Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Is Natural Selection Really Non-Random?

-
All too often evolutionists say that natural selection is non-random.

But is it?

Well let's look at what natural selction is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet. But when one pulls back the curtain all you have is some dude with a twinkie in each hand and a big fatty standing by.

That's evolution for ya...

Next they will be telling us that all the books in the world are descended by modification from the last universal common document.

Ya see slight copying errors were introduced to the first document, an illiterate population didn't know, so those bad copies were allowed to stay in the population.

Then those bad copies were copied and more errors introduced- and here we are.

It was all one author and many copying errors...


The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will.

62 Comments:

  • At 6:18 AM, Blogger Reggie said…

    MYABE TEH MAGICAL JEEBUS DID IT!!!!!

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow! another evotard chimes in with more meaningless nonsense.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    GIGO

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yupper and the garbage just showed up...

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    GIGO is a perfect analogy for natural selection- garbage in = garbage out.

    Thanks clowny

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So now that we've established that JoeTards cannot introduce new information into a system, can we close the thread?

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just how did you establish that?

    Or are you just projecting again?

    It is obvious that wittle ewik is just projecting because it has never introduced new information into anything...

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What? How? I was just going on previous threads; I thought random claims of something or other were the currency of the realm.

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow more meaningless drivel:

    ewik:
    I was just going on previous threads;

    Right, previous threads in which you had nothing to offer.

    That was my point.

    I thought random claims of something or other were the currency of the realm.

    Meaningless drivel is your currency.

    You ain't adding any new information...

     
  • At 10:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    adapt the material others have left you, Joe. I know you have trouble with evolution, but it's not that hard. Take the sentences we type and make CHANGES to them. This may help you with the ladies and, incidentally, may help you with little things like ToE and WEASEL and stuff.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clownie:
    adapt the material others have left you, Joe.

    What material ewik?

    blipey:
    I know you have trouble with evolution,

    I don't have trouble with evolution.

    Obviously you do as you have failed to provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    blipey:
    Take the sentences we type and make CHANGES to them.

    Take your head out of your ass and wash it.

    This may help you with the ladies and, incidentally, may help you with little things like ToE and WEASEL and stuff.

    I don't need any help with the ladies and I definitely don't need any help with the ToE and weasel.

    However I see that evotards can only spew false accusations and more nonsense.

    Now I know why the vast majority of people think your position is bullshit.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, your writing and communication skills are very low. Perhaps you can trade lessons on ID theory with the 12 year olds. They'll learn cutting edge science from you and you'll learn how to talk to others and clearly explain ideas from them.

    They may also throw in some free lessons in comedic writing and sarcasm. This will help you make friends.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Joe, your writing and communication skills are very low.

    Nice projection.

    Geez it appears that projection, lies and false accusations are all evotards have to offer.

    No wonder the vast majority of people think their position is nonsense.

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    New info, Joe. You do understand what that means, right? The same old-same old is not winning you any writing competitions. For example, the "projection" angle ran its course 3? years ago. Really, you should skip it and try to come up with something entertaining.

    Or, citing a source for you "majority of people" if you're going for the technical writing side of things.

    Either of these angles could be helped by hiring an editor--or asking a neighbor to help you out.

     
  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    New info, Joe. You do understand what that means, right?

    Yes I do- are you saying that you already knew that natural selection wasn't non-random?

    For example, the "projection" angle ran its course 3? years ago.

    Perhaps but you still project your short-comings onto otehrs.

    Doesn't it get tiring?

    All I do is point it out.

    It is not my fault that you are a projectionist.

    Or, citing a source for you "majority of people" if you're going for the technical writing side of things.

    Gallup poll

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    gallup poll

    Note that your position is a paltry 14% in 2008...

     
  • At 6:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nifty, I see you position doesn't even register in the poll.

    Does this man that I'm more right than you?

    Or does it mean that Gallup Polls don't really measure the truth of anything besides opinions?

    Do you do all your science by Gallup Poll? If so, please publish the your results.

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Nifty, I see you position doesn't even register in the poll.

    My position wasn't part of the poll.

    Do you do all your science by Gallup Poll?

    You don't even know what science is.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW, if you would like you could substitute "Intelligent Designer" for "God" in that Gallup Poll- hell you assholes make the switch the other way on a daily basis...

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also clownie I accept that "God" could be the designer- IOW my position was registered in that poll.

    And Gallup polls use more science than your position does...

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are you on record saying that the Intelligent Designer is God?

    Or, or you on record saying your position isn't on the poll?

    Or, are you too busy trying to figure out a way to get the boot out of your mouth that you are unintelligible?

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Are you on record saying that the Intelligent Designer is God?

    I am on the record saying that is a possibility.

    Or, or you on record saying your position isn't on the poll?

    My specific position wasn't in the poll.

    However I am OK with the designer being "God".

    Or, are you too busy trying to figure out a way to get the boot out of your mouth that you are unintelligible?

    That you think I am unintellgible means that what I said makes perfect sense.

    IOW just because you can continually act like an asshole still doesn't mean anything.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see.

    You don't really want to be strongly associated with God (that just wouldn't be very scientific), so you claim that your position isn't in the polls.

    However, you'd like your position to be thought well of by someone in the poll so you are willing to whore out your ideology just a little bit in order to cover you bases.

    That's a mighty strong position you hold.

    God may or may not exist. God may or may not have designed the universe. People may or may not hold my position. Science may or may not be done well by opinion poll.

    Good stuff.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, you don't see- or perhaps you just see whatever you want to see:

    blipey:
    You don't really want to be strongly associated with God (that just wouldn't be very scientific), so you claim that your position isn't in the polls.

    Geez Newton was associated with "God" and was still very scientific.

    But the fact remains my position was not specified in the poll I linked to.

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    But you are willing (for the sake of looking good) to claim under certain circumstances that your position is in the polls.

    JoeG: "Also clownie I accept that "God" could be the designer- IOW my position was registered in that poll."


    JoeG: "But the fact remains my position was not specified in the poll I linked to."

    Interesting.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    But you are willing (for the sake of looking good) to claim under certain circumstances that your position is in the polls.

    Not for te ake of looking good and not under certain circumstances.

    I have ALWAYS said that the designer could be "God" and that it dosn't matter one way or the other.

    Geez you really are a twisted and ignorant little freak.

    And again just because you can act like an asshole doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world.

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, your position is that either an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe or he didn't.

    If he did, being omnipotent and omniscient, he could have hidden the signs in a way that we would never discover them. We wouldn't know unless we knew the mind of God, but ID says we can't do that, so we're back to the position of:

    Either it was designed by something that might not want us to find out and has the ability to make that reality or it wasn't.

    Very strong. Keep up the good work.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Right, your position is that either an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe or he didn't.

    Wrong- So I will tell you AGAIN-

    My position is that either an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe or some other entity/ entities did.

    And guess what? That is the position of ID.

    If he did, being omnipotent and omniscient, he could have hidden the signs in a way that we would never discover them.

    And you think your strawman means what?

    And again just because you can act like an asshole doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world.

    Keep up the good work- indeed.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So blipey's position is that everyone knows that natural selction is bullshit- ie doesn't do anything- yet evotards keep claiming is does something because well, they are evotards.

    Keep up the good work.

    LoL!!!

     
  • At 12:06 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Keep on trying to convince people you actually have a position, Joe. It's cute.

    The ability of IDiots to hold no position what-so-ever is stunning. There is no fact, no observation, no pair of contradictory facts that cannot be explained by ID.

    Truly a feat of gymnastics.

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Keep on trying to convince people you actually have a position, Joe.

    Nice projection asshole.

    YOU have failed t provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    YOU have failed to provide positive evidence for your psition.

    blipey:
    There is no fact, no observation, no pair of contradictory facts that cannot be explained by ID.

    We have provided exactly what would falsify ID.

    OTOH neither YOU nor any other evotard can provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Go figure...

    And you sure as hell can't stay on topic.

    IOW all you are doing is proving that you are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So blipey's position is that everyone knows that natural selction is bullshit- ie doesn't do anything- yet evotards keep claiming is does something because well, they are evotards.

    Keep up the good work.

    LoL!!!

     
  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    New. You need to come up with new things to be entertaining, Joe. there is absolutely no scientific organization that takes you seriously, so if you are to be of any worth you need to be entertaining. that would require new and unexpected posts. Please try harder.

     
  • At 9:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    there is absolutely no scientific organization that takes you seriously,

    There isn't anyone in the world who takes you seriously- you're a freaking loser of a clown.

    And you forgot to say that there is absolutely no scientific organization which can produce positive evidence for the "it just happened" position.

     
  • At 9:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm a clown, Joe. Taking me seriously has a few twists. You are the one purporting to overturn modern science. And no scientific body takes you seriously. One of us has a problem.

     
  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You are the one purporting to overturn modern science.

    No- supporting ID is not overturning anything except the unsupported materialistic/ reductionist position.

    And the majority of people don't take your alleged science organizations seriously when it comes to the ToE.

    And yes you have a problem- you think your ignorant badgering means something.

    You think that some alleged majority of scientists believe in the ToE/ materialistic position means something.

    You are wrong- science is not done via majority.

    Your position doesn't have any positive evidence and those scientific organizations should take that seriously because the people will overturn them.

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    "Alleged Science Organizations"???

    Wow. Letting the conspiracy theorist crackpot shine through today, huh?

    Is the NFL also an "Alleged Sports Organization"?

    What about the Congress? An "alleged legislative body"?

    This is great stuff, Joe.

     
  • At 9:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. I don't think that science is done by majority vote. I'm not the one citing polls of laymen in order to support my argument. You need to get your tactics straight. Hilarious!

     
  • At 9:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    "Alleged Science Organizations"???

    You failed to name any of them.

    You went ape-shit that I said a majority of people don't take your position seriously.

    I had to post a reference.

    Now you think you can just baldly talk for some alleged science orgs- you are a freak and definitely not in any position to talk for any groups beyond your group of mental rejects.

     
  • At 9:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    All of them, Joe.

    Any University science department (including Behe's for shit sake).

    Any working laboratory in the world.

    Any National Science Organization in any country in the world.

    All of them, Joe. Take your pick, they all think you're full of shit. That should be easy for you to refute.

     
  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    No, Joe. I don't think that science is done by majority vote.

    Yeah you do.

    I'm not the one citing polls of laymen in order to support my argument.

    Yeah you never cite anything and just spew lies.

     
  • At 9:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you admit to citing opinion polls of laymen in order to support your position?

    Winner.

     
  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    All of them, Joe. Take your pick, they all think you're full of shit. That should be easy for you to refute.

    Strange that not one of them has any evidence to support that opinion.

    All any one of them has to do is step up and start providing positive evidence for their position and I will stand in line to congratulate them.

    Until then their opinion of me means as much as yours does- absolutely nuthin'

    Ya see I think they are pieces of shit and wouldn't have any problem telling each one to their face.

     
  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    later asshole I have wasted enough time on you today...

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    So you admit to citing opinion polls of laymen in order to support your position??

    The Gallup poll is a scientific poll.

    And I cited it to support a specific claim I made.

    IOW once again you prove that you are an ignorant faggot.

    Winner- indeed.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    On opinion polls:

    blipey:
    Or, citing a source for you "majority of people" if you're going for the technical writing side of things.

    Did you get that?

    Clownie asks for a reference and when I provide it he has an evotardgasm.

    That must be because he can't cite anything to support what he sez...

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You're stupider than dirt, Joe. The Gallup Poll is a poll that asks the opinions of certain demographics of people. It is scientific in the sense that they use statistics to model opinions as close to accurately as possible.

    Which brings us to 2 points that will fail to register in that empty head of yours:

    1. It is an opinion poll. The answers provided by those who responded in no way represent the scientific and/or "correct" answers to the deep questions of biology.

    2. It is interesting that you accept Gallup statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth, but reject biological statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That Gallup poll contains more science than your position.

    And again the reason I used it is because you asked for a reference to support my claim.

    The poll does that.

    1. It is an opinion poll. The answers provided by those who responded in no way represent the scientific and/or "correct" answers to the deep questions of biology.

    You are an imbecile!

    Opinions are what count here- that is my claim was about people's opinions!

    And in the opinion of the vast majority of people your position is nonsense.

    2. It is interesting that you accept Gallup statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth, but reject biological statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth.

    You are an idiot.

    This has nothing about discerning "truth". And you don't have any evidence taht I reject any biological statistical modeling.

    I made a claim and you asked for a reference.

    The Gallup poll was my reference that supports my claim.

    And evotards like you are the reason why the numbers are that way.

     
  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Clownie asks for a reference and when I provide it he has an evotardgasm.

    That must be because he can't cite anything to support what he sez...

     
  • At 9:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW- opinions- that is all the theory of evolution is really.

    All those science orgs you were talking about- it is just their opinions that the theory of evolution is the balls.

    And being scientists that should bother them.

    That is probably what makes them so defensive...

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You cite a poll of laymen to back your position that "ToE is wrong". Sure it's a two step process, but that doesn't matter.

    1. Joe says that the opinion of a group of laymen is that ToE is bullshit. He cites a Gallup Poll to back this up.

    2. Joe would like to use this polling result to prove that ToE is bullshit.

    Unfortunately--for Joe--2 does not follow from 1 due to reasons pointed out above that he chooses to ignore.

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You cite a poll of laymen to back your position that "ToE is wrong".

    Only an imbecile would think that is what I did- and here you are!

    I cited an opinion poll to support my claim that the vast majority of people think your position is nonsense- ie unsupported by the evidence.

    2. Joe would like to use this polling result to prove that ToE is bullshit.

    Nope- that is just something you pulled from your ass.

    I don't need any polls to do that- evotards like you do that on a daily basis.

    Thanks...

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So it looks like we are back to:

    Clownie asks for a reference and when I provide it he has an evotardgasm.

    That must be because he can't cite anything to support what he sez...


    You might not people to know your name is Erik Pratt- oh, oops...

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Blipey claims that Joe cited a poll of laymen to back up his claim that those laymen have an opinion.

    JoeTard claims that Blipey is wrong because he cited the poll to back up his claim that those laymen have an opinion.

    I've bolded the pertinent parts.

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blipey claims that Joe cited a poll of laymen to back up his claim that those laymen have an opinion.

    This thread is evidence that is not what happened.

    I claim I cited a scientific opinion poll to support my claim that the vast majority of people think that clownie's position is nonsense.

    And guess what?

    That is exactly what I did!

    Now the little dick has an evotardgasm as if that is proof those people's opinions don't support my claim.

    And all that just to try to distract from the fact that he cannot produce any positive evidence for his position and the main concepts of his position are being exposed as nonsense.

    Sweet.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    From actual posts:

    Blipey: "1. Joe says that the opinion of a group of laymen is that ToE is bullshit. He cites a Gallup Poll to back this up."

    From the very next comment:

    JoeTard: "I cited an opinion poll to support my claim that the vast majority of people think your position is nonsense- ie unsupported by the evidence."

    I think we agree.

    Another interesting observation from the bolded part of this comment:

    blipey (earlier in thread): "So you admit to citing opinion polls of laymen in order to support your position?"

    joetard: (soon thereafter): "The Gallup poll is a scientific poll."

    Perhaps you should try to keep up with your own clearly hyperactive brain....

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, the first time someone uses a cute phrase it can be funny. The second time it may still be funny. The third time gets a little old, and quite frankly, when a different person takes up using the same phrase without modification--it's just sad. Do try harder.

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From actual posts:

    Blipey: "1. Joe says that the opinion of a group of laymen is that ToE is bullshit. He cites a Gallup Poll to back this up."

    You need to go back before that -


    I said:

    Now I know why the vast majority of people think your position is bullshit.

    To which you responded:

    Or, citing a source for you "majority of people" if you're going for the technical writing side of things.

    The Gallup Poll was my source.

    So I did as you requested and you, like the little baby evotard you are, threw a hissy fit.

    IOW Erik thatnks for cintinuing to prove that you are an ignorant piece of shit.

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Try to follow the argument, Joe. The actual one, not the one you want to have.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't know what the actual argument is.

    The actual argument started with the OP and you haven't addressed any of it except to say that you already knew natural selection is nonsense but evotards still use it because they are evotards.

    IOW there isn't anything else to say in this thread.

     
  • At 6:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How about:

    Supernatural. A component of non-designed universes?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home