Intelligent Reasoning

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

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Natural Selection Yields a Wobbling Stability

-
Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.


(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.


Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.


It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.



The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

All that is left for Zachriel or any other evolutionitwit to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.

17 Comments:

  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange how evotards are avoiding this thread...

     
  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

    It's because it's not even wrong.

    What is a "direct scientific observation"?

    I'm guessing it's "something you can see with your eyes".

    If Joe can't see it he does not believe it.

    I guess you don't believe in plate tectonics then...

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It's because it's not even wrong.

    Your bald assertion is meaningless.

    OM:
    What is a "direct scientific observation"?

    Something that is directly observed by qualified people, ie scientists.

    OM:
    If Joe can't see it he does not believe it.

    Spoken like a true moron.

    Strange how all you can do is mouth-off as opposed to actually presenting evidence to refute what I post.

     
  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Something that is directly observed by qualified people, ie scientists.

    Please define "directly observed".

    Perhaps a few examples? Of direct and indirect observations?

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger OM said…

    I guess you don't believe in plate tectonics then...

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Something that is directly observed by qualified people, ie scientists.

    So as non-human design (I.E. ID) has never been observed it's not scientific.

    It's wishful thinking supported by speculation.

    Unless of course you can give an example of ID that has been directly observed?

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Please define "directly observed".

    Buy a dictionary, moron.

    OM:
    Perhaps a few examples? Of direct and indirect observations?

    Direct observation-

    watching rain fall you can tell it is raining

    indirect observation

    observing a wet road, driveways, houses, cars, yards you can tell it did rain

     
  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I guess you don't believe in plate tectonics then...

    I guess you're a dumbass wanker and coward then.

    We can observe plate tectonics, moron.

     
  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So as non-human design (I.E. ID) has never been observed it's not scientific.

    Of course non-human designs have been observed.

    Your ignorance means nothing.

    Then again accumulating genetic accidents have never been observed to construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems. So by your "logc" your position is pure shit.

     
  • At 4:18 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    indirect observation

    observing a wet road, driveways, houses, cars, yards you can tell it did rain


    Therefore you have no clear idea of how your grandparents were born. You did not directly observe it so they might have been created from dust for all you know.

    You simply can't say one way or the other?

    We can observe plate tectonics, moron.

    Can you? Really? How's that then?

    I've lived on a plate all my life but I've never seen it move!

    Sure, you can directly observe earthquakes but that does not directly imply plate tectonics. It might be a machine designed to simulate earthquakes.

    Of course non-human designs have been observed.

    Like what? Ant hills? Beaver dams? I don't think Ants created life, do you?

    Lol. So let me try again.

    We've never observed design at the level which would be required to create biological life, therefore the "live is designed" claim is non-scientific by your own definition as it has not been directly observed.

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Therefore you have no clear idea of how your grandparents were born.

    YOU might not but that is because YOU are a moron.

    OM:
    We've never observed design at the level which would be required to create biological life, therefore the "live is designed" claim is non-scientific by your own definition as it has not been directly observed.

    Except it ain't my definition you little piece of shit.

    I gave you an example of indirect observation that can lead to the right inference.

    Geez OM why do you think that if you are a total asshole that somehow refutes what I post?

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then again accumulating genetic accidents have never been observed to construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems. So by your "logc" your position is pure shit.

    Not even any indirect evidence.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    YOU might not but that is because YOU are a moron.

    According to you only direct observations count. You did not observe the event in question therefore cannot say with any certainty that it even happened.

    According to you.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Not even any indirect evidence.

    So presumably there is direct evidence for ID?

    What is it?

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

    OM:
    According to you only direct observations count.

    Liar.

    Why do you have to lie all the fucking time?

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So presumably there is direct evidence for ID?

    There is direct and indirect evidence for ID.

    The direct evidence is from trying to figure out the cause. the indirect evidence is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So OMTard chimes in but, as usual, offers nothing.

    Life is still good...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home