Separating the Ideology from the Science?

-
Over on TSZ, a safe zone for evoTARDs, OMagain posts this bit of cluelessness:

A charge has been made that evolution seems to be a popular religion here at TSZ and that it is difficult to separate the ideology from the science.

That all depends on what you mean by "evolution". If by "evolution" you mean:

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.

Then there isn't any science. It's all ideology. No one knows how to test that claim and because of that it remains outside of science.

The modern synthesis was supposed to be an upgrade to Darwin's idea in that it included genetics. That means all changes have to be unpacked at the genetic level. It became meaningless to call on anatomical features, for example varying complexities of vision systems, to support the above definition of evolution. Without the scientific evidence that the required transformations were accountable via genetic change you don't have a viable mechanism. And thanks to Wagner's "Arrival of the Fittest" we see that even changing the DNA sequence of a gene doesn't mean you change the protein it codes for. Mutations become a long walk in the same place.

The point being is where OMagain doesn't "see any examples of where evolution is treated like a religion at TSZ", the rest of the world is still waiting for the science.

Larry Moran- Still Choking on Junk DNA

-
Larry Moran will tell you that 90% of our genome is junk. However when pressed it becomes clear his assessment is based on his ignorance and his belief in evolutionism. His belief in evolutionism has him looking for what he thinks are conserved regions of DNA as such conservation is allegedly a sign of function. Conserved here means alleged related populations also carry them.

If our genomes are 90% junk that would mean that histone octamers evolved by means of blind and mindless processes to spool up that junk and package it in a way such that the functional parts are accessible by the cells. Total bullshit, that. When this is brought to his attention he deals with it by deleting the post because Larry, in the end, is a willfully ignorant coward who cannot let the facts get in the way of his spewage.

The real truth here is that at least 90% of what Larry Moran posts is junk.

Thankfully Larry retired from teaching this year and perhaps now the University of Toronto will become a place of higher learning.

Sexual Reproduction- Still Unanswered by Evolutionism

-
Evolutionism is the claim that all of life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes starting from some unknown replicators. It is an untestable claim that has no business being taught in science classrooms.

One of its untestable claims is that sexual reproduction somehow evolved by blind and mindless processes, which is just one of the untestable claims evolutionism makes.

The first problem is meiosis. Now I am sure that you can search the internet and find articles on the evolution of sexual reproduction. Go ahead and read them. You will see they are full of speculation based on the assumption that sexual reproduction did evolve. Not one will contain any science that demonstrates what the papers say is true. And that is the crux of the problem.

The same can be said for the alleged evolution of meiosis. That is still all speculation and as such doesn't belong in a science classroom. You cannot have sexual reproduction without meiosis. And seeing that natural selection and drift (blind and mindless processes) rely on trial and error it makes you wonder how those processes could have hit on meiosis. Did the first offspring of the first sexually reproducing populations have a full complement of both parents' DNA? If they did and survived then meiosis was required at that step. But think about the next generation and all the DNA those cells would carry. Sooner, rather than later, the cells would be overloaded with DNA.

That said, once sexual reproduction took hold it all but ended any hope of Common Descent (ie fish giving rise to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, etc.). This is due to the very nature of sexual reproduction. Sexually reproducing populations tend to keep the norm and reign in any that try to deviate from it. That creates a wobbling stability but a wobbling stability does not create the type of changes required by Common Descent.

Meiosis and sexual reproduction- more evidence that living organisms were Intelligently Designed. Why? Because meiosis requires forethought and planning. You have to know to get rid of half of each parent's DNA so that the offspring wouldn't be loaded down with extra DNA. Blind and mindless processes don't plan. Whatever happens and happens to work usually gets kept.

How to Find Another Habitable Planet

-
Stephen Hawking says we need to get off of this planet before we completely ruin it and are wiped out because of that. I think we are long, long way away from that day but it is good to be prepared. So how do we find another habitable planet?

 Read "The Privileged Planet" as all of what is required is in it. For example we need to look for the right kind of star- yes it must be very similar to our own Sun. Red dwarves are too small, too dim and to be in its habitable zone means the planet would be so close it would be tidally locked, ie rotation = revolution (like our Moon). And that means no protective magnetic field. Red dwarves are out for a habitable planet for humans, anyway.

OK so we start by finding the right type of star. Then we need to see where those stars are. Too close to the center of the galaxy and we run the risk of too much radiation and too many other celestial objects moving about that can wreak havoc on that system.

Then there must be terrestrial planets or moons in that star's habitable zone that we can terraform. Obviously we need water and oxygen, for starters. The place we pick needs to have a magnetic field to protect us from the host star's radiation, which means it has to have a molten iron core and rotation to produce it. And that rotation needs to be stable or else we need to be prepared for climate change the likes we have never seen before- think about the earth tilting such that one of the poles is facing the Sun.

The point being is it isn't enough to find any terrestrial planet.


Factors required to sustain complex life

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Process(es)- Revisited, Again

-

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski

Yes, they can.

Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”. Also evolutionism is all about the how and when yet it cannot answer those questions scientifically. That must be what pisses them off and causes them to flail away at ID with their ignorance-> if they could support their position's claims ID would be refuted.

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.


All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

OMagain, Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it

-
OMagain is a special case of evoTARD. You can explain things to it but it never understands any of it. For example in a recent ignorant post OMagain sed:

ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.

That still has NOTHING to do with ID which is about the detection and study of intelligent/ intentional designs in nature. That has been explained to OMagain many, many times. We can and do detect intentional design without knowing nor asking those questions. And, as a matter of science, those questions are asked AFTER intentional design has been detected and is being studied.

OTOH OMagain's position is supposed to be all about those questions yet it cannot answer any of them. Go figure.

Then OMagain demonstrates more ignorance by saying that "It was just designed that way" doesn't add anything to our understanding. Saying something was designed eliminates entire classes of possible causes and focuses on one. It tells you there was intent, ie a purpose, behind the design. Does OMagain think that Stonehenge would be studied the same way if it was found to be a natural rock formation as it is now? Perhaps because OMagain is an ignorant ass.

ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. 

WRONG- ID is not anti-evolution. That said science mandates all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations before a design inference can be considered. This too has been explained to OMagain but its willful ignorance gets in the way every time.

And again, if these alleged skeptics applied their skepticism to their own position they would see it is nothing but untestable bullshit. If they actually had something they would just present it and that would refute ID. But they can't do that so they are forced to flail away like a bunch of ass-munching cowards.

The science of ID is the detection and study of intentional design in nature. Those other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end venue.

 

Global Temps Spike as Liberals Blow Hot Air and Steam

-
Just when you thought global warming alarmism couldn't get any worse it does. After the POTUS rightfully pulled the US out of the Paris Climate accord liberals exploded sending global temperatures soaring and causing ice shelves to split off. LoL!

Too funny that we can't even properly predict the weather from week to week but morons think we can predict the climate years from now. And yes climate is driven by the weather. The alleged temperature increases are driven by the weather. Those daily weather temps are what provide the alleged global temps, which are then averaged to get the alleged yearly global temps used to compare against historical records.

Not only that we see daily changes in temperature of up to 50 degrees F and yet alarmists are worried about a 1.5 degree F increase in over 100 years. You want to see climate change in real time? Move to New England where the climate changes weekly. We have had spring temps in the winter and winter temps in the spring and fall. This past May we had a heat wave and well below average temps too. And guess what? The CO2 remained constant or increased during that period.

Blaming CO2 for global warming is short-sighted and demonstrates ignorance. Calling CO2 a pollutant is just plain ignorant. By that logic water vapor is also a pollutant yet we don't see anyone going there even though water vapor overpowers CO2 when it comes to greenhouse gasses.