Intelligent Reasoning

The Design Criteria

2012-01-25T10:50:00.000-05:00

-
One prediction of all design-centric venues is that when agencies interact with nature they tend to leave traces of their involvement behind. Most often those traces are in the form of signs of work. IDists have defined what such traces would look like wrt biology:

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.”

He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

Then we have-

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

So if what we are investigating fits any of the descriptions above then we have more than enough to check into the possibility that is was designed- meaning we would run it through the explanatory filter. If it gets to the last node and matches any of the above, then we infer it was intentionally designed.

Dr Behe responds to IC criticisms:

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

Nested Hierarchies and Cladistics- a Primer

2012-01-24T10:45:00.000-05:00

-
Revisiting Nested Hierarchies:
From A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory:

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.

For example in the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the animal kingdom.

To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal.

For example:

All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.

Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions.

The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria.

For example one phylum under the Kingdom Animalia, is Chordata.

Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:

Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

bilateral symmetry
segmented body, including segmented muscles
three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.
single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)
tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development
pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development
ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system
complete digestive system
bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.

The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.

Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.

Cladistics is a method of categorizing organisms based on shared characteristics. Each clade (allegedly) consists of a common ancestor and all of its (alleged) descendents:
intro to cladistics

The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

cladistics:

Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

And also what is cladistics?

The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy- see Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

Each clade, note- not the entire cladogram, can be a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics in that each descendent node will consist of and contain, ie share, a set of defined characteristics present in the alleged common ancestor. However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

The point being is that if your basis for clade-construction is to make it conform to a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics, then yes, you should see that a clade is a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics, duh.

Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

2012-01-19T22:12:00.000-05:00

-
Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:

Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.

The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

With text we use 5 bits per character which gives us the 26 letters of the alphabet and 6 other characters. The paper below puts it all together- peer-review. It tells you exactly how to measure the functional information, which is exactly what Dembski and Meyer are talking about wrt CSI. So read the paper it tells how to do exactly what you have been saying no one knows how to do- it isn't pro-ID and the use of AVIDA as evidence of "emergence" is dubious*, but the math is there for you to misunderstand or not comprehend.

Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).

*1- Avida "organisms" are far too simple to be considered anything like a biological organism

2- Avida organisms "evolve" via unreasonable parameters:

The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms

Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford

Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 2011, 8:9 | doi:10.1186/1742-4682-8-9

Abstract:

Background: Avida is a computer program that performs evolution experiments with digital organisms. Previous work has used the program to study the evolutionary origin of complex features, namely logic operations, but has consistently used extremely large mutational fitness effects. The present study uses Avida to better understand the role of low-impact mutations in evolution.

Results:

When mutational fitness effects were approximately 0.075 or less, no new logic operations evolved, and those that had previously evolved were lost. When fitness effects were approximately 0.2, only half of the operations evolved, reflecting a threshold for selection breakdown. In contrast, when Avida's default fitness effects were used, all operations routinely evolved to high frequencies and fitness increased by an average of 20 million in only 10,000 generations.

Conclusions:

Avidian organisms evolve new logic operations only when mutations producing them are assigned high-impact fitness effects. Furthermore, purifying selection cannot protect operations with low-impact benefits from mutational deterioration. These results suggest that selection breaks down for low-impact mutations below a certain fitness effect, the selection threshold. Experiments using biologically relevant parameter settings show the tendency for increasing genetic load to lead to loss of biological functionality. An understanding of such genetic deterioration is relevant to human disease, and may be applicable to the control of pathogens by use of lethal mutagenesis.

Kevin R. McCarthy, aka OgreMk5, Thinks He has Refuted Archaeology, Forensics, SETI and Intelligent Design

2012-01-19T11:09:00.001-05:00

-
Yup Kevin is at it again, this time he thinks he has devised a test that will show that archaeology, forensic science, SETI, Intelligent Design, insurance fraud and more are all baseless and without merit.

Of course all he does is erect a strawman because he is an ignorant asshole and that is all he is good for.

I will say it AGAIN Kevin- Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement. And that means, as I have told you but you ignored, context is everything.

The funniest part about Kevin's test- it also renders his position moot as his position also requires the ability to determin between design and not.

Way to go dumbass...

ATP Synthase- All Experiments Point to Design

2012-01-10T07:22:00.001-05:00

-
As I posted earlier:

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

NickM and Zachriel, Unable to Support Their Claim, Abuse Kimura

2012-01-09T07:10:00.003-05:00

-
Yup life is good and evotards are a bunch of dishonest losers. The latest gaff is by NickM and Zachriel who think that 40 previously occurring neutral mutations will become fixed in a population each generation.

To supprt their claim they cite Kimura and his neutral theory. Unfortunately for them Kimura never says what they do. However it is in the literature that it takes 4N generations, where N = population size, for a neutral (that's ONE) mutation to become fixed. And seeing NickM suggested a population of 10,000 that would mean 40,000 generations.

So seeing that it is obvious that they are abusing Kimura I asked for experimental evidence that would support their claim.

Did they provide any? Nope. In typical cowardly evotard fashion NickM had a hissy-fit, falsely accused me of misunderstanding population genetics and ran away. OTOH Zachriel kept on bloviating as if his unsupported diatribe would be supported by his dishonesty.

And all that because a 10% difference between chimps and humans is way too much for their position to account for in the number of generations alotted.

(NickM doesn't care because he sez they were fixed- question-begging 101)

As I already posted:

Look, all I am asking for is evidence to support your claim:

"That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation."

I have provided references that say 4N generations for 1.

NickM started out with a population of 10,000. Do you understand what that means?

NickM: Strawman Humper Exraordinaire

2012-01-08T15:52:00.000-05:00

-
Recently a new commenter has graced my bloggings- NickM. Nick has proven to be an extraordinary strawman humper. The evidence for my claim is:

1- Nick's first offering:

To take the rate of point mutation (the type of mutation from A to T or C to A or whatever) and then make conclusions using the difference statistics which include indels is wildly, hopeless illegitimate.

Unfortunately for Nick, I wasn't taking the rate of point mutation. That was never part of my post. Strawman.

After telling him that Nick started humping that strawman until he got tired of it.

In the same thread Nick erects another:

You seem to think that you start out with a population with no mutations.

Again I never said that but there is the term "common ancestor" that one would think means very close genetically, anyway.

Nick accepts that but then has to erect yet another strawman:

And yet you think 1% divergence over ~6 million years of divergence is impossible.

That is strange seeing the the OP and topic refers to a 10%+ difference/ divergence.

What the fuck Nick? Is your PhD thesis in strawman evolution?

Neutral Theory and Substitution rates

2012-01-06T10:59:00.001-05:00

-
There seems to be some confusion about what the neutral theory says about substitution rates. NickM seems to think that if the mutation rate is 1.1x10^-8 then 40 (neutral) mutations will occur with each birth and 40 will become fixed in each generation because rate of substitution = mutation rate.

NickM gives a wikipedia reference for a mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8.

Anyhow -- another thing you obviously don't understand at all is that even under completely neutral conditions, with no natural selection acting at all, and with nothing but genetic drift going on, *the substitution rate equals the mutation rate*.

If the genome size is 3.2 billion bases, if the human-chimp divergence time is 6 my ago, and if the generation size is 15 years, 1% divergence in point mutations takes 32 million mutations. That's 40 mutations/generation.

What NickM doesn't seem to realize is the rate of substitution = 1.1 x 10^-8, not 40 mutations/ generation. The 40 is the number of mutations we can expect in each birth given a genome of 3.2 bp.

Neutral theory pertains to the mutation rate only, not the number of mutations. What is your degree in?

Ya see Nick in order to become fixed every member in the population has to haz it. Every member, biology 101. Well I guess if the population size is one.

EvoTard's finest...

Chimp/ Human DNA Comparison- Bad News for EvoTards

2012-01-05T07:27:00.004-05:00

-
The evotard bullshit lie is that chimp and human DNA is 98.X% similar. What the evotards do not tell you is that is based on a small sample of similar DNA. And it doesn't take into account that there should be similarities based on the fact that the majority of the expressed genes are used for every day maintenace and sustaining of the cell/ organism. Meaning there should be similarities because those daily chores are also very similar.

But anyway now that both the chimp and human genomes have been sequenced scientists are now seeing a much greater genetic difference between chimps and humans. What's the point? Well at 1% difference that would be about 32,000,000 base differences and for 10% it would be about 320,000,000 base differences.

What does that mean? Well for 10% if the split occurred 7.5 million years ago, that would mean that a great number of mutations would have to become fixed each year. Even at 1% there will still be a need to fix mutations on a regular basis.

7.5 million years since divergence* = 15 million years tip-common ancestor-tip

10 year generation = 1.5 million generations in that 15 million years

80,000 indels / 1.5 million generations = 18.75 generations per fixed indel

Nothing in any peer-reviewed literature supports that. And that is only for indels.

10% is the theory of evolution killer though, as that is just too much diversity for accumulations of random mutations to overcome. And yes there are studies that demonstrate the human/ chimp genomes are over 10% different.

Only imagination can get evotards out of that mess. Can't wait to see what their high priests have to say about it-> should be interesting.

*generous number as the literature has it anywhere from 4 million-7 million years ago

So at 4 million years ago = 8 million @ 10 years/ generation = 800,000 generations and with 80,000 indels that would be 1 fixed every 10 generations.

Jason Rosenhouse, Just Another EvoTard Liar

2012-01-03T08:27:00.001-05:00

-
Yup Jason Rosenhouse is just anothet typical evotard liar.

In his fact-free blog, Twenty Years after Darwin on Trial, ID is dead, Jason spews the lie:

There have been numerous books and countless magazine and internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments ID has to offer.

Fuck you you lying piece-of-shit. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of random mutations. And if you can't do that then you don't have anything that refutes ID.

Then Jason sez that ID doesn't have anything new to offer. Well Jason your position doesn't have anything to offer. Nothing at all.

But anyway what is this alleged evidence that refutes ID? Until you can muster a testable hypothesis that evidence doesn't exist.

Retard's "Evidence" for Common Ancestry

2012-01-01T12:28:00.000-05:00

-
EvoTards are such clueless pricks. It is entertaining watching them present "evidence" for their claims.

With universal common ancestry there isn't any way to test the claim objectively as there is way, way too much time involved. This allows evotards to weasel out of doing any science to support their position. However they will have us believe there is circumstantial evidence. Evidence, the say, that can only be explained via common ancestry-> which is just a question-begging fallacy.

For example I was just visited by an evotard that goes by "human ape". It wants to be an ape so badly it calls itself one. But that isn't the entertainemnt. On its blog it sez:

Human ape fetuses and whale fetuses are covered with hair which drops off before birth. The hair is a remnant of our ancient hairy ape ancestors and it's a remnant of whale ancestors who lived on land. This is the only possible scientific explanation.

Unfortunately the dumbass has absolutely no way of supporting its question-begging claim. Not only that the freaking ignorant punk doesn't understand that evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for any mechanism.

But anyway-

Why can't it be that the hair/ fur is just part of the developmental program for mammals? One basic/ common developmental program for mammals, with each getting its own required "personal" code that determines the final archetype.

So untestable question-begging plus the inability to think = evidence for a human ape.

On another note-

2012 will go down as the year in which the myth of 98.x% genetic similarity between chimp and humans is shattered, putting the actual % below 90%. And that may be too large of a difference to be accounted for via stochastic processes.

An Open Letter to Climate Change Alarmists

2011-12-28T22:57:00.002-05:00

-
To all climate change alarmists:

I feel your pain but it is misplaced. CO2 is not the culprit. We need to deal with all the other shit we are doing to this privileged planet.

Take a good look at all the ice that is melting- it all has one thing in common-> soot, that is, it is dirty. Dirt traps the heat of the sun and will melt the ice even when the ambient temp is below freezing. (google "soot and global warming")

With all the crap we are doing to this planet, watching you misguided fools froth about CO2, something plants need, plants that we need, makes me sick.

Ya see I do not disagree that we are the bad guys. It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy.

Now stop hyperventilating and just think about it…

sincerly,

Joe

Of Probabilities, the Design Inference, Biology and Evolution

2011-12-28T17:55:00.000-05:00

-
In Of Probabilities and the Design Inference I corrected the evotard strawman pertaining to ID.

Another point touched on is that if one knows the probabilities one can use that as a tool to determine the root cause. With cards it is pretty straight-forward because you are working with a defined finite resource.

With biological evolution, rather with the origin of biological organsisms, because evolution depends on the origin (can't have it without it), we cannot say anything about any probabilities because no one can even demonstrate a feasibility.

EvoTards like to laugh at their opponents for trying but they don't understand that by even trying your opponents are being overly generous. And obvioulsy you don't deserve it.

The main problem is no one knows if a living organism is reducible to matter and energy, ie its building blocks. No math can save them. Only Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown mechanism.

So that is my position on probabilities and evolution and biology- they are useless because there isn't any demonstrated feasibility.

(True, evotards try to simplify a living organism by trying to muddy the water wrt the demarcation of living vs inanimate. They really think that a simple replicator that varies can vary its way right up to the diversity of living organisms observed. Then they say the odds of that happening are 1 because here we are. Question-begging 101.)

Cholesterol- Why Lipitor is a Waste of Money

2011-12-28T09:58:00.001-05:00

-
I just read an article that says "Lipitor" is the best selling pharm in history. "Lipitor" is a statin used to reduce "bad" cholesterol levels.

However new research shows that the levels are pretty much meaningless. The new research demonstrates it is the particle size that matters. That means you can have a low number for your "bad" cholesterol but if the particle size is small then you are at serious risk of blockage. And you can have a very high "bad" cholesterol number (say over 300) but if the particle size is large you don't have anything to worry about.

Ya see the reports show that the smaller particles get lodged in the nooks and crannies of your blood vessels (caps, arteries, etc). Then once that happens more small particles latch onto to those and the blockage starts.

The point being is the numbers do NOT matter. So when you have your next cholesterol check make sure your doctor knows enough to have the particle size measured. Small particles = bad.

What does this have to do with "Lipitor"? Unless the drug turns small particles into large particles it isn't doing anyone any good- it is a huge waste of money.

see A New Way to Measure Cholesterol: Particle Size Indicates Risk

The New Blood Lipid Tests -- Sizing Up LDL Cholesterol

Paleontologist Attempting to Test Common Ancestry

2011-12-28T09:35:00.000-05:00

-
Finally someone is going to step-up and put the theory to a test- dinochicken

That is he wants to take a chicken and devolve it until it resembles the dino-ancestor the researcher "knows" it once had.

This is the opposite of my idea of taking fish embryos and mutating them until the fins became limbs.

However his proposal makes a little more sense because if I didn't start with the "right" fish then I would never get the limbs (allegedly). However seeing that chickens had a dino for an ancestor somewhere in their lineage history then it should be easier to get one to revert back (than it is to go forward).

Some people may laugh at this but I say it is about time someone stepped up to at least attempt a test of this nature. Kudos for that.

Of Probabilities and the Design Inference

2011-12-27T17:25:00.000-05:00

-
As we IDists have tried to explain if something is outside or even approaching the universal probability bound, that means given all the resources in the universe it could not or would be very, very difficult to achieve what is being investigated given no agency involvement.

Cards usually comes up as an example. What usually happens after that is some evotard or evotards will erect a strawman of that example.

For example poker and the royal flush. We IDists say that being dealt a royal flush in a poker game is improbable but not impossible. The (approximate) odds of getting one is 649,739 : 1. No one would be suspicious of a cheater, ie design, if someone just gets one royal flush dealt.

But getting dealt, say, 5 royal flushes in a row, even though the odds are the same with each hand, would be a reason to be suspicious of cheating, especially if other hands are also high hands that keep their holders playing and betting.

The other side of that is if you keep getting dealt horrible/ unplayable hands and keep losing your ante. Sooner or later you either have to walk away or shoot someone. And you would be justified either way (although you still may have to do some time).

So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.

The evotard strawman comes in when they just stop at one hand and point out that the odds of getting any hand, say the one you were dealt, are very high. Obviously not realizing that in a poker game the odds of a player getting dealt a hand is 1 and obviously not understanding a design inference requires more than one highly improbable event.

HUMP THAT STRAWMAN!

(hey richie retardo is good for something after all)

Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Proves He is a Lying Loser

2011-12-27T14:47:00.001-05:00

-
Yup Kevin is at it again. This time he exposes his ignorance of complex specified information.

In the book "No Free Lunch" Wm Dembski explains the concept very well. He goes over what is complexity, specification and information.

Stephen C. Meyer explains exactly what information is wrt biology. He also explains the specification part wrt biology. This he has done in several of his writings most recently in "Signature in the Cell".

So who is Kevin trying to fool? Must be the fools because no one else pays him any heed.

This is an asshole who says he has been involved in this debate for years yet it is obvious that he doesn't have a clue as to what Intelligent Design is nor what it claims.

Yet all of that is in the pro-ID literature. All it takes is a little reading. Yet obviously Kevin is too stupid to even do that.

Well I posted at his blog but my post won't be shown because Kevvy is too much of an intellectual coward to face reality.

BTW, Kevin, the thing about the royal flush isn't if you get ONE- and it goes for any hand- that being if you are dealt a royal flush for 5 hands in a row you know something other than chance is at play. And the same goes for 3c, 7d, Js, Jd, Qh. You get that same hand for 5 hands in a row and if you aren't suspicious then you are a fool, which you are so you won't notice.

New Evolutionary Disclaimer

2011-12-27T09:24:00.000-05:00

-
A new evolutionary disclaimer is in the works and I have even notified the NCSE about it.

The disclaimer will tell students that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution and it will provide the support for that. It will tell students that ID argues only against stochastic processes having sole dominion over evolution. And it will provide a list of resources, as well as questions to ask the biology teachers who push the theory of evolution.

What I told the NCSE is that by telling students that ID is not anti-evolution it will expose their continued lies to the contrary.

Common Design- What is the Point?

2011-12-26T11:12:00.000-05:00

-
So what is the point of a common design? The point is, based on direct observations and experiences, that a common design leads to a number of similarities. And taht means that universal common descent is A) Not the only explanation for observed similarities and B) May not even be the most parsimonious explanation.

A)- One of the most appealing aspects of universal common descent is that it allegedly explains the similarities observed amongst all living organisms. The thinking goes is that you share many similarities with your parents and that is common descent. However we also know that convergent evolution can also explain similarities- and that is without the concept of a common design.

B)- Parsimony-> well for universal common descent there also has to be quite a bit of change. Change that no one even knows is possible so the concept relies on imagination and eons of time.

That said a common design explains the similarities and the differences are explained by the different applications and differing functional requirements.

All houses built to the same building code(s) will have that degree of similarity and the differences are explained by the customer's wants/ requirements (or even budget constraints).

To ThorTard/ Occam's Afterbirth

2011-12-26T10:24:00.002-05:00

-
ThorTard/ OA,

Your next post has to either contain an apology to me for all the lies and false accusations you have spewed about me. OR you had better start supporting your bullshit.

Or fuck off

What part of that didn't you understand?

Common Design and Standards/ Specifications

2011-12-25T19:59:00.000-05:00

-
-
It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives. Why is that, you say? Well for one just being involved in building a house you will see bulding standards at work. The studs of a wall will be 16" apart on center- building code/ standard.

Floor joists? The same OR 12" apart on center depending on the load the floor will carry. (yes some can be 24" apart, again depending on the floor's load- I have never seen that spacing).

IEEE? Standards that allow for different companys'equipment to work together.

What does this have to do with a common design? EVERYTHING.

The point being is a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

So if you are building something according to a set of standards (specs), and someone else is building something to the same standards, then both objects will have some degree of similarity due to those standards/ specs.

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

And no using the same specs/ standards does not mean you have to build it the exact same way, ie using the same tools and methodology. All that counts is that the result meet the specs.

But then again seeing that evotards are a totally clueless and useless lot they will not be able to understand any of that.

RichTard Hughes, Proud to be an Ignorant Freak

2011-12-25T12:54:00.003-05:00

-
RichTard Hughes is still in rare form. This it thinks that teh following is a specification:

"I want something to cool me down in the summer"

Obviously RichTard still thinks that its ignorance means something.

Merry Christams!

Specification (technical standard)

Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Argues FOR a Common Design

2011-12-24T13:52:00.000-05:00

-
When it comes to a common design pertaining to living organisms evotards always start convulsing and spewing.

However when it comes to designs outside of biology evotards argue for it.

The sad part is they will say I made the whole concept up- the concept of a common design based on standards- and then turn around and use the very same concept.

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still a Lying Little Bitch

2011-12-22T10:30:00.003-05:00

-
Yup Oleg Jerkyourselfoff is at it again. This time with the balntant lie:

Your total misunderstanding of the nested hierarchies of clades is legendary. You have been saying the same silly things for years.

Unfortunately for Oleg the lying asshole he never provides any evidence. Sure he links to Telic Thoughts but that doesn't support what he just said- although in his little mind I am sure he thinks it does.

As I have said and supported, clades are constructed based on shared characteristics with a common ancestry being ASSUMED (based on the number of shared characteristics).

IOW once again Oleg proves that he is an ignoramus and very dishonest too:

oleg said:

Joe, give it up already. We've been talking about clades for ages and you still don't understand what a clade is! It is not defined by shared characteristics, it is defined by common ancestry.

Reality check-

intro to cladistics

The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

cladistics:

Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

And also what is cladistics?

The common theme is that they all agree with me.

Go figure...

(I see that Oleg is checking in- John Hopkins IP- but apparently he is too chicken-shit to respond)

Oleg the lying asshole (To “Rudolph…”)

Oleg the lying asshole
Told a lot of fucking lies
And if you ever heard him
Even you would want to cry

All of the other evos
Think his lies are really true
But they’re just a bunch of retards
Eating all the shit he spews

Clean-up on aisle 7! Real-world Evidence Challenging Planet-formation Models

2011-12-21T10:25:00.000-05:00

-
As I have been saying for decades-> you can only scientifically model what you thoroughly understand.

Case in point Super-Earths give theorists a super headache: An abundance of medium-sized worlds is challenging planet-formation models-

By now, it’s not surprising that NASA’s Kepler space telescope is turning up extrasolar planets by the bushel. Last week, at the first Kepler science conference at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, mission scientists announced that the space telescope has identified 2,326 candidate planets, nearly doubling its haul since February.

But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be.

Kudos for trying but it should be impossible to model the "shit happens and other shit emerges from it", ie materialism, position.

South Park takes on Scientism

2011-12-20T07:26:00.000-05:00

-
Scientism, the belief that only science can lead to knowledge, is exposed on "South Park"-

Science help us

Is Science the ONLY Way to Find Out Knowledge About the Universe Around Us?

2011-12-19T07:22:00.000-05:00

-
Yup at least one evotard is claiming that "science is the only way to find out knowledge about the universe around us."

To me that means every person is a scientist conducting science. But that is ridiculous.

Observation alone can lead to knowledge. Yes observation is part of science, but again almost all people can observe yet not everyone is a scientist conducting science.

Experiences can also lead to knowledge. Yeah I can hear it now- "experiences are part and parcel of our everyday experimentaion involving observations." Tard.

Detectives use non-scientific methodology to find a suspect of a crime. Sure science is involved in forensics but not every crime has forensic evidence.

So yeah if you want to define "science" so broadly as to encompass everything we do then the evotard would have a point. But it also means we are all scientists and need to be given honorary PhDs.

Natural Selection Declared to be Deterministic!

2011-12-17T17:48:00.000-05:00

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.-wikipedia

In a blog Jerry Coyne sez:

A brief correction first: natural selection is not a “random process.” It’s a process that combines the random production of mutations with the deterministic process of natural selection itself. I hope he understands that.

Yet we are also told by other evolutionary biologists that "natural selection" is a result of three processes, one requiring the other two to be true first-> (1)differential reproduction due to (2)heritable (3)[random] variation.

So natural selection combines not only the random production of mutation, but also the random nature of inheritance and the random nature of fecundity, and the result is natural selection.

But the kicker is it ain't all encompassing! That's right some outreproduce others "just because", which means natural selection is tough to pin down and even tougher to follow.

Not only that you could have any number of different/ competing beneficial traits.

The only thing "deterministic" about natural selection is the dead don't reproduce- so given death no more reproduction will happen, ie determinism.

Is that what you mean Jerry? That's some powerful stuff, yessiree...

Mutation Rates Increase in Organisms Under Stress

2011-12-16T17:02:00.002-05:00

-
OK, well, geez- someone was just asking for evidence for increased mutation rates after the Flood, so here it is:

Mutations induced by stress contribute significantly to spontaneous mutation

I am pretty sure the Flood event would be pretty stressful, as would the period of re-occupation.

So several HUNDRED alleles out of several BILLION attempts would seem easily achieved given known mechanisms of genetic recombination, inragenic recombination, insertions, deletions, inversions and stress-induced mutagenesis.

Something God, the Creator, Cannot Do?

2011-12-16T07:45:00.000-05:00

-
EvoTards are such clueless bastards. Now we have Kevin R. McCarthy et al., saying the God, the Creator of DNA and living organisms, would not have had the knowledge to write and insert a genetic algorithm that controls variation.

Ya see Kevin, et al., think that evolution in a Creation scenario would still proceed via random mutation! That is about as stupid as you can get but Kevin insists he is making a huge contribution to thousands, if not millions, of people.

Of course he never sez what this alleged huge contribution is. Methinks he is full of shit just as his posts portray.

The "God Hypothesis" Problem

2011-12-15T13:53:00.000-05:00

-
It has been said that saying "God did it" (the God hypothesis) is not scientific because we cannot test God, obviously forgetting that science was once a methodology for understanding God's Creation.

But that isn't the point, nor the problem.

That (point & problem) would be if (OK whatever big IF- but for the sake of argument) God did Create then teaching, say, the theory of evolution would be not only a lie but anti-science propaganda.

Ya see science only cares about reality, as in the reality behind whatever is being investigated. And there is only one reality behind ours, therefor teaching contrary to reality would be as I said. And that would be a problem.

Kevin R. McCarthy, Still Spewing and Proud of His Ignorance

2011-12-14T08:33:00.001-05:00

-
In his latest ignorance-laiden spewage Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock, Texas tries to take on the YEC global Flood.

Immediatly it becomes obvious that Kevin is ignorant of genetics. I say that as it appears Kevin has never heard of genetic recombination.

Genetic recombination during meiosis can produce different alleles. For example a human child inherits 1 allele from his/ her dad and 1 from mom. But with genetic recombination the inherited alleles can be different from the parents- both parents. That means if you have two parents and one child you can have 6 different variations of the same allele.

So with Noah's Ark there were 8 people and that would mean up to 16 different alleles for every gene.

But anyway it is clearly obvious that kevin does not understand genetics, does not understand YEC and does not understand front-loading.

IOW Kevin really thinks his ignorance refutes something.

How do we get many alleles from a few? Genetic recombination- especially in a design scenario in which the genetic algorithm would make it so.

Will Kevin the evotard undersatnd that? Not a chance.

Different Types of Evolution?

2011-12-13T07:25:00.000-05:00

-
Yes, there are different types of evolution and that is because "evolution" has several meanings.

For example the current theory of evolution posits that the change arises via accumulations of random mutations. (note to evotards- natural selection is just ONE way mutations accumulate)

OTOH there is Intelligent Design Evolution which posits the changes are not random, rather they were directed just as a genetic/ evolutionary algorithm is directed, ie to reach a specified goal/ target.

Also there is Front-loaded Evolution as put forth by Mike Gene in his book "The Design Matrix", which posits that the first organisms were front-loaded such that the front-loading influenced the subsequent evolution- future designs via the present design.

As I said before "evolution" is one thing and the "theory of evolution" posits how it occurs and that is yet another reason why there can be more than one theory of evolution and by extension, more than one type of evolution.

A Challenge

2011-12-12T14:38:00.000-05:00

-
For all the whining, bitching and moaning from the anti-ID mob you would figure that they have a solid case for their position.

Stephen Hawking says this is an accident, ie the result of multiple accidents over eons of time. As an "explanation" for the laws that govern this universe Hawking, in "A Briefer History of Time", says "They just are (the way they are)". That's it.

For the formation of our solar system it is that it emerged from the complex interactions of a collapsing molecular cloud.

For living organisms it is that they emerged from an interaction of energy and matter. Get some molecules, add some energy and get more complex molecules, molecules that are also seen in living organisms. Add more energy and molecules until a self-sustained replication with variation takes place, add eons of time and you will get a living organism.

From there more accumulations of variations gives you the diversity observed.

Is that about right or have I missed something?

The challenge is to correct me if I am wrong and provide the references. And also provide the scientific data that supports your position.

A note to all atheists hoping to get adopted by a Christian family- this is what they are going to ask of you.

The problem for you is if you don't respond they win and if you do respond, they win because your response will just be the sillyness of "They just are (the way they are)".

What Does Intelligent Design Say About Life on Other Planets (ET)?

2011-12-10T15:16:00.000-05:00

-
There is only one Pro-Intelligent Design book, that I am aware of, that even brings up the issue of living organisms on other planets. That book is "The Privileged Planet", which makes a case for our planet, that is a planet capable of sustaining metazoans, including those capable of technology, being a rarity due to the number of factors that have to be in one place at the same time. That is we ARE special, in some sense anyway.

What the never say nor imply is that we are unique.

Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering 14 objections. Number 14 is:

14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.

“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”

Well, yeah...

To me, only religious dogma sez anything about us being the only inhabitants of this here universe. And obviously it ain't Hinduism (nor Scientology for that matter LoL). God created us and that was it? Bullshit- so it ain't religion holding you back.

The case has been made that even the Bible references UFOs. Many cultures make references to ancient astronauts.

The point being is that I am surprised anyone doubts there are living organisms on another planets. And in a design scenario I would expect there to be, especially technologically advanced forms.

The Privileged Planet- 5/12/2006

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, How NOT to be a Skeptic

2011-12-09T11:08:00.000-05:00

-
That's right, Kevin R. McCarthy, the person going around (wrongly) calling out people for their failure to be a proper skeptic, is now demonstrating How NOT to be a Skeptic:

Honestly, when I tool the cellular structures class I was amazed that anything in our bodies works.

Exons, introns, methylation, reading frames, protein folding, plus the assembly of these into structures… it’s truly stunning.

But unlike creationists, I can see that these are insanely complex systems that have been evolving for billions of years instead of throwing my hands up and ‘Cthullu did it’.

What does this have to do with being a skeptic? Disregarding the evidence in favor of your personal worldview:

1- No one can see anything evolving for billions of years.

2- Throwing time around as the "solution" is the same as throwing your hands up and saying "evolutionwentanddonedidit"

3- Kevin obviously does NOT understand science

Thanks Kevin. That you have a say in anything to do with education just proves that our education system is in deep shit.

Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock Texas- people in Texas need to write to their State reps to expose this guy and get him out of their education system.

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still Whining Like a Loser

2011-12-08T08:20:00.001-05:00

-
Over on Telic Thoughts Oleg sez:

So who's been wondering and who's been discovering? Mainstream biologists, that's who. ID's Monday quarterbacks just complain.

OK Oleg, just what the fuck have mainstream biologists discovered? Have they discovered how a population of fish can accumulate random changes and evolve into a land animal? No

Have they discoved how prokaryotes can "evolve" into eukaryotes? No.

Have they discovered ANYTHING that would support the claims of their position? Another no.

Have they discovered how random changes can construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems? Absolutely not.

So one must ask what is all this alleged discovering they are doing? Whatever it is it sure as shit doesn't have anything to do with their position.

Carbohydrate Lovers- No Need to Give Them Up!

2011-12-08T07:40:00.000-05:00

-
Many new diets are telling us to lay off of the carbs (carbohydrates) because carbs are the fuel your body will use before it gets to the fat you want to brun and lose.

Tri-athletes, marathon runners, swimmers, cyclists- all chow down on carbs because they do burn them off in their daily routine.

Now there is help for us regular people- GC7X

I am a carb lover- I love pasta and pizza- I can eat pasta and pizza every day and some weeks I do. I eat pasta as if I was a tri-athlete getting ready for a major competition. And yes it showed, especially once I started slowing down on my excercise routines.

Then I read about GC7X, bought a bottle and started taking it. 6 months later my triglyceride level dropped 30 points (down into the "normal" range) and my cholesterol also dropped 21 points- and the ONLY difference was GC7X. Oh and my waist has shrunk by 3 inches, back down to a 36 (and shrinking).

So if you love carbs but hate what they do to your body, then I highly recommend GC7X.

Starship USS Enterprise Found on Mars?

2011-12-07T07:29:00.002-05:00

-
Or maybe it's Noah's Ark?

Enterprise on mars?

War- What Starts a War?

2011-12-06T08:31:00.002-05:00

-
Ignorant evotards are still in rare form. For example Kevin R. McCarthy, aka orgemkv, is saying that most wars are started over religion. I understand the crusades were about religion but what other wars were about religion?

Let's look. In the 20th century we had World War I and II but neither were about religion. We had the Korean and Vietnam Wars and neither were about religion.

Rome fought wars for conquest, ie for resources. The Mongols and Chinese, same thing- resources.

Our Civil War- not about religion. Our Revolutionary War, not about religion.

True the shit in Ireland is about religion, oppression and occupation but it is a safe bet that most wars were fought over non-religious issues such as resources.

For every war deemed to be "religious" there are at least several that are not. But that won't stop the ignorant evotards from spewing their nonsense.

So, what starts a war? The want of power, greed, and resources with religious, cultural and racial differences also playing roles.

Pete Dunkelberg Demystified- Imagination is Not Evidence

2011-12-02T00:05:00.003-05:00

-*
In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):

Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.

ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.

It just gets worse:

The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.

Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.

He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.

Pete goes on to say:

A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution.

Dr Behe responds:

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

Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.

Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.

If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.

Unfortunately for Pete and all evotards, imagination is not evidence.

* this is a re-titled repost from 5 years ago

"Rolling Stone" 100 Greatest Guitarists?

2011-11-30T19:05:00.003-05:00

-
The latest issue of Rolling Stone has the (alleged) "100 Greatest Guitarists" as voted on by people they picked- guitarists and people in the music industry.

Jimi was #1, although he is more of a "guitar god", as in there is Jimi and then everyone else. But there are some that didn't make the list and some that shouldn't have- Bruce Springsteen doesn't belong on that list.

Steve Howe of Yes is not on that list even though he was voted as the best overall guitarist for 5 years in a row (late 70s- early 80s)- what is he too perfect, too clean to be on the list? But Bruce is? Bullshit

Stevie "Guitar" Miller is not on the list.

Joe Satriani is not on the list. The guy is so good he doesn't need lyrics.

Pat Metheny is not on the list.

Stanley Jordan, shit my bet is the voters never heard of him, not on the list.

Alex Lifeson, one of the voters, was 98th. Yet he can out-play #s 2-97.

Gary Richrath, not on the list.

Robin Trower, not on the list. Rick Nielson, not on the list.

UNCLE TED is not on the list- may all the voters who kept the Motor city madman off the list get "Cat Scratch Fever".

Peter Frampton didn't make it.

Paul Simon is on the list. Might as well put Jimmy Buffet on it too.

As I think of more I will list them. So far all I have listed could easily replace some on the list that shouldn't be there- John Lennon, no he shouldn't be on the list of 100 greatest guitarists.

How to Test and Falisfy Intelligent Design

2011-11-30T15:33:00.001-05:00

-
Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.

However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend!

So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away.

How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?

1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker

2- 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.”

So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).

Evolutionary Research? Where is it?

2011-11-29T07:27:00.000-05:00

-
EvoTards still insist that unlike them IDists and Creationists do not do scientific research.

However when one looks one cannot find any evolutionary research.

Can you present any research, past or present, that supports the the notion of universal common descent via an accumulation of random mutations?

Can you present any research, past or present, that demonstrates that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise not only to new protein machinery but also to new body plans?

How about research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can "evolve" into something other than prokaryotes?

Or are evolutionists still conducting "science" via promissory notes and majority rule? (meaning my questions may be answered some time in the future and that many scientists accept it is good enough to validate the theory now)

You would think that the lack of evolutionary research would count against them, but it doesn't.

David Coppedge vs JPL/ Cal Tech

2011-11-28T16:21:00.003-05:00

-
I have been seeing quite a bit of David Coppedge vs JPL/ Cal Tech. It all seemed too surreal to be real. Then I read the complaint.

Holy shit! Things like that is why there are altercations at work. Coppedge must be really mild-mannered. I am pretty sure I would have gave it to Chin on the chin and let the dice play out.

Now, unfortunately for JPL & Cal Tech, the alleged accusers are going to have to come forward and face the accused. And even more unfortunately other JPL employees, those who were not harassed, not felt harassed and even welcomed the academic freedom will be next in line for termination.

Key evidence in the case will be the two videos-> "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and not even an atheist on an agenda can say those are religious videos. (a twisted atheist with its head up its ass could possibly make the connection, then again the United States Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion, oops)

So the judge and jury will watch the videos and hear testimony- but who will testify? Is the JPL to bully people into lying for them?

Pathetic evotard bullying at its finest. I hope the JPL loses so much money they are forced to shut down and the perpetrators of this shit are brought up on charges.

Case number- BC435600 jury trial starts on December 14...

Kevin R. McCarthy Still Lying

2011-11-28T10:04:00.001-05:00

-
Yup, Kevin has a new post that starts off with a big LIE:

Many… many times I have presented a paper that effectively crushes the claims of creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.

Wow- seeing that no such papers exist what the heck is McCarthy talking about?

Oh, that's right he probably really thinks he did something like that. Unfortunately he will never produce those papers on this blog nor any other forum in which his opponents can respond.

Kevin goes on to say:

A very common example in the creationist world (and the one that inspired this post (Thanks Southstar and Cubist)) is that of Michael Behe making the claim that two more mutations cannot happen because it is so improbable.

Except that isn't what he says. He said that two new protein-to-protein binding sites is the edge. However evos have said something about two mutations:

Waiting for Two Mutations- it seems if the second mutation needs to be specified, that is needs to be in some specific locus, then it is doubtful that blind, undircted chemical processes can do it (not impossible because evos have the magical "time" element). However that requires that the first mutation stay and no other detrimental mutations pop up while waiting for the second mutation.

So here we have Kevin lying again and he really thinks his lies are refutations.

EvoTards are so pathetic.

Front-Loaded Evolution and "junk DNA"

2011-11-26T14:47:00.000-05:00

-
Yeah, yeah, enough with "junk DNA" already. Relax this is a different angle.

In Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution, I said:

So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen. (bold added)

As with Richard's Dawkins "weasel" program, which took scrambled letters and having the whole alphabet as its resource, was able to create a pre-specified target sentence, front-loaded evolution would be able to take truly non-functioning DNA sequences and splice them together to meet some pre-specified function.

That is why front-loaded evolution does NOT need to have all the alleles present as evotards so wrongly claim. All front-loaded evolution requires is that the future design be obtainable through the present design.

In this case the alleged "junk" is just stock to select from, ie "the required resources".

Is Macro-Evolution Really Just more Micro-Evolution?

2011-11-26T09:38:00.001-05:00

-
EvoTards claim that macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution. IOW micro-evolutionary events add up to equal macro-evolution.

But is that claim supported by the evidence?

Let's look. With micro-evolution we get variation in beaks in finches. Variation in beaks cannot be added up to get something other than a bird, nor something other than a finch. No new body plans. No new body parts.

Well how about anti-biotic resistance? Another no:

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

Got that? No matter how many mutations occur bacteria give rise to bacteria. Even with endosymbiosis all you get is bacteria with mitochondria or chloroplasts, which does not make it a eukaryote.

Modifying existing structures- well just what in an invertebrate can be modified as to give rise to vertebrates?

Single-cell anemia is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.

Change in eye color is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.

The point being is there isn't anything in micro-evolutionary events that anyone can extrapolate to a macro-evolutionary event meaning evotards are liars. But we already knew that.

However I am sure evotards can IMAGINE micro-evolutionary event adding up to a macro-evolutionary event. And as long as they can IMAGINE it they think it is science.

Climategate 2.0- More Deception

2011-11-25T11:54:00.000-05:00

-
Not that this was unexpected:

ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists

IF they had science on their side would they need to be so deceptive?

Kevin R. McCarthy Admits His Position is NOT Scientific

2011-11-24T10:08:00.000-05:00

-
Strange thing is he doesn't realize it!

Let's look:

In his post What is Macroevolution? Kevin rightly states:

The critical point in both these definition is time. The simple reason is that we cannot see, in our lifetime a population evolving beyond the species level.

Throwing time around is NOT science. Time is NOT a cure-all. Time is NOT a do-all. When all you have is to throw time around you have left science behind.

In a new post Kevin sez:

Intelligent design supposes a designer because things ‘look’ designed.

That's not true but that isn't the point. Kevin goes on to say:

Homonid fossils do prove that evolution has occurred. It can easily be shown that certain changes to brain volume and various structures (hips, knees, jaw, etc) can be shown to change over time… therefore evolution.

IOW "it looks like they evolved"! Never mind that ID is OK with common ancestry but Kevin just demonstrated that his position is nothing but "it looks like evolution to me." Well I have already proven that a "transitional fossil" boils down to nothing more than "It looks like a transitional", so all his position has is time and "it looks like it to me".

Is THAT what passes for peer-review these days?

Is there ANY way to scientifically test the claims of evolutionists? I say absolutely not. But perhaps one will show up and explain how to test their position- it hasn't happened yet but maybe one evotard will grow a set and actually ante up.

Thorton Hears Another Who

2011-11-23T16:35:00.002-05:00

-
ThorTard sed:

Joe G, why are you stalking Ogremk5 around the internet? I know he’s make you look like a complete fool numerous times over your scientific ignorance, but is that a reason to stalk and harass him? You’re going to get yourself in deep legal trouble one day.

As usual ThorTard does not provide any evidence to support any of its claims. But let's take a looksie:

Joe G, why are you stalking Ogremk5 around the internet?

1- I am not stalking anyone. Kevin R. McCarthy, like you, is a piece of shit liar and I will expose him every time he posts his bullshit lies. He lies about me. He lies about ID. He lies about science. And he lies about evolution.

I know he’s make you look like a complete fool numerous times over your scientific ignorance, but is that a reason to stalk and harass him?

2- Kevin R. McCarthy, like you, is a scientifically ignorant drooler. He has only made himself into a fool. So all KEVIN has to do is stop with his bullshitting and lying ways.

You’re going to get yourself in deep legal trouble one day.

3- Bring on the legal, if you can. My case against evotards, especially Kevin, is very strong.

Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution

2011-11-23T11:48:00.000-05:00

-
An article on Talk Origins states:

In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

Forget that evolution does not have the goal stated- the point is that GAs are an example of front-loading- that is they start with everything they need to solve some problem. Front-loading does NOT require that the solution be known nor that the specific process to finding the solution be known.

What is required is the specification of what you need- what are you trying to solve.

For example a GA was used to design an antenna. The engineers did not know what the antenna would look like. But what they had were the specifications the antenna needed to meet- again from Talk Origins:

Altshuler and Linden 1997 used a genetic algorithm to evolve wire antennas with pre-specified properties. The authors note that the design of such antennas is an imprecise process, starting with the desired properties and then determining the antenna's shape through "guesses.... intuition, experience, approximate equations or empirical studies" (p.50). This technique is time-consuming, often does not produce optimal results, and tends to work well only for relatively simple, symmetric designs. By contrast, in the genetic algorithm approach, the engineer specifies the antenna's electromagnetic properties, and the GA automatically synthesizes a matching configuration.

THAT is front-loaded evolution.

So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

Sadly evotards will never grasp any of that.

Kevin R. McCarthy, Still a Lying Piece of Shit

2011-11-22T22:05:00.002-05:00

-
Posted at Kevin's blog- Kevin on front-loading

Kevin,

You are just totally clueless and apparently proud of it.

IDists say GAs work just as your link says:

In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

Mutation and real selection all directed towards the goal, ie the solution. But TO is wrong in that "evolution" does not have that stated goal. It doesn't give a rat's ass.

You say:

Look closely at the examples and notice that, in every case (and every case that I am aware of) genetic algorithms outperform human results. In at least one case, humans still don’t even understand how the evolved system works. If no one can figure out how it works, then it’s not likely to be front-loaded is it?

The two aren't related. Also not everyone tried to figure out how they worked.

But why couldn’t alleles be front-loaded into a genome and then be ‘turned on’ in the future.

That is a possibility.

The creationist belief is that science was once wrong about what ‘junk DNA‘ is, then science is wrong about everything else.

Spoken like an asshole loser. Is lying the best you can do? Is that your "original" content?

Anyway, the problem is that creationists who want to argue for front-loading have to talk about how that squares with all that non-coding DNA.

Only in your little bitty evotard mind.

But what’s worse for the creationist is that, back to the ‘mutations cannot add information or produce functional proteins’, the method for ‘activating’ these front-loaded alleles must have been… gasp… mutation.

Umm THAT is NOT the argument.

You are just an ignorant, strawman creating piece of shit loser.

What the creationist is saying with the front-loading argument is that the ancestral dog had every gene and allele to make every single dog from the toy dachshund to the Bull Mastiff.

Fuck you- no creationist says that you fucking liar. And the front-loading argument does not require it.

You really should learn about something before you try to refute it. That way you wouldn't come off as such an ignorant asshole

What is Incompitable with Intelligent Design

2011-11-21T07:30:00.000-05:00

-
What is incompatible with Intelligent Design?

That's easy:

1- If there weren’t any similarities that would count against a common design.

2- And if living organisms were reducible to matter and energy that would count against design, ie be incompatible with Intelligent Design.

New "Local" Band- Wolfman Conspiracy

2011-11-15T11:59:00.000-05:00

-
I have a demo CD from Wolfman Conspiracy- love the brass section.

When Are (We) Sports Fans Going On Strike?

2011-11-10T10:19:00.001-05:00

-
NFL lockout

NBA season in doubt

NHL lockout (2004-05)

MLB strike (1994)

And this is just the USA's major sports.

Just ONCE I would love to see the fans go on strike- do not buy any tickets. Do not buy any sports merchandise.

If you must, go tailgating, have a party there, just do NOT purchase any tickets to the event.

Football fans stay away for one month- 4 games- OR until they make it affordable to take a family of four to a game- has to be $100 for the tickets, the parking and food (alcohol not included).

WE HAVE THE POWER.

And I say it is about time that we used it.

When in the course of professional sporting events it becomes necessary for one people (fans) to dissolve their unions that have connected them to various sports franchises and athletes and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of fans requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We, the fans of professional sports, in order to obtain a more affordable entertainment, do hereby declare a general boycott of all professional sporting events.

I would like to give thanks to the founding fathers for their words of wisdom and inspiration which I have used because I do believe this is a dire situation and dire situations calls for no-holds-barred.

Of Speciation and Strawmen

2011-11-09T13:38:00.001-05:00

-
Let it be said that ignorance of your opponents' positions is not a refutation of them. (yeah, yeah, I know, evotards always accuse me of being ignorant of the theory of evolution but they never have supported that accusation)

But anyway, a bit of history-

Karl von Linne (aka Carolus Linnaeus) was a Creationist in search of the originally Created Kinds when he created binomial nomenclature. At first he thought the "species" level was the level of the Kind but later changed that to the level of "Genus", meaning speciation is just variation within a Kind.

What that means is that Creationists understood and accepted speciation took place and as a matter of fact they posit rapid speciation took place following a large extinction event (the Flood).

For example a search of Answers in Genesis on "speciation" yileds many references documenting what Creationsists say about it.

And then there is The Current Status of Baraminology

The point being is that the fixity of species is a strawman. It appears Charles Darwin got the concept from Lyell but he never bothered to check its veracity.

What does this have to do with anything?

The strawman is alive and doing well thanks to mental midgets like DrGH/ Gary S. Hurd. Ya see Gary is proudly pointing out his blog on the
emergence of new species as some alleged evidence that refutes this strawman.

The real pathetic thing about that is Gary has been told, on several occasions, that this is a strawman but he still persists. And that means he is just a dishonest loser who should be ridiculed yet he is stroked by evotards of all stripes.

Go figure...

How Intelligent Design Defines "Information"

2011-11-06T11:06:00.001-05:00

-
Actually the title is misleading because Intelligent Design doesn't define "information", it is perfectly OK with the accepted definition commonly used:

information:

b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":

The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.

So when IDists speak of "information" the are talking about specified information, which is the information used in and associated with information technology and every day living. The "information", without which communication would be impossible.

I still don't understand why evotards think that Intelligent Design uses some "top-secret" definition of "information". Oh, evoTARDS- nevermind....

Kevin R. McCarthy signs off from Scientopia and leaves some whine

2011-11-06T08:53:00.000-05:00

-
Kevin is saying goodbye, his two-week guest blogging stint is over on Scientopia guest blog. But in leaving he had to throw out another glass of whine.

So as I said, which will most likely be removed, is that if Kevin didn't want people following hom then he should stop lying about people, ID and science.

Also I will point out that Kevin himself told everyone who visits his lying blog where he would be and to come by.

Is this asshole really for real?

Biological Fitness vs Physical Fitness

2011-11-04T22:46:00.000-04:00

-
Fitness- Seems like an easy enough word to understand. If you want to be fit you eat right and cross train.

Ahh but that is physical fitness, and although physical fitness deals with biological organisms, it is different from, though may affect, biological fitness. IOW you don't have to be the most physically fit to be the most biologically fit, although it may help.

Biological fitness can refer to either a population's or individual's reproductive success. It is basically an after-the-fact assessment. If the population size increases it has a positive fitness. If it decreases it has a negative fitness and if it stays the same it is in equalibrium. And the individuals in the population that have the most offspring are the fittest, even if they get their ass kicked by others who have fewer offspring. They are the lovers, not the fighters.

What's the point?

Look at humans. With some exceptions it appears the "fittest" humans are the biggest losers- and I ain't talkin' 'bout no game show.

People pumping out kids just to stay on welfare- let the State support you for being so fucking fit! :)

IOW it just seems like a useless concept.

On the Capabilities of the Designer(s)

2011-11-04T10:48:00.000-04:00

-
Another old "stupid" argument against Intelligent Design is that we cannot determine design unless we know the capabilities of the designer(s)- as in how do we know any agenc could design something like that?

Well how do we know stone-age people had the capability of designing and building Stonehenge? Stonehenge

How do we know bronze-age people had the capability to design and build the Antikythera mechansim? The Antikythera mechanism.

Point being if the mechanism did not exist- say we hadn't found it yet- if someone said the ancients had such a device no one would believe him/ her.

Ya see, as I have said before, designing agencies, successful designing agencies anyway, usually do have the capabilities to design what it is they are designing. Duh.

Scientopia Guest Blog

2011-11-03T10:06:00.000-04:00

-
Scientopia has a guest blog:

This is a new Scientopia blog that will be hosting a wonderful slate of non-Scientopia bloggers for two-week guest-blogging stints. Have fun!

Scientopia states:

Scientopia is a collective of people who write about science because they love to do so. It is a community, held together by mutual respect and operated by consensus, in which people can write, educate, discuss, and learn about science and the process of doing science. In this we explore the interplay between scientific issues and other parts of our lives with the shared goal of making science more accessible.

As a community, we strive to be welcoming of anyone with an interest in science and its place in our world, regardless of any feature, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, which may act or have historically acted as a barrier to full participation in science or discourses about science.

What the guest blog does is invites people from outside their collective to talk about science- science without barriers.

That is important as some people love to put barriers around science and refuse to discuss anything they deem outside of those barriers- even if reality is outside of those barriers.

Those people are like the drunk who is looking for his lost keys under the street light (even though he/she didn't drop them there) because that is the only place that has enough light so he/she can see.

Where was I...

OK so there is a guest blog for people who want to discuss their ideas on science. Unfortunately they allow people who have such a narrow view on science they cannot accept any critisism nor account for their mistakes and can only "respond" by saying their opponents don't understand science and don't have any right being there.

When that doesn't work they throw a hissy fit, get their evogoons involved, send out emails contacting the collective- get others to do so too-> can't do anything without the mob- and settle it "scientifically".

But until it gets settled Kevin will take his ball, go home and come back only if the collective agrees to ban me.

Is that about right, Kev?

Kevin R. McCarthy Blows Another Gasket and Has to Censor Science!

2011-10-31T12:34:00.002-04:00

-
Yup good ole scientopia guest blog- CORRECTION KEVIN WAS DOING ALL THE CENSORING- needs to censor comments that demonstrate their guest bloggers are full of shit.

Case in point- Kevin R. McCarthy thinks that digital organisms fit the requirements of being alive (they don't) and he points to Avida, of all things, to support his claim.

1- Avida "organisms" are far too simple to be considered anything like a biological organism

2- Avida organisms "evolve" via unreasonable parameters:

The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms

Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford

Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 2011, 8:9 | doi:10.1186/1742-4682-8-9

Abstract:

Background: Avida is a computer program that performs evolution experiments with digital organisms. Previous work has used the program to study the evolutionary origin of complex features, namely logic operations, but has consistently used extremely large mutational fitness effects. The present study uses Avida to better understand the role of low-impact mutations in evolution.

Results:

When mutational fitness effects were approximately 0.075 or less, no new logic operations evolved, and those that had previously evolved were lost. When fitness effects were approximately 0.2, only half of the operations evolved, reflecting a threshold for selection breakdown. In contrast, when Avida's default fitness effects were used, all operations routinely evolved to high frequencies and fitness increased by an average of 20 million in only 10,000 generations.

Conclusions:

Avidian organisms evolve new logic operations only when mutations producing them are assigned high-impact fitness effects. Furthermore, purifying selection cannot protect operations with low-impact benefits from mutational deterioration. These results suggest that selection breaks down for low-impact mutations below a certain fitness effect, the selection threshold. Experiments using biologically relevant parameter settings show the tendency for increasing genetic load to lead to loss of biological functionality. An understanding of such genetic deterioration is relevant to human disease, and may be applicable to the control of pathogens by use of lethal mutagenesis.

Yet when I posted this kevin had it deleted- TWICE.

As if I needed more evidence that Kevin R. McCarthy is a low-life, lying loser.

Guess what Kevin? If our confrontation does go to trial I will have a full archive to call on for evidence against you. Thanks...

I just put it here- that seems to be the relevant thread. We will see how long it stays....

Kevin R. McCarthy- Lying Like a Little Bitch AGAIN!

2011-10-31T06:46:00.000-04:00

-
This never gets old- Kevin R. McCarthy, known liar and loser for science is lying again.

This time Kevin sez:

It is not a place for your strawmen, your argument from authority, and your arguments from ignorance

Yet he never supports that tripe. His comment before that was all lies:

Yes Joe, misinformation about evolution like some of the things YOU have said like:

Evolution is totally random/chance
there are no transitional fossils
evolution denies God (or a designer)
Evolution is just a theory
x can't evolve because its too complex
etc. etc. etc.

But this thread isn't about evolution. In fact, not a single post I have made here is about evolution, I would appreciate you staying on topic.

Yet HE brought up evolution in the post I commented on! Not only that his accusations are lies.

So it doesn't matter where he posts, Kevin R. McCarthy is mothing but a piece-of-shit liar.

Natural Selection is Really Insignificant

2011-10-18T07:25:00.000-04:00

-
Oooops, so sorry evotards-> natural selection is impotent:

The explanation that best fits the data tells us that >99% of all evolutionary change is due to random genetic drift and not natural selection.

Very few evotards understand evolution well enough to appreciate that.

And taht means their position boils down to sheer dumb luck.

Yeah baby...

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Revisited- AGAIN!

2011-10-16T10:00:00.000-04:00

-
EvoTards 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:

b>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?”.

Dennis R. Venema is Confused, Misguided and Full of Shit

2011-10-15T09:24:00.000-04:00

-
That's right Dennis R. Venema is ooo freaking confused he is making himself into a fool and he doesn't even understand that he is doing so.

Who is Dennis R. Venema?

Dennis Venema is associate professor at Trinity Western University and a Senior Fellow with the BioLogos Foundation. He obtained his BSc and PhD in cell biology and genetics from the University of British Columbia.
His research interests include the genetics of tissue patterning in Drosophila, genetics education, and the interaction between evolutionary biology and Christian faith. Recently, he has authored a series of blog posts, discussing how information arises during evolution for the Biologos Foundation.
He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Pacific coast
region has to offer.

He has been criticizing Stephen C. Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". However he has erected a strawman and criticized it. Meyer exposed his strawman and now Dennis has responded.

But when we read the response it is clear that Dennis is an imbecile as he misrepresents Meyer right off the bat. For example Dennis sez:

I find Meyer’s claim that biological evolution is irrelevant to the argument of Signature curious for several reasons.
The most important reason is that the basic argument of Signature requires that biological evolution be incapable of generating new information.

Wrong again you stupid freak. SitC is a book about biological ORIGIN, not biological evolution and Meyer even said that in his response to you. That means you are too stupid to understand anything and will just make up something and go ahead with your ignorant spewage.

Dennis goes on to say:

The strength of this argument depends on the assertion
that all information arises from intelligence.

Wrong again, asshole. What Meyer wrote and you quoted applies only to complex and specified information- that is Shannon information with a function/ meaning.

He follows that up with:

Note well: the argument requires that all information, in any form, be the result of intelligence, not just the information required for the origin of life.

Note well, Dennis, you are fucking clueless and perhaps close to being a complete imbecile. Shannon information does not require intelligence and Meyer never said nor implied it did. Quite the opposite and he says so right in the book you are criticizing! That tells me you didn't read the book.

Also Dennis, the argument is that blind, undirected physical processes cannot produce CSI and if you use biological organisms then you are begging the fucking question! Are you really that daft that you don't understand that?

In his conclusion Dennis confirms what I just said:

The reason for the paring down is obvious:
comparative genomics, experimental evolution, and developmental biology have shed too much light on the ability of biological evolution to generate
information.

1- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution you moron

2- There isn't any evidemnce that the processes you speak of are blind, undirected chemical processes as you are starting with that which needs explaining in the first place!

To sum up Dennis R. Venema does not understand Intelligent Design and has absolutely no clue on what Intelligent Design claims.

Hopefully he is better at his profession then he is at criticizing other people's position.

This "just" in...

2011-10-09T19:48:00.000-04:00

-
This "just" in, the world is 13,023 years old and will end on October 21, 2011.

Yeah baby...

Pre-Biotic Natural Selection? So What?

2011-10-06T08:19:00.000-04:00

-
The anti-ID mob is trying to use their magical ratchet of natural selection on pre-biological stuff.

I say who cares? Natural selection is an oxymoron anyway- nature doesn't select. Natural selction is just a result of heirtable random variation- if it leads top differential reproduction you have natural selection.

So the anti-ID mod sez natural selection applies to the first replicators. So what? That doesn't help them as ns has never been a creative force, just an eliminative one- as in replicators that can't cut it get cut.

So go ahead, invoke pre-biotic natural selection. It just exposes the desperation of your position.

Thanks...

More Horseshit and The Origin of Life

2011-10-04T22:24:00.000-04:00

-
I give you horseshit and the origin of life:

OOL Discovery #1. All known life can be traced back to a single common ancestor which, compared to what most people think of as present-day life (i.e. plants and animals), was relatively simple – microscopic, single-celled, perhaps as complex as an average bacterium or perhaps somewhat less so.

Total unsupportable horseshit. There still isn't any evidence that a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote, meaning the "trace" can't even get started.

OOL Discovery #2. The Last Common Ancestor itself was the product of evolution from an even simpler ancestor.

Question-begging fallacy.

OOL Discovery #3. DNA/RNA/protein-based life was preceded by something even simpler, an RNA world or at least an RNA-heavy world.

Of course your position requires that but there isn't any evidence for it so it could not be a "discovery".

OOL Discovery #4. The increasingly simple ancestors of modern life weren’t made out of just anything, they were made out of chemicals that just happen to be generated by plausible abiotic mechanisms found in early solar systems.

And more question-begging.

The moral of this story is evotards will just say anything but don't ask for evidence to support their claims.

Nicholas J. Matzke is a Total Asshole

2011-10-03T20:01:00.000-04:00

-
That's right, as if I needed to say it- Nicholas J. matzke, formewrly of the NCSE, is a total asshole. The following is my evidence:

Over on Telic Thoughts NickMatzke sez-

Venema, others at BioLogos, and other critics like me have been arguing that the most obvious huge crashing flaw with that is that there is at least one major nonintelligent source of information, namely evolution by multiple rounds of mutation and selection (where mutation includes gene duplication etc.).

Nice QUESTION-BEGGING RESPONSE YOU TOTAL ASSHOLE!

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you really think your bullshit willful ignorance means something?

1- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution

2- There isn't any evidence that gene duplications are Darwinian/ neo-darwinain processes

The moron goes on to say:

Thus the validity of Meyer's logical argument turns out to hang on whether or not evolution can produce new information, and this motivates a debate about whether or not it is reasonable to think that natural evolutionary processes can produce new genes.

Wrong again, asshole. Meyer even states it in his book- page 4-> "blind and undirected" processes. Ya see Nick, you are so much of an asshole you still think ID is anti-evolution even though Meyer himself says ID is OK with evolution- as do Behe, Dembski, Wells, et al.

So Nick, THAT is why the origin of life is so important. The ONLY way you can call on gene duplications to support your position is by demonstrating a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected chemical processes. Until you do that you are just being a total asshole with your question-begging wussyness.

Our Special, Privileged Place in the Universe

2011-09-19T19:52:00.000-04:00

-
The following is a list of things required in order to maintain/ sustain complex life- (outside of the required chemical processes at the cellular level). The point of the list is to show how very incredibly lucky we are. We won the cosmic lottery! Or is there a purpose for our existence? Does Occam’s Razor really favor one designed universe over multiple chance collisions & multiple lucky events? Does science really favor the chance collisions & multiple lucky events scenario? (also mixed in are the ways the factors aid in scientific discovery)

Intelligent Design vs. it just happened- You decide.

Factors for complex life:

1. Liquid water
a. Enough surface water to help regulate the planet’s temperature
b. Good solvent
c. Transports minerals
d. The presence of liquid water means the planet is in the habitable zone of it’s local star (Sun)
e. The presence of liquid water defines the CHZ (Circumstellar Habitable Zone. The CHZ of our solar system lies between Venus & Mars. Some scientists have narrowed it to:
-If the Earth were 5% closer to the Sun – too hot, no liquid water
-If the Earth were 20% father away from the Sun- too cold carbon dioxide would build up
f. less dense as a solid than as a liquid

2. Carbon based
a. Great bonding affinities
b. Allows for complex macro-molecules

3. Terrestrial planet
a. Crust thin/ thick and pliable enough to allow for plate tectonics
b. Recycling of minerals
c. Plate tectonics means the crust is sitting on an active core
d. Must retain enough heat for convection, i.e. keep the core liquid
e. Convection mixes the elements & shapes the continents
f. Active iron core is required to generate a protective magnetic field
g. Magnetic field has to be strong enough to withstand the solar winds
h. Must provide protection from radiation

4. Oxygen atmosphere
a. Our oxygen/ nitrogen mix is good
b. Clear- allows for good viewing
c. Ours is <1% of planet’s diameterd. Allows in the right kind of light for viewing5. Stable circular orbit

6. Large Moon (see also Gonzalez, G., “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20) (J. Laskar et al., “Stabilization of the Earth’s Obliquity by the Moon,” Nature 361 (1993): 615-17)
a. Our Moon is ¼ the size of Earth
b. Stabilizes the Earth’s axis of rotation
c. Gives our oceans a required tidal action
d. Just so happens that our Moon is 400x smaller than the Sun, which is 400x farther away
e. Both with a very circular shape
f. Allows for perfect solar eclipses
g. Confirmed Einstein’s prediction with the 1919 solar eclipse (gravity bends light) when scientists photographed the Stars behind it. We could have only made that discovery during a total solar eclipse.
h. Light spectrum
i. Observing & studying the Sun’s chromosphere is made possible

7. Gas Giants
a. Protection from intruding cosmic debris
b. Great for observing & scientific discovery

8. Sun- Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star-
a. If it were smaller the habitable zone would shrink and any planets in that zone would be locked into a synchronous orbit (rotation = revolution) as our Moon is with us
b. Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
c. Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
d. 1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
e. Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
f. 50% of those are in binary systems
g. Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone

9. Location in the galaxy- Galactic Habitable Zone
a. We are between spiral arms
b. Perfect for viewing
c. Not a lot of activity
d. Not too close to the violent and very active center
e. More radiation near the center
Neighbors
Not a good viewing platform from which to discover
Not so far away where the heavy elements are scarce

10. Fine-tuning
a. Laws of Nature
b. Laws apply here also apply anywhere
c. Constants that are independent of those laws

Summary:

Within the Galactic Habitable Zone

Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone

Liquid water

Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star

Protected by gas giants

Nearly circular orbit-

Oxygen rich

Correct mass

Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation

Moderate rate of rotation

Terrestrial planet

Ratio of water to continents

Plate tectonic re-cycling

Magnetic field

Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.

The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.

The above list contains factors required for complex life, but life is not guaranteed to arise even if all factors are met. The fact that a large, stabilizing moon is required and ours just happens to provide us with a huge natural setting in which we can & have conducted a multitude of scientific experiments that have increased our knowledge base and confirmed scientific predictions, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence to support their finding that habitability = measure-ability. Think about it. In the accepted age view of the solar system & Earth, with the Moon’s recession rate coupled with the Sun’s expansion rate, these perfect solar eclipses, along with the scientific discoveries that accompany them, will soon be gone (10 million years). The best place for viewing eclipses, is also the only place in the solar system with perfect solar eclipses, is also the only place with conscious observers and we, intelligent observers, just happened to arrive when the scenario was best for scientific discovery.

Earthquakes, even though very destructive, are a necessary byproduct of the required plate tectonic recycling. They also offer us a way to measure the density of the material between designated points via the sound waves produced by plate movement. Volcanoes offer a way to vent the internal pressure. Without vents the internal pressure would build uncontrolled, until the planet exploded. Plate tectonics also means that there is an active core. An active core like the Earth’s creates a protective electro-magnetic field. The size of the field is important- too small and the solar winds blow it away; too large and life is a no-no. Volcanoes are part of the mineral recycling process. Volcanic ash also covers the ground, not only providing rich soil for future generations but also in some cases creating a time vault that enables scientists to get an excellent view of the past. To support plate tectonics a crust that is thick enough to support oceans and continents is required, but it can’t be so thick that it doesn’t have subducting plates to recycle vital minerals.

The laws that govern nature are independent of the constants that control them. IOW fudge with the constants and even though the outcome is changed, the law still remains true. And that change will, in all likely-hood, prevent the conditions required for complex life.

Did we win the “cosmic lottery”? Or is intentional design, design with the purpose of having said design be understandable and ensuring beings exist that can grow to understand it, the better explanation?

See also:

The Privileged Planet

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Choking on his Ignorance

2011-09-19T08:43:00.000-04:00

=-
Yup I can always rely on Kevin to spew evotard nonsense. In his latest spewage he sez:

This is, of course, the entire underpinning of modern creationism and the argument by analogy was dismissed well over a hundred years ago for the simple reason that watches don’t self reproduce and have changes in their manufacturing instructions with each generation.

Question-begging- how did self-reproduction arise? Where did those instruction come from?

Also even the RNA world needs to have two strands of RNA to go- one as a template and one as the catalyst- IOW self-reproduction isn’t even an option.

He also bitches about argument from analogy- well ALL evotards do because they don't have any analogies to support their position.

He also continues to conflate mere complexity with the specified complexity ID requires and he conflates simple pattern repitition with complexity.

Guest Post: Impact of Death on Beliefs about Intelligent Design and Evolution

2011-09-12T07:55:00.001-04:00

-
Today I feature a guest post from Allison Gamble- "Allison Gamble has been a curious student of psychology since high school. She brings her understanding of the mind to work in the weird world of internet marketing with psychologydegree.net."

Humans have long had an innate curiosity about the world, and it is this attribute that separates man from beast. One of man's fundamental questions is the origin of the universe and of life itself. In explaining the “why” and “how” of man's existence, two of the major opposing viewpoints are intelligent design theory and evolutionary theory. Recently, Professor Jessica Tracy of the University of British Columbia in Canada published a study reviewing the implications of people's recognition of their own mortality on their belief in either intelligent design or evolutionary theory. It doesn't take a psychology degree to surmise what the conclusion of her findings illustrated; Dr. Tracy's research looked into the profound importance of an individual's belief structure in coping with his or her mortality. This article explores the significance of Dr. Tracy's recent findings.

Jessica Tracy on the Study of Existential Anxiety

Dr. Tracy published a paper in March 2011 exploring the effects of existential anxiety on a person's belief in either intelligent design or evolutionary theory. Dr. Tracy and her team hypothesized that people’s fear of death caused them to embrace the concept of intelligent design, specifically the belief in a supernatural force. Tracy examined this effect in different segments of the population, including psychology, natural sciences and general university students, as well as a sample of the non-academic population.

The research was carried out in five studies of more than a thousand Americans and Canadians of diverse social, economic, educational, and religious backgrounds. The respondents were asked to imagine dying and then explore their feelings regarding this traumatic event. A control group was used as a comparison and asked to imagine pain from a dental procedure, an event of considerable discomfort without the profound implication of existence.

After going through this thought process, the respondents read similarly styled excerpts by Professor Richard Dawkins advocating evolutionary theory and Professor Michael Behe supporting intelligent design. The respondents then answered questions about their views on the two theories. The impact of thoughts of mortality was then compared among the groups studied.

The first group discussed by Dr. Tracy was the group of psychology students, who were expected to have a core belief in evolution based on their training and curriculum. After pondering death, the students were found to have increased acceptance of intelligent design compared to the control group, without any change in their acceptance of evolution. The implication of this result is that mortality and existential concerns cause people to seek the comfort that intelligent design offered in a benevolent guiding force.

The second group discussed by Dr. Tracy was a group of undergraduate students from a broad range of fields. The students in this group who considered their mortality showed a greater acceptance of intelligent design and reduced acceptance of evolutionary theory compared to the control group. Again, considerations of mortality caused people to cling more to intelligent design, although additionally to reject evolution.

The third group explored was comprised of a varied mix of individuals from the general population. The results from this group were similar to the second group; namely, thoughts of death promoted belief in intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

The fourth group studied was given a third passage to consider by Carl Sagan, which suggested that existential meaning exists for mankind even in a world view based on scientific theory. Interestingly, this alternate passage caused a negative shift in attitudes towards intelligent design and a positive shift toward evolution. This result indicates that it is man's search for a larger meaning to existence that is key to providing comfort in the face of his own mortality.

The last group studied was a group of natural science students, who were expected to have naturalism as a core belief. The effect of mortality considerations actually led to an increased acceptance of evolutionary theory as a source of existential comfort, and a reduced acceptance of intelligent design.

Significance of the Study

The findings of Dr. Tracy's study indicate that people have an inherent need to find a larger meaning in their existence when faced with their own mortality. Furthermore, among the general populace particularly, it is intelligent design that provides the greatest comfort. In fact, in many individuals, far from providing comfort, evolution provides a comparatively bleak world view, potentially stirring feelings of despair. It is only a small subset of individuals adhering to a naturalistic view of the world who is able to find comfort in evolutionary theory. Furthermore, when examining religious backgrounds of individuals in the Dr. Tracy's studies, those following the Christian faith strongly favored the intelligent design theory.

It is clear from Dr. Tracy's study that intelligent design plays a critical importance in providing comfort and meaning to many individuals. Today's rapidly changing world has a tendency to leave a lot of people adrift, with depression and anxiety becoming rampant in society. As a result, it is important to present intelligent design theory as part of a comprehensive curriculum to spur within individuals a deeper exploration of self and with it, improved spiritual and psychological well-being.

Thank you Allison, very interesting.

Intelligent Design: An Alternative Theory of Evolution

2011-09-07T08:13:00.001-04:00

-
That's right ID is an alternative theory of evolution. That means it is an alternative to Darwinism and neo-darwinism, ie the modern synthesis.

Ya see, as I have been saying and proving- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolutuion*, rather ID is anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That means, according to ID, that not all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. Dr Spetner went over this in his book "Not By Chance".

* 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”

Only a dishonest evotard- wait that is a repetitive as all evotards are dishonest- would say ID is anti-evolution.

When Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Shits and Pisses Himself

2011-09-02T20:41:00.000-04:00

-
Yes indeed we have Kevin R. McCarthy shitting and pissing himself. And he doesn't even realize it. What is even funnier is RichTard Hughes jumps in the shit and plays around in it.

Sorry guys but calling out a liar and then saying "If I do anything..." does not constitute a threat- not one that any law will consider. Context and wording is ever so important when it comes to legal matters.

But anyways I will await the summons...

Evolutionists, Too Afraid To Lead By Example

2011-08-31T07:58:00.000-04:00

-
Evolutionists are a cowardly lot. They love to run their mouths about ID saying that it doesn't have any positive evidence nor is it scientific. But when push comes to shove they cannot produce any positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis for their position!

What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit.

The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away. However it is obvious that they are chicken-shit cowards- losers of life and acientifically illiterate.

The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance. That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!

What happens with that is morons like Kevin R. McCarthy of Round rock Texas saying his position is the cowardly position of "evolution"- McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not.

Methodological Naturalism- A Failed Philosophy- "is a Necessity of Performing Science"?????

2011-08-30T20:21:00.000-04:00

-
Some limpdick that goes by "Ritchie" sez:

ASSUMING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS A NECESSITY OF PERFORMING SCIENCE!!! EVERY THEORY IN EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE ASSUMES IT!!!

Methodological naturalism is a failed philosophy- and it fails the regress test as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

Huge failure, right off the bat.

Also limiting scientific inquiry and starting with a conclusion (question-begging) is another huge science-fail. A clsed science is a useless science and a science ruled by methodological naturalism is a closed science.

Closed science for the closed-minded...

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- Proof-reading and Error-correction

2011-08-29T07:17:00.000-04:00

-
Back to the positive evidence for Intelligent Design:

It isn't so much that cells cannot live without proofreading and error-correction, rather it is that proof-reading and error correction are evidence for Intelligent Design for the simple reason is that it takes knowledge to proofread and knowledge to correct any errors.

In order to proofread you have to know what you are reading and in order to correct any errors you first have to identify, ie know, the error and also know how to correct it.

This also leads us back to cause and effect relationships. In accordance with uniformitarianism only agencies are capable of such a thing.

See also DNA Repair

Mankind is NOT the Only Intelligent Agency on Earth

2011-08-26T10:02:00.000-04:00

-
Richtard Hughes has his head so far up his ass he keeps insisting that mankind is the only intelligent agency on Earth. He must lead a very sheltered life.

So let's see- besides mankind, other intelligent agenicies include:

1- Ants- they domesticate other animals and they also dabble in agriculture

2- Termites- they purposely manipulate the environment for their own needs

3- Beavers- they also purposely manipulate the environment for their own needs

4- Bees, wasps, hornets, birds, well all organisms fall under the category of intelligent agencies

They all do things that nature, operating freely, cannot do.

Clueless EvoTards Think Natural and Artificial Selection are the Same Process

2011-08-23T10:05:00.001-04:00

-
According to the (clueless) NCSE:

Artificial selection and natural selection are different forms of the same process.

Laughable, but there it is.

1- Natural selection cannot produce a toy poodle, whereas artificial selection has. If they were the same process then natural selection would be able to produce a toy poodle. That goes for any of the dog breeds.

2- Natural selection can undo what artificial selection has wrought. For example take away humans and all dogs will become basically the same in just several generations.

3- With artificial selection there is actually real selecting going on. Natural selection is an oxymoron as no selecting is gong on as NS is a result, an output. Not only that it is very weak:

The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:

Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin's theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.

Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver's study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches. Two correlations are at issue. The first is linear, and corresponds to what in population genetics is called directional selection; and the second quadratic, and corresponds either to stabilizing or disruptive selection. These are the cornerstones of the modern hill and valley model of much of mathematical population genetics. Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection, and a median absolute value of 0.10 for quadratic selection. Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection, and 10 percent in the case of quadratic selection. These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak's finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population's fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.

The point being when natural selection is observed to do what artificial selection has been doing you can say the are the same process. But until then saying so is just another big fat evotard lie.

Scientific Reasons to Reject Universal Common Descent

2011-08-23T09:38:00.000-04:00

-
The scientific reasons people reject universal common descent:

1- The premise cannot be objectively, ie scientifically, tested

2- There isn't any evidence that the changes required are even possible (see #1)

3- No one knows what makes an organism what it is (see #1)

As a matter of fact the only reason to accept universal common descent is for metaphysical reasons.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks, Part 1- Revisited

2011-08-22T20:43:00.003-04:00

-
To understand the theory of evolution and universal common descent I have been told to read biology textbooks. The funny part is that every time I do so the design inference is confirmed.

The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):

It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5

However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.

The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19

Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!

Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation-

Transcription:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell. On to translation:

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.

There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23

And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.

So the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.

Extrapolation and the Design Inference

2011-08-19T20:15:00.000-04:00

-
The design inference in a nutshell:

Every time we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and know the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Always. Meaning there has never been an observed instance of X (be that CSI or IC) arising spontaneously, ie without agency invlovement. Never.

Therefor when we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, that an agency was involved.

True the usual evotardgasm is "Man (humans) are the only agency we know of that produces X (be that CSI or IC)", but that is the point of extrapolation.

Ya see if we have already determined design and we also have determined that man (humans) could not be the agency, then we infer it was some other agency-> extrapolation.

So simple my eight year old understands it...

Common Design and Standards

2011-08-19T09:11:00.000-04:00

-
It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives. Why is that, you say? Well for one just being involved in building a house you will see bulding standards at work. The studs of a wall will be 16" apart on center- building code/ standard.

Floor joists? The same OR 12" apart on center depending on the load the floor will carry. (yes some can be 24" apart, again depending on the floor's load- I have never seen that spacing).

IEEE? Standards that allow for different companys'equipment to work together.

What does this have to do with a common design? EVERYTHING.

The point being is a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

Archaeology, Forensic Science, SETI and Intelligent Design

2011-08-18T20:17:00.000-04:00

-
For years I have been saying that Intelligent Design is as scientific an enterprise as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. All rely on our ability to understand cause and effect relationships in order to differentiate between what nature, operating freely can do and what takes agency involvement to accomplish.

Easy to understand yet some people, re evotards, just refuse to grasp the concept. They will say that archaeology and forensics we already know who the designer is, which is total bullshit, or that those enterprises strive to identify the designer whereas ID does not. More bullshit as the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do that is by studying the evidence- as I tell them-there evotards:

In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design(s).

But being scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's, evotards cannot grasp that. Sad, really.

OR they will want to know what we have found out about the designer so far as if that will somehow refute ID. *shrug, sigh*

So the bottom-line is Intelligent Design is based on our knowledge and experiences of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

Did Sex End Universal Common Descent?

2011-08-12T08:50:00.001-04:00

-
Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

All that is left for Zachriel or any other evolutionitwit to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.

Yes I have posted all of that before- twice. However there is more to sexual reproduction that puts an end to universal common descent. Ya see with sexual reproduction each parent only gets to use 1/2 of its genome to form the offsoring. That means there isn't any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get pssed down. And even if it does there isn't any guarantee it will be the dominant trait (meaning it could end up being recessive and not expressed).

The point being is that there really isn't any mechanism for accumulating beneficial mutations beyond sheer dumb luck.

Evolutionary Math Meets Magic

2011-08-10T22:23:00.000-04:00

-
Fitness equations? Dice? Meet reality:

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans-

40 offspring just for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

But that doesn't fit narrative so add some magical synergistic epistasis

But that ain't the point- the point is fitness. Evotards have their equations and their dice and they tell us how fitness can constantly increase. How "selection" can drive this increase. But when we look at reality we find papers like the one linked to above. Papers that say we should be extinct, but obviously we ain't so we will make something up , ie synergistic epistasis, and hope we find evidence for it some day.

Well evotards, keep playing with your dice, your meaningless equations and yourselves. It is all you have and to you it means something.

Kevin R. McCarthy Blows a Gasket!

2011-08-05T23:00:00.001-04:00

-
Kevin is definitely lost- he is as ignorant as one can possibly be. Case in point:

There really isn't 'artificial' and 'natural' there is only selection and if artificial is directed, then so is natural.

Yes he did say that. Unbelieveable tard.

wikipedia- the evotard bible says:

Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits. The term was utilized by Charles Darwin in contrast to natural selection, in which the differential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability (“Darwinian fitness”). As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

Why Can't We Just Test Evolutionism and Be Done with the Question?

2011-08-05T09:18:00.000-04:00

-
It has been over 150 years and still evolutionism remains untestable and is supported only by a minority, ie those with a specific world-view.

It does not have a testable hypothesis and it does not have any positive evidence to support it. Every time I ask for such things I get either a volley of evotardgasms or equivocations. But nothing to support the position. Strange, that.

So how about it, can evotards actually stand up for their position? Or is all they have is to lie and bullshit about ID?

Experience says they can only lie and bullshit about ID...

Intelligent Design Tested and Confirmed

2011-08-05T08:46:00.001-04:00

-
Dumbass, ignorant Kevin R. McCarthy has a blog titles Why Can’t We Just Test Intelligent Design and Be Done With the Question?-

ID has been tested, Kevin, and the tests confirm it. Unfortunately Kevin is too stupid to even understand what evidence is.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as archaeology and forensic science is.

You want to disprove an object is an artifact? Demonstrate that nature, operating freely (ie no agency involvement) can produce it.

You want to disprove a criime was committed? Same thing- demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the effect in question.

But anyway dumbass, why don't YOU tell us how to test your position?

Testing the claims of Intelligent Design-

(I posted the followingon Kevin's blog (he won't publish it as he has to censor)

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?

So how about it ole ignorant and cowardly fuck-up? If you want ID to go away all you need to do is actually step up and produce A) a testable hypothesis for it and B) positive evidence to support that hypothesis.

Equivocation and Evolution, Revisted, Revisted Again

2011-08-03T11:17:00.000-04:00

-
It is that time AGAIN:

Seeing that evotards are so dishonest and obtuse they keep parroting the same ole refuted nonsense it is time to revisit this post:

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Evolution has several meanings*:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: 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.

With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.

For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.

It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.

* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

cont-

In October 2007 I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.

This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.

1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.

2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance

And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.

Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.

Let the evotard flailing begin...

Biological Evolution- What is Being Debated- Revisted For Kevin R. McCarthy

2011-08-01T11:09:00.000-04:00

-
Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock Texas (aka OgreMKV) believes his ignorance is a refutation.

He doesn't understand the debate even after it has been explained to him.

But anyway-

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: 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.

The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were. Just as Carolus Linneaus attempted to do some 200 years ago.

see also The Current Status of Baraminology

With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for evolution.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything.

So there you have it Kevin- this explains how supporting your position will refute ID. However it is a sure bet you are too stupid/ ignorant to understand any of it.

CAKE! Time to Observe More EvoTardgasms

2011-07-31T17:58:00.000-04:00

-
In the post Measuring Information/ specified complexity, I said:

One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

Again just count the bits in the instructions.

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

Ya see a recipe is a capturing of the actions- information flows from designer to design:

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Stanford-Artifact

That simple concept is lost on evotards. What is also lost on evotards is you wouldn't use CSI to determine if an object was designed. To me CSI is only good when you have the bits- no interpretation of actions required. If you just have an object there are other methods to determine how it came to be and humans use them successfully all the time.

Let the evotardgasms begin...

Why Evolutionism does NOT Expect/ Predict A Tree of Life

2011-07-30T09:32:00.000-04:00

-
The theory of evolution does not expect nor predict a tree of life because the theory of evolution is silent on the origin of living organisms and it is the origin that determines how many trees there will be.

(it is a given that basic fact will be lost on evos)

Natural Selection Yields a Wobbling Stability

2011-07-30T08:47:00.000-04:00

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

Anthropic Global Warming????? How about...

2011-07-29T15:47:00.000-04:00

-
Anthropic Fucking of the Planet!?! Sorry, excuse my language, but I am going to make my position clear-

My position is that we are raping the planet- want, want, want , gim-me, gim-me, gim-me, take, take, take. I also understand that doesn't relate to everyone everywhere. But I do see us destroying a very fragile ecosystem. There are floating islands of trash in the oceans. There are clear-cuttings of forrests for development. There are wasted resources on live-stock in which the alleged benefits dwarf the environmental damage. There is sewage and trash on our beaches. Mount Everest, of all places, is a fucking trash dump- littered by thousands of climbers unable or unwilling to clean up after themselves.

I could go on and on. But why bother.

CO2? Give me a break. There be REAL pollution and problems to worry about.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

2011-07-28T22:57:00.000-04:00

-
(cross-posted on Kevin R. McCarthy's blog where, for obvious reasons, it will never see the light of day)

Hey Kevin:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism- the greenhous gas blanket isn't providing the coverage you chicken-littles think.

Kevin R McCarthy, aka OgreMKV, LIes and Equivocates- Sez Evolution Makes Predictions

2011-07-28T07:42:00.001-04:00

-
Kevin R McCarthy of Round Rock Texas chokes on reality:

This applies to evolution as well. Evolution is the system that makes predictions. If those predictions are observed, then evolution is supported. This has been shown to happen. Evolution makes predictions about everything from anti-biotic and pesticide resistance to effects of parasites and predators on populations. These observations have all matched the predictions made by evolutionary theory.

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA- nice equivocation, moron.

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about anti-biotic nor pesticide resistance.

The theory doesn't make any predictions based on the proposed mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents.

Kevin R McCarthy of Round Rock Texas is a typical evotard loser.

RichTard Hughes Tries to Design an Experiment- Huge DickFAIL

2011-07-27T20:57:00.000-04:00

-
File this under the dumber than dirt evotard:

RicTard Hughes designs an experiment:

Here's an experment.

1. Roll 2 dice, keep the highest.
2. roll another and compare - keep the highest
3. repeat step 2 50 times.

This has a random component. The average 'ftiness' of a die is 3.5. What fitness do you think you'll get from the above experiment?

BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA (breathe) BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAA

OK so I rolled snake-eyes and the experiment shut-down.

Tried again- rolled a 6 & 3 kept the 6, no need to continue as I will never keep anything besides the 6 and if I roll another 6 the experiment stops.

Tried again rolled double-twos- experiment stopped at step one, again.

Tried again, rolled a 5 & 2. Kept the 5. Rolled another dice, as directed by step 2 and rolled a 1. Kept the five. Rolled under 5 for 5 more tries than rolled a 5. Experiment stopped.

What is the purpose of this "experiment" again?