David Kellogg- Still Choking on the Big One

-
Ove on OgreMKV's blog David chimes in with:

The key equivocation in all the definitions that come from the IDC community is the word certain: “certain structures,” “certain features of the universe and of living things,” “certain natural phenomena.” This word allows IDC to be infinitely elastic and to reduce its claims when handy: you can think everything evolved naturally ever except for, say, human self-awareness, and IDC will claim you for one of their own.

But of course ID’s claims are much more than such modest statements suggest. IDC says they can tell, scientifically, which among these “structures” etc. are designed. When it wants to, as in the definitions above, IDC will say all we’re doing is applying existing methods to natural pheneomena — what’s the big deal? Meanwhile it defines evolution as being incredibly arrogant, creating a strawman version of what evolution means (and — in case kairosfocus is reading — adding a little ad hominem, a few red herrings, and a lit match).

The equivocation is all dave's as IDC only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Methinks Dave doesn't understand the word equivocation. Intelligent Design does not say that everything is designed and IDists tell you what those certain features are.

And yes we say we can determine what is and isn't designed. and guess what? to refute any claim of design all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate necessity and chance are all that is required. Shit the explanatory filter mandates that your position be given first crack at a solution.

And finally Dave accuses us of creating a strawman version of what evolution means- and again without any evidence to support the claim.

So how about it Hermy? What strawman have we created? Please be specific.

Ogre MKV Opening Post- ID is anti-evolution

-
ID is anti-evolution: (apologies for the formatting)


Prologue

Before I get started, let me thank JoeG for participating in this formal debate. I seriously doubt anything will change because of this, but it could be fun. The topic selected (by JoeG) is either the absolute worst topic to debate or the absolute best topic to debate, depending on what you think the purpose of the debate is.

Personally, I would prefer to be able to present data and facts and compare them with other data and facts and get an actual, logical, testable answer. But things like that are strangely absent from anything involving Intelligent Design. On the other hand, this is a great topic for debate, because a real answer simply cannot exist. This gives one a clue about the nature of one side of the argument. In this article, you will see which side it is.


Introduction

Intelligent Design is anti-evolution. That seems like such an innocuous statement. It should be easy to look at what ID is, what it says, and then decide whether it’s anti-evolution or not. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. You see, there is no real, formal, consistent definition of what Intelligent Design really is. So we need start there.

Intelligent Design proponents are quite skilled in modifying, editing, or changing the definition of ID that they are using quickly and subtly in order to avoid being caught out by cold, hard facts. I have personally heard ID described as the designer created the universe and everything in it uniquely, the designer only creates new novel forms of life, the designer only creates things (living and non-) that are complex, and many variations of those three.

And with all due respect to my opponent, he is not a published ID proponent. He is not a strategist with the Discovery Institute. He is not the voice of ID or a leading proponent of ID. He is a loud guy with a blog. That’s it. So his opinion on ID is just that, his opinion.

My opponent’s responsibility here is to show that a single coherent and consistent definition of Intelligent Design exists. If he doesn’t do that, then anything else he says is useless because it may or may not apply to what Intelligent Design actually is. Once that single coherent, consistent definition of Intelligent Design exists, then and only then can a discussion about whether it is anti- or pro- anything can begin.

I submit that, while no formal definition exists, all of the existing definitions and concepts cannot help but lead a rational person to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.

Printed Definitions

Some say Intelligent Design is a scientific theory of origins. Some say that it’s an unscientific farce. All we know is… well, no one really knows what ID is. Including the people who promote it.

The proposition before us is, “Intelligent Design is anti-evolution”. Before we really get started, let’s make sure we all know what ‘anti-‘ means.

anti- (prefix)

1.against; opposing: anticlerical ; antisocial
2.opposite to: anticlimax ; antimere
3.rival; false: antipope
4.counteracting, inhibiting, or neutralizing: antifreeze ; antihistamine
5.designating the antiparticle of the particle specified: antineutron


I think it’s safe to dismiss the latter two definitions as specific meanings that don’t really apply in this case. However, the first three definitions are all valid uses and, more importantly, they ALL apply in the fact that ID is anti-evolution. ID opposes and is against evolution. ID is the opposite of evolution. ID is a rival to evolution.

What really fun about all this is I will not undertake to define evolution (as my opponent desperately wants me to, so he can attack that). I will use only the words and statements of the proponents of Intelligent Design. They are the ones who lead the movement. They are the ones who cannot decide on a definition of Intelligent Design or even what ID is supposed to say, do, or be.

Something to watch for is how my opponent defines Intelligent Design and what it is supposed to do. With my predictive powers given to me by logic and knowledge of my opponent, I know what definition he shall use and I shall show now, why that definition of ID is at odds with the rest of the ID movement.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

(my underline, everything else is original) Wait, I thought ID wasn’t anti-evolution. Natural selection is a part of evolution. Most would say that it’s a major part of any evolutionary theory. Yet, Intelligent Design, as found on Uncommon Descent (a blog “Serving the Intelligent Design Community”), is defined as being the opposite of or opposing natural selection. Hmmm… I could stop there. But that wouldn’t be as much fun.

Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. Intelligent design can also be viewed as the Science of design detection applied to natural phenomena.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf

(my underline, everything else original) This is the definition from the Intelligent Design Network, a group that “seeks institutional objectivity in origins science”. Well, that “disagreement with and a falsifying hypothesis for [evolution]” is pretty strong language. In fact, that is number 1 in our definition of ‘anti-‘. If ID is true, then ‘Chemical and Darwinian Evolution’ isn’t true. That’s what falsifying means. If X, then not Y.

Well, those are two groups in the blogosphere regarding Intelligent Design. Uncommon Descent used to be owned by William Dembski, so I’m guessing that what is written there was approved by him at some point.

Before we talk with the actual leaders of the movement, let’s look at one other thing. Of Pandas and People is the supplemental textbook that Intelligent Design proponents wanted to have kids use in Dover,Delaware. What does it say about Intelligent Design?

Q. Could you go, Matt, to P-652? And this is another draft of [Of] Pandas [and People] with copyright 1987?

A. Yes.

Q. And Matt, could you pull up the definition and the highlighted text there? That’s changed now, hasn’t it?

A. Yes, there is a change.

Q. Could you read the text of this definition section?

A. “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Barbara Forrest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889

This is taken directly from the transcript of the Dover/Kitzmiller trial. In this section of testimony, Dr. Barbara Forrest is reading the definition of Intelligent Design from a draft of the book.

Since parts of evolutionary theory states that life did not begin abruptly and that distinctive features were not intact when a new species was specially created (indeed that no new species were specially created), then this flies in the face of evolution. It is the opposite of what evolution claims. I don’t even think Joe would agree that any version of evolution supports sudden creation and features already intact.

The Leaders of the ID Movement’s Comments About ID

With very few exceptions, the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement are fellows at or employed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. These notables include Dr. William Dembski, who has updated Paley’s work of 200 years ago with modern, science sounding words and some truly abominable math (which no one understands, can explain, or use (see here for this hilarious story). Dr. Michael Behe was once a real scientist with a real career. He stopped doing that to start writing books about Intelligent Design. He’s written very few papers since 1996s Darwin’s Black Box and only one of them is ‘new’ research, but there are no experiments, no data, no nothing in anything he’s written. Also Dr. Jonathon Wells, who got a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology for the sole purpose of defeating Darwism. These are, along with Stephen Meyer (VP and senior fellow at CSC), the leading lights of the ID movement.

Now, let’s look at what the actual leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have to say about ID.

The theory of intelligent design, as I understand, you’re not inquiring, but we endorse that decision as a policy decision. Also, is an historical scientific theory that raises larger philosophical implications, so the two are equivalent in that respect, and they are, in fact, with respect to their attempts to explain the appearance of design in biological systems, they are competitor hypotheses.

Stephen Meyer – Kansas Evolution Hearings (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html#p3494) (my underline)

This is from Stephen Meyer’s testimony at the so-called ‘Kansas Evolution Hearings’. Note the underlined statement. “…they [evolution and ID] are competitor hypotheses.” That fits definition 3 of “anti-“.

On the other hand, for example, intelligent design, it’s not the only opponent, by the way, of Darwinian evolution.

Stephen Meyer – Kansas Evolution Hearings (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html#p3494)

Here Dr. Meyer is saying that ID is not only an “opponent” of evolution, it’s not the only opponent.

What about Michael Behe? What does he have to say?

Q That’s part of the argument for intelligent design, isn’t it?

A That’s a part of the argument to show that there is no other plausible explanation for what we perceive to be as design.

Q Which is part of the argument for intelligent design, correct?

A Yes.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

From here we learn that part of the argument for Intelligent Design is that there is no other plausible explanation for what is perceived to be design. So, evolution does not have an explanation for what is perceived to be design. This is not true.

Even if we leave aside the truth of either claim (evolution or ID), the point that Behe is making is that one of the two must be correct and one of the two must be wrong. ID says things are designed. Evolution says they are not. It’s that simple. Since things cannot be both designed and evolved, then ID is anti-evolution.

Q Behe says, intelligent design makes no claim about common descent.

A Yes.

Q Pandas says, intelligent design questions the Darwinian notion of common descent. Those are the same thing to you?

A I see this as part of an argument. The — as I try to make clear in my testimony, intelligent design is seen in the purposeful arrangement of parts, and that is the positive argument for intelligent design. But also, a part of the task of somebody who holds that view is to try to answer other views which claim to — which claim to explain what intelligent design purports to explain.

And one of those is to show where the other theory has problems. And I view this as part of that kind of negative argument that, that while — that while — that while intelligent design can live with what data we have, this seems to be a problem for the current theory, as a number of paleontologists have said. And they ve tried to — they ve tried to fix it up, and they propose these explanations, and perhaps they’re right, but maybe that’s not correct. And if it’s not correct, well then this other theory, this rival theory is — is — has some difficulties, but that intelligent design does not. So I see it as part of a negative argument against a rival to intelligent design.

Q And it’s a negative argument against the part of that argument called common descent, correct?

A That’s correct, just as my argument was an argument against natural selection. And when people make claims for natural selection, I have to show why that is a poor explanation for what we see.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html

So, here, Michael Behe is saying (under oath, in a court of law) that ID is an argument against common descent. There you go, no problem with that.

I’d like to add here, that JoeG follows Behe’s definition of Intelligent Design. This definition basically only covers complex (whatever that is) organic systems. It does not seem to include the construction of the universe or other non-living systems.

This last is actually very interesting. Based on this, ID has multiple definitions. Yet, evolution is not allowed to have multiple definitions (i.e. a fact AND a theory, historical AND predictive, experimental AND observational), but ID is allowed to do this. Interesting double standard there.

Unfortunately, Behe isn’t really our best choice for this. Despite being a fellow at the Discovery Institute and writing several books on the subject, he can’t even keep a straight definition of ID. Check the underlined parts of these two statements from the Dover trial:

Q If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text.

You say, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Correct?

A That is correct, yes.

Q That’s consistent with your testimony today.

A Yes, it is.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html

Followed by

Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?

A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

So, while ID focuses on the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose, there is no actual mechanism. Got that, thanks Michael. BTW: I thought I would include this since my opponent (if he has any sense at all) will bring it up.

Q. So when you hear a claim that intelligent design is anti-evolution, are those accurate?

A. No, they are completely inaccurate.

… [snip about 10 sentences, link to original is below]

Q. Again so does intelligent design question all parts ofDarwin’s theory of evolution?

A. No. It focuses exclusively on the question of the mechanism of evolution, and I tried to make that clear as this picture shows. This is an issue of something called the reports of theNationalCenter for Science Education, which is a group which strongly advocates for the teaching of Darwinian evolution in school, and I wrote a letter to the editor of The Reports, which was published in an issue approximately four years ago.

And here’s an excerpt from that letter where I explain, “The core claim of intelligent design theory is quite limited. It says nothing directly about how biological design was produced, who the designer was, whether there has been common descent, or other such questions. Those can be addressed separately.” It says, “Only that design can be empirically detected in observable features of physical systems.”

And I go on to say, “As an important corollary it also predicts that mindless processes such as natural selection or the self-organization scenarios favored by Shanks and Joplin will not be demonstrated to be able to produce irreducible systems of the complexity found in cells.” So I tried to clearly explain that the only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution, or the question of whether or not aspects of life show the marks of intelligent design.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10pm.html

So, Michael says ID is not anti-evolution, yet a mere double handful of sentences later he states that “the only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution”. So, if the mechanism for evolution is correct, then ID is wrong. If the mechanism for ID is correct, then necessarily, the mechanism (which is most of evolution) is wrong.

William Dembski agrees with Behe here:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000152;p=3

Whoops… OK guys, which is it. Behe testified on an oath that he would tell the truth that ID is a mechanistic theory. Then Dembski, who, for all practical purposes, invented the modern ID, says it’s not mechanistic. Which is it? BTW: Dembski bailed out on the Dover trial.

Of, course we must remember that Behe had some serious difficulties with his testimony. He doesn’t even know if ID is about the mechanism or not or if there even is one or not. And he’s JoeG’s best argument that ID is not anti-evolution.

Let’s see what all these leading lights of ID came up with they decided to write a mission plan.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge Document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) (my emphasis)

So, ID theory, as its central purpose to replace science with Christianity. So, if evolution is science, then they want it replaced with Christian and theistic science. That sounds pretty anti-evolution to me. And all of these guys signed on to this statement.

Now, my erstwhile opponent will immediately bring up the publication from the Discovery Institute that followed the Wedge Document. So, I’ll bring it up first and show, that it really doesn’t matter to the point we’re arguing here. Here’s what that document says.

In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (since named the Center for Science and Culture-CSC). Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scienctists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories of origins, and to support those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design;

Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism-the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone.

The Center for Science and Culture is not attacking science or the scientific method. It is challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism and the false scientific theories that support it (more on this below),

But suffice to say that the theories that have supported scientific materialism are increasingly and demonstrably bankrupt.

The Wedge Document – So What (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349)

Note that the underlined statements cover everything in the known universe. And therefore includes the principles of evolutionary theory, which are based on methods, mechanisms, and materials that exist solely within this universe. Of course this also applies to every other science or even existence of things.

If you have made it this far, then congratulations. You have seen that even when the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that ID is not anti-evolution, they really don’t mean it or the contradict themselves later.

I haven’t talked about Demsbki yet. He’s a signatory to the Wedge Document. He used to own and run uncommondescent.com and he, for all intents and purposes, invented the modern version of intelligent design (borrowing heavily from Paley). What he says simply crushes the idea that Intelligent Design it not anti-evolution. Here are three quotes that should explain his thoughts on the matter completely.

“The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999.

and

“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.”

- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology,Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

and

“The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ,” Dembski said. “And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view…. It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”

William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002. (my underlining in all)

There you go, from Dembski himself. Any science that is not based in Christ is wrong. Intelligent Design is based on Christ and evolution is not. Therefore ID is anti-evolution in the most fundamental sense. Indeed, ID is anti-science.

I’ll bring up one last quote. This one is from my opponent (JoeG) himself:

Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=1800#entry183930

So, Joe needs to explain why, if ID is not anti-evolution, then all it takes to refute ID is to provide positive evidence of evolution. Almost as if they were competing or opposite hypotheses or something.

Finally, I know that JoeG will use the same sources I used (Meyer, Behe, Demsbki) to show that ID is not anti-evolution. However, if he does so, he will introduce a major problem for his entire conceptual framework.

If he says that those people say that ID is not anti-evolution and I used the same people to show that it is, then what is ID really? What’s the point of having a ‘theory’ (in the loosest sense of the word) that can be both anti-something and not anti-something? The theory in question might as well not even exist for the good it does.

It would also show that, as seen in Behe’s testimony that I copied, the proponents of ID will say ANYTHING if they think it gets them out of a pickle. They claim that ID is science, then they claim it’s religion. They claim it’s OK with common descent, and then they claim it’s not OK with common descent. I could go on.

Even the leaders of the ID movement don’t have a coherent, consistent statement about what Intelligent Design is. JoeG has his own idea about what it is, which is completely different from what other pro-ID bloggers say (read Uncommondescent.com comment threads). Dembski says one thing, Behe says something else, and then Meyer says something completely different.

Unless my opponent can present a clear picture of what ID really is, taking into account everything he states and everything I’ve quoted, then there can be no further resolution. ID is logically inconsistent by being both anti-evolution and non anti-evolution.

Since ID, in principle, is a process that determines how organisms came to be, then it is direct competition with its rival, evolution. Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- The Debate Begins

-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.

Ogre MKV falls into the latter group. He has banned me from his blog for correcting his blatant misrepresentations of Intelligent Design. Yet now he has agreed to debate a few issues. The first issue we will debate is the question- “Is Intelligent Design anti-evolution?”- Ogre obviously will take the affirmative- just as he has announced.

I welcome this exchange because every other time I have tried to talk about this- that ID is not anti-evolution- all I got was "It is too!" type of arguments thrown back at me-> even though I presented the evidence that supports my claim. So this will be a first for me- that is someone actually trying to support the claim that ID is anti-evolution. It will be interesting to see what evidence he provides to support his claim.

With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.

Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)

With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.

Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.

However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.

They go on to say:

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.

Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- 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. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”.

Another $64,000 Question

-
All this talk about information- specified and not- has me searching for an answer to the question:

How many nucleotides can necessity and chance string together? That is given a test tube, flask or vat of nucleotides, plus some UV, heat, cold, lightning, etc., what can come of that?

Has anyone tried to do such a thing?

Afte Lincoln and Joyce published the paper on the sustained replication- Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme, there was an article in Scientific American with one of them (Joyce?)- seems to think that 35 is highly unlikely.

And for another $64,000:

How many amino acids can necessity and chance string together?

Complex Specified Information

-
Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:

Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.

The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).

RichTard Hughes- Proving He has Absolutely No Clue

-
In the thread "Nostril Moving Gene" David Kellogg tried to accuse me of instigating name-calling, to which I responded that I don't in 99.9% of my opponents.

So what does RichTard Hughes chime in with?

Here's case of Islamic creationoist Joe/ Jim ? John instigating:

"That tells me that you are a fucking ignorant blow-hole."

1/1000 is teh wrong number, so Joe / Jim / John is lying (again)

The ignorance of this fuck is astounding! Look at what I was responding to (note the person also):

Thorton:
LOL! Getting desperate now JoeTard, are we?

Posting a speculative article from a wingnut Panspermia pusher. Yep, ID is all about the science, all the time.

Thorton, who can only attack, insult and instigate!

But anyway, thanks RichTard/ bathroom stall boy- thanks for proving that you are a totally clueless loser and pathological liar.

"Nostril moving gene"?

-
Jerry Coyne wrote a blog dissing Dr Lynn Margulis for allegedly dissing evolution. In the blog Jerry said:

A gene moving the nostrils of an ancestral whale atop its head, so that they become a blowhole enabling it to breathe while partly submerged, will become fixed.

I have seen beavers and pinnipeds stay mostly submerged and breathe through nostrils at the end of their snouts. Ever watch alligators and crocs swimming? How about when they just float with only their nostrils, located at the tip of their snout, exposed?

But anyway, what is this gene? Do pinnipeds and beavers have it but just in a different configuration? What about hippos?

The point is we should be able to take one of those embryos and mutate the gene to see if we can get it to develop a blowhole at the top of its head.

OR take a cetacean embryo and try to move it back to the tip of the snout.

In a related note:

Is Sustained Macroevolutionary Progress Possible?:

Microevolutionary change has been demonstrated with closed-system biological experiments (Papadopoulos) and in computer models (Ray). Sustained macroevolutionary progress (SMP) that can lead from prokaryotes to people has not. In 1988, Ernst Mayr wrote, "Unfortunately, the genetics of microevolutionary processes has been unable to provide a full explanation of macroevolution." Today, a score of sequenced genomes later, W. Ford Doolittle observes, "Many eukaryotic genes ...seem to have come from nowhere."

Two recent insights point to a new possible explanation for the apparent SMP on Earth. The first insight is that microorganisms from space may have seeded life on Earth; the second is that horizontal gene transfer plays a major role in evolution. The new possible explanation is "strong panspermia," according to which microorganisms from space provide the new genes necessary for SMP on Earth. Thus, if the planet is an open biological system, perhaps what we call macroevolutionary progress is actually the incremental development of pre-existing, highly evolved cosmic life.

Strong panspermia accords well with several phenomena that have troubled standard Darwinism, including life’s rapid start on Earth, punctuated equilibrium, convergent evolution, the ubiquity of certain master control genes, and the fact that many genes appear older, by sequence analysis, than they should be according to the fossil record.

But when pursued to its logical conclusion, the theory conflicts with most versions of the Big Bang and with customary Western thought, which hold that life cannot simply descend from prior life, highly evolved or not, ad infinitum. However, until SMP is demonstrated, this objection is overburdened.

If SMP is possible, closed-system experiments should be able to demonstrate it. Success in biological experiments would be decisive, but computer models should be able to get results faster. A positive result would give the existing paradigm much-needed confirmation. Of course, before results could be interpreted, a way to measure and verify SMP would have to be established — a worthy task in itself.

But if SMP is not possible, we would not have to abandon science altogether, as participants on both sides in the "darwinism versus creationism" debate suggest. Instead, in a role reversal, cosmology would have to accommodate a fundamental biological principle.

The issue is important. Let’s conduct experiments to learn if SMP is possible.

Time and loss of function mutations just ain't going to "get 'er done"...

OgreMKV has Agreed to Debate

-
Ogre Battle (a little "Queen" trivia)

A challenge to a debate has been made an accepted.

My opponent in this debate will be JoeG.

The proposition is Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution

I will be speaking in support and JoeG will be speaking against.

There will be an opening statement of about 4500 words max. A single rebuttal round of less than 2000 words and a closing statement of about 500 words. All statements will be co-located on my and JoeGs blogs.

There will be approximately one week between posts (Opening statements are due next Friday April 29th).

This post will be updated with links to the relevant entries on both blogs as they become available.

I will post my opening next Friday morning.

Calling out an Ignorant Ogre, AKA Kevin R McCarthy

-
I just posted the following on Kevin's blog:

Hi Kevin,

I am calling you out.

I will debate you- I take the side ID is not anti-evolution and you take the position you spew that ID is anti-evolution

I take the side that the theory of evolution posits the processes are blind, mindless and undirected, ie accumulating genetic accidents. You support whatever it is you think the theory posits.

And finally I will take the position that ID is the best explanation for what we observe and you take whatever position you think best explains the evidence.

My prediction is you will not accept. But if you do then we start with the first, hash that out and move on to the next.



THIS JUST IN- KEVIN HAS ACCEPTED AND THE FIRST POSTS WILL BE DUE BY APRIL 29 AND I CAN HARDLY WAIT TO SEE KEVIN'S MADE-UP DEFINITION OF "EVOLUTION" THAT PRECLUDES INTELLIGENTDESIGN EOLUTION.

Intelligent Design and the Fossil Record (unofficial)

-
lkeithlu/KL wants ID to explain the fossil record- specifically the hominids:

If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.

So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.

Once AGAIN- Intelligent Design is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry- here are my references:

From the Intelligent Design authorities it is clear that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
Response to "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.

And:

ID precludes neither neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations tha material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

Also, as I have said, fossils can't say anything about a mechanism. All fossils tell us is such an organism once existed.

I don't have any complaints about any measurements of any fossil length, width, articulations. I have no doubt paleos do an excellent job. That said any pattern of fossils can be due to patternicity- nice of KL/lkeithlu to keep ignoring that part of my responses to her.

With that in mind, Intelligent Design, that is the design inference, is not based on fossils.

I would say it is more important to figure out the genetics, the biological part. Figure that out-> figure out what makes an organism what it is first. Then figure out if genomic changes are sufficient/ capable of creating the changes required.

We have 35 million years of fruit fly evolution that has produced many new essential genes. Yet the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

Chimps and humans diverged some 4-7 million years ago. IOW you need some evidence for a mechanism that can produce the changes required and in that amount of time, ie generations.

And that is most likely what my friends were trying to tell you.

Addled Tards Behaving Cowardly

-
EvoTards are so freaking predictable and clueless.

case 1- Robin the clueless:

What is it with Joe and the "blind watchmaker"? It seems every time I turn around, Joe has changed a subject or discussion somewhere to focus on some "blind watchmaker theory".

Well, ole ignorant one, had you been paying attention of the blind watchmaker thesis I provided the definition and "Doveton" said it was the definition of the theory of evolution.

That tells me that you are a fucking ignorant blow-hole.

Heck we have been down the road of genetic accidents- I made and supported the claim and you choked up something but never supported it.

Go figure.

And just below Robin's post we have Ogre MKV aka, Kevin R McCarthy exposing his ignorance with:

It's his totem or something. He can't argue against actual evolutionary theory so he's made one up based on the blind watchmaker and that everything dealing with evolution is chance.

Again Doveton said what I am talking about with the blind watchmaker is the theory of evolution! And Richard Dawkins agrees. Strange, that.

The sad part is neither of these two asswipes can present anything that refutes what I claim!

But anyway, sticking with McCarthy- he tries to call me out:

I would suggest the following topics of discussion:

Intelligent Design cannot distinguish between an Intelligent Designer and a non-intelligent source of complexity. (I'm for, you would be against)

Intelligent Design's predictions have been accurate with regards to scientific discoveries. (You are for this, I would be against.)

Your first topic is a strawman- as I have told you several times now. And your second topic is useless unless you have to post your position's predictions so we can compare.

You want to debate? The topic would be your position- ie non-telic- against mine- telic. But before that you would have to demonstrate some understanding of evidence, which from your blog posts, you clearly don't. So the debate is a non-starter.

And what is the point? You banned me from your blog because I exposed you for the fucking liar you are. All you will do is continue to deny everything I post about ID and all that refutes your bullshit.

Electricity and Water

-
Recently on Uncommon Descent a few evotards have attacked me for saying that electricity "hates" water

Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conductor and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

(note the word hates is in "")

That quote can be found here and more recently here.

Now, years later, the evotardgasms are starting to fly over that. So to support my claim I posted the following link:

Water and Electricty Don't Mix

Does that help? Nope. The evotardgasms keep coming as in "we use water to make electricty. why would something that hates electricty be used to make it?"

Actually it's the FLOW of water, not just the water itself, that is used to make electricty. One form of energy transformed into another.

And if we want to get technical then water isn't the conductor people make it out to be. It is the dissolved minerals and gasses in the water that do the conducting trick. Purified water isn't a good conductor at all.

Evolution is Directed? The World According to EvoTards

-
Yup, evotards think that evolution is directed- directed by selection.

Kevin R McCarthy sez:

OK, that’s two encyclopedias and two universities. I see nothing about ‘undirected’ or ‘unintelligent natural process’.

Do you want to know why ‘undirected’ isn’t in there, it’s because evolution is directed. But not in the way people think about ‘directed’. There isn’t an “Intelligent Designer” saying ‘go forth and subdue the Earth’.

The direction comes from selection. And for almost the entire history of the Earth, there was no intelligence to select.

Yet with nature the "direction" is whatever survives and reproduces.

Look at the simpleton's "explanation":

Look at it this way, you have two organisms that are quite similar. However, there is some subtle difference. One of the organisms dies, the other survives and reproduces. That difference has been selected, not by an intelligent agent, but by the environment that the organisms inhabit.

Laughable- but anyway- The question is about the ARRIVAL of those two organisms. Organisms survive for various reasons, not all have to do with heritable changes.

So whatever survives and reproduces is now a direction. Stasis is a freaking "direction".

38 Nobel Laureates say:

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Natural selection is said to be blind and mindless. Just what direction is a blind, mindless, unguided and unplanned process going to produce?

EvoTards will just say anything...


Can evolution make things less complicated?

Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.

“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

The direction of evolution? Every which way including loose...

See also Wobbling Stability

Equivocation and Evolution Revisited Revisited Again

-
Seeing that evotards are so dishonest and obtuse they keep parroting the same ole refuted nonsense it is time to revisit this post:

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.

With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.

For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.

It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.




* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

cont-

In October 2007 I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.

This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.

1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.

2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance

And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.


Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.


Let the evotard flailing begin...

MathGrrl, Still Proud of Her CSI WillFul Ignorance

-
MathGrrl is still spewing her ignorance of CSI.

I have provided quotes from Dembski and other IDists proving that CSI pertains to origins and she prattles on as if I didn't provide them.

I said:

"Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something."

MathGrrl responded with:

That appears to be your own idiosyncratic view, not shared by many, if any, other ID proponents.

Yet Dembski's book, "No Free Lunch" makes it very clear that CSI pertains to origins. But MathGrrl still refuses to read the book, meaning hers is an "argument" from willful ignorance.

MathGrrl is sadly pathetic.

What Complex Specified Informations have been calculated?

-
It never fails. Bring up complex specified information- something that humans use and depend on every day- and evotards start convulsing and spewing evotardgasms.

The latest is from RichTard Hughes who asked:

What CSIs have you, calculated Joe / Jim / John Paul?

What Complex Specified Informations have you, calculated Joe / Jim / John Paul??????

Rich, you are the missing link between being totally brain dead and having the "intelligence" of a rock.

Of Information and EvoTard (Thorton, aka TardTard) math

-
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, I give you Thorton, the amazing EvoTard and its incredible math/ information formulation:

tardtard had sed:

I start with a gene of length 32 base pairs. I give it to IDCer One and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs as 5 bits

The gene then undergoes a duplication event to length 64 base pairs. I give it to IDCer Two and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs. He gets a CSI value of 6 bits, or one bit larger than IDCer One's case.

I didn't understand that as each nucleotide = 2 bits. 4 possible nucleotides = 2^2 = 2 bits. So, to me, a gene with 32 base pairs would have the information carrying capacity of 64 bits.

Back to tardtard. So I asked it about its math. tardtard responded with:

2^5 = 32, 2^6=64

That is so wrong it is pathetic. tardtard is proud to be an ignorant piece of shit liar.

So according to thorton if I have 32 bits of information and someone gives me 32 more bits of information, I only have 6 bits of information.

Thanks for the continued entertainment thorton. Now I understand why you won't support your position.

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Again

-
"Evolution" can mean several different things:

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.

[Eugenie]Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." -Dr Behe

Intelligent Design is OK with the first 5 definitions of "evolution". ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. The main reason is that there isn't any way to test the premise, which leads to a complete lack of supporting evidence.

(EvoTards are adherents to definition #6)

Complexity Without Intelligence? Or an Ogre Without Intelligence?

-
Kevin McCarthy tries to refute Intelligent Design by tryimng to show how complexity can arise without intelligence- see Tales From an Ignorant Ogre

He starts with a lie-

Intelligent Design proponents suggest that complexity cannot exist without intelligence.

IDists say that mere complexity can arise without intelligence. Dembski and Meyer write extensively about this.

Then he starts offering examples:

Our first example comes from the field of electrical engineering.
Dr. Adrian Thompson, in 1997, wanted to develop a system that could distinguish between the spoken words ‘stop’ and ‘go’ using a field programmable gate array. A FPGA is a network of logic systems that can be programmed to resemble any logic circuit. So, Thompson wrote an evolvable program to program the logic array.
After 3000 generations, the evolving program had developed a FPGA that could successfully distinguish between the spoken words ‘stop’ and ‘go’ using only 37 logic gates. This was considered impossible by human engineers.
What’s truly fascinating about this example, is that, as far as I’m aware, humans still cannot understand how the FPGA voice circuit works. There are 5 logic gates that aren’t even connected to the input/output circuit, but if power is removed from those five, the circuit won’t work.

Let’s see, a FPGA is an engineered, ie designed, device.- designed by an intelligent agency. The program is a targeted search written by an intelligent agency.

How is that complexity without intelligence?

His next example doesn't fair any better although it is an example of what nature, operating freely can produce:

Natural Bridges are also known as stone arches. We all know that these are developed by natural forces. We can observe the various stages of them right now. We can tell the difference between an arch developed by wind erosion and wave erosion. These can be actual functional bridges as three of them have roads built on them. One in Romania is even a daily use road.
So these structures are specified, complex, and, in fact, irreducibly complex… yet completely natural.

How is Kevin defining “complex”? His use of the word seems to be arbitrary. Methinks he is lying again.

And lastly Kevin brings up termite mounds. Termites are designing agencies. They can manipulate their environment for their purpose.

Kevin winds down with another lie:

When referring to genetic algorithms, ID proponents always say that the final result was ‘inserted’ into the code.

Unfortunately Kevin doesn’t provide a reference, which tells me he is lying.

This is why asshole evotards cannot afford to have ID taught in schools- it will expose them as liars and losers.

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, is a True Believer

-
Kevin's recent post On the Tactics of the True Believer must be about him and other evotards.

1- Assertions with No Evidence

That fits evotards.

2- Quotemining aka cherrypicking

Another evotard tactic and one used by MathGrrl about CSI.

3- Inconsistency

Lies usually lead to inconsistency and evotards lie all the time

4- Failure to Consider the Next Logical Step

EvoTards and logic are like oil and water.

5- Fails to Answer Difficult Questions

EvoTards fail to support their position with positive evidence. Part of the reason ID persists is the failure of evos to support their position- go figure.

6- Failure to cite and properly attribute

EvoTards cannot cite what doesn't exist.

7- Debating Tactics, Wordsmithing, and Word Salads

Yup evotards rely heavily on equivocation

8- Logical Fallacies

evotards are full of them like thinking science is a democracy.

9- Both Sides of the Story

evotards refuse to even listen to nor understand what Intelligent design claims. And Kevn R McCarthy still thinks ID is ant-evolution even though I proved it is not.

Why the Theory of Evolution Does NOT Predict "A" Tree of Life

-
That is right- the theory of evolution does not predict a tree of life. Yes I know Darwin hd one and only one diagram in his book and tat was of a tree. Howver, as many evos point out, Darwin is pretty much irrelevant today.

So why doesn't the theory of evolution predict a tree of life? Because it doesn't say anything about the origins of life. The point being is that you only get one tree from one seed- be that one organism or possibly from a population of clones.

If you cannot say anything about the origin of life can you make any valid predictions of what happens after? I say no but Iam willing to hear other people's point(s) of view.

Kevn R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, science teacher, Chokes on Tiktaalik

-
As "evidence" for Common Descent Kevn R. McCarthy posted:

Plus, fossils provide a second back-check on our conclusions. The case of Tiktaalik is a perfect example. Knowledge of the fossil records allowed Dr. Shubin to predict the age and type of rock where a transitional fossil like Tiktallik would be found. If the organism was found, then it should have certain characters based on what we know of both prior and post organisms.

Not only was Tiktaalik found exactly where predicted, the characters of the organism perfectly aligned with evolutionary based prediction.

Yet according to Neil Shubin in his book "Your Inner Fish" he was looking in strata between 385-365 million years old because he thought that tetrapods did not exist before 385 MYA but they did exist after 365 MYA.

Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.

Shubin was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata.

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, science teacher, Ignorant of Genetics

-
In a recent post Kevin sez:

1) Every living thing on the Earth uses the same genetic code. This shouldn’t be in dispute, but it goes farther than you may think. In fact, it’s not even just DNA and RNA. It’s how the DNA and RNA strands are interpreted.

Only the willfully ignorant would say something like that. Not to worry though, I am sure there are other evotards who think the same thing.

As I posted in that thread (it has been deleted):

"You don't have the same genetic code," replied Venter. "In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme..."

Codon UGA codes for "STOP" in us but in Mycoplasma it codes for the amino acid tryptophan. And that is just a start.

But the main problem with a universal genetic code and universal common descent is the theory of evolution is SILENT of origins. Yet both UCD and a UCG need an origins of a single organism/ single population of like organisms. Otherwise you don't get either.

IOW evotards are so freaking stupid they don't even realize that.

Kevn R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, alleged Science Teacher Still Spewing Lies

-
Kevin R. McCarthy is so pathetic. He is now saying thta I have undertaken a stalking campaign against me- that is a lie Kevn. All I am doing is exposing you as the liar and ignorant asshole that you are.

And if you weren't such a liar and ignorant asshole and throwing it around, I wouldn't bother with you. But the fact that you are a liar, and lie about me, ID and science, then it became my issue to deal with. And this is how I will deal with it, by continuing to make sure these posts pop up whenever people search for you.

Now you can try to stop me by taking me to Court but that is what I want. That way I can prove my claims about you and there won't be anything you can do about it but sit there and take it.

BTW I understand why you wouldn't want your real identity exposed. Anyone as stupid as you wants to stay anonymous.

MathGrrl Says The Anti-ID Position is Not Science!

-
This just in MathGrrl admits that her anti-ID position is not science!

She quotes Robert Heinlein:

“If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.”

Well MathGrrl the anti-ID position doesn't have any math, so they don't have those figures.

OM- Still an Ignorant Piece of Shit

-
OM's ignorance knows no bounds. In the Kevin McCarthy/ Natural Selection thread OM called me a liar for saying that we can tell the difference betweem something that was designed and something that nature, operating freely, can produce.

Earth to OM- people do just that on a daily basis. Your ignorance is not a refutation. Your ignorance is entertaining but it is getting a tad boring...

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, alleged science teacher, is a Lying Imbecile

-
Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA, OgreMKV, is a lying lowlife and complete imbecile. And throw in a ton of intellectual cowardice.

This asshole is so wrong about natural selection, dogs, evolution, Intelligent Design and science that it is a wonder he can use a computer.

This lying piece of shit embodies all that is wrong with education.

How does Kevin McCarthy "argue"? By not allowing his opponents to respond. I have corrected him too many times to count and he still insists on posting his bullshit lies.

Kevin hopefully someday a potential employer will do some research, find my blog posts and bring them up during your interview.