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

Friday, May 27, 2011

"It 'looks like' a transitional"!~ Tiktaalik

-
Saying "it looks designed" isn't good enough to get mainstream scientists to check into that possibility but saying "it looks like a transitional" is all that is required as evidence for universal common descent. Typical double-standard.

"It looks like a transitional" is all evotards have when it comes to Tiktaalik because it was found millions of years AFTER the alleged transition took place.

Unfortunately for the evotard minions they still don't have any genetic evidence that they can use to link to the transformations required for fish to move onto land.

36 Comments:

  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You misunderstand. transitions are identified by sharing common features between two creatures, or features that are clearly an intermediate form of the ancestor and descendant. This is interpolation which can be performed statistically, unlike the design inference. Moreover, it is a positive case (unlike ID which is predicated on something not being able to do something) and is parsimonious (unlike ID which needs to add a new entity, the designer, with magical yet indescribable constructive power).

    Hurrah for real science.

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    You misunderstand. transitions are identified by sharing common features between two creatures, or features that are clearly an intermediate form of the ancestor and descendant.

    Right- "it looks like a transition to me" is your argument.

    The problem is there isn't any genetic data that supports the claim that the transformations required are achievable via accumulations of genetic accidents.

    Rich:
    Moreover, it is a positive case (unlike ID which is predicated on something not being able to do something)

    That is incorrect. All design inferences require that necessity and chance be ruled out PLUS there needs to be positive evidence, such as specification.

    Also it is NOT a positive case for accumulations of genetic accidents- the posited mechanism of the theory of evolution.

    Rich:
    and is parsimonious

    The addition of magical mystery mutations is not parsimonious.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "All design inferences require that necessity and chance be ruled "

    very good, we agree it's a negative case.

    "magical mystery mutations " - that we can observe i a lab, unlike the designer ;-)

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All design inferences require that necessity and chance be ruled out PLUS there needs to be positive evidence, such as specification.

    RichTard the lair:
    very good, we agree it's a negative case.

    Only an imbecile would think the design inference is a negative case.

    "magical mystery mutations "

    RichTard the liar:
    - that we can observe i a lab

    Unfortunately for you you cannot support that claim. You can't even provide evidence for genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful, functional multi-part systems.

    You are full of shit.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Only an imbecile would think the design inference is a negative case."

    No, you can tell by reading your own words, like "..All design inferences require that necessity and chance be ruled". That's a negative case. I'm thinking you don't understand 'negative case' at this point, which isn't surprising.

    "Unfortunately for you you cannot support that claim."

    Lenski. Mutations are an observed and verifiable mechanism for change in biology.

    Thanks for playing.


    If your beef isn't bacteria didn't evolve into a cat in the very short timescale they were observed, well, then, no they didn't.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Only an imbecile would think the design inference is a negative case."

    RichTard the liar:
    No, you can tell by reading your own words

    All design inferences require that necessity and chance be ruled out PLUS there needs to be positive evidence, such as specification.

    Two things- the elimination of necessity and chance PLUS some specification.

    OTOH all your positiion has is shitheads like you.

    Rich:
    Lenski. Mutations are an observed and verifiable mechanism for change in biology.

    Lenski proved baraminology. Not exactly what your position requires. And mutations have never been observed to do what you claim they can.

    You lose.

    Rich:
    If your beef isn't bacteria didn't evolve into a cat

    Not my beef. But they didn't do anything that can be extrapolated to support the claims of your position. Not even close. And throwing time around is not scientific.

    You lose.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Two things- the elimination of necessity and chance PLUS some specification."

    LOL @ THE MORON!

    Because it has the work "plus" doesn't make it a positive case. Thanks for the belly laugh!

    " And throwing time around is not scientific."

    Yes, yes. If we can travel an centimeter in a day it's wholly unsupportable that we could travel kilometers in a millennia...

    JOEFAIL.

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Two things- the elimination of necessity and chance PLUS some specification."

    RichTard the Moron:
    LOL @ THE MORON!

    Laughing at yourself isn't ging to make your case any better.

    Rich:
    Because it has the work "plus" doesn't make it a positive case.

    According to scientists, it does. I will go with what they say.

    Rich:
    If we can travel an centimeter in a day it's wholly unsupportable that we could travel kilometers in a millennia...

    Unfortunately evolution desn't have direction, nor any mechanism that demonstrates it can travel one centimeter.

    Loss of function mutations do not add up as you wish they would.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "According to scientists, it does. I will go with what they say."

    Please cite a scientist who says that "if you have PLUS in a definition, it's a positive case" Go on. Double dare ya.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Blah blah genetic entropy, SLOT negative mutations. And yet GAs work so well, rather than degrade into uselessness. ;-/

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is what they say is a positive case for design:

    "Two things- the elimination of necessity and chance PLUS some specification."

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    And yet GAs work so well, rather than degrade into uselessness

    GAs are DESIGNED you moron.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still waiting for a citation, Joe. Or have you been caught making things up, again?

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Still waiting for a citation, Joe.

    I don't need a citation to prove that you are an obtuse freak. That is obvious with each of your posts.

    So I will repeat:

    This is what they say is a positive case for design:

    "Two things- the elimination of necessity and chance PLUS some specification."

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You got quotation marks, and 'what they say', but no-one actually saying it! Like the designer, I guess it their identity must remain hidden!

    LOLS.

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

    Dude you are lost- YOU bring up parsimony and Occam's razor.

    I take it you have absolutely no clue what that means.

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No red herrings, please Joe.

    Again:

    You got quotation marks, and 'what they say', but no-one actually saying it! Like the designer, I guess it their identity must remain hidden!

    You've been caught making up rubbish again!

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Provide quotes of me suggesting that if a desription contains "PLUS" then it is a positive case. I never have, and infact have laughed at you in this very thread for suggesting such a thing.

    Bonus LOLS:

    What do you think a 'positive case' is?
    What do you think a 'negative case' is?

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No red herrings, please Joe.

    None presented, by me anyway.

    Rich:
    You got quotation marks, and 'what they say', but no-one actually saying it!

    Again what they say is what YOU have been saying you moron- parsimony and Occam's razor- Newton et al.

    Are you really that stupid?

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    oooh - Joe's now deleating his own comments.

    LOL.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It had a spelling error- I caught it after I posted and corrected it- moron

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It had a spelling error- I caught it after I posted and corrected it- moron"

    Wow - well, you've missed a few histoprically - might want to go back.

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Provide quotes of me suggesting that if a desription contains "PLUS" then it is a positive case.

    Again you are lost in your own dementia.

    Obviously you have serious issues and as such it is a waste of time deaing with you.

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Wow - well, you've missed a few histoprically - might want to go back.

    Why? Is it ALL you have to make your "positive" case for your position.

    Gossip queens like you are scientifically illiterate

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you're having a meltdown. seek help.

     
  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So that is why you are a pathetic whining loser?

    Strange, that...

     
  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What do you think a 'positive case' is?
    What do you think a 'negative case' is?

     
  • At 2:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have already been over this.

    Stay on topic, support your position or just stay away and gossip.

     
  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I have already been over this."

    No you haven't - you'e avoiding it, perhaps because you're begging to realise you've been a maroon

    "Stay on topic, support your position or just stay away and gossip."

    Awwww. Are you getting pwned on your blog again? I'm suprised you're not threating me with a meet up again.

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I have already been over this."

    Rich:
    No you haven't - you'e avoiding it,

    That is what all the threads about th EF are about. It is what parsimony, Occam's razor and Newton's first rule ae all about.

    "Stay on topic, support your position or just stay away and gossip."

    Rich:
    Awwww. Are you getting pwned on your blog again?

    Nope, just getting cowards like you who are too afraid to actually support anything and have to erect strawman after strawman and think their ignorance means something.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    That is what all the threads about th EF are about. It is what parsimony, Occam's razor and Newton's first rule ae all about.

    How many threads about the EF will there have to be before you actually demonstrate it or admit it cannot be demonstrated?

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How many threads about the EF will there have to be before you actually demonstrate it or admit it cannot be demonstrated?

    According to Newton et al., it is the process used to determine a cause.

    Stop blaming me for your ignorance.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    According to Newton et al., it is the process used to determine a cause.

    For somebody making claims about Shubin and timelines it's funny how you now claim that Newton knew what Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" was.

    Newton would have laughed Dembski out of the building.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IT IS NOT DEMBSKI'S YOU FREAK OF A MORON.

    However Newton would have laughed evotards out of the building.

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    However Newton would have laughed evotards out of the building.

    Newton would have dispensed with your "Intelligent Designer" in the same way he dispensed with the need for angels to push the planets around.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Newton would have dispensed with your "Intelligent Designer" in the same way he dispensed with the need for angels to push the planets around.

    Newton wrote of the Designer in his "principia" you moron-> Newton was a Creationist.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home