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

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Richie Hughes- Liar and Equivocator Extraordinaire

-
Yeah, I know this doesn't come as any surprise but Richie Tardboy Hughes is back spewing lies and equivocations. Take a look:
We looked at evolution, and were so impressed we made genetic algorithms. These algorithms work incredibly well, and can take information from their environment and generate new information within themselves.
Genetic algorithms model directed evolution and not natural selection and drift. Also they can only generate what they were programmed to generate meaning all the information was there from the get go. Richie is equivocating "evolution" with "natural selection and drift"

Now for the lie:
Even your Mungs and Joe Gs have effectively retreated to OOL, claiming that that is an insurmountable hurdle to ‘bootstrap’.
All I have said is that without explaining the OoL you cannot say that blind and undirected processes produced the diversity of life. The observed IC structures that rule biology are, by themselves, still  an insurmountable hurdle to natural selection and drift.

Unfortunately Richie the cupcake Hughes is either too stupid or too deceitful to understand any of that.
 

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

OT- How Ignorant is Ted Cruz?

-
Ted Cruz is a GOP candidate for President is the USA. Unfortunately for Ted he was born in Canada and his parents were Canadian citizens. Yes, his mother was born in the USA but moved north and became a Canadian citizen of her own choosing.

What does that mean? It means he can never be President or VP.

And yet he presses on. Is he really that ignorant? If he is then he doesn't deserve to be President regardless of the law.

Sorry, Ted, time to step aside and realize you have already reached the pinnacle of your political career.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

More OT- Steven Avery "Making a Murderer"

-
OK, we have NetFlix and my wife heard the story of Steven Avery and wanted to watch "Making a Murderer". She made it sound as if Avery was some innocent guy who was sent to prison for a rape he didn't commit. True he didn't commit the rape he was convicted of but the guy was a criminal most of his life. The fact that he put oil and gasoline on his live cat and threw it in a fire tells me they should have kept him in prison regardless if he raped or not. I don't even care if he is innocent of the murder he is in prison for, he deserves to stay in. The 18 years of wrongful incarceration didn't have anything to do with this guy's mental and sociological issues. He was fucked well before that.

Monday, December 28, 2015

OT- Star Wars and Jedi Fighting Technique

-
Jedis use a lightsaber for fighting and they are used just as one would use a sword. However unlike a sword a lightsaber can be turned off leaving only the handle in the hand of its handler. The point? When fighting someone else with a lightsaber or something else that is able to block your light saber's movement all you have to do is turn off your light saber as yours approaches theirs and then turn it back on once you have cleared the blocking obstacle.

Beam on during the start of the strike right up to the point of the block. Beam off at the point of the block and then back on once your motion has cleared the block.

Perhaps Jedis just aren't that clever...

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Biological Information in 3 Dimensions- The Physical Evidence for Life's Software

-
Up to now biological information has always been related to the DNA sequence (sequence related). IOW the information depended on the sequence.

I do not believe this is a tenable position. I say that because in biology we observe that DNA just doesn't replicate itself, it does so with the help of other molecules in the cell. Those molecules are constructed by the information stored in the DNA. That's right- stored in- as in the data that is stored in a computer's hard drive, ROM and RAM.

And this is my point- that DNA, RNA and other cellular components are actually data carriers just like the computer components I just mentioned.

IOW the sequence is not the information. The sequence is important to carry out the instructions, that is the information embedded in the DNA (and perhaps other cellular components).

As I said in an earlier entry- Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with transcrition factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell.

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.


There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23



And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.

So this is how I envision DNA- both sides of the ladder carry redundant information. One side does the work, that is transfers programming data to other molecules it contacts (mRNA for example) and the other side is a template for DNA replication.

Once DNA replication is complete the program is transferred to the newly constructed side via the hydrogen bonds that connect the two sides.

When other molecules are made- mRNA for example- they are given their instructions via the same hydrogen bonds. That information consists of editing instructions, as well as configuraion/ assembly instructions and destination instructions.

These instructions are not the sequence, rather they are embedded on the sequence, just as computer data is embedded on the disk.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Easily Refuting RichTARD Hughes- The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

-
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box: “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.”
Intelligent Design makes testable claims. And these claims are tested and can be potentially falsified via Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, AKA Occam’s Razor/ parsimony.
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.
This tells you not only what to look for- the positive case- but also follows Newton and Occam in that if you can slice off the designer by showing that mother nature, father time and their offspring, emergence are all that is required, the design inference is refuted.
Both IC and CSI are examples of work and counterflow. Neither can exist without the intervention of an intelligent agency.
What is irreducible complexity? Wm. Dembski in No Free Lunch, refined the definition as:
IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Proof that Jerad is an Ignorant Fuck

-
My months I have been arguing with Jerad about the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. He has failed, miserably, to support the claim that the concept has any use at all. However that has not stopped him from posting references that have nothing to do with that concept and saying that it refutes my claim.

Jerad is such a clueless little-minded fool he actually posted:

You can't even understand Wikipedia articles which clearly state that countability is a core concept of Cantor's work which is foundational to modern mathematics. 
I never claimed anything to the contrary and that has nothing to do with what I am saying. And the sad part is he thinks he has made some winning point.

The concept of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is a useless concept as it does not have any utility. And Jerad is upset because he cannot demonstrate otherwise.