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

Friday, November 22, 2019

Impeaching the President

Can anyone explain to me how anything about the President's Ukrainian contingency amounts to an impeachable offence?


Or is this just a desperate ruse by the cowardly House democrats?

To me the amount of golf he plays is more of an offence that his Ukrainian contingency. And if you REALLY want to get him just have his twitter account suspended...

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Timothy Horton- Scientifically Illiterate Coward

It seems that Tiny timmy has taken issue with my correct call on natural selection being nothing more than contingent serendipity. Timmy says that according to me:
The reason casinos always win money in the long run on slot machines and roulette is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

What a complete dumbass, timmy.  Evos are so clueless they think that casinos use natural selection to make money. How desperate and ignorant are those people, anyway?

Casinos making money is nothing like biology, you desperate fool.

I would love to see the dumbass coward Horton make the case that casinos and natural selection are the same or have something to do with each other.

Casinos make money because the odds are stacked in their favor. And it is ALWAYS like that. With natural selection the odds are stacked in the favor of the fittest but what is fit is all contingent on the environment. And how they became fit was all due to serendipity- a chance mutation or mutations that just happened to provide some advantage.

The bottom line is that casinos make money by means of (intelligent) design.

Timmy doesn't grasp biology and he is just a desperate fool.

Saturday, November 09, 2019

Natural Selection as Contingent Serendipity

Charles Darwin imagined that something he called "natural selection" could, together with time and numerous successive generations, produce the diversity of life from some simple biological replicators. Numerous slight, successive modifications would accumulate while others were culled- eliminated by nature.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
However, there isn't any steadfast rule on what gets eliminated. Most of that depends on the environment. That is, it is contingent on environmental pressures. What survives could be the tallest or shortest; the slimmest or fattest; the slowest or fastest; the best sight or no eyes at all; long legs or no legs; with each of those extremes having numerous intermediate stages.

Ibid page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
Serendipity comes into play with the fact that the genetic variation is left to chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
Anyone who understands natural selection knows it is nothing more than contingent serendipity.
For example, from The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

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

Thanks for the honesty Will. Natural selection is incapable of producing biological complexity. Evos have been promoting bullshit for over 160 years. 

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Frequency = Wavelength- the Test

Some years ago I was having a discussion with olegt about greenhouse gases. We were both presenting papers on the subject, some were discussed the frequency of the emissions while other discussed the wavelengths. Regardless of frequency or wavelength the papers were discussing the same emission spectrum. The same EM waves. Ie frequency = wavelength, in that context.

Enter evoTARDs looking for something to drool over, misrepresent- for YEARs- and ignore all attempts to walk them through it as you would a 4 year old.

So, with that in mind, I ask:

Can any wave be referred to by its frequency or equivalently by its wavelength? For example if one person is talking about CO2’s emissions by their frequencies and another person is using their wavelengths, are those two people talking about the exact same thing?

Nick Matzke is Still an Equivocating Coward

Nick Matzke is a putz, a loser and a grand equivocator. He has co-authored a recent article titled Evolution or intelligent design? Except Intelligent Design is NOT and never has been, anti-evolution. Nick equivocates any and all things "evolution" with blind watchmaker evolution.

Nick is now in New Zealand spreading hos brand of cowardly lies.

Read the article. Notice that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with blind watchmaker evolution's ability to produce anything. It doesn't offer up anything beyond question-begging and arguments from ignorance.
Although the bacterial injectisome (right) has a completely different function to the flagellar motor (left) they both contain nine proteins that are highly structurally and functionally related, which makes it likely that they evolved from common ancestors.
Moar equivocation and the denial of a COMMON DESIGN to explain the similarities. What they do NOT have is any methodology to test the claim that blind watchmaker evolution produced either of those structures.

It's as if Nick Matzke is proud to be an equivocating ass.

Timmy Horton- Question-begging EvoTARD

In an attempt to appear clever, Timmy Horton spewed the following:
I mean, when bats had the mutations to elongate their fingers enabling their hands to act as wings, the bats lost the ability to not fly.
Unfortunately for timmy, that is nothing but question-begging nonsense. There isn't any evidence that bats evolved from non-bats. There isn't even a way to scientifically test the claim that bats evolved from non-bats. If such existed it would be in peer-review and textbooks. And yet those are devoid of such things.

EvoTARDs are such an ignorant lot they think their ignorance is an argument.