"Darwin's Doubt" Chapter 13- The Origin of Body Plans

-
What is there to say? Blind watchmaker evolution can't even get beyond their given prokaryotes. That means it cannot account for metazoans, ie body plans. It can't account for meiosis. And even given metazoans, with all of their regulatory networks, including transcription factors, and meiosis, blind watchmaker evolution can ponly break, deform and degrade what is given.

Experiments with fruit flies yield deformed fruit flies with no hope of evolving into something else.

However even that is irrelevant as Meyer was talking about the origin of body plans and not just the other enormus task of creating different body plans requiring new body parts. Meyer was just using examples of mutations deforming body plans to show what muations do, and it ain't constructing useful body plans.

So I don't understand why evoTARDs get so upset when their position is exposed as the scam it is. They have all the resources, labs and universities and yet they have nothing that demonstrates blind watchmaker evolution is up to the task. And that's supposed to be our fault.

Most of the problem seems to be the evoTARDs themselves, most don't even understand what evolutionism entails. And when they are told what it entails they deny it and throw hissy fits.

Alan "Chumley" Fox- Too Funny

-
When someone does something this stupid it has to be posted.

See it for yourself:

William J. Murray: Creationists are better at science than materialists and atheists (for the simple reason they do not exclude a potentially true set of causes).

Oh, come off it! Creation “science” is a futile search for something that might support their religious stance on issues such as a 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood (where did that water come from? And where did it go?),and everyone descending from the survivors on the ark. Talk about ruling stuff out!

Wm said Creationists are better at science and Alan just had to switch to YEC science, well a caricature of it anyway.

What's the point? In the preceding post Alan whined:

That you gave no example of ID critics’ dishonesty is a plain fact.

Yet he misrepresented what Wm aid with his very next post. Alan, the number of times ID critics and opponents have been honest is much, much smaller than the number of times they have been dishonest. And you are a prime example of that dishonesty. Don't blame me for pointing that out. You could change but you choose not to.

Newton was a Creationist. And if being a Creationist means a person can't be any better at science than Newton, I would wish that on everybody.

Just sayin'...

The Core Concepts of Intelligent Design- For Alan Fox

-
Alan Fox wants to know the core concepts of ID, which is strange because it has been explained to him many times.

OK here it is again

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.

Picking on ID is not positive evidence for evolutionism, blind watchmaker evolution. But anyway-

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?

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.” That is the positive case. For example:

As I posted in an earlier blog:

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

Jeffrey Shalit, Still Clueless

-
Over on TSZ Shallit sez:

This is literally true, but quite misleading. In neither forensics nor archaeology will you find any discussion of looking for “intelligent intervention” as such. Instead, what investigators of those fields might be interested in are questions like: is this just a random bit of chert, or was it worked by humans? Did this person die of what might be termed “natural causes”, or was it homicide. There is absolutely no discussion of “intelligence” as a general category; in all cases people are trying to determine whether something is an *artifact* – the characteristic product of human agency. Nobody serious in forensics or archaelogy is hypothesizing aliens as the agents, for example.

Irrelevant. The investigators may assume a human did it but that is about it. And they know that humans = inteligence/ intelligent intervention, duh. BTW if we detect design and humans could not have been present, as in SETI, what then Jeff? If we find an artifact on Mars Jeff would have us ignore it because humans couldn't have done it.

He goes on to spew:

And, needless to say, nobody in forensics or archaeology uses Dembski’s methodology or the pseudomathematics of any other ID advocate. Indeed, ID advocates claim their methodology *would* be useful in such fields, but have never given a single example where this was the case. Elsberry and I challenged ID advocates to come up with a *single* example more than ten years ago, and no one has even *tried*. 

LoL! No one has tried to explain how it was determined that all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. But I digress. The explanatory filter is used by all investigators. If not they are conducting science incorrectly. And the math doesn't really apply to objects. It only applies to what is easily converted to bits, like nucleotides.

Shallit's position doesn't have any methodology- Dogma doesn't need methodology. And yet he feels like he can dum,p on ID because obviously he doesn't understand how scientific investigations proceed- See Newton, Occam and parsimony.

And then Shallit implies that evolutionism is science. Too bad no obne can figure out how to test it, Jeffrey.

RichTARD Hughes, Proud to be a Clueless Asshole

-
Richie sez:

Here, Barry talks about transitional fossils, approvingly quoting Philip Johnson: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-ud-glossary-additions/
“Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence – like the sequence of Beethoven’s symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court – does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan. . . . [These sequences] show that what biologists present as proof of ‘evolution’ or ‘common ancestry’ is just as likely to be evidence of common design.”
So, ID does predict MORE transitional fossils, then.
So Barry is clearly arguing out of both sides of his mouth here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/once-more-from-the-top-on-the-fossil-record/

Earth to the dumbass- Humans did not design life on earth and yours only applies if they did and they did it by learning along the way.

Clearly Richie Hughes is "arguing" from his ass.

Kevin Reject McCarthy is Lying Again

-
Kevin spews:

The leaders of the movement all agree that ID is religious.

Let's take a look-in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:

Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

He goes on to say:

Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.

Oops, KevTARD

In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

OK so that takes care of Dembski and Meyer- that is two for me and zero for the lying KevTARD.

"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Three for me, still zero for the lying KevTARD.

 

Intelligent Design and Innate Behaviour

-
Instincts, ie innate behaviour, how do spiders know how to build their webs? How do birds know how to build nests? How to termites, ants and bees know how to do what it is they do seemingly without being taught?

To Intelligent Design that is all part of an organisms operating system, ie the non-material information that not only makes the organism what it is but also provides the organism with the basic information it needs to do what it needs to do to survive. The rest of an organism's information comes from doing and hopefully learning by doing- trial and error.

What? It ain't the genes? No, genes only influence behaviour by causing chemical imbalances. A messed up gene is like a messed up data stream.

Genes do not determine what the organism is but they can influence how any given organism will behave. The key word is influence.

A "Science" Quiz that Blows It

-
LoL! Even the author(s) of the science quiz missed a couple questions:

1. The center of the Earth is very hot. True or false?

true

2. The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move. True or false?

True that they have been moving. No one knows for how long they have been moving.

3. Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?

The earth goes around the sun more than the sun goes around the earth.

4. All radioactivity is man-made. True or false?

false

5. Electrons are smaller than atoms. True or false?

true

6. Lasers work by focusing sound waves. True or false?

false- Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (fixed for Jerad)

7. The universe began with a huge explosion. True or false?

false- the big bang was a derogatory term. The event was neither big nor did it go bang. There wasn't any explosion.

8. It's the father's gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or girl. True or false?

false- it is the father's X and Y CHROMOSOME, not gene, that DETERMINES the sex

9. Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. True or false?

false

10. Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. True or false?

It depends on what you mean by "earlier species of animal". If that is still a human then true. If that isn't a human, then false

"They" say the answers are:

Answers (% who got it correct):
1. True (84%); 2. True (83%); 3. Earth around the sun (74%); 4. False (72%); 5. True (53%); 6. False( 47%); 7. True; (39%); 8. True (63%); 9. False (51%); 10. True (48%)


Oops, both 7 & 8 are FALSE


read the article here

Ask CakeBoy!

-
Over on TSZ there is a thread titled "Ask an Expert!". Alan Fox asks:

I wonder if anyone is working on how innate behaviours are passed on in the gametes.

It's all part of the software package, Alan. However only under the Intelligent Design scenario would we even look for such a thing. Given blind watchmaker evolution (BWE) no one will ever find it and it will remain a mystery to BWE's subscribers.

Dr Sermonti talks about this in his book "Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?"- it ain't the chemistry. Birds hatched without parents to teach them knew how and when to migrate via the stars.

Information, Alan. It is neither matter nor energy. No organism can live without it. It not only makes an organism what it is, it also helps an organism do what it does.

It's all part of the design, Alan. You will never see it and BWE will never explain it.

ETA- Alan Fox "responds":

Joe, it has to be the chemistry. It has to be in the chromosomes of the parents or in the epigenetic material in the egg. There is nowhere else for it to be. I agree there is no evolutionary explanation for precisely how innate behaviour patterns can be passed on through generations. Are you suggesting there is an “Intelligent Design” explanation? Do tell!

Do tell why it has to be chemistry? How did you make that determination? It has to be in the chromosomes of the parents or in the epigenetic material in the egg? I agree with that part as I said the software is in the egg and sperm. Yes it could be in the chromosomes but Vetner's experiment demonstrated that wrt bacteria it is not in the DNA

 And I told you what the ID explanation is. You read it and obviously choked on it. It's software Alan Dr Johnson talks about it in "The Programming of Life".

Actual immaterial information is what gives organisms their innate behaviour.

"Intelligent Design:Required by Biological Life?" by K.D. Kalinsky

-
EvoTARDs scoff at probabilty arguments not realizing that probabilities are the only way to test their claims. That's because no one can figure out how to properly model blind watchmaker evolution.

The point? I was going through my PDFs and found this gem from 6 years ago- Intelligent Design: Required for Biological Life? by KD Kalinsky.

I. Introduction:

This article is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. As that discussion unfolds, I expect that this article will be revised over time in the same way that a paper submitted to a journal is often revised during the process of review. The purpose of this article is to attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of intelligent design and the origin and diversity of biological life. Essentially, we have two options. Either biological life required intelligent design or it did not. As with most problems in science, it is difficult to prove one option or another with absolute certainty. Instead, options can be evaluated against each other in an attempt to estimate which option is more likely. Even then, the fact that one option may be more likely than another does not 'prove' that it is actually the case. Instead, I will propose a way in which both options can be evaluated against each other. The results indicate that it seems highly likely that intelligent design was required for biological life.

On Humping Strawmen

-
Kevin McCarthy has another post with more accusations leveled at people who know evolutionism is bullshit. Kevin sez:

There’s actually two statements that I’d like to deal with here. The first is, of course, that most mutations are harmful. The second is that selection only removes alleles from the gene pool and therefore removes the variation that exists because of mutations. These two together or either separately is used as an attack on evolution. Both of these charges are wrong and the topics are closely related so here we go.

Unfortunately he dosn't reference this claim of what his opponents say. He never does which leads me to believe he is making it up or taking it out-of-context. However it is a fact that natural selection is eliminative. But no one sez what Kevin sed. Obviously if some are eliminated then some variations are also eliminated. But not all variation is removed as Kevin seems to be suggesting.

Next Kevin continues to choke on the so-called "silent" mutations. That is a muation that changes the nucleotide sequence but not the amino acid.

Now, that means that the particular codon can be hit with a variety of substitution mutations and it will not change the amino acid that fits in that spot. No change at all.

That is incorrect. We know of silent mutations which do alter the resulting protein. This is due to the fact that not all tRNAs are equally represented in any given organism. And that means the timing will be off at the ribosome because the required amino acid arrives a little late due to its lack of concentration. This timing mishap causes a misfolding of the forming protein, rendering it useless, or worse. See How silent muations can be harmful.

Reading Kevin's article further he now agrees with me as I have been telling him for years that natural selection is the survival of the good enough-

This isn’t what Darwin predicted, the old ‘survival of the fittest’, but it is, instead, ‘survival of the good enough’. In the real world, there may be multiple ways to survive.

Wow, pretty much word-for-word of what I have been saying for decades. Kevin is just now catching on. Strange.

 This paper is talking about alleles, not large scale features like that, but it’s an analogy to help you understand what I’m describing.

Well the organism is the unit of selection, not the alleles (Mayr "What Evolution Is").

Also if you have a alleles that get mutated and therefor change, well that original variant is lost. So while new variations are being created the old variants are being destroyed.

Testing Evolutionism- Why it is Impossible Today

-
Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution.

What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth. Changes in eye color does not explain the vision system nor the type of eye nor the organism. An albino dwarf with sickle-celled anemia is what we can get when mutations accumulate. Not quite what evolutionism requires.

We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”*

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?

You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

And that is another reason why Doug Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" is absent a mechanism and also why it fails-> there aren't any known mechanisms for producing macroevolutionary change because no one even knows what it entails.
 


* we are just what emerges from the somehow coordinayed interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn’t change what type of organism comes out)

What are the odds? Ducks with RADAR

-
Ever hear of the duck that evolved RADAR?

After millions of years and an incredibly rare sequence of biochemical and genetic events, a single duckling hatched with this amazing ability! Mathematicians calculated that it would take hundreds of millions of years for nature to produce another one like it. Yet amazingly enough, another duck of the opposite sex was also hatched in the same vicinity around the same time!
Anyway, before they were able to pass on their RADAR gene, they were both run over by a pickup truck.

Darwinist response: “Hey, I don’t believe that. How likely is it for a pickup truck to run over two ducklings?”



Querius


Yeah baby...

Darwinian Algorithm? Or a Misguided Liddle?

-
Yup it's a misguided Liddle as there isn't any such thing as a "darwinian algorithm". Heck who would use blind and undirected processes to try to solve a problem? Not even evolutionists are stupid enough to even try that.

You know someone has no clue wrt darwinian evolution when they use "darwinian algorithm", and yet Lizzie does exactly that.   Go figure.

ETA:

Out of one side of their mouths they say that Dembski is wrong because Darwinian evolution is not a search (as if that helps them but that is another story).

And out of the other side they say that Eureqa, which utilizes an active search (ie a goal-oriented targeted search) for a data fitting equation, uses Darwinian mechanisms.

Goal-oriented targeted searches are Intelligent Design evolution in action. When something actively selects out of a range of choices and actively makes constrained changes to the selections to achieve a pre-specified result, well that is the antithesis of blind watchmaker evolution.

petrushka- the most cluelss evotard

-
Some asshole who goes by petrushka just loves its willful ignorance. It is another who doesn't understand ID, doesn't understand what evolutionism entails and thinks its ignorance means something.

For example petrushka sed:

I think you have to realize how discomforting this is to IDists who deny that evolution can produce complex structures unless the selector contains the desired result, ala weasel. Avida is cool, but doesn’t do anything commercially useful.

If Eureka actually invents valuable equations that are not obvious and not previously known,it is a major threat to Behe and Dembsky.

What an idiot. IDists do not deny that "evolution" can produce complex structures. We say that blind and undirected chemical processes cannot produce irreducibly complex structures. And there isn't any evidence that they can. Also Eureqa, as with all evolutionary algorithms, uses a goal-oriented targeted search to solve the problem at hand. Taht is Intelligent Design Evolution, not blind watchmaker evolution. And that means Behe and Dembski are OK with it.

Also given realistic parameters AVIDA doesn't do anything of note and it actually refutes your claims. Go figure.

Reproducing Equations? EvoTARDS have no shame

-
Eureqa again- no it doesn't use darwinian evolution. It uses actual selection. No the equations do not reproduce. How could they? They either survive or get eliminated. The surviving equations get changed (unless they solved the problem, ie are the right equation by fitting to all of the data). Some changes are bigger than others. For example sometimes equations are combined- taking half of one and combining that with half of another equation. Still that is not reproduction. Equations do not reprooduce. That is just a fact of life. (Coin toss results don't reproduce either)

Once changed they are actively compared to see if any of the new equations fit the data. Then another round of actual selection, followed by more constrained changes.

The equations in no way resemble a living organism. By using an actual selection process, as opposed to merely eliminating, it does not mimic darwinian evolution.

Yes Eureqa is an evolutionary algorithm. No it does not mimic darwinian, ie blind watchmaker evolution.

EvoTARDS are so pathetic as they think that everything dealing with "evolution" supports their position.

Goal-oriented targeted search is NOT a Darwinian mechanism. Richie Hughes and Lizzie Liddle are just ignorant. If ignorance were an even in the winter olympics Richie and Lizzie would get gold medals in evoTARDgasms

Eureqa Programmers Respond

-
Seeing that evoTARDs are relentless in their dishonesty by claiming everything that changes, especially when replication is involved, is evidence for darwinian evolution.

To wit- both RichTARD Hughes and Lizzie the loser Liddle have been claiming that Eureka uses darwinian mechanisms. Lizze sed:

Eureqa most certainly works using Darwinian mechanism. It’s precisely how it works.

So I took some time and wrote to the website that hosts Eureka and asked if that was so:

Good day,

On the ineternet people have been discussing Eureka. Unfortunately some over zealous activists of evolutionism are saying that Eureka models darwinian evolution. My question to you is does it? Does Eureka use an eliminative process to get its results? Does Eureka use undirected changes to achieve its results?

To me Eureka doesn't have anything to do with darwinian evolution. Could you help?

respectfully,

Joe G

Jere is the response:

Hi Joe,

Eureqa leverages a number of techniques related to randomized stochastic search. It has the explicit intent to maximize agreement with data and parsimony of results.

Rather than comparing Eureqa to evolution, a closer analogy would be to the scientific process, where scientists compete to build the most accurate and elegant theory based on observations.

Thanks, J

However I am sure that will not stop the evoTARDs from continuing to claim it as evidence for darwinian evolution. They are just so pathetic.

ETA- No Eureqa does not use undirected processes. It is all directed towards the solution, ie the final equation. And Eureqa does not use reproduction. It mutates the surviving equations.

So how is Eureqa like darwinian evolution? Sure equations get eliminated- more like equations get selected, which is not part of darwinian evolution. As Mayr said in "What Evolution Is", natural selection does not select.

 

Lizzie Liddle- Proudly Ignorant of Darwinian Evolution

-
Yup loser Lizzie is at it again. This time she sez a program called "Eureka" uses darwinina mechanisms. Unfortunately for Lizzie she has no idea what darwinian evolution entails.

Read it for yourself- Darwin was wrong!

Lizzie, as well as all evos, have serious issues as they think that all evolution = darwinain evolution. Unfortunately for them darwinian evolution involves specifics, which obvioulsy they are ignorant of. For example Lizzie thinks that natural selection actually selects. And that is pathetic.

"The Skeptical Zone" just another evoTARD echo chamber and stroking zone.

Kevin Reject McCarthy- Humping Another Strawman

-
Not only is Kevin a retard he is also a strawman humper. His latest strawman humping can be read here- Evolution of Associated Proteins. Yet he chokes right from the get-go:

This is for my various creationist readers who keep (mistakenly) proclaiming that multi-protein systems can’t evolve.

No dumbass. The argument is that blind watchmaker evolution can't produce a multi-protein configuration. And the paper you cite doesn't demonstrate that blind watchmaker evolution can produce a multi-protein system. It doesn't even give us a way to test the claim.

Dr Behe talks about the paper- Dr Behe refutes Thornton, Carroll, Bridgham,

Clueless Kevin and his knee-jerk reaction and starwman humping.

John Loftus- Wanker Tosser and Coward

-
Well That didn't take long- expose evolutionists for the cowardly liars that they are and they ban you from their blogs.

John Loftus you are just another lowlife loser and coward. But I bet you knew that already.

Kevin R McCarthy- Proud to be an Ignorant Asshole

-
Kevin is such an ignorant little faggot. He is still telling me that I invented blind watchmaker evolution. I guess he never heard of Richard Dawkins (Dawkins wrote "The Blind Watchmaker").

Kevin sez:

The only one who thinks that the evolution that everyone studies and believes in is "blind watchmaker" evolution is you.

What an ignorant piece of shit McCarthy is.

Language Matters: Just Call Evolutionism What it is

-
John Loftus has a post titled Language Matters: On Not Using the Word "Theory" When it Comes to Evolution.

Just call it what it is, John-> dogma, plain and simple. Evolutionism is above criticism and seeing that nothing in science is supposed to be, that makes evolutionism a dogma.

Stephen Hawking Sez Luck, Not a Designer, Created Us- As if That is Science

-
Stephen Hawking, for all of his alleged high IQ, says some very stupid things. As if saying our existence is due to luck is science and as if science supports that point of view. But at least Stephen admits in the absence of design all you have are lucky coincidences.

Lucky Coincidences Built the Universe

No need to invoke a designer when one has sheer dumb luck at one's disposal. But just how is that scientific? It can't be tested- how is it falsified?

RichTARD Hughes- Master Projector and Chart Master at Large

-
Imagine an X / Y chart, Richie.

The X axis is numbered from 0-10 and charts “upset”.

The Y axis is numbered 0-10 and charts “Specifics”.

Which general area of the the chart do you think most of your posts inhabit?

Another Invitation for Kevin ReTARD McCarthy to Buy a Vowel

-
Kevin's latest spewage is titled Evidence For Creation and Intelligent Design.

Unfortunately for Kevin he doesn't know what evidence is. Not only that he doesn't even understand what evolutionism posits.

Kevin is a clueless asshole who couldn't provide evidence for evolutionism if his life depended on it. He also couldn't understand the evidence for Intelligent Design if his life depended on it.

And to top it all off I am the only IDist who reads his spewage. And that means I could answer him buty he won't allow me to post on his blog because he cannot stand to have his ignorance exposed.

Kevin R. McCarthy, proud to be a cowardly piece-of-shit.

ETA:

Kevin is so stupid that he conflates nucleotides with amino acids.

Kevin was asked:

 what is the chance to get functional sequence in 100 amino acid long protein?

To which he cowardly responded:

Define "functional sequence". In many ribozymes, the metabolically active area can be only 3 nucleotides long. Further, the number of possible 3 nucleotide active sites is not yet determine, but is probably many more than just 1. So, the odds of getting an active area in a 100 amino acid chain are nearly 100%.  

What a fucking clueless retard Kevin is. He doesn't know what a functional protein is- ignorance of biology. Then like the lowlife coward he is he switches in nucleotides. And then he thinks this is the same as amino acids!

Earth to dumbass Kevin McCarthy- proteins need to find a functional 3 dimensional shape that allows them to do something, ie have a function. And not just any amino acid sequence forms such a protein.

Jerry Coyne- Voted Asshole Douchebag of the Year for 2013

-
Way to go Jerry! You are officially the biggest asshole douchebag for 2013.

Jerry Coyne, proud to be a bigmouthed asshole

Poor little Jerry Coyne has his panties in a twist because his position is evidence-free and full of dogmatic bullshit. This upsets the mental midget so much that he has to go out of his way to try to stifle any and all opposition to it.

You are a sick fuck Jerry. A coward, a liar and a piece-of shit all in one- well that covers all evoTARDs- Jerry is just one of the leaders.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye- What We Did NOT See

-
On Tuesday, February 4th, there was a debate between YEC Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the science guy. Unfortunately for Bill all he did was poke holes in Ken's interpretation of the Bible. Bill never once provided any positive evidence for materialism nor it's bastard, evolutionism. Not one bit.

EvoTARDs love to tell IDists that refuting evolutionism is not positive evidence for ID. Yet somehow they think that refuting YEC is positive evidence for evolutionism.

Pathetic...

The Best Baked Haddock Evah

-
Are you afraid of having fish because you can't or don't know how to cook it? This easy-to-follow recipe will show you how easy it is to make an awesome entree.

First you need haddock- fresh haddock if you can. I find out when the local stores get the fish in and plan accordingly. I like to use 8 oz filets. I have useed this on 4-8 oz filets.

Next you need lemons. 1 lemon per pound of haddock
Ritz crackers. One row per 8 ounce filet.
Unsalted Butter. 4-6 tablespoons, melted (per row of Ritz)
Ground Pepper and Old Bay for seasoning
Panko optional for added crunch
Parchment paper

Lay the fish out on a plate or tray, skin-side down.
Cut a lemon in half and squeeze it on the fish- cover the entire fish- no seeds!
Season the lemon-soaked fish with pepper and Old Bay seasoning - set aside

Take the Ritz crackers and grind them up. I use a blender for some and do some by hand. It is all about the crunch and textture of the final product.
Add the melted butter to the Ritz and stir until the entire misture is moist and pastey (add Panko here and mix in)

Now preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. This will give the lemon and seasoning time to work into the fish and the crackers time to absorb the butter.

Once the oven is warmed up put parchment paper on the baking tray and place the fish on the paper.

Next take the Ritz cracker mix and apply it to the top of filets. Pack it on, you want at least 1/4 inch of Ritz on top.

Put the tray with the fish on the middle rack of the oven and bake for 15 minutes. If the Ritz topping isn't browning you can switch to broil (Hi) for a couple minutes to make it a little more crisp. Just don't forget it and burn it.

Once the top is browned enough just take it out and serve it up! Goes great with broccoli and potatoes.

Yes this should work for any fish. And yes you can season the Ritz mix. And yes you can add more lemon to the finished product.

My eleven year old can't wait for fish night...

Is Evolution Guided by the Environment?

-
Is evolution guided by the environment? If it is then there goes Darwinism and neo-darwinism as neither posits guided evolution of any kind. Natural seelction is blind, mindless and eliminative. It doesn't guide anything. Natural selection depends on the environment.

Does the environment guide the mutational process? No. True there could be things in the enviroment that causes DNA damage, but that isn't guiding the process.

So in what way does the environment guide evolution? By eliminating the less fit? How is that guidance?

I predict Richie Hughes will post a literture bluff- the same bluff he already tried and was exposed as not supporting his claim.

Elizabeth Liddle- Choking on Historical vs OPERATIONAL (not observational) Science

-
Morons who think that operational and historical sciences are the same, are truly hilarious. Historical science involves inferences and most likely the event in question can never be reproduced.

For example Lizzie sez that Tiktaalik was predicted byu something- perhaps universal common descent. However it's finding now has the sequence fish->tetrapod->fishapod- so I doubt UCD predicted that. Also Ti\ktaalik's existence does NOT say anything about any mechansim so it cannot be used as evidence for any model. And there isn't any known process that can take a fish with small bones in its fins and make robust wrist-like bones. We can't even test that today!

OTOH operational science depends on cause and effect relationships. It is what allowed for nuclear power plants, hydro power, wind power, solar power- well most everything we use and depend on today.

How to Test and Falsify Intelligent Design

-
OK seeing that evoTARDs choose to be totally clueless I will continue to expose their ignorance.

Yes Intelligent Design is both testable and potentially falsifiable:

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.

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?

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.” That is the positive case. For example:

As I posted in an earlier blog:

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

How to Model Unguided Evolution/ Natural Selection- an Idea

-
A good model of unguided evolution would be Dawkins' "weasel" without using the target sequence as a selection coefficient. Instead you would have to choose some arbitrary way of eliminating daughter sequences. Or you could just keep all daughter sequences to raise your odds- this is asexual reproduction after all.

Run that program and see how long before you get "Methinks it is like a weasel."

Modeling Unguided Evolution?

-
Lizzie Liddle says that models are the best way to do science. With models you make predictions and test them.

Well what is she waiting for wrt unguided evolution? What does unguided evolution predict?

Stop criticizing ID for focusing on probabilities when that is all we have because unguided evolution doesn't have anything else in the way of a scientific falsification.

An Invitation to Kevin ReTARD McCarthy- Buy a Vowel

-
As if I needed more evidence that Kevin doesn't understand science, Kevin posted the following spewage:

Describes the so-called barrier in evolution that prevents so-called macroevolution from occurring. Evidence supporting this claim must be included. ”I say it exists” is not evidence. In your discussion, you will need to show an understanding of how actual evolution works (not the typical ID strawman), how new taxonomic groups are formed (hint, I’ve described this in detail), and an explanation of how new taxonomic orders arise if not by evolution (the designer did it is not an explanation unless you provide evidence for the designer as well).

 

No, dumbass. It is up to YOU to demonstrate the validity of macroevolution. It isn’t up to us to prove a negative and only someone ignorant of science would ask us to. And here is Kevin. 

That said, just look at Lenski’s experiment- 50,000+ generations and not even a new protein, let alone a new multi-protein complex. Also Kevin is full of shit as neither he nor anyone else has described macroevolution in any detail. Doing so would be to discuss the genes involved along with how those genes and networks came to be. You have nothing but branching of species. Unfortunately there isn’t anything in the observed cases of speciation that we can extrapolate into macroevolution. 

My bet is Kevin doesn’t understand what macroevolution entails.: Micro and Macro Evolution- What is the Real Difference

 

Who is the designer and the evidence for the DESIGNER to exist (not any supposed works of said designer). It’s very silly to say that the tooth fairy is the cause of teeth disappearing when there’s no evidence that the tooth fair exists. Inferences about a designer are not sufficient when there is an alternate explanation for the diversity of life.

Double-dumbass. We don’t even know who designed Stonehenge. Ya see, moron, REALITY dictates that in the absence of direct observation of designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. 

The evidence that people built Stonehenge is, wait for it, Stonehenge and the other evidence left behind. The inference of design can be made independent from the designer.

 If we knew who the designer was we wouldn’t need science to help us make a design inference- design would be a given. It’s as if Kevin is proud of his ignorance of science.

 

Forensic science examines the scene for evidence the criminal may have left behind. Archaeologists don't look for existing civilizations. They look for ancient civilizations and they find them by locating the supposed works of the people. SETI looks for the supposed works of ET.

 

Kevin is obviously retarded.

 

The computation of complexity, specified complexity, complex specified information, or any other ID notion about complexity, information, or specificity. This computation can be for a gene, a protein, a structure, or an organism. The same computation for a non-designed system (you choose, but examples would be a rock of the same mass as an organism, a string of random numbers the same length as the gene or protein (include a string of data that has been encrypted using an approved method (256 bit AES for example)). In this description all variables should be explicitly defined and explained. The results should also be explained (i.e. why does this value indicate design while that value indicates non-design.)

I already provided you with that and you obviously choked on it. Measuring CSI in Biology

 

The existence of front-loading in any open-source genetic algorithm. I have often heard that programmers ‘design’ the results of genetic algorithms by inserting the ‘correct’ values in the program somehow. Since there are numerous examples of open-source genetic algorithms, it should be trivial to determine where, exactly, the information is front-loaded. An alternate version of this would be a detailed explanation of how a ‘search’ in a genetic algorithm is different from a ‘search’ by a population in the real world. This should be mathematically rigorous not “because living things are different than programs”.

Just shut up- you are obviously proud to be an asshole. Genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They are designed for specific purposes. For a GA to design an antenna, for example, all of the information for that antenna has to be programmed in and the offspring are compared to that. They employ a targeted search and cumulative selection to achieve a pre-specified result, ie the specification of the antenna required.

 

Dawkins’ “weasel” is unable to design an antenna because it isn’t designed to. Only GAs specifically designed to design an antenna can do so. Dawkins' weasel wouldn't have found the target sentence if that wasn't front loaded into the program. The antenna program never would have designed the proper antenna if the specifications for that antenna wasn't front loaded into the program. Got that, dipshit?

 

Which is the designer responsible for and why? A) The creation of the entire universe and everything in it. B) The creation of only living things on Earth. C) The creation of only ‘complex’ (include a definition and how you determine complexity) structures in organisms. D) The front-loading of living things with genes that will help their descendants survive (examples required). E) something not yet mentioned by ID advocates.

 

Again, THAT is what science is for, Kevin. But the why seems to be that we are here to make scientific discoveries.

 

A page number of any description of any of this or experiments that support these statements in Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt. I have asked this multiple times from multiple people who feel that my treatment of Darwin’s Doubt is incomplete. Yet not a single one of them have responded

Kevin, you butchered that book. You should be ashamed but yet you are not. Strange.

Richard The "cupcake" Hughes, Proudly Ignorant of Science

-
Afetr all these years of telling and proving to Richie cupcake that all design inferences must first eliminate other causal categories, ie necessity and chance, he still refuses to get it. Even after carefully explaining the explanatory filter to him, he still refuses to get.

The explanatory filter has two parts, one is the elimination of necessity and chance and the other is seeing if the design criteria is met. That second phase is the POSITIVE case for design. Without that we would not infer design just because we have eliminated necessity and chance.

That's science and that is why Richie is ignorant of it- he doesn't know science.

The Explanatory Filter and Biology- the Ribosome

-
Evolutionists say they have seen the explanatory filter used for anything dealing with biology. That must be because they haven't looked.

What is the explanatory filter? It's just a process that forces you to follow science's mandate. See Newton's Four Rules.

(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)

The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination. That is why the design inference cannot be the default.

START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes

COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes

SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes

Design


Take the ribosome:
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.-(from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, pg 23

There isn't anything in peer-review that demonstrates any ribosome can evolve via accumulations of/ culled genetic accidents in a population that never had one. With Dr. Lenski's long running E. coli experiment there hasn't even been any new proteins, let alone new multi-protein complexes.

As Jerry Coyne said, these things are true, no math needed. As as Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”  The necessity and chance hypotheses are hence dismissed. As if I have to do the work of the evolutionists.

So the first two decision boxes have answered "Yes".

Moving to the third node:

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.”

The bacterial ribosome is both complex and specified. Therefor given our current state of knowledge of cause and effect relationships, ie science, we can say with confidence that the ribosome is designed.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

And there you have it.

Elizabeth Liddle is the eleP(T|H)ant.!

-
Yes, I cannot stand Elizabeth Liddle- she is full of shit and loves to spew it. She attacks ID with her ignorance. She sez that we cannot use Dembski's equations to determine design because we just don't know all of the factors.

Earth to Lizzie- if we are missing factors it is becausae your position cannot provide any numbers. And that is because your position has absolutely NOTHING. It doesn't have a chance hypthesis (H). It doesn't even know where to start wrt probabilities and blind & undirected chemical processes.

Lizzie sez:

Just say the word. Mocking ID critics for not understanding ID when IDers won’t discuss the absolutely key concept on which a major ID theorist built his argument, despite the fact that ID critics are able and willing to discuss it in any degree of detail requested is, as kairosfocus would say, “telling”.

LoL! Discuss YOUR position you dumbass hack. Also Dembski's is NOT  the absolutely key concept, you are full of shit. True, Dembski would like it to be but without the numbers from your position it is useless and we can use the EF instead. Also ID critics mangle Dembski, you don't discuss his work. Ihave shown you to be a moron wrt Dembski and CSI and you pressed on regardless- reproduction is still the very thing you need to explain, meaning you don't get to just start with it.

Elizabeth Liddle, proudly full of shit...

ETA:

The imbeciles at TSZ have taken note and OMagain chokes on the EF, as usual.

Earth to OMagain- I have used the EF on biological systems- your ignorance still means nothing

The Explanatory Filter and Biological Systems- the Bacterial Flagellum

-
Evolutionists say they have seen the explanatory filter used for anything dealing with biology. That must be because they haven't looked.

What is the explanatory filter? It's just a process that forces you to follow science's mandate. See Newton's Four Rules.

(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)

The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination. That is why the design inference cannot be the default.

START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes

COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes

SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes

Design


Take the bacterial flagellum:

There isn't anything in peer-review that demonstrates any bacterial flagellum can evolve via accumulations of/ culled genetic accidents in a population that never had one. With Dr. Lenski's long running E. coli experiment there hasn't even been any new proteins, let alone new multi-protein complexes.

As Jerry Coyne said, these things are true, no math needed. As as Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”  The necessity and chance hypotheses are hence dismissed. As if I have to do the work of the evolutionists.

So the first two decision boxes have answered "Yes".

Moving to the third node:

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.”

The bacterial flagellum is both complex and specified. Therefor given our current state of knowledge of cause and effect relationships, ie science, we can say with confidence that the bacterial flagellum is designed.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

And there you have it.

ZAchriel- Proud to be an Imbecile

-
Zachriel is at it again. This time he sez that "groups under groups" is exactly the same thing as "groups within groups"- Zachriel is an imbecile.

In Darwin's tree of life diagram he talked of it showing "groups under groups"- because one population (ie group) gave rise to another. Populations do not consist and contain the other populations they give rise to. Descent with modification does not produce "groups within groups", but it does produce "groups under groups".

Zachriel, imbecile for evolutionism.