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

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Methodological Naturalism- or Confused conflationism?

-
OK, I have a simple sobriety test. The cop asks you to say "methodological naturalism". And if you pass that, spell it.

Methodological naturalism. Quite the mouthful. What is it? And is it really "the way" to conduct science?

According to Wikipedia, the (now former) head of the NCSE, Dr. Eugenie Scott, said:
Science as practised today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes.
A few serious and fatal problems with that- especially if she was trying to define ID out of the realm of science:

1- How is she defining natural? Did Stonehenge arise naturally or artificially?

2- Science cannot start with an answer already in hand. Banning telic explanations is a sign of a Dogma. Dogma and science do not mix

3- The contrast is between natural, as in produced by nature, versus artificial, as in produced by some intentional/ intelligent agency

4- The intelligent design exists in nature and as such can be studied


The "naturalistic" explanation for the physical laws of the universe?
"They just are (the way they are)." - the Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"
Our earth? A accretion of cosmic debris formed over millions of years with innumerable just-so cosmic collisions to give it its content, rotation an just-so Moon.

And again, Stonehenge? Or is it OK for telic explanations cuz we "know" (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) humans arose via natural processes?

That is the problem. Telic processes are allowed only when it is absolutely proven, even though science allegedly doesn't do proof (it sure as hell did a good job at proving we are part of a heliocentric solar system. And Einstein's equations did a good job at proving gravity bends light- oh well).

Where is the demarcation? And why?

Sir Isaac Newton definitely did NOT use methodological naturalism for anything. He wouldn't have allowed it.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Timothy Horton Shameless LIAR

-
This kid is the most ignorant ass, ever. Now the asshole spews:

Sorry but that is demonstrably false. Here is one such experiment where basic evolutionary processes produced large amounts of FI. The amount is only limited by how long the experiment is allowed to run.
Double dumbass- those are both examples of evolution by means of intelligent design.

It is obvious that all evolutionists are deluded liars. And they appear to be proud of that fact.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Timothy Horton is a Pathetic Liar

-
Over one Peaceful Science, the scientifically illiterate Timothy Horton spewed the following lie:
But the ID position does reject the theory of evolution, arguably the most well supported scientific theory of all time, despite there being no scientific reason to do so, right?
1- There isn't any scientific theory of evolution

2- There isn't any support- beyond cowardly lying evoTARDs- for evolutionism, ie the claim that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes like natural selection and drift

3- The ID position rejects that unscientific claim

Timothy Horton is proud to be a lying coward.

ETA- Timothy's "equations" for macroevolution:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3  ; 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Earth to Michael Callen of Peaceful Science

-
Over on Peaceful Science a Michael Callen asks:
Do you disagree that species are a product of their genetic makeup?
There isn't any evidence for that, Michael. So that would be a problem. And then we have researchers who say it isn't just the genetics:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.
Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.
Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2 
Thanks to evolutionism we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.

Saturday, January 26, 2019

"Dr." Patrick Trischitta is an Ignorant Punk

-
I would love to get this asshole in an open debate on science. He is a liar and a coward. And I would easily expose him as such. He is a pathetic asshole who wouldn't last one minute on an open forum where he couldn't moderate those who prove he is a liar and coward.

Patrick Trischitta is nothing but a punk. And it is very telling that he and Joshua Swamidass are internet pals.

And now this punk is ignorant of the health benefits of male circumcision. At least Joshua was learned enough to educate him.

For Joshua Swamidass- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-Evolution

-
The regukars of "Peaceful Science" are such a clueless lot. They have to make shit up because they don't have anything real to support their position. They HAVE TO tell people ID is anti-evolution even though they cannot support the claim.

So here it is AGAIN- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution:

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution

In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.

Defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps OgreMKV will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)

With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.

Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)


Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:


The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.

However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.

They go on to say:

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.

Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- 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. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?”- willy-nilly or by design?

Eat it, peaceful science. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

T_Aquaticus is an Ignorant Ass

-
Peaceful Science is full of evoTARDs who will just say anything. Case in point an evoTARD that goes by T_Aquaticus who spewed the following bit of total bullshit:
If a species shared derived traits with both mammals and birds this would violate the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and by extension common descent.

LIAR.

1- There isn't any theory of evolution  that makes such a prediction

2- There isn't a scientific theory of evolution

3- If there was such a species evolutionism would easily accommodate it

4- There is NOTHING in evolution that says such a species cannot exist

Then dumbass Neil Rickert chimes in:
So they accuse evolutionists of hijacking the Linnaeus classification system.
That is a fact, dumbass.*
However, it was because Darwin was following the Linnaeus system, that the evidence for common descent became so obvious.
That is false. Darwin only tried to explain the pattern observed in Linnaean Classification. To do so he had to call upon well-timed extinctions to make the distinct groupings


“One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr 

For Joshua Sawmidass- The Tell Tale Sign of Intelligent Design in Biology

-
Joshua actually said that what we see in biology is more akin to Mt Everest than Mt. Rushmore. And I am very thankful that Joshua is not a criminal investigator as he is clueless.

The tell tale sign of intelligent design is biology is as Dr. Behe said in "Darwin's Black Box":
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
Easy-peasy. And to refute the claim of ID for any structure meeting that criteria is to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce it.

Now perhaps Joshua is like Alan Fox who is too stupid to understand Dr. Behe's criteria. But stupidity and ignorance are not arguments.

Friday, January 25, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is Confused- or Scientifically Iliterate

-
Earth to Swamidass- No, we do NOT have to know how something was designed before we can determine it was in fact designed. We don't even ask how until AFTER design has been determined.

We do not have any idea how the ancients designed and manufactured the Antikythera Mechanism and yet we know it is an artifact. We are still trying to figure out how Stonehenge and the pyramids were built but we know they are artifacts.

And our opponents don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life and yet that is considered science even though evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how.

As I said, we have difficulty figuring out how the ancients produced some of their artifacts. And these are things we can reproduce. We cannot design life. We cannot design planets. We cannot design universes. So the "how" is a separate question, as it should be.

Only people who don't know anything about investigations say what Timothy Horton spewed and Joshua swallowed.

Joshua is totally clueless

Mt. Everest vs. Mt. Rushmore- The Swamidass confusion

-
Joshua Swamidass wonders why Mt Rushmore is designed but Mt Everest is not- or rather why does ID not say that Mt Everest was intelligently designed.

Scientific criteria, Joshua. Mt Rushmore has it and Mt Everest does not. Sure Mt Everest exists in a designed world and on a designed planet. But there isn't anything that says an intelligent designer was directly required to produce it.

It was just a happenstance occurrence on an intelligently designed planet.


Thursday, January 24, 2019

For Joshua Swamidass/ Peaceful Science: RE Irreducible Complexity

-
Joshua and Peaceful Science seem to have problems understanding the concept of irreducible complexity. First Dr. Behe addresses the type of evolution IC is an obstacle for in an article schooling Judge Jones:
Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”? 
The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems. (page 7)
That is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Natural selection is non-telic with no goals. The elimination of the less fit, with the less fit being those deficient in some manner for that environment. There aren't any goals with such a process.

Now I know the following is from "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski but is the latest accepted definition, nonetheless.

Irreducible Complexity:
IC-A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number and diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous and diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism and if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287
All IC structures are also discrete combinatorial objects. That is a structure made up of several different parts that when assembled properly produce some specific effect. William Dembski discusses DCO's in "No Free Lunch". The issue is as follows:
1- You need the parts. With respect to any bacterial flagellum that would be the required residues in the correct quantity. That is the origins issue.
2- You need to get them all to the right location at the right time. That is the localization issue
3- You need to get them in the proper configuration while avoiding cross reactions with the wrong residues in the group. That is the configuration issue
4- You need command and control of it. That is the communication issue. (Dembski missed this one) 

So, the criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
You do not refute the concept by showing a 3 part "IC" structure can arise. That says nothing about a 4 part system, for example. Being able to lift 100 lbs doesn't mean you can lift 1000 lbs., or even 110 lbs. But it does mean you can lift 90 lbs.

Also, see- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Remember, IC is OK to have evolved by means of intelligent design.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Alan Fox is a LIAR

-
Alan Fox is a liar:
Because “ID” has no testable hypothesis that makes testable predictions. It is unfalsifiable until someone can say “ID predicts X happens” where X is some observable phenomenon.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

That is by far more than your position has, Alan. Alan is too much of a coward to take the Pepsi challenge

Sunday, January 20, 2019

John Harshman is Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
It never fails. Once again an evoTARD is saying universal common descent predicts a nested hierarchy when in fact it does no such thing. Evolutionary biologist John Harshman is conflating a branching pattern with a nested hierarchy. He wrongly believes that a phylogenetic tree is a nested hierarchy.

AGAIN- phylogenetic trees depict hypothetical ancestor- descendent relationships in which each and every node is a hypothetical population. Each node in turn is a different level on the tree.

This is important as nested hierarchies require levels to consist of and contain, lower levels. However hypothetical ancestral populations do not consist of nor contain their descendants.

In a nested hierarchy we have the Animal Kingdom, which consists of and contains Phyla. Each Phylum, in turn, consists of and contains Classes. Each Class consists of and contains Orders. Each Order consists of and contains Families. Each Family consists of and contains Genera. And each Genus consists of an contains species.

Each category is distinct, without any overlapping. However with gradual evolution we would expect to see innumerable transitional forms which would blur the lines of distinction.

What Darwin did, unbeknownst to the evoTARDs of today, was EXPLAIN why we would observe the nested hierarchy that Linnaean Taxonomy presented. He never said it was the expected pattern.

John Harshman is an ignorant ass when it comes to nested hierarchies and evidence for universal Common Descent.

Peaceful Science is full of ignorant assholes and liars

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/good-ted-video-on-evolution/637/33

Friday, January 18, 2019

Joshua Swamidass Continues to Misrepresent Dr. Behe

-
I nominate Joshua Swamidass as class clown. This guy is a joke.

What Dr. Behe claims- Dr. Behe schools Judge Jones:
Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”?
The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.
Dr. Behe is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design producing irreducibly complex structures an systems:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? 
And in the same way a program is guided by its programmer the guidance could definitely be in the form of programming that allows for organisms to adapt and evolve. Evolution by means of intelligent design is OK with ID.

That is why origins are so important. With the intelligent design origin of life it is a given that they were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve.

Joshua can't seem to be able to grasp that- and it would be all "natural" when compared with the supernatural.

Genetic Mutations Are Not Mistakes? Really?

-
The ignorant asshole, Timothy Horton, is at it again:
Genetic mutations aren’t mistakes.
Evolutionary biologists disagree. They say that all mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes:

DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation  :
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. 
So color me surprised by the fact that timmy is ignorant of what evolutionary biologists actually say.

Prokaryotes from Eukaryotes- Problems with Endosymbiosis

-
This is a repost from 2006:

Can Evolution Make Things Less Complicated? :
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
The problem for evos is that eukaryotes are far to complex and intricate to be their choice for first life.  And yet the evidence supports a euk-first scenario

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Peaceful Science is a SHAM

-
On peaceful science you can say just about anything as long as what you say is an attack on ID. Case in point the ignorant spewage of one Timothy Horton- actually timmy is a pathological LIAR:
Behe’s claims about IC have already been disproven. See the work of molecular biologist Joe Thornton in resurrecting ancient proteins. IC structures have been empirically shown to evolve through indirect pathways, using co-option and molecular scaffolding. Thornton’s work caused Behe to now claim IC systems can’t evolve through direct Darwinian pathways which is a pretty lame claim since they still evolve.
LIES. ALL LIES.

This is Dr. Behe has to say:
The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism.  (that is the paper timmy is talking about)
Dr. Behe continues:
1) This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.
2) The authors (including Christoph Adami in his commentary) are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as anywhere near IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.
3) In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away.
4) Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly. (Figure 4C)
5) Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.
6) In the “least promising” intermediate (L111Q) the protein has essentially lost its ability to bind any steroid. In the “most promising” intermediate protein (the one that has just the S106P alteration) the protein has lost about 99% of its ability to bind DOC and cortisol, and lost about 99.9% of its ability to bind aldosterone. (Figure 4C)
7) Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold.
8) One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties.
9) The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.
10) In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic
scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!
All of that has been brought to timmy's attention so the only thing we can make of timmy is that it is a sociopathic loser and pathological liar.

That Peaceful Science allows this type of trope proves they are not interested in anything but smearing ID no matter what. Joshua Swamidass should be ashamed.
 

Monday, January 14, 2019

Educating Swamidass- Phylogentics

-
Too Funny. Joshua posted:
Phylogenetics does not work based on similarities.
Introduction to Phylogenetics says otherwise:
Phylogenetic relationship between organisms is given by the degree and kind of evolutionary distance. To understand this concept better, let us define taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of naming, classifying and describing organisms. Taxonomists arrange the different organisms in taxa (groups). These are then further grouped together depending on biological similarities. This grouping of taxa reflects the degree of biological similarity. 
It goes on to say:
Two extensive groups of analyses exist to examine phylogenetic relationships: Phenetic methods and cladistic methods. Phenetic methods, or numerical taxonomy, use various measures of overall similarity for the ranking of species. They can use any number or type of characters, but the data has to be converted into a numerical value. The organisms are compared to each other for all of the characters and then the similarities are calculated. After this, the organisms are clustered based on the similarities.  
The interwebs is a great tool, Josh. All you have to do is figure out how to use it.

ETA- see synapomorphy

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Mikkel Rumraket- "Science" via Bald Assertion

-
OK, at least Rumraket thinks that bacterial flagella are motors. But then he just baldly spews:
Now that we’ve got all that utterly irrelevant label-nonsense over with, the flagellum still evolved. That literal rotary motor, powered by an electrical engine, constructed according to a digitally encoded set of instructions, still evolved.
No evidence is provided. No way to test the claim is provided. No mechanism is provided. Just pure, raw and meaningless spewage. But hey, that is what passes for science over on Peaceful Science.