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

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

A Dog is Still a Dog and Kevin McCarthy is Still a Moron

Dogs- big dogs, mediun dogs, little dogs and dogs that shouldn't be called dogs (the "toy" varieties). Hey I agree someone could easily mistake the variety of dogs for differnt species due to some apparent mating issues. But in reality a toy variety male may catch a Great Dane female in heat, sleeping and successfully have at her. So never say never.

However dogs do show a great deal of phenotypic plasticity, all of which has been brought about by artificial selection. And that would also translate over to mating. We can take eggs from different types of females and successfully mate them with sperm from differing males. IOW science does NOT stop because of physical barriers to a mating issue.

That said, say humans die out and some other intelligent species takes over and starts investigating. If they came across dog fossils they would most assuredly classify the differnt varieties as different species. That just reflects on the classification system. Ignorance allows us to do just about anything wrt classification.

The point? For some reason Kevin thinks that if we call the dog varieties different species, and given the phenotypic plasticity of dogs which has developed over a very short period of time (accepting a 4.5 byo earth*), then that is evidence for macroevolution. Yet macroevolution calls for new body plans requiring new body parts and we do not observe that with dogs. And blind and undirected processes, ie natural selection, drift and neutral mutations, had nothing to do with the dog varieties. That means only dishonest pricks or ignorant poseurs would use them as an example to further evolutionism.

* a 4.5x billion year old Earth relies on the untestable assumption that no crystals survived the accretion process AND that all crystals used for dating the age of the earth were made here, on/ in the earth.

A Vole is Still a Vole- Refuting McCarthy, Evidence Against Microevolution Accumulating to Macroevolution

EvoTARDs are so clueless. They think that they can just declare that accumulations of microevolution can become macroevolution. 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 and macroevolution

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Random, with Respect to Evolution- What does it Mean?

In the evolutionism debate you hear/ read the word random quite often. But what does it mean to be random?

With respect to evolutionism, random means two things:

1- With respect to mutations/ genetic changes and variations, it means chance/ happenstance/ accidental, ie unplanned and unguided. Meaning all changes are just whatever happened to happen. And to a much lesser extent it means that not all nucleotides have the same probability of changing. Mutations are constrained randomness

2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random. Natural selection being an eliminative process (Mayr, "What Evolution Is") will tend to eliminate the deficient, the deformed, and whatever cannot hack it in the environment it finds itself.

OK that's it. Have a good day

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Dr Behe Corrects Judge Jones

Yes this is old but apparently there are some morons who haven't read it:

Whether Intelligent Design is Science, A response to Judge Jones.

Judge Jones was and most likely still is scientifically illiterate. Heck he said he was going to watch "Inherit the Wind" for a historical perspective yet that movie is pure liberal spin and is only a shadow of whjat actually happened.

But anyway, enjoy the article...


Sunday, March 30, 2014

Allan Miller Doubles Down of his Dishonesty

It just keeps getting better and better. Now Allan spews:

You’re just making stuff up. Insertion/deletion, point mutation etc do not come from ‘reactions’. They come from errors in replication. Replication is a copying process of descent, not design.

Please tell us how you determined tat insertions and deletions are due to errors in replication. Next please tell us how you determined that blind and unguided processes produced replication.

Or just admit that you are a dishonest evobabbler.

EvoTARDS, always lying and overselling their position.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Richie Hughes- Fishes for Stupid and Catches Himself

Just another Friday full of Richie's evoTARDgasms.

Allan Miller and Richie Hughes Liars or Ignorant? Notes from TSZ

Allan Miller spews:

 Yet you insist, at the same time, that there was massive speciation after the ark, to expand the ‘kinds’. This is common descent.
If we find your DNA at a crime scene, you will be incriminated by Common Descent evidence.
Bullshit. He goes on to spew more bullshit:

 Yet you insist, at the same time, that there was massive speciation after the ark, to expand the ‘kinds’. This is common descent.

Not in the way you mean "common descent". It is common descent in the same way humans giving rise to humans is common descent.

But I know you don’t care about the ludicrous inconsistencies in your position.
Your ignorance does not = inconsistencies in Robert's position.

Common Design can only explain the patterns if it involves deceit  
Wrong again. Common design is an observed phenomena. OTOH Common Descent has NEVER been observed and can't even be tested.

So here is Allan Miller overselling his position and ignorantly flailing away at Common Design.

Now for Richie:

By remaining skeptical, we enable better explanatory models to come forward and allow sufficiently good models to re-affirm themselves. Science itself is skeptical, holding findings provisionally – and also surviving experimental disconfirmation is also a form of skepticism, requiring the hypothesis to actually deliver.
What a total crock of bullshit. Richie's position can't even muster a model. It can't muster testable hypotheses and it can't deliver anything.

Proponents of materialism and evolutionism are not and cannot be skeptics as they accept total bullshit as reality.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Christine Janis, Professor of Biology, All Bluster and No Evidence

Kevin ReTARD McCarthy has a guest post by Christine Janis pertaining to Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" chapter 12. It reads like a child's rant. She spews:

Whether or not the reader might find Frazetta’s explanations fanciful (and it must be remembered that Frazetta was writing almost half a century before our current knowledge of evo-devo, and our current understanding of how rapid morphological transitions can be effected by changes in regulatory genes), one thing is certain: he is *not* making a case that the morphological change in bolyerid snakes could not be achieved by evolutionary means. 
Umm Christine, blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution cannot account for regulatory genes. It cannot account for metazoans. Given the starting points of prokaryotes it cannot get beyond prokaryotes. So perhaps you should just shut up as it is obvious that you are just another dishonest evo. And also ID is not anti-evolution so it would be a good idea to learn what ID actually is before you attack it. Oh and it would be a better idea to have actual support for your position before calling anyone else dishonest.

Again, if unguided evolution is the mechanism: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. So if unguided evolution doesn't require coordinated mutations, meaning that just about any ole mutation will add to the advantage (bullshit), then it has a chance (pun intended). If it does then it is doomed.

And that leads us to the title of the OP-

Christine Janis did NOT present any evidence that blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution can account for the boyerines jaw, nor anything else for that matter.

Common Design or Dissimilar Design?

So what is the point of a common design? The point is, based on direct observations and experiences, that a common design leads to a number of similarities. And all living organisms show similarity at the genetic level. All nucleotides are the same. All amino acids are the same. Protein manufacturing is also the same.

That said a common design explains the similarities and the differences are explained by the different applications and differing functional requirements. For example- All houses built to the same building code(s) will have that degree of similarity and the differences are explained by the customer's wants/ requirements (or even budget constraints).

Also a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

So why, if there is a common design, is there such a wide variety of organisms? Again system requirements. The Earth being the system and it requires a variety ofg organisms to keep it habitable.

Designers can and do take parts that work for one thing and use them for something totally unrelated. For example we use tires on cars and also we use tires on carnival rides, baseball and football throwing machines. That is also a common design- using common parts for different applications.

So far from being a dissimilar design living organisms obviously have a common design.

Cladistics is a method of catergorizing organisms based on shared characteristics. Each clade allegedly consists of a common ancestor and all of its descendents. However we can also say that each clade consists of a common design and all its descendents. All cars are descended from the originally created cars- descended by design. All computers are descended, by design, from the originally created computers. The closer the ancestry the more similarities.

And so it would go for living organisms.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Is DNA Analogous to a blueprint or a Computer Program?

No, I don't think so but plenty of evolutionists did/do:

DNA: Blueprint of Life

Heck just do a google search and you will get mixed reviews.

 How about DNA and a computer program? Maybe some people do, but I don't. DNA is part of the system. It, along with mRNA, seems to act pretty much like the 1s and 0s on a computer bus- that is the analogy. The ribosome is a genetic compiler- that isn't an analogy. The genetic code is a code- that is not an analogy.

Cells are and contain automated assembly factories- observation.

The rotary motor of bacterial flagellum - observation.

The point? EvoTARDs get all wound up over the use of analogies and what they think are metaphors. Most of the belligerent anti-IDists will claim they don't over design at all in biology and the analogies and alleged metaphors get their panties in a knot so every now and then they have to make sure people know what's what.

Unfortunately, for the evoTARDs, we use the language we do because it is what it is. And it doesn't matter what you call it, blind watchmaker evolution can't explain it.