Keynote Speech at Biology Conference Falsifies Major Claim of Darwinism

Hailed as “the greatest biologist since Darwin,” Ronald Fisher is credited as author of “biology’s central theorem” what is known as Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection.[i] An informally stated corollary of Fisher’s theorem is that a population will continually increase in fitness.

However, for decades it has been noted that many populations are declining in fitness. Geneticists such as Michael Lynch[ii], Alexey Kondrashov[iii], Bryan Sykes[iv], and many others have been warning the human genome is crumbling and the damage is likely irreversible. Thus, Fisher’s Corollary could not be right because it did not agree with observable facts.

I fear you are right.

If you watch Live PD you will see the decline on steroids.

The road to disaster is wide open even if Trump can stop the political collapse.

“The Evolution of Civilizations” by Carrol Quigley lays this out the process of creating civilizations and their declines. This process goes through a set series of steps.

The steps necessary to reset Western Civilization and give it a few hundred years or more do not appear possible. I don’t know if we are or about to become involved in the Age of Imperialist Wars, the last phase of a civilization.

This population, as a whole, will not fight for the nation.

"'The Evolution of Civilizations' by Carrol Quigley lays this out the process of creating civilizations and their declines."

Professor Quigley had a lot to say that The-Powers-That-Be try very hard to keep hidden from us.

Anyone that is interested in what a very smart, extremely well educated man thought about where our civilization came from, who is running it and where it is going should read the book you mentioned:

"The Evolution of Civilizations" which is free to download on Archive.org [pdf] [other formats]

along with his masterpiece:

"Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" which is also available for download on Archive.org [pdf] [other formats]

"We can’t measure evolutionary change by our temporary, arbitrary standards of “fitness.” What is evolving is necessarily, logically, the creature that best fits the changing surroundings."

Yep. 50,000 years ago (before the advent of agriculture) smart, fast and strong brought home the bacon. And then agriculture replaced hunting as the most efficient way to generate calories and the smart, strong, fast hunter's genes became less "fit" and the genes that built a man that could toil for long hours in the fields became the genes that produced more children. And since it takes less brainpower to work in the fields than it does to successfully hunt game it is not surprising that we have lost approximately 10% of our brain matter since some smart guy figured out how to plant and harvest crops.

And now here we are at the beginning of a new definition of fitness. Working long and hard out in the fields (or anywhere else for that matter) is no longer required to survive. Public welfare keeps bellies full and it's not the genes that build a hard worker that produce the most children it is the genes that produce the biggest testicles. A couple of thousand generations from now (if things continue along the path they are now on - a big if) our brains will have continued to shrink and our musculature will have shrunk but our balls will be enormous!

Headline: "Keynote Speech at Biology Conference Falsifies Major Claim of Darwinism "

from the article: "...for decades it has been noted that many populations are declining in fitness.
Geneticists... have been warning the human genome is crumbling and the damage is likely irreversible.
Thus, Fisher’s Corollary could not be right because it did not agree with observable facts."

"In the present day evolutionary biologists have been insanely angry at the NIH, particularly the Billion Dollar ENCODE-pioneered set of projects which argues against the idea of junk DNA. "

This is all nonsense, for which any scientist involved should be ashamed, because they know better.
Sure, it might even be true the human genome is "crumbling" but the reasons have nothing to do with some alleged "flaw" in evolution theory.
Rather they are directly caused by the fact that human medical interventions prevent natural selection from doing its job, which is to increase "fitness" by weeding out the weakest.
In the process, Medicine helps redefine what that word "fitness" even means.

Not so many years ago "fitness" meant strong, agile & clever hunter.
More recently it meant hardworking observant & careful farmer.
Today it can mean success in your chosen career, which might have nothing to do with your physical condition, or it might simply mean you have "access" to government welfare programs based specifically on your lack of physical fitness.

Point is, the human genome still rapidly evolves towards "fitness", but "fitness" is even more rapidly redefined to mean something very different from ages past.
The long-term solution, we might presume, is genetic engineering wherein human intervention replaces natural selection by removing defective DNA mutations at the time of conception, or later.

Genetic engineering, aka "designer babies" is often presented as some sort of boogieman to be feared, but precisely our "crumbling" human genome and unwillingness to let natural selection take its course could someday make such engineering all but necessary.

As for "junk DNA" the term was first used to describe non-coding DNA, meaning the, what 90%?, of DNA which produces no tissues.
Since then it's been learned that some small porting of "junk" can have functions, perhaps regulatory, in switching other DNA on or off.
But no functions have been observed for most of it and no discernable effects result from random DNA mutations in those "junk" regions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.