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, December 28, 2011

An Open Letter to Climate Change Alarmists

To all climate change alarmists:

I feel your pain but it is misplaced. CO2 is not the culprit. We need to deal with all the other shit we are doing to this privileged planet.

Take a good look at all the ice that is melting- it all has one thing in common-> soot, that is, it is dirty. Dirt traps the heat of the sun and will melt the ice even when the ambient temp is below freezing. (google "soot and global warming")

With all the crap we are doing to this planet, watching you misguided fools froth about CO2, something plants need, plants that we need, makes me sick.

Ya see I do not disagree that we are the bad guys. It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy.

Now stop hyperventilating and just think about it…



Of Probabilities, the Design Inference, Biology and Evolution

In Of Probabilities and the Design Inference I corrected the evotard strawman pertaining to ID.

Another point touched on is that if one knows the probabilities one can use that as a tool to determine the root cause. With cards it is pretty straight-forward because you are working with a defined finite resource.

With biological evolution, rather with the origin of biological organsisms, because evolution depends on the origin (can't have it without it), we cannot say anything about any probabilities because no one can even demonstrate a feasibility.

EvoTards like to laugh at their opponents for trying but they don't understand that by even trying your opponents are being overly generous. And obvioulsy you don't deserve it.

The main problem is no one knows if a living organism is reducible to matter and energy, ie its building blocks. No math can save them. Only Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown mechanism.

So that is my position on probabilities and evolution and biology- they are useless because there isn't any demonstrated feasibility.

(True, evotards try to simplify a living organism by trying to muddy the water wrt the demarcation of living vs inanimate. They really think that a simple replicator that varies can vary its way right up to the diversity of living organisms observed. Then they say the odds of that happening are 1 because here we are. Question-begging 101.)

Cholesterol- Why Lipitor is a Waste of Money

I just read an article that says "Lipitor" is the best selling pharm in history. "Lipitor" is a statin used to reduce "bad" cholesterol levels.

However new research shows that the levels are pretty much meaningless. The new research demonstrates it is the particle size that matters. That means you can have a low number for your "bad" cholesterol but if the particle size is small then you are at serious risk of blockage. And you can have a very high "bad" cholesterol number (say over 300) but if the particle size is large you don't have anything to worry about.

Ya see the reports show that the smaller particles get lodged in the nooks and crannies of your blood vessels (caps, arteries, etc). Then once that happens more small particles latch onto to those and the blockage starts.

The point being is the numbers do NOT matter. So when you have your next cholesterol check make sure your doctor knows enough to have the particle size measured. Small particles = bad.

What does this have to do with "Lipitor"? Unless the drug turns small particles into large particles it isn't doing anyone any good- it is a huge waste of money.

see A New Way to Measure Cholesterol: Particle Size Indicates Risk

The New Blood Lipid Tests -- Sizing Up LDL Cholesterol

Paleontologist Attempting to Test Common Ancestry

Finally someone is going to step-up and put the theory to a test- dinochicken

That is he wants to take a chicken and devolve it until it resembles the dino-ancestor the researcher "knows" it once had.

This is the opposite of my idea of taking fish embryos and mutating them until the fins became limbs.

However his proposal makes a little more sense because if I didn't start with the "right" fish then I would never get the limbs (allegedly). However seeing that chickens had a dino for an ancestor somewhere in their lineage history then it should be easier to get one to revert back (than it is to go forward).

Some people may laugh at this but I say it is about time someone stepped up to at least attempt a test of this nature. Kudos for that.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Of Probabilities and the Design Inference

As we IDists have tried to explain if something is outside or even approaching the universal probability bound, that means given all the resources in the universe it could not or would be very, very difficult to achieve what is being investigated given no agency involvement.

Cards usually comes up as an example. What usually happens after that is some evotard or evotards will erect a strawman of that example.

For example poker and the royal flush. We IDists say that being dealt a royal flush in a poker game is improbable but not impossible. The (approximate) odds of getting one is 649,739 : 1. No one would be suspicious of a cheater, ie design, if someone just gets one royal flush dealt.

But getting dealt, say, 5 royal flushes in a row, even though the odds are the same with each hand, would be a reason to be suspicious of cheating, especially if other hands are also high hands that keep their holders playing and betting.

The other side of that is if you keep getting dealt horrible/ unplayable hands and keep losing your ante. Sooner or later you either have to walk away or shoot someone. And you would be justified either way (although you still may have to do some time).

So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.

The evotard strawman comes in when they just stop at one hand and point out that the odds of getting any hand, say the one you were dealt, are very high. Obviously not realizing that in a poker game the odds of a player getting dealt a hand is 1 and obviously not understanding a design inference requires more than one highly improbable event.


(hey richie retardo is good for something after all)

Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Proves He is a Lying Loser

Yup Kevin is at it again. This time he exposes his ignorance of complex specified information.

In the book "No Free Lunch" Wm Dembski explains the concept very well. He goes over what is complexity, specification and information.

Stephen C. Meyer explains exactly what information is wrt biology. He also explains the specification part wrt biology. This he has done in several of his writings most recently in "Signature in the Cell".

So who is Kevin trying to fool? Must be the fools because no one else pays him any heed.

This is an asshole who says he has been involved in this debate for years yet it is obvious that he doesn't have a clue as to what Intelligent Design is nor what it claims.

Yet all of that is in the pro-ID literature. All it takes is a little reading. Yet obviously Kevin is too stupid to even do that.

Well I posted at his blog but my post won't be shown because Kevvy is too much of an intellectual coward to face reality.

BTW, Kevin, the thing about the royal flush isn't if you get ONE- and it goes for any hand- that being if you are dealt a royal flush for 5 hands in a row you know something other than chance is at play. And the same goes for 3c, 7d, Js, Jd, Qh. You get that same hand for 5 hands in a row and if you aren't suspicious then you are a fool, which you are so you won't notice.

New Evolutionary Disclaimer

A new evolutionary disclaimer is in the works and I have even notified the NCSE about it.

The disclaimer will tell students that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution and it will provide the support for that. It will tell students that ID argues only against stochastic processes having sole dominion over evolution. And it will provide a list of resources, as well as questions to ask the biology teachers who push the theory of evolution.

What I told the NCSE is that by telling students that ID is not anti-evolution it will expose their continued lies to the contrary.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Common Design- What is the Point?

So what is the point of a common design? The point is, based on direct observations and experiences, that a common design leads to a number of similarities. And that means that universal common descent is A) Not the only explanation for observed similarities and B) May not even be the most parsimonious explanation.

A)- One of the most appealing aspects of universal common descent is that it allegedly explains the similarities observed amongst all living organisms. The thinking goes is that you share many similarities with your parents and that is common descent. However we also know that convergent evolution can also explain similarities- and that is without the concept of a common design.

B)- Parsimony-> well for universal common descent there also has to be quite a bit of change. Change that no one even knows is possible so the concept relies on imagination and eons of time.

That said a common design explains the similarities and the differences are explained by the different applications and differing functional requirements.

All houses built to the same building code(s) will have that degree of similarity and the differences are explained by the customer's wants/ requirements (or even budget constraints).

To ThorTard/ Occam's Afterbirth

ThorTard/ OA,

Your next post has to either contain an apology to me for all the lies and false accusations you have spewed about me. OR you had better start supporting your bullshit.

Or fuck off

What part of that didn't you understand?

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Common Design and Standards/ Specifications

It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives. Why is that, you say? Well for one just being involved in building a house you will see bulding standards at work. The studs of a wall will be 16" apart on center- building code/ standard.

Floor joists? The same OR 12" apart on center depending on the load the floor will carry. (yes some can be 24" apart, again depending on the floor's load- I have never seen that spacing).

IEEE? Standards that allow for different companys'equipment to work together.

What does this have to do with a common design? EVERYTHING.

The point being is a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

So if you are building something according to a set of standards (specs), and someone else is building something to the same standards, then both objects will have some degree of similarity due to those standards/ specs.

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

And no using the same specs/ standards does not mean you have to build it the exact same way, ie using the same tools and methodology. All that counts is that the result meet the specs.

But then again seeing that evotards are a totally clueless and useless lot they will not be able to understand any of that.

RichTard Hughes, Proud to be an Ignorant Freak

RichTard Hughes is still in rare form. This it thinks that teh following is a specification:
"I want something to cool me down in the summer"

Obviously RichTard still thinks that its ignorance means something.

Merry Christams!

Specification (technical standard)

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Argues FOR a Common Design

When it comes to a common design pertaining to living organisms evotards always start convulsing and spewing.

However when it comes to designs outside of biology evotards argue for it.

The sad part is they will say I made the whole concept up- the concept of a common design based on standards- and then turn around and use the very same concept.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still a Lying Little Bitch

Yup Oleg Jerkyourselfoff is at it again. This time with the balntant lie:
Your total misunderstanding of the nested hierarchies of clades is legendary. You have been saying the same silly things for years.

Unfortunately for Oleg the lying asshole he never provides any evidence. Sure he links to Telic Thoughts but that doesn't support what he just said- although in his little mind I am sure he thinks it does.

As I have said and supported, clades are constructed based on shared characteristics with a common ancestry being ASSUMED (based on the number of shared characteristics).

IOW once again Oleg proves that he is an ignoramus and very dishonest too:

oleg said:
Joe, give it up already. We've been talking about clades for ages and you still don't understand what a clade is! It is not defined by shared characteristics, it is defined by common ancestry.

Reality check-

intro to cladistics
The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

And also what is cladistics?

The common theme is that they all agree with me.

Go figure...

(I see that Oleg is checking in- John Hopkins IP- but apparently he is too chicken-shit to respond)

Oleg the lying asshole (To “Rudolph…”)

Oleg the lying asshole
Told a lot of fucking lies
And if you ever heard him
Even you would want to cry

All of the other evos
Think his lies are really true
But they’re just a bunch of retards
Eating all the shit he spews

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Clean-up on aisle 7! Real-world Evidence Challenging Planet-formation Models

As I have been saying for decades-> you can only scientifically model what you thoroughly understand.

Case in point Super-Earths give theorists a super headache: An abundance of medium-sized worlds is challenging planet-formation models-
By now, it’s not surprising that NASA’s Kepler space telescope is turning up extrasolar planets by the bushel. Last week, at the first Kepler science conference at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, mission scientists announced that the space telescope has identified 2,326 candidate planets, nearly doubling its haul since February.

But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be.

Kudos for trying but it should be impossible to model the "shit happens and other shit emerges from it", ie materialism, position.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

South Park takes on Scientism

Scientism, the belief that only science can lead to knowledge, is exposed on "South Park"-

Science help us

Monday, December 19, 2011

Is Science the ONLY Way to Find Out Knowledge About the Universe Around Us?

Yup at least one evotard is claiming that "science is the only way to find out knowledge about the universe around us."

To me that means every person is a scientist conducting science. But that is ridiculous.

Observation alone can lead to knowledge. Yes observation is part of science, but again almost all people can observe yet not everyone is a scientist conducting science.

Experiences can also lead to knowledge. Yeah I can hear it now- "experiences are part and parcel of our everyday experimentaion involving observations." Tard.

Detectives use non-scientific methodology to find a suspect of a crime. Sure science is involved in forensics but not every crime has forensic evidence.

So yeah if you want to define "science" so broadly as to encompass everything we do then the evotard would have a point. But it also means we are all scientists and need to be given honorary PhDs.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Natural Selection Declared to be Deterministic!

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.-wikipedia

In a blog Jerry Coyne sez:
A brief correction first: natural selection is not a “random process.” It’s a process that combines the random production of mutations with the deterministic process of natural selection itself. I hope he understands that.

Yet we are also told by other evolutionary biologists that "natural selection" is a result of three processes, one requiring the other two to be true first-> (1)differential reproduction due to (2)heritable (3)[random] variation.

So natural selection combines not only the random production of mutation, but also the random nature of inheritance and the random nature of fecundity, and the result is natural selection.

But the kicker is it ain't all encompassing! That's right some outreproduce others "just because", which means natural selection is tough to pin down and even tougher to follow.

Not only that you could have any number of different/ competing beneficial traits.

The only thing "deterministic" about natural selection is the dead don't reproduce- so given death no more reproduction will happen, ie determinism.

Is that what you mean Jerry? That's some powerful stuff, yessiree...

Friday, December 16, 2011

Mutation Rates Increase in Organisms Under Stress

OK, well, geez- someone was just asking for evidence for increased mutation rates after the Flood, so here it is:

Mutations induced by stress contribute significantly to spontaneous mutation

I am pretty sure the Flood event would be pretty stressful, as would the period of re-occupation.

So several HUNDRED alleles out of several BILLION attempts would seem easily achieved given known mechanisms of genetic recombination, inragenic recombination, insertions, deletions, inversions and stress-induced mutagenesis.

Something God, the Creator, Cannot Do?

EvoTards are such clueless bastards. Now we have Kevin R. McCarthy et al., saying the God, the Creator of DNA and living organisms, would not have had the knowledge to write and insert a genetic algorithm that controls variation.

Ya see Kevin, et al., think that evolution in a Creation scenario would still proceed via random mutation! That is about as stupid as you can get but Kevin insists he is making a huge contribution to thousands, if not millions, of people.

Of course he never sez what this alleged huge contribution is. Methinks he is full of shit just as his posts portray.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The "God Hypothesis" Problem

It has been said that saying "God did it" (the God hypothesis) is not scientific because we cannot test God, obviously forgetting that science was once a methodology for understanding God's Creation.

But that isn't the point, nor the problem.

That (point & problem) would be if (OK whatever big IF- but for the sake of argument) God did Create then teaching, say, the theory of evolution would be not only a lie but anti-science propaganda.

Ya see science only cares about reality, as in the reality behind whatever is being investigated. And there is only one reality behind ours, therefor teaching contrary to reality would be as I said. And that would be a problem.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Kevin R. McCarthy, Still Spewing and Proud of His Ignorance

In his latest ignorance-laiden spewage Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock, Texas tries to take on the YEC global Flood.

Immediatly it becomes obvious that Kevin is ignorant of genetics. I say that as it appears Kevin has never heard of genetic recombination.

Genetic recombination during meiosis can produce different alleles. For example a human child inherits 1 allele from his/ her dad and 1 from mom. But with genetic recombination the inherited alleles can be different from the parents- both parents. That means if you have two parents and one child you can have 6 different variations of the same allele.

So with Noah's Ark there were 8 people and that would mean up to 16 different alleles for every gene.

But anyway it is clearly obvious that kevin does not understand genetics, does not understand YEC and does not understand front-loading.

IOW Kevin really thinks his ignorance refutes something.

How do we get many alleles from a few? Genetic recombination- especially in a design scenario in which the genetic algorithm would make it so.

Will Kevin the evotard undersatnd that? Not a chance.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Different Types of Evolution?

Yes, there are different types of evolution and that is because "evolution" has several meanings.

For example the current theory of evolution posits that the change arises via accumulations of random mutations. (note to evotards- natural selection is just ONE way mutations accumulate)

OTOH there is Intelligent Design Evolution which posits the changes are not random, rather they were directed just as a genetic/ evolutionary algorithm is directed, ie to reach a specified goal/ target.

Also there is Front-loaded Evolution as put forth by Mike Gene in his book "The Design Matrix", which posits that the first organisms were front-loaded such that the front-loading influenced the subsequent evolution- future designs via the present design.

As I said before "evolution" is one thing and the "theory of evolution" posits how it occurs and that is yet another reason why there can be more than one theory of evolution and by extension, more than one type of evolution.

Monday, December 12, 2011

A Challenge

For all the whining, bitching and moaning from the anti-ID mob you would figure that they have a solid case for their position.

Stephen Hawking says this is an accident, ie the result of multiple accidents over eons of time. As an "explanation" for the laws that govern this universe Hawking, in "A Briefer History of Time", says "They just are (the way they are)". That's it.

For the formation of our solar system it is that it emerged from the complex interactions of a collapsing molecular cloud.

For living organisms it is that they emerged from an interaction of energy and matter. Get some molecules, add some energy and get more complex molecules, molecules that are also seen in living organisms. Add more energy and molecules until a self-sustained replication with variation takes place, add eons of time and you will get a living organism.

From there more accumulations of variations gives you the diversity observed.

Is that about right or have I missed something?

The challenge is to correct me if I am wrong and provide the references. And also provide the scientific data that supports your position.

A note to all atheists hoping to get adopted by a Christian family- this is what they are going to ask of you.

The problem for you is if you don't respond they win and if you do respond, they win because your response will just be the sillyness of "They just are (the way they are)".

Saturday, December 10, 2011

What Does Intelligent Design Say About Life on Other Planets (ET)?

There is only one Pro-Intelligent Design book, that I am aware of, that even brings up the issue of living organisms on other planets. That book is "The Privileged Planet", which makes a case for our planet, that is a planet capable of sustaining metazoans, including those capable of technology, being a rarity due to the number of factors that have to be in one place at the same time. That is we ARE special, in some sense anyway.

What the never say nor imply is that we are unique.

Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering 14 objections. Number 14 is:

14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.

“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”

Well, yeah...

To me, only religious dogma sez anything about us being the only inhabitants of this here universe. And obviously it ain't Hinduism (nor Scientology for that matter LoL). God created us and that was it? Bullshit- so it ain't religion holding you back.

The case has been made that even the Bible references UFOs. Many cultures make references to ancient astronauts.

The point being is that I am surprised anyone doubts there are living organisms on another planets. And in a design scenario I would expect there to be, especially technologically advanced forms.

The Privileged Planet- 5/12/2006

Friday, December 09, 2011

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, How NOT to be a Skeptic

That's right, Kevin R. McCarthy, the person going around (wrongly) calling out people for their failure to be a proper skeptic, is now demonstrating How NOT to be a Skeptic:

Honestly, when I tool the cellular structures class I was amazed that anything in our bodies works.

Exons, introns, methylation, reading frames, protein folding, plus the assembly of these into structures… it’s truly stunning.

But unlike creationists, I can see that these are insanely complex systems that have been evolving for billions of years instead of throwing my hands up and ‘Cthullu did it’.

What does this have to do with being a skeptic? Disregarding the evidence in favor of your personal worldview:

1- No one can see anything evolving for billions of years.

2- Throwing time around as the "solution" is the same as throwing your hands up and saying "evolutionwentanddonedidit"

3- Kevin obviously does NOT understand science

Thanks Kevin. That you have a say in anything to do with education just proves that our education system is in deep shit.

Kevin R. McCarthy of Round Rock Texas- people in Texas need to write to their State reps to expose this guy and get him out of their education system.

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still Whining Like a Loser

Over on Telic Thoughts Oleg sez:

So who's been wondering and who's been discovering? Mainstream biologists, that's who. ID's Monday quarterbacks just complain.

OK Oleg, just what the fuck have mainstream biologists discovered? Have they discovered how a population of fish can accumulate random changes and evolve into a land animal? No

Have they discoved how prokaryotes can "evolve" into eukaryotes? No.

Have they discovered ANYTHING that would support the claims of their position? Another no.

Have they discovered how random changes can construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems? Absolutely not.

So one must ask what is all this alleged discovering they are doing? Whatever it is it sure as shit doesn't have anything to do with their position.

Carbohydrate Lovers- No Need to Give Them Up!

Many new diets are telling us to lay off of the carbs (carbohydrates) because carbs are the fuel your body will use before it gets to the fat you want to brun and lose.

Tri-athletes, marathon runners, swimmers, cyclists- all chow down on carbs because they do burn them off in their daily routine.

Now there is help for us regular people- GC7X

I am a carb lover- I love pasta and pizza- I can eat pasta and pizza every day and some weeks I do. I eat pasta as if I was a tri-athlete getting ready for a major competition. And yes it showed, especially once I started slowing down on my excercise routines.

Then I read about GC7X, bought a bottle and started taking it. 6 months later my triglyceride level dropped 30 points (down into the "normal" range) and my cholesterol also dropped 21 points- and the ONLY difference was GC7X. Oh and my waist has shrunk by 3 inches, back down to a 36 (and shrinking).

So if you love carbs but hate what they do to your body, then I highly recommend GC7X.

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Starship USS Enterprise Found on Mars?

Or maybe it's Noah's Ark?

Enterprise on mars?

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

War- What Starts a War?

Ignorant evotards are still in rare form. For example Kevin R. McCarthy, aka orgemkv, is saying that most wars are started over religion. I understand the crusades were about religion but what other wars were about religion?

Let's look. In the 20th century we had World War I and II but neither were about religion. We had the Korean and Vietnam Wars and neither were about religion.

Rome fought wars for conquest, ie for resources. The Mongols and Chinese, same thing- resources.

Our Civil War- not about religion. Our Revolutionary War, not about religion.

True the shit in Ireland is about religion, oppression and occupation but it is a safe bet that most wars were fought over non-religious issues such as resources.

For every war deemed to be "religious" there are at least several that are not. But that won't stop the ignorant evotards from spewing their nonsense.

So, what starts a war? The want of power, greed, and resources with religious, cultural and racial differences also playing roles.

Friday, December 02, 2011

Pete Dunkelberg Demystified- Imagination is Not Evidence

In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):

Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.

ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.

It just gets worse:

The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.

Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.

He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.

Pete goes on to say:

A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution.

Dr Behe responds:

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.

Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.

If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.

Unfortunately for Pete and all evotards, imagination is not evidence.

* this is a re-titled repost from 5 years ago