It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Natural selection means 2 things breed together and they become more complex.
It isn't proof of the absence of evolution overall, but it is proof that something can remain unevolved in isolation.
originally posted by: AnuTyr
Natural selection would mean those organisms would develop into more complex stages of life.
Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
And that raises a very interesting question indeed — if, that is, the original research may be considered valid. Apparently the conclusions were based on a morphological comparisons of fossils, not on genetic analysis of any kind.
Assuming morphological identity implies a close genetic similarity (at least), we have to ask why genetic drift hasn't occurred in these populations of bacteria over time. Bacteria swap genes all the time. How come mutations haven't prospered, leading to genomic change and thus to phenotypic variation?
One possible answer is that there are strong selection pressures in the natural environment that are driving regression toward the genetic mean. This could be tested by inducing mutations in a lab population of the same species under the same conditions and watching what happened to the genotype over time.
LOL did you seriously just say the exact same thing but reword it to other words that have the same definition hahahahahhahahahahahaahah
Dude ^ Has nothing to do with why those organisms have not changed.
Natural selection would mean those organisms would develop into more complex stages of life. But they don't Therefore natural selection is a sham.