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

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Thorton on design detection

This is good.

When I asked blipey How do you think people detect design?, Thorton chimed in with:
Humans do it by pattern matching an unknown object with one that is previously known to be designed, and the designer and mechanism of design / fabrication are previously known also.

For one it isn't an unknown object if we know who designed it and how it was fabricated.

Also is Thorton saying we can only detect design if we previously knew it was designed?

And what happens in unique situations? Scenarios in which we don't have past experience?

Are we supposed to just throw up our hands?

But anyway obviously Thorton doesn't have any investigative experience- pattern matching (a specification BTW) isn't good enough because, as Mikey Shermer puts it, "patternicity"- our ability to see patterns when no pattern is really there.

Also nature is good at producing patterns- so we need to be able to differentiate between the patterns nature produces and teh patterns that require agency involvement.

But observing a pattern is a good start but it is the end. "Looks designed", IMHO, is as good of a reason as any to check further to see if the design is real or illusory.

That is where parsimony comes in. If a designer is not required then we don't infer one regardless of the pattern. Otherwise we would be needing designers for snowflakes.

Back to Thorton- With Stonehenge, for example, we didn't know who or how until well after it was determined to be designed.

That is how it goes- determine design and then figure out the who and how.

If you already know who and how then you don't need to determine design or not.

Humans can generate lightning but that doesn't mean there is a lightning god.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

How to figure out information content of an object

Anti-IDists think their ignorance is meaningful discourse.

They refuse to understand Intelligent Design concepts and refuse to tell us the process or processes used to determine the observed design is only illusory.

Even if I hold their hand through the process they get all belligerent and shit.

So let me explain-

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)

A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

That said there isn't any need to get an exact number as that is irrelevent- it is irrelevent because all we are trying to do is determine whether or not agency involvement is required.

Therefor all we need to do is determine if CSI is present or not as the presence of CSI is evidence for design.

And to refute that inference all the doubters have to do is show that CSI can arise without agency involvement.

That is where the EF comes in-

Negative, ignorance-laiden complaints about ID do not help make the case for their position.

However seeing that they cannot provide positive evidence for their position all they can do is to attack ID with their ignorance.

And that alone is funny as hell...

Friday, February 26, 2010

Specification- the Difference maker

Evotards continue to crack me up.

Out of one side of their ass they say that IDists bashing the theory of evolution does not promote ID- IOW bashing their theory does not provide positive evidence for ID.

But when one looks at what those same evotards are doing- they are bashing ID- cluelessly bashing ID at that- as opposed to providing postive evidence for their brand of nonsense.

Which brings us to "specification"- the difference maker.

In my previous post I exposed Gary Hurd's mumbled thinking just by presenting the very thing he misrepresented- explanatory filter.

Upon reaching the final decision node we see "Specified", meaning does some specification exist?

What does specification refer to?

As Dr Behe put it in "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.”

And we also have:
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

"Complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple formula or algorithm. A specification, on the other hand, is a match or correspondence between an event or object and an independently given pattern or set of functional requirements."-- Stephen C. Meyer in Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life

"For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL

Put all that together with the fact that we humans have been engaged in design detection of many types for as long as anyone can remember- forensic science relies on our ability to differentiate between agency involvement and nature, operating freely. Anthropology/ archaeology also relies on that ability.

The difference between a rock and artifact is specification.

Also by reaching that final decision node the thing under investigation meets the complexity criteria based on probabilities.

So the design inference means that the thing in question is both complex and specified.

IOW we could eliminate chance and necessity- to the best of our ability- but if we do not observe any specification design would not be inferred- a hanging chad of science->the unexplained anomaly.

And that alone means that design is not the default after chance and necessity have been eliminated.

What's the point of all of this?

Evotards are having mental issues with "specification".

It's as if they think we cannot detect design unless there is/ was a qualified scientist there to observe it as it happens.

Yet reality refutes that tarded PoV.

Go figure...

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Gary Hurd -Dr GH- Accomplished Tard Bloviating Chicanery

And so starts the saga-

We begin our journey with an accomplished blowhard- Dr GH- Gary Hurd- saying and trying to defend, by repeating his false claim no less, that according to the Explanatory Filter, design is the default after chance and necessity have been eliminated.

However even a fifth grader can see by looking at the EF's flowchart that the final descision node requires that a specification also be met before the design inference is warranted.

And this asswipe flaunts his PhD?

That is just the start of his spewage.

Next he tells me that mutations are not part of ID. WTF?

That is what happens when one runs around with his head up his ass. I guess it makes it easier for him to lick his prostrate so that he can blow his load without stroking- saves on the ole wear-n-tear.

But anyway Dr GH's tard is exactly what passes for scholarship over on AtBC.

If you want to watch a group circle-jerk, that is a good place to start.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

More peer-reviewed papers that support Intelligent Design

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Monday, February 15, 2010

"Something rotten in the state of palaeontology"

Something rotten in the state of palaeontology:
A collection of decomposing bodies is challenging the interpretation of the fossil record, and could force researchers to rethink the evolution of vertebrates.

An assumption underlying the interpretation of many fossils is that as the animals rot they lose their identifying characteristics in a random order, says a team of palaeontologists from the University of Leicester, UK.

Ooops interpretting the fossil record isn't as straight-forward as the evolutionitwots want us to believe.

HT Creation Headlines

Friday, February 12, 2010

Joe's Healthcare "Plan"- Prevention

The best way to solve problems is to prevent them from happening.

We have a healthcare "problem" in the USA because people are too stupid to prevent themselves from needing it- IOW we could greatly reduce the heathcare burden by changing individual lifestyles.

Prevention, ie being proactive, is much better than care, which is reactive.

Will changing lifestyles solve all health issues?

I doubt it and I never said nor implied that it would.

However you have to start somewhere and you might as well start with the real problem- people and their unhealthy lifestyles.

And if you are not going to deal with the problem then trying to find another "solution" is a fool's errand.

Once you decrease that burden placed on the healthcare system- the burden placed there by unhealthy lifestyles- we can then focus on the people who need it through no fault of their own.

But if we allow people to live whatever lifestyle that they want then no one has any place to cry about healthcare.

As for insurance- that is nonsense and a scam.

You can pay into it all your life, barely ever use it, and never get your money back.

Personally I would have been much better off taking the money I have paid for health insurance throughout my life and sticking it into a savings account- pay myself instead of an insurance company.

Then if I needed money for a doctor I go to that account.

So that is what I say the government should do- Mandate those types of accounts and if you don't have enough money to cover it then you get a loan and pay that back with the money you would normally put into that account.

This "plan" may help with the "health" part. If people understand they get the money if they don't spend it on "care" it would be an incentive to get and stay healthy.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

An Accumulation of Genetic Accidents continued

Last month I wrote a post about Accumulating Genetic Accidents.

I all fairness to Jeffrey Shallit he isn't/ wasn't the only evolutionist ignorant of the fact that there position's mechanisms are an accumulation of genetic accidents.

In "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins calls this "cumulative selection".

The point being is that I have been labeled a crank yet it appears that I know the theory better than many evolutionists.

Now I understand why they can't support it- they don't even understand it!

It also appears that the vast majority of these imbeciles also rail against the strawman of the fixation of species.

Yet YECs have accepted speciation since the 18th century when Linne (Carolus Linneaus) placed the Created Kind at his BN level of Genus.

And almost every time I point this out people act as if its the first they heard of it.

I know Judge Jones thinks that ID = Creation = the fixity of species.

I know Allen MacNeill held that position- and he still may even though I proved to him that is a strawman.

But anyway what else should we expect from a mob that can't even understand what it is they are defending?

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

More Evidence for Intelligent Design- Wet Electricity

Wet electricity.

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

In this environment mere electrons are of little use because they would be easily dispersed. What is needed is something bigger. And as I eluded to in my opening an ion or ions will fit the bill. Well there just happen to be two atoms well suited for ionization- two atoms with 1 outer valence electron.

If we take a look at the Periodic Table, and also a look at the electron shell arrangement (note the sodium diagram on the right and also thepotassium arrangement, we see these atoms are perfect fits for the job of positive ions (as both have only one outer valence electron).

Now we have the ions but we need a way for them to get into and out of the cell-> Ion Channels

Ion channels are proteins that line holes in the plasma membrane. They can open on demand to let ions in and out of the cell. They allow nerve impulses to travel, cause your heart to beat, and allow your muscles to contract. In many cells, channels and another kind of protein called a pump together maintain a relatively constant negative charge within your cells. This net negative charge, or membrane potential, affects the entry and exit of a variety of materials. page 15 of Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture

10 million to 100 million per second!

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.- Ibid page 19

However even these, in comparison to electrons, huge ions also get lost in the wet environment. So what is needed are pumps along the way to pump ions in and also out. In the case of our nerve cells, ions go in to start the signal and are pumped out to reset that part of the system so it is ready for the next (or continuing) sensation. See nerve cell.

(Some venoms and poisons effect these pumps (stop them from working) thereby shutting down the nervous system of the inflicted- ie paralysis sets in.)

However our nerves to not touch each other as wires do in an electrical system to make a circuit. Neurons have functional connections called synapses. These can connect neuron to neuron or other types of cells (for example muscle). Between the synapse and the next cell is a gap- the synaptic cleft.

This gap is too large for even ions to traverse. So to make the connection- to send the signal from one cell to the next, neurotransmitters are sent. These flow in one direction. And once the neurotransmitters reach their destination, that cell responds accordingly, and all the neurotransmitters are dismantled and shuttled back to the transmitting site to be refabbed and ready for the next signal. (some do linger a bit longer and then disperse)

This is key because if the neurotransmitters stay docked the receiving cell would remain locked in that sensation. And if any unused neurotransmitters- the synaptic cleft is basically flooded to ensure signal transmission- remain they will just fill in the docking site when the first arrivals are gone. IOW the receiving cell will be locked in that past sensation.

And there are different types of neurotransmitters for different sensations and purposes.

How is this evidence for ID?

The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters.