July 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm #16673
Natural selection ends in absurdity or nonsense
A definition of natural selection statesquote :
Now the notion of harmful traits/genes ends in nonsense as harmful is a subjective value laden notion as this author points out thus Natural Selection ends in absurdity or nonsense
as in one case it is be argued that genes which stop reproduction are harmful but in another case the same genes it is argued are not harmful
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu … d-or-wrongquote :
EVIDENCE FOR COMMON HARMFUL GENES IN THE POPULATION
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu … d-or-wrongquote :
July 14, 2012 at 3:44 pm #111802wbla3335Participant
I invite forum members to copy and paste just about any portion of jumma’s quotes into a search engine (with quote marks to get more relevant results). This stuff has been around for years and has made the rounds of many forums (including this one – hi gamila, how’s the weather down under?). The author has a variety of guises and invariably gets banned by moderators for failing to engage in rational discussions. So, engage this guy if you like banging your head against dense objects.
July 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm #111803
I am looking for a rational debete how about discussing this rather than avoid it by adhominumsquote :
July 15, 2012 at 2:17 am #111808
Ok, I’ll bite – Your definition of a harmful gene is wrong – a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.
If I have a pair of dice, the average value I will roll is 7. If I roll a 3, that does not disprove the statement. You have to roll the dice many, many times and take the average. A harmful gene is one which, if you look at many, many organisms that have it, it reduces their average ability to reproduce. One success does not disprove the statement that the genes are harmful.
July 15, 2012 at 2:24 am #111810
Lets just have a nice discussion about natural selection, because it cant get rid of ALL THE BAD genes in a population, ok, it just cant. Does that put a stop to the op’s thread
July 15, 2012 at 4:58 am #111813
July 15, 2012 at 12:26 pm #111820quote jumma:
No, I never said that. If you put words in my mouth, then this will not be a rational discussion, and I will walk away.
July 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm #111821quote :
yes you are correct i appologise
you saidquote :
and as noted
THERE ARE MANY GENETIC DISORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ie the gene for breast cancer which reduce the probability of reproduction
but NS saysquote :
thus NS is wrong
as harmful genes ie that reduce the probability of reproduction are commonquote :
July 15, 2012 at 4:12 pm #111822
so according to your entire premise when the individual with the bad genes die the overall number of bad genes in the population drops till it’s all gone? That sounds so dandy and simple to you doesnt it.
July 15, 2012 at 4:35 pm #111823quote jumma:
No, Futuyma is wrong, or at least misleading. A standard counterexample is sickle cell anemia. There is a pair of genes that can cause it, one from the mother, one from the father. Each gene can be SC or non-SC. If you have two non-SC genes, you are susceptible to malaria (harmful). If you have one SC gene and one non-SC gene, you have protection against malaria (good). If you have two SC genes, you have SC anemia (harmful). In a malaria environment, the SC gene never goes away, but neither does the non-SC gene, because the combination of the two produces protection against malaria. By the same token, lack of resistance never goes away, and neither does SC anemia.
Perhaps a mutation or genetic engineering will produce a gene that provides protection without any drawbacks. Then NS says that the SC gene will diminish and disappear. Until that happens, SC anemia in a malaria environment will persist. Perhaps malaria will be eliminated for some population, or members of an SC population move (or are moved) to a non-malaria environment. Then NS says the SC gene will diminish and disappear over time in that population. In this sense Futuyma is right.
July 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm #111824quote :
my point isquote :
July 15, 2012 at 4:45 pm #111825
July 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm #111826quote jumma:
Either Futuyma is wrong or your interpretation of Futuyma is wrong and I don’t care which it is, or how many google sites quote him.
July 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm #111827quote :
this takes us right back to the thread
we have a definition of NS ie Futuyma
now you dont like that definition as it turns NS into nonsense so you want accept it
thus when even definitions are based on subjective value laden ideas
is even more evidence that NS is nothing but subjective value laden concepts- and you call NS a science
all you do is twik things when they dont fit your preconceived ideas-and you call NS a science
in anthropology that is called "secondary elaborations"quote :
July 15, 2012 at 5:44 pm #111828wbla3335Participant
Bang away, guys.
July 16, 2012 at 1:52 am #111833
ok ok lets cool it down. NS does decrease the BAD gene frequencies, why shouldnt it. But guess what, in our universe mutations happen ok, it just does, and those genes come back up so all in all the frequency tries remain as it is.
July 16, 2012 at 2:38 am #111835quote jumma:
Ad Hominem – Bye.
July 16, 2012 at 4:10 am #111836quote :
harnfull genes are common -read the thread for the evidencequote :
July 16, 2012 at 4:13 am #111837
lets keep on track the thread is about NS being nonsensequote :
July 17, 2012 at 1:49 am #111846
you are kind of arguing with yourself now arent you
July 17, 2012 at 1:59 am #111847quote jumma:
Okay, for the moment take it that I’m persuaded by your argument. What is your theory of inheritance?
July 18, 2012 at 10:10 pm #111869
There are many definition/s of natural selection:
This is yours:quote :
Compare that to all of these definitions from science websites on the internet many of which contradict eachother, the truth is nobody knows how to define natural selection, selection occurs but "natural selection" is a very abstract concept.quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :quote :
July 19, 2012 at 4:38 am #111873quote :
all that shows is NS is a subjective and value laden thing where is even the definition subjective and value ladenquote :
NS ends in absurdity and nonsense
July 19, 2012 at 10:05 am #111876quote jumma:
So, are you proposing an alternative theory of inheritance?
July 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm #111877quote ughaibu:
When natural selection first came out it was almost universally rejected. There was a period of 40 years or more where scientists were looking for alternatives to replace natural selection they call this perioud the eclipse of Darwinism. So which alternative theories are there? Theres neo-Lamarckism the notion that aquired traits can be inherited, saltation (evolution by jumps via large mutations etc), theistic evolution, vitalism or orthogenesis (internal directed evolution) etc.
Neo-Lamarckism and Saltation there is evidence that these do occur and have occured. I suggest reading the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka Marion J. Lamb where some of this evidence is described. The authors however are not saying neo-Lamarckism or salatation are going to completey replace natural selection, as far as I know no scientist denies that selection occurs. However the role of selection in evolution is still being debated. Some give it a secondary or minor role whilst the neo-Darwinians give it a major role.
July 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm #111879quote Forests:
Thanks, but none of this will tell me what Jumma’s proposal is.
July 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm #111881
Jumma is obviously an alternative account of the user Gamila who started the thread "Natural selection is proven wrong" on this forum. The arguements of these user/s come from Australian philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. This user/s may be Dean or a friend of his (they appear to use a very similar writing style). They are obviously not interested in proposing any alternative mechanism and some of their comments are very similar to creationists.
He talks about the:
The cambrian explosion. (he is correct here becuase the cambrian explosion does not fit into any gradual theory of evolution) but does not disprove evolution instead we have evidence that this "explosion" came about by complex environmental, developmental, and ecological changes (the mechanisms of which are still being debated today). The cambrian explosion was perfectly natural and does not booster any form of creationism.
Natural selection is invalidated by the fact of speciation. (He is wrong about this and actually dropped this arguement it appears).
His last point:quote :
His arguement here follows that "seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common".
Interestingly this last arguement I sent to some other people and they told me it is wrong as natural selection only occurs after repeated generations. As the author himself has said there is a lot of moving goal posts when it comes to natural selection.
Natural selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism, see my other thread for a handful of other mechanisms but sadly it is a bit dogmatically pushed and overhyped by some people. Scientists like Brian Goodwin and Lynn Margulis admitted that selection exists but said it only has a minor role in evolution, there are other important evolutionary mechanisms such as self-organization or symbiosis etc. So I really don’t see a problem any longer.
April 1, 2018 at 3:59 pm #116361joneallParticipant
I’d just like to point out that whereas mutation works on genes, NS works on phenotypes. A phenotype in general corresponds to a whole slew of genes. (Think skin color.) A given phenotype may therefore be selected because of its survival value in one environment, ignoring its dangers in others. Think of the genes which protect against malaria in Africa, but give African-Americans sickle-cell anemia.
So let’s forget about “good” genes and “bad” genes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.