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

Monday, March 25, 2019

Is John Mercer- Molecular Biologist- an Ignorant Coward?

-
The cowardly losers on Peaceful Science are clueless. They ask things about ID when they know there are very few there who grasp the concept. For example, John Mercer asks:
Edgar, why doesn’t anyone in the ID movement have an ID hypothesis that makes testable predictions?
Hey John, why don't you and yours lead by example by showing us the testable hypotheses and predictions borne from blind, mindless and purposeless processes? Why the obvious double-standard?

But I digress- ID predicts that living organisms are not reducible to materialistic processes. That also means there is more to living organisms than what meets the eye- immaterial information that runs life.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is Confused about Information and Intelligent Design

-
The following takes place on Peaceful Science. Joshua Swamidass is the responding quote:


That is it. And ID uses the technical definition.
No, Joshua. ID does not use the technical, ie Shannon's, definition. If you read what IDists, like Stephen C. Meyer, have to say then Shannon only provided a way to measure the (possible) information carrying capacity of any sequence of nucleotides (for example).

With respect to biology Intelligent Design uses the not-so-knightly Francis Crick's definition:
Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
In “Signature in the Cell” Meyer defines “information” basically as it is found in standard and accepted dictionaries:
the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
I doubt that Joshua has actually read anything about ID from the IDists. Now that I am reading "Darwin Devolves" I get the impression that he just skimmed through it at best.

Joshua also needs to read Dr. Lee Spetner's books to understand why he is wrong about information- "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution", Josh.

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Peaceful Science is a Cesspool

-
Take a look at a moronic post on PS: Moronic spewage on Peaceful Science.

A total asshole moron who goes by T_aquaticus sez that because HUMANs don't know what they are doing with respect to germline editing, that means all intelligent designers are also inept at doing so. Seriously:
Interesting. Apparently, an intelligent designer can not safely alter a genome. EVER!! 
How stupid and desperate are the assholes on Peaceful science? Does Joshua really think these morons help his cause?

Evolutionists are not only the most dishonest people in the world they are also the dumbest and most desperate


Neil Rickert- Still Confused and Lying

-
This guy is clueless. Now he spews:
If we go by all known methods of design, they are materialistic and mechanistic.
WRONG! All known methods of design use MINDs and intelligence- neither of which is reducible to matter and energy.

He goes on:
And the DI strongly against anything that is materialistic and mechanistic.

Liar. ALL instances of ID are material, Neil. The DESIGNS are material, Neil. And design is a mechanism.

Neil Rickert is ignorant of science and totally ignorant of ID

Saturday, March 16, 2019

On the Evolution of a Novel Function by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution

-
Yup, back to the antifreeze protein. Molecular mechanism and history of non-sense to sense evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene in northern gadids
The diverse antifreeze proteins enabling the survival of different polar fishes in freezing seas offer unparalleled vistas into the breadth of genetic sources and mechanisms that produce crucial new functions.

Again, this is a perfect example of "built-in responses to environmental cues", ala Dr. Lee Spetner (1997). If blind and mindless processes did it there wouldn't have been enough time- again see Waiting for TWO Mutations.

Only wishful thinking sez this novel protein arose via blind and mindless processes. But if you read the paper the mechanism says intelligent design, ie guided.

Mikkel R Rumraket is a Willfully Ignorant Asshole

-
How many times do we have to tell the evos that ID is NOT anti-evolution?

How many times do we have to tell them that ID claims that organisms were not only intelligently designed but they were so designed with the ability to evolve and adapt?

How many times do they have to be told that the onus is on them to demonstrate that evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can produce new proteins, protein machinery and complex systems?

Dumbass Mikkel sez:  https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/rich-lenski-takes-down-michael-behe-and-his-id-creationism-part-iv/5208/154
An issue at work here is the religious underpinnings of the anti-evolutionism of Cdesign Proponentsists, who appear to be motivated to destroy evolutionary biology for purportedly moral, cultural, and social reasons.
WRONG! At work here is the anti-science evos trying to force people to accept their pap as science.

ID has nothing against evolution, per se. So what is really at work here is evoTARD ignorance, cowardice and equivocation.

Look, Mikkel- you morons don't have a scientific theory. That is because you don't have any testable hypotheses and your "predictions" are limited to "change or stasis".

Friday, March 15, 2019

Two of the Positive Evidences for Intelligent Design

-
Positive Evidence for Intelligent Design (for a start):

1- Biological codes and the systems required to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner

2- The ribosome is a genetic compiler which not only translates the source code (mRNA) into an object code (proteins), but it also detects errors and stops the translation process

The first comes from the fact that in all of our experience only intelligent agencies produce codes. Yes, I accept that for the most part that the sample size is just humans. But that sample includes many, many examples. And, of course, on the flip side, no one has ever observed nature producing a code. Not one. Not once. And guess what? Nature doesn't care.

Anyone who thinks that nature, without even wanting to or trying, produced the biological codes and the systems required to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner, needs to step up and show us how to test the claim. Then they need to test it and publish their results.

The second comes from observations and science. For example The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors . The translation part has been widely known for decades.


The positive evidence for blind watchmaker evolution:

1- Genetic diseases

2- Deformities

Jerry Coyne is Willfully Ignorant and Desperate

-
Too funny- after Dr. behe destroyed Jerry' ignorant review of his book, Jerry, unfazed, posts more desperate bullshit- The evolution of “irreducibly complex” antifreeze proteins in a polar fish 

Total bullshit, Jerry. Intelligent Design claims that organisms were designed with the ability to evolve and adapt. And this scenario is a perfect example of Dr. Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"

Jerry doesn't even have a mechanism capable of producing fish. Given starting populations of prokaryotes, jerry is stuck there.
He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108 
The antifreeze gene is an excellent example of that.

No need for intervention, Jerry. No one intervenes with genetic algorithms.

Jerry Coyne is willfully ignorant and desperate.

T_Aquaticus- More Ignorance from Peaceful Science

-
Evos are such a clueless lot. Now a moron who goes by T_Aquaticus spews its willful ignorance:
You expect excruciating detail for evolutionary pathways, but expect absolutely zero detail for how features like the flagellum emerged in the intelligent design model. Why?
What a dolt! Your side says it has a step-by-step mechanism for producing what we observe. We are merely asking for it. If you don't have it than stop making the claim.

That said, there isn't any design-centric venue in which we need to know the how BEFORE we can determine whether or not intelligent design exists. REALITY dictates that the only way to determine the how, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

Science 101, THAT'S why. DumbASS.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

More Lies from Evolutionists- Behe's Colleagues Choke on "Darwin Devolves"

-
It never fails. Evos lie, lie, lie and lie again. This time it is two of Dr. Behe's colleagues writing another bullshit review of "Darwin Devolves"
Why evolution by natural selection is difficult for so many to accept is beyond the scope of this review; however, it is not for a lack of evidence: the data (only some of which we present here) are more than sufficient to convince any open‐minded skeptic that unguided evolution is capable of generating complex systems.
Look, assholes, we reject the notion because it is untestable pap. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing replicating RNAs so forget about living organisms. And even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

Only in the world of biology do scientists think that differential accumulations of accidents, errors and mistakes can actually produce novel body plans, complex protein machines, and codes.

If any engineer said that they could build a bridge that way no one would trust the structure.

If someone told you that the entirety of literature arose that way starting from the sentence "A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog", would you believe them? That scenario would easier to explain than the diversity of life via those same processes.

They complain:
Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality.
True, but it is a ROTARY MOTOR. And it really doesn't matter what it is called. You still don't have a mechanism capable of producing it.
By acknowledging the reality that proteins are proteins, and not machines, we immediately recognize the shortcomings of irreducible complexity—a central pillar of the intelligent design movement
Total bullshit as they don't have a mechanism capable of producing proteins.
The concept of irreducible complexity is flawed for two reasons. First, it considers a system only in its current state and assumes that complex interdependency has always existed.
That is not true and it is very telling they didn't provide any evidence for it.

Second, irreducible complexity does not consider that proteins perform multiple functions and, therefore, evolutionary paths that seem unlikely when considering only one function may be realized through a series of stepwise improvements on another function.
Again, simply not true and again they did not provide anything to support that claim.

The authors seem clueless that they have to provide then evidence that shows blind and mindless processes are up to the task. They FAILed to do so.

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

So, here we have two people who work at Lehigh choking on Behe's book. I cannot wait for his response to those clueless losers
 

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Michael Behe Responded to Richard Lenski SEVEN Years ago

-
Recently, Richard Lenski posted another review of Michael Behe's recent book "Darwin Devolves". The cool thing about this book is that I have been saying that Darwin's mechanisms are good for genetic diseases and deformities. But clearly that isn't the point of this post.

Dr. Lenski's post is Evolution goes viral! I provided my take on it earlier. However, when I did a little searching, I found that Dr. Behe responded to it over SEVEN years ago! I kid you not:

One Small Step Sideways, Two Huge Steps Back - 31 January 2012.