Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Joe Felsenstein- Proudly Ignorant of Intelligent Design

-
Joe Felsenstein, please stick to population genetics as it is obvious you know very little beyond that. And wrt Intelligent Design you are an ignoramus. Joe spews:

Note that irreducible complexity is not connected with CSI.
 In "No Free Lunch "William Dembski said:

I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity, or what equivalently we have been calling in this chapter complex specified information or CSI. p148

The connection between these two forms of complexity could thus be established by showing that irreducible complexity is a special case of specified complexity. P289
Oops that means irreducible complexity is connected with CSI. 
 
Earlier in that thread Joe spewed more bullshit:
 
Dembski in 2005 made it clear(er) that you only compute CSI after you have ruled out all possible natural processes, including natural selection.

Wrong again- noticeably Joe didn't provide any quotes.

Joe also references his article tat allegedly refutes Dembski. However the article just proves that Joe Felsenstein is an ignoramus wrt ID. 



Friday, April 18, 2014

Measuring CSI in Biology- a Repost

-
Just a mere mention of the word information wrt biology causes evoTARDgasms so intense that if all the TARDs were together it would cause an earthquake. Yet a little history demonstrates that Sir Francis Crick talked about biological information in his "Central Dogma". For example:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
Each protein consists of a specific sequence of amino acid residues which is encoded by a specific sequence of processed mRNA. Each mRNA is encoded by a specific sequence of DNA.  The point being is biological information refers to the macromolecules that are involved in some process, be that transcription, editing, splicing, translation and functioning proteins. No one measures the biological information in a random sequence of DNA nor any DNA sequence not directly observed in some process. The best one can do with any given random DNA sequence is figure out its information carrying capacity. You couldn't tell if it was biological information without a reference library.

And Leslie Orgel first talked about specified complexity wrt biology:

In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
As far as I can tell IDists use the terms in the same way. Dembski and  Meyer make it clear that it is sequence specificity that is central to their claims.

That is the whole point- if sequence specificity matters the tighter the specification the less likely blind physical processes could find it. Yup those dreaded probabilities again, but seeing yours doesn't come with a testable model it's all we have. See Is Intelligent Design Required for Life?

With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

ETA for OMagain:
 First, as observed in Table Table1,1, although we might expect larger proteins to have a higher FSC, that is not always the case. For example, 342-residue SecY has a FSC of 688 Fits, but the smaller 240-residue RecA actually has a larger FSC of 832 Fits. The Fit density (Fits/amino acid) is, therefore, lower in SecY than in RecA. This indicates that RecA is likely more functionally complex than SecY.  (results and discussion section) 
And more TARD- what else when he has been exposed as an asshole:

So you are saying that you can measure the FSCO/I in a protein but can’t measure it in a paragraph of text?
I did it with text. I used the definition of an aardvark.
 
Also, I find it odd that “FSCO/I” does not appear in the article you link to, neither does “CSI”. Why not?
If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I. Just read this OP.
 
So if you can indeed measure FSCO/I did it increase or decrease in Lenski’s experiment after the citrate mutation occurred? Please show your working!
The protein does the same thing. No new functionality arose. And you need to show us how what occurred was a blind watchmaker process. And yes, show your working! 


Here is a formal way of  measuring biological information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).

 

Larry Moran- The Idiot Who Refuses to Get It

-
Do you know what is very disappointing about Larry Moran? That he rails against us for not understanding that random genetic drift is the major mechanism for evolutionary change. That is one of his reasons for calling us IDiots.
 He says that we only care about natural selection which is a very minor player. Yet the reason why we don’t seem to care about drift is because it is NOT a proposed designer mimic. No one says that genetic drift constructed a bacterial flagellum.
 IOW saying that drift is the major mechanism supports our claim that unguided evolution doesn’t have the capability to be a designer mimic. To Darwin, random genetic drift would have been one mechanism for spreading the variations but not for cultivating them and forging them into something useful.
Is random genetic drift a proposed mechanism for producing adaptations? No. Is random genetic drift a proposed designer mimic? No.

Is Larry an idiot for railing at us for ignoring random genetic drift in the context of the debate? Yes.
 

Kevin R, McCarthy- Still a Lying Little Bitch

-
Kevin you are just a piece of shit liar. Is that really the best you can do?

Kevin spews:

 One of the ID proponents that I deal with fairly often has now jumped the shark. He has claimed that because science can’t prove that mutations are 100% totally random, then Intelligent Design is the only viable explanation for how mutations happen.
Although he doesn't say it I am sure he is referring to me. Too bad for Kevin he is lying. All I did was ask what the methodology was that determined that all mutations are chance events. No one can say except for they look that way to them.

I never said that since no one knows then ID- NEVER. Kevin is a little faggot liar. Well he has to lie to make himself feel important.

But anyway- in 1997 "Not By Chance" was published and it discussed the non-random nature of many types of mutations. And recently "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" was published listing many types of non-random mutations. These are mutations that are guided by the organism. For example search for "SOS response"- it is one type of guided mutations and there are many more. Our immune system is a perfect example of guided mutations.

Transposons carry within their sequence the coding for two of the enzymes required for them to move around. Without them they wouldn't be transposons. I would love to see Kevin model how unguided evolution produced them.

Ya see THAT is the whole problem- Kevin's position is not science regardless of how much he whines. It doesn't have a testable model. It doesn't have any supporting math. And it is totally useless as a research heuristic.

So the ONLY answer that can be given to the question "are mutations random?" is we do not know. And the only way to say they are is to demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter and energy via unguided processes. Yup the OoL is the key because if living organisms were designed then it is a given they were designed to evolve and evolved by design.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Welcome to New England!

-
Yeah baby- open windows, shorts, t-shirts and sandals on Monday to burning wood,  boots, overcoats, jeans and 1+" of snow on Wednesday! From pushing 70 degrees to 22 degrees. You just gotta love it!

But hey I had bags of wood pellets to burn.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

A Dog is Still a Dog and Kevin McCarthy is Still a Moron

-
Dogs- big dogs, mediun dogs, little dogs and dogs that shouldn't be called dogs (the "toy" varieties). Hey I agree someone could easily mistake the variety of dogs for differnt species due to some apparent mating issues. But in reality a toy variety male may catch a Great Dane female in heat, sleeping and successfully have at her. So never say never.

However dogs do show a great deal of phenotypic plasticity, all of which has been brought about by artificial selection. And that would also translate over to mating. We can take eggs from different types of females and successfully mate them with sperm from differing males. IOW science does NOT stop because of physical barriers to a mating issue.

That said, say humans die out and some other intelligent species takes over and starts investigating. If they came across dog fossils they would most assuredly classify the differnt varieties as different species. That just reflects on the classification system. Ignorance allows us to do just about anything wrt classification.

The point? For some reason Kevin thinks that if we call the dog varieties different species, and given the phenotypic plasticity of dogs which has developed over a very short period of time (accepting a 4.5 byo earth*), then that is evidence for macroevolution. Yet macroevolution calls for new body plans requiring new body parts and we do not observe that with dogs. And blind and undirected processes, ie natural selection, drift and neutral mutations, had nothing to do with the dog varieties. That means only dishonest pricks or ignorant poseurs would use them as an example to further evolutionism.




* a 4.5x billion year old Earth relies on the untestable assumption that no crystals survived the accretion process AND that all crystals used for dating the age of the earth were made here, on/ in the earth.

A Vole is Still a Vole- Refuting McCarthy, Evidence Against Microevolution Accumulating to Macroevolution

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless. They think that they can just declare that accumulations of microevolution can become macroevolution. That is untestable bullshit and there is evidence against it- Voles- A lot of micro but no macro

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.  
Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:  
•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals. 
A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant. 
"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.  
In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.  
Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.
Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism and macroevolution

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Random, with Respect to Evolution- What does it Mean?

-
In the evolutionism debate you hear/ read the word random quite often. But what does it mean to be random?

With respect to evolutionism, random means two things:

1- With respect to mutations/ genetic changes and variations, it means chance/ happenstance/ accidental, ie unplanned and unguided. Meaning all changes are just whatever happened to happen. And to a much lesser extent it means that not all nucleotides have the same probability of changing. Mutations are constrained randomness

2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random. Natural selection being an eliminative process (Mayr, "What Evolution Is") will tend to eliminate the deficient, the deformed, and whatever cannot hack it in the environment it finds itself.

OK that's it. Have a good day

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Dr Behe Corrects Judge Jones

-
Yes this is old but apparently there are some morons who haven't read it:

Whether Intelligent Design is Science, A response to Judge Jones.

Judge Jones was and most likely still is scientifically illiterate. Heck he said he was going to watch "Inherit the Wind" for a historical perspective yet that movie is pure liberal spin and is only a shadow of whjat actually happened.

But anyway, enjoy the article...


 

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Allan Miller Doubles Down of his Dishonesty

-
It just keeps getting better and better. Now Allan spews:

You’re just making stuff up. Insertion/deletion, point mutation etc do not come from ‘reactions’. They come from errors in replication. Replication is a copying process of descent, not design.

Please tell us how you determined tat insertions and deletions are due to errors in replication. Next please tell us how you determined that blind and unguided processes produced replication.

Or just admit that you are a dishonest evobabbler.

EvoTARDS, always lying and overselling their position.