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

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Yes, Design is a Mechanism- by Definition

-
Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can see that design is a mechanism. For example:

A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

35 Comments:

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    In order for design to be realised and implemented a designer would also need resources, tools, a work space, energy, food, living space, possibly support staff and lots and lots of other things. Based on our experience of intelligent designing agents.

    So, design may be a mechanism but without a lot of other things it would never make an appearance or be brought into existence.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order for design to be realised and implemented a designer would also need resources, tools, a work space, energy, food, living space, possibly support staff and lots and lots of other things.

    And?

    So, design may be a mechanism but without a lot of other things it would never make an appearance or be brought into existence.

    OK. We exist. The diversity of living organisms, past and present, on Earth exists. So clearly everything that was needed to design the solar system, earth/ moon system and living organisms was available.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    OK. We exist. The diversity of living organisms, past and present, on Earth exists. So clearly everything that was needed to design the solar system, earth/ moon system and living organisms was available.

    Well, I haven't seen where the designer(s) worked or what tools they used or where they slept or what type of fuel/energy they used. We don't even know how many there were or when they did their work. And if they were/are part of a bigger civilisation then where are the rest of them?

     
  • At 7:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, I haven't seen where the designer(s) worked or what tools they used or where they slept or what type of fuel/energy they used.

    So what?


    We don't even know how many there were or when they did their work.

    So what?

    You act as if we don't have any answers because we don't have all of the answers.

     
  • At 1:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You act as if we don't have any answers because we don't have all of the answers.

    My point is that there is no supporting evidence for the claim that there were designers. In our experience designers require a lot of support structures and resources in order to implement their designs but none of that is apparent for the proposed designers who did something at some unspecified time.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My point is that there is no supporting evidence for the claim that there were designers.

    That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. We have evidence for ID ion biology, cosmology, physics, geology and chemistry- at a minimum. And no one else has an alternative and viable explanation for what we observe.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. We have evidence for ID ion biology, cosmology, physics, geology and chemistry- at a minimum. And no one else has an alternative and viable explanation for what we observe.

    Since you haven't convinced a vast majority of the working scientists in the world that design has been detected and you've got no further evidence I don't expect ID to be gaining a lot of followers anytime soon.

    It makes no difference to me. You handle things the way you want.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What? Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a viable alternative to ID. So clearly you are just a hypocrite.

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What? Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a viable alternative to ID. So clearly you are just a hypocrite.

    I'm quite happy with the mainstream alternative explanation. You're not, that's fine with me. As long as you don't expect the rest of us to come around to your point of view without more supporting evidence.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm quite happy with the mainstream alternative explanation.

    Shit happens is not an alternative.

    And look, you don't have any evidence, no supporting evidence and no methodology to test your position's claims. You have nothing but to whine about ID because you are ignorant of science.

     
  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Shit happens is not an alternative.

    Good thing that's not what anyone is saying then.

    And look, you don't have any evidence, no supporting evidence and no methodology to test your position's claims. You have nothing but to whine about ID because you are ignorant of science.

    Hmmmm, aside from the fact that literally millions of working scientists disagree with you . . . what research or publications can you provide to show that you have a greater understanding of science? What work have you done which has been published which has contributed to the advancement of science?

     
  • At 7:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Really? Then tell us how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes by means of blind and mindless processes. Tell us how to test such a claim.

    The same goes for every biological system, subsystem and structure.

    And again go fuck yourself with your childish bluffing. There isn't one scientist who can support the claims of evolutionism.

    It's like you are proud to be a cowardly cunt, Jerad

     
  • At 2:13 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Really? Then tell us how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes by means of blind and mindless processes. Tell us how to test such a claim.

    No one knows for sure but there is research into the transition.

    The same goes for every biological system, subsystem and structure.

    I'd say we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago.

    And again go fuck yourself with your childish bluffing. There isn't one scientist who can support the claims of evolutionism.

    Not in your opinion anyway.

    It's like you are proud to be a cowardly cunt, Jerad

    Too funny. You always get abusive when someone points out there is no evidence for designers except for contested design detection. No workshops, no living quarters, no equipment, no documents or recording, no left-over waste products. ID proponents always want to claim that design is the 'best' explanation because most of the 'complex specified information' we observe comes from intelligence. But they never want to admit that all the other supporting structures and resources that go along with human design are absent when talking about some undefined designers that did something at some unspecified time.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one knows for sure but there is research into the transition.


    There isn't any transition to research

    I'd say we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago.

    Not when it comes to the proposed mechanisms

    Not in your opinion anyway

    It isn't an opinion. I say that because peer-review is totally devoid of support for evolutionism. Even Futuyma's text book doesn't offer anything.

    You always get abusive when someone points out there is no evidence for designers except for contested design detection.

    That is a lie. For one the people who "contest it" don't have anything. For another you don't know jack about science.

    But they never want to admit that all the other supporting structures and resources that go along with human design are absent when talking about some undefined designers that did something at some unspecified time.

    And you are fucked in the head. Only a total moron would think that stuff is required. It is definitely not there for every artifact. It is not required.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't any transition to research

    In your opinion.

    Not when it comes to the proposed mechanisms

    In your opinion.

    It isn't an opinion. I say that because peer-review is totally devoid of support for evolutionism. Even Futuyma's text book doesn't offer anything.

    In your opinion.

    That is a lie. For one the people who "contest it" don't have anything. For another you don't know jack about science.

    In your opinion.

    And you are fucked in the head. Only a total moron would think that stuff is required. It is definitely not there for every artifact. It is not required.

    Maybe it's not required but aren't you even a little bit curious as to how design was implemented? Where it was implemented? When it was implemented? It astonished me that ID proponents have a complete dearth of curiosity about such things. How many years are you going to say: first comes design detection then studying the design then drawing conclusions about the designers? I don't believe you or any other ID proponents gives a fig about those things. In my opinion obviously.

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

    Fuck you, Jerad. You clearly are just a gullible hypocrite. Everything you say is my opinion is, in reality, fact. I know it's a fact because I have read peer-review and Futuyma's book. There isn't anything tat supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    And Jerad, we are not on your asinine agenda. Your position is supposedly all and yet has nothing. Perhaps you should focus on that and stop being such an anti-science hypocrite.

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Fuck you, Jerad. You clearly are just a gullible hypocrite. Everything you say is my opinion is, in reality, fact. I know it's a fact because I have read peer-review and Futuyma's book. There isn't anything tat supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    In your abusive opinion. Millions and millions of people disagree with you.

    And Jerad, we are not on your asinine agenda. Your position is supposedly all and yet has nothing. Perhaps you should focus on that and stop being such an anti-science hypocrite.

    Hey, if you aren't going to do any work and still expect people to take your contested inference seriously it's okay with me.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Millions and millions of people disagree with you

    I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.

    Hey, if you aren't going to do any work and still expect people to take your contested inference seriously it's okay with me.

    We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.

    Welcome to the extreme minority.

    We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.

    When you get a decent volume of published papers then we can have another chat.

    And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up

    I don't see the point since you're clearly in complete denial of the data. And, let's remember, you can't actually specify which mutations are guided and which are random. Except to say that some are beneficial in your view. But it's all kind of . . . eh, isn't it? But you've got not clear and solid criteria for deciding. Let us know when you've got something solid.

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Can't remember if I already replied. Sorry for any duplication.

    I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.

    In your opinion. Almost all working scientists disagree with you.

    We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.

    If you're happy I'm happy.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Welcome to the extreme minority.

    Whatever, Jerad. More people accept some form of ID than accept evolutionism.

    When you get a decent volume of published papers then we can have another chat.

    Evoluti0onism doesn't have any support in published papers. You are a hypocrite

    I don't see the point since you're clearly in complete denial of the data

    Liar. I am not denying anything as I cannot deny what doesn't exist.

    And, let's remember, you can't actually specify which mutations are guided and which are random.

    Neither can you- and scientists have shown which are guided.


    Not one working scientist can refute what I said. Jerad is clearly a cowardly bluffer.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Whatever, Jerad. More people accept some form of ID than accept evolutionism.

    So? Lots of people believe lots of stupid things. Like astrology.

    Evoluti0onism doesn't have any support in published papers. You are a hypocrite

    No, you just think mutations are guided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are guided and the ones that aren't.

    Liar. I am not denying anything as I cannot deny what doesn't exist.

    Welcome to the extreme fringe. Have a good time.

    Neither can you- and scientists have shown which are guided.

    When I've asked you to specify which are guided you generally fumbled.

    Not one working scientist can refute what I said. Jerad is clearly a cowardly bluffer.

    Whatever.

    And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up

    The whole book talks about unguided processes. And presents the evidence for that conclusion. You're welcome to disagree but you're clearly in a extreme fringe. Which is fine with me.

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lots of people believe lots of stupid things

    Like evolutionism.

    No, you just think mutations are guided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are guided and the ones that aren't.

    No, you just think mutations are unguided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are unguided and the ones that aren't.

    However research has uncovered mutations that happen just when they are needed and just where they are needed.

    The whole book talks about unguided processes.

    Not really. And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.

    Look, it's clear that you don't know anything and all you can do is follow who you think best supports your personal beliefs.

    I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.

     
  • At 1:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No, you just think mutations are unguided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are unguided and the ones that aren't.

    Every single book on evolution you read makes and supports the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    However research has uncovered mutations that happen just when they are needed and just where they are needed.

    Random events will sometimes seem well timed but that doesn't mean they are.

    And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.

    In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.

    Look, it's clear that you don't know anything and all you can do is follow who you think best supports your personal beliefs.

    In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.

    I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.

    In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.

    In the last few millennia, when selective breeding created all the dog breeds we now have, are you saying all the mutations that occurred were programmed and would have occurred without the breeding activity? It not then were the mutations random or guided?

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Every single book on evolution you read makes and supports the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    Except that isn't the claim. The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance. Mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.

    Yet no one has ever said how that was determined.


    And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.

    In your opinion

    It isn't my opinion. If you can find something then post it or shut up.


    I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.

    In your opinion

    Then it should be easy for you to refute and yet you can't. You are a bluffing loser.



    In the last few millennia, when selective breeding created all the dog breeds we now have, are you saying all the mutations that occurred were programmed and would have occurred without the breeding activity?


    I never made that claim.

    Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we now observe. That is how impotent NS is.


    Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Except that isn't the claim. The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance. Mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.

    I think you'll find that the actual statement is that mutations are random with respect to fitness. Look in your textbook.

    Yet no one has ever said how that was determined.

    Via mathematical analysis. It's not that complicated. There's a certain background mutation rate which can be used to roughly date when some lineages diverged.

    It isn't my opinion. If you can find something then post it or shut up.

    You've got a pretty good book; if you choose to disagree with the research that's your choice.

    I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.

    In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.

    Then it should be easy for you to refute and yet you can't. You are a bluffing loser.

    I can't help how you choose to interpret the data that is accepted by millions of other people.

    I never made that claim.

    I didn't say you did. I asked you a question.

    Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we now observe. That is how impotent NS is.

    Clearly no one is saying that natural selection was responsible. But, since you think some mutations arise to benefit a life form at just the right time then how did that 'programming' interact with the action of breeders?

    Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Too bad for your view that people are researching that topic and finding out more and more all the time.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter to me. You're welcome to inhabit a severe fringe. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think you'll find that the actual statement is that mutations are random with respect to fitness

    Ernst Mayr disagrees, as does peer-review.

    Via mathematical analysis

    That cannot do that job.

    You've got a pretty good book;

    Yes, and it doesn't help you at all.

    In your opinion

    Nope, it's a fact- your position doesn't have any science. No one can test its grand claims.

    I can't help how you choose to interpret the data that is accepted by millions of other people.

    All you can do is bluff.


    Clearly no one is saying that natural selection was responsible.

    It can't even do that simple thing.


    Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Too bad for your view that people are researching that topic and finding out more and more all the time.


    Actually that is too bad for your view as the more we find out the better ID looks.


    Anyway, it is clear that all you can do is lie and bluff. That is all you have ever done. Your ignorance is bliss.


     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Ernst Mayr disagrees, as does peer-review.

    They are random but the situation is normally qualified as being 'random with respect to fitness' because of claims like yours.

    That cannot do that job.

    Sounds like you don't understand the mathematics.

    Nope, it's a fact- your position doesn't have any science. No one can test its grand claims.

    Again, the only part you actually disagree with is the 'unguided' part. And yet, you can't provide a method for determining which mutations are 'guided' and which are 'unguided'.

    Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

    It is possible to construct a plausible pathway though. And there is ongoing research attempting to address that.

    Actually that is too bad for your view as the more we find out the better ID looks.

    Strange that very little to no ID research is being published then. Oh I know you'll say: first we have to study the design. And: we haven't got the resources. And: there's a giant anti-ID conspiracy. But the longer and longer nothing new comes out of the ID camp the more and more tenuous those statements sounds. If you had something that was really workable then you should be attracting more and more people around to your way of thinking. And producing more and more research. But that's not what's happening. Even Dr Dembski has given up on ID work.

    Anyway, it is clear that all you can do is lie and bluff. That is all you have ever done. Your ignorance is bliss.

    I am happy because all I see is more and more data supporting unguided evolution. Nice.

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They are random but the situation is normally qualified as being 'random with respect to fitness' because of claims like yours.

    That is wrong. They are not claimed to be random with respect to fitness because they can directly affect fitness.

    Sounds like you don't understand the mathematics.

    Why because math cannot make the determination you say?


    Again, the only part you actually disagree with is the 'unguided' part.

    So what? You don't have a methodology to test that unguided part.

    It is possible to construct a plausible pathway though.

    How do you know that it is plausible?

    And there is ongoing research attempting to address that.

    Bullshit

    Strange that very little to no ID research is being published then

    And there isn't any unguided evolutionary research being published.


    I am happy because all I see is more and more data supporting unguided evolution.

    Then you are a deluded imbecile as there isn't any such data.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That is wrong. They are not claimed to be random with respect to fitness because they can directly affect fitness.

    That's not what 'random with respect to fitness' means. As is clearly explain in any good evolutionary textbook.

    Why because math cannot make the determination you say?

    No, because you say things that show a lack of understanding.

    So what? You don't have a methodology to test that unguided part.

    YOU haven't found a mechanism that influences mutations. No one has. And mathematical analysis and experience shows that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    How do you know that it is plausible?

    How do you know it isn't?

    Then you are a deluded imbecile as there isn't any such data.

    Then find the mechanism(s) that guide mutations. Which no one has been able to do. And, in fact, no one in the ID camp is even looking.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's not what 'random with respect to fitness' means.

    Random with respect to fitness is not what is claimed.

    No, because you say things that show a lack of understanding.

    Nice projection.


    YOU haven't found a mechanism that influences mutations.


    Yes, we have.


    How do you know it isn't?

    Only a scientifically illiterate ass asks for someone to prove a negative.

    Then find the mechanism(s) that guide mutations.

    Already done. Your ignorance is meaningless.


    No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase. The same goes for ALL multi-protein machines. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Random with respect to fitness is not what is claimed.

    What do you think it means different from the way it's clearly explained.

    Yes, we have.

    And where has this result been published or at least stated clearly.

    Already done. Your ignorance is meaningless.

    Let's see an explanation of this.

    No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase. The same goes for ALL multi-protein machines. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

    Universal common descent via inherited variation generated by random with respect to fitness mutations. You disagree but that doesn't mean a mechanism/process hasn't been specified.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What do you think it means different from the way it's clearly explained.

    The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences. They are accidents, errors and mistakes. Mathematics cannot confirm such a thing.

    And where has this result been published or at least stated clearly.

    In peer-review. Shapiro's book is well referenced.

    Let's see an explanation of this.

    "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century"


    Universal common descent via inherited variation generated by random with respect to fitness mutations. You disagree but that doesn't mean a mechanism/process hasn't been specified.

    Too vague and useless. And no way to test if it can produce eukaryotes, ATP synthase nor any other multi-protein structure.

    Clearly you are scientifically ignorant.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home