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, November 13, 2018

Neil Rickert is a Lying Asshole

Shit-eating Neil Rickert needs to buy a vowel and shut up. He is a totally clueless lar and asshole- apparently he is proud of that. Now Neil spews:
The word “information” has many different meanings. The information argument from ID depends on equivocation between different meanings. It is all sleight of hand, much like so many other apologetics arguments.
That is total bullshit that Neil doesn't even try to support.

Information and meaning has a link to what IDists have always said about information.

According to Meyer in "Signature in the Cell" information is -  the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects- Just ;like in the dictionary.

It is all based on what Crick said years ago when discussing information with respect to biology:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
The only equivocation comes from the anti-IDists who just plain refuse to understand what ID says.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

Natural Selection- "It's the FEEDBACK, stupid"

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.
EvoTARD ignorance at its finest has "whatever is good enough to survive and reproduces", ie the "feedback" with respect to natural selection, as some sort of magical mechanism that can produce complex adaptations. 

Then there is the fact that the fittest of any population is still that same type of organism- the fittest clown fish is still a clown fish; the fittest bull shark is still a bull shark; the fittest humans are all still human. The point is that natural selection is a mechanism that eliminates the weak but keeps the type (body plan) intact. For example, natural selection isn't a driving force that can produce land animals from fully aquatic populations. The "feedback" is impotent in that respect.

But it is funny watching evoTARDs shout into the wind that there's is a magical feedback aided by father time that we just cannot comprehend...

Tuesday, November 06, 2018

Timothy Horton Proudly Ignorant of Codes

Codes- all of our knowledge says codes only come from an intelligent source.  It goes against everything that we know to suggest any code arose via blind and mindless processes. Not only do you need the codes but also the physical systems that can carry them out.

That is an irrefutable fact. Every experience and observation supports that claim. So what does the dumbass Timothy Horton spew?
Still wrong Joe. Only codes which use arbitrary symbols as abstractions for other values require an intelligent source. There are plenty of natural processes which encode information. Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star in its spectral bands. Tree rings encode local weather patterns in the width of the rings. Evolution is a natural process which encodes information about the environment into the genome of living creatures. So no, all coding codes doesn’t require intelligence.
By that logic shit is a code. Urine is a code. But I digress.
There are plenty of natural processes which encode information. 
That is your opinion but let's take a look:
Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star in its spectral bands. 
There isn't a definition of encode that fits that description:

There isn't any code with tree rings.

Timothy is ignorant of codes and proud of his ignorance. Not one thing that Timmy mentioned is a code. Not one. This has been explained to that moron thousands of times and yet it still spews its ignorance as if it means something.

The genetic code is arbitrary as it is not determined by any physical/ chemical process. The RNA codes REPRESENT their respective amino acids, they do not chemically transform into them.

Neil Rickert- Stupid or Ignorant?

Neil Rickert posted the following drivel on "Peaceful Science":

I’m replying to this using my computer. And, when I think about it, the operating system of my computer is a blind and mindless process.
Except for the fact that the operating system is a well scripted program that manages the computer's software and hardware  resources via intelligently programmed telic processes. There isn't anything bind or mindless about an OS. Total dumbass call there, Neil.

Then Neil ignorantly spews:
Yes, the critics of evolution do often use the “blind and mindless” expression in their criticism. But perhaps they cannot help themselves, because of the way that they have been caught up in a blind and mindless way of reading their Bible.
Actually it was Darwin who started the bind and mindless processes claim when he conjured up natural selection as a designer mimic, ie design without a designer.

Jerry Coyne wrote Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless.

“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”

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.”- UC Berkley on Evolution
The entire debate is about what blind and mindless processes can accomplish vs. what requires intelligent intervention to produce. So clearly Neil's ignorance is willful and runs deep.

Friday, September 28, 2018

FBI Probe? Are Democrats really that ignorant?

Wow, so women come out from wherever and accuse Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. No evidence to support anything they say has been forthcoming. Just their word. No one can corroborate what they said. It's just their word.

Where were these women when he was being appointed a federal circuit court judge? Is it OK to be a pervert and be life-time appointed federal judge?

Where were they when he worked for the White House?

Now some, most or all dumbass democrats want a FBI investigation. Umm, morons, they are only involved in FEDERAL crimes. And this doesn't count.

These women should never have been given the opportunity to smear Judge K. I say smear because they didn't have anything beyond their say-so. Their cases would never even make it to Court.

And let's not forget that former President Clinton was accused of rape and nothing ever happened to him. Of course he was a democrat.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Neil Rickert- Proudly Ignorant

Neil should just give up. Now Neil spews:
Evolution is not a claim about abstract sequences of symbols. That is to say, it is not a claim about information.
What? Evolution needs to account for the codes in biology, ie abstract sequences of symbols. DNA codons are the symbols for the amino acids they represent.

There are books about it: Information Theory and Evolution

And articles: Evolution of biological information

Neil spews:
That the ID folk continue to construe evolution as a claim about information, only demonstrates the weakness of their program.
It is a claim about information you ignorant ass. Crick is the one who defined information with respect to biology. It is what needs to be accounted for.

Neil Rickert, ignorant ass and proud of it.

Evolution is obviously a claim about information. The only people who doubt that are willfully ignorant asswipes- like Neil

In "Steps Towards Life" Manfred Eigen wrote:
Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information.


Then there's "Information and the Origin of Life" by Bernd-Olaf Kuppers.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

The Severe Desperation of Evolutionists

The following takes the cake and proves that evolutionists are a clueless and very desperate lot. The paper “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation,” is still being used as evidence that natural selection can produce irreducible complexity.

However, as Dr Behe responded in Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity, this was the lamest attempt ever in attacking IC.

For one it was a single gene that no one has ever shown to evolve via blind and mindless processes. For another it is a SINGLE gene whereas IC refers to systems with multiple parts.

1) This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.

2) The authors (including Christoph Adami in his commentary) are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as anywhere near IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.

3) In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away.

4) Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly. (Figure 4C)

5) Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.

6) In the “least promising” intermediate (L111Q) the protein has essentially lost its ability to bind any steroid. In the “most promising” intermediate protein (the one that has just the S106P alteration) the protein has lost about 99% of its ability to bind DOC and cortisol, and lost about 99.9% of its ability to bind aldosterone. (Figure 4C)

7) Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold.

8) One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties.

9) The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.

10) In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic
scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Beware of the Cinnamon Craze!

Cinnamon is being highly touted as a spice that will help you control your insulin levels and help control your weight. However the regular cinnamon you can get in most grocery stores contains coumarin, which is toxic- see 12 side effects of cinnamon.

But, as that article says there is Ceylon cinnamon, also known as the true cinnamon. It has much less coumarin than the other species. And it tastes much better than the others too. But you either need to order it online or maybe you are lucky enough to live near a health food or herb and spice shop that sells it.

It is more rare than the other species and may cost a little more but it's worth it.