Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Richard Tardboy Hughes Chickens Out

As if we didn't predict this- Richie Tardboy Hughes invited me over to AtBC so he could show me the entailments for unguided evolution. A day later and Richie appears to have bailed-> no surprise there. And no one stepped up to try to cover for him-> again no surprise.

When it comes to supporting evolutionism evos cower. Why is that?

Monday, March 30, 2015

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- Part 1, Revisited, Again

To understand the theory of evolution and universal common descent I have been told to read biology textbooks. The funny part is that every time I do so the design inference is confirmed.

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 conductor 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.

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.

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.

None of that "just happens". Purely artificial ribosomes do NOT work. They would work if they were reducible to their physical parts, so that means there is something missing. That something is software.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Irreducible Complexity is STILL a STRONG Indicator of Intelligent Design

Despite evotardgasms baldly declaring that irreducibly complex systems can "evolve" (note the equivocation), there isn't any scientific data to support their claim.

Evotards really think that if they can imagine how something could have evolved then that is scientific data- good enough for them anyway. But just ask for a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating such a thing as irreducible complexity evolving via blind and undirected processes and all we get is attacked. Ask for a model and we get attacked. Ask for entailments or a hypothesis and we get attacked. It's as if our opponents are scientifically illiterate cowards.

In the trial pertaining to the Dover, PA school board the type three secretory system was brought up as an alleged functioning intermediate of a bacterial flagellum. Too bad it too is an irreducibly complex system for which there isn't any data demonstrating it can arise via blind, undirected chemical processes.

Heck evotards can't even produce experiments showing two new protein-to-protein binding sites can arise that way. That is why imagination is their only "tool".

And they wonder why the vast majority of people do not accept their claims.

Irreducible complexity has been elucidated by science. It is real. Trying to handwave it away just exposes your desperation.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Eliminating Evolutionism

As I have said and supported, many times, in order to infer intelligent design is present we must first eliminate necessity and chance. Once that is accomplished you see if there is a pattern that can be matched against what known intelligent agencies produce. This follows Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Ockham's Razor, parsimony and the explanatory filter.

This brings us to the elimination of evolutionism, ie 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. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

The idea is not testable as there aren't any entailments and no predictions. It cannot be modeled. It cannot be measured. There aren't any research programs. It is useless. And natural selection has proven to be impotent.

Hitchens applies:
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Evolutionism is eliminated due to its total failure to generate anything.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Can Unguided Evolution be Simulated on a Computer?

The question of the day seems to be how to simulate unguided evolution. The question stems from the fact that both evolutionary and genetic algorithms model guided, ie intelligently designed, evolution. They do not model natural selection and drift, ie the main mechanisms of unguided evolution. Those algorithms have a goal whereas NS does not.

So how can unguided evolution be modeled? I say it cannot be modeled due to its very nature. And that, dear readers, is the problem. Unguided evolution cannot be modeled. It cannot be tested. It does not have any entailments. And all of that is what makes it pseudo-scientific bullshit.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

keiths, Still Proudly Ignorant about Christianity

keiths is one deluded asshole. Now he is saying that Adam and Eve were punished for doing something they didn't know was wrong.

What? In the Bible God told Adam not to eat from the tree and God said there would be consequences. keiths even admits it:

This is all he told them:
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
LoL! No keiths, that is all that is in the Bible but the Bible is not a word-by-word description of what actually happened. Also saying that is enough, duh.

keiths is one desperate asshole...

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Answering Patrick May- No Theory of Evolution

Ohs noes! Patrick May is on the case. Patty inquires:

Out of curiosity, where are the intelligent design creationists getting this idea that there is no scientific theory of evolution? It seems like a talking point they got from one of their leaders and are repeating without checking the source. How difficult is it to type “what is the theory of evolution” into Google? How about cracking an introductory textbook like Futuyma?
I googled it and the theory of evolution did NOT come up. People talking about it as if it exists doesn't mean anything. Biology textbooks talk about it but they never say what it is, who wrote it, when it was written- nothing.

So where is it Patty? Why can't you find it and link to it? That would be the way to go. Don't have us look for it- you go find it and bring it back to us, if you can. We know that you can't and that is the point. Instead of getting all belligerent all Patty or any evo has to do is step up and reference this alleged theory of evolution. Yet they can't even say who authored it nor when it was published.

Monday, March 09, 2015

Alan Fox, Proud to be Ignorant

- As if I need to keep saying this- Alan Fox is one ignorant asshole and apparently proud of it. Now Alan spews:
The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is, well, artificial. It’s essentially the same process.
LoL! What an ignorant thing to say. No Alan, the two processes are quite different. Natural selection is a process of elimination in which whatever is good enough survives. In contrast is artificial selection in which desired traits are actually selected for.

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.
By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we observe. It can undo what artificial selection has done but it cannot do what artificial selection can do. The two processes are very different and onloy ignorant assholes, like Alan Fox, say otherwise.

Multiple Different Measures for TEMPERATURE!

- Jeard, the ignorant twerp from the UK via Wisconsin, actually thinks that because there are multiple differing measures for specified complexity that means there is some problem with the concept. However all one needs to do is look at temperature measures to see that multiple differing measurement techniques for one thing- temperature- does not make each method invalid. Where and how do these fuckers dream up their ignorant spewage?

Friday, March 06, 2015

SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting Seth Shostak

In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:
In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria

An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak

Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -

Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Allan Miller- Proud to be a Fucking Idiot

Wow, another asinine comment over on TSZ. Allan Miller spews:

Forensics does not hold that certain features of a crime are best explained by an intelligent cause. Cryptography does not hold that certain features of messages are best explained by an intelligent cause. SETI does not hold that certain features of incoming radio frequencies are best explained by an intelligent cause. 

So criminal activity is not an intelligent cause- are you serious? SETI definitely says that certain radio signals are best explained by intelligent causes. And cryptography does also.

Forensic science looks for signs of criminal activity, ie the actions of an intelligent agency. Archaeology does the same, as does SETI. SETI looks for artificial signals, ie signals that can only be produced by intelligent agencies.

What teh fuck is wrong with our opponents who would rather argue from ignorance rather than face reality?

OMagain wants experimental evidence that supports ID yet it is obvious that its position doesn't have any such thing and the experimental evidence for ID has been presented. Assholes until the end...