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, January 14, 2019

Educating Swamidass- Phylogentics

Too Funny. Joshua posted:
Phylogenetics does not work based on similarities.
Introduction to Phylogenetics says otherwise:
Phylogenetic relationship between organisms is given by the degree and kind of evolutionary distance. To understand this concept better, let us define taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of naming, classifying and describing organisms. Taxonomists arrange the different organisms in taxa (groups). These are then further grouped together depending on biological similarities. This grouping of taxa reflects the degree of biological similarity. 
It goes on to say:
Two extensive groups of analyses exist to examine phylogenetic relationships: Phenetic methods and cladistic methods. Phenetic methods, or numerical taxonomy, use various measures of overall similarity for the ranking of species. They can use any number or type of characters, but the data has to be converted into a numerical value. The organisms are compared to each other for all of the characters and then the similarities are calculated. After this, the organisms are clustered based on the similarities.  
The interwebs is a great tool, Josh. All you have to do is figure out how to use it.

ETA- see synapomorphy

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Mikkel Rumraket- "Science" via Bald Assertion

OK, at least Rumraket thinks that bacterial flagella are motors. But then he just baldly spews:
Now that we’ve got all that utterly irrelevant label-nonsense over with, the flagellum still evolved. That literal rotary motor, powered by an electrical engine, constructed according to a digitally encoded set of instructions, still evolved.
No evidence is provided. No way to test the claim is provided. No mechanism is provided. Just pure, raw and meaningless spewage. But hey, that is what passes for science over on Peaceful Science.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is a Coward and an Imbecile

Joshua Swamidass is another clueless ass. Now the asshole spews:
The argument ID is making depends on equivocating the analogy into an identity. If they give up on the identity, the conversation is pretty much over, which is why there may be no response from @bjmiller.
Get fucked, loser. We do NOT care what it is called. What we care about is if it matches the criteria:

"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Dr. Behe in "Darwin's Black Box"
And if there aren't any non-telic mechanisms that can account for it we infer, scientifically, that it was intelligently designed.

Peaceful Science is run by a willfully ignorant coward named Joshua Swamidass

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is a Confused Imbecile

Just shut up about ID, Joshua. Now the moron spews:
He argues against the Darwinian mechanism, as if that was the only mechanism available to evolution.
No, dumbass. He argues against it because that is the only type of evolution, ie by means of blind and mindless processes, that ID argues against.

ID is OK with evolution by design, Joshua.

Joshua Swamidass- proudly ignorant of Intelligent Design.

ETA quotes by Dr Behe:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?
Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”?
The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.
Dr Behe is OK with evolution by means of telic processes.

Bacterial Flagella are Rotary Motors

There seems to be some confusion over on Peaceful Science where some, including Joshua Swamidass, are trying to deny the fact that bacterial flagella ARE rotary motors.

Google has a wealth of information that supports the claim:

bacterial flagella rotary motor

So I don't know what the issue is. Are they complaining because it isn't exactly like a motor built by humans? I don't know.

They seem to think that ID says it is intelligently designed only because we call it a rotary motor. Of course that is perhaps the most ignorant thing to think but given who is doing it I am not surprised.


▪ Abstract Flagellated bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, swim by rotating thin helical filaments, each driven at its base by a reversible rotary motor, powered by an ion flux.

Wednesday, January 09, 2019

Joe Felsenstein is a Clueless Asshole

Fat Joe Felsenstein should either get an education or just shut up. Now Joe Spews
So my view is that the negative arguments of ID advocates are possibly scientific, but the positive evidence for ID is not scientific.
Spoken like an asshole. I wonder if Felsenstein would like to compare positive cases- ID vs his lame-ass position? I doubt it as his doesn't have any positive evidence beyond genetic diseases and physical deformities.

The positive case for ID is summed up by Dr. Behe:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
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.
There you have it- the positive case for ID and the potential falsification of the concept. And, unlike evolutionism, we do NOT say to prove a negative to falsify ID
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

Proving a negative- how anti-science

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

On Variant Evolutionary Ignorance

The Skeptical Zone, where you are allowed to be skeptical of anything but claims having to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

Allan Miller has a post up titled On Variant Genetic Codes. He refers to a discussion that included the likes of Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter. Richard was talking about "the universal genetic code" and Craig corrected him but Richard wasn't having any of that.

The point is he was using it as evidence for universal common descent and maybe Venter thinks there was more than one tree. I don't know and don't care as the important thing here is Dawkins doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the genetic code. That should be considered a problem.

Allan Miller doesn't care about any alleged problem. Nature is more clever than we are- as the saying goes. He doesn't care if there is no way in the universe that blind and mindless processes could A) produce a code and B) all of the components required to carry it out in a biologically relevant way.

Then some dumbass named RodW chimes in and thinks that the variant codes somehow refutes ID! He is totally unaware that he still doesn't have anything that can produce ONE, let alone the variants.

The Skeptical Zone- where you can be skeptical of everything except the absurd.

Monday, January 07, 2019

The "RNA World"- Bullshit at its Finest

The RNA world- this is the alleged world of the primitive earth- the RNA world. From the RNA world allegedly came living organisms. But there are MAJOR problems with this diatribe.

1- Nature doesn't produce replicating RNAs. Scientists have to design them in their labs.

2- Replicating RNAs don't even form in a lab without scientists directly designing them

3- Even when designed the RNAs tend towards the more simple and the fastest to replicate. This is known as "Spiegelman's Monster"- it is nature's way

4- There is no connection between replicating RNAs and the protein coding of DNA

5- There is no connection between replicating RNAs and the genetic code

The RNA world is the great hope of evoTARDs everywhere. And it is hilarious that they don't see why we say they have more faith than religious people.