1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Natural selection refuted

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by EarthAlive, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. EarthAlive

    EarthAlive New Member

    Messages:
    120
    Just going to give some examples on this thread which refute the idea of Natural selection.

    So before I start, first lets define Natural selection:

    "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" (Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the history of an idea) (Futuyma, Douglas evolution, 2005).

    This is what the mainstream website wikipedia says:

    "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"

    Ok so now natural selection has been defined, lets begin:

    The fact that harmful genes and other unfavorable traits are common not rare makes Natural selection wrong.

    Natural selection is about favorable genes being transmitted and becoming common and unfavorable genes becoming less common, but we do not get this.

    Unfavorable killer genes ie breast cancer genes can and are transmitted and are common amongst certain populations of females-thus invalidating Natural selection.

    Research has shown the breast cancer genes are common amongst certain populations of females and may lead to other cancers – all of which invalidates Natural selection.

    Remember natural selection is about harmful traits to become more rare in populations, but research here shows harmful traits are more popular in populations and are not rare. Natural selection has been refuted.

    Evidence Natural selection is wrong:

    “Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1.

    According to natural selection these harmful genes should be rare, but as you can see they are common. Natural selection is wrong.
    "With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations”

    According to natural selection, there should not be very common specific gene faults in various populations, but there is. Natural selection is wrong.

    http://breastcancer.boomja.com/ITEM-Breast-cancer-genes-55612.html

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/30/2529713.htm

    Seeing bad genes can become common in the population this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common in the population. Natural selection refuted.

    More evidence that harmful genes exist in populations which refutes natural selection:

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

    "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 24 period."
    Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong geneticbasis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs."

    Final conclusion:

    Natural selection deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits in populations so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common amongst various populations invalidates Natural selection out right.

    Other references:

    Natural selection shown to be wrong by Colin Leslie Dean

    Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

    "What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?"

    Hundreds Of Natural-selection Studies Could Be Wrong, Study Demonstrates

    "Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results."
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2011
  2. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    Your complete lack of understanding of the process of natural selection doesn't refute it.
     
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,908
    Religion:
    Judaism
    :biglaugh::biglaugh: just amazing :biglaugh::biglaugh:
     
  4. EarthAlive

    EarthAlive New Member

    Messages:
    120
    Opinion. No evidence given.
     
  5. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    I wonder if the rarity of critical thinking skills makes it wrong.
     
  6. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    The evidence is your ignorance of the process of natural selection as clearly displayed in your post.
     
  7. EarthAlive

    EarthAlive New Member

    Messages:
    120
    Please read what has been written, how do you explain this?

    Natural selection deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits in populations so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common amongst various populations invalidates Natural selection out right.
     
  8. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    Inability to apply logic correctly.
     
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,908
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Please understand what has been written. Trust me on this: you are making a real fool of yourself.
     
  10. Riverwolf

    Riverwolf Persona Polytheist / Proud Ergi Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    23,692
    Religion:
    Old Way Made New
    No, it doesn't. Cancerous genes continue to exist because the people who have them can, and often do, still have children, thus the gene is still able to be passed on.

    Natural selection is all about passing genes from one generation to the next. If a defect prevents this, then that gene will not pass on. But if the defect does not prevent it, then it will pass on.
     
  11. Photonic

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Messages:
    2,421
    I'm getting quite a laugh out of it, please. Allow him to continue.
     
  12. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,724
    Both of these quotes are flat-out lies. Nowhere on natural selection page of Wikipedia does it say that unfavorable traits become less common.

    Harmful genes are not common. They are just as common as helpful genes, which is extremely rare.

    So, yeah.
     
  13. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,908
    Religion:
    Judaism
    If natural selection is true why is there more spinache than hershey bars?
     
  14. EarthAlive

    EarthAlive New Member

    Messages:
    120
  15. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Superstylin' Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    38,424
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    In evolutionary terms, an "unfavourable trait" isn't just one that we find unpleasant; it's one that has negative implications for our ability to carry on our genetic line, in terms of things like quantity or survivability of offspring.

    While breast cancer is profoundly negative for the women who have it (and their loved ones), it most often hits after child-bearing age when it doesn't have much if any effect on the success of the woman's offspring in evolutionary terms. Breast cancer, while socially and personally negative, is for the most part an evolutionarily neutral trait.

    However, one other thing puzzles me: if you've worked out the cause of breast cancer with the sort of certainty you'd need to say it refutes natural selection, then why the heck are you hanging around on an internet discussion board and not sharing your discovery with medical researchers? People are waiting desperately for this sort of information.
     
  16. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    Sadly, this has actually increased the intellectual level of the thread.
     
    Jayhawker Soule likes this.
  17. EarthAlive

    EarthAlive New Member

    Messages:
    120
    do you just come online to bash other people? you give nasty opinions without backing them up with any science. why not paste in a journal, website, book, or paper etc? All I see from you is attacks?
     
  18. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Messages:
    22,701
    I let others' posts dictate the appropriate level of discourse. Attempting to enlighten you with the knowledge of why your post is silly would be a waste of time, as I'm certain you're not interested in learning anyway.
     
  19. not nom

    not nom New Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    nope, you just twist words. you equate "less common" with "not common". you discovered sophistry, congrats, and you refuted nothing but the idea that you could be a honest thinker.
     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,908
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No need to come to my defense, Earthy. The Kilgore-Soule debates go way back.

    Look Trout, try very, very hard to understand.
    • Natural Selection predicts that good stuff gets selected over bad stuff.
    • The positive nutritional benefits of spinache are unassailable.
    • The Hershey bar, on the other hand, delivers 210 calories wedded to 13g of fat and 10 mg of cholesterol.
    And yet a random sampling of - let us say for example - bags collected by innocent childrein at the end of the month, will predictably find large quantities of Heshey with spinache being rare or non-existent. Therefore:
    1. Genesis is true.
    2. There really was a Flood.
    3. You're a meanie.
    QED
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted