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

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

How Evolution Can Produce Irreducible Complexity and Complex Adaptations

-
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. That means that irreducible complexity can evolve if it was designed to do so. We see that with evolutionary and genetic algorithms, which exemplify intelligent design evolution, ie evolution by design.

Only morons on an agenda think that ID is anti-evolution and that all evolution is evidence for natural selection and/ or drift. They are the sad equivocators.

posted by Joe G @ 6:44 PM  

10 Comments:

  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. That means that irreducible complexity can evolve if it was designed to do so. We see that with evolutionary and genetic algorithms, which exemplify intelligent design evolution, ie evolution by design.

    The algorithms use random mutations. If life forms on earth were 'designed' to evolve then are the mutations which separate them random?

    Only morons on an agenda think that ID is anti-evolution and that all evolution is evidence for natural selection and/ or drift. They are the sad equivocators.

    I think you'll find most ID-proponents are anti-evolution for various reasons. And most of them can't say what was designed and when and how design was implemented.

     

  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The algorithms use random mutations.

    The algorithms produce the mutations and then guide the changes to the target.

    If life forms on earth were 'designed' to evolve then are the mutations which separate them random?

    Some are- see "Not By Chance", Spetner 1997

    I think you'll find most ID-proponents are anti-evolution for various reasons.

    I have never met one. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Of course not.

    And most of them can't say what was designed

    Yes, we can as we have the methodology and criteria.

    and when and how design was implemented.

    That doesn't have anything to do with ID. Your ignorance is showing, again.

     

  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The algorithms produce the mutations and then guide the changes to the target.

    Not all of them have targets as you've been told many times.

    Some are- see "Not By Chance", Spetner 1997

    How can you tell which are random and which are not? Also, since modern evolutionary theory says all mutations are random then your form of ID (at least some mutations are not random) IS in opposition to evolution.

    I think you'll find most ID-proponents are anti-evolution for various reasons.

    I have never met one. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Of course not.

    Are you saying that most of the ID-supporters at Uncommon Descent are NOT anti-evolution? Are you saying that the Discovery Institute is NOT anti-evolution? Really?

    And most of them can't say what was designed

    Yes, we can as we have the methodology and criteria.

    Okay, tell me some life form that was designed and show me the methodology you used to make that determination.

    That doesn't have anything to do with ID. Your ignorance is showing, again.

    Can't have something that was designed without there being a procedure by which the design was implemented eh? Gotta have a designer too. The only designers we know of are human beings who can't just magic designs into existence, they leave traces and evidence. Where that for your designer?

     

  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not all of them have targets as you've been told many times.

    By a moron who doesn't understand what an algorithm is.

    How can you tell which are random and which are not?

    Not By Chance, Spetner 1997

    Also, since modern evolutionary theory says all mutations are random then your form of ID (at least some mutations are not random) IS in opposition to evolution.

    Please link to this "modern evolutionary theory" so I can read what it says. Hopefully it will posit a methodology for determining the true nature of mutations.

    Are you saying that most of the ID-supporters at Uncommon Descent are NOT anti-evolution?

    Yes. ID is only anti-evolution if and only if "evolution" is defined as #6 in this post: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2015/07/equivocation-and-evolution.html

    There is also the following from UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-a-guest-post/

    Are you saying that the Discovery Institute is NOT anti-evolution? Really?

    So you are willfully ignorant as to what is being debated. Figures.

    Okay, tell me some life form that was designed and show me the methodology you used to make that determination.

    Already have. It is all on this blog.

    Can't have something that was designed without there being a procedure by which the design was implemented eh?

    Don't have to know how it was designed in order to determine that it was, eh.

    Gotta have a designer too.

    Don't have to know who designed it in order to determine it was designed.

    As a matter of fact we don't even ask the how or who until AFTER we have determined design is present.

    The only designers we know of are human beings who can't just magic designs into existence, they leave traces and evidence.

    No duh

    Where that for your designer?

    All over the place, just as we have described.

     

  • At 3:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    By a moron who doesn't understand what an algorithm is.

    Uh huh. I've used 6 or 7 different computer languages and taught a course. What have you done?

    How can you tell which are random and which are not?

    Not By Chance, Spetner 1997

    What methods are used? What mathematical tests are performed? Can you only determine which mutations are random after the fact?

    Please link to this "modern evolutionary theory" so I can read what it says. Hopefully it will posit a methodology for determining the true nature of mutations.

    I'm tired of your bluffing and shifting the scrutiny.

    Yes. ID is only anti-evolution if and only if "evolution" is defined as #6 in this post: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2015/07/equivocation-and-evolution.html

    So, ID is anti-evolution. Thanks for clearing that up!!

    There is also the following from UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-a-guest-post/

    Finished that book yet?

    Why isn't the "fundamental unity" evidence for unguided evolution?

    Don't have to know how it was designed in order to determine that it was, eh.

    So says you. But, if you can't find a designer and their tools and workspace and raw materials, etc . . . you might be wrong. What physical procedure was used to implement design?

    Don't have to know who designed it in order to determine it was designed.

    If you can't find a designer then you might be wrong about things being designed.

    As a matter of fact we don't even ask the how or who until AFTER we have determined design is present.

    Let's see . . . how many years have you been saying life forms were designed and yet you haven't come up with anything else? ID is looking like a dead end.

    All over the place, just as we have described.

    Really? You've found evidence of the designer's tools and materials and workspaces? Of 'his' procedure for implementing design? Do tell!!

     

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Uh huh. I've used 6 or 7 different computer languages and taught a course. What have you done?

    Then why don't you understand what an algorithm is?

    I'm tired of your bluffing and shifting the scrutiny.

    I'm tired of your bluffing cowardice and ignorance.

    So, ID is anti-evolution.

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a clueless dolt. If evolution was defined as #6 it would be in violation of the USA's establishment clause. That is why the top evos define it as I laid out in the essay you refuse to read or are to dim to understand.

    Finished that book yet?

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant coward.

    Why isn't the "fundamental unity" evidence for unguided evolution?

    Unguided evolution can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes.

    So says you.

    So says science, moron.

    If you can't find a designer then you might be wrong about things being designed.

    That is the nature of science, moron.

    how many years have you been saying life forms were designed and yet you haven't come up with anything else?

    ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. And if your position had something then ID would be a non-starter.

    Really?

    Really. The evidence for Intelligent Design is all over the place. You are just too stupid to assess the evidence and you sure as hell don't have an alternative explanation for what we observe.

     

  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolutionism cannot say anything about the how and it is supposed to be about the how.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Then why don't you understand what an algorithm is?

    I do. I written quite a few.

    I'm tired of your bluffing cowardice and ignorance.

    Is that why you never posted the last two comments on those older threads, from a few weeks ago? Or were you tired of me telling you that no one really cares that you don't know what you're talking about 'cause you have made zero contribution to mathematics?

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a clueless dolt. If evolution was defined as #6 it would be in violation of the USA's establishment clause. That is why the top evos define it as I laid out in the essay you refuse to read or are to dim to understand.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahah Well, I guess you got some of your definitions wrong then didn't you? I would have come up with a combination of some of what you wrote myself.

    Finished that book yet?

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant coward.

    So that's a 'no' then. So why did you say something about writing a book if you don't want people to ask about it? It was only last year.

    Why isn't the "fundamental unity" evidence for unguided evolution?

    Unguided evolution can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes.

    I'd say 'common polymers' is a pretty good argument for universal common descent with modification.

    So says science, moron.

    Like I've said, if your opinion about science mattered at all people would be paying attention. But they aren't 'cause you don't do any research, you don't produce any papers, you don't teach, and you're not hired by anyone to work in the field.

    If you can't find a designer then you might be wrong about things being designed.

    That is the nature of science, moron.

    So maybe you should start looking instead of sitting around doing squat.

    ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. And if your position had something then ID would be a non-starter.

    ID is rapidly becoming a dead-end because it hasn't progressed at all in 10 years at least. No new research, not even a clear working hypothesis. As you yourself pointed out, there are competing versions of ID and no one has a clue which one to pick.

    Really. The evidence for Intelligent Design is all over the place. You are just too stupid to assess the evidence and you sure as hell don't have an alternative explanation for what we observe.

    You can't tell me how design was implemented, you've got no evidence of that. You won't say when design was implemented so I guess you don't have any evidence of that. You haven't got any non-living, physical evidence of the physical process used to implement design so no evidence there either.

    What kind of designer could do all that designing and implementing and yet leave no evidence of their procedure? You say you're not a Christian so you are thinking of some kind of physical being. And yet you can't find 'him'. How long are you going to wait for someone else to find the designer before you throw in the towel? 10 years? 50 years? A century? You've given up on evolutionary theory after 150 years. What if we give ID the same time. Let's say it's been around for 20 years already. That means you've got 130 years before we shit-can your designer. Deal?

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, I guess you got some of your definitions wrong then didn't you?

    Only a moron would say that. All of my definitions come from accepted source

    I'd say 'common polymers' is a pretty good argument for universal common descent with modification.

    Why? There isn't anything in evolutionism that predicts that

    Like I've said, if your opinion about science mattered at all people would be paying attention.

    It isn't an opinion, moron.

    ID is rapidly becoming a dead-end because it hasn't progressed at all in 10 years at least.

    Of course it has progressed. OTOH your position still has nothing.

    You can't tell me how design was implemented,

    That isn't part of ID, asshole.

    What kind of designer could do all that designing and implementing and yet leave no evidence of their procedure?

    Archaeology is full of that.

    You've given up on evolutionary theory after 150 years

    What evolutionary theory? No one seems to be able to find it.

    Look, Jerad, obviously you are just an ignorant asshole who thinks its belligerence is an argument.

    The science of ID is in the detection and study of the design.

    In 150+ years you cannot say how. You cannot say when. You can't even say if such things are possible. Yours is the most useless position there is today. No one uses it for anything.

     

  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW with countably infinite sets in which one is a proper subset of the other, there are TWO different matching schemes. TWO, which means there isn't any "one-to-one correspondence".

    You are ignorant of infinities and you worship Cantor because you are too stupid or cowardly to think for yourself.

    No more off-topic posts.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home