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, September 03, 2019

Faizal Ali is a Pathetic LIAR and Cowardly Equivocator

Faizal Ali is a mental case for a psychiatrist. It doesn't know anything about science and even less about biology. It spews the lie:
Evolution has such a model.
LIAR. There isn't any models that demonstrate evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.

Friday, August 30, 2019

Peaceful Science, Functional Information and the Immune System

Over on Peaceful Science evos are trying to use the immune system as an example of nature/ blind and mindless processes producing functional information. I will explain why their argument is nothing but question-begging nonsense.

From an ID perspective the immune system was intelligently designed. And it does exactly what it was intelligently designed to do.

That said, if they can demonstrate that the immune system evolved via natural selection, drift, CNE or any other blind and mindless mechanism, then gpuccio’s argument is falsified and there isn’t any need to talk about what the immune system produces. So all they are doing by using the immune system’s products to try to refute gpuccio, is engaging in question-begging. They are using what has to be explained in the first place as something that can produce FI, thereby refuting gpuccio.

A similar thing is seen with the type 3 secretory system and bacterial flagella. They try to use one unexplainable structure in an attempt to explain another unexplainable structure. The hypocrisy is clear. Any ID methodology will be made into a strawman and refuted. All the while they get away with the “glossy narrative” methodology.

Pathetic, really

Ask them for the methodology used to determine that blind and mindless processes- NS, drift, constructive neutral evolution- produced the differences in the proteins gpuccio’s methodology says required design intervention. Then we can all compare to see which is the more robust. Make sure you get the methodology used to determine the mutations were happenstance events. Otherwise we will be hit with another barrage of equivocation.

Or let them push you around and get nowhere. Unless that helps you refine your argument. Then it is a positive. Contingencies abound…

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Why Cancer is a LOSS of Information

Joshua Swamidass is trying to make as if cancer equals an increase of functional information. Yet research says that cancer cells are more primitive than the cells they evolved from. Cancer represents a loss of functionality and a loss of specification.

You have to be a willfully ignorant desperado to think cancer represents an increase of functional information.

For example Cancer Cells "Reprogram" Energy Needs to Grow and Spread, Study Suggests:
The Hopkins scientists report that the loss of a single gene in kidney cancer cells causes them to stop making mitochondria, the tiny powerhouses of the cell that consume oxygen to generate energy. 
Instead, the cancer cells use the less efficient process of fermentation, which generates less energy but does not require oxygen. As a result, the cancer cells must take in large amounts of glucose.  The appetite of cancer cells for glucose is so great that it can be used to identify small groups of tumor cells that have spread throughout the body. 
Less efficient because it is primitive. And it became that way through a loss of information.

Other studies show that low cellular oxygen levels have been linked to cancer.

And finally:
  • All cancer cells, regardless of tissue origin, use fermentation energy for growth. They ferment lactic acid from glucose in the cytoplasm, and ferment succinic acid from glutamine in the mitochondria
  • Even when tumor cells appear to be making ATP and taking in oxygen, suggestive of normal respiration, their mitochondria are abnormal; hence, mitochondrial dysfunction is at the root of most cancers
  • The true origin of cancer is damage to the respiratory function of your mitochondria, triggering compensatory fermentation, which is run by oncogenes. Oncogenes facilitate the entry of glucose and glutamine into the cell to replace oxidative phosphorylation
  • Metastatic cancer cells are hybrid “rogue” macrophage cells — a mix of an immune system cell and a dysregulated stem cell with macrophage characteristics, which allows it to rapidly replicate and spread
A definite loss of information.

Joshua Swamidass is Clueless

Joshua Swaimdass is clueless. Read it for yourselves:
Biologists do not think science has ruled out God’s tinkering or directing evolution. Some do not think it was necessary, but it is not as if science demonstrates this so. Either way, if God exists (as we both believe he does), he created evolution, and providentially governs it according to his purposes.
So God is responsible for innovations in life like photosynthesis, and this is entirely consistent with mainstream science.
Joshua, meet Will Provine:
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

‘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.

Darwin's entire point was that natural selection replaced the designer requirement. And nothing has changed in that respect. Steven Hawking thought he had totally removed God from the picture.

Then Rumraket chimes in:
A) Science has shown that the diversity of life evolved by a purely natural process without God’s involvement.
B) Science has shown that it is not necessary to think that God was involved in the evolution of life’s diversity, and that a purely natural process could have produced everything we see in life.
Science has shown neither of those. So those are both false statements.

And Chris Falter chimes in:
Name even one scientific discipline that regards God as necessary, Ashwin. Do physicists need God in order to describe relativity? Do meteorologists need God to explain clouds? Do chemists need God to explain covalent bonding?
Ask Sir Isaac Newton who said a Intelligent Being was responsible for getting it all started. Physicists need an Intelligent Designer to explain what we observe. Without intelligent design there wouldn't be any weather nor meteorologists. And without intelligent design there wouldn't be any elements for chemistry and no chemists.

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is a Fool or a Liar

Joshua Swamidass is at it again. This time he wants IDists to prove a negative:

Where is the empirical evidence natural processes can’t produce 500 bits of FI in biological life?

There isn’t any evidence that they can. No one knows how to test such a thing. And Joshua’s “examples” just demonstrate sheer desperation or a complete misunderstanding of the argument.

Again, there isn’t any positive evidence nature, operating freely, can produce 500 bits of FI. So it would be up to the people who says it can to demonstrate such a thing.

What gpuccio is saying is based on everything we know about functional information. 100% of our observations and experiences say that functional information (500 bits) only comes via intelligent agency volition. And that nature always takes the line of least resistance. It is OK with producing rocks. Spiegelman’s Monster is also testimony to the fact that nature chooses the simplest way.

All that is moot as you can't even get simple replicators. But it proves that Swamidass does NOT understand science.

Monday, August 26, 2019

Jordan Mantha is a Clueless Ass

Peaceful Science is overrun by willfully ignorant assholes. Case in point- Jordan Mantha who spewed:
Here’s an analogy of what these conversations often look like to me:
Question: How did this house get built?
Biologists: A foundation was dug and poured, then the frame was built, roof put on, insulation and drywall, electrical and plumbing, and final painting and finish work.
ID: we know that architects make blueprints
WRONG! Biologists always say they don't know cuz it happened in the distant past. So the biologist would say: "We don't know but we are comforted by the fact that it evolved".

He goes on to spew:
If ID can’t come up with some kind of mechanism (and no, “mind” is not a mechanism, it’s an agent or cause) I have a hard time seeing it as a scientific claim.
DESIGN is a mechanism. And SCIENCE says that FIRST we determine design exists BEFORE even inquiring about the specific process used.
I could claim “Robots made Stonehenge” as a scientific theory and then when questioned about how they did that, if I simply said “we know robots assemble things” I would be rightly dismissed without a further thought.
That is how it is when they said humans didit, moron. No one knows how and what we do know came only after centuries of investigation. And that came AFTER investigators determined it was intelligently designed.

Jordan runs his mouth about mechanisms all the while totally ignorant of the fact there isn't any blind and mindless mechanism that could produce the diversity of life. Yet he gives evolutionism a pass.

Peaceful Science needs a name change to Anti-Science rantings

John Mercer, Molecular Biologist and Clueless Ass

Evos are such a clueless and arrogant lot. John Mercer wrote:
In science, the term “theory” refers to a scientific hypothesis whose empirical predictions have a long track record of being correct. Nothing of the sort exists for ID. You might have a hypothesis, but only if it makes clear empirical predictions.
Nothing of the sort exists for blind watchmaker evolution, John. There aren't any predictions borne from the proposed mechanisms other than change and stasis. Its claims remain untestable.

Peaceful Science is just another evoTARD echo chamber. And every person pushing evolutionism there is a clueless hypocrite.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Timothy Horton is an Ignorant LIAR

Timothy Horton is a pathetic excuse for a human. It mindlessly spews:
The genetic data we have now shows a tree going back to a single starting point.
LIAR. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life from a single starting point.  And patterns depend on mechanisms.

Deal with that you ignorant asshole.

But I digress- biologists do not agree with Timmy. They do NOT agree that there is evidence for a single starting point.

Take a look for yourselves

Timothy Horton is just an ignorant ass who will say anything.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Peaceful Science- Choking on Mechanisms

I swear, Peaceful Science is run by moronic cowards. They are totally clueless. I will explain-

ID is NOT a mechanistic theory. All that means is that we do NOT have to know how any designer implemented the project. Design itself is a mechanism, by definition. For example, you can build things by design or willy-nilly, ie that "house that Jack built".

Genetic engineering is a design mechanism. Artificial selection is a design mechanism. Genetic algorithms use telic processes to solve the problems they were designed to solve. Dr. Spetner introduced "built-in responses to environmental cues" as an adaptation  strategy.

That said, the alleged theory of evolution is a mechanistic theory. That is how it was formulated by Darwin and remains to this day. It allegedly offers a mechanism that is a designer-mimic. And yet it offers absolutely NOTHING in the way of a mechanism that could possibly produce the diversity of life observed.

They have nothing to offer but to attack ID with their cowardice and ignorance.

Follow the moronic discussion

With any design-centric investigation FIRST design is determined to exist and THEN questions about the how come into play. And to refute any and all given design inferences all you have to do is step up and present your mechanism tat is capable of producing what we claim is designed.

Peaceful Science is just another bunch of clueless cowards.