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

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Ignorant EvoTARDs- Still asking for Barriers to Macroevolution

EvoTARDs are so scientifically illiterate they are a pathetic lot. They still think that macroevolution is just accumulated microevolutionary events, albeit without evidence. Not only do they lack evidence for such an accumulation evolutionary biology has already demonstrated the two processes involve different genes and because of that macro-evolution is NOT the result of accumulations of micro-evolution:
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 (bold added)
Also it isn't up to anyone to show there is a barrier. That isn't how science works.  It is up to the people saying macroevolution is true to demonstrate it scientifically. But then again evolutionists are scientifically illiterate.

Microevolution involves the change in skin/ fur/ feather; hair color; eye color changes; detached earlobes; cleft chins; height; length- things that add variation to an existing population- ie traits (being human is not a trait). And varying traits does not lead to new body plans that require new body parts.

And pointing to Theobald for evidence of macroevolution just demonstrates desperation as he has been refuted time and again. Not only that he doesn't have any idea what pattern evolutionary processes would produce and his claims depend on patterns. Theobald wrongly claims that only branching processes can produce nested hierarchies and yet both Linnean taxonomy and the US Army are nested hierarchies that don't have anything to do with branching processes. EvoTARDs are too stupid to understand that

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993
And yet evoTARDs use these simple models as evidence for Common Descent. Go figure...

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

keiths Finally Admits He is NOT a Rational Person

Yup, keiths said:
Rational people are motivated to align their beliefs with reason and evidence.
keiths' position doesn't have any evidence nor a testable methodology- meaning only irrational people would accept it and keiths accepts it.

There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase. There isn't any such evidence for the origin of life. Yet both life and ATP synthase exit and no amount of materialistic reasoning- itself an oxymoron- will ever change that fact.

keiths and science will never mix as keiths is hopelessly stuck on misrepresenting the Bible.

Patrick John May- Ignorant of Software

Software is immaterial. Like information it is neither matter nor energy all through it takes energy and matter to produce and store software. The point?Patrick John May sed:
How exactly does something “immaterial” cause material behaviors?
Software is something immaterial that causes material behaviours. Strange that Patty has a website called "software matters" and he didn't know that.

Patty is confused about the mind. He thinks that mind and brain are the same thing.

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Allan Miller is Confused

Common Descent remains an untestable concept. OTOH Common Design is an observation- observed many times over in our designing world. Common Design is a real thing whereas Common Descent only exists in the minds of the true believers. They think that an alleged theory of change can be confirmed by similarities. Total nonsensical bullshit.

The problem is no one knows what to expect from Common Descent. Given recombination and illions of generations almost any genetic pattern is possible. That is not so with a Common Design.

With Common Descent you need to account for the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed and to date no one can. And if you can't do that then you do not have a testable concept. And if you don't have a testable concept then you don't have science. Allan Miller ignores that and prattles on as if he knows what Common Descent expects.

see Allan Miller's unsupportable diatribe

The Firebirds of today did NOT evolve from the Firebirds of yester-years via natural selection, drift nor any other blind and mindless process. It was all accomplished via intentional design. All cars share a common design not just the same cars from different years. All houses built to the same building code will also have some degree of similarity as do all PC clones.

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Evolution is NOT Blind? Does Neil Rickert Support ID?

Neil Rickert said something that resonates with IDists:
I would not say “blind evolution was responsible.” And that’s because evolution is not blind. It cannot forsee[sic] the future, but it is adaptive to the present.
That isn't how evolution is promoted by evolutionary biologists. All mechanisms of evolution are both blind and mindless according to the experts. Only ID posits evolutionary mechanisms that are not blind and not mindless.

Neil is simply wrong but he will never admit it. Evolution is what you get when there is a change in allele frequency- it is a result just like natural selection. Evolution is the result of descent with modification.

The way evolution is being taught mutations just happen, they are blind to the needs of the organism (present and future needs). If a mutation or mutations just happen to produce some adaptive advantage then so be it. It wasn't trying to do so, it just happened. Contingent serendipity.

As Jerry Coyne wrote: 
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

Neil Rickert doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to science and evolution. But that is par for the course over on TSZ.

Monday, May 01, 2017

More Clueless Drivel from TSZ

The cluelessness never stops on TSZ. REW's latest clueless spewage:
I think the never ending argument between creationists and science promoters has deteriorated in the last couple of years. Before he was a God debater Dawkins was a science writer and he wrote 2 very good books explaining in outline how natural selection can produce complex objects.
He never says who these alleged science promoters are nor what "science" they are promoting. But his bullshit about Dawkins is laughable as dawkins never used any science to show that natural selection can produce anything beyond mere change in allele frequency. And that should tell you something about what passes for science over on TSZ- if an evo sez it it must be science. Pathetic little imps.

And then REW lies:
But in the last few years the commenters at UD have gotten into this cult-like mantra that complexity can only be produced by a designer.
WRONG! ID is not about mere complexity and IDists regularly admit that mere complexity can arise without a designer. But then again there isn't anyone left on TSZ to call him on that bit on nonsense. It must be nice to be able to post lies about your opponents and act as if they are true.

Not one person on this planet can demonstrate natural selection can produce ATP synthase. No one even knows how to test such a claim. And that goes for all biological systems and subsystems- they remain scientifically out of the reach of natural selection. And by the way it is going they will all remain that way.

Then he ens with this bit of cluelessness:
They assert this as an axiom without question and wont consider any other possibility.
Dumbass. In order to get to the design inference all other possibilities were considered. OTOH you and yours are wedded to the blind watchmaker and won't consider any other possibility, even though you have no idea how to test your position's claims.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

March for Science or a march for Dogma?

It is a sad day when people who don't understand a concept feel that they have to march to try to protect it from people who disagree with them. That is exactly what happened this past weekend. People, who live in cities- cities being the biggest nature-killer and cause of any manmade issues nature has- marched to try to, by sheer force of will, make everyone else understand that they are the protectors and projectors of science. Science has shown that urban heat islands are real. Observations and experiences demonstrate that urban sprawl destroys the natural ecosystems.

That's right- by sheer force of will and not via rigorous testing, ie science- they want to drown out all who disagree. And yes this is the very thing the Church did all too well. Heck it is the very thing those who crave or have power do to protect that power. It is what makes North Korea what it is. Those who marched should be very proud of themselves for the company they keep.

Science didn't say that CO2 is a pollutant. Science says CO2 is required to sustain the planet. Science didn't say that the climate is so sensitive to parts per million changes in atmospheric CO2 that man ought not keep burning fossil or any fuels that add to it. Only some scientists and laypeople are saying that- absent science to support them.

The point is that science doesn't need people to march for it as it stands and falls by the weight of evidence and testability. It is only when you don't have those that you would march or pound the table. And that is why all of those people marched. Sad, really.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Why RNA Editing is evidence for Intelligent Design

RNA editing is in the news again. I wonder if evoTARDs realize editing is the antithesis of blind and mindless processes- I doubt it as they seem impervious to logic and reason.

Why is (RNA) editing evidence for Intelligent Design? It takes knowledge to edit. Knowledge of what to edit, how to edit and when to edit, at a minimum are required. All of our observations and experiences say that editing requires knowledge and an intentional agency. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can edit anything. No one knows how that would even work. But then again evolutionists don't care about evidence.