Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Biological evolution- what is being debated?

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.

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 the evolutionary process.

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:

Extrapolating from small change

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity...

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Those bluffing evolutionitwits

I don't know. Perhaps it is the rising popularity of Texas hold'em. Perhaps it is just the inherent decption and dishonesty that permeates from evolutionism.

Either way it is very entertaining to watch evolutionitwits try to bluff their way through a debate.

The most recent bluff was made by James "Momma's boy" Wynne:

Then why not take one of the many research papers that deal with the evolution of the flagellum, read it (ha!) and then tell us specifically what your problem with it is, and also tell us about an experiment that you might design to test the hypotheses you think are wrong.

Unlike Texas hold'em calling this bluff doesn't take any $$$, just common sense:

Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.

Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).

You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question.

perfesser Scotty Page is another who loves to posture, accuse, assert- IOW he is another puffer bluffer. Each time is is called on his bluffs he runs away, only to return with more of the same.

Don't they realize is all they have to do is substantiate their claims with real data? Or is it that they realize they cannot and bluffing (postering, accusing, assertions, etc.) is all they have left in the bag?

I almost forgot the evolutionitwits have a documented history of bluffing:

One Long Bluff:
The Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article

(content edited to fix a typo- It appears that Momma's boy James Wynne has found a purpose in life. You go girl!)

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Yes, Design is a mechanism

In another thread "Dr" Scott Page (Doppleganger)posted the following when informed that "ID is the mechanism!" (inunison):

de•sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
v. tr.

1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

So, a plan is the mechanism for building a house?

It is a mechanism.

Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".

Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".

Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.

Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.

And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Take the 3-Hour ID Challenge- revisited

Seeing that the first time I posted this challenge the thread was side-tracked by intellectual cowards who would rather argue from ID ignorance than to take 3 hours to learn the basics of ID reality.

Here is the ID three-hour challenge:

Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.

Only comments dealing with the topic will be allowed. It is therefore my prediction that either:

a) No anti-IDist takes the challenge (IOW I will get the same off-topic, irrelevant and refuted ID-ignorant responses as the first time the challenge was issued)
b) Those who do watch the videos cannot complete the challenge

IOW the comments section of this post will remain (virtually) empty.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Intelligent Design and Creation

Over on TelicThoughts Mike Gene offers some one-stop shopping for those interested in the ID = Creationism meme.

Read the essay and follow the links to the reveal agenda-driven lunacy of the anti-ID camp.

It is amazing what some people will do when their faith is challenged.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Why ID is scientific- short version

This is too freakin’ funny. Over at Jack Krebs DB (Kansas Citizens for Science which Jack is a moderator) I asked about falsifying the theory of evolution:

KCFS discussion board

One evo named Les responded with:
It’s easiest with specific genes. If a eucaryotic gene is unrelated to corresponding genes in similar (recognizably related) organisms then it must have been “inserted” by an unknown mechanism. An intelligent designer is one such mechanism.

Did you get that? The same people telling us that ID is pseudo-science are now telling us that that pseudo-science can falsify their science!

I can’t believe I initially missed it…

But anyway, OK. ID must be scientific if it can be used to falsify what is (allegedly) science.

Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

(edited on March 10, 2006)

Friday, March 03, 2006

Take the Test!

I was given the following during a recent (job) interview. I completed it in under 15 minutes- no internet, just a pencil and notepad:

Take a shot and see what you get!

There are 5 houses that are each a different color.

There is a person of a different nationality in each house.

The 5 owners drink a certain drink. They each smoke a certain brand of cigarettes and also have a certain pet. No owner has the same pet, smokes the same brand of cigarettes nor drinks the same drink.

The question is. “Who has the fish?”


1. The British man lives in the red house.

2. The Swedish man has a dog for a pet.

3. The Danish man drinks tea.

4. The green house is to the left of the white house.

5. The owner of the green house drinks coffee.

6. The person that smokes Pall Mall has a bird.

7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.

8. The person that lives in the middle house drinks milk.

9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.

10. The person that smokes Blend, lives next to the one that has a cat.

11. The person that has a horse lives next to the one that smokes Dunhill.

12. The one that smokes Bluemaster drinks beer.

13. The German smokes Prince.

14. The Norwegian lives next to a blue house.

15. The person that smokes Blend, has a neighbour that drinks water.

Show your work by providing a complete list for each house. Thanks and have fun!

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Anti-IDist chooses the "Momma's boy" approach to the debate

Well it was bound to happen. An anti-IDist, arguing from ID ignorance, chooses to falsely accuse me and make bald assertions about my knowledge. It is a typical ploy and one I knew Jim Wynne would resort to.

So let's look at what Jimmy said before he ran away:

1) He says I "appeal to authority"

Reality demonstrates I appeal to scientific data. But perhaps Jimmy can tell me what authority I appeal to.

2) "Arguments from personal incredulity"

I take it this means that his arguments are from personal credulity. If they weren't then all he has to do is provide the data. Real data refutes beliefs. So why doesn't Jimmy presnt any real data?

3) "Projection"

That one is all yours James.

4. "Strawman building"

Again that one is all yours. But I would love to hear about the alleged "strawman" I have built. However I also understand that your "Mamma's boy" tatic doesn't afford that luxury.

5) A profound ignorance of the science he criticizes.

Based on what? IF I am ignorant of the theory of evolution or biology it is the fault of evolutionitwits. They are who I read to find out about the theory. I learned about biology through them.

However I will gladly test my knowledge against Jimmy's.

You know Jim, we do have something in common- I understand ID and you can spell ID.

I will take this moment to include that Jimmy, instead of actually having an original thought, actually parroted Dawkins from "The Blind Watchmaker" in saying the theory of evolution can be falsified by finding a fossilized rabbit in the pre-cambrian. Jimmy should have noticed that Dawkins never substantiated that claim. He didn't because he couldn't. That is one of the stupidest claims I have ever read and it demonstrates that Jimmy doesn't understand the science or for that matter science in general.

The best that finding a pre-cam fossilized rabbit could do is to falsify the current history of life- which every eductaed person understands is not the same as the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not say "we will not find a pre-cam rabbit."