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

Thursday, October 19, 2006

"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.


  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise."

    I doubt if you would be actually interested, but you could try researching the literature for such evidence. Macroevolution is a major area of research, as is evolutionary development. Try any of the following journals:

    * Nature
    * Science
    * Evolution
    * Bioscience
    * Marine Biology
    * The American Naturalist
    * Evolutionary Paleobiology
    * Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
    * Paleobiology
    * Evolution and Development

    I would be happy to provide specific cites.

  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I doubt if you would be actually interested, but you could try researching the literature for such evidence.

    Been there, done that. Such data doesn't exist.

    Macroevolution is a major area of research, as is evolutionary development.

    That depends on who is defining macroevolution:

    (see comment #56 HERE for relevant links)

    Seeing that the definition of macro-evolution is “evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. ” Wikipedia on macro

    “In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.” Talk Origins

    I would be surprised if there were any YECs who didn’t accept it. But that also demonstrates why/ that the definitions provided are part of the problem.

    The NCSE cited Berkley site- Evolution 101 has this to say:

    “Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.”

    And True Origins offers:

    evolution, biological n.
    1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.

    IOW what is required before even discussing micro/ macro is a clear, concise definition of the term. (one that everyone accepts)

    I would be happy to provide specific cites.

    Let's start simple. Show me one cite that demonstrates that bacteria cab "evolve" into anything but bacteria.

    Then we can continue with the paper that demonstrtaes single-celled euks cab "evolve" into something other than single-celled euks. Colonies and slime molds are just aggregates of the same.

    Once we get past that we can continue.


Post a Comment

<< Home