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

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Kevin McCarthy- Choking on Dr Behe's "Mechanism"

Kevin is such a little dick. He's back to his "ID is anti-evolution" stupidity, apparently without realizing he is just quote-mining and equivocating in order to make his case.

Kevin McCarthy- asshole:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
(my underline, everything else is original) Wait, I thought ID wasn’t anti-evolution. Natural selection is a part of evolution. Most would say that it’s a major part of any evolutionary theory. Yet, Intelligent Design, as found on Uncommon Descent (a blog “Serving the Intelligent Design Community”), is defined as being the opposite of or opposing natural selection.
Dumbass. The quote says ID opposes natural selection is a very specific sense, Kevin. Please learn how to read. Natural selection can exist without having designer mimic properties. Not satisfied with that piece of stupidity Kevin presses on:
Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. Intelligent design can also be viewed as the Science of design detection applied to natural phenomena.
(my underline, everything else original) This is the definition from the Intelligent Design Network, a group that “seeks institutional objectivity in origins science”. Well, that “disagreement with and a falsifying hypothesis for [evolution]” is pretty strong language. In fact, that is number 1 in our definition of ‘anti-‘. If ID is true, then ‘Chemical and Darwinian Evolution’ isn’t true. That’s what falsifying means. If X, then not Y.

Right, DARWINIAN AND CHEMICAL EVOLUTION- meaning very specific claims wrt evolution. IOW Kevbo’s dishonesty is exposed- he switched out “Chemical and Darwinian evolution” with just “evolution”

Then he goes to Dr Behe who makes it clear that ID argues against Darwinian evolution and Kevin takes that to mean ID argues against evolution. Being against Darwinian and neo-darwinian evolution does not mean being against evolution. Only ignorant and cowardly equivocators thinks so. And here is Kevin…

You are a fucking asshole, Kevin. That you are forced to take what we say out-of-context proves that you are nothing but a coward.

Kevin McCarthy and his child-like intellect continues:
Unfortunately, Behe isn’t really our best choice for this. Despite being a fellow at the Discovery Institute and writing several books on the subject, he can’t even keep a straight definition of ID. Check the underlined parts of these two statements from the Dover trial:
Q If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text.  
Q.You say, “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Correct?
A That is correct, yes.
Q That’s consistent with your testimony today.
A Yes, it is.
Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe
Yes, in that context he was talking some unguided processes vs. some design processes.
Followed by
Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?  
A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.
Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe
So, while ID focuses on the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose, there is no actual mechanism. Got that, thanks Michael.
No, moron, we don’t know what that specific design mechanism was and knowing what it was is not part of Intelligent Design. It is not required to know how something was designed before determining it was designed.

Context is always important and always ignored by Kevin. Kevin has prevented me from replying on his blog. That is how confident he is of his arguments...

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Kevin R. McCarthy- Moron of the Year

Evolution News and Views is having a "Censor of the Year" contest- an award that goes to the evoTARD who spews the most intolerance towards ID and does all in their power to stifle it.

Someone wrote in and said to award it to the evoTARDs who have censored themselves in one way or another. See here.

For example take the poster evoTARD, Kevin R. McCarthy- yeah the poster is a really big group shot but Kevin is down in front- has a self-imposed gag order. He wrote a few reviews of different chapters of "Darwin's Doubt"- well they weren't really reviews as Kevin didn't show any understanding of what Meyer wrote. IOW Kevin is censoring himself- ie he stopped himself from any further review of the book.

So Kevin was nominated for censoring himself ( although ENV mistakenly thought that Kevin was a scientist- they know better now).

But anyway Kevin heard about this nomination and sez:

By not completing my review, I am… somehow… censoring the work of Meyer.
Which leads me to really wonder…
Do these idiots know what “censor” means? 

Clueless bastard! Yes Kevin, THEY know what it means. Obvioulsy you have reading comprehsion issues or most likley you didn't read it and felt compelled to say something anyway- how typical.

Kevin R. McCarthy, moron of the year.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Jerry Coyne, Liar for Evolutionism

Jerry Coyne took offense to an article that said evolution should be retired. So he wrote a response. In that response Jerry sez:

1. Evolution happens: populations change genetically over time.
2. That change is gradual and transformative rather than instantaneous; that is, individuals don’t change, but the genetic constitution of populations changes—and substantial change requires substantial time.
3. Lineages also split, creating the diversity of life on Earth today from the first Ur-organism (and yes, there is, rarely in eukaryotes, horizontal movement of genes, which was the basis of New Scientist’s claim that “Darwin was wrong”).
4. That splitting of lineages is what creates common ancestry, so that any pair of species on Earth had a common ancestor at some time in the past.
5. The “designoid” features of organisms arose through the process of natural selection, although random processes like genetic drift can cause evolution (but not the appearance of design).

These are things about evolution that are true. No math needed.

The problem is point 5. No one has ever observed natural selection as a designer mimic. No one has ever observed unguided evolution designing anything. Also point 4 is untestable and also unobservable.

So Jerry is correct on one minor point- evolutionary dogma doesn't need no stinkin' math!

And it is very telling that Jerry isn't around to defend the crap he wrote.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Timothy Horton, AKA Thorton, Calls Jerry Coyne a "Simple-Minded Creationist"!

Yes, it is true, Thorton the evoTARD lost it and called Jerry Coyne a simple-minded creationist for not understanding that natural selection is a two-part process.

Unfortunately for Thorton it is he wo is totally ignorant of natural selection, not Coyne and myself.

Coyne had written"

5. The “designoid” features of organisms arose through the process of natural selection, although random processes like genetic drift can cause evolution (but not the appearance of design).

To which I asked for evidence tat natural selection is a designer mimic.

Enter thorton the evoTARD:

FK, no one in science says that natural selection all by itself is a designer mimic.  

Except for Coyne and Darwin, of course. I wonder how many other evolutionary biologists agree with them and not thortard?

The tard goes on to say:
What is a designer mimic is the evolutionary PROCESS that involves random (WRT reproductive fitness) genetic variations which are then filtered by natural section and carried forward as heritable traits in each subsequent generation. 
LoL! Natural selection includes heritable random mutations. I told the tard just that and he choked on it, as usual.

So here we have an evoTARD who is totally ignorant of the concepts he is trying to defend.

Life is good.

Friday, January 24, 2014

KeithS- Proud to be an Ignorant Ass

KeithS is at it again. He thinks that evil and free will, especially in Heaven, refutes Chritianity somehow. KeithS starts out with a strawman:
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God knowingly create a world containing the evil we see all around us? That, in a nutshell, is the well-known theological “problem of evil”.
The alleged problem is only a problem to those who cannot think- ie they don't have any reasoning capacity. Without evil there cannot be any good and that means God would not have any way to judge us. Also imperfections help us learn. In a perfect world there wouldn't be any science- life would be very boring.

Keith spews:
 God values free will so much that he chooses to grant it to us despite knowing that we will misuse it. 
Really? Everyone on Earth for its entire history has misused their God-given free will? Evudence please. That is typical of atheist idiots- they just say shit as if it is a fact.

He goes on to say:
Now consider heaven, a perfect place in which there is no evil. Do believers have free will in heaven? 
It is very possible.

Suppose they do. In that case they are free to sin, but they choose not to – otherwise there would be sin in heaven. But if it’s possible for them to have free will and yet refrain from sinning, then why didn’t God create them that way in the first place? 
LoL! What an imbecile! They didn't sin here KeithS- that is how they made it to Heaven. So why would they start doing something in Heaven that they didn't do here? Why are you so fucking stupid?

So then KeithS "concludes" that God is responsiible for evil. What a cry-baby. Humans are responsible for their actions KeithS. Only a cowardly asshole would say that God is responsible for our actions, and here is keiths and most likely all other moronic atheists.


Assface RichTard responded and I missed it- cupcake sez:

Hmmm. Some thoughts.
Why do adults do things that babys don’t?
Shouldn’t a logical extension of this bead reasoning be, abortions are good because it sends babies straight to heaven? All infanticide, even.

Wow, some thoughts- more like imbecilic rantings. Some or even most adults do things that  babies don't, ie become evil, because they chose to be evil. Babies don't know what it means to be evil, Richie. Adults have that knowledge and chose to do evil things.

Are you really that stupid that you couldn't reason that out so you had to try to attack me?

That was followed by keiths choking on "original sin". I guess no one told him that Jesus died on the cross to atone for that. And that asshole tries to tell me that I don't understand Christian doctrine.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Kevin R. McCarthy- Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

Yup Kevin is at it again. This time he is using AVIDA as evidence that unguided evolution can produce new abilities. See mutations do create new abilities.

Earth to Kevin- when AVIDA is programmed with realistic parameters, it does NOT create new abilities.

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


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.

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.


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.

The main problem is Kevin's willful ignorance. Even after he was shown that ID is not anti-evolution he chooses to believe that it is. Even after giving him references explaining what ID is and what it is arguing against, he sez no one has ever said anything about that. Even after referencing evolutionists who say that evolutionism posits blind and undirected chemical processes, Kevin claims that is a strawman.

Kevbo also thinks that macroevolution is just more microevolution and that speciation takes care of that- what an ignorant ass. There isn't one case of speciation nor microevolution that we can take to extrapolate macroevolution. Not one.

So Kevin R. McCarthy is not only a coward but he is also proud to be willfully ignorant.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Of Leaves, Levels and Nested Hierarchies

Zachriel showed up earlier today trying to refute something I said wrt any tree of life not producing a nested hierarchy. Zachriel sed that the leaves form the nested hierarchy and to try to support his case he provided the quote in that thread's OP by Eric Knox.

Unfortunately for Zachriel Knox was talking about multiple levels and the leaves on a tree only occupy one. Perhaps he realized that after he posted it and that is why he ran away.

Also, as I pointed out to Zachriel, with any tree of life organisms occupy the twigs, branches and trunk of the tree. That is the whole point of the tree- to show diverging lines of descent with modification...

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Nested Hiearchy's Defining Property- Summativity

Summativity- The sum of all entities at one level of organization is equal to the sum of all entities at some other level- Knox "The use of hierarchies as organizational models of systematics" Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63:1-49, page 8

For example in Linnean taxonomy*, ie a nested hierarchy, the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all of the levels and entities below it. It is the sum of its parts.

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

Looking closer at 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:

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. That is how containment is kept and summativity is met.

(NOTE: evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.)

An Army can also be put into a nested hierarchy- with the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme.

The Army consists of and contains, soldiers- it exhibits summativity. Andy Schueler didn't even know what summativity was.

See also the summary of the principles of hierarchy theory:

The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.

Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A set of definitions and principles follows immediately:

Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.

Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.

The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.

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.

To achieve summativity the criteria "consist of and contain" must be met. NOTE- A parent population does NOT consist of nor contain it's daughter populations. That is why any tree of life is not a nested hierarchy.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Andreas Schueler and Jonathon MS Pearce- Totally Clueless and Proud of it

SChueler sed:

“So an unknown number of unknown “Designers” influenced the development of life and / or the universe at unknown points in time for unknown reasons with unknown methods. That claim is maximally vague – it is trivially compatible with every conceivable observation, but it also cannot be refuted or supported by any conceivable observation."

And yet Andy's position is nothing more than "Somethings happened at some point in the past for whatever reason via unknown mechanisms, and here we are."

The point is their position is totally devoid of details. It relies on our ignorance. Talk about being maximally vague.

That said, Andy is totally wrong as ID can be tested and falsified: How to test and falsify ID.

Jonathon MS Pearce has taken notice of this post- it is very telling that neither he nor Andy could refute what I said. And i6t is even more telling that neither of them can support unguided evolution.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Debating Nested Hierarchies with Evos- A Common Thread

Earlier today I posted on Andy Schueler not understanding nested hierarchies and not providing anything to support his claim, including failing to provide a valid definition of a nested hierarchy. THAT is exactly how all the other evoTARDs approached it also- Zachriel-> no valid definition of a nested hierarchy. Oleg T-> no valid definition of a nested hierarchy. Even Doug Theobald, who uses nested hierarchy as alleged evidence for macroevolution, fails to provide a valid definition of nested hierarchy.

OTOH each and every time I have provided a valid definition, along with accepted examples, of a nested hierarchy.

So the question is- what are they afraid of? I say they fail to produce said definition because all definitions agree with what I have been saying. And they can't have that...

Andy Schueler STILL doesn't Know what a Nested Hierarchy Is

Andy and I bet $10,000 - my claim was that I knew more about nested hierarchies than Andy does. Andy disagrteed and blabbed his ass off, never once referencing a definition of a nested hierarchy- NEVER. OTOH I had referenced definitions of a nested hierarchy.

The point? Andy sez that evolutionism predicts a nested hierarchy. That is because he thinks a branching pattern- any branching patten apparently- forms a nested hierarchy. He never supported that claim. He thinks that Darwin said his "theory" predicted a nested hierarchy because what he said about his diagram- "groups subordinate to groups" - nested hierarchies are "groups WITHIN groups" you ignorant ass- Andy.

Evolution via small incremental steps would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics. Yet nested hierarchies require clean, distinct categories- no blending allowed.

In order to try to get clean, distnct sets with gradual evolution, the definitions would be so muddled as to make it useless.Andydoesn't understand that either.

Also Andy sed that a family tree would produce a nested hierarchy- unfortunately he never demonstrated such a thing. I would love to see that using defining characteristics as Linneas did.

So the bottom line is Andy still doesn't know what a nested hierarchy is and he thinks his ignorance means something.

Dr Denton supports my claim in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"- Denton knows more than Schueler and supports his claims too.

John Grove-Piece of Shit Liar

Today I was looking at links that led people to my blog. One link led to this cowardly discussion. In it John Grove claims I said that gene duplications don't exist. That is a lie. I may have said that gene duplications cannot be used as a darwinian mechanism, but that is very different from saying that they don't exist.

So here we have a bunch of cowards getting together to tell lies about me while stroking themselves. And guess what? Still no evidence to support their position...

Sunday, January 12, 2014

What Prevents Macoevolution? Ignorant Evos Want Us to Prove a Negative

Proof that evolutionists are totally clueless wrt science is their question "What prevents macoevolution from happening?"- ie they want us to demonstrate a negative.

The imbeciles don't realize that it is up to them to demonstrate that macroevolution is possible. It is not up to anyone to say how that it is not possible. IOW evos require positive evidence for their claims and their insistence that someone demonstrate a negative proves they are ignorant wrt science.

Their problem is they don't have any evidence for macroevolution. They rely solely on circumstantial evidence, like the mostly universal genetic code, not realizing that their position doesn't expect such a thing and there are other explanations for that evidence (yes, like a common design).

They claim that macroevolution takes too long to observe not realizing that hiding behind father time is cowardice, not science. But then again not one of them appears to know what science is...

Saturday, January 11, 2014

How Many Generations Does it Take for an Allele to Reach Fixation?

Allan Miller's TSZ thread titled "Randomness and Evolution" is supposed to show how easy it is to get a variant to reach fixation in a population. It is unrealistic, meaning has nothing to do with sexually repruducing populations in the wild.

Haldane's Dilemma was borne from the attempt to estimate the rate of fixation for beneficial alleles. It has not been confirmed. Then there is a fruit fly experiment in which there wasn't any fixation of any beneficial mutation after 600 generations- Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.

The point being is that no one knows the rate of fixation for a beneficial allele in the wild. Neutral mutations fix at a much slower rate- slower than unknown slowness :)- and again no one has confirmed any of neutral theories equations so no one knows the rate of fixation for neutral mutations.

The funny part is it looks like he has the other evoTARD regulars convinced that it is quite easy for a neutral mutation to reach fixation. If they only understood real-world biology...

Friday, January 10, 2014

Micro and Macro Evolution- What is the Real Difference

Evolutionists first- From Talk Origins:
   Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa.In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

From Jerry Coyne:

“MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.
“MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”
- Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269.

What do creationists say?:
evolution, biological n.
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.

Some evos will say that micro is changes within the species, ie at or below the species level and macro is changes above the species. But that is too vague, besides YECs accept speciation so by that definition YECs would accept macroevolution.

Got that? Macroevolution is the evolution of new body plans requiring new body parts.

The point? 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.

Lenski? 50,000+ generations and no new protein complexes.

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.

Lenski's Lab- The Gift that keeps on giving baraminologists' evidence for their position

Yes, that is right, Lenski's long-running experiment with E. coli is piling up the evidence FOR baraminology. That is because in over 50,000 generations the bacteria are still bacteria and there aren't any new multi-protein complexes. Heck there aren't even any new proteins!

The best thing Lenski can reprot is that some bacteria have gained the ability to utilize citrate in an oxygen rich environment (they could already do so in an oxygen-free environment). The sad part for evos is they can't even demonstrate that the mutations that allowed for that are darwinian.

So yes, Lenski's experiment is proceeding just as baraminologists predicted.

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Ernst Mayr Refutes AtBC's evoTARDs

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

A Detailed Process- Responding to Kevin R McCarthy's Spewage

Kevin has a post titled A Detailed Process. He sez:
Let me explain something to you. I know you don’t get this, so I will be very clear. Every single time you ask the question, “Well how did X appear?” or ‘How did evolution make Y?” you are really doing three things.
First, you are crafting an argument from ignorance. If any biologist or scientist (or me for that matter) cannot answer your question (for example, how did new body plans appear in the Cambrian), that does not mean that evolution has failed as a theory and that creationism/ID is correct. ”Don’t know” means “don’t know”. We also don’t know how gravity is created, but I don’t see you demanding that we teach the controversy on that..
OK wait. If "you don't know", and we know that you don't, the how can you even have a theory? How is yours not an argument from ignorance if all you can say is "it evolved but we don't know how"?

As for gravity, well your position has nothing to say about it beyond what Hawking said "it just is the way it is". IOW they don't teach gravity was farted from the blind watchmaker's ass.

Kevin's third point is:
Three, will your opinion change if a response is given to you? Ask yourself if a peer-reviewed paper is given to you that answers the question you asked, will you really totally reject your chosen notion? If you don’t, then why are you asking this question? Or, will you, as has been my experience over the last 3 decades, move the goal post or argue that it really doesn’t explain the point you were making.
My opinion would change if you could show us the science behind unguided evolution. Show us that natural selection can actually do something to warrant the "designer mimic" designation.

So how about it Kevin? Do you have any science wrt unguided evolution or are you still in denial that biological evolution is unguided, ie willfully ignorant?

Ya see Kevin, the truth is your position has nothing but circumstantial evidence and the weight of personal bias. It is devoid of details and as such totally untestable- remember it is your position which is based on small incremntal steps, not ID. Heck we know Stonehenge was designed and can't give any details as to how it was constructed.

So Kevin admits that his position is based and relies on our ignorance. It is the ultimate argument from ignorance because all he or any evo can say is "we don't know" when asked how something evolved.

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

AVIDA is NOT a Genetic Algorithm- Tierra is NOT a Genetic Algorithm

Some evos understand that neitehr AVIDA nor Tierra are genetic algorithms. However evoTARDs think that one or both are.

Wikipedia explains what they are:

Avida is an artificial life software platform to study the evolutionary biology of self-replicating and evolving computer programs (digital organisms).
Tierra simulated an evolutionary system by introducing computer programs that competed for computer resources, specifically processor (CPU) time and access to main memory.  
Genetic algorithms are for solving problems. They should be finite, ie have an end. They employ goal-oriented targeted searches to solve their respective problems. Neither Avida nor Tierra have goals. They may employ algorithms but they are not algorithms. Computer simulations, yes. Genetic algorithms, no.

Patrick May, STILL Ignorant of Science

Patrick May never disappoints with his ignorance. WRT Intelligent Design Pat spews:
“Design” is not an explanation. Try answering the who, what, when, why, and how questions before claiming you’ve solved the problem.

1- Design is an explanation. Forensic science uses it to depict a crime has taken place and the investigation procedes accordingly. Archeaology uses it to determine if they have an artfact and their investigation procedes accordingly. IOW it makes a huge difference to any investigation whether or not what is being investigated happened by design or nature, operating freely.

2- In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s), the specific process(es) used, and any other questions, is by studying the design in question. THAT is how it works with forensic science. That is how it works with archaeology and that is how it works with SETI.

So there you have it. Had Pat had any knowledge as to how science procedes he wouldn't be spewing such nonsense. And that no one over on TSZ will correct him demonstrates a trend amongst evoTARDs.

LoL! Patty is so clueless that he thinks that Tierra is a genetic algorithm- no dumbass it's a simulation, it doesn't try to solve anything- GAs are designed for solving problems,

Evolutionism, Intelligen Design Evolition and Baraminology- The Fundamentals are the Same!

Lizzie Liddle sez:
Sure, it’s conceptual. But what it reveals is that niwrad’s concept of what evolutionary theory actually proposes is wildly wrong. His conceptual model doesn’t actually include the fundamentals of the theory – reproduction with variation.

Wow! The fundamentals of Inetllgent Design Evolution and Baraminology are also reproduction and variation! Strange that Lizzie didn't even know that- but she doesn't appear to know much of anything wrt evolution and biology.

And Lizzie, AGAIN if darwinism cannot account for the origin of life then it cannot say anything about its evolution as the two are directly linked. Again your ignorance in this matter, while amusing, means nothing and doesn't help you at all.

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

The question is why do bacteria not succumb to genetic meltdown?

petrushka axes:
The question is why do bacteria not succumb to genetic meltdown?
If you are referring to Sanford, well, that only applies in a world built by darwinian evolution and eons of time. That bacteria haven't  succumb to genetic meltdown would be evidence against darwinism and eons of time.

As I told you morons before design can get around natural deterioration. You're just too set in your dogma to listen. Evolution by design does not lead to genetic meltdown.

That's the point. An easy point to grasp too. But petrushka just refuses to understand the debate and chooses willfull ignorance.

Randomness and evolution or More BS from TSZ

Allan Miller has a post titled Randomness and evolution. He sez:
Here’s a simple experiment one can actually try. Take a bag of M&M’s, and without peeking reach in and grab one. Eat it. Then grab another and return it to the bag with another one, from a separate bag, of the same colour. Give it a shake. I guarantee (and if you tell me how big your bag is I’ll have a bet on how long it’ll take) that your bag will end up containing only one colour. Every time. I can’t tell you which colour it will be, but fixation will happen.
Umm if someone is choosing what color to put into the first bag from the second bag, then that is a form of artificial selection.

Guess what? If you only have one bag of M&Ms, and eat one every minute until there is only one left, eventually you will also end up with only one color. Amazing!

He goes on to say:

This models the simple population process of Neutral Drift. Eating is death, duplication is reproduction, and the result is invariably a change in frequencies, right through to extinction of all but one type. 

But if reproduction = duplication, there goes evolution!

But anyway, these chumps don't understand selection- with natural selection there isn't any selecting going on. Natural selection is just the elimination of the less fit- Mayr.

Monday, January 06, 2014

Ken Ham vs Bill Nye- Can't Wait

Yup Bill Nye is said to be debating Ken Ham in February of this year.

To be clear Bill Nye is ignorant wrt what creationists say wrt biological evolution. On a TV interview he basically said they believe in the fixity of species- he is in for a rude surprise. And that is why this debate will be interesting, well unless Nye does some investigation to find out what YECs actually say about biological evolution.

That said, it has been my experience that evolutionists A) don't even understand their own position and B) definitely don't understand their opponents positions. And Bill Nye is one of those so, if nothing else, this "debate" should be entertaining.

Elizabeth Liddle is a LIAR

Poor Lizzie continues to lie about AVIDA- she sez that AVIDA is "a simplified, but accurate version of the basic neo-Darwinian model."

LIAR. Neo-darwinian evolution does NOT offer up the rewards AVIDA does and only a lowlife moron would think it does.

Not onl;y that when AVIDA is programmed with realistic parameters nothing evolves!

So to recap:

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


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.


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.


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.

You lose Lizzie, as usual...

Elizabeth Liddle and Allan Miller- LIARS for Darwinism and Materialism

OK enough is enough and I have had it with the bullshit lies of the darwinian faithful.

Lizzie sed:

I could be wrong. But I think ID is dead at its heart now, and all that’s are people who were, unfortunately, fooled by it.

To which WJM replied:

I think that’s pretty much most IDist’s view of Darwinism. 

Then Miller chimed in with his bullshit:

And yet, in the one, publications continue to appear on a daily basis; in the other nothing but perennial rehash of the same tired arguments. How does an incorrect science prove to be so fruitful

There aren't any publications that support darwinism- evolution, yes, darwinian evolution, no.  IOW Allan is just an ignorant equivocator.

Then lizzie sez:

And in contrast, look at the vast output from non-ID science, including evolutionary science, in genetics, palaeontology, biology; look at the role it plays in translational research, from agriculture to medicine; dammit look at its’ explanatory power, if you can. And then look at physics (the same physics as drives cosmology and multiverse theory) – and the extraordinarily accurate predictions it makes.

What a total lying asshole! Evolutionary science is a bullshit equivocation. THere isn't anything from blind-watchmaker, ie unguided evolution. Nothing from genetics that supports unguided evolution. Materialism has offered NOTHING- and unguided evolution doesn't have any explanatory power. Lizzie Liddle is just a dried up old hag and a liar.

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Genetic Algorithms vs Darwinian Evolution- EvoTARD Ignorance and Dishonesty Exposed

Genetic algorithms employ goal-oriented targeted searches to solve the problems they are designed to solve. Dawkins' "weasel" is a perfect example.

Quite the opposite is Darwinian evolution, which isn't even a search- natural selection is blind and mindless, with the variation being happenstance/ accidental, ie genetic accidents. Take the target phrase out of the program and there is no way the program could find it. And that is what darwinian evolution is- no target, just survival. No search, just survival. Survive, reproduce and repeat when possible just isn't a creative process.

And the funniest part of all is the "feedback" system darwinian evolution employs and relies on- survive, reproduce, repeat when/where possible- can't even be accounted for via darwinian nor any other stochastic processes!

"Oh no Joe but "genetic algorithms" have the word "genetic" in it so it must mimic evolution!"

Intelligent Design Evolution, yes. Darwinian evolution, definitely not.

EvoTARDs are such a desperate and dishonest bunch that they argue GAs = darwinian evolution.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And evoTARDs need everything they have, even all the PRATTs.

Of Polar Bears, Peppered Moths and Equivocation

It never fails- when evoTARDs are conered they trot out the standard crap like polar bears being white and living in the arctic. Yet they don't realize that their position can't account for bears at all and they have no idea if accumulations of genetic accidents produced a polar bear from another type of bear or not.

The same goes for peppered moths, anti-biotic resistance, the beaks of the finch- none of that really supports darwin bnecause no one knows the nature of the genetic changes involved.

The equivocation comes in when evoTARDs claim all change is evidence for their position- because they are too stupid and lazy to learn what their opponents really say- and even the slightest of change means that universal common descent is true.

So yes polar bears and peppered moths may have something to do with evolution. No one knows what kind of evolution, blind-watchmaker, ie unguided evolution or Intelligent Design evolution. But that won't stop evoTARDs from trying to make their claims on it.

EvoTARDs- Proudly Ignorant of Genetic Algorithms

EvoTARDs still think that GAs support darwinian evolution- morons. GAs have a GOAL you ignorant assholes and darwinian evolution does NOT. GAs employ a TARGETED SEARCH, meaning the information on what they are searching for is in the program and constantly checked. Darwinian evolution is not anything like that.

OMagain sed:
GAs work.
GAs do not “contain the answers” in advance.
GAs were “invented” by observing how nature does it.

Yes GAS work. They work just as they are DESIGNED to work

Yes GAs contain the answer*, just not HOW to find it.

GAs may have been invented by observing how nature works but GAs do NOT work how nature works. So the bottom line is evos do NOT understand GAs and they think that their ignorance means something. Strange...

Added: * Dawkins' "weasel" GA contains the target phrase and all offspring are compared to that, with the best match(es) being used to seed the next generation. Antenna GAs contain the specification for the antenna required and all "offspring" are compared to that, with the best match(es) being used to seed the next generation.

If Dawkins' program did not contain the answer there is no way the target phrase would ever be found. If antenna GAs did not contain the target specification there is no way the computer could find the proper antenna configuration.

Saturday, January 04, 2014

Populations Evolve?

I used to hear that a lot- populations evolve (not individuals). Yet natural selection is an IDIVIDUAL thing with populations often coming to the aid of the less fit. The variation is an IDIVIDUAL thing too.

Populations do not reproduce, INDIVIDUALS do. And you can't have evolution without reproduction, so populations don't evolve, the individuals do.

Biological evolution requires reproduction. Populations do not reproduce. Therefor populations cannot evolve, biologically.

EvoTARDs get these catch phrases in their little pointy heads and they think they actually mean something...

Is Chance a Cause? - An Answer for Lizzie

No, chance is not a cause. Chance is a category of causes- unplanned, accidental, happenstance causes, all fall under the category of chance.

For example:

Natural selection- The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population- Mayr "What Evolution Is"
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance also plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. Ibid
Ooops there's that darn word "chance".

And if one reads Darwin's "On the Origin of Species...", one will see that the word "chance" is used quite often.

So there you have it Lizzie- hopefully that helps you become a little more educated.

Richard T Hughes- Proud to be a moron

Richie spews:

Not to ‘peanut gallery’, but Joe has made the odd claim ” Heck the environment doesn’t even select.” If that were true, men, fish and birds would all be equally as viable underwater, in the air and only on land.

Non-sequitur, asshole. BTW men do swim underwater and we can also live underwater. Birds are viable underwater also- ever hear of penguins? And then we have lung-fish.

But anyway the environment doesn't select. Selection requires consciousness. You and Lizzie can say I am wrong but you will NEVER find anything that demonstrates it. And I am good with that.

Nature is blind and mindless. It cannot select anything you morons.

I will side with Mayr over Richie and Lizzie.

Geez Richie's non-sequitur is full of his ignorance.

BTW Richie, I have created a positive case for ID- you are just to much of a moron to grasp it and you are also ignorant of science because the design inference mandates that the non-design stuff be given consideration FIRST. IOW science mandates criticism of all lesser ideas.

That said YOU to create a positive case for your position that doesn’t require criticism of any other theory but stands on its own experimental and observational merit.

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Why Natural Selection Is Irrelevant- Correcting OMagain, Again

Natural selection is irrelevant for several reasons. The main reason NS is irrelevant is because it doesn't do anything. Having more offspring is NOT a designer mimic and that is all NS establishes. The point being Darwin set up NS to be a designer mimic and NS have failed miserably in that capacity.

Another reason NS is irrelevant is because >99% of the variation in any population is from drift:


Oooops, so sorry evotards hnatural 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.  Laryy Moran

Very few evotards understand evolution well enough to appreciate that.

So natural selection doesn't do anything and it is but a very minor player wrt how genetic accidents accumulate.

So no, OMagain asshole, NS is not irrelevant because chance can wipe out even the most fit in any population. And I never said any such thing. What I did say was because of that fact NS isn't a sure thing.

Friday, January 03, 2014

Richard T Hughes and Alan Fox- Proudly Ignorant of Evolutionism

Richie cluelessly spewed:

I suppose one could argue the random mutation is perpetually creating new information and the environment is selecting the best of it- (Alan Fox agrees with Richie)
Well not according to Mayr in "What Evolution Is". But then again it appears that these evoTARDs know more about evolution than one of the architects of the modern synthesis. LoL!

Mayr specifically states that the environment does not select the best of anything. Heck the environment doesn't even select.

And no KeithS- stochastic processes producing Shannon information doesn't make IDists nervous. Heck we talk about just that all of the time. The reason Shannon information doesn't bother us is it has nothing to do with meaning/ function.

Elizabeth Liddle- Ignorant of Natural Selection

Earth to Elizabeth: Natural selection is blind and without purpose. It doesn't do anything and yes it is a result:

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.”- UC Berkley on Evolution

Natural selection- The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population- Mayr "What Evolution Is"
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance also plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. Ibid
Ooops there's that darn word "chance" 

Genetic and Evolutionary Algoritms- STILL Intelligent Design

EvoTARDs, like thorton, Lizzie and Richie Hughes are so ignorant that they really think goal-oriented GAs and EAs provide evidence for darwinian evolution! Only total morons and very desperate evos would think such a thing.

1- darwinian evolution does NOT jhave a goal. Even Dawkins said that
2- Goal oriented programs = evolution BY DESIGN
3- If you design a program to do something specific, and it does it, then it did so BY DESIGN and NOT via accumulations of accidents.

EvoTARDS, ignorant and very proud of it...

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Elizabeth Liddle- STILL Choking on Darwinian Processes

Lizzie, you are a pathetic little person- please stop posting as you are embarrassing yourself. She spews
You are right to distinguish between purely “Darwinian” processes (the tendency for features that help reproduction to be reproduced more frequently, as logic dictates it should) and other processes including “drift”, which is the tendency of traits to increase in probability of propagating the more prevalent they become, which, interestingly, is an analogue of my last two examples in the OP – chance processes, but ones which tend to result ultimately in either “fixation” – all members of a population have the trait/all throws are heads, or extinction – no members of a population have it/no throws are heads, even though neither is intrinsically “favoured” by the program).

No Lizzie, Darwinian processes require happenstance changes to produce something that works, ie something that is NOT fatal (seee Mayr "What Evolution Is"). IOW darwinian processes are the various ways genetic accidents accumulate. THAT is important as you have to show that all genetic changes are accidents, ie happenstance events. Intelligent Design says they are not. ID is NOT anti-evolution.

So the bottom line is Lizzie refuses to understand that it is those gentic accidents that bring about those features (whatever they are and however numerous they are- she doesn't say) that help reproduction.  She refuses to grasp the fact that ID is OK with genetic changes and that is why she equivocates, all day, every day. Which again proves that she just doesn't understand what is being debated and she thinks her ignorance somehow refutes ID.

Oh, and all of this well after she declared unguided evolution is unscientific- darwinian evolution is unguided evolution- the mutations are accidents and natural selection is a result, meaning the only "guidance" it offers is the survivors may get the chance to reproduce- the feedback system that produces a

All of that said, the Pallen/ Matzke paper does not address thgis- ie it does NOT demonstrate in any way or form, that any bacterial flagellum can evolve via accumulations of genetic accidents, is darwinian processes. THe same can be said of the Liu/ Ochman paper, which relies on gene duplication.

And BTW AVIDA produces NOTHING when the relevant parameters are used. That Lizzie clings on to that program as evidence for darwinian evolution demonstrates just how delusional she is.

Elizabeth Liddle- Still Choking on Irreducible Complexity

Elizabeth Liddle is wulfully ignorant- either that or she is just plain ole stupid. I say that because hshe just spewed:

  Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was unevolvable, because it was “Irreducibly Complex” i.e. wouldn’t work minus any one part, and so you’d need the stupendous coincidence of all parts just happening to appear together before it would confer any advantage.
Unevolveable via Darwinian processes, ie accumulations of genetic accidents- Lizzie has been told this many times but she refuses to understand what is being debated. Oh well/

She goes on to spew:
But he forgot, apparently, that the parts could perfectly well confer some other benefit, even if not the benefit of the flagellum, when not all were present.
Hope- from Dr Behe himself- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions:

Ooops, again Lizzie fails. But that diesn't stop her:

 And the Pallen and Matzke paper showed actual examples of homologous features of the flagellum, but without its other parts, but which perform a beneficial function for their bearers. 

So what? That has nothing to do with the proposed mechanism AND homology is mostly assumed. That also has nothing to do with genetic accidents producing any bacterial flagellum.

But anyway- The following may have been updated:

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

Dr">">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


What Is [wrong with] the "science" Behind Evolutionism?

While Elizabeth Liddle continues to choke on the ID load she also continues to miss the point- Earth to Lizzie- YOUR position lacks science and a methodology to test it!

IOW you are still a clueless freak and obviously you don't care,

Lizzie, I have 5 seconds, that should be more than enough time for you to tell me all that you know about science...

Evolutionism Predicts... Or Why RichTARD Hughes is Soooooo Clueless

Sorry, evolutionism doesn't make any predictions other than populations may change or stay the same.

Heck I predict that evoTARDs like Alan Fox and RichTARD Hughes cannot provide a reference to the alleged theory of evolution. Nor can they provide any predictions based on the proposed mechanism of accumlations of genetic accidents.