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

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Design Criteria

-
One prediction of all design-centric venues is that when agencies interact with nature they tend to leave traces of their involvement behind. Most often those traces are in the form of signs of work. IDists have defined what such traces would look like wrt biology:

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.”

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.”

Then we have-

Irreducible Complexity:
IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL

Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

So if what we are investigating fits any of the descriptions above then we have more than enough to check into the possibility that is was designed- meaning we would run it through the explanatory filter. If it gets to the last node and matches any of the above, then we infer it was intentionally designed.

Dr Behe responds to IC criticisms:
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997

31 Comments:

  • At 2:41 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    What a maroon you are. Everything you and behe barf is easily refuted and has been refuted countless times. Grow up, and get over your fairy tale religious beliefs

     
  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi TWiT!

    Strange that if what we say is easily refuted and has been refuted that peer-reviewed journals are void of said refutations which means said refutations mean nothing to science.

    BTW the US Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion. So perhaps you should grow-up and get over YOUR fairy tale religious beliefs.

    But anyway if someone actually has the balls to publish a refutation of Behe's claims in a peer-reviewed journal, please let me know.

    Until then IC still stands, unrefuted.

    Good luck with that...

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Hi Joe,

    I read TWTs comments on another blog. I concluded TWT is she on permanent PMS.

    Maybe even Greta Christina herself although then he and she wouldn't mean much.

    How you do, Greta cazzo culo?

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Eugen,

    Hopefully, whatever it the TWiT is, it hasn't and doesn't mate and have offspring....

    LoL!11!1!

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Interesting earlier post on ATP synthase . I'll have to find more about it online.

     
  • At 5:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The more you find out the better design looks....

     
  • At 1:33 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    eugen,

    Vaffanculo IDiota.

    Basame el chiù.

     
  • At 1:37 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joe,

    Stick to repairing toasters in your basement. Science is way beyond your capabilities.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT,

    Coming from you that means I am a science expert.

    Thanks.

    OTOH you are still a clueless TWiT from the Pac NW...

     
  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger eosimias said…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12871493

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL!:

    The complexity of the clotting cascade has been cited as evidence for the existence of divine intervention.

    How can anyone take that paper seriously when there is a bullshit statement like that in the abstract?

    And then they add question-begging:

    (c) the rapid evolution of the hemostatic mechanism in vertebrates is testimony to the power and versatility of gene duplications and exon shuffling.

    1- ID is not anti-evolution

    2- How was it determined taht gene duplications and exon shuffling are stochastic processes?

    3- Comparative blood-clotting does not help

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger eosimias said…

    Perhaps I should include a link to the entire article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00062.x/pdf

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I read the whole paper, that is how I know about the comparitive blood clotting.

    The paper sure as heck did not demonstrate how any blood clotting system "evolved" via accumulations of random mutations.

     
  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Yeah, joe-blow, I live in the PNW. So what? Do you want to come here and have a face to face chat?

    You keep saying that ID isn't anti-evolution but it's obvious that it is. You and your fellow IDiots are creationists, and you believe that organisms are "created kinds" (baramins) that are not related by common descent/ancestry.

    It has obviously never sunk into your Marsh-racist YEC pea-brain that your lies, contradictions, and bald assertions only show how dishonest and delusional you are.

     
  • At 9:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi TWiT!

    Not even baraminology is anti-evolution you ignorant fuck.

    Ya see you can have natural selection, ie evolution, and not have universal common descent.

    IOW you dumbass, you don't even know what evolution is.

     
  • At 1:17 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    So, you think that natural selection is evolution. That's real interesting, joe.

    1. You regularly say that natural selection does nothing/doesn't occur.

    2. If selection is "natural", your imaginary designer/creator is unnecessary.

    You also say:

    "The ONLY “selection” is ARTIFICIAL selection. Natural selection is an oxymoron as nature does NOT select."

    Here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dna-as-digital-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-409849

    And:

    "Natural selection IS differential reproduction due to heritable random variation."

    Here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/tales-from-the-quote-mine-leading-darwinists-believe-with-or-without-evidence-and-why-it-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-408850

    You seem to have a problem with making up your feeble mind.

     
  • At 5:22 AM, Blogger eosimias said…

    Is this the way you both intend to debate? By seeing who can slander the other more? Rather sad, really.

     
  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    So, you think that natural selection is evolution. That's real interesting, joe.

    What I said was:
    Ya see you can have natural selection, ie evolution, and not have universal common descent.

    That does NOT mean natural selection is evolution. It means if you have natural selection you have evolution but there is more to evolution than just natural selection.

    1. You regularly say that natural selection does nothing/doesn't occur.

    Liar- I say it occurs- ya see moron natural selection is juts a RESULT of differential reproduction due to heritable (random) variation.

    So "that" is all it "does".

    2. If selection is "natural", your imaginary designer/creator is unnecessary.

    Only IF natural seelction can construct new, useful multiprotein configurations, which it can't.

    TWiT quotes me:

    "The ONLY “selection” is ARTIFICIAL selection. Natural selection is an oxymoron as nature does NOT select."

    OK a hint from professor Will Provine is in order:

    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 differential reproduction due to heritable random variation."


    “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition



    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley



    Geez TWiT it appears that I understand the theory of evolution much better than you do. But I already knew that...

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    eosimias,

    How do YOU intend to debate? By just posting bald links with absolutely no explanation on how it supports anything?

    Also TWiT doesn't debate- all it can do is belligernece.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Is there anything you won't lie about, joe?

    You say that natural selection does nothing/doesn't occur, that nature does not select, that there is only artificial selection, but that natural selection is evolution, and that natural selection is differential reproduction due to heritable random variation, and a whole bunch of other contradictory, dishonest, evasive, twisted bullshit.

    Do you remember saying this?:

    5.1
    JoeJanuary 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Umm if you have NS you have evolution.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/stasis/darwinist-evolution-and-no-evolution-are-the-same-thing-it-turns-out/comment-page-1/#comment-417358

    Do you really believe that your own words won't come back to haunt you?

    You don't know squat about evolution.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger eosimias said…

    Joe, I have merely been dipping my toe in the water, to ascertain whether I might want to dive in. However, I find the temperature of the water uncomfortably chilly to say the least. Not particularly conducive for full fledge water sports. I find those already in the water rather antagonistic and uninviting from all sides. I think I'll move on. Best wishes to you all.

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    You say that natural selection does nothing/doesn't occur, that nature does not select, that there is only artificial selection, but that natural selection is evolution, and that natural selection is differential reproduction due to heritable random variation, and a whole bunch of other contradictory, dishonest, evasive, twisted bullshit.

    Hey fuck-head, I provided references to support my claims.

    And yes if you have NS you have evolution. Darwin's book was titled "On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection"

    And how are my words coming back to haunt me considering that I have provided references to support my claims and you have provided absoluetly NOTHING to refute anything I have said?

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a piece of shit evotard...

     
  • At 8:29 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joe, you are the dumbest moron on Earth. Your claims, and your so-called references, contradict each other. If natural selection does NOTHING, then it can't do SOMETHING. When it does SOMETHING, whether mindlessly, mechanistically or otherwise, it's still doing SOMETHING.

    And guess what, joe? Natural selection IS mindless. Ya see, that's the thing about the word "natural". No designing, directing mind is necessary. In other words, your chosen imaginary sky daddy isn't necessary.

    YOU have said on many occasions that things that are directed by an 'intelligent agent' are "artificial". "Natural" selection is not directed by an intelligent agent. That's why it's called "natural".

    You also say that natural selection produces a "result", which, by your own words, means that it does SOMETHING, and SOMETHING isn't NOTHING. There's no such thing as a "result" unless SOMETHING happens.

    Here's a simple example that even you may be able to understand:

    A bunch of rocks fall out of a cliff. The "result" is that the rocks are now at the bottom of the cliff.

    How about one more:

    Two dandelion seeds from different dandelion plants are floating on the wind. One of them lands in dirt and sprouts, then grows and produces seeds and those seeds float on the wind. The other seed lands in the ocean and dies. The "result" is that one of the seeds survives, while the other does not. The plant that produced the seed that landed in dirt has reproduced. The plant that produced the seed that landed in the ocean has not, unless another seed from that plant lands in a suitable place. Get it?

    So, joe, were those seeds directed to their landing places by an intelligent agent?

    By the way, there's a lot more to the ToE than what Darwin proposed, but of course you've been told that thousands of times already. You really should leave science to the people who are able to understand it.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    joe, you are the dumbest moron on Earth. Your claims, and your so-called references, contradict each other.

    You only think so because you are an ignorant fuck.

    If natural selection does NOTHING, then it can't do SOMETHING.

    Then tell me what it does. But I bet you won't because you can't.

    You also say that natural selection produces a "result

    No you stupid fuck, natural selection IS the result!

    By the way, there's a lot more to the ToE than what Darwin proposed, but of course you've been told that thousands of times already.

    Yes I know and I have talked about it.

    Again your ignorance means nothing to me.

    So to sum up TWiT is too fucking stupid to undersatnd what I post and too fucking stupid to understand anything about biology and science in general.

    Natural selection is a result of differential reproduction due to heritable (random) generation.

    It does NOT produce a result, it is the result of three processes, just as I have been saying and have referenced.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Produces a result, is a result, whatever. I knew that you'd jump on the word "produces". You like to play games, don't you?

    The bottom line is that there is a result, that is due to natural selection.

    And you know damn well what the result is, since it has been explained to you many, many, many times.

    So, joe, were those seeds directed to their landing places by an intelligent agent?

    Were the falling rocks from the cliff directed to where they landed?

    Do you remember saying this, joe?:

    "Yes I know there is a random element- not all mutations are directed."

    Tell me, which mutations are "directed" and which ones are "random"?

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    Produces a result, is a result, whatever.

    Whatever? What are you fucking ignorant? Never-mind obviously you are.

    The bottom line is that there is a result, that is due to natural selection.

    No- natural selection IS the result.

    "Yes I know there is a random element- not all mutations are directed."

    Tell me, which mutations are "directed" and which ones are "random"?

    Hey fuck-face- YOUR position sez they are all random so please tell us how that was determined.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    If natural selection does NOTHING, then it can't do SOMETHING.

    Then tell me what it does. But I bet you won't because you can't.

    Another prediction fulfilled....

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    You and your handful of IDiot comrades are the ones who ignore or deny the enormous amount of scientific research that has found no evidence that any imaginary sky daddy had or has anything to do with mutations or anything else.

    You are the ones who claim that you have well developed methods of determining whether anything in nature is or was designed (or directed) or not.

    One example:

    "MathGrrl is stuck on the fact that CSI is just ONE tool in ID’s tool-box of design detection. She thinks it is the only tool."

    You made the claim that you "know" that there's a "random element" and that "not all mutations are directed".

    You also say:

    "The burden is on anyone making a claim."

    Back up your claims, joe, and stop playing your childish game of running away from questions and turning everything around.

    A few more things you've said:

    "Bald claims are meaningless to science."

    "That means you have to produce POSITIVE evidence for what you claim can/ did happen."

    "You can't just say it, you have to show it."

    It's way past time for you to live up to your assertions and demands, joe.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TWiT:
    You and your handful of IDiot comrades are the ones who ignore or deny the enormous amount of scientific research that has found no evidence that any imaginary sky daddy had or has anything to do with mutations or anything else.

    Except we do not, because we cannot, deny that which doesn't exist.

    Not one scientist can even produce a testable hypothesis for "stochastic processes didit".

    You are the ones who claim that you have well developed methods of determining whether anything in nature is or was designed (or directed) or not.

    So does archaeolgy and forensic science. They claim to be able to differentiate between agency and nature, operating freely.

    You made the claim that you "know" that there's a "random element" and that "not all mutations are directed".

    And evotards make the claim that all mutations/ genetic change is random.

    So that means evos have to support their claim.

    As for the claim not all mutations are random- read "Not By Chance"- it has only been around for 15 years- but then again you choose ignorance over anything else.

    So to recap- TWiT cannot stay on-topic, cannot support its claims and obvioulsy has no idea what natural selection is and defeinitely cannot tell us what it does.

    I have lived up to my assertions and demands. Your ignorance means nothing to me.

    OTOH evotards have never lived up to anything but their obvious intellectual cowardice.

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    You're an entirely hopeless, lost cause, joe.

    And you really do need some new material.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That is true- I will never be as ignorant and scientifically illiterate as you are.

    And get some material as any material would be "new" material for you.

    To sum up- TWiT comes here with a bald assertion (as usual). Its bald assertion gets called and TWiT, as predicted, gets belligerent.

    In its belligerence TWiT exposes the fact that it does not understand natural selection.

    This leads to a hissy-fit of belligerence further exposing its ignorance wrt natural selection and other topics.

    TWiT finally calms down enough to figure out that it is hopeless to try to fool an educated person with evotard ignorance.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home