• 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

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Some major flaws here....

1) There is no "Cancer gene"... there are alleles of particular genes that can make you more prone to develop cancer as you age.
2) Cancer isn't just genetic... you have alleles that make you more prone to get cancer, but that doesn't mean that you have a 100% chance of developing cancer.

now about mistakes about Natural Selection....

1) Natural Selection doesn't mean that "bad genes" get removed from the population... it means that genes that prevent an individual from surviving long enough to reproduce are rare in the population.
2) "Bad genes" is mistaken idea anyway as many genes that may be dangerous in some situations are beneficial in others... for example Sickle Cell gene.
3) Natural Selection doesn't mean that eventually living things become perfect... it means that over time they change to adapt to their situation.

The best examples of Natural Selection in humans are the spread of the Lactose tolerance alleles and the spread of the Blue Eyes allele. All of these started with a single individual and have spread through the population due to their different selective advantages and characteristics. But there are lot's of other examples in humans.

So, no... just saying "cancer is bad therefore natural selection is wrong" doesn't work.

wa:do
 
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

If natural selection is true, then why are various populations of the current generation of humanity riddled with diseases and unfavorable traits? How many generations have we had? Why are these disease still here? According to natural selection these traits should not be common, but they are, just look at rapid disease rates amongst certain populations. Millions of years of natural selection and human beings are immune to nothing? Man can not even cure a common cold. After millions or 1000s of years of this "natural selection" man is not even immune from a common cold? It doesn't add up, natural selection is laughable. Unfavourable traits are clearly common today, not rare like natural selection says they are.

It also needs to be explained why human brains have shrunken in the last 20,000 years by nearly 20%. Natural selection is it? Really? And it's also natural selection that human beings are getting smaller according to scientific statistics?

Natural selection is a social and political theory, it was used so people thought things were getting better. The theory is shot down by all available evidence.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
If natural selection is true, then why are various populations of the current generation of humanity riddled with diseases and unfavorable traits?

because bacteria and viruses evolve to [facepalm]

you ever heard of biomechanics?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
If natural selection is true, then why are various populations of the current generation of humanity riddled with diseases and unfavorable traits? How many generations have we had? Why are these disease still here? According to natural selection these traits should not be common, but they are, just look at rapid disease rates amongst certain populations.
Because a lot of our modern diseases are the result of very modern phenomena... the industrial toxins in our environment have only been around a couple of generations.
Diabetes, Heart Disease and Cancer and so on are a result of our new living situation and will take a long time to sort out.

The good news is we already are seeing beneficial alleles granting resistance to those diseases apparing in the population and they are starting to spread. Natural Selection at work.

Millions of years of natural selection and human beings are immune to nothing? Man can not even cure a common cold. After millions or 1000s of years of this "natural selection" man is not even immune from a common cold? It doesn't add up, natural selection is laughable. Unfavourable traits are clearly common today, not rare like natural selection says they are.
The common cold is not a human trait... it's a virus that is evolving faster than we are to keep itself infectious.
But then, you don't see anyone dying of the Spanish Influenza today either... nor are they likely to drop dead of the "Black Death" almost instantly.

It also needs to be explained why human brains have shrunken in the last 20,000 years by nearly 20%. Natural selection is it? Really? And it's also natural selection that human beings are getting smaller according to scientific statistics?
More like 10%
But brain size isn't everything, smaller brains are actually better at not killing mothers as our pelvis isn't getting any bigger.
Plus, have I mentioned the effect that environmental pollutants can play? Tar Shrank Heads of Prehistoric Californians Over Time?

Natural selection is a social and political theory, it was used so people thought things were getting better. The theory is shot down by all available evidence.
Hardly. :cool:

wa:do
 
If accident dropped radioactive waste or some kind of chemical on 2000 people, the generations of those people would still have it, infact the bad traits would continue to be common, "natural selection" would not get rid of those traits, go and speak to some of the successive generations of the WW2 soldiers or Vietnam whos ancestors spent time working with chemicals or were hit by bombs or gases, this natural selection is a fairytale.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
If accident dropped radioactive waste or some kind of chemical on 2000 people, the generations of those people would still have it, infact the bad traits would continue to be common, "natural selection" would not get rid of those traits, go and speak to some of the successive generations of the WW2 soldiers or Vietnam whos ancestors spent time working with chemicals or were hit by bombs or gases, this natural selection is a fairytale.
That's nice. Care to actually read a book on the subject you're refuting now?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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
Well, that just can not be as true as the OP.
I mean, YOU did not use a larger font or multiple colours...
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
If accident dropped radioactive waste or some kind of chemical on 2000 people, the generations of those people would still have it, infact the bad traits would continue to be common, "natural selection" would not get rid of those traits, go and speak to some of the successive generations of the WW2 soldiers or Vietnam whos ancestors spent time working with chemicals or were hit by bombs or gases, this natural selection is a fairytale.
So... natural selection is supposed to magically work in two generations? :facepalm:

wa:do
 

Alceste

Vagabond
If natural selection is true, then why are various populations of the current generation of humanity riddled with diseases and unfavorable traits?


I think you need to start at the beginning: every newly born, hatched or sprouted living organism carries hundreds of genetic mutations, or copying errors: ways in which their DNA unpredictably differs from their parents DNA. Most of these mutations have no significant impact on the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Some have a detrimental impact on reproduction, and some have a beneficial impact on reproduction. The knowledge that is lacking in your posts (and the reason you're being mocked) is that 1) these mutations are always occurring: IOW, every generation brings with it a new crop of potentially unfavorable mutations, and 2) the only mutations that are labeled "harmful" in an evolutionary sense are those that significantly inhibit an organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce.

These two points are basic: You can not claim to understand one single thing about the theory of evolution and be taken seriously if you can not grasp them. Now, with this new information, can you see where your argument has gone wrong?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you believe that the varieties of domestic animals -- chihuahuas, Guernsey cows, dwarf rabbits, fancy chickens, &c always existed, EarthAlive, or that they were selectively bred by people?
 
So... natural selection is supposed to magically work in two generations? :facepalm:

wa:do

You are now putting a limit on the number of generations? This is all down to what you think is it? Natural selection now has to exist only after two generations. LOl. Easy for you to dodge the question and make this up as you go along. Do you just make this up as you go along?, please see the front page where natural selection has been defined no mention of it having to be "after two generations".
 
I think you need to start at the beginning: every newly born, hatched or sprouted living organism carries hundreds of genetic mutations, or copying errors: ways in which their DNA unpredictably differs from their parents DNA. Most of these mutations have no significant impact on the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Some have a detrimental impact on reproduction, and some have a beneficial impact on reproduction. The knowledge that is lacking in your posts (and the reason you're being mocked) is that 1) these mutations are always occurring: IOW, every generation brings with it a new crop of potentially unfavorable mutations, and 2) the only mutations that are labeled "harmful" in an evolutionary sense are those that significantly inhibit an organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce.

These two points are basic: You can not claim to understand one single thing about the theory of evolution and be taken seriously if you can not grasp them. Now, with this new information, can you see where your argument has gone wrong?

No, that's not evolution. That is one hypothesis or idea of evolution called neo-darwinism. As mentioned in my other thread, other mechanisms exist. These mutations that you talk about, nobody denies them, but they are nothing to do with this natural selection idea of the Darwinists. Look up the work of Pierre-Paul Grassé.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Even when we have historical records, photos, films, and descriptions of their development by the breeders themselves, and others?!
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
If natural selection is true, then why are various populations of the current generation of humanity riddled with diseases and unfavorable traits?

what do you consider an unfavorable trait?

How many generations have we had? Why are these disease still here?

this may come as a shock to you, but... in part they too evolve. bacteria and viruses are doing their own thing.

evolution simply happens, it doesn't "want" anything, and it surely doesn't try to accomodate you or me, or all humans in general.

can you answer where domesticated animals come from? and if you can't, why not consider that you might be wrong?

you cannot just not acknowledge the evolution that does take place because it doesn't do all the things you falsely assume it should automagically do. that's not an argument, that's just silly.

If accident dropped radioactive waste or some kind of chemical on 2000 people, the generations of those people would still have it, infact the bad traits would continue to be common, "natural selection" would not get rid of those traits, go and speak to some of the successive generations of the WW2 soldiers or Vietnam whos ancestors spent time working with chemicals or were hit by bombs or gases, this natural selection is a fairytale.

what? how many generations are you talking about here? evolution isn't some kind of quick-fix mechanism, it takes a lot of time.
 
Top