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, June 30, 2010

Intelligent Design- Just as I have been tellin' it...

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.

That is the sort of information evotards don't want people to understand.

They have to portray ID as the same as Creation and Creation as not allowing any evolution- yes all lies. But it is all they have.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Irreducible Complexity Still a Strong Indicator of Intellgent Design

Despite evotardgasms baldly declaring that irreducibly complex systems can "evolve" (note the equivocation), there isn't any scientific data to support their claim.

Evotards really think that if they can imagine how something could have evolved then that is scientific data- good enough for them anyway.

But just ask for a peer-reviewed papaer demonstrating such a thing as irreducible complexity "evolving" and all we get is attacked.

In the trial pertaining to the Dover, PA school board the type three secretory system was brought up as an allged functioning intermediate of a bacterial flagellum.

Too bad it too is an irreducibly complex system for which there isn't any data demonstrating it can arise via blind, undirected chemical processes.

Heck evotards can't even produce experiments showing two new protein-to-protein binding sites can arise that way.

That is why imagination is their only "tool".

And they wonder why the vast majority of people do not accept their claims...

Monday, June 28, 2010

The World Cup- Copa de Mundo

I used to like soccer (futbol)- really, really liked it.

I was an original member of my high school's first soccer team (mid 70s).

I still like soccer but watching the World Cup has put a bitter taste in my mouth.

For one the officiating sucks. For another cheating seems to be OK.

When we played soccer without refs- we policed our own games- players couldn't get away with "taking a dive".

You start pulling that shit and you either got kicked out or beat up.

But anyway with all the screw-ups so far in the World Cup I say it is time to update the game- it needs replays and perhaps even more on-field officiating.

Either that or take them completely out of the game and let the game police itself...

Friday, June 25, 2010

Blind, Undirected (chemical) Processes

The evotardgasms are reaching monumental proportions.

First I was told I was wrong by saying evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

So I provided the references that support what I said and the evotards just seem to quiet down for a while. But they never acknowledge their mistake.

Oh well.

Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

So here is the evolutionary references to support my claim:

Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:
Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)

Then we have:
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”


“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley

From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10

The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro

What Causes Mutations?:
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals

2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

Causes of Mutations:
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)

And finally:

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Second Daze of Summer

On the second daze of summer mother nature brought to me, two hornet stings and a bad case of poinson i-vy...

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The First Daze of Summer...

On the first daze of summer mother nature gave to me, a bad case of poinson i-vy. :)

Monday, June 21, 2010

Who, who,who,who let the cat out?

HT to Pez.

As if it had to be said-

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

click here for a hint:

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Amazing Flagellum is even more amazing!

The more we know-

Scientists have discovered that the bacterial flagellum replaces parts- while it is operating!

See Signal-dependent turnover of the bacterial flagellar switch protein FliM


"Dynamic motors for bacterial flagella" also in PNAS

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

What does Intelligent Design claim?

TFT has made a request.

TFT has asked what does ID claim?

Well we can start out with:

What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

IOW ID claims that Complex Specied Information, not Shannon's "mere complexity", is an indicator of agency involvement.

IOW just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.

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

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

So science asks the question:

"How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required.

The "Its too complex" argument

Evotards are fond of saying that ID claims that "it's too complex to have evolved".

And that is after thousands of times telling them ID doesn't claim that as ID is not about mere complexity and ID is not anti-evolution.

But all that is besides the point.

The point being is the evotards use that- "it's too complex" argument.

For example-

1- The need for a RNA World is because DNA is too complex to have come first

2- The need for endosymbiosis for the origin of eukaryotes is because eukaryotes are too complex to have come first

3- Darwin's point was that the observed complexity had to have arisen gradually- too complex to have come first

Too funny..

Monday, June 14, 2010

Thorton Exposes Its Ignorance Once again

Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.

Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!

Over on Cornelius Hunter's blog Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:

There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans

Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.

Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?

Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:

Thorton shot down by reality

So now what does Throton do?

Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...

Evotards are sooo predictable.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Missing a Comment?

Yesterday I published a comment that I cannot find.

It was a comment by someone whose name begins with Rot....

I assumed the comment was for a new blog entry but perhaps it was for an old blog entry and I just cannot find it.

If you are Rot... could you please tell me to what thread you commented and I will respond.

And if you commented in a recent blog entry could you re-post because it appears your comment was lost, not published.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

"Software-driven biological machines"

Yup J Craig Venter said:
Venter also points to what the cells--powered by genomes made in a lab from four bottles of chemicals, based on instructions stored on a computer--reveal about what life is. "This is as much a philosophical as a technological advance," he says. "The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."

And only intelligent agencies have been observed creating software.

Software is not reducible to matter and energy.

But what is really cool is Venter is finally catching up with me:

Biological Information in 3 Dimensions