Natural selection refuted

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seven pages! There is no explanation or argument effective against willful ignorance. Let someone recommend a decent book. She or he will read it or not. Until then, we're waisting our time.

 

[lunakilo]

This thread is allready quite long, so I don't have the time to read all the posts. someone has probably already pointed out what I am about to say, but here it comes non the less.

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"

Thank you for actually looking up the definition

There is something you ar missing though.
Unfavorable traits are only unfavorable if they decrease the probability of reproduction.

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."

So since the unfavorable traits you talk about don't hinder reproduction your argument is not valid.

As an example: My father died of cancer at age 55. By that time he had had 4 children.
One child died of cancer at age 18 but 3 survives to this day and have all in all produced 8 children.

Since my fathers bad genes did not stop him reproducing they are not unfavorable from a natural selection point of view.

 

[EarthAlive]

Unfavorable traits are only unfavorable if they decrease the probability of reproduction.

Says who? You are saying unfavorable traits such as someone inheriting down symdrome or a liver disease is not unfavorable?, you are saying it is a good thing then, becuase these things do not decrease reproduction? So someone having down symdrome does not decrease the probability of reproduction? Somone who has a liver disease or brain problem and is going die earlier this is still not decreasing the probability of reproduction? You clearly have no idea what you are saying. All inherited diseases decrease the probability of reproduction.

 

[Viker]

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."

So much wrong here. I do not know where to start.

Ah, the bad genes you speak of are not common. Common means affecting most people, not a few among the many. This is a good way to show your flimsy house of cards against NS has fallen down. I could go on but there is too much wrong.

Natural selection intact and emboldened not refuted yet.

 

[Skwim]

Says who? You are saying unfavorable traits such as someone inheriting down symdrome or a liver disease is not unfavorable?, you are saying it is a good thing then, becuase these things do not decrease reproduction? So someone having down symdrome does not decrease the probability of reproduction? Somone who has a liver disease or brain problem and is going die earlier this is still not decreasing the probability of reproduction? You clearly have no idea what you are saying. All inherited diseases decrease the probability of reproduction.

I call this a Mega

 

[EarthAlive]

I call this a Mega

Yes when you fail to answer someones questions or are scared of the evidence which may go against your own beliefs, call the other a user a troll to personally attack them. Works every time!

 

[outhouse]

:troll: the pseudoscience troll

 

[EarthAlive]

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

Common folk would say something like this: “Now, really, we
want an answer that makes sense. It is obvious that nothing makes​

itself. How did plants and animals first come into existence?”

Well, to start with, everybody knows that something has to be

needed before it is put together, or made. To say it another way, the
first step in getting something new made—is realizing that it needs
to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.
But right here, natural selection drops out of the picture—for​

unthinking randomness never feels the need for anything.

The reason that phrase, “natural selection,” sounds so able to do the job—is because it has a little word, “selection,” tacked on as part of its name. Although that was a very clever thing to do, it makes “natural selection” a built-in lie. For nothing mindless can select! This is because it cannot think.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev-PDF/Sci-Ev-29.pdf​

​

 

[painted wolf]

Do you know what causes Down's Syndrome?

Or that people with the condition are essentially infertile... so, yeah naturally selected to not pass on the trait.

wa:do

ps, I really suggest you get honest sources rather than creationist propaganda.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For nothing mindless can select! This is because it cannot think.

You are proving to be quite the expert at not thinking.

A fat dog and a skinny dog walk down the street.
There's a grate in the road.
The skinny dog falls through the grate and dies.
The fat dog gets stuck, struggles, and climbs to safety.
What was the grate thinking?​

And what the hell are yiu thinking? Evolution is not a ladder but a seive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ps, I really suggest you get honest sources rather than creationist propaganda.

Folks like EarthAlive employ their own brand of Natural Selection - they naturally select those texts that reinforce their ignorance.

 

[EarthAlive]

A fat dog and a skinny dog walk down the street.
There's a grate in the road.
The skinny dog falls through the grate and dies.
The fat dog gets stuck, struggles, and climbs to safety.
What was the grate thinking?

Is this a fantasy? A fat dog and skinny dog walk walking down the street? really? You have seen this? and also it is illegal to have a dog without a lead on the road, they would be with a mentor and or owner etc.

grate in the road? unlikely but even if there was, it would be well cealed off.

Your example has no basis in reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your example has no basis in reality.

Something you should relate to. Off you go ...

< ignore list >​

 

[EarthAlive]

These can not be claimed as "creationist":

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."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your example has no basis in reality.

And this is why you fail.

 

[EarthAlive]

And this is why you fail.

Personally attacking people over the internet. Hard man.

 

[Willamena]

These can not be claimed as "creationist":

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."

I've read the first article. It doesn't refute natural selection --rather, what is referred to as "wrong" is the image of natural selection, which is actually growing and shaping. This is a good thing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally attacking people over the internet. Hard man.

Pointing out the basis of why you misunderstand the process of natural selection isn't attacking you - it's simply pointing out the source of your ignorance.

 

[EarthAlive]

Do you know what causes Down's Syndrome?

Or that people with the condition are essentially infertile... so, yeah naturally selected to not pass on the trait.

wa:do

ps, I really suggest you get honest sources rather than creationist propaganda.

Occupation teachers assistant

 

[painted wolf]

These can not be claimed as "creationist":

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?"

Eppigenetics isn't against natural selection... it even says so later in the article. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing.

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."

I take it you didn't fully read this one either... they go on to say that natural selection is still a fact.. but that other forces like genetic drift are also in effect and that their new method will help determine the difference.

wa:do