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

Monday, October 08, 2012

Things that EvoTARDS Will NEVER Understand- Why ID is OK with Evidence for Common Descent

By Common Descent I am referring to universal common descent. This post is in response to keiths' fact-free rant over on TSZ:

The evidence for common descent can be found here. The first thing to note is that it does NOT discuss any mechanism:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Got that? IOW the evidence is NOT for blind watchmaker evolution and is perfectly compatible with evolution by design, ie Intelligent Design. Obvioulsy keiths is too stupid to read the article in its entirety. The point is keiths referred to that site for the best evidence for UCD. Unfortunately for keiths Theobald chokes on netsed hierarchies and his evidence can be used as evidence for a common design.

Yes, that is correct, evidence for common descent can be used as evidence for a common design because it relies on similarities.

In light of what Theobald said keiths sez those who do not accept UCD have a daunting task. However he never says anything about the daunting task in front of those who do accept UCD. What daunting task is that? Well the task of demonstrating that changes to the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical changes required. Ya see we have this Lenski experiment in which for 55,000 generations bacteria have been evolving. Yet only minor changes have been observed. That alone should put a damper on UCD. Why? Because when you add sexual reproduction then UCD is going to grind to a halt. That is because of meiosis, which means only 1/2 of the parent's genome gets passed down and it gets paired with the other parent's compliment. That means even the most beneficial mutation could be lost before it has a chance to get passed on. Then when you add sexual selection, well the norm is kept and the population wobbles around that norm.

OK, nested hierarchies- in order to have a nested hierarchy via common descent based on traits is the traits have to immutable and additive. However evolution is NOT like that. Not only that you need to have DISTINCT sets of organisms with no blending of traits. Yet with UCD and gradual evolution we would expect a smooth blending of traits. And taht is OK for a Venn diagram but unaccepotable for nested hierarchies.

But anyway it is obvious that keiths is nothing but an ignorant blowhole, clueless of his position's total failure at explaining anything.

The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it.

Earth to keiths- I challenge you to provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution, along with supporting evidence.

I say you cannot do it and that would prove my point that you are an ignorant blowhole.

So the "evidence" keiths uses for UCD does NOT include a mechanism which means design is OK. Also that same "evidence" can be used to support a common design:

 evidence for common design 1

evidence for common design 2

So no, the "evidence" for common descent does nothing to ID because 1- the evidence is sans mechanism, 2- the evidence is subjective and cannot be verified that common descent is the only possibility and 3- the same evidence can be used as evidence ofr a common design.

As a matter of fact the nested hierarchy of Linnean taxonomy- Linne was a Creationist- was first used as evidence for a common design. Evos came along, stole it and switched it to a common ancestor.


Post a Comment

<< Home