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

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Transcription, Translation and Intelligent Design- a Hint for Elizabeth Liddle

Transcription and translation- what Upright Biped calls a semiotic process because we have one molecule representing another, ie a code- is evidence for Intelligent Design because it requires knowledge to carry out. Knowledge of what, when and how to transcribe as well as what, when and how to translate. And as we already know, synthetic ribosomes just do not function, which means it takes something more than matter and energy to make a functioning ribosome.

The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):

It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5

However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.

The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19

Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!

Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation-


You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell. On to translation:

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.

There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23

And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration. And guess what? Many proteins require chaperones in order to fold correctly- another egg-chicken problem.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process. Again all of this takes knowledge to accomplish.

So the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Why Darwinism is Incompatible with Christianity, Judaism and Islam

This also means that a "Christian Darwinist" is an oxymoron:

As if it had to be said-

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

click here for a hint:

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Evolutionism- Evolution is Directed by the Surviving Reproducers

EvoTARDs love to spew that opponents of the theory erect a strawman when we say that the theory posits accumulations of random genetic events. EvoTARDs (wrongly) claim that together with the random genetic events there is the directing/ guiding factor of natural selection.

When it is pointed out that natural selection is a result and whatever is good enough is that result, the conversation basically ends.

The point being that whatever survives to reproduce is the result and therefor constitutes this mysterious "directing/ guiding" element of evolutionism.

So according to evoTARD "logic" the "direction" of evolution is "whatever it is/ whatever it happens to be". Pure genius.........

38 Nobel Laureates say:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Natural selection is said to be blind and mindless. Just what direction is a blind, mindless, unguided and unplanned process going to produce?

“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

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

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.

Unfortunately ignorant evoTARDs still think natural selection is some sort of magical ratchet. Pure genius...

Neil Rickert- Ignorant or just Plain Stupid?

Neil Rickert- a person I have come to know on blogs- a person who doesn't seem to understand anything about science nor the theory of evolution.

Neil has a blog post in which he sez that Creationsists made-up the part about Darwinism "is intended, more than anything else, to demonstrate that teleology, or purpose, can be eliminated from our theoretical understanding of the living world".

Earth to Neil- read "On the Origins of Species..." by Charles Darwin. The whole purpose of that book was to take teleology out of biology. Natural selection was Darwin's designer-mimic, Neil.

Neil also sez that mechanistic explanations are more useful for the scientist (than teleology).

What does that even mean? Does that mean teleology cannot be mechanistic?

Are non-telic explanations more useful to scientists even when non-telic processes could not account for what we are investigating?

But anyway Neil bloviates about Creationists' strawman version of the toE but he never really says what it is nor does he provide any evidence to support his claim of a strawman- typical for a cowardly evoTARD.

And Neil- scientists do not know if they observe random genetic changes. They just speculate they are random because the scientists are basically ignorant.

Monday, May 21, 2012

EvoTARDs' Transparent Lunacy

Elizabeth Liddle has a blog entry in which she tries to argue that a sculptured statue (of David) refutes the claim that merely throwing stuff out created the statue and therefor refutes Gil Dodgen's claim that throwing stuff out isn't creative.

This is all in reference to natural selection, which is a result, basically eliminative and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately none of the evoTARDs making and trying to support that argument will be testifying in any Court case involving the "theory" of evolution.

Just how fucking stupid and dishonest can people be to compare an agency intentionally designing something to a blind and mindless result?

It is obvious that Elizabeth is bitter over being dumped from Uncommon Descent and will just say anything in order to strike back. Too bad she just whiffs and strikes out.

An Obtuse Moron Wants DNA Translated into English

Just when you thought evoTARDs couldn't get any dumber- I give you an obtuse moron asking for DNA to be translated into English:

Exactly this. I’ve asked ID supporters many times to translate some DNA into English for me.

Only a moron would think such a thing is possible, and here we have OMTWO.

It goes on to say:
Languages/codes have the property that they can be translated into other languages and retain their meaning (mostly)

Yes, DNA gets transcibed into RNA and that RNA gets translated into a polypeptide, ie something that is neither DNA nor RNA.

Biology 101 you ignorant wanker.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Elizabeth Liddle, Still Asking the Wrong Question

Yup Elizabeth is still confused. Instead of trying to explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation she asks:

I wonder if Upright thinks that protein synthesis is necessary for self-reproduction i.e. heredity?

No, it isn't but self-reproduction with heredity does not explain protein synthesis via transcription/ translation, ie the semiotic state. And as Dr Joyce pointed out self-replication doesn't lead to any new functions, meaning you lose, again, as usual.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Skin Flint- Just Another Ignorant EvoTARD

EvoTARD ignorance knows no bounds. Over on "The Deceitful Zone" Upright Biped is trying to discuss a semiotic theory of ID. The basics are a codon of nucleotides codes for- not produces- an amino acid.

So what does skin flint the evoTARD spew? One atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen produce one molecule of H2O. What a fucking imbecile.

The funniest part of all of this is not one other evoTARD can grasp what is wrong with skin flint's "example.

EvoTARD cluelessness at its finest...

Origin of Life and a RNA World- Only in the Imagination

Ever since RNA was found to be a catalyst the "RNA World" was imagined. In the imagination the "RNA World" grew and prospered. However in the real world it withered and died. The imagination paid no heed.

How/ why did this alleged RNA World wither and die? Well in all cases of any self-sustained replication of RNAs or with self-replicating RNA ligases, the products did NOT undergo Darwinian evolution. That is the products did what the original did, even if the products contained variations:

A self-replicating ligase ribozyme

All of the chemical self-replication systems that have been described, including the ribozyme-based system of the present study, are not capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

That is also true of Joyce's more recent experiment involving a self-sustained replication of RNAs. Nothing new evolved.

Ahh but the materialists do not need no stinking evidence. They have their imagination. And in their imagination RNA does evolve new functions and can even intergrate with amino acids and polypeptides to form ribosomes which can then crank out more polypeptides.

Unfortunately ribosomes do not appear to be reducible to matter and energy. I say that because synthesized ribosomes- made up of the same matter and energy as ribosomes in living organisms, do not function. Even if we just synthesize the RNA component the ribosome refuses to function as the ribosome in living organisms.

Why is that so? I say it is due to programming- as in the ribosomes of living organisms are programmed to crank out certain polypeptides. And the program, as with information, is neither matter nor energy.

So the bottom-line is if any RNA World existed it existed in the designer's lab.

Monday, May 14, 2012

What is Science?


What is science?

It has been said that neither I nor any IDist understands science. With that in mind, the following is my understanding of science. For some reason Lizzie Liddle wouldn't allow this to be posted, oh well-

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence and the existence of whatever is being investigated, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

Science asks 3 basic questions:
What’s there?

The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?”

How does it work?

A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?”

How did it come to be this way?

Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

So how do we do that? We use our senses. We make observations. We try to figure things out, i.e. we try to understand what we observe and/ or sense. This “thing” we are trying to understand could be an object, event, structure or phenomena. And we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help guide us.
We formulate an idea as to how it works and we devise a way to test that idea. If successful we have others check our work. If they like it, it gets published. However not getting published is not a falsification nor refutation of the idea or the data.

How do we test an idea? We break it down into something that is measure-able. In industry this is done via Six Sigma’s DMAIC- Define (the customer’s requirements), (Figure out how to) Measure (them); Analyze (the requirements and measuring systems); Improve (the process to reach the goal); Control (the process).

In science we define what it is we are observing.-> rocks, life, populations or individual organisms, planets, stars, motion, falling, abruptly stopping, etc.
Can this observation be measured? If not how can we qualify our inference or conclusion? (This is where we figure out a way to test our inference.)
Analyze all work to date for errors and/ or improvements.
Initiate or improve a process to reach the desired goal. In science the desired goal would be to understand what it is we are observing, i.e. what we had previously defined.

Then, you control that process. Documentation at each step is key throughout the process and will facilitate the controlling of said process.

Once you have completed the above and feel you have an understanding, you have others who are qualified check your work. That is why documentation is key.

More from the NCSE linked to U Berkley website on Evolution:

Nature of Science:

“Science is a particular way of understanding the natural world. It extends the intrinsic curiosity with which we are born. It allows us to connect the past with the present,… (references a picture)”

It continues:

“Science is based on the premise that our senses, and extensions of those senses through the use of instruments, can give us accurate information about the Universe. Science follows very specific "rules" and its results are always subject to testing and, if necessary, revision. Even with such constraints science does not exclude, and often benefits from, creativity and imagination (with a good bit of logic thrown in).”

On science and the supernatural:

”It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size.

To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion:

“Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind”.
”-- (Dr. Behe)

The point being is that science cares only about reality and there is only one reality behind our existence.

Agreements? Objections? Corrections? Bloviations?

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Patrick May- Just Another Deceitful and Cowardly EvoTARD

Patrick May, AKA MathGrrl, is just another deceitful piece-of-shit evoTARD.

That's right, MathGrrl was a guy who posted as a "girl" to see if that would have something to do with the responses it received. Unfortunately for Patrick its gig was up, ie its agenda was exposed, in the first few of its posts.

Ya see MathGrrl wanted a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI. So I asked it for some mathematically rigorous definitions for its position so we could compare and it couldn't keep moving the goal-posts. In typical cowardly fashion it refused to do so.

When I informed Patrick/ MathGrrl that a computer program is CSI and cannot be expressed via rigorous mathematics, it ignored that. When I provided a definition of CSI that has more mathematical rigor than anything its position has to offer, it refused it without reason.

Why am I bringing up Patrick May now? Well Patrick is one of the proud evoTARDs running lose on "The Deceitful Skeptical Zone", talking about evidence as if his position has some that supports it. Strange that when pressed Patrick just ran and hid behind Lizzie's skirt like the little coward he is.

Good job Patrick...

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog

The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Congratulations Lizzie- well done...

Monday, May 07, 2012

The Design Inference- Why it matters- revisited, again

Seems like a good time to bring this up again:

In other forums I have been asked to describe/ define intelligence. I have stated that intelligence is that which can create counterflow*. Now I will tell you why that is important. Sorry, very, very important.

ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.

But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions. Which should be enough of a driving force to get people seriously looking.

IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. The first is the detection- that is what gets archaeologists and SETI researchers going. Then we look for more (clues of design) while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42** but we don't know the question. (those darn mice).

I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. IOW the theory of evolution is about what happened after life appeared. But if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, i.e. the only scenario that excludes ID, then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway...

Why isn’t ID interested in those questions? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. SETI- first detect then try to understand; archaeology- first identify artifacts (detect) and then put the pieces together (understand). In the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make a reasonable inference about the designer is by studying the design. The same goes for how, why, when and where.

Can anyone tell me how to get any information about the Wright brothers JUST by studying airplanes? How about how it was designed or manufactured?

The odd part is the people who rail against ID insist we have those answers or ID isn’t science. However if we had the answers then we wouldn’t need science to help us find them, ID would be a given and the point would be moot.

The design inference matters because reality demonstrates we care whether or not something is intentionally designed. We care enough to have the word artifact as part of our defined vocabulary. We care enough to have laboratories set up to help us make the determination (intentional design or not). And we know it does make a difference to any investigation- that is it matters whether the object/ structure/ event in question was intentionally designed, happened by chance/ accident, or happened by necessity. For example when a fire investigation determines arson, the investigation from that point on is different than had the initial investigation determined “accident”. And guess what? We didn’t have to know who the arsonist was to determine arson as the root cause. Nor did we have to know how the arson was initiated. We know that only via rigorous investigation can we hope to determine those answers. And sometimes the person/ people who made the determination of arson aren’t the same. IOW one “team” made the determination of arson and another went about finding the arsonist. With ID scientists have enough to do with the detection and understanding part. And I agree the questions not answered by ID- the who, why, where, how- can and should be a guiding “force” behind extending the design inference- i.e. using the design inference as a foundation from which to ask those questions. Nasca, Peru- the lines and the figures- designed? Yes. The who, why, how were only “answered” via years of investigation, and we are still working on what we do have. The point being that the discovery of design led to the research. And it also disproves the foolish notion that the design inference is a show stopper (held by those who say ID is another way of saying “Goddidit! We give up!”).

Stonehenge- If it were determined to be just another geologic formation the course of investigation would be very different than the current course, ie the design inference.

"The Privileged Planet"- By following the data the authors J. Richards & G. Gonzalez believe they have uncovered part of the mystery that lay beyond ID's scope. Now some can run with that while others can try to refute it. Then time can sort out benefits, if any, from the pitfalls, if any.

The "benefits" of evolutionism are we are afraid if birds and mosquitos. Just because they are carriers of stuff that can kill us. Evolutionism has offered us zero aid in finding solutions to biological issues. Its pitfalls are already mentioned plus leading us away from the reality to our existence which can only lead to more human anguish.

*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science

or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.

** from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific- HT Nick Matzke

Over on Uncommon Descent we have none other than Nick Matzke saying:

So, I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events,...

I agree with that so I won’t be presenting any argument against it.

In the usual course of events agencies, and only agencies, are responsible for complex specified information and irreducibly complex configurations.

Thanks Nick...