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

Thursday, April 14, 2011

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

11 Comments:

  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Grant said…

    It's a generally a bad idea to charge forward into commenting on a scientific subject you (rather clearly) know next to nothing about and then proclaim the experts in the field who don't agree with your half-baked views of what's happening "tards".

    Just a tip.

     
  • At 8:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Grant. Thanks for dropping by.

    It is generally a bad idea to charge forward into commenting with just a bald assertion and false accusation.

    Just a tip.

     
  • At 8:41 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Hi Joe. I'm curious why you keep ignoring the charge that you posted as "John Paul," a "creationist" "Muslim." If that was just a sock puppet, ok. But the evidence strongly suggests that you are both "John Paul" and "ID Guy."

     
  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Speaking of experts:

    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.”


    Now THAT is direction fer ya-> Every which way including loose

    Yeah baby...

     
  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Dave.

    Thanks for your input.

    It's nice to hear from you again.

    Take care.

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Grant said…

    Umm, what "bald assertion" and "false accusation" would that be Joe? I made a fairly simple and obvious observation.

     
  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Grant,

    I am sure you observe pink unicorns too.

    Your bald assertion and false accusation? That I commented on something I know next to nothing about.

    Now go back to stroking your pink unicorn...

     
  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger PTET said…

    Are all 38 of those Nobel Prize laureates "evotards" too?

     
  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That is a possibility.

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Quote: JoeG

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

    How about "Anywhich Way You Can"

     

Post a Comment

<< Home