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

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

March for Science or a march for Dogma?

-
It is a sad day when people who don't understand a concept feel that they have to march to try to protect it from people who disagree with them. That is exactly what happened this past weekend. People, who live in cities- cities being the biggest nature-killer and cause of any manmade issues nature has- marched to try to, by sheer force of will, make everyone else understand that they are the protectors and projectors of science. Science has shown that urban heat islands are real. Observations and experiences demonstrate that urban sprawl destroys the natural ecosystems.

That's right- by sheer force of will and not via rigorous testing, ie science- they want to drown out all who disagree. And yes this is the very thing the Church did all too well. Heck it is the very thing those who crave or have power do to protect that power. It is what makes North Korea what it is. Those who marched should be very proud of themselves for the company they keep.

Science didn't say that CO2 is a pollutant. Science says CO2 is required to sustain the planet. Science didn't say that the climate is so sensitive to parts per million changes in atmospheric CO2 that man ought not keep burning fossil or any fuels that add to it. Only some scientists and laypeople are saying that- absent science to support them.

The point is that science doesn't need people to march for it as it stands and falls by the weight of evidence and testability. It is only when you don't have those that you would march or pound the table. And that is why all of those people marched. Sad, really.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Why RNA Editing is evidence for Intelligent Design

-
RNA editing is in the news again. I wonder if evoTARDs realize editing is the antithesis of blind and mindless processes- I doubt it as they seem impervious to logic and reason.

Why is (RNA) editing evidence for Intelligent Design? It takes knowledge to edit. Knowledge of what to edit, how to edit and when to edit, at a minimum are required. All of our observations and experiences say that editing requires knowledge and an intentional agency. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can edit anything. No one knows how that would even work. But then again evolutionists don't care about evidence.

Monday, April 03, 2017

The Skeptical Zone, Where Opinions and Bald Declarations Pass for Science

-
The good ole skeptical zone is a place where opinions and bald declarations pass for science and when you call them on it you are called for spamming. Case in point for opinions and bald declarations passing for science- an evoTARD named rumraket sed:
Common descent is a consequence of isolation of reproducing populations, whether there is natural selection or not
No evidence just a bald declaration. Nothing testable just a bald declaration based on rumrat's personal belief. But TSZ's evos think it's science. Rumrat is the same imbecile who thinks it takes the right mutations to doit.

Then Allan Miller chimes in:
Common descent needs no mechanism other than descent and isolation.
More opinion and bald declaration but still no evidence nor a way to test the concept. Again this is what passes for science over on TSZ.

Perhaps voles just didn't get those "right" mutations:
The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genusMicrotus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.
Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:
•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.
A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.
"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.
In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.
Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.
"I have seen absolutely no evidence of mating between different species," Triant said. "We don't know how they do this, but scent and behavior probably play a role."
An isolation of reproducing populations with nothing to suggest voles can evolve into something other than voles.

Also these morons think that 29+ evidences for macroevolution is a scientific case. Yet it isn't as it cannot be validated as a test/ evidence for macroevolution. It is all opinion and the part on nested hierarchies is easily refuted. For example Theobald sez:
As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as anested hierarchy.
And yet figure 1 doesn't show that. It shows parent populations giving rise to extant daughter populations after X number of generations. It allegedly shows which daughter populations came from which parent populations. And the daughter populations, ie groups, are not within the parent populations, ie other groups.
The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.
And yet Linnaean taxonomy, which has nothing to do with a branching evolutionary process, is a nested hierarchy. As a matter of fact Theobald calls on it as if it is what Common Descent expects! The US Army, which also has nothing to do with a branching evolutionary process, is also a nested hierarchy. Methinks Theobald is a clueless dolt who will say anything to try to protect his personal beliefs.

And then, regarding gender, a complete moron sez:
Your thoughts regarding gender are as deep and as relevant as your thoughts regarding biology.
Umm gender and biology go hand in hand. There isn't any science behind transgenderism. None, nada, nothing, zip. It is a mental disorder that should not be enforced and enabled. But being a liberal is also a mental disorder so I can see where liberals would have some feeling of belonging with transgendered people.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Why Universal Common Descent is a Non-Starter

-
EvoTARDs, like those running and commenting on TSZ, are clueless losers. They actually believe universal common descent is a scientific concept even though given starting populations of prokaryotes they don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond more populations of prokaryotes! UCD is a non-starter in reality and scientifically.

So where did Theobald and others go wrong? They posited an untestable concept. Not only that they don't even have a mechanism- Theobald's evidence is minus any mechanism- and he ignores common design because he is most likely ignorant of the concept- which is very common for the evoTARDs.

So to be clear the evidence for universal common descent assumes it is true and then shoe-horns the evidence to fit it.

Saturday, April 01, 2017

keiths, still ignorant of science

-
When keiths isn't using his ignorance to try to bash religion he uses it to prove he is ignorant of science. keiths sez:
Universal common descent is an established scientific result, not an assumption.
Bullshit. It isn't scientific because the concept cannot be objectively tested. And also if it can't be tested it cannot be established. Heck science can't even tell us what makes an organism what it is. All we do know is that a human baby is born when there is a successful mating of a male and female human. Cats come from cats. Dogs come from dogs. Bacteria only yield more bacteria.

You can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given populations of prokaryotes.

This must be why evolutionism is gaining in popularity- up from 8% to 19%- scientific illiteracy.

Added-

keiths is doubling-down on his ignorance:
Tell us exactly where Theobald’s arguments fail.
LoL! WRONG! It is up to YOU to tell us where he is right and support that with actual science. Were he went wrong is obvious- he has no idea if the evidence he cites is evidence for universal common descent, he just assumes that it is cuz he can't think of anything else that can explain it. And yet a Common Design explains it all rather nicely. Only a moron would think that universal common descent with all of its numerous nested hierarchy wreaking transitional forms would predict a nested hierarchy. Enter Theobald, keiths and most evoTARDs.

Theobald doesn't even know what makes an organism what it is. And because of that he doesn't have any idea what has to be changed for universal common descent to be a valid concept.

Like I said earlier- given populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond more populations of prokaryotes. And tat means universal common descent is a non-starter.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Why Gene Duplication is NOT a Viable Blind Watchmaker Mechanism

-
Evolutionists love to call on gene duplications to explain genetic similarities between different genes and to also explain how new genes arise. They say the new genes are duplicated genes tat have accumulated mutations that changed them. But is this viable? I say that it is NOT viable for blind and mindless processes, ie the posited mechanisms of evolutionism. It isn't viable for several reasons:

1- The duplicated gene needs a new binding site. And despite Art Hunt's protestation binding sites do not get duplicated along with the gene- see Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment.

2- The duplicated gene needs to be in the correct position on the spool or it will never be seen to be expressed even if it had a binding site.

3- Waiting for two mutations makes it very clear that creating a new binding site from scratch will be very time consuming

4- To change the gene requires specific mutations which in turn are very time consuming- see step 3's paper

So when you see/ hear evolutionists claim gene duplications you know they are desperate and ignorant of what that entails.

Monday, March 27, 2017

A Clueless Tomato Addict

-
The Skeptical Zone is rife with scientifically illiterate evoTARDs. And it is very telling that they never apply their "skepticism" to the claims of their own position. But anyway am imbecilic tomato addict recently chimed in with:
If ID Creationism is any sort of science, then this is a perfectly fair question.
First ID Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Second tat pertains to the "how did the Designer do it?" question. And yes it is a fair question but it doesn't have anything to do with ID which deals with the detection and study of design in nature. We don't have to know how something was designed and manufactured to determine it was designed and manufactured. The how comes after. We don't even ask that question until intentional design has been determined to exist. The how is a separate question.

So yes, one of the research questions ID opens up is the how was the design implemented proving that ID is not a scientific dead-end.
If IDC is not science, then we can only expect continued criticism of real science.
It never says what this alleged real science is that ID criticizes. It also doesn't realize that it is the duty of all people to question science. If we couldn't do that then we would still have a geocentric view of the solar system.

But anyway it is a lie to say that ID criticizes real science- a tactic used by losers in an attempt to distract from the fact they are scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's.