FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Biology and Genetics

Greetings!

Biology and Genetics Discussions on biology, evolution, genetics, health, and other related topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-19-2010, 02:51 PM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
Natural selection is proven wrong

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown
Natural selection is proven wrong for 4 reasons

You can read the complete refutation of natural selection here

published 2009

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

2)Darwin seminal book was called

The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection
but

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


Quote:
”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
natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
Natural selection is not responsible for new genes-thus speciation shows natural selection is wrong

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


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


Quote:
”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

Quote:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...286-738782_ITM
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.”

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/27...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 hemochromatosis”

thus seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common


Quote:
”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
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-19-2010, 08:30 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
Your point (4) is a real clincher. There's no arguing with that is there? In fact applying the same logic I can prove that you are a fucking cretin, here goes:

You are a fucking cretin.

QED.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-19-2010, 09:34 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
of course natural selection is wrong
do u really think symptom777 is fit for survival?

p+q = eat
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-19-2010, 09:46 PM
Big Cat's Avatar
Big Cat Big Cat is offline
But the cat himself knows
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 210
I actually bothered and spent 5 minutes typing out some shit, but I have finally decided that, nah, what's the fucking point.

To the O.P., my suggestion to you is for you to either volunteer the rest of your life as a slave laborer, or to kill yourself outright, and soon. Please do this, for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-20-2010, 11:24 PM
QUEST? QUEST? is offline
sailor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: long island n.y.
Posts: 655
on the Internet at talk origins.com. it is usually empty drums that ring loudest.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-11-2010, 09:07 AM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
you say

Quote:
Your point (4) is a real clincher
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

as colin leslie dean shows
if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-11-2010, 01:50 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightdreamer View Post
as colin leslie dean shows
if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
Colin Leslie Dean "shows" nothing. He philosophizes in an intellectual vacuum.

Colin Leslie Dean seems to think that natural selection = evolution.

Thus, Colin Leslie Dean = retard.

All of his points are well refuted. Since you have been on this bent for a while now, why do you not know that? Would you like to learn what evolution actually is?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-11-2010, 03:02 PM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
you say
Quote:
All of his points are well refuted. Since you have been on this bent for a while now, why do you not know that? Would you like to learn what evolution actually is?
give an example why dean is wrong when he says

Quote:


4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-11-2010, 09:08 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
chaos theory might but genetics cant
the possibility of a hurricane blowing through a scrapyard and a perfectly functioning Boeing materializing on the other end.

Thats quite a mighty 'might'

;-j
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-12-2010, 04:02 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightdreamer View Post

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
The statement indicates that mutations do not occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_01

It is well known that mutations do occur. Due to the structured nature of DNA, mutations are not completely random. Mutations not fitting the normal structure are "corrected" to fit the structure. This causes certain specific mutations like Hemophilia to spontaneously occur dispite neither parent having the defective gene. Cancer is itself a mutation of cells whose DNA has been damaged. Genetic diseases (negative mutations) are over represented in literature mainly because they are more extensively studied. Beneficial mutations like lactose tolerance also occur and eventually spread through the world population. The list of known mutations is growing constantly. An amusing recent mutation has led to the Munchkin Cat that is now being bred.


Speciation is rather obvious in widespread successful Families like Sciuridae (Squirrels) which includes over 360 examples including Marmots, Groundhogs, Prairie dogs, Chipmunks, and of course the many Squirrels both ground and tree types. The Sciuridae Family are closely related genetically. Over the span of some forty million years this Family has developed from something resembling the flying squirrel. Mutations present in any population were selected for by struggles to survive in each new environment encountered. The result is a species adapted for that environment.

As a general overview of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-12-2010, 05:11 PM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
you say
Quote:
It is well known that mutations do occur
i asked what caused the new gene/mutation to accour not explian what happens once it has accoured

genetics cant explain what causes the mutation to accour in the first place -chaos theory might but genetic cant
read deans claim closley

Quote:
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
yes but what causes the mutation to accour
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-12-2010, 05:29 PM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
you say
Quote:
It is well known that mutations do occur....This causes certain specific mutations like Hemophilia to spontaneously occur
i asked what caused the new gene/mutation to accour not explian what happens once it has accoured

genetics cant explain what causes the mutation to accour in the first place -chaos theory might but genetic cant
read deans claim closley

Quote:
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

if new species have new [random] genes genetics cant account for what causes the new [random] genes to be produced
once the random gene is produced genetic may be able to trace the progress
but genetics cant explain what causes the random gene to be produced in the first place
chaos theory might but genetics cant
yes but what causes the mutation to accour


Quote:
Speciation is rather obvious
yes
but genetics cant account for the generation of new genes ie the origin of new species

also bilogists dont even know what a species is as colin leslie dean points out
so how can you even talk of speciation

ie some say a species is a group that breeds with each other
but some so called different species do interbreed with fertile off spring thus showing the notion of species is meaningless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Quote:
However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3
dawkins talks of ring species
but the notion of ring species destroyes the notion of species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_sp..._of_definition

Quote:
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2010, 01:17 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightdreamer View Post
yes but what causes the mutation to accour
First sentence from Wiki: Mutation

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.


In general, mutations either occur due to external damaging forces or internal errors when the DNA is copied. External forces include energetic radiation like UV light or ionizing radiation, chemical damage from mutagenic substances like PCB's, or biologic interference from viruses that cause horizontal gene transfer in RNA. Internal errors occur when the DNA and RNA are copied while the cell is replicating. Since the DNA is unraveled and split into small chunks for copying, any mistakes in this process result in mutations. Down Syndrome is an all too common example of such a copying error.

Elsevier carries the full set of International journal on mutagenesis if you are interested, otherwise it's not really that hard to Google peer reviewed papers on genetic mutation research.

Most people understand that radioactive waste or industrial chemical spills can cause accelerated mutation just by the news articles about the mutated plants and animals found in those areas afterwards. Less known is the hortaculturist that watches acres and acres of flowering bulbs for the random mutation that produces a new flower variation that will be profitable.


Concerning the lack of a well defined and universal definition of species, such exact classification is relatively unimportant. Sure, new and better defined terms could be put into use, but this would provide little change in any current taxonomic rankings. To what end would you argue such semantics?


It now appears to me that you are concerned with disproving speciation, though you have a roundabout way of getting there. There is way too much literature and your way of questioning is very vague (kind of like saying since air has no color the sky is not blue). I suggest you explore Talkorigins, Pandasthumb, or Genetic Archaeology and come back with something more focused.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2010, 05:36 PM
nightdreamer nightdreamer is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 179
you say
Quote:
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals
as dean says
genetic cant account for the new gene/mutation
physics might
virology might
chemestry might
but genetics cant
but the question still remains
what causes the radiation
or virus or chemical
in the first place
all these are just effects of something more fundamental
you are calling the effect the cause

you say
Quote:
Concerning the lack of a well defined and universal definition of species, such exact classification is relatively unimportant.
if you cant tell us what a species is
you cant talk about speciatiion as dean points out
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evo vs. Creo - nothing to debate 0ddity Biology and Genetics 102 01-10-2008 11:05 PM
Canadian Healthcare - the facts... gemel Politics and World Events 490 04-01-2007 05:44 AM
False Until Proven True Zaiakukan General Science and Nature 0 01-08-2007 07:34 PM
STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED: iris89 Religion 11 10-12-2006 06:25 PM
The individual Vs Society pljames Human Society 219 09-15-2006 12:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network