20/04/2009 09:13:43 »
I found this on a site

Wiki has changed its definition of natural selection after colin leslie dean had shown that natural selection was invalidated by the transmission of harmful genes which become common

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22412.0

Wiki removed half of their defintion -the part that was invalidated by colin leslie deans arguments

So it looks like wiki changes scientific definitions for ideological reasons-not very good for a net online encyclopedia that is used by students

here is the scientific definition in a book )2005) lucky wiki cant change books

Quote
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

and that defintion is taken from
Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Quote
Wiki has changed its definition of natural selection after colin leslie dean had shown that natural selection was invalidated by the transmission of harmful genes which become common

here is there entry for yesterday [16/4/09 ie definition of natural selection

go to the history to see

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

here is their defintion today [17/04/09]

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection [nonactive]
Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

here is their defiition under Evolution

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [nonactive]

he first 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

and that defintion is taken from
Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea
you can see the changes being made by looking at the history

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit [nonactive] ... on=history
« Last Edit: 20/04/2009 09:20:20 by sim »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #12 on: 20/04/2009 10:11:10 »
I've merged these threads as it's exactly the same (flawed) argument.

Sim - I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  Natural selection has not been proven wrong.  Colin Leslie Dean is also wrong.  You seem to have attached to him as a source, but I might recommend reading around the subject a bit more.
« Last Edit: 20/04/2009 10:14:23 by BenV »
 

Offline stereologist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Stereothena
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #13 on: 20/04/2009 14:14:22 »
Wikis are free-for-alls and should be taken with a grain of salt. They are not peer reviewed, but open to the commentary of all just as forums are. It's a good lesson for students to learn - look at your source!

I would be rather suspicious to label something helpful or harmful. That's a rather black and white categorization that isn't the way the world works. It's a scheme created by people that want to propose a point without evidence.

A so-called 'harmful trait' might be passed on for a number of reasons:
1. It 'lurks' by being recessive or whatever and is expressed infrequently
2. It has advantages during the reproductive time of an organism
3. An organism can reproduce despite the harmful trait

These thoughts come to my mind without looking things up.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #14 on: 20/04/2009 14:43:28 »
Sickle-cell anaemia being a very good example of something that is harmful/helpful depending on context.

To be honest, I suspect Sim is just one of those people who posts the same nonsense on lots of fora, then doesn't get involved in the discussion, so much of this will be wasted
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #15 on: 22/04/2009 19:02:42 »

read this
newbielink:http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm [nonactive]

Quote
Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days.
Quote
While many of scientists have commented about the "missing links" in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths." (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)

you say
Quote
Sickle-cell anaemia being a very good example of something that is harmful/helpful depending on context.

if harmful genes are transmitted and are common this invalidates NS no matter if they are transmitted in conjunction with good genes- as this invalidates the formulation of NS which say harmfull genes should be come rare less common

Quote
”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”



read this

Quote
newbielink:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/30/2529713.htm [nonactive]

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”

newbielink:http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm [nonactive]
Quote
The problem has become more acute as recent studies in developmental biology make clear that mutations expressed early in development typically have severely deleterious effects, including mutations in crucially important "master regulator" or hox genes. The problem has led to what geneticist John F. MacDonald has called "a great Darwinian paradox." He notes that genes that vary within a populations affect only minor aspects of form and function, while genes that govern major changes - the very stuff of macroevolution - apparently do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism. (McDonald, "The Molecular Basis of Adaption: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observations," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1983 14:93)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #16 on: 22/04/2009 20:32:40 »
If you believe this "if harmful genes are transmitted and are common this invalidates NS no matter if they are transmitted in conjunction with good genes- as this invalidates the formulation of NS which say harmfull genes should be come rare less common"
then you don't understand natural selection. This may explain why you think it has been disproved, even though it hasn't.


The question that those who don't believe in NS have to answer is "What stops it?". Does the sky-fairy go round every night and undo the fact that some animals bore more young that day because they were just lucky enough to be better fitted to their circumstances?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #17 on: 22/04/2009 22:45:36 »
you say
Quote
Sickle-cell anaemia being a very good example of something that is harmful/helpful depending on context.

if harmful genes are transmitted and are common this invalidates NS no matter if they are transmitted in conjunction with good genes- as this invalidates the formulation of NS which say harmfull genes should be come rare less common

Quote
”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”

I'm afraid you haven't understood this at all.  The point is that natural selection selects for genes that are advantageous in a certain environment.  Sickle cell anaemia offers some protection against malaria, and so is advantageous in malarial regions.  It's deleterious outside of malarial regions, and so is selected against.  Don't believe me?  Research the distribution of sickle cell anaemia and of malaria.

However, if medical care is sufficient to reach breeding age without sickle cell anaemia causing fatal consequences, as it often is in the west at least, it will not be selected against.

It doesn't matter how many times you quote a definition of natural selection to us, you clearly do not understand what it entails, and so are in no position to speak against it.

Genetics is more complex than good genes/bad genes.

I assume you're happy that artificial selection occurs?  You should be, seeing as there's a vast amount of evidence in its favour in almost everything you eat.  We have chosen which plants/animals to breed to get characteristics that we favour.

As has already been explained to you, if bad genes do not stop you from breeding, and medicine can help negate the effects of bad genes, then they will not be selected against.  You quote an example of a gene which can increase breast cancer risk - if breast cancer doesn't appear until after breeding age, then this gene is irrelevant to natural selection, and your argument is irrelevant also.

It may also occur to you that humans are remarkably good at side-stepping the results of natural selection.  Helping to bring up another's child, medicine and social care all negate selection to an extent.  Try to find examples of natural selection not working in entirely wild populations.

Sim, thanks for getting involved in the discussion - I did think you were a 'hit and run' poster spouting nonsense you hadn't really understood.  But please learn a bit about the subject from non-biased sources.  Genesispark is a good example of a terribly biased source.

Out of interest, what do you propose is the alternative?
« Last Edit: 22/04/2009 22:49:14 by BenV »
 

Offline stereologist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Stereothena
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #18 on: 23/04/2009 03:32:34 »
I find the argument put forward by sim to be an excellent example of why NS is valid and ID is invalid. The fact that bad genes are not weeded out demonstrates that no designer is overseeing this operation.

Your posting sim also points out that a fish did not give birth to a frog. You posted that sudden, major mutations are detrimental to the organism. I'm certain all evolutionists agree with that. Evolution affects species, not individuals.

Your posting has the right start, but somewhere along the way the conclusions you draw are a bit off. I am sure people around here like BenV and Bored Chemist can help you figure out where your deductions may have broken down.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #19 on: 23/04/2009 07:04:30 »
read this

newbielink:http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm [nonactive]

Quote
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history[/quote]


Quote
The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising.... The introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple. Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? ...If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." (Kay, Marshall, and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History, 1965, 736 pp.102-103, as cited in Morris, 1974)
some genetic disorders
newbielink:http://www.noah-health.org/en/genetic/ [nonactive]
Quote
Specific Conditions

    * Achromatopsia

    * Adrenal Hypoplasia Congenita

    * Adrenoleukodystrophy

    * Aicardi Syndrome

    * Alagille Syndrome

    * Albinism/Hypopigmentation

    * Alexander Disease

    * Alpers' Disease

    * Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency

    * Alzheimer's Disease

    * Amblyopia

    * Angelman Syndrome

    * Anencephaly

    * Aniridia

    * Anophthalmia

    * Ataxia Telangiectasia

    * Autism

    * Bardet-Biedl Syndrome

    * Barth Syndrome

    * Batten Disease

    * Best's Disease

    * Bipolar Disorder

    * Bloom Syndrome

    * Branchio-Oto-Renal (BOR) Syndrome

    * Canavan Syndrome

    * Cancer Genetics

    * Carnitine Deficiencies

    * Carnitine Acylcarnitine Translocase Deficiency

    * Carnitine Palmitoyltransferase Deficiency

    * Cerebral Palsy

    * Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease

    * Cleft Lip/Cleft Palate

    * Coffin Lowry Syndrome

    * Coloboma

    * Color Blindness

    * Congenital Heart Defects

    * Congenital Hip Dysplasia (Dislocation)

    * Connective Tissue Disorders

    * Cooley's Anemia

    * Corneal Dystrophy

    * Cornelia de Lange Syndrome

    * Cystic Fibrosis

    * Cystinosis

    * Developmental Disabilities

    * Diabetes

    * Down Syndrome

    * Duane Syndrome

    * Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

    * Epidermolysis Bullosa

    * Familial Dysautonomia

    * Familial Mediterranean Fever

    * Fanconi Anemia

    * Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva

    * Fragile X Syndrome

    * G6PD (Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase) Deficiency Anemia

    * Galactosemia

    * Gaucher Disease

    * Gilbert's Syndrome

    * Glaucoma

    * Hemochromatosis

    * Hemoglobin C Disease

    * Hemophilia/Bleeding Disorders

    * Hirschsprung's Disease

    * Homocystinuria

    * Huntington's Disease

    * Hurler Syndrome

    * Juvenile Retinoschisis (X Linked)

    * Klinefelter Syndrome

    * Krabbe Disease

    * Leber Congenital Amaurosis

    * Leukodystrophies

    * Lipid Storage Diseases

    * Long Q-T Syndrome

    * Macular Degeneration

    * Marfan Syndrome

    * Marshall Syndrome

    * McCune-Albright Syndrome

    * Menkes Disease

    * Metabolic Disorders

    * Microphthalmus

    * Mitochondrial Disease

    * Mucolipidoses

    * Mucopolysaccharide Disorders

    * Muscular Dystrophy

    * Neonatal Onset Multisystem Inflammatory Disease

    * Neural Tube Defects

    * Neurofibromatosis

    * Niemann-Pick Disease

    * Noonan Syndrome

    * Optic Atrophy

    * Osteogenesis Imperfecta

    * Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome

    * Phenylketonuria (PKU)

    * Polycystic Kidney Disease

    * Prader-Willi Syndrome

    * Progeria

    * Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

    * Ptosis

    * Rentinitis Pigmentosa

    * Scheie Syndrome

    * Schizophrenia

    * Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)

    * Sickle Cell Anemia

    * Skeletal Dysplasias

    * Smith-Magenis Syndrome

    * Spherocytosis

    * Spina Bifida

    * Spinocerebellar Ataxia

    * Stargardt Disease (Macular Degeneration)

    * Stickler Syndrome

    * Tay-Sachs Disease

    * Thalassemia

    * Treacher Collins Syndrome

    * Tuberous Sclerosis

    * Turner's Syndrome

    * Urea Cycle Disorder

    * Usher's Syndrome

    * Velocardiofacial Syndrome

    * von Hippel-Lindau Disease

    * Werner Syndrome

    * Williams Syndrome

    * Xeroderma Pigmentosum

    * XXX Syndrome

    * XYY Syndrome
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #20 on: 23/04/2009 08:57:45 »
Or you could read some real science instead of telling us to read your rubbish. You might actually LEARN something, *GASP*.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #21 on: 23/04/2009 11:59:35 »
Quote
”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

this prove NS wrong as genetic disorders are common when NS says they should be rare or less common
newbielink:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-738782_ITM [nonactive]



Publication: Genomics & Genetics Weekly
Publication Date: 25-MAY-01

Quote
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.

The new findings and their potential implications were presented April 30 to the 2001 Pediatric Academic Societies and American Academy of Pediatrics joint...
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #22 on: 23/04/2009 12:12:38 »
Sim, do you read any of these posts?  You've once again provided a definition of natural selection, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding as to what it really is.

Once more - humans bypass a great deal of natural selection (medicine, social care etc), so any examples you find in humans are irrelevant.

Have you researched any examples that run contrary to natural selection in the wild?  Do you have any comment on artificial selection?

What do you propose is the alternative?

Really, just stating your incorrect point over and over again is not the way to get involved in a discussion of a scientific topic.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2009 12:16:41 by BenV »
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #23 on: 23/04/2009 13:04:55 »

Quote
”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

there are many genetic diseases which are common some occur in about one in every 200 births-which according to NS should be rare

newbielink:http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Genetic-Disorders.html [nonactive]
Quote
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 hemochromatosiss


Quote
Some of the most common chronic diseases are multifactorial in origin. Examples include heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, diabetes, and cancer.

Quote
The science of genomics relies on knowledge of and access to the entire genome and applies to common conditions, such as breast and colorectal cancer, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. It also has a role in infectious diseases once believed to be entirely environmentally caused such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, which is the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]) infection and tuberculosis. Like most diseases, these frequently occurring disorders are due to the interactions of multiple genes and environmental factors.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #24 on: 23/04/2009 13:33:11 »
Sim - read what other people say.  Human examples are irrelevant because of modern day medicine.  You clearly didn't read the earlier comments about sickle cell anaemia, otherwise you would have not included it as an example.

So, once again...

Have you researched any examples that run contrary to natural selection in the wild? 

Do you have any comment on artificial selection?

What do you propose is the alternative?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #24 on: 23/04/2009 13:33:11 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums