Elizabeth Liddle is Proudly Ignorant

-
Lizzie should stick to neuroscience if she is any good at it. She sucks at understanding biology. Lizzie spewed this bit of trope:

The DNA-mRNA-tRNA-amino acid mapping is physical.

WRONG! The genetic code is ARBITRARY, Lizzie. That means there isn't any physical mapping.

A physical mapping would have the codons transforming into the amino acids, but they do not. Codons REPRESENT amino acids.

It is amazing the things tat evoTARDs spew to try to defend their position. Lizzie Liddle is a master of lies and misrepresentations when it comes to "defending" her position. Lizzie goes on to spew:

No evolutionist disputes that evolution is capable of producing “semiosis” otherwise they wouldn’t claim that it produced human beings.

LoL! EVIDENCE- those evolutionists don't have any evidence that unguided evolution can produce  semiosis nor humans. They don't even know what makes a human a human. She then throws in a strawman for good measure:

I still come back to my point that if a Designer was involved in tinkering around with nucleotides, then that Designer was exerting force on molecules that opposed the forces we know about. 

ID doesn't say anything about the Designer tinkering around with nucleotides. Obviously Lizzie has other issues and should seek help.

Berry Mathematics

-
Strawberries- For the heck of it we planted four strawberry plants (bushes) just to see if we could get enough for a good desert. That was 5 years ago. One plant didn't survive the first year because I ran over it with the lawn mower. By the end of the following spring we had 9 strawberry producing plants. However as with the first year we only got to sample a few strawberries. Our local wild fauna took care of the rest!

That fauna also proved what we all learned in high school biology- animals eat the berries and deposit the seeds in various places when they shit. We now have so many strawberry plants that I haven't stopped to count them. All of the original 4 are long gone and their place is now just grass. No sign they were ever in that spot. Our neighbors have strawberry plants. There are strawberry plants by the sides of the near-by roads. And our flower garden is now also a strawberry field. The black-eyed susan population has been severely diminished. There are strawberry plants by the shed. Strawberry plants amongst the weeds.

Strawberry math: 4 strawberry plants - 1 strawberry plant + strawberry lovin' critters = strawberries plants for the neighborhood

And don't get me started on the raspberry bushes we planted...

An Open Letter to Casey Luskin

-
Earth to Casey Luskin- In a recent ENV post you stated:

Simply put, Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory and there's nothing illegal in teaching about a scientific theory (however scientifically flawed) in public schools.

Darwinian evolution is not a scientific theory- I bet you cannot reference a scientific theory of evolution. In the Prologue of "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?", geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti goes over that very thing. Your Discovery Institute Press published the book so perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it.

Teaching evolutionism in schools promotes atheism- it is an atheistic agenda that drives it. That makes it in violation of the FIRST amendment. (I did it again)

You then go on and talk about other Court cases. In one case you talked about knowledge. Yet filling kids' heads with hubris is the antithesis of knowledge. Teaching lies is never a good thing.

You also said:

The court made very clear that evolution is not a religious concept: "'Evolution' and 'evolutionism' define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. 

That "biological concept" is untestable and therefor not scientific. That means it doesn't add knowledge as it isn't based on knowledge

So it looks like we have had some very wimpy attempts at getting the Courts to see the light  wrt evolutionism. Strange that Casey can't see that but only sees them as failures.

Spot the Contradiction

-
Out of one side of their mouths we get:

"It doesn't look designed."

Out of the other side we get:

"The environment is the designer." 

The expected flailing:

"It doesn't look like it was designed by some intelligent agency. It looks like the environment donedidit, cuz we noes the environment, so don't question it."

These are the same people who think that "The Island of Dr. Moreau" is a science documentary. Just sayin'...

Climate Change- New Paper Says Most of the Change has been Natural

-
The 19th century saw an end to the little ice age. That means the earth has been getting warmer, thankfully. A warm earth is better than a cold earth.

An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures:

“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. “

Thanks to CO2 the earth is greener now than back in the 19th century. Greener is better, too.

Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. And soot on snow causes it to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing.

Neil Rickert Chokes Again

-
The more I read Neil Rickert the more it becomes obvious the guy is a miserable ignoramus. Neils spews a load of bullshit:

The trouble with the design argument, is that it is based on misunderstanding biology. The ID proponents repeatedly describe evolution as unguided random chance. But there is a lot of internal guidance within biology, so there is a lot of self-design. A developing organism is designing itself during that development period. The DNA is not an exact specification of how the organism should develop.

Fuck you Neil. We understand biology better than you ever will. Evos say evolution is unguided random chance. Sure they say that natural selection is non-random but it is only non-random in the sense that not all variations have the same probability of being eliminated. All mutations are still accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. It is all just contingent serendipity. There isn't any self-design, either. Neil just made that up because he is clueless. The DNA is not a specification of how the organism will develop.

Origin of life, I’ll grant as unexplained at present. But, once life originates, evolution is itself a design process. The ID people deny this, because to admit it would be to debunk most of their argument.

Only Intelligent Design Evolution can design. Natural selection and drift cannot design anything as they are impotent. Evidence, Neil- all of your spewage is evidence-free.

The reason why evolutionists exist is because they are all ignorant of science and even more so about ID.

Intelligent Design Should be Promoted as Science

-

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

And reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer and any process used,  is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Archaeology shows us how difficult it is to pin down a specific designer and methods used. And they deal with things that are within our capabilities to reproduce.

As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution

The DESIGN is what we have to study. Again, archaeologists cannot study the alleged artisans of their artifacts.

Science asks 3 basic questions

1. What’s there?
   The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?”
2. How does it work? 
   A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?”
3. How did it come to be this way?
   Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

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.

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.”

Science has uncovered many biological structures, systems and subsystems that fit that description. And there isn't a P(T|H) for any of them.

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe

ID seeks to answer the three basic questions. ID is based on observation, experience and knowledge of cause and effect relationships. The design inference follows Newton's four rules and can be falsified.

So based on the definitions and criteria of science, Intelligent Design should be promoted as science. 

Active Information is Complex Specified Information

-
Complex specified information is a general classification. Active information is a more specific class of CSI. It's a nested hierarchy thing- {CSI{active information}}. Perhaps that is what confuses evoTARDs who say that active information has replaced CSI.

The specification paper (Dembski 2005) was a supplement to CSI, and does not supersede it. Algorithmic specified complexity is a way to quantify any given specification. In that sense it seems to supersede or at least supplement that 2005 paper which used only probabilities to try to quantify specification.

SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting EvoTards

-
In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:

The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:

"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)

(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:

In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria

An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak

Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:

Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -

Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

 SETI, ID, archaeology and forensic science all use the same processes to determine if intelligent design exists or not.

The New EvoTARD War Cry

-
Yes, it is desperation time for evoTARDs as they roll out a new war cry- "Living organisms do not look designed!" One moron even sed that the fact living organisms reproduce distinguishes it from other designs. What a dumbass as reproduction is the very thing evoTARDs can't explain!

What a bunch of desperate cowards. Too bad for them they don't have a viable alternative than Intelligent Design to explain living organisms and their systems and subsystems. So of course they need to try Jedi mind tricks.

Strange that Darwin, the only person to attempt a theory of evolution, devised natural selection as a process to produce design without a designer. There are articles about it too- see "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer" by Francisco J. Ayala.

The desperation is obvious and pathetic. But it is all they have.

Joe Felsenstein- Still Clueless about Complex Specified Information

-
This fatass may be good at population genetics but that would be his limit. Joe Felsenstein sed:

With Dembski’s previous (pre-2006) definition of CSI (what Sal once called CSI1), CSI was intended as showing that the degree of adaptation was out of reach of “chance” processes such as pure mutation, unaided by natural selection. The Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was then supposed to guarantee that CSI could not be achieved by other evolutionary forces, such as natural selection.

That is incorrect. CSI is about origins. Once natural selection kicks in we already have what needs to be explained.

The LCCSI turned out not to prove any such thing, so there was no guarantee that CSI1 could not be put into the genome by natural selection.

There isn't any evidence for it, either.

Enter CSI2. It has the additional condition that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it. At which point CSI became, not a way to show that natural processes could not achieve the adaptation, but an after-the-fact designation that you could only use if you had some other method of proving that natural processes could not do the job. From a central tool, CSI became an after-the-fact add-on of no importance.

That is just Joe's ignorance talking as CSI does not have any such quality. It does not matter how it arose, it is just that no one has ever observed unguided processes producing CSI. We don't have any experience with such a thing. It would be like saying nature can build cars, produce artifacts, and everything else normally left to solely to intelligent agencies.

CSI exists REGARDLESS of how it came to be. There isn't any criteria that says CSI only exists if an intelligent agency did it. Joe Felsenstein is blissfully ignorant of CSI, ID and all ID concepts.

Felsenstein is confusing the fact that there isn't any known processes other than intelligent design that can produce CSI with "that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it." That's an elementary school mistake from a university professor.

The Explanatory Filter (EF) in Action

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless they don't understand how archaeology, forensic science and SETI go about making a design inference. They don't seem to be able to grasp Newton's four rules of scientific investigation:

Sir Isaac Newton was a significant contributor to the Scientific Revolution. Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigorous experimentation, and he published four rules of scientific reasoning in Principia Mathematica (1686) that form part of modern approaches to science:

1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.

Newton’s rules of scientific reasoning have proved remarkably enduring. His first rule is now commonly called the principle of parsimony, and states that the simplest explanation is generally the most likely. The second rule essentially means that special interpretations of data should not be used if a reasonable explanation already exists. The third rule suggests that explanations of phenomena determined through scientific investigation should apply to all instances of that phenomenon. Finally, the fourth rule lays the philosophical foundation of modern scientific theories, which are held to be true unless demonstrated otherwise. This is not to say that theories are accepted without evidence, nor that they can’t change – theories are built upon long lines of evidence, often from multiple pieces of research, and they are subject to change as that evidence grows.

That means if necessity and chance can account for something then we don't infer a designer was required as that would be admitting a cause that is not required.

What's the point? The point is all design inferences use the EF or some reasonable facsimile thereof. That means archaeology uses it. Forensic science uses it. SETI uses it. Insurance investigators use it. If they don't then they have a high risk of having their design inference overturned. That's because all someone else has to do is demonstrate that nature could do it and that design inference is shit.

So the next time someone sez that no one uses the EF just call that person an ignoramus and be thankful they are not an investigator.

The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

-
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh 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.”

Salvador Cordova is a Moron

-
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse I see that Sal has a post on TSZ titled There is no positive case for ID or special creation. However reading it it becomes clear that Sal doesn't have a clue.

Earth to Sal, a positive case can be made from circumstantial evidence. A positive case can be and has been made for ID as ID has testable entailments.

Sal is so lost he thinks that because science works via inferences that no positive case can be made- Sal ALL science is by inference. He thinks the design inference isn't a positive case!

Sal if you have an inference one way or the other it is because there is a case for one or the other.

The positive case for ID is simple:

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh 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.”

So fuck off, Sal, we can make a positive case for ID just as archaeology and forensic science make positive cases for intelligent design.

Evolutionists LIE- No Theory of Evolution

-
In 1859 Darwin's book "On the Origins of Species..." was published. In it he offered ideas on evolution. It wasn't really a theory as it didn't offer up what theories require, namely testable entailments, hypotheses and quantification. Darwin also had no clue how traits were passed on and he thought bears evolved into whales.

Fast forward to today and although Darwin's idea has been expanded upon there still isn't any theory of evolution. If we want to read about gravity we have Newton's work and Einstein's works. Both are complete with equations we can use to check the premise of their ideas. That is how theories are- clear and concise with equations to back them up. Evolution doesn't have any of that. It isn't a theory. It can't even muster testable entailments nor hypotheses. It cannot be modelled. It is useless as a research heuristic. No one uses it for anything.

Evolutionists will lie and tell you there is a theory of evolution. But they will NEVER link to it nor reference it. They just "know" it exists yet they cannot say what it entails.

Evolutionists are pathetic cowardly liars.

Elizabeth Liddle's Mistake

-
Elizabeth Liddle needs to just shut up or she risks proving to everyone that she is a old fat moron. I have corrected her on her appallingly bad post about Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" but she is dredging up her diatribe to try to show that Meyer was stupid. Lizzie proves she is clueless in attack on Meyer. She is so stupid that she doesn't even read Meyer's references that support his claims. She doesn't read Darwin who Meyer quotes. Pathetic.

Lizzie spews:

All branching events, in Darwin’s proposal, whether the resulting lineages end up as different phyla or merely different species, start in the same way, with two populations where there once was one, and a short morphological distance between them.  It is perfectly true that the longer both lineages persist for, the greater the morphological distance will become.  But that isn’t because they started different, or because the phyla come later.  It’s because what we call phyla are groups of organisms with an early common ancestor,  whose later descendents have evolved to form a group that has a large morphological distance from contemporary populations who descended from adifferent early common ancestor.

No, dumbass, phyla require a whole new set of definitions. Phyla do come later, they have to. Read Darwin and buy a vowel.

In "One the Origins of Species..." Darwin says what Meyer claims he said- that you start with a species and then from there you can get genera and from that you get families and so on. Meyer also quotes Roger Lewin from a peer-reviewed article to support his claim. And paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine and Jack Sepkoski are also quoted in support of that premise.

Phyla come later, Lizzie. Phyla come after there is a great deal of diversity between populations. It starts off slow and accumulates- that is the whole premise of evolutionism.

Lizzie attacks one of Meyer's drawings and calls it "appalling". Yet it is only "appalling" to the ignorant as it portrays exactly what Darwin states in "On The Origins of Species...", chapter 4. Read it and buy a vowel, Lizzie. Your ignorance is really tiring.

To read why Meyer is right and Liddle is wrong, just read Cambrian Explosion

ETA:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

Defaltegate- Can They Suspend Brady?

-
Will Tom Brady be suspended in the wake of the "Deflategate" investigation? Any good lawyer could skewer the NFL if they did- chain of custody of the evidence, for one. According to the report, if we assume the Colt's at their word that 13.0 PSI was their target, then both sets of balls lost air pressure. Most of the Patriots' footballs were within tolerance- below 12.5, but that is what they started at- but within the drop that the Colts' balls had. Only 3 footballs could be said to have been lower than normal and I bet one of those was the ball the Colts intercepted and tested. Testing leaks air.

So if they try to suspend Brady they will be in for a world of hurt. They have no evidence connecting him with anything but making sure the balls were OK- and that means set to 12.5 psi before the game.

The text messages that referred to deflating footballs is easily covered by the fact they said some balls were well OVER- inflated, up to 16 psi. So to get the balls down to 12.5 guess what has to happen?

All the NFL can say is Tom didn't fully cooperate. If they suspend him for that then they are just a bunch of losers.

Why Unguided Evolution is Anti-Science

-
Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution because natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not see ahead nor does it plan. That means it is nothing more than contingent serendipity. That is nice for poetry, perhaps, but it isn't science. It isn't science because it offers up no models, no entailments and no way to test its claims. Also it cannot be measured and science mandates measurements/ quantification. No one can say how many mutations it takes to evolve a bacterial flagellum from a population that never had one. No one even knows if such a thing is possible, given the blind watchmaker.

No one can present ONE peer-reviewed paper tat explicitly states that ATP synthase arose via unguided evolution. And that is because what I said above- no models, no entailments and no hypotheses.

And to top it all off no one uses unguided evolution for anything- it is a useless heuristic.

Richie Hughes- Ignorant Liar of Nested Hierarchies

-
Richie the big coward Hughes has spewed that I am wrong in my assessment of evolutionism and nested hierarchies. That means Darwin, Mayr, Denton, Wagner, et al., are also wrong. Unfortunately for Richie he just spewed that I am wrong without actually trying to show that I am.


Nested hierarchies require distinct groups. That is their trademark, just look at Linnaean Classification and all existing nested hierarchies- oops she doesn't know what they are!

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

and

There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

and

The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

AGAIN, Linnaean taxonomy is the observed nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with descent with modification. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with descent with modification.

Transitional forms, by their very nature, would ruin a nested hierarchy by blurring the lines of distinction.

Evos are so stupid that they think that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree pattern that all branching tree patterns form a nested hierarchy.

Rich TARD Hughes is a pathetic imp who couldn't explain what a nested hierarchy is nor why unguided evolution would predict one. Well all evoTARDs fit that category.

Fair Die?

-
An evoTARD has asked, "is there such a thing as a fair die?"

Yes, there is. A die can be measured and weighed to see if it has all the proper dimensions and weight distribution. If it haz that then it is a fair die.

ETA:

I wonder if JoeG or any other ID supporter would care to comment on that specifically? Would they accept such a determination of fairness made solely on the outcome of trials rather than the construction of the die?

No, the outcome of trials is used to verify the measurements. Why would you want to limit yourself? If you had to use one you go with the dimensions, weight distribution and perhaps composition via x-ray.

The "Best" Evidence? Another case of Liddle's Cluelessness

-
The following is allegedly the most persuasive evidence for unguided evolution:

But some classics would be:

The Grants’ work on Galapagos Finch Beaks
Endler’s work on guppies
Lenksi et al’s work both on bacteria and on AVIDA
The discovery of Tiktaalik as predicted
The discovery of Ediacaran fauna
Virtually any palaeontological studies using phylogenetic analysis
Population Genetics work on drift
Molecular biological studies on the primate Vitamin C gene
Most of biological anthropology.
The success of GAs to actually design things that have stumped human designers.

There’s a start, anyway!

That isn't a start, it's a total failure!

The Grant's work doesn't support unguided evolution. Endler's work doesn't either. Lenski- nope. The discovery of Tiktaalik didn't have anything to do with unguided evolution. And GAs model intelligent design evolution.

Elizabeth Liddle has proven that she is a clueless equivocator. She even thinks that selection and elimination are the same process because they both have elimination and survivors.

Piotr Gasbag (Gasiorowski)- Douchebag

-
Earth to Piotr- you have proven you don't know anything about nested hierarchies. I have referenced support my claims. If you want to discuss it then come here. If not then shut up. You have already eaten it once so I would understand why you would shy away.

Elizabeth Liddle- Proudly Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
Elizabeth Liddle is either very ignorant or very dishonest. Methinks it is both. She sed:

You have misunderstood the meaning of the term “nested hierarchies” then. Try “phylogenies” – it means the same thing, and they do not require discrete groups.

Imbecile, phylogenies are not nested hierarchies. They are NOT the same thing. Obviously you are ignorant of the concept.

Nested hierarchies require distinct groups. That is their trademark, just look at Linnaean Classification and all existing nested hierarchies- oops she doesn't know what they are!

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

and

There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

and

The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really [I]is[/I] the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake [I]Eupodophis[/I] from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

Pathetic, just pathetic.