Dobzhansky is the founder of the "Modern Synthesis" of evolutionism. His total fallacy.
Since 1937, they support the Dobzhansky dogma. The story-telling style of Dobzhansky, is through apperception (like Rorschach, or TAT tests), while looking at genetic phenomena. That started the contemporary pagan lore style of dumping evolutionistic (quasi-logical) story-telling into (otherwise, hopefully) scientific articles (in biochemistry/genetics) -- mostly, with magic-wand word "mutation."
Dobzhansky is the evolutionism pioneer, in his pathetical commitment to unsupportable extrapolations.
Dobzhansky has noticed how the way may be blocked between two otherwise-compatible species. But how would that suggest getting to something new THAT WAS NOT IN THE GENES, FORMERLY?!?
In contrast, if otherwise (presumably formerly), their genetic structure was the same, the "two species" that had mockly "evolved," may resume compatibility in some future, through, again, mock-evolution. That is just how, if your TV was broken, a technician may fix that, and that is again a TV, not a space rocket.
Disrupting/forbidding otherwise-doable something, not evidence for constructing.
Nimrod'ish sort of fallacy, too. By [not] killing, Nimrod was not becoming a creator.
If a helmet blocks human conversation, is that evidence that cats might human-talk?
A person may make mistakes. But how is that fallacy persisting so widely?
How is that faith in ev-illusion so pervasively fooling such educated people. Through education?
Photo credit to "American Philosophical Society Library" is hilarious. Relate to the statistics that 2/3 of U.S. people do not believe in evolution. How evolutionists feel pity about the two-thirds, we may feel pity about the other third portion. What is their thinking ability/level, if they truly commit to the evolutionist sci-fi, and the fallacies?
Well, we may wish to presume (that is, the benefit of doubt) that, maybe they thought such cartoon cases like "spiderman" (or, "teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles") as their "evidence" for evolution -- rather than buying the "logic" of Dobzhansky. :-))
Ooops? Even the spiderman case is a tough sell. If you tell me that, pressing a wall sends out a coffee in a mug, I would tell you that, there is a coffee machine there. If spiderman was able to enmesh with spider, that would totally suggest that, a human's gene-expression mechanism is able to make sense of the imported genes of a spider. (We may chew grass, but cows may truly digest. We lack the enzyme, in that case. The gene-expression "machinery" (or, the free-will of Allah) is mystery.)
See the word of a Berkeley professor, opposing a text of intelligent-design. That Berkeley professor seems to be content with the wild "interpolations" on fossils, so much that he calls opposition "stupid."
I think, just the vice versa. To me, U.C.Berkeley people (unfortunately, like most of the rest of contemporary universities) seem willing to make people stupid, both in unsupportably extrapolating the regular (through Dobzhansky-style story-telling), and unsupportably "interpolating" the fossil records.
If you would like to find a more formal way of presenting the foregoing text, see frozen@mid80 metaphor for genomics.