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 09, 2016

Science Refutes Jerad

Jerad says that varying genes is all that is required to explain the diversity of life. Too bad science refutes that claim:
Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution.

What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth. Changes in eye color does not explain the vision system nor the type of eye nor the organism. An albino dwarf with sickle-celled anemia is what we can get when mutations accumulate. Not quite what evolutionism requires.

We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”*
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?

You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

And that is another reason why Doug Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" is absent a mechanism and also why it fails-> there aren't any known mechanisms for producing macroevolutionary change because no one even knows what it entails.

* we are just what emerges from the somehow coordinayed interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn’t change what type of organism comes out)

Thursday, December 08, 2016

What Gene Variation CAN Do

EvoTARDs are so clueless. They think that they can just declare that varying genes can lead to the diversity of life on Earth. That is untestable bullshit and there is evidence against it- Voles- A lot of micro but no macro

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.  
Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:  
•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals. 
A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant. 
"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.  
In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.  
Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.
Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

More EvoTARD Ignorance

Over on Dr Hunter's blog "Darwin's God" there is this lowlife moron who goes by Ghostrider who actually said there is a theory of evolution cuz "theory of evolution" gives you 11 million hits on google. Read it for yourself

The problem started when I said there isn't any such theory, backed it up with two biologists saying the same and then ghostrider failing to find it. You would think with 11 million hits the actual theory of evolution would be in there somewhere, but it isn't. And it isn't in there because it doesn't exist. But that won't stop people from talking about it as if it does exist. Then again people also talk of Santa Claus- 51 million hits. By ghostrider's "logic" Santa Claus is more than 4x likely to exist than the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.

Friday, September 16, 2016

How to Challenge Evolutionism in US Courts

First step in challenging evolutionism in US Courts would be to challenge any and all teachers of evolutionism to show you how to test the claims it makes. Start with the letter 'A' and ATP synthase. Ask the teachers how to test the claim that natural selection, drift or any other stochastic process produced it. Then move down the alphabet with every other complex protein system, subsystem, organ or organism. Then once you find they don't have any idea how to do so you have proven evolutionism is not science as its claims cannot be tested and you attempt to have it thrown out of the science curriculum. That is when the US Courts may have to get involved unless the schools relent and realize they have a problem.

Challenge all teachers to show you how evolutionism is science and you will see that they cannot. And all teachers with any integrity should then stand with you in getting it out of the science classrooms. If they don't then take it to the Courts.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Hands from Fins? More EvoTARD Nonsense

Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor. Too bad t6hat Shubin cannot tell us how those HOX genes evolved in the first place and also too bad he completely neglects the most probable cause of HOX similarity- a Common Design.

Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it isn't* the type that evoTARDs think.

Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.

But anyway perhaps the evos will try to actually test this latest grand claim by manipulating the gar genome to find out if hands will develop. I doubt it as they never actually try to test their claims.

*HT Jerad

Monday, April 25, 2016

Deflategate and Science Ignorance

When it comes to science judges are the worst people to ask to make decisions about its implications. Take deflategate and the alleged tampering of footballs by the Patriots. The science says nothing was tampered with and all was within the limits of what was to be expected. Also the evidence says that the Patriots did not have any advantage as the footballs were inflated at halftime and the Patriots stomped the Colts in the second half.

1- No evidence of tampering
2- No evidence for any advantage gained

So what was Brady guilty of besides winning?

Even a middle school student proved there wasn't any tampering. So why are judges so fucking stupid and ignorant? Clearly the judges had their minds made up before hearing the appeal.

It is a sad day for the American judicial system. Judges Barrington D. Parker and Denny Chin choked and proved they are ignorant and possibly corrupt. Chin is especially one ignorant asshole who definitely had his mind made up before the case was even heard.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Jerry Coyne's Strange Faith

Jerry Coyne's strange faith has all living organisms as just bags of molecules. That also means that scientists are not very smart as they cannot produce life from non-life when it should be easy given Coyne's assessment.

It is so funny watching atheists bash religion all the while all but admitting their position rests on nothing but faith.