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

Monday, March 09, 2015

Alan Fox, Proud to be Ignorant

- As if I need to keep saying this- Alan Fox is one ignorant asshole and apparently proud of it. Now Alan spews:
The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is, well, artificial. It’s essentially the same process.
LoL! What an ignorant thing to say. No Alan, the two processes are quite different. Natural selection is a process of elimination in which whatever is good enough survives. In contrast is artificial selection in which desired traits are actually selected for.

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we observe. It can undo what artificial selection has done but it cannot do what artificial selection can do. The two processes are very different and onloy ignorant assholes, like Alan Fox, say otherwise.


  • At 10:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Sorry Joe, but your ignorance is profound (and often profane).

    Natural selection is about the differential survival of traits, for whatever reason (stronger, hide better, produce more sperm, deceive the opposite sex, etc. ). Artificial selection is just another selection criteria.

    If we intentionally breed for traits that result in hairless cats with huge taliwackers, they will increase in numbers as long as the variation is available to work on. The fact that they may not be able to reproduce without our help (eg. The bulldog) is immaterial. As long as humans are willing to assist, their fitness is guaranteed. In this respect, human intervention is simply part of their environment. No different than temperature, rainfall or competition for food.

  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The ignorance is all yours, assface.

    Natural selection is eliminative. Artificial selection is an actual selection process. Natural selection could never produce dog breeds- never.


Post a Comment

<< Home