Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Natural selection wrong due to transmission of harmful genes What ya think?

the australian poet colin leslie dean shows Natural selection wrong due to transmission of harmful genes

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philoso...

natural selection is

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”

note it says

causes harmful traits to become more rare”

so

http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/Biotechno...

There are over 500 genetic diseases. Many are recessive mutations and they develop only because both parents contribute the same recessive gene to their child. Some common genetic diseases include cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, and sickle-cell anemia

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-7528995...

Genetic Disorders Common Among Hospitalized Children.

Genomics & Genetics Weekly

| May 25, 2001

The new findings and their potential implications were presented April 30 to the 2001 Pediatric Academic Societies and American Academy of Pediatrics joint meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.

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.

Update:

you say

Genetically inherited diseases you have mentioned do not have a gross phenotypic presentation - also evolution occurs over an immense, expansive period of time - this does not disprove the theory.

i say wrong on 2 counts

NS say harmfull genes shond be eliminated but as shown harmful genes are common

2 the cambrian explosion shows ns does not take place over a long time-which darwin thought showed ns to be wrong

Update 2:

you say

Genetically inherited diseases you have mentioned do not have a gross phenotypic presentation - also evolution occurs over an immense, expansive period of time - this does not disprove the theory.

i say wrong on 2 counts

NS say harmfull genes shoud be eliminated but as shown harmful genes are common

2 the cambrian explosion shows ns does not take place over a long time-which darwin thought showed ns to be wrong

Update 3:

you say

Note that "more rare" does NOT equal "non-existent

fact is they are not rare but COMMON

thus showing ns to be wrong

Update 4:

you say

In a state of nature, sickly children would not live long enough to reproduce and thus perpetuating otherwise harmful mutations.

fact is human s are a social animal where every one helps every one else to survive

that is our natural state

what you think our natural state is the way non social animals live

Update 5:

you say

Natural selection absolutely CANNOT completely remove a recessive negative trait.

ns says harmful genes become rare

but

instead they are common

thus showing ns is wrong

Update 6:

you say

They were rare. Civilization has removed the selection against many of them, so some of the less severe, like myopia, are now somewhat common.

Natural selection is valid. Even the most delusional creationists will admit this.

fact is ns says harmful genes should become rare

fact is harmful genes are common

thus ns is not valid

humans have always lived in society/civilization that is our natural state

and colin leslie dean is not a creationist and dosenot belive in ID

Update 7:

you say

They counted children with a genetic diseases in a pediatric clinic which has an expert pediatrician and medical geneticist. And then they claim that their numbers are the same in the rest of the population.

fact is a large proportion of children attending the clinic had genetic illnessess

quote

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.

further

you say

Harmful genes are not common outside of clinics specialized in treating genetic diseases.

wrong

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Genetic-Diso...

“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

Update 8:

you say

You never take any notice of the answers given here

i say

go read up on Bacon"s idols of the cave

you might see your problem

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Tom P
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Colin, go away.

    You never take any notice of the answers given here

    You seem to have an endless supply of totally inane questions

    Just, go away.

  • 1 decade ago

    The other australian poet shows that natural selection works just fine. No really, your source is bad/biased/wrong. They counted children with a genetic diseases in a pediatric clinic which has an expert pediatrician and medical geneticist. And then they claim that their numbers are the same in the rest of the population.

    The same method: When you count all people in Denver County Women's Jail you'll find that almost 100% of the population are criminal and female. But as in your example this finding is correct and has little to do with the rest of the population.

    Harmful genes are not common outside of clinics specialized in treating genetic diseases.

    Edit:

    you say:

    fact is a large proportion of children attending the clinic had genetic illnessess

    Right. That is because the clinic has specialists for treating genetic illnessess. Same kind of fact is that a large proportion of people attending Denver County Women's Jail are female criminals.

    Ah! So you say that 1:200 is not rare enough! Where would you expect the numbers to be?

    One in 1 a tousand would that prove something?

    One in a million? Why not one in 100?

  • 1 decade ago

    Sorry, but population geneticists did the math decades ago. Natural selection absolutely CANNOT completely remove a recessive negative trait.

    Only drift can, and that is truly random.

    Edit: They were rare. Civilization has removed the selection against many of them, so some of the less severe, like myopia, are now somewhat common.

    Natural selection is valid. Even the most delusional creationists will admit this.

    Edit: No, we have not always lived in a complex technological civilization. Humans were once nomadic hunter-gathers.

    Rejecting natural selection is downright insane. It has been demonstrated ad nauseum, both in the lab and in the wild.

    Source(s): Biologist
  • 4 years ago

    New traits can come about when they were not present in the parent organisms. For example when a lion and tiger mate the offspring looses the gene which stops it growing after adolescence. This causes Ligers/Tigons to be enormous and unable to fuel their bodies in the wild. Just one example of how new traits can be found in nature despite never having existed before. The same concept applies to cancers (though this is caused by mutation) Organisms are not genetically programmed to have functionless growths in their body yet through mutation this can happen. Natural selection is the means by which nature weeds out or perpetuates genetic anomalies like these. Your logic is far from irrefutable.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Gary B
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Note that "more rare" does NOT equal "non-existent". Natural selection will NEVER completely wipe out a genetic trait, thus even the most damaging of genetic problems will still surface in a population from time to time.

  • 1 decade ago

    Genetically inherited diseases you have mentioned do not have a gross phenotypic presentation - also evolution occurs over an immense, expansive period of time - this does not disprove the theory.

  • 1 decade ago

    In a state of nature, sickly children would not live long enough to reproduce and thus perpetuating otherwise harmful mutations.

    As cultures develop economically and technologically they can indulge in the luxury of maintaining faulty gene lines.

    Now having said that, (being the selfish egocentric s.o.b that I am) if it was my gene line that was being selected to be culled, I would cease to be so scientifically aloof.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.