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, March 31, 2010

Steve Matheson- another evo intellectual coward

Steve Matheson runs a blog called Quintessence of Dust.

He says:
My main theme is scientific explanation.

With that in mind Steve- a proud member of the NCSE's "Project Steve"- doesn't provide any scientific explanation for how blind, undirected processes can cobble together the inron/ exon alternative (gene) splicing mechanism. He can only harp- via ignorance I might add- on Mike Gene's front-loaded evolution.

It appears he likes to criticize his opponents but misses the obvious:

The way to refute ID, Steve, is by actually substantiating the claims of your position!

Imagine that!

So have at it Mr scientific explanation.

Or is the problem that you can't?

Saturday, March 27, 2010

New Darwin Award Category

New Darwin Award category-

Texting and driving

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Size and The $64,000.00 Question

With all the distractions by Thorton and blipey I almost missed the one question that can clear up the "size" issue.

Is a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

My answer is the 5 ounce ball is smaller- meaning the 2 pound ball is bigger, it has more size, it is sizier, siziest even.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

What are the units of "size"?

After providing example after example of weight being a component of size, the blip-tard now asks:
What are the units of "size"?

We have meters, liters and grams and we also have inches, quarts and pounds.

Prediction- the blip-tard continues to act like a cry-baby...

Monday, March 22, 2010

Libertard Health Care

The age of Libertard health care is upon us.

Under the Libertard health care system you no longer get to choose if you want health insurance. You have to have it.

If you don't have it and can afford it you get fined. IOW you have to pay for something you never received!

The Libertard hypocrisy runs deep- "pro-choice" my ass...

Hey blipey-tard- I told you Brown wouldn't get a chance to vote on the bill...

Friday, March 19, 2010

Proof-reading and Error-correction without Knowledge?

Proof-reading and error-correction without knowledge- is it possible?

Is proof-reading of any use without the knowledge of what you are reading?

Can someone please tell me how an error can get corrected without A) Knowing an error exists and B) Knowing how to correct it?

Monday, March 15, 2010

When Weight Determines Size- Exposing Erik Pratt's ignorance- again

Weight does not determine size. Erik "the tard" Pratt (blipey)

Geez Erik, then why is it when a baby is born and people ask about its size the answer is always in pounds and ounces- ie WEIGHT?

Football players- height and weight determines their size- well that goes for every person on this planet.

If a police officer asks a witness about the size of the person seen fleeing the scene that officer wants height and weight estimates.

Trucks get weighed to check the size of the load they are carrying.

Fish get weighed to check their size.

IOW it appears that weight is a very important component of size.

Perhaps blipey can find an educator who agrees with it about weight not being a component of size.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

How Old is the Desk?

Last week I built a desk for my daughter.

I used wood from a tree that was over 100 years old.

Is the desk 1 week old or is the desk over 100 years old?

Friday, March 12, 2010

blipey's supersecret extra-solar planet detection methodology

Erik Pratt- aka blipey the clown- apparently has some supersecret methodology for detecting extra-solar planets which does not include making observations and investigating those observations.

So clownie here is your chance- tell us about this scientific methodology which does not include observations and investigations.

I am sure astronomers around the world are waiting with bated breath...

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Alan Fox- "Science" via bald declaration

Alan Fox is a funny dude. He is another one that will just say anything as if it supports his position.

Well Alan is over on Mike Gene's blog running his mouth at full throttle:

Alan Fox:
I mean by Occam’s razor that ToE is a more parsimonious explanation than an alternative such as front loading, because natural selection predicts design by the environment resulting in matching organism to niche.

Just how is multiple just-so genetic accidents more parsimonious than ONE design?

Alan doesn't say.

Alan also thinks that natural selection can design- again without any evidence.

So how does Alan end his post? With a projection, of course:
IDers regularly argue ToE is wrong about X so ID wins without having to have any sort of explanatory power scientifically.

Yet all Alan and his ilk can do is throw stones at ID all the while never bringing any sort of scientific explanatory power to the table.

Detecting Design in a Biological Organism

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.

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, 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.

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)

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

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.

So there you have it- the basis for design detection in living organisms.

Let the evotard hand-waving begin...

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Erik Pratt (blipey) with Ignorance Exposed, Exposes More Ignorance

OK so Erik Pratt- aka blipey the clown, is ignorant of the fact that dictionary definitions contain information.

Yeah, I know, but what can you expect from an evotard.

In the post Measuring Information/ specified complexity I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.

Erik cannot grasp such a simple concept, thinks he can argue from ignorance and actually thinks he can win an argument with his ignorance.

So I had to ask:

The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

I then measured the information contained in that definition.

It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

Erik's response:
I understand that you counted the bits in a definition and claimed that this was the same as the information content of the thing that was defined.

It was a "yes or no" question Erik.

But that is moot because now Erik is flat out lying- I never claimed the definition of an object was the same as its information content. Never.

So what gives?

Either you are so ignorant you are incapable of learning or you are so dishonest that you have nothing but lies to help you in your "debate".

Which is it?

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Wes Elsberry- Proud to be an ignorant asshole

Wes Elsberry is one anti-ID punk I would love to have a debte with.

He is so full of shit he would shit all over the stage and think he won.

But anyway- Wes Elsberry's fact-free rant

I had posted:

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.

To which Wes responded:
Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

Well Wes if your weren't so goddamn ignorant of ID and Creation you would know that both accept evolution as posted by Dr Moran.

There isn't anything in his post that goes against what ID or Creation claims.

But let me back up a little- before providing a definintion of evolution isaid:

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

And Wes spewed:
I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

No assface- it means if ID is presented without your brand of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations- people will understand ID is not anti-evolution.

And as a matter of fact that is exactly what I am doing.

Back to the Elsberry drivel-

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.

IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected.

IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Also it is Wes's position that has the non-testable, unscientific concepts and should be rejected.

For example just how can one test the premise that anything "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Further down I say:

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).

And Wes's non-response:

I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim.

Translation- Wes is too stupid to even understand what I said.

Then all Wes can do is conflate IDists with ID.

Well would Wes want that done to the theory of evolution?

Of course not because then the ToE would be classified as an atheistic theory and be under the same separation laws that keep Creation out of the science classroom.

Wes, just so that I am clear- you are a piece of shit clueless loser.

You "debate" like a little girl.

And that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse is hilarious.

Monday, March 01, 2010

blipey the clown (Erik Pratt)- Proud to be ignorant

Another evotard steps up and proudly exposes its ignorance.

blipey the clawn said:
You never did explain why a definition equals information.

Got that?!

Erik needs someone to explain to him why a definition equals information!

IOW Erik is so ignorant he doesn't even know what "information" is!

And he is proud of that.

Well Erik if we didn't have standard and accepted definitions of words we wouldn't be able to convey any information at all.

Evotards are very proud of their tardedness.

Thorton- Proud to be ignorant

Now I know why Thorton doesn't even try to support his position with scientific data.

He doesn't understand science.

Case in point:
So you examine something after the fact and declare it to be 'CSI' with zero understanding or accounting for how the structure got there.

Does Thorton think science is done by psychics?

Thorton scientists have to examine the object in order to make any scientific determination about it.

The theory of evolution was not laid out before life evolved.

It was laid out after the fact.

Scientists make observations and try to figure it out.

It is all after the fact.

Are you really that stupid?