Natural Selection is bunk

Darwin synthesized the theory of natural selection from two observations that were neither profound nor original.  Like Marx, he makes two observations to arrive at a simplistic conclusion, or non-sequitur.  Let's look at his logic:

1. A population of a species has the potential to produce far more offspring than the environment can support with resources such as food and shelter, leading to competition among varying individuals of a population for these limited resources. 
2. No two individuals in a population are exactly alike.  Careful observation finds variation in populations of all species.
3. Therefore, individuals with traits best suited to the local environment will, on average, have the greatest reproductive success.  They will leave the greatest number of surviving, fertile offspring.  The very traits that enhance survival and reproductive success will be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations of a population.  It is this unequal reproductive success that leads to adaptation, the accumulation of favorable variations in populations over time.  

The problem:  Populations do produce greater numbers than they can sustain, but this does not prevent unfavorable traits from being passed on, nor does it prevent unfavorable traits from becoming a majority within an environment. 

We have surgical procedures to ensure that the disabled and deformed can be corrected to live in the environment for as long as a healthy adult, making genetic deficiencies a non-issue in terms of environmental survival as genetically deficient people still pass their genes on at a normal rate.  A cleft palate, bad eyesight, and badly aligned teeth can be corrected to fit perfectly in the environment, while high blood pressure, heart disease and other life shortening disorders do not prevent the person from having offspring before their life expectancy because life expectancy has increased. 

Populations with less environmentally suitable traits breed more, while people with more suitable traits tend to breed less.  Here "favorable" means more suited to the environment, so how could traits like obesity, mental illness, low intelligence, low immunity and a host of other biological and mental disorders be more suitable compared to an average healthy adult?  Yet these traits have an equal chance of being passed on genetically.  An obese woman with autism can still have far more offspring than a non-obese, mentally stable individual, but obesity and autism do not make her more suitable for the environment.

Darwin's theory tries to prescribe "favorable and unfavorable" values to genetic traits, which is as flawed as a religious follower prescribing good and bad to mainstream science, or a Marxist prescribing good and bad to Capitalism.  The system operates as it is, without the need for value judgment.

An arbitrary list of "suitable" traits does not guarantee more offspring with more suitable traits.  A specimen with suitable traits has the same chance of breeding with someone who has unsuitable traits, because traits are no longer as suitable or unsuitable, they just exist and persist within the environment.

So conditions 1 and 2 are fine, but 3 doesn't follow.

You're trying to disprove natural selection just by looking at a handful of ways mankind is able to subvert it? How parochial.

Darwin's theory tries to prescribe "favorable and unfavorable" values to genetic traits, which is as flawed as a religious follower prescribing good and bad to mainstream science, or a Marxist prescribing good and bad to Capitalism.  The system operates as it is, without the need for value judgment.
Someone fails at reading comprehension.

Then Natural Selection is not an absolute law among living organisms

>>4
There isn't a single living organism that's immune to natural selection.

If he's dead. He can't exactly breed.

>>6
Did you miss the word ``living''?
Though even dead organisms can affect the survivability of their offspring by serving as food, for instance.

>We have surgical procedures to ensure that the disabled and deformed can be corrected to live in the environment for as long as a healthy adult, making genetic deficiencies a non-issue in terms o

Spoiler #1:  Finches do not.

Spoiler #2:  It is no longer natural selection once humans manipulate the organism.

sage

>>5
With humans and human influenced creatures, they just refer to it as "artificial selection".  The effect is the same.

>>9
With the difference that artificial selection has a long-term goal in mind, so it tends to work a lot faster than natural selection.
It's all just selection, though, and sometimes the boundary between artificial and natural and sexual and whatever else is blurred without there being much of a point in delineating.

Somebody should tell the republicans that blowjobs in airport bathrooms is doing it wrong.

On second thought, nevermind.

>>5
>>9

Listen to these guys. The way I see it, the "environment" for humans is one that provides surgery, medication and ease of procreation. >>1 is just messing with definitions.

>>10
good point

>>1


Our developed brain contributes nothing to our survival.

Oh, wait.  It counts too.

Your problem is, you don't think about the tool-using part of your brain.

>>8
It's still natural selection the way "natural selection" is defined, but not the way "natural" is.

The "natural" in "natural selection" simply refers to the fact that's it's not god doing the selecting, whereas "natural" generally means it's not a human.

>>15
Not actually true, but the distinction is basically irrelevant. Selection is selection.

Even if it's unnatural?

>>1
 tl;dr ur a faggot

We've certainly surpassed the narrowly defined criteria of natural selection, even if we obey selection in a different form

Humans are no longer subject to natural selection the same way we were before we figured out we could adapt our environment to suit us rather than the other way around.

The theory of natural selection in it's original state is different to what we have now. We know that a gene that has suitable traits to survive in it's environment will survive and replicate, thus allowing the gene to carry on indefinitely until a superior gene comes along or a natural disaster occurs.

The fact we adapt our environment to suit ourselves means that the gene will survive regardless of a missing leg or a mental disability. When we have people widening seats on train carts so that fat people can sit down, that fat person is not effected by natural selection at all. He wouldn't do very well in a forest with wolves chasing him but he has no trouble with that because his environment is adapted to him.

The clearest example is black people in Africa.  They have produced offspring who are successively more prone to disease, genetic problems, and lower IQ, yet they in fact breed the most.  Their environment is one of malaria, AIDS, mosquitos, parasites, bacteria, viruses and pollutants, yet the African negro is not "more fit" in this environment, he simply produces more offspring in spite of malnutrition and a shorter lifespan.  This goes against the idea that more "fit" traits will equal more fertility- in fact, it is the opposite.  Those who produce the most tend to be the least fit for their environment.  Add to this the reduction of natural scarcity through foreign aid, and race mixing through immigration, and it becomes merely "an organism produces the most offspring when it produces the most offspring," regardless of fitness.

>>21
By evolution standards, "producing more offspring" is a form of fitness.

In the case you cited, niggers offset high mortality rates with a high birth rate.  What's so surprising about that?

>>20
The fact that we don't have any predators anymore doesn't mean we are in any way less subject to natural selection.
Disease kills more people than all other causes combined, and our vastly increased mobility means disease spread a fuck of a lot faster than they ever have.

>>21
Someone doesn't know what ``fitness'' means.