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, December 30, 2007

Rich Hughes- Moron at Large

In the thread titled Alternative Hypotheses Using the Same Evidence Rich Hughes really shows his true colors and they paint him as a moron.

I had stated:
BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.


To which Rich responded:
I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe.

Did you get that?!!! I ask for physiological and anatomical differences and Rich sez that the “genetic differences is(sic) quite well documented”.

Don’t feel bad Rich, other equally moronic evolutionitwits have made the same idiotic mistake.

Of course that doesn't make you any less of a moron but it does demonstrate that evolutionitwits don't have a clue.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Biological Evolution: What is being debated (again)

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

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 debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were. Just as Carolus Linneaus attempted to do some 200 years ago.

see also The Current Status of Baraminology


With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

Extrapolating from small change

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.


Anyone who sides with universal common descent needs to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. Genetic similarities can also be explained by convergence and a common design. Therefore if genetic similarities are all UCD has then it is clear that common design and convergence are as "scientific" as UCD.

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity...

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Bacteria: All that evolution and still not one flagellum

Bacteria: All that evolution and still not one flagellum:

Fast-Reproducing Microbes Provide a Window on Natural Selection

Nothing like a window with a view. In this case we can view the limitations of culled mutations.

These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold.


Natural selection- whatever survives, survives. Whatever survives and reproduces, survives and reproduces. Whatever reproduces the most, reproduces the most.

Spontaneous mutations. Spontaneous is the new word for "we don't know what the heck is going on".

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Updated

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe


As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution



Observation:

The Universe

Question

Is the universe the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.

3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.

Test:

1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe.

2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability.

3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible.

Potential falsification:

1) Observe that the universe is chaotic.

2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries.

3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally.

Confirmation:

1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.

2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability.

3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein



Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.

Conclusion (scientific inference)

Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design.

Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 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.


My original design hypothesis

Monday, December 17, 2007

Alternative Hypotheses Using the Same Evidence

OK I'm back and I have given some thought to Lenny Flank's hypothesis which was supposed support the anti-ID position of accumulated genetic accidents given rise to the diversity of living organisms- Lenny, and Rich H- who brought the hypothesis to my attention, appear to think that evidence for universal common descent is evidence for a mechanism. Dr Behe made it clear in "The Edge of Evolution" that is not so.

But anyway I took Lenny's proposed hypothesis and used it to support two view-points which are in opposition toi the anti-ID PoV.

Alternative hypotheses using the same evidence:

Designed to evolve hypothesis:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
If Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then they show also share common ERV’s from the time of the ancestor and before
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Journal entry
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Research is ongoing to uncover the pre-programmed genetic algorithm.

Convergence hypothesis- separately Created Baramins converging on similar genetic markers:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Convergence and a common mechanism best explain the observations
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
If Humans and chimps share common ERVs, then they should also share a common mechanism
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Journal entry
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

ERVs insert and subsequently transpose due to a common mechanism- that being similar ERVs will infect similar genomes and subsequent transpositions will end up in the same locations in similar genomes.

What Creationists say about ERVs

Research is ongoing to identify the common mechanism.

The broken vitamin C gene is an indication of convergence. That being that neither chimps nor humans required the internal manufacture of vitamin C once the initial populations started getting enough vitamin C epigenetically- ie through eating foods which contained enough to sustain the individuals in the population..

The chromosome fusion was an act of Creation to genetically isolate the populations.

Research is ongoing to uncover the originally Created Kinds.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Are All Anti-IDists also Intellectual Cowards? It appears that way.

Are all anti-IDists also intellectual cowards? It appears that way. But appearences can be deceiving so I defer to the evidence so that you can make your own decision:

1- Anti-IDists are always quick to disparage Intelligent Design, but when pressed it is obvious they don't even understand the concept. IOW they appear to be too lazy to do any actual research about the subject.

2- When pressed to support their anti-ID position so that we can compare the two, they never do.

3- Instead of staying on-topic in any thread that requests that they support their point-of-view, they hem and haw, beat-around-the-bush, but never do as requested.

4- I have asked, several times now, that the anti-IDists present a testable hypothesis based on their anti-ID position. That is present a testable hypothesis that demonstrates non-telic, ie stochastic, processes can do what they claim. Yet all I get is more nonsense, no substance and definitely no hypothesis.

5- When told that there isn't any data, scientific or otherwise, that demonstrates that the physiological and anatomical differences between land mammals and cetaceans, between chimps and humans, can be accounted for via any of their proposed mechanisms, all I get in return is a vague literature bluff- meaning the answer I get is "It's in the scientific literature. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that support evolution"

However evolution is not being debated. And the data I requested is not in any peer-reviewed journal- yes I have looked. If anyone thinks I am wrong the easiest way to support that claim is to find ONE peer-reviewed artcle that contains the data I requested.

6- When all else fails I get invited over to one of their discussion boards- as if they will be able to do there what they are unable to do here.

The only reason for such an invitation is that there are more monkies waiting in the trees to throw shit at anyone honestly looking for some answers.

The bottom line is their position does not make any predictions based on any non-telic, ie stochastic, process. The position can't be objectively tested.

That is why they will not answer my request. To do so would be to expose their position for what it is- faith trying to be passed off as science.

IOW the anti-IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards.

And all the above is why I will be running for my local school board in the next election. Getting these chumps in Court and forcing them to answer my request will be well worth the effort- that is if the case even goes to court. No one has yet to say anything about my presentations in area schools, so I doubt anything will change once I become a school board member.

The other reason why I want to get elected to a school board is that Lenny Flank once said that he wants to destroy ID as a politacal movement. If Lenny comes up against me he will get steamrolled and it won't be pretty.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Your Attention Please- Blog Comments

Seeing that two "new" posters have arrived and refuse to stay on-topic, I will remind them of my rules:

From this point forward only blog comments that deal with the topic presented in a blog's opening post will be presented*.

The only exceptions may be comments that follow on the heels of remarks made pertaining to the topic that may require clarification.

IOW it is time to scrape the shit from my shoes. And that shit is the off-topic comments that have run rampant on this blog.

Thank you for your cooperation.




*Any comments that expose the dishonesty and/ or stupidity of any anti-IDist or ID critic will be allowed and treated as "on-topic".

Applying the Scientific Method to the anti-ID position

The following is what has been presented as "the scientific method"*:

1-Observe some aspect of the universe
2-Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3-Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4-Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5-Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions”

The question is How can we apply the aforementioned "scientific method" to the anti-ID position?

I will strat it off:

1-We observe that the Earth appears to be unique in that it has and supports complex living organisms. We have also observed other systems and it does appear that our solar system is also unique in that those other systems are not like ours.

Now let's see if any anti-IDists chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.

Don't like cosmology? OK here is one from biology:

1- We observe a diversity of living organisms on this planet. We also observe a diversity in the fossil record.


Now let's see if any anti-IDists will chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.

My prediction- no one will or what will be presented will be absolute nonsense. I say that because it is obvious the anti-IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards. Who like the cowardly monlies they mimic, can only sit up high in their trees and hurl stuff at the people trying to figure out the reality behind our existence.



* for the record I agree with the NCSE supported UBerkley site which states:

There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”


But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”

Thursday, December 06, 2007

The Origin of Life & Evolution- Why the Connection cannot be broken

Evolutionists always insist that the origin of living organisms (OoLO) be held separtae from the theory of evolution. This is nothing but posturing.

The OoLO is directly connected to the theory of evolution in that if living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there wouldn't be any reason to infer the subsequent divesity of living organisms occured solely via stochastic processes.

Therefore when an evolutionist admits we don't know how living organisms arose that evolutionist is also admitting we don't know how the subsequent diversity arose.

IOW evolutionists are very dishonest. But that is already known...

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Science & Faith: Why the anti-ID materialistic position relies on Faith

To make it clear, I am not saying that the anti-ID materialistic position is religious. I don't think that it is because it doesn't involve worship.

However it is obvious that it requires a great deal of faith.

1- As there isn't any data, evidence or observations that demonstrate the laws that govern nature "just are" (that's some explanation for those laws now isn't it!) nor that they could they just come into existence, the anti-ID materialists take that position on faith and faith alone.

2- As there isn't any data, evidence or observations that demonstrate living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes, the anti-ID materialists take that position on faith and faith alone.

3- As there isn't any data, evidence or observations that demonstrate the diversity of living organisms from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms occured via purely stochastic processes, the anti-ID materialists take that position on faith and faith alone.

And believe it or not faith is being passed off as science in schools around the world.