The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is natural selection proven wrong?  (Read 16860 times)

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #25 on: 23/04/2009 16:09:35 »
It really is very simple in the light of the evidence the position of the evolutionists/darwinists is untenable - not colin leslie dean dean is not a creationist

NS is s very simple formulation

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

the cambrian explosion shows NS is wrong

Quote
. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

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

and

the the fact that harmful genes are transmitted and are common or not rare shows NS is wrong

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 hemochromatosis

Quote
ew 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.

i think the case is closed
the evidence is out there and copious to show NS is wrong as colin leslie dean has shown
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #26 on: 23/04/2009 16:26:07 »
It seems that sim is too busy posting nonsense to read the responses.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #27 on: 23/04/2009 16:35:20 »
It seems that sim is too busy posting nonsense to read the responses.
So he is.

Sim, repeating yourself doesn't make you right.  Quoting him doesn't make this Dean person right either. 

Quote
the cambrian explosion shows NS is wrong
The Cambrian explosion is not relevant to your line of argument against natural selection.  Are you picking creationist arguments at random and posting them here?

Quote
the fact that harmful genes are transmitted and are common or not rare shows NS is wrong
Please read some of the above posts - this is a silly comment to keep trotting out, especially after it has been explained to you so many times why it is that you are wrong.

People are banned from the forum for this kind of trolling, so I will offer you a chance to defend yourself.

Would you do me the honour of addressing my questions?
Here they are for you 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?
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #28 on: 24/04/2009 07:36:01 »
Quote
The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs

Quote
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
“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:
thus we have at the cambrian period are rapid speciation-

now 
go read dean
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #29 on: 24/04/2009 09:22:52 »
But dean is wrong about this, so why would I wish to read it?  i could read all sorts of more useful stuff instead.

You're just repeating your nonsense again.

Final warning Sim - answer the questions or be banned for trolling.

Edit - actually, I'll ty to make this easier for you.  To be entirely honest, I don't think you understand the arguments you are putting forwards.

Have you confused Natural Selection with Evolution?  Natural selection is one of the many processes that are pat of evolution, and one that no rational person could argue with, as we know for a fact that it happens.  It seems to me that you would like to believe that evolution is an incorrect theory, but don't understand it well enough to even follow your own arguments.

I'll go through the arguments with you...

Quote
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

There's a couple of things to address here.  Firstly, Darwin wouldn't have published if he thought the cambrian explosion to actually invalidate his theory.  Secondly, we've had 150 years of evolutionary science since Darwin, so Darwin's concerns are not the present scientific reality.  Thirdly, the cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate natural selection - in fact, if there was a signiture on each and every cambrian fossil saying "from god, with love" it still wouldn't have any impact on natural selection - even if all species on earth were created several million years ago, the process of natural selection can be seen to occur.
 
Quote
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

So you're saying that speciation is outside the remit of natural selection.  This in itself makes points 1, 2 and 4 completely irrelevant to any discussion of natural selection - you;ve argued against yourself there.  But regardless, natural selection can result in speciation, given enough time and selective pressure.  If nothing else, The fact that all species on Earth are genetically linked shows this for us.

Quote
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

I don't think you, or whoever wrote this first, has the first clue what 'genetics' means.  I'm not entirely sure you understand speciation either.  You may be interested to hear that speciation is practically irrelevant from an evolution perspective. It's merely a consequence of evolutionary processes.

Quote
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

Ah, the only comment in this list that could even be faintly considered as an argument against natural selection!  Sadly, it's wrong, as if the unfavourable traits do not stop an animal from breeding, natural selection cannot act against them.  Again, due to the fact that we have medicine and social care, natural selection in humans is reduced.  If breast cancer genes do not stop you from having children, why would natural selection select against them?  Do you know what natural selection actually is?

Quote
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
A sublimely idiodic statement, and not even faintly related to natural selection.  I don't think you really understand this particular point, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it.

So, to conclude, what you have presented is 3 irrelevant and poor arguments against evolution, and a misconception about natural selection.

Now, lets try to get your brain working with some simple questions:

Have you researched any examples that run contrary to natural selection in the wild (don't even think about human examples, they're totally irrelevant)?

Do you have any comment on artificial selection?  After all, it's the same process as natural selection, just with human- rather than environmental- or competition-derived pressures.

What do you propose is the alternative?
« Last Edit: 24/04/2009 12:13:21 by BenV »
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #30 on: 25/04/2009 05:52:28 »
you say

Quote
Would you do me the honour of addressing my questions?
Here they are for you 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?


1)
Quote
Have you researched any examples that run contrary to natural selection in the wild?

i dont have to in the humans NS is invalidated by the presence of harmful gene that are common
if you say that is because humans are not in the wild
then you prove that NS is not operating with humans

2)
Quote
Do you have any comment on artificial selection?
no comment
3)
Quote
What do you propose is the alternative

i dont

further

Quote
But regardless, natural selection can result in speciation, given enough time and selective pressure.  If nothing else

NS cannot result in speciation as NS is only about the transmission of already acquired triats
and thus speciation invalidate NS
Quote
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

Quote
Thirdly, the cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate natural selection

newbielink:http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html [nonactive]
Quote
Charles Darwin (1859, p. 308) recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

also

it invalidates NS because it was a period of speciation -read the above

Quote
even if all species on earth were created several million years ago, the process of natural selection can be seen to occur.
 

the process of NS can be seen to occur once the new species are present -but it cant account for the speciation it self- read above

Quote
You may be interested to hear that speciation is practically irrelevant from an evolution perspective. It's merely a consequence of evolutionary processes.

the evolutionary process is NS darwin saw the cambian explosion as invalidating this process
Speciation is not part of or can be accounted for by NS read above


Quote
  Do you know what natural selection actually is?

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
[/b]

the presence of common harmuful genes means NS is wrong


Quote
Have you confused Natural Selection with Evolution?


darwin say the cambrian explosion invalidating his theory of evolution via NS

Quote
“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]”

you have not understood dean
dean is is saying darwin saw the cambrian explosion as  proving his theory of evolution via NS wrong
dean is saying the rapid explosion of new species from no where is an act of speciation-which from the above shows NS to be wrong dean

Quote
Quote
if you have an abrupt explosion of species out of now where [that is speciation] ,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

so we have two invalidations due to the cambrian explosion
the one darwin saw
and the one  dean points out due to the speciation of the period
« Last Edit: 25/04/2009 07:37:35 by sim »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #31 on: 25/04/2009 07:14:59 »
Quote from: sim
so we have two invalidations due to the cambrian explosion
the one darwin saw
and the one  dean points out due to the speciation of the period
The Cambrian explosion does not invalidate anything. New species evolve out of old species because the individuals of the new species find a niche in the environment that they can exploit and so flourish. Many times in the past, the environment changed so that the new species could survive while the old species died out because it could not cope. Sometimes the old species and the new species survived together.

There have been times that challenged the livelihood of individuals. Some individuals found themselves more adept at survival than others. Those who were more adapt flourished. Those who were less adapt found their numbers diminished. This happened over and over in the past. It is happening again and again right now.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #32 on: 25/04/2009 07:19:42 »
Quote
New species evolve out of old species
the new specis has genes the old one dose not so the old one cannot have passed them on to the new one -speciation invalidates NS
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #33 on: 25/04/2009 07:37:50 »
Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination? That's where new genes come from.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #34 on: 25/04/2009 07:48:32 »
Quote
That's where new genes come from.

you cannt get around the fact that the new specis has genes the old one dose not so the old one cannot have passed them on to the new one -speciation invalidates NS
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #35 on: 25/04/2009 08:00:29 »
Are you really that thick?
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #36 on: 25/04/2009 08:05:58 »
Quote
Are you really that thick?

you cannt get around the fact that the new specis has genes the old one dose not- that is what makes it a new species- so the old one cannot have passed them on to the new one -speciation invalidates NS- if the old one passed on the genes we would not have a new species but only an adapting old species

also

Quote
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
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #37 on: 25/04/2009 08:14:20 »
Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination?

Your posts serve to do nothing but demonstrate your willful, idiotic ignorance.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #38 on: 25/04/2009 08:21:25 »
Quote
Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination?

please tell us where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from

i am not asking for the preocess of
Quote
genetic mutation and recombination?
i want you to tell us where the genes come from that form a new species with genes never before there
« Last Edit: 25/04/2009 08:32:31 by sim »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #39 on: 25/04/2009 08:27:20 »
If you would just google the two words you would find out.
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #40 on: 25/04/2009 08:29:02 »
Quote
If you would just google the two words you would find out.

i asked you
Quote
please tell us where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #41 on: 25/04/2009 08:34:27 »
You obviously don't listen when real information is given, so why should I?
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #42 on: 25/04/2009 08:39:23 »
Quote
Reply with quote
If you would just google the two words you would find out
i am asking you
you are making the claim
so tell us
Quote
please tell us where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from

not how mutant genes or recombinations works
but
 where the new genes come from that form a new species- genes that have never been before where do they come from
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #43 on: 25/04/2009 08:53:21 »
You will understand where new variation (genes and gene combinations) come from when you understand mutation and recombination. Go forth and read. Wikipedia is a good place to start. While you're there, you should learn more about evolution and natural and artificial selection.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #44 on: 25/04/2009 09:24:33 »
Sim - read what other people say.  Human examples are irrelevant because of modern day medicine. 
Actually quite the reverse. Natural selection favours phenotypes that are fittest for a particular environment. All that medicine has done is to change the character of the environment. Consequently, despite poor eyesight that could have led to my early death, spectacles enabled me to reach breeding age and pass my 'bad eyesight genes' on to my children. My eyesight has little or no relevance in the environment in which I find/found myself. 
 

Offline sim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #45 on: 25/04/2009 09:37:52 »
Read

Quote
newbielink:http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-philosophical-and-theoretical-flaws-of-darwinian-evolution/ [nonactive]

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. 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




 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #46 on: 25/04/2009 09:57:15 »
Sim, I wish you would make it clear what you are arguing against. 

First you claim that Natural Selection is false.  We point out that you are wrong, and explain why.

Now, you say that speciation somehow proves that natural selection is false, we point out why you are wrong again.

You admit in a post above that natural selection does occur, though with the caveat that it's within species -this shows that not only were your original arguments a load of idiotic nonsense, but also that you do not understand what you are talking about.  If adaptation can occur within a species, then if you spit a species into two different environments, there is no reason they couldn't 'adapt' so far apart that they become different species.

None of your arguments stand up, you're clearly not willing to read other people's posts and actually understand the topic.  You seem to content to remain in ignorance.

For this, I consider you a troll.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #47 on: 25/04/2009 10:01:14 »
Read

Quote
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-philosophical-and-theoretical-flaws-of-darwinian-evolution/

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. 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






You posted this piece of elloquant nonsense while I was typing, so I didn't spot it.  Read it back to yourself and really think about what it says.

I'll give you a clue to help you out.  Evolution and natural selection do not care about the labels that we put on things.

Quote
Something evolved from what it was not
Of course it did, you idiot, if it hadn't changed from what it was we could see no evolutionary change.  All things evolve from what they're not.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #48 on: 25/04/2009 10:04:20 »
Actually, I give up.  Sim's wilfull ignorance, wanton stupidity and trolling has irritated me, almost certainly his intention in the first place.  He has been banned for trolling.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #49 on: 25/04/2009 10:46:17 »
It's so sad that there are people like sim who will never know what it's like to understand and appreciate reality, and who encourage others to deprive themselves of the same enlightenment. :(
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is natural selection proven wrong?
« Reply #49 on: 25/04/2009 10:46:17 »

 

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