Moar Cluelessness from TSZ

-
The willful ignorance displayed by evolutionists, while amusing to a degree, is still tiresome and pathetic. Case in point-> Over on the skeptical zone we read clueless posts such as:

To me evolution is just a scientific explanation in the field of biology.

OK, but Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution so you have to be a bit more specific than that.

We can also apply its principles to solve problems (genetic algorithms) to develop technology, but that’s not the same thing as explaining technology itself through evolution.

Genetic algorithms are goal oriented and as such are clearly examples of evolution by means of intelligent design. These are programs intelligently designed with the purpose of solving specific problems. They are given everything they need to achieve that purpose. Everything it does is guided towards a solution. Natural selection does not have a goal. There isn't any guidance. It is just all about shit happens and nature culls the least fit.

So to go back to the confused first statement and add the adjustment we have:

To me evolution by means of intelligent design is just a scientific explanation in the field of biology.

And now the second sentence makes better sense:

To me evolution by means of intelligent design is just a scientific explanation in the field of biology. We can also apply its principles to solve problems (genetic algorithms) to develop technology, but that’s not the same thing as explaining technology itself through evolution.

The Genetic Code is a Real Code

-
When confronted with the evidence for intelligent design, the opposition will say and do just about anything in order to try to defend their indefensible position. Case in point- the genetic code.

When confronted with the genetic code, evolutionists will: A) deny it is a code, B) Yeah it looks like a code but it is just a metaphor or C) agree that it is a code but that nature didit. They all agree that nature didit. It kinda just happened along the way. We don't know how be we are comforted by the fact that it did (wink, wink- or nudge, nudge to a blind person).

The denialists aren't even worth the time. And they can be taken care of with group B. Just show them the definitions of the word "code" and easily demonstrate how the genetic code meets at least one definition. Then show them the definitions of the word "metaphor" and easily demonstrate how it doesn't relate to the genetic code.

The genetic code is as real of a code as Morse code. The mRNA codons represent their respective amino acids. The mRNA codons do not have anything to do with the synthesis of any amino acids, let alone the AA's they represent. The scientists who named it did so because it has all of the qualifications to be called a code. It is literally applicable.

And it isn't just the code. You need all of the transcription and translation components so that the code can be carried out in a biologically relevant way. Otherwise why even have it?

Group C is at least partially honest and are hoping to make it to their graves before they are proven wrong. Some may make but my hope is most do not.

See also-  The Real Genetic Code  (Larry is in group C)

Peaceful Science- Scientifically Illiterate Morons

-
Over on Peaceful Science they are actually arguing the claim that the genetic code is a real code. They don't seem to understand that the genetic code is a real code in the same vein as Morse code.

In the genetic code mRNA codons REPRESENT their respective amino acids. The mRNA codons do NOT chemically transform into the amino acids via a series of chemical reactions. THAT is the abstraction.

Also the genetic code is arbitrary in that it is NOT determined by physics and chemistry.

Even Larry Moran says there is a Real Genetic Code, which he compares to Morse code.

Alleged molecular biologist John Mercer is an imbecile for not understanding this. Even high school biology students know it.

ETA- It seems that the morons over on Peaceful Science are conflating DNA for the code.

Joe Felsenstein- Still Stupid and Ignorant

-
Joe Felsenstein loves being totally clueless. Joe F, evolutionary and genetic algorithms mimic telic processes because they are goal oriented. They have been intelligently designed to solve specific problems and given the resources required to do so.

In nature natural selection is an eliminative process and NOT a selective process. And yes, there is a huge difference between the two. Natural selection does not have a goal.

Any program that just grants the rights to reproduction is smuggling in information. Reproduction embodies the very specified complexity that requires an explanation.

Mikkel Rumraket is an Ignorant ass

-
Evolutionists are such a clueless lot. They think that blind and mindless process can do anything given what they think is enough time. Mikkel Rumraket thinks that there is enough time to duplicate many genes, get them new bunding sites, then change them in specific ways and finally organize them into a spliceosome!

The spliceosome is made mostly of duplicated proteins, with a core of RNA homologous to self-splicing group II introns, which are known to encode PRPF8-homologous proteins. What’s the problem?

The problem, moron, is there isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to do that. However if you are talking Intelligent Design then you are right, no problem.

How do I know there isn't enough time in the universe? Waiting for TWO mutations :

For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral.

Just think how much longer it would take for duplicating many genes, building binding sites for them and then many specific mutations to change them.

Mikkel Rumraket is an ignorant twit

Why ALL Bacterial Flagella are Evidence For ID

-
All bacterial flagella match the description of a discrete combinatorial object. That is a structure made up of several different parts that when assembled properly produce some specific effect. William Dembski discusses DCO's in "No Free Lunch". The issue is as follows:

1- You need the parts. With respect to the BF that would be the required residues in the correct quantity. That is the origins issue.

2- You need to get them all to the right location at the right time. That is the localization issue

3- You need to get them in the proper configuration while avoiding cross reactions with the wrong residues in the group. That is the configuration issue

4- You need command and control of it. That is the communication issue. Dembski missed this one.

All of that is way out of the league for stochastic processes.

Well, if stochastic processes could not have produced it and it fits the criteria of something that was intelligently designed:

"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 DBB

then, according to Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning it is OK to infer bacterial flagella are the result of telic processes, that is they were intelligently designed.

But also according to those same four rules if someone can demonstrate that stochastic processes are up to the task, the razor neatly slices off the designer requirement. First you need to develop a methodology to test the claim.

So yes, it has all of the scientific hallmarks of being intelligently designed.

Intelligent Design and ET

-
There is only one Pro-Intelligent Design book, that I am aware of, that even brings up the issue of living organisms on other planets. That book is "The Privileged Planet", which makes a case for our planet, that is a planet capable of sustaining metazoans, including those capable of technology, being a rarity due to the number of factors that have to be in one place at the same time. That is we ARE special, in some sense anyway.

What the never say nor imply is that we are unique.

Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering 14 objections. Number 14 is:

14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.

“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”

Well, yeah...

Joe Felsenstein is Proud to be an Obese Imbecile

-
Fat Joe Felsenstein should shut up and stick with population genetics. He is clearly a moron when it comes to anything else. Now the dumbass spews:

At sites like UD they are at great pains to deny that this is “real” tool use, that animals can have “real” intelligence, and so in.

That is in response to a crow building a tool to use. Cleary Felsenstein is a total moron as ID is OK with ALL animals producing things that nature, acting freely, cannot. IDists understand that beaver dams are a form of intelligent design. The same goes for bee hives and termite mounds- all signs of intelligent design.

It's as if his fat ass is his brains.

Is Natural Selection a Workable Scientific Explanation?

-
Over on TSZ Alan Fox says that natural selection is the only workable scientific explanation on the table. Yet if that is true then why hasn't anyone worked it out to show that natural selection is as Darwin imagined? Why is peer-review so sparse with workable examples of natural selection in the wild?

No one can test the claim that natural selection produced ATP synthase. And yet we can test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed.

That alone proves that Alan Fox is an ignorant ass and totally unaware of it.