Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, August 31, 2015

CO2- What if it Doubles?

If CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That's it, 0.6 degrees C. That's about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn't happen. We are around 400 PPM now.

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 3

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4

Soot and dirt on snow and ice cause melting even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. Look at pictures of glaciers and you can see they are covered with soot and dirt.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Kevin R. McCarthy is a Liar and a Coward

Kevin proves that he cannot take any criticisms of his claims as he has banned me for pointing out that he is a liar and a loser.

Kevin sed:
(in spite of the metric tons of information that show that life, the universe and everything arise from basic laws of physics and chemistry that you have been provided with)
Unfortunately for Kevin there isn't any such evidence. There isn't any evidence that Kevin's position can account for those laws. There isn't any evidence the genetic code can arise via those laws.

So Kevin, why are you such a liar and a coward?

And just because we don't know who the designer is Kevin spews:

Then you have no idea what your supposed designer can or cannot do, over what time period, or how. In other words, regardless of the appearance of design, you cannot support any claim that a designer exists.
We can support the claim a designer existed by demonstrating the design exists, duh. That is how it works in science you ignorant ass. First you determine design exists and only then do you try to figure out who did it.

Are you really that stupid, Kevin?

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

"Waiting for Two Mutations", Why Evolutionism Fails

In 2008 a paper titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, was published. It was intended to show that Dr Behe was wrong about the mathematical limits of Darwinian evolution. The scope of the article was very limited:
 In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. 
Got that- they are only discussing a transcription binding site and only in a very limited sense.

What's the point? Evolutionism requires many specific mutations and this paper says there just isn't enough time in the universe for such a thing. Duplicated genes need a new transcription factor binding site. It needs a promoter and then it may also need specific mutations to alter its original function. The alleged evolution of color vision is such a scenario- duplicate an opsin gene and then tune it to a different wavelength. That is out of the reach of natural selection and/ or drift.

Dr Behe responds

Dr Behe continues

For the lying loser evoTARDs- Dr Behe has NOT been refuted. To do so requires actual evidence and evolutionism doesn't have any.

Friday, July 24, 2015

The Difference Between Selection and Elimination

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
Artificial selection = the selection definition whereas natural selection = the elimination definition. The difference is huge, as Mayr describes. Natural selection could NEVER produce the different breeds of dogs. However remove humans and natural selection will get rid of those breeds.

It appears that evos are too dim to grasp any of that.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

One True Scientific Definition of Natural Selection

Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis defined natural selection, ie as a process of elimination. keiths says that means if there isn't any death then there isn't any selection even though there can be differences in allele frequency. For example if there were two alleles occurring at equal frequency and that shifted to 90% to 10%, there wouldn't be due to natural selection. And that has keiths all upset.

However there is elimination going on via differential reproduction. If the allele that fell to 10% was caused by the lack of reproductive success or failure to match the other allele's success, that still counts as elimination.

It would be only if a population reached Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium that there wouldn't be any natural selection.

Also keiths is a dishonest prick for making up shit about an argument I never made and calling me wrong. What a total lowlife he is. He is just upset because I understand evolution 10x better than he does,

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Equivocation and Evolution

 It's that time again.
Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Evolution has several meanings:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
The equivocation comes from using evidence for 1-3 as evidence for 4-6. It also comes in the form of saying that there isn't any difference between artificial and natural selection even though natural selection could never produce the different breeds of dogs. However absent our hand natural selection could and would turn all dog breeds into populations of very similar mutts.

We observe anti-biotic resistance therefor natural selection did it. We observe different bacterial flagella therefor natural selection did it. We observe complex adaptations therefor natural selection did it.

AVIDA is an instantiation of evolution 1-3 therefor natural selection produced IC.

Evolutionary and genetic algorithms utilize goal-oriented targeted searches therefor natural selection did it, even though natural selection isn't goal oriented and could never find the target.

All. Bullshit. Equivocations. If it wasn't for equivocation evolutionists wouldn't have anything to say. And they equivocate because they are willfully ignorant of the fact that ID is NOT anti-evolution as ID argues solely against definition #6.

Right on que dumbass petrushka chimes in:

They were designed to do that. I have no idea why you think design and evolution are mutually exclusive.
They are not exclusive. In fact there is no possible evidence to disprove design. Every imaginable scenario is compatible with design.
The question is not whether design can be excluded; it is whether evolution is sufficient. AVIDA does not answer that, but it demonstrates that complex functionality can evolve.
1- We have said exactly what would falsify design. And no, not every imaginable scenario is compatible with design. Not all rocks are artifacts and not all deaths are murders. Grow up, dumbass.
2- Complex functionality evolved BY DESIGN, dumbass

How Evolution Can Produce Irreducible Complexity and Complex Adaptations

Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. That means that irreducible complexity can evolve if it was designed to do so. We see that with evolutionary and genetic algorithms, which exemplify intelligent design evolution, ie evolution by design.

Only morons on an agenda think that ID is anti-evolution and that all evolution is evidence for natural selection and/ or drift. They are the sad equivocators.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Elizabeth Liddle is Willfully Ignorant

The entertainment is never-ending. Now lizzie spews:
I’ve yet to see an ID proponent actually grapple with the implications of AVIDA for the Irreducible Complexity argument.
Winston Ewert has. I have. John Sanford has. Obviously you are just a willfully ignorant old hag.

I will sum it up for you- AVIDA does nothing to the irreducible complexity argument. And if you understood AVIDA and the argument you would have known that. Too bad your desperation has blinded you.