Peaceful Science, Functional Information and the Immune System

-
Over on Peaceful Science evos are trying to use the immune system as an example of nature/ blind and mindless processes producing functional information. I will explain why their argument is nothing but question-begging nonsense.

From an ID perspective the immune system was intelligently designed. And it does exactly what it was intelligently designed to do.

That said, if they can demonstrate that the immune system evolved via natural selection, drift, CNE or any other blind and mindless mechanism, then gpuccio’s argument is falsified and there isn’t any need to talk about what the immune system produces. So all they are doing by using the immune system’s products to try to refute gpuccio, is engaging in question-begging. They are using what has to be explained in the first place as something that can produce FI, thereby refuting gpuccio.

A similar thing is seen with the type 3 secretory system and bacterial flagella. They try to use one unexplainable structure in an attempt to explain another unexplainable structure. The hypocrisy is clear. Any ID methodology will be made into a strawman and refuted. All the while they get away with the “glossy narrative” methodology.

Pathetic, really

Ask them for the methodology used to determine that blind and mindless processes- NS, drift, constructive neutral evolution- produced the differences in the proteins gpuccio’s methodology says required design intervention. Then we can all compare to see which is the more robust. Make sure you get the methodology used to determine the mutations were happenstance events. Otherwise we will be hit with another barrage of equivocation.

Or let them push you around and get nowhere. Unless that helps you refine your argument. Then it is a positive. Contingencies abound…

Why Cancer is a LOSS of Information

-
Joshua Swamidass is trying to make as if cancer equals an increase of functional information. Yet research says that cancer cells are more primitive than the cells they evolved from. Cancer represents a loss of functionality and a loss of specification.

You have to be a willfully ignorant desperado to think cancer represents an increase of functional information.

For example Cancer Cells "Reprogram" Energy Needs to Grow and Spread, Study Suggests:

The Hopkins scientists report that the loss of a single gene in kidney cancer cells causes them to stop making mitochondria, the tiny powerhouses of the cell that consume oxygen to generate energy. 

Instead, the cancer cells use the less efficient process of fermentation, which generates less energy but does not require oxygen. As a result, the cancer cells must take in large amounts of glucose.  The appetite of cancer cells for glucose is so great that it can be used to identify small groups of tumor cells that have spread throughout the body. 

Less efficient because it is primitive. And it became that way through a loss of information.

Other studies show that low cellular oxygen levels have been linked to cancer.

And finally:

• All cancer cells, regardless of tissue origin, use fermentation energy for growth. They ferment lactic acid from glucose in the cytoplasm, and ferment succinic acid from glutamine in the mitochondria
• Even when tumor cells appear to be making ATP and taking in oxygen, suggestive of normal respiration, their mitochondria are abnormal; hence, mitochondrial dysfunction is at the root of most cancers
• The true origin of cancer is damage to the respiratory function of your mitochondria, triggering compensatory fermentation, which is run by oncogenes. Oncogenes facilitate the entry of glucose and glutamine into the cell to replace oxidative phosphorylation
• Metastatic cancer cells are hybrid “rogue” macrophage cells — a mix of an immune system cell and a dysregulated stem cell with macrophage characteristics, which allows it to rapidly replicate and spread

A definite loss of information.

Joshua Swamidass is Clueless

-
Joshua Swaimdass is clueless. Read it for yourselves:

Biologists do not think science has ruled out God’s tinkering or directing evolution. Some do not think it was necessary, but it is not as if science demonstrates this so. Either way, if God exists (as we both believe he does), he created evolution, and providentially governs it according to his purposes.

So God is responsible for innovations in life like photosynthesis, and this is entirely consistent with mainstream science.

Joshua, meet Will Provine:

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Darwin's entire point was that natural selection replaced the designer requirement. And nothing has changed in that respect. Steven Hawking thought he had totally removed God from the picture.

Then Rumraket chimes in:

A) Science has shown that the diversity of life evolved by a purely natural process without God’s involvement.
B) Science has shown that it is not necessary to think that God was involved in the evolution of life’s diversity, and that a purely natural process could have produced everything we see in life.

Science has shown neither of those. So those are both false statements.

And Chris Falter chimes in:

Name even one scientific discipline that regards God as necessary, Ashwin. Do physicists need God in order to describe relativity? Do meteorologists need God to explain clouds? Do chemists need God to explain covalent bonding?

Ask Sir Isaac Newton who said a Intelligent Being was responsible for getting it all started. Physicists need an Intelligent Designer to explain what we observe. Without intelligent design there wouldn't be any weather nor meteorologists. And without intelligent design there wouldn't be any elements for chemistry and no chemists.

 

Joshua Swamidass is a Fool or a Liar

-
Joshua Swamidass is at it again. This time he wants IDists to prove a negative:

Where is the empirical evidence natural processes can’t produce 500 bits of FI in biological life?

There isn’t any evidence that they can. No one knows how to test such a thing. And Joshua’s “examples” just demonstrate sheer desperation or a complete misunderstanding of the argument.

Again, there isn’t any positive evidence nature, operating freely, can produce 500 bits of FI. So it would be up to the people who says it can to demonstrate such a thing.

What gpuccio is saying is based on everything we know about functional information. 100% of our observations and experiences say that functional information (500 bits) only comes via intelligent agency volition. And that nature always takes the line of least resistance. It is OK with producing rocks. Spiegelman’s Monster is also testimony to the fact that nature chooses the simplest way.

All that is moot as you can't even get simple replicators. But it proves that Swamidass does NOT understand science.

Jordan Mantha is a Clueless Ass

-
Peaceful Science is overrun by willfully ignorant assholes. Case in point- Jordan Mantha who spewed:

Here’s an analogy of what these conversations often look like to me:

Question: How did this house get built?
Biologists: A foundation was dug and poured, then the frame was built, roof put on, insulation and drywall, electrical and plumbing, and final painting and finish work.
ID: we know that architects make blueprints

WRONG! Biologists always say they don't know cuz it happened in the distant past. So the biologist would say: "We don't know but we are comforted by the fact that it evolved".

He goes on to spew:

If ID can’t come up with some kind of mechanism (and no, “mind” is not a mechanism, it’s an agent or cause) I have a hard time seeing it as a scientific claim.

DESIGN is a mechanism. And SCIENCE says that FIRST we determine design exists BEFORE even inquiring about the specific process used.

I could claim “Robots made Stonehenge” as a scientific theory and then when questioned about how they did that, if I simply said “we know robots assemble things” I would be rightly dismissed without a further thought.

That is how it is when they said humans didit, moron. No one knows how and what we do know came only after centuries of investigation. And that came AFTER investigators determined it was intelligently designed.

Jordan runs his mouth about mechanisms all the while totally ignorant of the fact there isn't any blind and mindless mechanism that could produce the diversity of life. Yet he gives evolutionism a pass.

Peaceful Science needs a name change to Anti-Science rantings

John Mercer, Molecular Biologist and Clueless Ass

-
Evos are such a clueless and arrogant lot. John Mercer wrote:

In science, the term “theory” refers to a scientific hypothesis whose empirical predictions have a long track record of being correct. Nothing of the sort exists for ID. You might have a hypothesis, but only if it makes clear empirical predictions.

Nothing of the sort exists for blind watchmaker evolution, John. There aren't any predictions borne from the proposed mechanisms other than change and stasis. Its claims remain untestable.

Peaceful Science is just another evoTARD echo chamber. And every person pushing evolutionism there is a clueless hypocrite.

Timothy Horton is an Ignorant LIAR

-
Timothy Horton is a pathetic excuse for a human. It mindlessly spews:

The genetic data we have now shows a tree going back to a single starting point.

LIAR. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life from a single starting point.  And patterns depend on mechanisms.

Deal with that you ignorant asshole.

But I digress- biologists do not agree with Timmy. They do NOT agree that there is evidence for a single starting point.

Take a look for yourselves

Timothy Horton is just an ignorant ass who will say anything.

Peaceful Science- Choking on Mechanisms

-
I swear, Peaceful Science is run by moronic cowards. They are totally clueless. I will explain-

ID is NOT a mechanistic theory. All that means is that we do NOT have to know how any designer implemented the project. Design itself is a mechanism, by definition. For example, you can build things by design or willy-nilly, ie that "house that Jack built".

Genetic engineering is a design mechanism. Artificial selection is a design mechanism. Genetic algorithms use telic processes to solve the problems they were designed to solve. Dr. Spetner introduced "built-in responses to environmental cues" as an adaptation  strategy.

That said, the alleged theory of evolution is a mechanistic theory. That is how it was formulated by Darwin and remains to this day. It allegedly offers a mechanism that is a designer-mimic. And yet it offers absolutely NOTHING in the way of a mechanism that could possibly produce the diversity of life observed.

They have nothing to offer but to attack ID with their cowardice and ignorance.

Follow the moronic discussion

With any design-centric investigation FIRST design is determined to exist and THEN questions about the how come into play. And to refute any and all given design inferences all you have to do is step up and present your mechanism tat is capable of producing what we claim is designed.

Peaceful Science is just another bunch of clueless cowards.

The Core Concepts of Intelligent Design- for Peaceful Science

-
Peaceful Science is run by willfully ignorant cowards and has willfully ignorant cowardly evos as regulars. They refuse to understand ID. And they think their willful ignorance is an argument.

OK here it is again

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.

Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.

Picking on ID is not positive evidence for evolutionism, blind watchmaker evolution. But anyway-

As Dr Behe said:

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.

Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?

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.” That is the positive case. For example:

As I posted in an earlier blog:

The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective*- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.

ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.

* Emergent collective properties, networks, and information in biology, page 23:

In the same vein, ATP synthesis in mitochondria can be conceived of and explained only because there is a coupling between ATP-synthase, the enzyme responsible for ATP synthesis, and the electrochemical potential. Hence ATP synthesis emerges out of this coupling. The activity of ATP-synthase alone could have in no way explained ATP synthesis. It is the merit of Mitchell, to have shown that it is precisely the interaction between two different physico-chemical events that generates this novel remarkable property. (italics in original)

Next we take a look inside ATP synthase-

“Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase”:

Abstract:

F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms. However, information about its energetics is limited compared to that of the reaction scheme. Actually, fundamental questions such as how efficiently F1-ATPase transduces free energy remain unanswered. Here, we demonstrated reversible rotations of isolated F1-ATPase in discrete 120° steps by precisely controlling both the external torque and the chemical potential of ATP hydrolysis as a model system of FoF1-ATP synthase. We found that the maximum work performed by F1-ATPase per 120° step is nearly equal to the thermodynamical maximum work that can be extracted from a single ATP hydrolysis under a broad range of conditions. Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.

Highly effiecient, irreducibly complex, and no way- physiochemcially to get the two subunits to come together-> there's no attraction and no coupling.


See also:

Davies et al., “Macromolecular organization of ATP synthase and complex I in whole mitochondria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Tamás Beke-Somfai, Per Lincoln, and Bengt Nordén, “Double-lock ratchet mechanism revealing the role of [alpha]SER-344 in F0F1 ATP synthase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Biogeographic Distribution of Flora and Fauna- How ID and Creation Deal with it and Evolurtionism Cannot

-
The observed biogeographic distribution of flora and fauna is supposed to be a boon for blind watchmaker evolution, it isn't, and an argument against ID and Creation- it isn't.

That observed distribution is unexplained by blind watchmaker evolution for the simple fact it doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the flora and fauna involved.

He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108

THAT is how ID and Creation explain the biogeographical distribution- Intelligently designed descent with modification from founder populations.

 

 

Peaceful Science- Cowards and Equivocators

-
It is what it is, I suppose. But the following proves that Peaceful Science promotes cowardly equivocation:   What Are Your Favorite Arguments For Evolution? 

Seeing that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution the honest question would have been:

What Are Your Favorite Arguments (evidence) For Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes such as natural selection, drift and CNE?

Once the proper question is asked then it is easy to see that all present answers are just based on ignorance. For one patterns depend on the mechanisms. So any evidence based on patterns is also based on ignorance.

My favorite pieces of evidence for blind watchmaker evolution lies in all of the genetic diseases and deformities observed. Without that we would have no reason to believe blind and mindless processes were at work.

But that is moot as the point is that evos are equivocating cowards. They have to be. If they suddenly become honest the public will see that they are pushing untestable bullshit and their game will be over.

It is also telling that John Mercer completely chokes on the evidence for ID. Hint- it isn't mere complexity, as Mercer claims.

How Old is the Earth?

-
As I have been saying, since I found out how "they" calculated the age of the earth, is that the age of the earth depends on how it was formed. That is because "their" methodology relies on the untestable assumption that all accretion material became molten, such that no debris crystals survived. That would mean all tested crystals were the result of processes here on earth.

Why is that a big deal? If the proto-earth was never molten then all that is being measured is the age of the accretion debris and not the age of the earth.

Why do I bring this up, again? A clueless loser of an evoTARD posted the following but of trash:

Those who deliberately ignore the incredibly broad and deep amount of physical evidence for the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and the 3.8+ billion year history of life on the planet automatically disqualify themselves from any serious scientific discussion IMHO.

That is from a scientifically illiterate troll named Timothy Horton. Timmy is way too dim to understand what I posted. And he is too much of a coward to address it.

It seems that all materialists are too chicken to address it.

Joshua Swamidass- Proud to be an Ass

-
I would love to get Joshua in a debate just to watch him fall all over hisself. Just say anything:

So, we’ve tried ID for a while now, over 25 years. We know where it leads. I think it’s time to try something new.

LoL! Joshua doesn't even know what ID entails. He has no idea where it leads and he definitely doesn't have a viable scientific alternative.

Joshua thinks that Common Descent, ie universal common descent, is supported by science. However neither he nor anyone else has a mechanism capable of producing then transformations required! That means he is totally full of shit.

I would love to get Joshua in front of an audience and prove to them that he is a charlatan. I have never seen anyone so afraid of their faith as I have with the alleged theistic evos. These assholes are making a sham of Christianity. It's as if they think they can say and do whatever as long as they call themselves "Christian". And that is beyond pathetic.

Joshua and the rest of the anti-ID morons over on Peaceful Science do NOT understand ID at all. They are all pathetically willfully ignorant of the concept. And they are proud of it, too.

You are a sad little person, Joshua.

Win $50 Visa Gift Card- Access Research Network

-
Access Research Network is giving out $50 Visa gift cards for winning entries to their "Question of the Month". See  http://www.arn.org/

The following is a link to what has been asked and answered so far:  ARN Question of the Month Archive .

ARN is a great resource for Intelligent Design. It used to have an awesome discussion forum but like all good things, it came to an end.

Now they have this contest, which is pretty cool.

I know someone who has already won, twice...

More Evidence for Intelligent Design- De Novo Origin of Genes

-
A new paper has been published- Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza -  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0822-5.

New protein-coding genes that arise de novo from non-coding DNA sequences contribute to protein diversity.

True, but if you are expecting blind and mindless processes to do that then you are dreaming. But this is what we would expect if organisms were designed to adapt and evolve.

See the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" to give you a clue as to why blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing de novo genes-  https://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501

Evolutionary Patterns

-
Much has been made about alleged expectations of evolution with respect to patterns we should see. This is all posturing because, as I have said, mechanism(s) dictate patterns. But even that misses the fact that with evolutionary divergence every population has the potential to be a point of divergence. One population becomes two, which become 4, which become 8 and so on. So right off the bat the "tree" is nothing but a bushy mess.

Just think about having to classify every alleged organism that had to have existed. The transitional forms would be innumerable with traits and body parts slowly blending as transformations occurred.

Given those expectations pattern building is a fool's errand.

The point being is that Common Descent really "predicts" any and all patterns from that bushy mess to any tree Darwin envisioned. It would even be OK with a straight line of descent- the branches being pruned by extinction events and mother nature.

And seeing that evolution is not about progress, evolution is also OK with an asterisk type pattern. A pattern that accounts for the loss of structures or genes. It all depends on what works- a contingent serendipity.

Even Gould understood the importance of contingencies in a blind watchmaker scenario. Unless you can predict said contingencies, you cannot say you expected pattern X.

The point is that anyone who sez that evolution predicts any specific pattern is a LIAR.

Joshua Swamidass- Not Even Wrong

-
Oh my. This is bad. This is really bad. He really believes it, too:

right now common descent + neutral theory makes a large range of quantitative predictions about the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity between genomes. These patterns are exactly what we find.

Look, Joshua, patterns depend on the MECHANISM(s). And seeing that there isn't any evidence that genomes + environment determine what type of organism will develop, then your pattern search based on genomes is a fool's errand.

Chimps and humans are (wrongly) alleged to be 98% genetically similar. And yet the list of anatomical and physical differences is long. No one has been able to identify what, amongst that alleged 2% genetic difference, can possibly account for all the changes required.

No one knows if any amount of genetic change can pull off such a feat. That means what Joshua said is total bullshit.

1- You don't know what determines which type of organism will develop
2- Which means you don't know what mechanism can produce the diversity of life
3- Mechanisms determine the pattern
4- Therefore you cannot say what you did unless you are saying it to the Kool-Aid drinkers

Sad, really.


Common design easily explains all of the similarities. And the differences are due to the different organisms, their requirements and their environments.

He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108

THAT is how ID explains the biogeographic distribution. Intelligently designed descent with modification from founder populations.

Irreducible Complexity

-
First we begin by defining the concept of irreducible complexity.

Dr. Michael Behe discussed irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” (1996). He said irreducible complexity refers to “a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

Wm. Dembski updated what Dr. Behe said in "No Free Lunch":

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 NFL

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 & 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 & 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 & 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

As Dembski went on to explain these structures- well all structures requiring multiple parts- are discrete combinatorial objects. And these DCO's require at least 3 things:
1- The origin of the parts (and the correct quantities)
2-  The location (and timing)
3- The proper configuration

For example any bacterial flagella is made up of a number of different proteins, each expressed in specific quantities, called subunits. Miss ONE protein and you are out of a number of required components. And without those components you don't have movement from the appendage. You most likely won't have the appendage. You lose.

Many biologists recognize that irreducible complexity exists in biology. But what they may insist is that it isn't an obstacle: Evos choking on IC

"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required." Orr 1996

"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. " Orr 1997

If only the narrative were science.

There are many biological structures and systems that meet the definition of irreducible complexity. And there aren't any non-telic mechanisms that can account for them.

Neil Rickert Gets it Right!

-
It happened. It finally happened. However I doubt that Neil understands the implications of his honesty breakthrough. Neil said it:

My way of putting would be: science only considers causes that it can test.

EXACTLY! And that is exactly why evolution by means of blind and mindless processes isn't science. No one can test the claim that the posited mechanisms are capable of producing the biological diversity observed.

No one knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process. No one knows if any amount of genetic change can produce such a thing starting with populations that didn't have one.

However we can test the design inference. Just sayin'...

Timothy Horton is a LIAR and Ignoramus

-
Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and ignoramus. His latest lie is a reused lie:

But merely saying 'Design!" doesn’t explain anything. It provides no mechanisms, no timeline, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable.

Wow. Saying something was designed tells us quite a bit. For one we have eliminated nature as a possible causal agent. Next we know there was some intent/ purpose.

Next, design is a mechanism. And it is falsifiable just by demonstrating that nature is capable of producing what someone says was intelligently designed. Predictions? The same as archaeology and forensic science- namely that when intelligent agencies act in nature they tend to leave traces of their actions behind.

So, unlike Timmy's position, ID is both testable and potentially falsifiable.

Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and proud of it.

How to Test Blind Watchmaker Evolution?

-
Does anyone have a clue? I have posted how we can test ID's claims. But my bet is that no one knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, produced the diversity of life.

Anyone?

A List of Things for which Blind and Mindless Processes have been Determined

-
Over on TSZ the willfully ignorant moron omagain has a post titled A list of things for which CSI has been determined. Never mind that we have provided exactly that many times over. But that is moot. If omagain or any other evo actually had something to support the claims of their position they wouldn't need to attack ID with their belligerent ignorance. They would just present the science and evidence. So it is VERY telling that they cannot do that.

There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce ONE functional protein. There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce replicating RNA's. The entire RNA World is built around a need and has nothing to do with actual science.

Even given starting populations of bacteria, blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing eukaryotes. And that makes evolution by means of blind and mindless processes a non-starter and total nonsense.

omagain wants to know the CSI of a bacterial flagellum. Except that isn't how it works. Once we reach the 500 but threshold that is all we need to do to show that there isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to produce it. And all one needs to do to show that any and all bacterial flagella reach that threshold is a simple count of the number of components required- which reach into the thousands. True, there may be only 30-50 different proteins but those are expressed in different numbers. 

So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.

If you want to break a bacterial flagellum then blind and mindless processes are your mechanism. If you want to make one then you clearly need some intelligently designed mechanism.

Evos are such a bunch of willfully ignorant cowards. They are a pathetic lot who can only get all belligerent when they are exposed as the liars and losers they are.