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

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Intelligent Design's Claims Still Stand Unrefuted

-
Despite the whining to the contrary the claims made by Intelligent Design have not been refuted- living organisms, the bacterial flagellum, T3SS, blood clotting, immune system, vision system, ribosomes, ATP synthase, etc., etc., etc., are all still irreducibly complex- meaning there isn't any evidence that any amount of accumulated accidents cannot account for them.

As a matter of fact there STILL isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems. All evotards can do is point to slight variations of existing systems and baldly declare-"enough time and those observed changes can produce (almost) anything"- total unscientific bullshit.

OR they point to alleged homologs as if that solves the assembly and the amount of proteins required issue (see Pallen & Matzke's diatribe).

So if bald assertions and false accusations were science then evotards would have a case.

posted by Joe G @ 10:36 AM  

35 Comments:

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://tinyurl.com/3wthzbn

     

  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said Intelliget Design's claims still stand unrefuted and RichTard still cannot think of a way to test the claims of his position.

    Life is good...

     

  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let's be very clear - its a negative argument, against evolution, not a positive argument for design. So it fails before it starts. Given the timescales required for large changes and the incredibly short time we've been studying these phenomena, I'm more than happy with the evidence. (Lenksi).

    So to recap, its a negative argument that doesn't actually support design predicated on a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Comments such as Joe's "they're still bacteria" show they are in fact just rehashed creationist tropes.

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let's be clear, Intelligent Design is not a negative argument against evolution.

    However it is very clear to any knowledgeable person (leaving you out) that the way to the design inference is THROUGH necessity and chance- parsimony, Newton's first rule and all.

    Also a simple look at the explanatory filter demonstrates that a design inference involves not only eliminating necessity and chance there also has to be a specification met. And that means there is a positive case for ID. It also means the way to refute ID is for you, or someone, to actually produce a testable hypiothesis along with confirming 9positive) evidence for your position- again I refer you to Newton and parsimony.

    All that said it is very telling that you link to an ATHEIST you tube presentation. And it is also very telling that you still cannot test the claims of your position.

    So to recap- Richtard is a typical cowardly evotard who thinks that his flase accusations and bald assertions really do mean something.

    Geez did I call that one in the OP or what?

     

  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard Hughes, ignorant of science and investigation techniques, can only muster typical evotardgasms, lies and false accusations.

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Given the timescales required for large changes...

    Unfortunately for you that isn't science and you don't know if the large changes are even possible via the mechanism proposed.

    IOW what RichTard said is the "begging the question" fallacy.

    Dumbass...

     

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    ...I'm more than happy with the evidence. (Lenksi).

    Yes, simple minds are easily fooled.

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why isn't the filter

    IF NOT DESIGN

    and

    IF NOT NECESSITY

    then

    CHANCE

    ?

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Also:

    "Unfortunately for you that isn't science and you don't know if the large changes are even possible via the mechanism proposed."

    http://tinyurl.com/3j2lath

     

  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Why isn't the filter

    IF NOT DESIGN

    and

    IF NOT NECESSITY

    then

    CHANCE

    ?

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Of course it seems reasonable to you. But then again you are ignorant of investigation techniques.

    Unfortunately for you that isn't science and you don't know if the large changes are even possible via the mechanism proposed.

    Richtard's blind link:
    http://tinyurl.com/3j2lath

    Unfortunately for you there isn't anything that can be extrapolated to help support your claims.

    The only extrapolation to be had is one of the design inference as it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    So I thank you for continuing to prove my point.

     

  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW, moron, the explanatory filter does not say "not necessity, not chance then design".

     

  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However it is very clear to any knowledgeable person (leaving you out) that the way to the design inference is THROUGH necessity and chance- parsimony, Newton's first rule and all.

    That is why the filter isn't as Richtard suggested.

     

  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'd don't see why anything should take a default position (which should rightly be occupied by "I don't know") but then again, I'm not the one subverting science.

    Joe, extrapolation has been with science for a very long time. Or do you think we measure the distance of stars using a VERY LONG RULER? You just might.

     

  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I'd don't see why anything should take a default position (which should rightly be occupied by "I don't know") but then again, I'm not the one subverting science.

    Your position takes the default position and you are the one who doesn't know anything about science.

    OTOH the design inference isn't a default by any definition of the word. IOW once again you prove to be an ignorant fool.

    Richtard:
    Joe, extrapolation has been with science for a very long time.

    I know that dumbass. That is why I said:

    The only extrapolation to be had is one of the design inference as it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    And there isn't anything in what we obbserve that can extrapolated to meet any of the claims of your position.

    You have serious reading issues.

     

  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for "we don't know"- as I have told you many times that would be OK as that sums up the theory of evolution perfectly.

    However you morons say "we don't know but we know (wink, wink, nod, stroke) it wasn't designed".

     

  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The only extrapolation to be had is one of the design inference as it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships."

    Gotcha! The designer is human. because that's the extent of our designers knowledge.

    There you have it, folks, we boot-strapped!

    and of course, given our knowledge of "cause and effect relationships" an Joes, erm, reasoning, we should expect and infinite regress of designers.

    "Your position takes the default position and you are the one who doesn't know anything about science."

    No - we can see appropriate random changes being guided by environmental filetrs in the time spans we have been studying. The designer has yet to show up - so "Newton's first rule and all" - no designer required.


    Thanks.

     

  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The only extrapolation to be had is one of the design inference as it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships."

    RichTard:
    Gotcha! The designer is human. because that's the extent of our designers knowledge.

    Not only is that a lie but you have just proven that you do NOT understand the extrapolation process.

    And to refute the design inference all you have to do is to actually produce a testable hypothesis along with positive evidence for your position.

    Yet here you are, a drooling fool. Exposed for all to see.

    Richtard:
    and of course, given our knowledge of "cause and effect relationships" an Joes, erm, reasoning, we should expect and infinite regress of designers.

    Nope, not by my reasoning. Perhaps by your twisted reasoning. But that is another story.

    Don't know anything about the designer(s) until we can study the designer(s).

    However we can study the design. And ID is about the design.

    "Your position takes the default position and you are the one who doesn't know anything about science."

    Richtard:
    we can see appropriate random changes being guided by environmental filetrs in the time spans we have been studying.

    You are lying Rich. There isn't any evidence that random changes guided by environmental filters can produce the changes required. The observed changes we have observed demonstrate your dog doesn't hunt and should be put down due to its ineffectiveness.

     

  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Intelligent Design's Claims Still Stand UNSUBSTANTIATED"

    Where's the designer in this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/may/25/2#start-of-comments

    ?

     

  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard baldly asserts:
    "Intelligent Design's Claims Still Stand UNSUBSTANTIATED"

    YOUR position's claims still stand unsubstantiated. OTOH ID's claims are supported every day with each passing experiment.

    As for your link- what the fuck? How does accumulated genetic accidents explain sparrows? It doesn't.

    Your doggie doesn't hunt Richtard.

     

  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    We can see random mutaions effecting genomes and organisms fuctions in the lab.

    Designer....none to be found.

    "Newtons first rule and all that"

     

  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually only our ignorance sez all mutations are random. And what we have observed does not support the claims of your position but do support ID and baraminology.

    Science and all that...

     

  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Actually only our ignorance sez all mutations are random."


    Fortunatley, selection is not.

    Great fail Joe, and still no designer in sight.

     

  • At 5:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Actually only our ignorance sez all mutations are random."

    Richtard:
    Fortunatley, selection is not.

    Only ARTIFICIAL selection is not. Natural selection, a result, is based on random inputs. Results follow their inputs.

    Richtard fail:
    still no designer in sight.

    Science doesn't require that but thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance.

    And still no positive evidence for your position...

     

  • At 6:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Only ARTIFICIAL selection is not. Natural selection, a result, is based on random inputs. Results follow their inputs."

    That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. You have a very wrong understanding of evolution.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2001.00161.x/full

    IDIOT.

     

  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Right, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION you moron.

    But anyway it is a given that natural selection is a result of three processes. And it is also a given that variation is allegedly totally random, heritability also has a random component, as does differential reproduction.

    Understandably Richtard is too stupid to understand any of that.

     

  • At 7:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Right, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION you moron"

    Really? We're selcting for pathogens to kill us?

    JOEFAIL.

     

  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " And it is also a given that variation is allegedly totally random, heritability also has a random component, as does differential reproduction."

    Here's an experment.

    1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
    2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
    3. repeat step 2 50 times.

    This has a random component. The average 'ftiness' of a die is 3.5. What fitness do you think you'll get from the above experiment? It does after all have a random component.

    JOEFAIL

     

  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Right, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION you moron"

    RichTard:
    Really?

    Realy- Humans made and introduced the anti-biotics.

    Also HGT is not part of natural selection- DickFAIL

     

  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    " And it is also a given that variation is allegedly totally random, heritability also has a random component, as does differential reproduction."

    RichTard:
    Here's an experment.

    1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
    2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
    3. repeat step 2 50 times.

    ARTIFICIAL SELECTION you moron-

    HUGE DickFAIL

    (Rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. Cannot proceed to step 2.

    Experiment failed.)

     

  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    The average 'ftiness' of a die is 3.5.

    In biology fitness = reproductive success. A die cannot reproduce so how the fuck are you redefining "fitness"?

     

  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And STILL nothing to refute ID, meaning STILL nothing to support evolutionism.

     

  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    RichTard:
    Here's an experment.

    1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
    2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
    3. repeat step 2 50 times.

    We already know that ties ruin this screwed up "experiment". But step 2 is a little confusing. How many dice do I need? Step 2 says to "roll another", does that mean another die besides the two rolled in step 1?

    Also am I supposed to be documenting what number was kept after each roll? A "six" at the first roll totally screws things up also.

    You didn't think about this did you?

    Precious...

     

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

    "In biology fitness = reproductive success"

    In this case it does reproduce - the highest fitness persists until the next generation.

    Its a very quickly thought up toy example, but like weasel,it highlights your miscomprehension beautifully.

     

  • At 11:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Also HGT is not part of natural selection - does it or does it not get selected for by the environment? If not why are these strains more becoming more common?

    Again, no understanding. Stick with your magic man in the sky, if that makes more sense to you.

     

  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard choking on HGT:
    does it or does it not get selected for by the environment?

    The environment doesn't select, dumbass.

    But anyway thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance.

     

  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In biology fitness = reproductive success. A die cannot reproduce so how the fuck are you redefining "fitness"?

    RichTard:
    In this case it does reproduce - the highest fitness persists until the next generation.

    So if someone lives through the next generation they have reproduced even though they didn't reproduce?

    You are retarded.

    RichTard:
    Its a very quickly thought up toy example,

    Obviously you put all of your effot=rts into it and still failed.

    RichTard:
    but like weasel,it highlights your miscomprehension beautifully.

    Might as well throw in another bald/ false accusation.

    So to recap RichTard Hughes is an ignorant dolt who couldn't support his position if his life depended on it- well obviously he doesn't even understand his position, that is how ignorant he is- and is forced to lie and spew false accusations.

    Life is good...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home