Evolutionists often make the claim that natural selection is the same as evolution. It is NOT!! Natural selection is a process that is directly opposed to the direction of evolution. Let me use different kinds of bears as an example of the direction of natural selection. When the bears, that Noah took on the Ark, came into the new environment after the flood they contained all the genetic diversity of all the bears alive today. We might call them the “mutts” of bears. As the bears reproduced and spread over the Earth they came to live in different environments. The bears that lived in the polar region survived best if they had white coats of fur and thick layers of fat in their bodies. After some generations this type of bear was all that was left in this region, so we had the “polar” bear created as a direct result of natural selection. This bear is very well suited to the cold climate where it lives. It has, however, lost the genetic information to produce baby bears that have dark fur or lack a layer of thick fat. Polar bears only produce baby polar bears!! This example demonstrates that natural selection is a loss of genetic information and therefore can’t in any way help evolution. Natural selection is a process that goes in exactly the opposite direction required for evolution. Evolution MUST demonstrate an increase in genetic information and that NEVER happens in nature!!
40 comments
Ah, the old evolution is not evolution argument. Only with a complete misunderstanding of genetics thrown in.
Of course genetic information can increase in nature. I don't know whether you're proceeding from an "accidents don't happen because God made us perfect" argument or an "I don't understand thermodynamics so I will claim a human cell to be a closed system" argument, but accidents happen when copying DNA all the time. Frequently. So frequently in fact that there are mechanisms in place to reduce it. Stuff can get copied twice, bases can be lost here and there, etc. etc., but it still gets by quite often. And outside of the copying process these redundant genes can be changed by radiation and mutagens and such.
Polar bears and grizzlies have been known to breed, and their offspring aren't sterile, showing them to be the same species, just different 'breeds', rather like domestic dogs.
Be that as it may, you are saying evolution is wrong, unless when it happens?
"Natural selection is a process that is directly opposed to the direction of evolution"
1,003 gallons of crisp, refreshing liquid PHAIL!
Also: Superevolution rides again!
evolution doesn't necessitate an increase in genetic information you twit. A grain of rice has 4 times the number of genes as a human. Humans have 1 less than chimps (though it's evident that one of ours is a fusion of two of theirs). The number of genes, chromosomes, or any other facet of 'genetic information' is completely irrelevant. Looking at that information more specifically you can see lineage, but you'll have to do more than count since genetic information changes over time in several more ways than genes just not getting copied.
Right, but mutation puts information back in and that's what allows adaptation.
At each step of evolution, you only have the genes to produce imperfect replicates, so Noah's bears could have only produced more brownish bears anyway, but some became white as they migrated North.
You feel that subtle static charge developing the the atmosphere right now?
That's Darwin, spinning in his grave.
Well, at least he was smart enough not to put a name on this tripe. Here's the flaw. The "whiteness" of a Polar Bear is not a recessive trait. They still posses the gene for hair pigment. However, the genetic mechanism to make the hair hollow incidentally "turns off" the pigment gene. They also possess a different mechanism for thermo regulation. Despite the fact that they can breed with the Brown/Grizzly Bear, they are much modified and contain ADDITIONAL genetic information.
A polar bear's fur isn't white, you terminal dumbass. A polar bear's fur is clear . The white coloring it seems to have is the albinoesque skin showing through the clear fur. Christ almighty, stop using science as an argument against itself until you become educated.
That's Darwin, spinning in his grave.
And the high-pitched warble you hear is my brain oscillating in my skull.
Ferns have more genes than us BTW. The amount of genes have no effect on the "complexity" of the species.
Oh, and if you think all animal traits had to exist prior, you're gonna have a field day explaining my 11th finger.
Not credited is correct in that natural selection only decreases allelic diversity in populations. But, as James and cyborgtroy mentioned, mutations are a continual source of novel variation, as are sexual and meiotic recombination. (Recombination is likely much more important in producing heritable variation than mutation, but we will ignore that).
This is one of the rare posts that actually puts forth a testable hypothesis. Assume that all modern bears are descended from two ancestral "mutt bears" that lived in the recent past. Logically, even if each of these bears contained the maximum genetic diversity that two diploid organisms could harbor, combined they would only have four different alleles at each locus. Assume also that mutation does not contribute to genetic diversity. A survey of all modern bears would reveal only four alleles at any locus.
It only took half a minute to find a published paper that refutes this*. Using microsatellite loci, Petkau et al. 1997 found an average of more than five alleles per locus for 11 of 13 loci. Further, all of these alleles are found in populations of Canadian brown bears only. How would such a thing be possible even with Noah's two amazing "mutt bears"? Where did those extra alleles come from, if they were not on Noah's ark?
Not credited: You should probably either educate yourself or refrain from commenting on matters that you don't understand.
*D. Paetkau, L. P. Waits, P. L. Clarkson, L. Craighead and C. Strobeck. 1997. An Empirical Evaluation of Genetic Distance Statistics Using Microsatellite Data From Bear (Ursidae) Populations. Genetics 147: 1943-1957.
Joe-Bob said: "Claim: Evolution does not demonstrate an increase in genetic information.
This makes no sense. Adding an extra copy of chromosome 21 doesn't result in an increase in heritable variation, and therefore is not important for evolution. Further, people with Down Syndrome generally have decreased fitness and are extremely unlikey to pass on the condition.
We are supposed to be the smart ones, remember?
1.) Natural selection is not evolution, correct, but it is a part of it.
FFS, learn what the goddamn theory states before trying to debunk it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
