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

Friday, April 18, 2014

Kevin R, McCarthy- Still a Lying Little Bitch

Kevin you are just a piece of shit liar. Is that really the best you can do?

Kevin spews:

 One of the ID proponents that I deal with fairly often has now jumped the shark. He has claimed that because science can’t prove that mutations are 100% totally random, then Intelligent Design is the only viable explanation for how mutations happen.
Although he doesn't say it I am sure he is referring to me. Too bad for Kevin he is lying. All I did was ask what the methodology was that determined that all mutations are chance events. No one can say except for they look that way to them.

I never said that since no one knows then ID- NEVER. Kevin is a little faggot liar. Well he has to lie to make himself feel important.

But anyway- in 1997 "Not By Chance" was published and it discussed the non-random nature of many types of mutations. And recently "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" was published listing many types of non-random mutations. These are mutations that are guided by the organism. For example search for "SOS response"- it is one type of guided mutations and there are many more. Our immune system is a perfect example of guided mutations.

Transposons carry within their sequence the coding for two of the enzymes required for them to move around. Without them they wouldn't be transposons. I would love to see Kevin model how unguided evolution produced them.

Ya see THAT is the whole problem- Kevin's position is not science regardless of how much he whines. It doesn't have a testable model. It doesn't have any supporting math. And it is totally useless as a research heuristic.

So the ONLY answer that can be given to the question "are mutations random?" is we do not know. And the only way to say they are is to demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter and energy via unguided processes. Yup the OoL is the key because if living organisms were designed then it is a given they were designed to evolve and evolved by design.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Welcome to New England!

Yeah baby- open windows, shorts, t-shirts and sandals on Monday to burning wood,  boots, overcoats, jeans and 1+" of snow on Wednesday! From pushing 70 degrees to 22 degrees. You just gotta love it!

But hey I had bags of wood pellets to burn.

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.