0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
”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
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...
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
Some of the most common chronic diseases are multifactorial in origin. Examples include heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, diabetes, and cancer.
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.
. 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.)
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
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
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.
It seems that sim is too busy posting nonsense to read the responses.
the cambrian explosion shows NS is wrong
the fact that harmful genes are transmitted and are common or not rare shows NS is wrong
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
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
“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]”NOTEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion“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:”
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
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?
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
But regardless, natural selection can result in speciation, given enough time and selective pressure. If nothing else
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 speciesgenetics 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 onNS is all about the transmission of already acquired traitsif 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
Thirdly, the cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate natural selection
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."
even if all species on earth were created several million years ago, the process of natural selection can be seen to occur.
You may be interested to hear that speciation is practically irrelevant from an evolution perspective. It's merely a consequence of evolutionary processes.
Do you know what natural selection actually is?
natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Have you confused Natural Selection with Evolution?
“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]”
Quoteif 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
if you have an abrupt explosion of species out of now where [that is speciation] ,that invalidates NS
so we have two invalidations due to the cambrian explosionthe one darwin sawand the one dean points out due to the speciation of the period
New species evolve out of old species
That's where new genes come from.
Are you really that thick?
when you think about these alternativeslogically then genetics cant account for the generation of new species1) 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 cant2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the planthengenetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfoldbutit cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant
Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination?
genetic mutation and recombination?