[_Stefan_]

Or you could read some real science instead of telling us to read your rubbish. You might actually LEARN something, *GASP*.

[sim (OP)]

”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
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-738782_ITM



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

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...

[BenV]

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.

[sim (OP)]

”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

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Genetic-Disorders.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 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.

[BenV]

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?

[sim (OP)]

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

”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

. 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

and

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

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.

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

[Vern]

It seems that sim is too busy posting nonsense to read the responses.

[BenV]

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. 

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?

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?

[sim (OP)]

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]”
NOTE
http://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:”

thus we have at the cambrian period are rapid speciation-

now 
go read dean

[BenV]

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...

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.
 

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.

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.

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?

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?

[sim (OP)]

you say

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)

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)

Do you have any comment on artificial selection?

no comment
3)

What do you propose is the alternative

i dont

further

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

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

Thirdly, the cambrian explosion doesn't invalidate natural selection

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html

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

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

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

  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

[/b]

the presence of common harmuful genes means NS is wrong

Have you confused Natural Selection with Evolution?

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

“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

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

[Vern]

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.

[sim (OP)]

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

[_Stefan_]

Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination? That's where new genes come from.

[sim (OP)]

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

[_Stefan_]

Are you really that thick?

[sim (OP)]

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

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

[_Stefan_]

Have you ever heard of genetic mutation and recombination?

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

[sim (OP)]

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

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

[_Stefan_]

If you would just google the two words you would find out.