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

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Timothy Horton- Scientifically Illiterate Coward

It seems that Tiny timmy has taken issue with my correct call on natural selection being nothing more than contingent serendipity. Timmy says that according to me:
The reason casinos always win money in the long run on slot machines and roulette is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

What a complete dumbass, timmy.  Evos are so clueless they think that casinos use natural selection to make money. How desperate and ignorant are those people, anyway?

Casinos making money is nothing like biology, you desperate fool.

I would love to see the dumbass coward Horton make the case that casinos and natural selection are the same or have something to do with each other.

Casinos make money because the odds are stacked in their favor. And it is ALWAYS like that. With natural selection the odds are stacked in the favor of the fittest but what is fit is all contingent on the environment. And how they became fit was all due to serendipity- a chance mutation or mutations that just happened to provide some advantage.

The bottom line is that casinos make money by means of (intelligent) design.

Timmy doesn't grasp biology and he is just a desperate fool.

Saturday, November 09, 2019

Natural Selection as Contingent Serendipity

Charles Darwin imagined that something he called "natural selection" could, together with time and numerous successive generations, produce the diversity of life from some simple biological replicators. Numerous slight, successive modifications would accumulate while others were culled- eliminated by nature.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
However, there isn't any steadfast rule on what gets eliminated. Most of that depends on the environment. That is, it is contingent on environmental pressures. What survives could be the tallest or shortest; the slimmest or fattest; the slowest or fastest; the best sight or no eyes at all; long legs or no legs; with each of those extremes having numerous intermediate stages.

Ibid 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.
Serendipity comes into play with the fact that the genetic variation is left to chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
Anyone who understands natural selection knows it is nothing more than contingent serendipity.
For example, from The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will. Natural selection is incapable of producing biological complexity. Evos have been promoting bullshit for over 160 years. 

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Frequency = Wavelength- the Test

Some years ago I was having a discussion with olegt about greenhouse gases. We were both presenting papers on the subject, some were discussed the frequency of the emissions while other discussed the wavelengths. Regardless of frequency or wavelength the papers were discussing the same emission spectrum. The same EM waves. Ie frequency = wavelength, in that context.

Enter evoTARDs looking for something to drool over, misrepresent- for YEARs- and ignore all attempts to walk them through it as you would a 4 year old.

So, with that in mind, I ask:

Can any wave be referred to by its frequency or equivalently by its wavelength? For example if one person is talking about CO2’s emissions by their frequencies and another person is using their wavelengths, are those two people talking about the exact same thing?

Nick Matzke is Still an Equivocating Coward

Nick Matzke is a putz, a loser and a grand equivocator. He has co-authored a recent article titled Evolution or intelligent design? Except Intelligent Design is NOT and never has been, anti-evolution. Nick equivocates any and all things "evolution" with blind watchmaker evolution.

Nick is now in New Zealand spreading hos brand of cowardly lies.

Read the article. Notice that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with blind watchmaker evolution's ability to produce anything. It doesn't offer up anything beyond question-begging and arguments from ignorance.
Although the bacterial injectisome (right) has a completely different function to the flagellar motor (left) they both contain nine proteins that are highly structurally and functionally related, which makes it likely that they evolved from common ancestors.
Moar equivocation and the denial of a COMMON DESIGN to explain the similarities. What they do NOT have is any methodology to test the claim that blind watchmaker evolution produced either of those structures.

It's as if Nick Matzke is proud to be an equivocating ass.

Timmy Horton- Question-begging EvoTARD

In an attempt to appear clever, Timmy Horton spewed the following:
I mean, when bats had the mutations to elongate their fingers enabling their hands to act as wings, the bats lost the ability to not fly.
Unfortunately for timmy, that is nothing but question-begging nonsense. There isn't any evidence that bats evolved from non-bats. There isn't even a way to scientifically test the claim that bats evolved from non-bats. If such existed it would be in peer-review and textbooks. And yet those are devoid of such things.

EvoTARDs are such an ignorant lot they think their ignorance is an argument.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific (short version)

Despite what some morons may say, Intelligent Design is scientific. Intelligent Design is scientific for the simple reasons that it makes testable claims and can potentially be falsified. That is the hallmark of a scientific endeavor science works with testable ideas:
Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. 
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster

Those show the expectations and also what would falsify the concept.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"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.”
If we observe that and don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.

So there you have- Why Intelligent Design is scientific.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

A Nested Hierarchy of Designed Objects

Over on Peaceful Science they are asking for examples for design yielding a nested hierarchy. This is funny because they have never shown that they understand the concept. Universal common descent via gradual processes could never produce a nested hierarchy. There would be too many transitional forms blurring the lines of distinction. That and the fact traits can be lost which would make a descendent appear to be an ancestor.

I would love to see them present a nested hierarchy produced by blind and mindless processes. They never will. However, in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" Dr Michael Denton started one for designed/ manmade objects under the title of "Transport".

Under the "Transport" Kingdom you would have the Phyla- Land, Water, Air, and Hybrids.
Under the Land Phylum you would have the classes: Surface; underground; hybrids. Each of those would have Orders pertaining to engine type: diesel; steam; electric; petrol; hybrids. The families would be the different variations- trucks; cars; etc. And so on until you come to the specific cars.

Under the "Water" Phylum you would have the Classes: surface; submarine; hybrids

Under the "Air" Phylum you would have the Classes: fixed wing; helicopter; hybrids

So from there you just keep adding the criteria to fill out the rest of your nested hierarchy.

Friday, October 18, 2019

Alan Fox- Scientifically Illiterate asshole

Alan Fox is just an ignorant asshole. In a debate on science I would easily destroy him.

Back in 2007 Alan said that ID would be gone in 5 years. And yet 12 years later ID is going stronger than ever!

Alan is such an ignorant ass he thinks that Eric Holloway's easily refuted trope about ID is meaningful. Alan is such a loser that he tells people to scroll past all of the posts refuting Eric.

How big of a coward and liar do you have to be to say something like that?

Thankfully ID isn't going anywhere and Eric has abandoned the thread Alan links to.

Alan Fox is a clueless coward and belligerent liar.

Tuesday, September 03, 2019

Faizal Ali is a Pathetic LIAR and Cowardly Equivocator

Faizal Ali is a mental case for a psychiatrist. It doesn't know anything about science and even less about biology. It spews the lie:
Evolution has such a model.
LIAR. There isn't any models that demonstrate evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.