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

Friday, February 29, 2008

No one is banned from Intelligent Reasoning

In another ignorance-driven post thorton has said I have banned people.

Not true. I do not ban anyone.

I do have rules that must be followed in order to get your post published:

1- Put up or shut up- IOW support your position. Ignorance-driven drivel will not make ID go away. Subtantiating the claims of your position is the only way to refute ID.

2. Stay on topic

And if you cannot follow 2 simple rules then there is no reason to publish your posts.

Posting on other forums

It never fails. Once again I have been invited to post on another forum.

It is as if the data that no one can bring to this forum will magically appear on some other forum!

The peer-reviewed article(s) that would support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents- the article(s) no one posting here can seem to find- will magically appear if I post in another forum!

The data that demonstrates non-telic processes can command molecules to build other molecules that not only help other molecules but also produce the chemical products required for cellular and organismal life, will suddenly appear if I only went to another forum!

All I can say to those people is- You are full of shit!

If you cannot bring the data here- the data that would shut me up- why should I think that it would be posted on any other forum?

And if anyone has access to a forum with scientists just ask them about the data which demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans. If they won't answer you there is no way they will answer me.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Evolutionary research? Inquiring minds want to know

Seeing that evolutionitwits would rather tell me what I mean as opposed to what I say, let's see how they deal with this:

Can you present any research, past or present, that supports the the notion of universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic mistakes?

Can you present any research, past or present, that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise not only to new protein machinery but also to new body plans?

Or are evolutionists still conducting "science" via promissory notes and majority rule? (meaning my questions may be answered some time in the future and that many scientists accept it is good enough to validate the theory now)

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Evolutionary "Logic": The theory of evolution is a Creation theory

If evolutionitwits insist on lumping ID with Creation then using the SAME logic, the theory of evolution is a Creation theory:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."--Charles Darwin in "On the Origins of Species..." 6th edition, last sentence of the last chapter


However if we go by the commonly accepted definitions of "creationism", then it is clear that neither ID nor the ToE are Creation theories:

Consider some widely used and standard definitions of creationism:

Dictionary.com defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Essentially the same definition even appears in the scientific, peer reviewed literature:

Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)

Futuyma’s Glossary:

The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator.


But if you are a twisted and demented evolutionitwit, whose ONLY defense of the ToE is to disparage any & all alternatives no matter what, then you will continue to think that ID = Creation. And you won't even realize that you have also painted yourself into the SAME corner. Ignorance is bliss.

Supporting Intelligent Design

For those who choose willfull ignorance over reality I offer just a glimpse of support for ID (including a testable hypothesis):

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

The Design Inference in Peer-Review

And as far as ID = Creation, using the same logic the theory of evolution is a Creation theory:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."--Charles Darwin in "On the Origins of Species..." 6th edition, last sentence of the last chapter


And for ID being different than Creation:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research


See also: Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism Response to "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore" by Eugenie C. Scott:
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?


Creationism and Propaganda:
The logic of intelligent design tells us that it is not the same as creationism. Many proponents of intelligent design are not creationists. And more and more creationists are distancing themselves from intelligent design. Nevertheless, most critics of ID insist on equating intelligent design with creationism. While I am sure there are many critics who are sincere (although misinformed) when equating intelligent design with creationism, nevertheless, the accusation has many of the hallmarks of propaganda.


IOW when all else fails and to hide the fact that evolutionitwits cannot support their position, they have to lie.


The only way any anti-IDist is going to get to post a response is to provide a testable hypothesis for non-telic processes.

So the prediction is no anti-IDist will be allowed to post a response.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Evolutionary research? (HT to thorton)

Can anyone point to any labs, or published results that unambiguously provide evidence* for non-telic processes?

*That is evidence which demonstrates that non-telic processes can account for the origins of living organisms as well as all subsequent diversity.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Conspiracy theory? What conspiracy theory?

This is great. blipey the clown thinks I am promoting a conspiracy theory because no one on this planet- research community, theoretical community and everyone else who cares- can support the non-telic, materialistic position.

That should be an easy theory to refute- Just start providing the scientific data, evidence and observations- the research- that support non-telic processes giving rise to the universe and living organisms.

A good start would be to provide a testable hypothesis based on non-telic processes.


There isn't a conspiracy, just a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences*.

*(close enough)

blipey the clown's BIG chance!

OK blipey, this thread is for you (or any other anti-IDist) to provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

This thread is also for you to provide any scientific data which you think substantiates it.

Ya see clowny, contrary to what you think I am ONLY interested in the scientific data. It is the scientific data that convinced me the theory of evolution needs a major revision.

Time for you to ante up.

Good luck....

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

blipey the clown: Liar, Loser and Ignoramus

In an attempt to explain Intelligent Design and the design detection process, blipey the clown further exposed its dishonesty and ignorance.

"You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself."--blipey the clueless clown


That is a lie clowny. No IDist has ever made that claim.

"By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?"--blipey


No blipey. As with ALL scientific investigations, ID also requires a thorough investigation.

What are we investigating? Where was the object found? What is the surrounding area?

IOW no investigation is done in a vacuum.

However I wouldn't expect a clown to understand how science is conducted- that is why you are a clown and not a professional investigator.

I listed 10 books pertaining to ID. Reading those books should cure your ignorance. Although I am sure you will not read them because it appears that you are proud of being ignorant.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Recommended Literature Pertaining to Intelligent Design

The following is my "top ten" list of recommended literture pertaining to Intelligent Design.

These are the books that anyone interested in ID must read- and that goes for anyone who wants to refute ID (you can't refute what you don't understand).


1) Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science by Del Ratzsch

2) The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene


These first two books are not just recommended, they are required to get an understanding of what is being debated and how it should be approached. IOW they help set the table for the context of the debate.

The rest of the books finish setting the table and provide scientific data, observations and evidence that supports the design inference.


3) Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design edited by Wm. Dembski & James Kushiner (15 authors weigh in on the side of Intelligent Design)

4) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathon Wells (replaced Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, because Behe makes the same points in books 3 & 5)

5) Darwinism, Design and Public Education edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (several topics covered with entries from both sides)

6) The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe

7) The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards

8) Not By Chance by Lee Spetner (on the list because it deals with “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins)

9) No Free Lunch by Wm. Dembski (low on the list because it is very technical- may substitute The Design Revolution by Wm. Dembski if you would rather pass on the very technical NFL)

10) The Design of Life by Dembski & Wells (replacied "Darwin on Trial")

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Intelligent Design In Biology Textbooks Continued

Thanks to the anti-IDists who suggested that I read (mainstream) biology textbooks to find the data that supports their position, I have instead found that Intelligent Design in biology runs deep.

Recently, I wrote about proteins and the transcription/ translation process required for protein synthesis within a living cell- Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks.

What that demonstrates is that it takes far more than some imperfectly self-replicating molecules to constitute a living organism.

Those molecules must also be able to somehow produce the required chemical products for self-preservation and replication. This alone should give one pause when considering the materialistic view of the origins of living organism.

Couple that with how this is done and any scenario requiring reducibility to matter, energy & time, is itself reduced to a fairy-tale, full of imaginary narratives and fanciful stories.

To further cement the design inference biology textbooks tell us of alternative gene splicing, (molecular) chaperones and transit peptides (also called signal peptides, signal sequence

Alternative gene splicing refers to the process in which mRNA is edited before it leaves the nucleus to rendezvous with the ribosome.

Genes are littered with sequences called exons and introns. Introns (almost) always get cut out from the mRNA sequence. The remaining exons can be left to form as they are or any number may be cut out thus changing the configuration of the mRNA product.

This is how one gene can code for multiple products. Which is why the “gene count” for any one organism may not be an accurate depiction of the number of proteins and other molecules coded for by the parent DNA. It also defies an explanation reducible to matter, energy & time. (nor reducible to parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme)

Splicing and editing are signs of design.

Chaperones- as one article has it:
Molecular chaperones have an essential role in the regulation of protein conformation states -- the process during which transient or stable interactions with client proteins affects their conformation and activity. Chaperones capture unfolded polypeptides, stabilize intermediates, and prevent misfolded species from accumulating in stressed cells.-- Roles of Molecular Chaperones


Another tells us:
It has recently become clear that protein folding in the cellular environment is not a spontaneous, energy-independent process akin to that observed when chemically denatured purified polypeptides are refolded in vitro. Rather, in vivo protein folding strongly relies on accessory proteins known as molecular chaperones and foldases.--Molecular Chaperones and Foldases (bold added)


IOW it has become clear that protein folding is not reducible to matter, energy & time.

That article goes on to say:
Molecular chaperones are a class of proteins that have been highly conserved in all kingdoms of life and identified in most organisms and cellular compartments examined to date. They are defined as proteins that help other polypeptides reach a proper conformation or cellular location without becoming part of the final structure.

Transit (signal) peptides, (N or C)-terminal extensions- these are interesting little starting sequences and tails that direct the protein to its proper destination. And if there is a membrane in the way it holds the key that allows the protein through.

Once at the destination this sequence gets cut off and is not part of the mature protein.

Friday, February 15, 2008

"What do you get when you covert 598066645 (base 10) into binary?"

blipey wanted to know if a certain binary sequence* was designed. blipey told me that is was written on a piece of paper.

Further investigation found that paper was in a math classroom. After interviewing the teachers for that day I found that the last class of the day was doing conversions- decimal, hex and binary. And on this day the question "What do you get when you covert 598066645 (base 10) into binary?", was asked.

The answer, of course, is:

*100011101001011100010111010101

Therefor (and art-though) I scientifically conclude that the binary sequence in question was indeed the result of (active) intelligent design.


Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Stonehenge without Intelligent Design

Stonehenge- built from stones. Big stones. Stones made by mother nature. Thanks mom.

Now if we follow the evolutionary logic- the only reason we infer that Stonehenge was designed is because we couldn't imagine how mother nature could have built such a thing.

That would mean that if someone could imagine how mother nature could have "built" it, then the design inference fails.

OK so we know that mom can build stones, big stones. Check.

We know that glaciers can carry stones, even big stones.

Mom makes glaciers. Check.

Glaciers can also carve out stones and shape them.

Glaciers melt and the stones fall. Some may be carried back a little before being deposited.

So a glacier forms, carving out big pieces of stone and deposit them in England. Some of the massive stones are verticle and the wet, muddy ground was soft enough to let them sink in a bit such that they stood upright once the glacier had passed.

The horizontal pieces could be deposited during that same glacial period or during a later one.

Then primitive man, just out of his apeskin suit, saw the structure and set up camp.

The rest is history.

That scenario is more likely than the origins of living organisms from non-living matter via mother nature and father time.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Explanatory Filter (EF)- Who uses it?

The explanatory filter (EF) is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question.

The EF mandates a rigorous investigation be conducted in an attempt to figure out how the object/ structure/ event in question came to be (see Science Asks Three Basic Questions, question 3).

So who would use such a process? Mainly anyone and everyone attempting to debunk a design inference. This would also apply to anyone checking/ verifying a design inference.

As I said in another opening post, Ghost Hunters use the EF.

The EF is just a standard operating procedure used when conducting an investigation in which the cause is in doubt or needs to be verified.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

"Specification- The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence"*

ABSTRACT: Specification denotes the type of pattern that highly improbable events must exhibit before one is entitled to attribute them to intelligence. This paper analyzes the concept of specification and shows how it applies to design detection (i.e., the detection of intelligence on the basis of circumstantial evidence). Always in the background throughout this discussion is the
fundamental question of Intelligent Design (ID): Can objects, even if nothing is
known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an
intelligent cause? This paper reviews, clarifies, and extends previous work on
specification in my books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch.--Wm Dembski


*Wm. Dembski on Specification

CJYman has also weighed in on specification:

CJYman on Specification
Here is a simple example of measuring for a specification:

since a specification includes, but is not limited to function, I will use an example of specification based on compressibility, since compressibility is a way of independently formulating a certain pattern.

ie: 111111111111111111111111111111

can be independently formulated as:
"print '1' 30x", so let's attempt to find if this specified pattern is also a specifiation and here's the equation to use:

? = -log2[number of bit operations * number of specified patterns * probability of pattern]

Let's first calculate the number of specified patterns that have the same compressibility (specificity in this case) as the string of 30 1s. If the above string = 30 bits, then there is only one other pattern with the same compressibility -- a string of 30 0s.

So, we multiply 2 by the probability of the pattern in question:

2 * 1/1,073,741,824

Now, let's calculate how many bit operations it took to arrive at the pattern in question:

Let's say we started at a random 30 bit string such as "100011101111100010111010000010"
and arrived at the pattern in question (30 1s) in only 30 random bit flips/operations then:

? = -log2[ 30 * 2 * 1/1,073,741,824]

? = (approx) 24

24 is greater than 1 thus we have a specification and it is beyond random chance processes to generate the pattern of 30 1s from a random 30 bit string within 30 random bit operations. Thus, we must begin to look at causal options other than chance to arrive at the pattern in question in the above scenario.

Now, when measuring for a functional specification (within a set of functional "islands"), you apply the same equation, however, when measuring the specificity you take into account all other FUNCTIONAL patterns (able to be processed into function by the system in question)that have the same probability of appearance as the pattern in question -- instead of taking into account all equally probable and compressible patterns.

Furthermore, according to the NFL Theorem, an evolutionary algorithm based on problem specific information is necessary in order to arrive at better than chance performance, which is exactly what a specification is calculating.

The next question: will a random set of laws cause an information processing system and evolutionary algorithm to randomly materialize?

According to recent work on Conservation of Information Theorems (which I won't get into at the moment since I'm already taking over joe's blog post -- sorry joe) ID theorists state that the answer is "NO!" In fact, getting consistently better than chance results without previous problem specific information is to information theory what perpetual motion free energy machines are to physics.

Merely produce an information processing system and evolutionary algorithm from a truly random (high thermodynamic entropy/low information) set of laws and ID Theory is falsified.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Attention all anti-IDists

This is to let all the anti-IDists that your ignorance-filled posts and your ignorance-driven questions do nothing to Intelligent Design. All they do is to further expose your ignorance and intellectual cowardice.

If you want ID to go away all you have to do is to start substantiating the claims made by YOUR position!!! That's it!

However it is obvious that you cannot and therefor you are left to wallow in your ignorance.

So how about it- One testable hypothesis for non-telic processes (pertaining to abiogenesis, universal common descent or the formation of the universe).

Don't bother posting here if you are not willing to support your position.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

blipey the clueless clown hits a new low of stupidity

In the thread Calculating CSI for Babies, blipey posted the following:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you know that pattern was "specified" in your example is because you examined it before hand.

Now, ID says you cannot examine the designer before hand. So, that's right out. That means the random drawing and the abstract text could both be the desired pattern. Without looking at them first, there is no way to tell.

So, without looking at the pattern first to see what it is, how do we know it is specified?


blipey thinks that science is done psychically.

Totally unbelieveable. Science works by examining the data and evidence. The explanatory filter mandates a thorough investigation before a design inference can be reached (which is probably why evolutionitwits hate it).

Go back to being a clown and leave the science and investigations to people who know how to conduct them.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

To understand the theory of evolution and universal common descent I have been told to read biology textbooks. The funny part is that every time I do so the design inference is confirmed.

The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):

It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5


However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.

The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19


Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!

Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation-

Transcription:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription 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. On to translation:

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 the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Calculating CSI for Babies

In an effort to stop the incessant whining from non-contributing commentors Richie Retardo Hughes and blipey the clueless clown, I offer the following (not that I expect either one of the moron twins to understand it):

Calculating CSI for babies-

First you take a sample of specified information- for this example I have chosen the abstract from “Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested Cladistic Analysis of Human Y Chromosome Variation”:
We surveyed nine diallelic polymorphic sites on the Y chromosomes of 1,544 individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and the New World. Phylogenetic analyses of these nine sites resulted in a tree for 10 distinct Y haplotypes with a coalescence time of~150,000 years. The 10 haplotypes were unevenly distributed among human populations: 5 were restricted to a particular continent, 2 were shared between Africa and Europe, 1 was present only in the Old World, and 2 were found in all geographic regions surveyed. The ancestral haplotype was limited to African populations. Random permutation procedures revealed statistically significant patterns of geographical structuring of this paternal genetic variation. The results of a nested cladistic analysis indicated that these geographical associations arose through a combination of processes, including restricted, recurrent gene flow (isolation by distance) and range expansions. We inferred that one of the oldest events in the nested cladistic analysis was a range expansion out of Africa which resulted in the complete replacement of Y chromosomes throughout the Old World, a finding consistent with many versions of the Out of Africa Replacement Model. A second and more recent range expansion brought Asian Y chromosomes back to Africa without replacing the indigenous African male gene pool. Thus, the previously observed high levels of Y chromosomal genetic diversity in Africa may be due in part to bidirectional population movements. Finally, a comparison of our results with those from nested cladistic analyses of human mtDNA and b-globin data revealed different patterns of inferences for males and females concerning the relative roles of population history (range expansions) and population structure (recurrent gene flow), thereby adding a new sex-specific component to models of human evolution.

Then you count the number of characters. That bit of information has 1868 characters including spaces. So to figure out the exact number of bits you would take 1868 and multiply it by 5 (bits per character)- 1868 x 5= 9340 bits of specified information.

So in this case CSI = 9340. (that is unless you want to get anal about non-essential characters so the prediction is...)

Magical Mystery Mutations and the Theory of Evolution/ Universal Common Descent

Anyone involved in a debate about evolution has come to realize that the theory of evolution and universal common descent rely heavily on magical mystery mutations.

I say that because those mutations can change an invertebrate to a vertebrate and no one knows how or why. Those mutations can change a fish into a land animal and then a land animal into an aquatic one- again without anyone knowing how or why.

These magical mystery mutations operate when/ where no one can observe them. They cannot be studied which means no testing and no verification.

We are told we just have to accept the "fact" that universal common descent occured even though the same data for UCD can be used for alternative scenarios, such as a common design or convergence.

By relying on these magical mystery mutations evolutionitwits are admitting their scenario is a fairy tale and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

The following is what the anti-IDists want us to believe these magical mystery mutations have accomplished (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century":

It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5


However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.

The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19


Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.

Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!!

But wait, there's more!

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 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.

Magical mystery mutations plus Father Time can do amazing things.

(The funny thing is that evoltionists always tell me to read a biology textbook and yet the more I read the better I understand the case for Intelligent Design.)

Monday, February 04, 2008

The CSI of a baseball

blipey the clueless clown has challenged me to calculate the CSI of a baseball.

What can be done is to calculate the amount of information it takes to make one from scratch. And this calculation is nothing more than a counting of the bits that information contains.

Counting appears to be above blipey's capabilities.

So blipey I will count the bits for you if you provide the specifications and assembly instructions. I do not have the time to search for them.

And that goes for anything else- for living organisms provide the genome and all known protein sequences of the organism in question.

One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.

Added 4/5:

How to make a baseball

"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."

The more specifications required the more information required-

First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)

1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread

That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-

How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.

After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.

All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.


That is how one measures the amount of information - count the number of bits.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

If the Designer is "God" (or supernatural), so what?

As I stated in a previous entry, you cannot legislate nor adjudicate how to define science.

Also science cannot be limited to some arbitrary set of rules:

In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy. page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education


The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.”- Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.


“Science is the search for the truth.”-Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes


“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein


The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

And it just so happens that science was once used as a method for understanding "God"'s handy-work.

Which means that those who do so today can only be as scientifically literate as the great scientists who did so before them. I would think that would be a good thing.

So if the designer is "God" (or supernatural), so what? If science is interested in reality it doesn't care.

No one is saying that science has to say something about "God" (or the supernatural). But we may be able to make some determinations if we observe, gather data and evidence.

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.- Albert Einstein.


And in the end it is all a moot point because even the anti-ID materialistic position relies on something beyond nature to account for nature's origins. That is natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Process(es)

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski


Yes, they can.


Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch


Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.
Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.


As for the people who have some "God phobia":

Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

(As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”.)

For more information please read the following:

Who Designed the Designer?

(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)

The Designer's Identity:

Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene


ID and Mechanisms

Mechanisms in Context

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.

Friday, February 01, 2008

How to make Intelligent Design go away

It is funny, in a sad way, to watch imbeciles like Richie Hughes and blipey the clueless clown try to refute ID with the willfull ignorance.

Questioning ID, especially when it is obvious the questioner is clueless, is not going to make ID go away. However, depending upon the questions asked, you could expose yourself as an ignorant zealot.

And that is pretty much what Richie and blipey do on a daily basis.

But anyway, if you really want Intelligent Design to go away all you have to do is to start supporting your (anti-ID) position with actual scientific data.

For example:

Demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes.

Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations.

Here is an easy one- tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes.

Do those and not only will you shut me up but you would also receive a Nobel Prize! And you will have falsified ID.

But by asking ignorance-based questions all you are doing is exposing that ignorance.