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, May 09, 2013

Things That EvoTARDs Do NOT Understand- Intelligent Design IS Compatible with Common Descent

This is in response to an evoTARD post titled Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 1 — Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. (this is wrt universal common descent)

keiths sez:
The first misconception I’ll tackle is a big one: it’s the idea that the evidence for common descent is not a serious threat to ID. As it turns out, ID is not just threatened by the evidence for common descent — it’s literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence. No exaggeration. If you’re skeptical, read on and I’ll explain.
Unfortunately for keiths, unguided evolution doesn't explain anything- it can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Not only that universal common descent cannot be tested as we do NOT know what makes an organism what it is so there is no way to tell if changes to a genome can account for UCD.

keiths then links to Dr Theobald's 29+ evidences for macrevolution. However even Theobad says the evidence does NOT depend on any mechanism and his evidences can be used to support a common design. However, keiths, being totally ignorant of designing, does not understand the concept of a common design and thinks he can use his ignorance to refute it.

keiths is also ignorant of nested hierachies:

The following asymmetry explains why: the discovery of an objective nested hierarchy implies common descent, but the converse is not true; common descent does not imply that we will be able to discover an objective nested hierarchy.

That is false. Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy (even according to Theobald), is based on a COMMON DESIGN and has NOTHING to do with evolution, guided or not. IOW keiths is an ignorant ass and he really thinks his ignorance is some sort of "argument".

So that is it- keiths relies solely on Theobald's 29+ evidences, which do NOT stipulate a mechansim, and twists it to make it fit unguided evolution, which he does only via a bald assertion.

keiths also brings up microevolution and macroevolution:

They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution.
It's like this dumbass-> there isn't any known microevolutionary event that we can take and extrapolate macroevolution. The beak of the finch, micro, cannot explain the bird, macro. Anti-biotic resistance, micro, cannot explain how bacteria evolved into something other than bacteria, macro. Heck it can't even explain new proteins, let alone new protein machinery requiring several different proteins.

The problem is that no one has to propose and defend any barrier. It is up to the evoTARDs, and anyone accepting universal common descent, to demonstrate such a thing is even possible.  And right now all you have is to throw father time around as if that is going to solve your problems.

Lenski- more than 50,000 genrations and no signs of macroevolution. HIV and malaria, millions of generations and no signs of macroevolution.

So there you have it- keiths is a liar and a buffoon.

Why would a designer start with single-celled organisms and have metazoans emerge later? Terra-forming.


Post a Comment

<< Home