[jumma]

Natural selection ends in absurdity or nonsense

A definition of natural selection states

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 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

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-wrong

quote :

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Now some claim that if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause – has a genetic disorder ie breast cancer has a child then the genetic disorder was not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because it did not hinder her from reproducing, but the women might have had another 20 years of reproducing left if she had not died so then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing up to menopause ie her full reproductive term And again if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause- dies before reproducing then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction– thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction – but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable traits/genes ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

Likewise a male can reproduce from puberty into old age so even though he has already reproduced any genetic disorder that stops a man from reproducing into old age it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped him from reproducing for his full reproductive term

EVIDENCE FOR COMMON HARMFUL GENES IN THE POPULATION
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu … d-or-wrong

quote :

Research has shown the breast cancer genes are common and may lead to other cancers – all of which invalidates NS

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

”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
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these “weak alleles” that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
“Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk,” she says.
“They are all small pieces of the puzzle.”
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
“They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end,” she says”
MORE EVIDENCE
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person –even child bearing women

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5689

“But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person”

“The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don’t mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.

“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. No tests are available to find these genes yet.”

“Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet”

“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”

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer

“Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts”

“BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other types of cancer during their lifetimes”

“Additionally, BRCA1 mutations are associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Mutations in the BRCA2 gene are associated with an increased chance of developing male breast cancer and cancers of the prostate and pancreas. An aggressive form of skin cancer called melanoma is also more common among people who have BRCA2 mutations.”
“Inherited changes in several other genes, including CDH1, PTEN, STK11, and TP53, have been found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer”

“Some research suggests that inherited variants of the ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, and RAD51 genes, as well as certain versions of the AR gene, may also be associated with breast cancer risk. Not all studies have shown these connections, however. Of these genes, ATM and CHEK2 have the strongest evidence of being related to the risk of developing breast cancer”

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Now some claim that if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause – has a genetic disorder ie breast cancer has a child then the genetic disorder was not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because it did not hinder her from reproducing, but the women might have had another 20 years of reproducing left if she had not died so then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing up to menopause ie her full reproductive term And again if a woman at reproduction age- from puberty to menopause- dies before reproducing then it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped her from reproducing

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction – but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

Likewise a male can reproduce from puberty into old age so even though he has already reproduced any genetic disorder that stops a man from reproducing into old age it could be argued that those genes were harmful or unfavorable as they stopped him from reproducing for his full reproductive term

MORE EVIDENCE –THAT HARMFUL GENES ARE COMMON
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 738782_ITM
“2001 MAY 25 – (NewsRx Network) — 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/270/G … rders.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”

Now some people argue that a disease or genetic disorder that does not affect reproduction is not considered harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

So if some of those kids admitted to hospital with an underlying genetic disorder died before reproducing, then from the above claim that would mean those genes were harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection because the kids did not survive to reproduce, but if some of the kids [and others did not] survive to reproduce due to medical intervention then it would be claimed those genes were not harmful or unfavorable in terms of natural selection

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

As a note this is where it can be seen that the notion of harmful or unfavorable genes becomes a subjective human value judgment and in effect is ridiculous . Namely in one case a kid dies before reproducing because of inherited genes then it is claimed that the genes were harmful or unfavorable-because they stopped reproduction- but in another case a different kid with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or not unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

[wbla3335]

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.

[jumma]

I am looking for a rational debete how about discussing this rather than avoid it by adhominums

quote :

Namely in one case a person dies before reproducing because of inherited genes ie breast cancer gene then it is claimed that the genes were of harmful or unfavorable – because they stopped reproduction – but in another case a person with the same genes does reproduce then it is claimed the same genes were not harmful or unfavorable to reproduction thus the notion of NS and harmful or unfavorable traits/genes ends in absurdity or is ridiculous

[Rap]

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.

[david23]

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

[jumma]

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 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

you both say

quote :

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

quote :

a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.

then you both admit NS is wrong which says bad genes should become less common

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33454540/Natu … d-or-wrong

quote :

NOW NS is invalidated by the fact that unfavorable traits are transmitted and can become common – THERE ARE MANY GENETIC DISORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ie the gene for breast cancer

as the author says

quote :

Thus it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction– thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[Rap]

quote jumma:

then you both admit NS is wrong which says bad genes should become less common

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.

[jumma]

quote :

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.

yes you are correct i appologise
but
you said

quote :

a harmful gene is one that reduces the PROBABILITY of reproduction.

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 says

quote :

”natural selection, a process that …. causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

thus NS is wrong
as harmful genes ie that reduce the probability of reproduction are common

quote :

it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction– thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[david23]

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.

[Rap]

quote jumma:

but NS says

quote :

”natural selection, a process that …. causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

thus NS is wrong as harmful genes ie that reduce the probability of reproduction are common

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.

[jumma]

quote :

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?

my point is

quote :

it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction- thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[jumma]

quote :

No, Futuyma is wrong

a lot of people dont think so
just have a look at how many sites cite him

google has 48 pages of cites for the quote
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22n … 24&bih=636

[Rap]

quote jumma:

quote :

No, Futuyma is wrong

a lot of people dont think so
just have a look at how many sites cite him

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.

[jumma]

quote :

Either Futuyma is wrong or your interpretation of Futuyma is wrong and I don’t care which it is

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 :

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 thus Natural Selection ends in absurdity or nonsense

[wbla3335]

Bang away, guys.

[david23]

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.

[Rap]

quote jumma:

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”

Ad Hominem – Bye.

[jumma]

quote :

NS does decrease the BAD gene frequencies

wrong
harnfull genes are common -read the thread for the evidence

quote :

it is seen that inherited genetic disorders can decrease the probability of reproduction– thus such genetics disorder according to NS are harmful or unfavorable ,but NS says such harmful genes should become less common when in fact as we have seen they are in fact common Thus NS is wrong

[jumma]

lets keep on track the thread is about NS being nonsense

quote :

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

[david23]

you are kind of arguing with yourself now arent you

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

then you both admit NS is wrong which says bad genes should become less common

Okay, for the moment take it that I’m persuaded by your argument. What is your theory of inheritance?

[Forests]

There are many definition/s of natural selection:

This is yours:

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 Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

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 :

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

quote :

The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

quote :

“survival of the fittest,” the principle that in nature those individuals best able to adapt to their environment will survive and reproduce, whereas those less able will die.

quote :

According to which organisms tend to produce progeny far above the means of subsistence; in the struggle for existence that ensues, only those progeny with favorable variations survive; the favorable variations accumulate through subsequent generations, and descendants diverge from their ancestor.

quote :

survival: a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment

quote :

Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

quote :

Natural Selection: The main mechanism of evolutionary change. In a given population of organisms, there are heritable traits that enable some members to contribute a larger number of offspring than others. If these offspring also have a greater reproductive success, then the genetic composition of the population is altered, thus evolution.

quote :

The mechanism for evolutionary change in which environmental pressures cause certain genetic combinations in a population to become more abundant; genetic combinations best adapted for present environmental conditions tend to become predominant.

quote :

An evolutionary process where heritable traits that arise through mutation give an organism a higher chance of survival in their environment and become more common in a population as these organisms have a higher likelihood of reproducing.

quote :

The preservation of favorable alleles and the rejection of injurious ones.

quote :

The process described by Darwin’s theory of evolution that favors certain genotypes and disfavors others. This process is entirely guided by the interaction of an organism with its environment.

quote :

Natural selection is the process in which some organisms live and reproduce and others die before reproducing.

quote :

A principle of Darwins theory of evolution that animals that have adapted better to their envir onment allows some members of a species to produce more offspring that others, as a result of possessing advantageous traits that improve survival chances and increase reproductive success.

quote :

The natural filtering process by which individuals with higher fitness are more likely to reproduce than individuals with lower fitness.

quote :

The directional process of evolutionary change. Some genes or allelles become more common over time because of beneficial effects that they have on survival and reproduction.

quote :

Differential survival and reproduction among members of a population or species in nature; due to variation in the possession of adaptive genetic traits.

quote :

The concept developed by Charles Darwin that genes which produce characteristics that are more favorable in a particular environment will be more abundant in the next generation.

quote :

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

quote :

The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring.

quote :

a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment

quote :

Natural selection is the theory that only the strong survive.

quote :

a process resulting in the survival of those individuals from a population of animals or plants that are best adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions. The survivors tend to produce more offspring than those less well adapted, so that the characteristics of the population change over time, thus accounting for the process of evolution.

quote :

The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species become better adapted to their environment. Also known as “survival of the fittest,” natural selection is the driving force behind the process of evolution.

quote :

Evolutionary change based on the differential reproductive success of individuals within a species.

[jumma]

quote :

There are many definition/s of natural selection:many of which contradict each other, the truth is nobody knows how to define natural selection

all that shows is NS is a subjective and value laden thing where is even the definition subjective and value laden

quote :

many [definitions of NS ]of which contradict each other

thus
NS ends in absurdity and nonsense

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

NS ends in absurdity and nonsense

So, are you proposing an alternative theory of inheritance?

[Forests]

quote ughaibu:

quote jumma:

NS ends in absurdity and nonsense

So, are you proposing an alternative theory of inheritance?

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.

[ughaibu]

quote Forests:

quote ughaibu:

quote jumma:

NS ends in absurdity and nonsense

So, are you proposing an alternative theory of inheritance?

. . . I suggest reading the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka Marion J. Lamb. . .

Thanks, but none of this will tell me what Jumma’s proposal is.

[Forests]

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 :

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

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.

[joneall]

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.

[Author]

Posts