Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Discussions on general biology and biological evolution, genetics, zoology, ecology, botany, etc.

Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Postby bas on January 28th, 2019, 3:18 am 

Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Natural_selection.pdf

Natural selection does not generate new genes/species. Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present . A new species has completely new traits/genes which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits/genes
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits/genes that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


Natural selection/genetics does not generate new species/genes. Natural selection does not generate new genes/species Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present and it will be pointed out genetics cannot account for the generation of new species/genes as it is claimed the generation of new genes [via mutation] is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics, chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant
bas
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Postby bangstrom on January 28th, 2019, 5:57 am 

bas » January 28th, 2019, 2:18 am wrote: Natural selection does not generate new genes/species./quote]

Natural selection does not generate new genes and it is an error to think that it does or must if evolutionary theory is to be valid. Transcription errors, chemical or mechanical damage, or radiation can alter genomes. Natural selection is one of several processes that can drive speciation in a particular direction and its main usefulness is to remove harmful traits from a population. Nearly all mutations are harmful but a rare few are beneficial.

This is a quote from the cited article:”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”-
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 536
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
LomaxForest_Dump liked this post


Re: Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Postby davidm on January 28th, 2019, 11:10 am 

Good Darwin, what an abhorrent, idiotic, unholy mess that paper is! Bas, are you Colin Leslie Dean?

Let’s point this out first: here’s guy who claims to have advanced degrees in literature and psychoanalytic studies — these alleged credentials entitle him to bloviate on evolutionary biology just how, exactly?

I say “alleged” credentials because how is it that a literary expert doesn’t know the difference between the words “can’t” and “cant” and writes run-on sentences lacking proper punctuation? This reads as if it were written by a thick-headed third-grader!

As to the gist of the so-called argument, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong. First, the Cambrian Explosion is not “shrouded in mystery.” (Note that the quote is from 1982 — does the author think all scientific progress stopped that year?)

Second, most mutations are neutral, not beneficial or deleterious. But whether a mutation is good, bad or indifferent depends on the environment — hence, natural selection. The classic example is the mutation that allowed bacteria to digest nylon in the wastewater of a nylon plant. That mutation might have happened before without nylon lying around, and in that case it would have been useless or perhaps even harmful. This is a case study of how NS is a matter of contingency and chance.

But more to the point, the author evinces no understanding of the fact that natural selection is not the only driver of evolution. Even deleterious genes can go to fixation, because of genetic drift. At the genotypic and perhaps even at the phenotypic level, drift is arguably a bigger driver of evolution than NS. The biochemist Larry Moran, at his Sandwalk blog, had a great (and heated) online argument with Richard Dawkins about the evolution of the horns of some animal, I forget which. Moran claimed they evolved by drift, Dawkins said they were products of NS. They locked horns over the issue. :-)

Moreover, NS alone can spread deleterious genes; because to reiterate, a mutation is good, bad, or indifferent depending on the environment. A mutation that may be beneficial in one context and thus spread can cease to be beneficial in a different context, when the environment changes. The genes that gave polar bears big fur coats won’t do them much good when all the arctic ice melts away because of global warming.

Ugh, what a stupid piece of crap that paper is! Embarrassing for the author!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 503
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Postby TheVat on January 28th, 2019, 11:20 am 

Citation is not a paper from a reputable peer reviewed journal. OP does not meet SCF standards or format guidelines. Closed thread.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6970
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Proven natural selection is not the origin of species:

Postby SciameriKen on January 31st, 2019, 1:33 pm 

Uh oh--- you guys obviously did not catch this revelation:

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"
Thus biology is destroyed as it is not a science since without knowing what the term species or phylum means biologies classificatory system cannot locate or identify the objects of its investigation


Whatever shall we do!! I'm going into finance
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
Lomax liked this post



Return to Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests