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, September 15, 2017

Alan Fox: Still Proudly Clueless

Alan Fox doesn't think there is a distinction between micro-evolution, ie variation within a population like skin and fur color, and macro-evolution, the evolution of new body plans requiring new body parts. Strange, that. Ala sez:
I’m not convinced that “macroevolution” is a useful term when discussing evolutionary processes. It suggests a different process to microevolution. Sure, when looking back one might refer to macroevolutionary change over a long period but the process is not different.
And yet there aren't any micro-evolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macro-evolution. And that is very telling. Anti-biotic resistance doesn't have a chance of producing macro-evolution. The change in moth color predominance doesn't explain the moth.

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)
Different genes, Alan. That alone means the processes are different and that macro isn't just an accumulation of micro. I know that you want that to be the case but you don't have any evidence to support it. But then again I know that the lack of evidence has never stopped you from spewing your nonsense.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Climate Change: Vindicated- The Number One Cause is

Animal agriculture:

I knew I was missing something when I said and have always maintained that AGW is bullshit. I though about the impact of cities and their urban heat island effect. I knew it factored in and was most likely the biggest factor, but I was stuck in a box- the fossil fuel burning CO2 box. Now I have broken free of that claptrap.

Animal agriculture is the NUMBER 1 cause of (human induced) climate change BY FAR! The amount of land it takes up; the amount of resources, especially fresh water, it drains; the amount of deforestation that goes on to sustain it; the amount of waste it creates; and the amount of greenhouse gasses it produces far exceeds everything else we do.

Humans and our animals now make up about 98% of the animal biomass. Burning fossil fuels dwarves in comparison to the environmental havoc and damage animal agriculture causes.

Our bullshit eating practices are killing us from the inside and from the outside. The cause of diabetes is a diet rich in animal fat. The fat lines the cells and blocks the intake of the sugars. The sugars then accumulate in the blood stream and bidda-bing, bidda-boom, diabetes.

The runoff from this industry is what is killing our oceans. The greenhouse gasses produced by this industry surpass what all our artificial emissions produce. The sheer amount of shit produced boggles the mind and pollutes our waters and lands.

In 1979 I stopped eating meat because of the way the animals were treated and for health reasons. I never really grasped what our eating habits did to the planet.

It is very telling that Al Gore doesn't bring this up

Wednesday, August 09, 2017

LoL! Another Ignorant "Argument" Against Intelligent Design

Robin, from the TSZ ilk, has hit a new low. Robin sez that because living organisms don't come with replacement parts they aren't intelligently designed! Can you believe that bit of amazing stupidity and ignorance?

Too bad Robin doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing living organisms. Nor does Robin have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. All Robin has is the ability to spew bullshit, lie, misrepresent and equivocate.

And they wonder why we call them "evoTARDs"...

The only reason to doubt ID would be due to the fact that blind and mindless processes have been shown to produce what ID says required an intelligent designer. Absent that why would anyone take the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes seriously?

Sunday, August 06, 2017

OMagain Proudly Willfully Ignorant

OMagain is one pathetically clueless ignoramus. Its new post is on how ID says the eye originated. Earth to OMagain- ID says that eyes originated by intentional design. The problem is OM is all upset because its position doesn't have a scientific explanation for eyes so it tries to take it out on ID.

Evolutionism is the position that claims to have a step-by-step process for producing systems like the vision system. All we are doing is asking for it. On the other hand ID does NOT make such a claim and as such doesn't need to support it. OMagain is too stupid to be able to understand that.

What ID has is a step-by-step process for determining intentional design exists. And when applied to eyes/ vision systems they churn out of the process as intentionally designed systems and parts.

If OMagain had any balls all he has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes, like natural selection and drift, can produce eyes and vision systems and the ID claim is falsified. But OMagain will never do that. Not one evolutionary biologist will ever do that. That is because theirs is a dogma not subject to scientific testing.

OMagain, constantly proving that evolutionists are willfully ignorant cowards.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Separating the Ideology from the Science?

Over on TSZ, a safe zone for evoTARDs, OMagain posts this bit of cluelessness:
A charge has been made that evolution seems to be a popular religion here at TSZ and that it is difficult to separate the ideology from the science.
That all depends on what you mean by "evolution". If by "evolution" you mean:
the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
Then there isn't any science. It's all ideology. No one knows how to test that claim and because of that it remains outside of science.

The modern synthesis was supposed to be an upgrade to Darwin's idea in that it included genetics. That means all changes have to be unpacked at the genetic level. It became meaningless to call on anatomical features, for example varying complexities of vision systems, to support the above definition of evolution. Without the scientific evidence that the required transformations were accountable via genetic change you don't have a viable mechanism. And thanks to Wagner's "Arrival of the Fittest" we see that even changing the DNA sequence of a gene doesn't mean you change the protein it codes for. Mutations become a long walk in the same place.

The point being is where OMagain doesn't "see any examples of where evolution is treated like a religion at TSZ", the rest of the world is still waiting for the science.

Larry Moran- Still Choking on Junk DNA

Larry Moran will tell you that 90% of our genome is junk. However when pressed it becomes clear his assessment is based on his ignorance and his belief in evolutionism. His belief in evolutionism has him looking for what he thinks are conserved regions of DNA as such conservation is allegedly a sign of function. Conserved here means alleged related populations also carry them.

If our genomes are 90% junk that would mean that histone octamers evolved by means of blind and mindless processes to spool up that junk and package it in a way such that the functional parts are accessible by the cells. Total bullshit, that. When this is brought to his attention he deals with it by deleting the post because Larry, in the end, is a willfully ignorant coward who cannot let the facts get in the way of his spewage.

The real truth here is that at least 90% of what Larry Moran posts is junk.

Thankfully Larry retired from teaching this year and perhaps now the University of Toronto will become a place of higher learning.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Sexual Reproduction- Still Unanswered by Evolutionism

Evolutionism is the claim that all of life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes starting from some unknown replicators. It is an untestable claim that has no business being taught in science classrooms.

One of its untestable claims is that sexual reproduction somehow evolved by blind and mindless processes, which is just one of the untestable claims evolutionism makes.

The first problem is meiosis. Now I am sure that you can search the internet and find articles on the evolution of sexual reproduction. Go ahead and read them. You will see they are full of speculation based on the assumption that sexual reproduction did evolve. Not one will contain any science that demonstrates what the papers say is true. And that is the crux of the problem.

The same can be said for the alleged evolution of meiosis. That is still all speculation and as such doesn't belong in a science classroom. You cannot have sexual reproduction without meiosis. And seeing that natural selection and drift (blind and mindless processes) rely on trial and error it makes you wonder how those processes could have hit on meiosis. Did the first offspring of the first sexually reproducing populations have a full complement of both parents' DNA? If they did and survived then meiosis was required at that step. But think about the next generation and all the DNA those cells would carry. Sooner, rather than later, the cells would be overloaded with DNA.

That said, once sexual reproduction took hold it all but ended any hope of Common Descent (ie fish giving rise to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, etc.). This is due to the very nature of sexual reproduction. Sexually reproducing populations tend to keep the norm and reign in any that try to deviate from it. That creates a wobbling stability but a wobbling stability does not create the type of changes required by Common Descent.

Meiosis and sexual reproduction- more evidence that living organisms were Intelligently Designed. Why? Because meiosis requires forethought and planning. You have to know to get rid of half of each parent's DNA so that the offspring wouldn't be loaded down with extra DNA. Blind and mindless processes don't plan. Whatever happens and happens to work usually gets kept.

Friday, June 23, 2017

How to Find Another Habitable Planet

Stephen Hawking says we need to get off of this planet before we completely ruin it and are wiped out because of that. I think we a long, long way away from that day but it is good to be prepared. So how do we find another habitable planet?

 Read "The Privileged Planet" as all of what is required is in it. For example we need to look for the right kind of star- yes it must be very similar to our own Sun. Red dwarves are too small, too dim and to be in its habitable zone means the planet would be so close it would be tidally locked, ie rotation = revolution (like our Moon). And that means no protective magnetic field. Red dwarves are out for a habitable planet for humans, anyway.

OK so we start by finding the right type of star. Then we need to see where those stars are. Too close to the center of the galaxy and we run the risk of too much radiation and too many other celestial objects moving about that can wreak havoc on that system.

Then there must be terrestrial planets or moons in that star's habitable zone that we can terraform. Obviously we need water and oxygen, for starters. The place we pick needs to have a magnetic field to protect us from the host star's radiation, which means it has to have a molten iron core and rotation to produce it. And that rotation needs to be stable or else we need to be prepared for climate change the likes we have never seen before- think about the earth tilting such that one of the poles is facing the Sun.

The point being is it isn't enough to find any terrestrial planet.

Factors required to sustain complex life