Charles Darwin's Big Idea: Design without a Designer

-
The more I think about that Peaceful Science article "Design without a Designer?" the more I am amazed at their ignorance. Charles Darwin's big idea (dangerous idea according to Dan Dennett) was that of design without (the need of) a designer. Meaning an intelligent designer, like God, was NOT required to produce the diversity of life. Darwin proposed natural selection as his designer mimic. The variation was attributed to chance events. What evolutionary biologists now call genetic accidents, errors and mistakes. Those accidents, errors and mistakes that are not fatal may get a chance to be passed on. Those accidents, errors and mistakes that prove to be beneficial, will become more prominent in a population. But it all depends. It is all contingent serendipity.

The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"

So that is what they have as their alleged designer mimic. Shit happens, some sticks and piles up. Very creative, that.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is so called so that it is distinct from apparent design on one side (Darwin's designer mimic) and optimal design on the other.

The Peaceful Science minions don't seem to be aware of any of that.

The problem still remains, though. Darwin didn't have any evidence that natural selection was a designer mimic. We still do not have that evidence. There still isn't any evidence for design without a designer.

Design Without a Designer? Not without Evidence

-
Peaceful Science has a new thread titled Design Without a Designer?

My view is that design is design. If I see it, I should call it design. This doesn’t imply a designer. That simply doesn’t follow.

Then you need a mechanism and a way to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it. And you don't have either of those.

Farther down we get a bullshit lie from a bullshit liar:

The point is that we know of a mechanism of design that doesn’t involve a conscious intelligent designer. That this mechanism, this blind physical process, can ultimately produce complex and functional entities and adaptations without some designing agency behind it being necessary for such an outcome.

That is pure bullshit. The reason probability arguments exist is because no one knows of a mechanism and no one knows how to test the claim.

So all these assclowns have is to bluff and equivocate.

 

29+ Evidences of Evolutionary Bullshit- Part 1

-
In Talk Origins' introduction to "29+ evidences for macroevolution" we read:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

This is strange because most of the evidences are that of patterns. Mechanism determines patterns.

With evolution there allegedly isn't any direction. Populations can become less complex*, stay the same or become more complex. It all depends. It's all contingent serendipity. If you take a look at any phylogenetic tree, you see nodes that are branching point populations. These are neatly connected by lines. However, the reality of evolution says that all along those nice, neat connecting lines are populations that are also potential branching points.

* Can evolution Make Things Less Complex?

“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 point being is that "evolution" predicts any pattern from a simple lineage to a very messy bush, web, net thing. Cladograms don't depict any of that. Cladograms model progression.

Patterns are determined by mechanisms. So by using patterns without declaring a mechanism you are being dishonest.

Total Ignorance @ Peaceful Science

-
Evos are such a dishonest bunch- dishonest and ignorant. The typical evoTARD spewing nonsense about nested hierarchies as evidence for "evolution":

The nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why design or separate creations should produce a nested hierarchy. Buildings, art, cars, computers, and even computer code don’t form nested hierarchies. The only process we know of that will necessarily produce this pattern of similarities and differences is evolution.

Lies and ignorance. First off the observed nested hierarchy is Linnaean taxonomy. Using the Tree for Classification:

The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

Linnaean taxonomy doesn't have anything to do with evolution:

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

The main problem is these imbeciles think that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a tree/ branching pattern, that all branching patterns produce nested hierarchies! Yet family trees do not produce nested hierarchies.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

The US Army (not the command) is a nested hierarchy- nothing to do with evolution- Armies consist of and contain Corps. Corps consist of and contain Divisions and so on down to the squad and then troop.

Parent populations do not consist of nor contain their descendant population. It produces a non-nested hierarchy.

Mainstream evolution says there were numerous transitional forms. The mere presence of those transitional forms would ruin any attempt to create the distinct categories required of nested hierarchies:

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993

Cluelessness and bullshit run rampant over on Peaceful Science

Why Gene Duplication is NOT a Viable Blind Watchmaker Mechanism

-
Evolutionists love to call on gene duplications to explain genetic similarities between different genes and to also explain how new genes arise. They say the new genes are duplicated genes that have accumulated mutations that changed them. But is this viable? I say that it is NOT viable for blind and mindless processes, ie the posited mechanisms of evolutionism. It isn't viable for several reasons:

1- The duplicated gene needs a new binding site. And despite Art Hunt's protestation, binding sites do not get duplicated along with the gene- see Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment.

2- The duplicated gene needs to be in the correct position on the histone octamer spool or it will never be seen to be expressed even if it had a binding site.

3- Waiting for TWO Mutations makes it very clear that creating a new binding site from scratch will be very time consuming

4- To change the gene to get a different protein requires specific mutations which in turn are very time consuming- see step 3's paper. And most, if not all, genes are able to handle changes and not change the protein. Meaning they are variable.

So when you see/ hear evolutionists claim gene duplications did it you know they are desperate and ignorant of what that entails. There isn't any justification in calling a gene duplication a blind and mindless process. There isn't enough time in the universe.

So what will they do? Attack blind watchmaker evolution as a strawman that Richard Dawkins erected, apparently. An evolutionary biologist and one of the most renowned evos on the planet, allegedly doesn't understand mainstream evolution. Either that or say I don't understand the paper I linked to. They can say it but they will never produce any evidence to support it

Evolutionists are the most deceptive and dishonest people, ever.

Evolutionary "Logic" @ Peaceful Science

-
Talk about question-begging. Begging the question 101:

When interacting with the general public I try to use genetic relationships to help illustrate these points. Specifically, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas and other apes. If chimps are apes, then we are apes, too.

Only if DNA determines what the organism is. And there isn't any evidence for that and plenty of evidence against it.

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  

Chimps share more physiological and anatomical similarities with gorillas and other apes than they do with humans. The main reason that can be so is because DNA does NOT determine form. Yes DNA controls and influences development. But that's it. Assembly lines control and influence the development of the products but they do not determine the product.

But that is evoTARD logic for you. Once you believe DNA is everything nothing can save you and nothing can dissuade you.

Conflict Between Science and Religion? Bullshit

-
Some people say that there is some conflict between science and religion. That is false. The father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, was a very religious man. Religious people see science as a way to understand God's Creation.

The conflict that exists is between religion and materialism. That people cannot grasp that fact is very telling.

Materialism operates under the guise of science. THAT is why religious people appear to be against science when they are actually against the bastardization of it.

Materialism/ naturalism is a dogma. Science and dogma do NOT mix. THAT is the conflict.

"Waiting for TWO Mutations"- Why it Kills Unguided Evolution*

-
Not long after Michael Behe's "the Edge of Evolution" was published, evolutionists attempted to refute its mathematical models. One such attempt was made by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt in their paper Waiting for Two Mutations. From the abstract:

Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.

They are talking about two specific mutations. TWO. And theirs was a simple case of a binding site. That is nothing like building a gene or hundreds to thousands of genes via blind and mindless processes. All of those genes also need binding sites. And those binding sites can't be just anywhere. Meaning their positioning is also specified.

Thousands upon thousands of specific mutations were required to produce the new genes required for the evolution of metazoans starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryote And evos expect us to believe blind and mindless processes did it.

So when you hear or read evos saying that "evolution" produces new genes, they are lying when they say it was due to blind and mindless processes.



* the paper destroys the premise that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes starting from some unknown prokaryote(s). There isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to do it.

Peaceful Science is Home to Cowards and Liars

u-
Peaceful Science is home to cowards and liars. All they do is run from the evidence and then lie, as if that is an argument.

Art Hunt presents T-URF13 as an alleged example that refutes ID claims. Except for the fact that t-urf13 did NOT arise via natural selection. It is a product of over-artificial selection. But even that is moot. If Art Hunt could demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce eukaryotes and then plants, he would refute ID. But he cannot. All Art Hunt can do is lie, bluff and equivocate.

Joe Felsenstein continues to lie about ID and natural selection. His bullshit has been torn apart by myself and others. Joe Felesenstein is a willfully ignorant coward.

Joshua Swamidass is perhaps the worst of them. Arrogant and willfully ignorant. Too prideful to understand he is gravely mistaken about ID and science. He actually thinks that cancer, which makes cell more primitive by rejecting the cells given specificity, is actually adding information to the cell. Addition via subtraction. Joshua has proven he doesn't understand ID's arguments. And he is too arrogant and prideful to listen. He is the worst of Christianity.

Not one of the cowards and liars over on Peaceful Science understands ID. And they prove they do not even understand science. They will lie when you ask them for evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce something like a vision system, complete with functioning eyes. When it is pointed out that the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" demonstrates there isn't enough time in the universe for such a thing, they lie about the paper. They say the authors' conclusions are NOT the authors' conclusions! Seriously.

When pressed with the genetic code as evidence for ID, they babble bullshit and get so contorted it's difficult to read their cowardly spewage.

Not one person on Peaceful Science understands that ID is not anti-evolution. Not one person on Peaceful Science grasps the concept of evolution by means of intelligent design. They are too stupid to understand that if life was intelligently designed then it was so designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. They are just a bunch of willfully ignorant cowards.

What we will NEVER see on Peaceful Science is a testable hypothesis for and a demonstration of, blind and mindless processes producing multiprotein machines. You will NEVER see that over there. They will always just lie and say it has been done. And yet such a thing is absent from peer-review.

They are too chicken-shit to take on Dr Axe. All they can do is misrepresent his work and his inferences. They are cowards and liars.

Intelligent Design is the Only Scientific Explanation for Our Existence

-
Intelligent Design is still the only scientific explanation for our existence. There aren't any scientific alternatives to ID.

If you disagree then please tell us how to test the claim that nature, i.e. blind, mindless and purposeless processes, produced the coded systems that rule biological organisms. Or fail to and prove my point.

Thank you. 

Earth to Joshua Swamidass- The Specification is an Observation!

-
File this one under the category of "What. The. Fuck?". This is proof that Joshua Swamidass doesn't understand Intelligent Design. In his butchering of CSI thread, he wrongly concludes::

Unless we know the process that constructed a sequence,

We don't need to know the process. We are trying to determine whether or not nature did it or was an intelligent agency required.

 and unless we know the specification, we cannot actually, compute the CSI.

The specification is an observation. As Wm Dembski wrote in "No Free Lunch":

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- pg 148

Proteins are a prime example. Even more so are protein machines requiring multiple proteins, which includes a proper assembly. In that scenario you not only need to make the proteins, you need the proper number of subunits. You need them all at the proper time. You need to get them all to the proper place. And then you need to have them properly assembled.

This follows Crick's lead:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

This has never been a secret. We have always admitted that we observe something doing something and we investigate. That's the "What's there?" and "How's it work/ what's it do?" questions science asks. Those questions bring us to the third question science asks "How did it come to be the way it is?". Was it nature, operating freely, or was there an intelligent agency involved? That is where the EF and CSI/ SC come into play.

We do not care about the sequences of DNA that don't code for anything. We don't care about random sequences. The only people who care about random sequences are those monitoring communication channels. It may alert them to someone sending secret messages.

So it is true that if we do NOT observe some specification, unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we would not care about any alleged CSI in some apparently random sequences. It is also true that if we don't observe something we won't investigate it.