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, April 03, 2019

T-URF 13- Personal Incredulity vs. Wishful Thinking with Strawman Humping thrown in

Evolution News and Views has weighed in on Art Hunt's nonsensical claim that t-urf 13, found in the mitochondria of certain maize, refutes Dr. Behe's claim that IC = intelligent design.

As I have said many times now that protein is only ONE part of the 3 part IC structure. 3 parts is less than the 5 part mouse trap. Meaning it doesn't refute anything even if Art's claim is true.

But that isn't the point. Over on Peaceful Science they STILL don't understand that the entire onus is on ART to show that the structure arose via blind and mindless processes. That includes the plant itself.

Peaceful Science choking on T-URF 13- ENV's post is linked to there. Or just click on the link on my right side bar.

It is also notable that the argument matches nearly exactly Behe’s statement of incredulity.
It deals with yours and Art's wishful thinking. You do realize the onus is still on Art to make his case and he has failed, right?
There is a complex protein that arose de novo in corn. It is so complex that both ID and mainstream scientists agree that, by Behe’s math, it should be impossible by natural processes. They conclude design.
Impossible by blind and mindless processes. Not impossible by "built-in responses to environmental cues".
The strange thing about this protein though is that it’s two main functions are causing sterility and rendering the corn more susceptible to a virus.

From an evolutionary science point of view, this all makes sense to us.
What? In what way does it make sense?
Now, for the ID perspective, why in the world would God have designed and specially created this particular complex protein?
Get stuffed. From an ID perspective God isn't required. Your problem, Joshua, is you are ignorant of Intelligent Design. Willfully so.
I know these are not scientific questions, but ID leads me here. 
LIAR. Your own ignorance leads you there.

Maize arose via numerous rounds of artificial selection. This could have easily triggered "built-in responses to environmental cues". And male sterility in plants isn't a bad thing. It allows for more variation because the now they need the male spores from a different source. So there you have it. The built-in response was due to the over artificial interbreeding of the plant.

Dumbass Swamidass just has to make ID a theological argument all the while ID is not. Swamidass loves humping that strawman.

Again, ID does not require the intervention of God or any Intelligent Designer. It is all accomplished by way of design- as in organisms were intelligently designed with the information required to evolve and adapt.
If trying to understand ID makes me anti-ID, I’m in a very strange predicament. Right now ID makes no sense to me scientifically. Asking questions, including of leaders in the ID movement, only makes it less coherent.

What am I to do?
Start by pulling your head out of your ass, Joshua. Then read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch; "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene; "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution" by Dr. Lee Spetner. That will give you a good base from which to continue.

ID is all about cause and effect relationships. You don't seem to understand that. Do you really think nature can produce codes? How does that make sense, scientifically?

You don't have a scientific alternative to ID, Joshua. So what, exactly, does make sense to you, scientifically?

ETA- We cannot rule out that t-urf 13 was a design screw-up. Meaning it was a corrupt built-in response...


Post a Comment

<< Home