EarthAlive
Member
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 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: