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, July 18, 2019

Earth to John Harshman

-
John Harshman continues to prove that he is ignorant of nested hierarchies. Now he spews:
Nested hierarchy reflects common design? Seriously?
Yes, John, seriously. Linnaean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And, guess what?  It was predicated on a COMMON DESIGN!

With respect to biology Linnaean Classification lays out the pattern of common design expected. Linne based his scheme on the basis of "archetypes" with common design being part of that:

“One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr 
Simpson echoed those comments:

“From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.” 
Common design is inherent in the concept of "archetypes".

And AGAIN, phylogenetic trees are NOT nested hierarchies. John Harshman says otherwise despite the evidence.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Peaceful Science Agrees that Evolution is NOT Science

-
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/objective-direct-and-indirect-evidence-and-subjective-inferences/6260/116
If we limit ourselves to science, the best interpretation is the one that explains the most data, makes testable predictions, and has testable mechanisms.
Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is devoid of testable predictions and also devoid of mechanisms that can be tested to see if they are capable of producing the result observed. It cannot explain the data.

Those morons are so clueless that they don't even understand that they have smooched the pooch and admitted theirs is bullshit.

Peaceful Science- proudly promoting the pseudoscience of materialism.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is a Coward

-
OK, I just cannot stand this asshole named Joshua Swamidass. Now Joshua spews:
I have read all his books. His argument does not hold together
BULLSHIT. If Joshua has read all of his books he definitely didn't grasp what Dr. Behe wrote. And seeing that there isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that refutes Dr. Behe's arguments it is obvious that his argument has held together for decades.

Joshua cannot say how blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagella. He has even said such a claim is not scientific.

Joshua Swamidass has absolutely no clue what Intelligent Design claims. And he has even less of a clue as to what the mainstream concept of evolution claims.

Joshua Swamidass is a coward

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Faizal Ali is an Ignorant Ass and Liar- Peaceful Science is full of Liars

-
Faizal Ali, the pathetic imp and liar, says:
You people keep forgetting that “intelligent design” is the old edifice that Darwin blew to smithereens.
LoL! Darwin didn't even have a methodology to test his claims, you ignorant ass. And guess what? No one knows how to test them.

Then another assholes spews more lies:
Yeah like the ID movement just won’t die despite no positive evidence for it ever and keeps being resurrected.
The genetic code and all the components required to carry it out is positive evidence for ID. Dr Behe's criteria is positive evidence for ID:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
That said, there definitely isn't any positive evidence for Darwin's claims. There never has been. To date no one knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced the likes of ATP synthase, any bacterial flagellum nor regulatory networks.

Peaceful Science is run by ignorant cowards for ignorant cowards.


Sunday, June 16, 2019

Peaceful Science- Willfully Ignorant of "The Edge of Evolution"

-
It's sad and pathetic.
Stripped of its extraneous details, it seems to me that Behe’s argument in this book could be summarized as follows:
Chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite is very rare.
This trait represents the “edge of evolution.”
Any trait that requires more mutations than this is so improbable that it could not possibly happen thru evolution and, instead, would require the intervention of an “intelligent designer.”
I have a hard time seeing why anyone would consider this to be a persuasive argument. Why did Behe choose this one trait, in this one species? He could just as easily chosen, say, blue eyes in human beings. In which case, his conclusion would be entirely different.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing quite a bit. The first bit is basically correct in that the number of specific changes required is fundamental to Behe's thinking. But intervention isn't required. He isn't sure how but he is OK with God-guided evolution, ie evolution by means of telic processes.

Why is it so persuasive? Well it was looked at and he has a point. In an attempt to refute Behe a paper titled Waiting for TWO Mutations was borne. They concluded that a pair of specific mutations could occur in fruit flies in several million years. Just think how many specific mutations it takes to produce a gene that codes for a functioning protein. Then do the math.

That one trait because it is a rather simple thing, relatively speaking. That species has a fast reproduction rate so it can churn out variations rapidly. That is why they were chosen.

Blue eyes? The whole point is you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eyes and vision systems. It can barely get to chloroquine resistance.

So you are missing that fact. The fact is that your proposed mechanisms cannot do what you say they did. It only works in your imagination.

If it takes millions of years to get TWO specific mutations that produce some specific effect in a population of rapidly reproducing species, how do you expect to produce eyes and vision systems which clearly take more than two?

Where is the model for eyes and vision systems evolving by means of blind and mindless processes?

So yes, you are missing everything- you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the effects observed (ie the diversity of life).

Peaceful Science is Clueless, as Usual

Saturday, June 15, 2019

A Phylogenetic Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy- Evos are Willfully Ignorant

-
Evos are such a clueless lot. They actually think that a phylogenetic tree depicts a nested hierarchy. They are completely ignorant of what a nested hierarchy entails.

Nested hierarchies have groups that consist of and contain other groups that reside on different levels. This is exemplified in Linnaean taxonomy, which has nothing to do with evolution, and the US Army structure.

However with a phylogenetic tree ancestral populations reside on the levels and they do not consist of nor contain their daughter populations. So THAT is a FAIL.

You cannot create an objective nested hierarchy if you had to include all of the alleged transitional forms that supposedly existed. Transitional forms, by their very nature, would ruin any and all attempts at forming a nested hierarchy.

The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life

Note that nodes A and B represent hypothetical common ancestors (populations)

In contrast with Linnaean Classification
The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The Mullerian Two Step- Exposing the Ignorance and Desperation of Evos

-
Evos are so desperate and clueless they actually think that irreducible complexity was already spoken for via evolutionary processes over 100 years ago. Enter Herman J. Muller.

The fact that Muller NEVER demonstrated anything and only came up with a narrative doesn't seem to bother evos.

The fact that Muller's claims have never been demonstrated doesn't seem to bother evos.

The fact that Muller's claims aren't scientific definitely doesn't bother evos.

The fact that Muller didn't even understand DNA or how these structures came to be, doesn't bother evos.

Evos choking on IC:
2: H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a "molecular machine".
"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..."
Muller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original)
"V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution
"... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."
Muller 1939 pp. 271-272. 
All rhetoric and nothing to support it. And nothing that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

Then comes more raw spewage taken as science:
4: H. Allen Orr has explained Muller's explanation for "irreducible complexity" in several articles in the Boston Review criticizing Behe's and William Dembski's writings. Orr has emphasized the adaptive possibilities in the Mullerian two-step (i.e. improvement of function at each step). However, the mechanism is more general and does not even require selection, a point that Muller himself made originally, 50 years before neutral evolution was found to be important in molecular evolution.
"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
Orr 1996
"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. "
Orr 1997
Again, just a narrative and NOTHING to support it. But THAT is accepted science by desperate evos.

If imagination was evidence and science, evos would have something.
 

Faizal Ali- Ignorant Ass and Proud of it

-
Faizal Ali is one of the most arrogant and yet ignorant people evah. It spews:
People often mistakenly believe science is in the business of determining The Truth.
That isn't a mistake, dumbass. Science only cares about the truth, that is the reality of whatever is being investigated:

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

"Science is the search for truth, the effort to understand the world; it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality.” Linus Pauling

I will go with the experts over an ignorant ass like you, Faizal. It goes on to spew:
Every living thing that has ever existed on earth could have been specially created by an omnipotent God who deliberately did so in a manner that would look convincingly as if they had all evolved from a common ancestor thru mutations, drift and natural selection.

Except it only looks like that to the morons who already believe it. Natural selection is impotent with respect to Common Descent. And then the whopper:
Rather, the problem for these people is if we play by the rules by which every other scientific claim is judged, “design” just does not measure up.
LoL! Look, dumbass, ID, unlike your position, makes testable claims. So when we compare the science of ID to the science of your position, your side loses, big time.

Faizal Ali is an ignorant ass and very proud of it.