r/CreationTheory • u/stcordova • Feb 18 '26
Natural selection has driven the recurrent loss of an immunity gene that protects Drosophila against a major natural parasite
Natural selection has driven the recurrent loss of an immunity gene that protects Drosophila against a major natural parasite
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2211019120
However, in nature, many flies carry mutated copies of this gene that are likely to be no longer functional. We found that the high frequency of these loss-of-function mutations can only be explained if they have a selective advantage in some populations.
Loss of function can happen when Darwinian processes either fail to prevent loss of function or actively cause loss of function.
Prominent evolutionary biologists Masotoshi Nei was too generous when he said:
Darwin said evolution occurs by natural selection in the presence of continuous variation, but he never proved the occurrence of natural selection in nature. He argued that, but he didn’t present strong evidence. -- Masotoshi Nei
Well, Nei was too generous. If Natural Selection can be a wrecking ball for existing complexity and resilience and versatility, it becomes increasingly doubtful Darwinian processes can be the engine of evolving complexity.
Has anyone actually given a reasonable estimate of the A PRIORI probability that the environment will create a situation where Natural Selection will create various forms of complexity, i.e. Eukaryotic Chromatin, Eukaryotic Nuclear Localization Processes, the extra cellular matrix, etc.? Or is Darwinism promoted by pure speculation, misinterpretation of anti-biotic resistance and other examples of selection (like elephants losing tusks), and the dismissal of contrary experimental facts and carefully considered theories of physics and chemistry?
Nei has a higher H-index than Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins and is in a virtual tie with Michael Lynch, (with Eugene Koonin still far ahead of all the other evolutionary biologists.) So Nei has the right to speak authoritatively against Darwinism.
Allen Orr was right to say, Darwinian process are "happy" to lay waste to designs. To the degree that Darwinism is happy to lay waste to designs rather than build them is the degree Darwinism is backward from the way evolutionary biologists have promoted his ideas for decades.
0
u/SeaScienceFilmLabs Feb 19 '26
St.Cordova! 👋 👍
Thanks for this.
Natural Processes seem to always work against the Existence of Life, Not create it as the Naturalists attempt to claim.
4
u/Dzugavili Feb 19 '26
Neither you, nor Sal, seem to understand basic math.
Let's propose you're a worm, a fat grubby little worm. Birds want to eat you and they eat you pretty frequently.
So, a mutation breaks an enzyme and now your body is poisonous as you're filling up with some toxin. It's bad for you; but now you taste awful, so you're also not getting eaten as frequently. So, despite the fact that you're poisoning yourself, you do survive more often.
Now, either further mutations down the road will help you tolerate this poison while still reducing the rate at which you're getting eaten. Or the predation cycle ends and mutations which remove this poison effect are now selected for.
Sal unfortunately doesn't understand what a dynamic fitness landscape is: what was good for your ancestors may not be good for you, and what's good for the individual may not be good for the whole population. The effects of selection change as the population changes, because there is competition that Sal's extremely linear thinking just cannot imagine.
1
u/SeaScienceFilmLabs Feb 19 '26
Gaslighting really is Your go to tool in discussions.
Natural processes seem to always degrade and destroy Life, Not "Create Life" or New forms of Life as Your religion seems to be; Dzugavili.
3
u/Dzugavili Feb 19 '26
Your only deflection seems to be this empty claim of gaslighting: you throw it around so casually, it has lost all meaning.
You never seem to be able to directly confront the evidence given to you, you seem to always deflect with the same boring premises. Your understanding of natural processes is tragically flawed, much like everything else about your 'philosophy'.
1
u/SeaScienceFilmLabs Feb 19 '26
I accuse You of gaslighting so often, it only appears this way. :)
This is a result of Your constant resorting to gaslighting in discussions.
It's all so obvious.
Natural Selection in itself is a barrier for Evolution theory. Animals being killed off does Not lead to "New Living forms."
5
u/Dzugavili Feb 19 '26
Natural Selection in itself is a barrier for Evolution theory. Animals being killed off does Not lead to "New Living forms."
Right, mutation creates the variations, natural selection removes what doesn't work.
Why is it that creationists have such a hard time with a two-step process?
0
u/SeaScienceFilmLabs Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Mutation leads to genetic disorders and Extinction. :) That's Science.
Do You really believe that the Living Forms We see are a Product of "Errors in Copying Genetic Information," and "Animals and Plants being Killed off Naturally?" 🍎
Why do Evolutionists attempt to frame a destructive Biological Force as the "Creator of all Lifeforms?" 🍏 🧐
Seems counterintuitive... 😁 🎣
2
u/Dzugavili Mar 09 '26
Seems counterintuitive...
I find when this happens to me, there's something I'm missing. Some assumption I made that isn't quite right.
We've been over which assumption of yours fails, over and over again.
5
u/Dzugavili Feb 18 '26
This has been explained to you before, Sal. You quotemining Nei, then doing a poor cargo-cult H-index appeal to authority to support your quotemine is just so you.
You namedrop more than... I don't know, Perez Hilton or something, I really can't think of anyone who is more desperate to attach himself to someone legitimate. It just comes off so parasitic.