Intelligent Reasoning

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

Monday, April 27, 2015

Active Information

Active information is what controls evolutionary and genetic algorithms so they find solutions to the problems there were designed to solve. It is what makes them successful search heuristics. It is was proves that those programs do not simulate nor mimic natural selection or unguided evolution as they are not active searches.

With respect to biology the active information would be akin to or exactly like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" and Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering", with that being intelligently designed into all organisms.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

What does Intelligent Design say about the Fossil Record?

What does Intelligent Design say about the fossil record? Nothing. ID is silent on the matter. ID is about the genetics and biology. You have to first have a mechanism of producing the changes required before trying to read the fossil record.

That said, evolutionism doesn't have anything to say about the fossil record as it doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Moon in the Middle

Alignments are cool. Tonight we have the waxing crescent Moon in the middle with Venus leading on one side and then followed by Jupiter. We also happen to have the Moon shining through thin clouds to give us a ring.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

What Prevents Macroevolution- Another Look

What prevents macroevolution? This says it best
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 (bold added)

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes  that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

Major adaptive changes would be legs in place of fins- gradual or rapid. Lungs in place of gills. Bones, nervous systems, muscles- MAJOR changes. Wolves to dogs is very minor and a loss at that- ie no help. The differing sizes of dogs are also of no help.

Major changes mean different body plans requiring different body parts.

The point? In a childish attempt to show that evolution can produce adaptive changes and McDonald even said so, a zealous evoTARD posted MCDONALD – THE GREAT DARWINIAN PARADOX.

The imbecile posts the following:
 From the perspective of the neo-Darwinian geneticist, these challenges have been more irritating than devastating.  Effective counter arguments have been presented showing that strict gradualism is not an inherent characteristic of modern synthetic theory. Moreover, it has been pointed out that what a paleontologist considers a rapid rate of adaptive change may, in fact, be viewed as a quite comfortable pace by neo-Darwinian geneticists.  This the neo-Darwinian view of evolution, whereby adaptive genotypes are drawn from the store of genetic variation that segregates within species, is not necessarily incompatible with the evidence of rapid adaptive change. [my emphasis]
This paragraph pretty much dismantles the entire line of argumentation used by Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt.  I wonder if he even knows about?  The evidence suggests that Meyer has never read this article.  If he has, then he is lying about it.

Dumbass just proved he doesn't have a clue as to what Meyer if referring to. He thinks that just cuz minor adaptions can happen that means major adaptions can happen. Yet that doesn't follow from the evidence as there aren't any minor adaptions that we can extrapolate into the major transformations that are required.

What recent research has shown is that the further back in development you tweak regulation the better the chance you are to get a complete failure . Only subtle tweaks like those of epigenetics, are tolerated. Fruit flies with legs for antennae is not a good sign. Shubin has not been able to cox fish to produce Tiktaalik-like features.

Earth to evolutionists- "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is not a science documentary. And we are not the sum of our genome.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

More Evidence For Intelligent Design: Basic Reproduction is Irreducibly Complex

The origin of life is an issue for all non-design scenarios for the simple reason that living organisms exhibit irreducible complexity throughout, starting with basic reproduction. You just cannot get to a living organism from the alleged RNA World.

Peering into Darwin's Black Box: The cell division processes required for bacterial life:


The smallest living building block of life, the cell, is enormously complex, and a great number of its mechanisms are irreducibly complex. Few theories have been proposed explaining how irreducibly complex mechanisms could have evolved by Darwinian natural selection. It could be argued that given enough time a simple reproducing population of living “protocells” could have provided a format for the evolution of complex mechanisms. However, even in “simple” bacteria, the most basic cell functions display irreducibly complex mechanisms—for instance, cell division. This article considers the origin of an irreducibly complex cell division apparatus and contrasts protocell theory with intelligent design theory.

Mother nature would have an easier time crating Stonehenge than she would creating life, and we all know that she could never produce Stonehenge...

Saturday, April 11, 2015

"It Looks Designed" is a Valid Scientific Criteria

Thanks to Jerad "it looks designed" is a scientific criteria and ID is scientific. This is because Jerad thinks that because mitochondria and chloroplasts look like they coulda been bacteria that means they were and endosymbiosis is true.

Thanks Jerad

Thursday, April 09, 2015


Who is that girl in the doorway?

She just wanted to be friends...

Thursday, April 02, 2015

More Entailments for Unguided evolution

Along with change and stasis we also have disease and deformities.

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

Mother Nature's April Fool's Joke

There is still 2 feet of snow covering over 80% of my yard (a couple spots have 5x5x5 foot piles).

The Entailments for Unguided Evolution!

Yes, it appears that the entailments for unguided evolution are exactly what I have been saying for decades- unguided evolution entails change and stasis. That's some powerful shit there, I tell ya.