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

Friday, December 15, 2017

Why Common Descent Fails

Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.

And even given populations of single-celled eukaryotes there aren't any mechanisms that can produce metazoans. So again, it is a non-starter.

So the people who say there is evidence for Common Descent do so because their faith requires it. Science does not support the claim.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

What Passes for "Logic" over on TSZ

This could also be titled "How to Erect a Strawman".

There is a recent post over on TSZ titled- The Fine-Tuning Argument – Kettle Logic on a Cosmological Scale. And yet it contains strawman after strawman and the "logic" is based on those.

For example the author has 3 premises:

1- An infinitely powerful being, God, created the Universe ex nihilo.
2- The same being carefully tuned a number of fundamental physical constants to extremely narrow ranges outside of which life as we know it would not be possible.
3- God’s creative hand is clearly visible in the structure of our Universe and its properties.
And somehow he thinks these three cannot all be true:
As with the Kettle Logic example above, any one of these three arguments might be true by itself.  However, also as with the previous example, I don’t see any way that all three can be true simultaneously.
Yet his "arguments" are all strawmen.
Scenario A: Assume statement 1 is true – If God is infinitely powerful and God created the Universe from nothing, then there can be no limit as to which values God could set physical constants to.  If he literally sets the rules, then he would be able to make any combination of values work for his desired outcome (If 1, then not 2).  And whatever set of values he chose, it should appear to any observers who might emerge within the Universe to be a brute fact (If 1, then not 3).
Yes, God could have picked any values but God also has to answer to the physical world God Created. It does not mean that God is not infinitely powerful just cuz God couldn't Create living organisms in a universe with any values for the laws and constants.

That is a huge strawman. And that brings us to:
Scenario B: Assume statement 2 is true – If there are only very narrow ranges of physical values that will allow life to emerge, then God could not have created the Universe from nothing.  In that case there must be a pre-existing substrate upon which reality is built which limits the creative actions of God (If 2, then not 1).  And similarly to Scenario A, if the constants were set at the beginning, they would appear to any observers in the Universe to be an unchanging brute fact (If 2, then not 3).
That doesn't follow at all and the author doesn't give any reasoning for it. The rules physical world is what limits the powers. God must adhere to those or be forced to be a baby-sitter for the Creation.

That was strawman #2. Then he finally gets it right:
Assuming that statement 3 is true brings me back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment that I quoted above.  The chemical properties of water are indeed exceptional.  However, as Joe points out, changing anything about the properties of water would necessarily change the nature of all of chemistry since water is made up of components which are common to all elements.
That is true! And guess what? Your position doesn't have an explanation for the existence of water. All you have is sheer dumb luck to explain what we observe. And seeing that science can only allow so much luck then your position is out of it and not science.

Look, if you want to refute the fine-tuning argument as evidence for some Intelligent Designer then start with science and show us how your position explains what we observe. But we all know that you have nothing and so you are forced to erect strawmen arguments and attack those.


Sunday, December 10, 2017

EvoTARDs are Still Choking on Tiktaalik

The Skeptical Zone is home to some of the most ignorant evolutionists around. Now they are still talking about Tiktaalik as if it was some kind of prediction for evolutionism. Too bad evolutionism doesn't even have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

But I digress- there is a moron named Rumraket, who spews the following nonsense:

No, it wasn’t. Rather, it is you who is mistaken about what the fossil represents.
You think it represents the first transition to land, rather than a transitional tetrapod.
It had actually been suspected for a while, even prior to the discovery of tiktaalik, and the later discovered tetrapod trackways from poland, that the first transition to land took place before the ages of known transitional fossils, because there were already numerous trackways known exhibiting transitional morphology, predating the fossil “series” incorporating tiktaalik, panderichtus, acanthostega and so on.
Reality refutes that bit of ignorance:

First, the set-up:
"In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223

Got that- "the transition" refers to an event, a specific event that occurred between two specified time periods, a time when there were fish and no tetrapods and the time when there were fish and tetrapods. (as I said Here and again here- just can't get enough of RichTard's cowardice and ignorance)

With that now firmly established we return to "Your Inner Fish" chapter 1 where Shubin discusses what he was looking for- hint: evidence for the transition, ie the event:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10 (bold and italics added)
OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed the dates. However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier.

In order to find what he was looking for, evidence of the transition, he needed to focus on rocks 400 million years old, as the new data puts terapods in existence about 395 million years ago.

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

Shubin et al., made a very specific claim and it is obvious that Rumraket is totally ignorant of that claim. Rumraket's ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation of the facts. But it does expose the fact that evos are ignorant asses and apparently very proud of it.

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Allan Miller is Still Proudly Ignorant

The TSZ is a treasure trove of misinformation and ignorant spewage. Now Allan Miller sez:
Phylogenetic nested hierarchies are based upon similarities and differences, but the point at which the difference arises is key.
Umm " Phylogenetic nested hierarchies" is a contradiction of terms. Phylogenies do not form a nested hierarchy. See Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics.

But hey, evoTARDs like Allan don't care about the facts as long as they can spew there shit without consequence.

ADDED- Allan Miller is complaining that I never said how the paper I linked to supports my claim and yet the sentence is in the post:

Phylogenies do not form a nested hierarchy.

It is an either/ or thing. Either it is a phylogeny OR it is a nested hierarchy. But then again Allan is proudly ignorant.

Mikkel Rumraket- Proudly Ignorant of Irreducible Complexity

Mikkel Rumraket is a special case. He did say that it requires the right mutations in order for Common Descent to happen. But he never says what those are and he doesn't even know if it is true.

Now he is choking on irreducible complexity. IC refers to something that has several parts that are all required to allow for functionality. SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARTS. So what does Mikkel say? He sez that chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum is IC cuz it requires several mutations to produce. However no one has ever demonstrated that blind and mindless processes didit! And THAT is the whole enchilada as IC is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution. But that still misses the point- there was NEVER multiple parts required to produce the resistance.

Next Mikkel spews about Lenski's experiment and the evolved ability to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions. Again no one has demonstrated that what happened was via blind and mindless processes and again it did NOT involve multiple parts having to be configured just right for functionality.

Moronic evoTARDs think that if they show the most simple thing evolving then IC is refuted. That is just plain ignorance. You don't show that someone can lift 300 pounds by having them lift one pound. You don't show that someone is an expert bridge builder just because they dropped a board across a stream.

The way to refute IC as an indicator of intelligent design is by showing nature can produce the highest degree of IC observed in biology. Once that happens then IC can no longer be used as evidence for ID. No one has even come close and I say no one even knows how to do so.

And BTW, IC is not an argument against "evolution" as evolution by means of intelligent design can produce IC. IC is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution. And no one has ever demonstrated that blind and mindless processes can produce IC of any degree.

Mikkel Rumraket is just another ignorant asshole who couldn't understand his opponent's position if his life depended on it.

Read his ignorant spewage for yourself.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Alan Fox is Proudly Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

The TSZ ilk are a bunch of clueless retards. Now Alan Fox spews:
The nested hierarchy is a necessary consequence of branching descent from a common ancestror.
Bullshit. I know that is what evoTARDs say but I also know they cannot support that claim.

Look, morons, just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching diagram doesn't mean that branching processes produces a nested hierarchy. There are rules that have to be followed for a nested hierarchy. One rule is each level consists of and contains lower levels (that is until you get to the last level). And you do NOT get that by mere branching descent. A family tree is not a nested hierarchy and guess what? It represents branching descent from common ancestors!

Again, with branching descent defining characteristics can be lost. And once lost any nested hierarchy will also be lost if it is based on defining characteristics. Denton went over that in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

Also Alan's claim is NOT supported by peer-review. See Know, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics.

Alan also spews this bit of willful ignorance:
That there is no scientific theory of design, with entailments, that makes falsifiable predictions?.

And yet we have said exactly how to test ID and what will falsify it. Your willful ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless, Alan.

Now I know why I was banned from TSZ- I kept correcting their ignorance and it finally got to them. This way they can spew their ignorance without having to deal with the facts.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

John Harshman is also Proud to be Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

John Harshman is willfully clueless. He sez:
Now, I believe in ancestors (and I can describe them in many particulars based on phylogenetic reconstruction, but that’s not relevant) because their existence is the only explanation for the nested hierarchy of life.
And yet Linnaean Classification is a nested hierarchy of life and it doesn't have anything to do with Common Descent or evolution. Also phylogenies are NOT a nested hierarchy, moron:

Understanding Phylogenies- Look at the diagrams. Every node is an alleged common ancestor. And every node is also a separate level. With nested hierarchies the levels consist of and contain lower levels. Yet the ancestral populations do NOT consist of nor do they contain their descendants. That is a simple concept yet it seems to be way over the heads of the TSZ ilk.

Se also:

The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics

The whole paper is useful but for this argument start on the bottom of page 9- HENNIG’S USE OF HIERARCHIES. UC Berkley, and all the other evos are making the same mistake as Henning did. But hey, it's only been corrected for decades so I can understand why they haven't caught on:
Hennig (1966: 70–72) presented in his fig. 18 (my Fig. 3, with parts of the figure labelled a and b instead of I and II) two different graphic representations of a hierarchic system that he regarded as corresponding exactly to one another. Figure 3a is a modified Venn diagram that depicts a nested hierarchy. As mentioned above, a fully nested hierarchy displays the property of summativity. This model constitutes an important special case because the organizational criterion is containment (Allen &Hoekstra,1984).Entities at a higher level of organization contain, or are composed of, entities at the next lower level of organization. In this case, the whole is the sum of the parts. Hierarchies that employ organizational criteria other than containment may be referred to as non-nested, and these do not display summativity (Allen & Hoekstra, 1984). Figure 3b is an arrow diagram that represents species begetting species. This could be interpreted as a linear representation of history (a directed, non-reticulate network), or, as Hennig intended, as a non-nested hierarchy with ancestor-descendant relationship as the organizational criterion.
Contrary to Hennig’s statement (1966: 70), a and b in Figure 3 do not correspond exactly, a point made earlier by Simpson (1961: 62–63) using virtually identical diagrams (his fig. 3A, C). These two models differ because life, as an evolving system, is innovative and generative. In Figure 3b, ‘stem species’ 1 (for convenience, Species 1) is the ancestor of Species 2 and Species 5, which are in turn ancestors to their descendants. In Figure 3a, the numbers associated with Species 1 through 5 indicate the monophyletic groups of terminal species derived from various ancestral species. Although Species 1 may have given rise to the terminal species, the ancestral Species 1 is clearly not the same as the set of (or not equal to the sum of) the terminal species.  
Read the paper and buy a vowel, John

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

This Just In- EvoTARD Alert!

OK hold on to something- I was just told that the first step of a process is NOT included in the process. For example the first step of natural selection is random, as in happenstance, variation. Yet when I told Dave Mullenix that natural selection includes variation and it was the first step of NS he told me:
Ah, there's the problem. You misunderstand how evolution works, then you criticise that mistaken version.
The real first strep is mutation, which provides a slightly altered genome.
OK so the "real" first step isn't variation, it's mutation- which is what causes the variation. He sure did show me, eh?

Then when I provided Ernst Mayr supporting my claim, Dave retorts:
Notice that the FIRST STEP is variation and the SECOND STEP is natural selection.
What I had originally said:
Natural selection includes the variation- it is the first step of NS. 
So according to Davey Mullenix the first step of a process is not included in the process.

And they call us IDiots...