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

Monday, August 01, 2011

Biological Evolution- What is Being Debated- Revisted For Kevin R. McCarthy

-
Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock Texas (aka OgreMKV) believes his ignorance is a refutation.

He doesn't understand the debate even after it has been explained to him.

But anyway-

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

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


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

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

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

see also The Current Status of Baraminology


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

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

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

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

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

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything.

So there you have it Kevin- this explains how supporting your position will refute ID. However it is a sure bet you are too stupid/ ignorant to understand any of it.

45 Comments:

  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So there you have it Kevin- this explains how supporting your position will refute ID.

    So ID is anti-evolution after all then? It's one or the other.

    Interesting....

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only a complete moron would say such a thing after reading the OP.

    No, OM, ID is not anti-evolution rather ID is anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

    Interesting that you are too stupid to figure that out. You must have the mind of an imbecile.

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    ID is anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

    So, given that, what does ID bring to the table that expands our understanding?

    Is it just "Evolution could not of done it therefore design"?

    Or is it something you've not mentioned yet?

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So, given that, what does ID bring to the table that expands our understanding?

    The same thing archeaology and foensic science brings- a true search for the reality behind what we are investigating.

    If you knew ANYTHING about science or investigations you would understand that means a lot.

    OM:
    Is it just "Evolution could not of done it therefore design"?

    Seeing that ID is not anti-evolution that means you are a complete imbecile, as I said. You are a true exemplar of evotards and a good representative of your fruitless and pathetic position.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The same thing archeaology and foensic science brings- a true search for the reality behind what we are investigating.

    Yes, but the difference is that archaeology and forensic science can be applied to produce meaningful results and new data.

    E.G. A dead body is found. Forensic science can (potentially) tell us how, when and even where that death happened.

    Can ID do that? Has ID done that?

    E.G. Something that is claimed to be designed is found. ID can tell us, well, what exactly? That designed things are designed?

    The answer would appear to be no, ID cannot add to our body of knowledge.

    Seeing that ID is not anti-evolution that means you are a complete imbecile, as I said.

    So tell me just one thing that ID has determined about, well, anything really. Dare you!

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yes, but the difference is that archaeology and forensic science can be applied to produce meaningful results and new data.

    Unlike your position which cannot produce anything.

    OM:
    E.G. A dead body is found. Forensic science can (potentially) tell us how, when and even where that death happened.

    "Potentially" is the key there.

    Potentially ID can do that also.

    Science asks three basic questions- one being "how did it come to be this way?"- saying it was designed is an answer to that question.

    Then we proceed from there and everyone who has knowledge of investigations knows it matters a great deal to that investigation whether or that the thing being investigated arose by design or not.

    OM:
    So tell me just one thing that ID has determined about, well, anything really.

    That the universe and living organisms are designed. And as I said, that means quite a bit.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Potentially" is the key there.

    Potentially ID can do that also.


    Yet it never has but forensic analysis has convicted many people of murder. When do you anticipate such useful results from ID?

    That the universe and living organisms are designed.

    Please show your working. And anyway, you just said that ID only has the "potential" to show such things, not that it already has.

    So ID can both have the potential to determine design and yet it has already shown that organisms are designed before that has happened?

    Seems to me you are assuming your conclusion and taking it from there.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Potentially ID can do that also.

    OM:
    Yet it never has but forensic analysis has convicted many people of murder.

    How do you know what ID has and hasn't accomplished?

    What the fuck has your position accomplished?

    When do you anticipate such useful results from ID?

    The safe bet is well before your position does.

    That the universe and living organisms are designed.

    OM:
    Please show your working.

    Already have. Your ignorance is meaningless.

    OM:
    And anyway, you just said that ID only has the "potential" to show such things, not that it already has.

    Wrong again, asshole. That pertained to "how, when and where".

    You can't even follow your own ranting.

     
  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    How do you know what ID has and hasn't accomplished?

    Same way as you.

    What the fuck has your position accomplished?

    According to you, nothing. But what do you know?

    The safe bet is well before your position does.

    Give me an example then. A specific example where we can track progress and see who is right.

    Go on, bet you can't.

    Already have. Your ignorance is meaningless.

    So you have shown that the universe and living organisms are designed. Funny how that did not make the front page of Uncommon Descent!

    Perhaps you should let them know that you've already done what they want to happen.

    That pertained to "how, when and where".

    So tell me how, when and where of ID then?

    Can't can you?

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do you know what ID has and hasn't accomplished?

    OM:
    Same way as you.

    Your head is up your ass. Mine isn't up anyone's ass.

    What the fuck has your position accomplished?

    OM:
    According to you, nothing. But what do you know?

    More than you, obviously.

    The safe bet is well before your position does.

    OM:
    Give me an example then.

    An example of your position accomplishing something? No one can.

    That pertained to "how, when and where".

    OM:
    So tell me how, when and where of ID then?

    That is what science is for you moron.

    And your position cannot say "how, when and where" for anything.

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do you know what ID has and hasn't accomplished?

    OM:
    Same way as you.

    Your head is up your ass. Mine isn't up anyone's ass.

    What the fuck has your position accomplished?

    OM:
    According to you, nothing. But what do you know?

    More than you, obviously.

    The safe bet is well before your position does.

    OM:
    Give me an example then.

    An example of your position accomplishing something? No one can.

    That pertained to "how, when and where".

    OM:
    So tell me how, when and where of ID then?

    That is what science is for you moron.

    And your position cannot say "how, when and where" for anything.

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    An example of your position accomplishing something? No one can.

    No, just complete the sentence.

    Forensic analysis has conviced people of murder.

    ID has....

    And your position cannot say "how, when and where" for anything.

    Yet "my position" predicted the location of a transitional fossil and when that location was checked it was found.

    What has ID done of a similar nature?

    Nothing at all.

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    That is what science is for you moron.

    It's nice that you admit, albeit in a roundabout way, that ID has yet to achieve anything at all regarding the "how, when and where" of "design". What's left? Only the designer itself and as we know, as you've told us, ID is not about the designer! So what exactly is it about then?

    Sure, "science" will provide the answers you seek but you might not like them!

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yet "my position" predicted the location of a transitional fossil and when that location was checked it was found.

    Liar-

    1- It had nothing to do with accumulations of genetic accidents

    2- It was found in the wrong place and strata.

    moron.

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger OM said…

    What has ID done of a similar nature then?

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It had nothing to do with accumulations of genetic accidents

    So it must have been designed, right?

    Then using your knowledge of design perhaps you can predict where the "true" transitional can be found?

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It's nice that you admit, albeit in a roundabout way, that ID has yet to achieve anything at all regarding the "how, when and where" of "design".

    ID is about the detection and study of the design.

    OM:
    What's left?

    Study the design to answer the questions, dumbass. That is what archaeologists and forensic scientists do.

    OM:
    Sure, "science" will provide the answers you seek but you might not like them!

    So far so good- ID is looking good.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What has ID done of a similar nature then?

    Similar nature of a failed prediction?

    LoL!

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It had nothing to do with accumulations of genetic accidents

    OM:
    So it must have been designed, right?

    The prediction had nothing to do with accumulations of genetic accidents you moron. And that means iot had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

    OM:
    Then using your knowledge of design perhaps you can predict where the "true" transitional can be found?

    According to my knowledge there isn't such a thing.

     
  • At 4:10 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Study the design to answer the questions, dumbass.

    Well, go on then! What are you waiting for? You've been doing this for 5 years plus, you have a basement full of equipment.

    What's the hold up Joe?

     
  • At 5:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    According to my knowledge there isn't such a thing.

    So transitional fossils don't exist?

    Interesting...

    So what do you call a fossil that has a mix of characteristics?

    For example, if we find a fossil that has a mix of fish and tetrapod features, is it a fish or a tetrapod?

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So what do you call a fossil that has a mix of characteristics?

    How do you know it has a mix of characteristics?

    Ya see, moron, you don't know- no one knows what any given organism is supposed to have.

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OMTard:
    Well, go on then! What are you waiting for?

    What are you waiting for? Obviously you are a chicken-shit coward.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    How do you know it has a mix of characteristics?

    We know it because we use primary observations to determine that fact.

    I.E. We look at the fossil with our eyes.

    Some fossils have only fish features.

    Some fossils have only tetrapods features.

    Some fossils have a mix of both.

    Ya see, moron, you don't know- no one knows what any given organism is supposed to have.

    Not even wrong.

    We we have A (all red) and C (all blue) and find B (50% red and 50% blue) we don't need to know what C is "supposed to have" we simply observe it has a mix of features found in A and C.

    "Supposed to have" does not even come into it.

    We observe what features is has, not what it's supposed to have.

    Is this complex?

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What are you waiting for?

    Evolution is well supported. I don't need to do anything at all.

    Whereas ID is not well supported, therefore supporters (like you) need to do something to support it.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Similar nature of a failed prediction?

    Yes, it's unlikely that ID has any failed predictions because:

    A) ID only makes predictions after the fact I.E. Junk DNA.

    B) ID makes no predictions that can be tested.

    Whereas science in general is littered with failed predictions ID is not simply because it is not capable of making them unless the result is already known.

    For example, what specific % of DNA is Junk according to ID?

    0%

    1%

    >1% <99%

    Or what?

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Evolution is well supported.

    Perhaps but your position is more than just "evolution" you equivocating faggot.

    OM:
    Whereas ID is not well supported,

    ID is supported by our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    OTOH your position cannot even be tetsted.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    A) ID only makes predictions after the fact I.E. Junk DNA.

    Liar- ID doesn't sat anything about junk DNA and it makes the same predictions as fforensic science and archaeology.

    That said your position doesn't make any predictions.

    B) ID makes no predictions that can be tested.

    Yet they are being tested every day.

    OTOH your position can't be tested.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do you know it has a mix of characteristics?

    OM:
    We know it because we use primary observations to determine that fact.

    So you don't know. Got it.

    Ya see, moron, you don't know- no one knows what any given organism is supposed to have.

    OM:
    Not even wrong.

    A moron would say that.

    Ya see, moron, unless you know what features any given organism is supposed to have you cannot say it has a mix. That means "transitional forms" are just a figment of your imagination.

    OM:
    We we have A (all red) and C (all blue) and find B (50% red and 50% blue) we don't need to know what C is "supposed to have" we simply observe it has a mix of features found in A and C.

    So what? That doesn't have to mean it is a transitional. That could be teh way C has always been, dumbass.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    That doesn't have to mean it is a transitional. That could be teh way C has always been, dumbass.

    Yes, that's right.

    But if we find A in old rocks, B in younger rocks and C in the youngest rocks and nowhere else then it's a reasonable inference that B descended from A and C descended from B.

    Otherwise you have to propose a designer making it look exactly has if B evolved from A and C evolved from B.

    Ya see, moron, unless you know what features any given organism is supposed to have you cannot say it has a mix.

    Evolution does not predict the specific life forms, how could it? Therefore it's wrong to say that organisms are "supposed" to have certain features based on nothing.

    However evolution does make predictions based on what does exist.

    Would you like to hear some of them?

    Perhaps for every prediction I give you you can give the ID interpretation and answer?

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    That could be teh way C has always been, dumbass.

    That's one interpretation. But it has a low probability given the other known facts.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But if we find A in old rocks, B in younger rocks and C in the youngest rocks and nowhere else then it's a reasonable inference that B descended from A and C descended from B.

    Not if there isn't any evidence to support that claim.

    OM:
    Otherwise you have to propose a designer making it look exactly has if B evolved from A and C evolved from B.

    But it only looks like that to you.

    OM:
    However evolution does make predictions based on what does exist.

    Fuck you you equivocating cowardly wanker.

    YOUR position doesn't have any predictions, asshole.

     
  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Not if there isn't any evidence to support that claim.


    The evidence is what I described. You can have a number of models that attempt to explain the observed data. The only decision is to decide what model best fits the data.

    Apparently you are unable to do that, only to say that whatever model is proposed is simply wrong.

    So when we see three things where the middle thing is a mix of the other two and all three only exist when the others don't, to you that tells you nothing about how that situation might have come about.

    OK.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    YOUR position doesn't have any predictions, asshole.


    The deepest (oldest) layers of rock contain fossils of the most primitive species.

    The shallowest rocks will contain fossil species closely resembling present day species.

    Over time, via the fossil record, we can observe species changing.

    Historical "decisions" that cannot be undone and made by evolution can be observed, e.g. dolphin embryos with hindlimb buds that are reabsorbed shortly after they come into existence.

    Some types of whale develop embryonic teeth that are reabsorbed before birth.

    None of these predictions are relevant to ID. Nothing forces the designer to make the most primative species appear earliest in the fossil record.

    Sure, none of these predictions are inconsistent with a designer that chooses to emulate evolution but then what value does ID have except as another name for evolution?

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOUR position doesn't have any predictions, asshole.

    OM:
    The deepest (oldest) layers of rock contain fossils of the most primitive species.

    As I said- that doesn't have anything to do with accumulations of genetic accidents.

    As a matter of fact not one thing you posted has anything to do with accumulations of genetic accidents.

    Those "predictions" fit Intelligent Design Evolution and front-loaded evolution.

    Thanks for proving my point- you are an equivocating coward.

    OM:
    Historical "decisions" that cannot be undone and made by evolution can be observed, e.g. dolphin embryos with hindlimb buds that are reabsorbed shortly after they come into existence.

    A flipper is a limb. That means all you just said means dolphins lost their rear FLIPPERS. There still isn't any evidence a land mammal can evolve into a cetacean, never mind via accumulations of genetic accidents.

    But that is moot because you appear intent on being an equivocating evotard.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The evidence is what I described.

    And that you don't have any evidence that descent is what produced it.

    OM:
    Apparently you are unable to do that, only to say that whatever model is proposed is simply wrong.

    Liar- being untestable, which is what I say, doesn't mean it is wrong.

    Stop lying.

    OM:
    So when we see three things where the middle thing is a mix of the other two

    An electric engine, a gasoline engine and a hyobrid.

    OM:
    and all three only exist when the others don't,

    What does that mean? Are you trying to say that each only exist when the others do not?

    So now overlapping is out? parent have to die when their children are born?

    Why are you erecting a strawman?

    OM:
    to you that tells you nothing about how that situation might have come about.

    To me it means time for testing in order to make that determination.

    There has to be a scientific component- beyond "it looks like it to me"- in order to be science.

     
  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And that you don't have any evidence that descent is what produced it.

    What's your explanation for the observed data then?

    "design"?

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OMTard:
    What's your explanation for the observed data then?

    Exactly what I said you moron:

    To me it means time for testing in order to make that determination.

    However I understand that you don't like science and would rather just jump to your own biased conclusion.

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    To me it means time for testing in order to make that determination.

    When can we expect to see results?

    Care to make a wager?

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    When can we expect to see results?

    When can we expect see your made-up fucking evidence?

    I wager never...

     
  • At 7:30 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    OM, what he clearly spelled out is that ID opposes only the #6 definition of evolution, as he laid it out. Personally, I dont see how #6 can be defined as evolution, since it is merely a proposed METHOD of causing evolution. It is a bit like saying the definition of noise is a tree falling in the woods.

     
  • At 10:50 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    OM, I'll answer your second question first because it is a simple answer.

    OM: Is it just "Evolution could not of done it therefore design"?

    No, evolution is done BY intelligent design.

    An oversimplified, but accurate statement is: "The evidence indicates design, therefore design."

    On the other hand, this is what your position sounds like: "The evidence indicates design, but we just dont want to believe it, therefore random accident."

     
  • At 11:06 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    OM asks: "what does ID bring to the table that expands our understanding?"

    In a word, everything.

    Once we jettison the vapid shoulder shrug of Darwin's useless Luck Theory the study of intelligent agency as a basis for all life will be the greatest breakthrough in the history of life science, if not all science.

    There is a force of nature that is capable of moving matter INTELLIGENTLY and PURPOSEFULLY and we have barely scratched the surface of understanding it so far.

    This research can answer such questions as what caused the first life? What causes reproduction? How much power does the life force have and what are its limits? What causes cells to work together to keep metazoans alive? What causes thought? Instinct? Feelings? Healing? Evolution? Adaptation? Movement? Growth?

    These are the most fascinating questions in the history of science and dimwit darwinists are still claiming random luck in 2011. Answering these questions can open pathways in the medical fields that are currently headed in the wrong direction.

    In the study of life science, what does ID bring to our understanding?

    Everything.

     
  • At 11:30 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    More questions from OM: "what specific % of DNA is Junk according to ID?"

    Zero percent. There are no tissues of any sort in any living thing that do not have a purpose, except those that are vestiges of a formerly purposeful trait. Why would DNA be any different? With each passing year more DNA that was considered "junk" at one time is found to have a vital purpose.

    OM: "Yes, it's unlikely that ID has any failed predictions because:

    A) ID only makes predictions after the fact I.E. Junk DNA.

    B) ID makes no predictions that can be tested."

    Neither A nor B are true. ID, like other valid branches of science, observes, hypothesizes, predicts, tests and sometimes fails, albeit rarely. A well known failure of ID was LaMarck's experiment with the tails of rats.

    LaMarck tried to force a genetic change the wrong way, not by changing the environment, but by simply cutting off an appendage. An IDist will observe trends in intelligent genetics and predict that these trends can be induced with the proper environmental change. The success of intelligent (and entirely non-random) genetics has been phenomenal.

    Thanks to the scientific method, we now know that there is nothing random about genetics, nor any other aspect of life.

     
  • At 11:37 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    OM, on the "how, when and where" questions of ID, we've got 2 out of 3 and I have little doubt we can arrive at the third.

    Where: In every part of every living thing.

    When: Every moment of life from the first living proto-mitochondrial enclosure to every second of our lives today.

    The very second intelligent agency stops, you will fall to the floor dead. If there were even a hint of Darwinism in evolution, it would quickly be deadly destructive chaos. Random accident is exactly what we never see in any living thing amd hopefully never will.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home