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, October 29, 2010

Yes, Design is a Mechanism- Refuting Evotard "logic"

de•sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
v. tr.

1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".

Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".

Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.

Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.

And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.

Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.

I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.

Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.

To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.

IOW only an imbecile who cannot read a dictionary would say that design is not a mechanism.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

RichTard Hughes Proves He does not understand Science

Richtard Hughes thinks he is being all clever and shit, when actually all he is doing is exposing his scientific illiteracy.

Telic Thoughts has a thread on the alleged "god of the gaps argument".

My buddy Jim posted the following on how the design inference works:

1- We observe X

2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

Then I sit back and let the flailing begin…

RichTard Hughes flails
Hmm, what number should "I smuggle some question-begging bad analogy in there, because we've never seen 'agency interaction' ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS THING"?

I think he's left it out.

Unfortunately for Richtard science does not need to observe the agency actually designing the thing.

If we did then archaeology, forensics and SETI would be in big trouble.

Geez Rich are you really that ignorant of science?

To top it off midwifetoad chimes in with:
Nor have we ever observed x in the process of being designed (although we have observed x being incrementally modified through mutation and selection).

Unfortunately no one has ever observed mutation and selection constructing a functional multi-part system- IOW there isn't any justification for what the toads baldly asserts.

IOW all the toad can do is lie.

So ignorance and lies are the only way around the logic behind the design inference.

Got it.

And More Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology- Overlapping Genes

Since the Human Genome Project was completed some 10 years ago we have discovered that only about 20,000-25,000 genes encode 100,000-200,000 proteins.

We have discovered two mechanisms that make this so- alternative gene splicing- in which introns are removed and exons spliced back together in different packages producing different proteins from the same gene- editting and splicing, evidence for design.

We have alo discovered overlapping genes- that is one gene actually being two or more genes.

That means there has to be a start codon and stop codon for each gene along the same sequence.

Have you even tried to make more than one complex sentence out of a given complex sentence just by shifting your starting point to the right or left?

Can you think of what planning and foresight is required to accomplish such a feat? Think about it, genes have only one start codon.

Evotards love to say that IDiosts do not like scientific research.

On the contrary- the more science unveils the better ID looks.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Mosquito Speciation- So What?

In the news we read that Malarial mosquitoes are evolving into new species, say Imperial researchers:
Two strains of the type of mosquito responsible for the majority of malaria transmission in Africa have evolved such substantial genetic differences that they are becoming different species, according to researchers behind two new studies published today in the journal Science.

OK, cool, but so what?

ID does not argue against speciation. YEC doesn't argue against speciation.

And neither argues against "evolution" as defined by scientists as the change in allele frequency over time within a population.

Evotards are soo stupid they think all types of change support their position- wrong again asswipes:

Biological Evolution- What is Being Debated

However it is obvious that most evos have their heads so far up their ass they are clueless an will continue to spew nonsense as if just spewing nonsense is enough to support their position- well it is all they have so I guess you go with what you got.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Zachriel Thinks that Natural Selection Really Selects! LoL!!!

Zachriel having been banned from most forums posts over on AtBC-

In response to

nullasalus: First question: It would be incorrect to say that moths with lighter wings were selected for, wouldn't it?

Zachriel sez:
That's correct. They are selected against.


No Zachriel nature does not select for or against.

It does not choose- what a dolt-

Ask a biologist

Thursday, October 21, 2010

What Evos Don't Want You to Know About the First Amendment

What don't evos want you to know about the first ammendment?

If applied evenly- you know the alleged "seperation of Church and State" then the theory of evolution would be banned from public schools as it is nothing more than a silly attempt tp indoctrinate kids with atheism.

IOW their cult would not be allowed into science classrooms.

My prediction- evotards will chime in and lie their asses off.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Thorton Exposes Its Ignorance Once again- and again

Thorton the evotard should just shut up- but it won't.

Over on Dr Hunter's blog thorton posted the following to try to demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system:

Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton
Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101

Obviously the tard didn't read the paper.

Had he read the paper he would have read tht all they did was take an existing protein that strongly interacted with 3 kinds of hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and 11-deoxycorticosterone).

They then introduced simple mutations and that protein interacted weaker than it had before.

They decreased the potein's functionality.

that is it- nothing more.

Gez evotars are so freakin' desperate they will post anything hoping people cannot read the actual paper.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

David Rintoul sez Natural Selection chooses- Are you kidding me?

OK over on the Amazon discussion page I have David Rintoul, the tool, saying that natural selection fits Wm. Dembski's definition of intelligence because natural selection chooses.

Are you shitting me? Natural selection chooses? Really?

I know with artificial selection we choose- but with nature whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Now back to the stupid point at hand- are there any evos out there who agree with the tool and can actually provide some peer-reviewed references to support the claim?

Or do the majority of evos understand that tehre isn't any choosing going on?

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Thery of Evolution- Over 150 years of research and STILL nothing to show for it

Evotards are still in rare form.

They mindlessly say that the ToE has over 150 years of research going for it.

However there STILL isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the proposed mechanism of the ToE- can construct a functional multi-part system.

Nothing, nada, zilch.

So why doesn't that count as evidence against the theory?

I can see it now- the next ID vs ToE trial- Professor Miller can you please provide the evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes- the proposed evolutionary mechanism- can construct a functional multi-part system?

"Uhhh no, but we know it happened, afterall we are here!"


David A. Rintoul- just another ignorant evotard

OK I have joined an Amazon discussion about "The Signature of Life" and have encountered two evotards who don't even understand their position.

Both David Rintoul and Jim Wynne have told me I am wrong about the ToE and an accumulation of genetic accidents- even though I provided more than enough references to support my claim.

So now I have asked David:

Yes or no- according to the ToE are all mutations (including LGT/ HGT) considered to be genetic accidents?

Yes or no- according to the ToE do these accumulate via various selection processes as well as sheer dumb luck?

Yet he won't answer.

That is because he is an intellectual coward who cannot admit he was wrong and I am right.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Probabilities- and I missed that explanation!

OK as everyone knows if you roll a die 100 times- recording each roll- you will come up with an improbable outcome- P=1.5^-78 = 6^-100.

True that pattern will be extremely improbable- HOWEVER if ANYoutcome is acceptable then each roll had a probability of 1 of being correct.

So if you could roll a die each second it wouold have taken 100 seconds to get tht improbale string.

Now the trick would be to repeat that pattern, which would only become probable only after 1.4 x 10^70 centuries- which is much longer tan the universe has been around.

So the next time some evotard starts talking about an improbable sequence og numbers, tell him/ her to repeat it if it was so darn easy.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

"Programming of Life" by Donald E. Johnson

Ok- new book just arrived today- Programming of Life.

Haven't had time to crack it open so stay tuned...


new phrase:

Complex Functional Information

Friday, October 15, 2010

A Non-Designed Universe?

blipey the badgering clown wants me to describe a non-designed universe.

But how can I describe something that couldn't exist?

The point is a non-designed universe wouldn't have any laws. And without any laws what can you possibly get?

So if you can get such a thing started I would expect a totally chaotic universe, with things popping in and out of existence, for me that would be evidence for a non-designed universe.

blipey, OTOH, has claimed this universe is non-designed.

Yet he has offered nothing to support that claim.

But that is typical of his ilk- baldly claim what you have no chance of supporting.

In contrast IDists have provided plenty of data demonstrating a strong indication this universe was designed, and designed for (scientific) discovery.

E. coli and Citrate

In the thread below this one Rich Hughes posted a comment tat said only:
E. coli and citrate
Nothing else was offered- no comment on what that pertains to and nothing demonstrating that Rich even knows what he is talking about.

So I must ask- what do you evotards think happened with E. coli and citrate?

And just how do you evotards think it supports your position?

Monday, October 11, 2010

Five Years After Dover

Well here it is, the Fall of 2010, five years after the Dover School Board/ Kitzmiller trial in PA.

And guess what?

The anti-IDists STILL don't have any positive evidence for their position and thepositive case for Intelligent Design has become even stronger!

This is why IDists love scientific research- the more we look, the more we know and the better ID looks.

CSI runs deep in biology- allegedly simple bacteria have complex communication and packet swapping networks.

All IDists need to do is convince some teacher in that school district to discuss ID in the classroom.

The evos will flip out and this will be back in Court.

Now that we know their tactics- they can't change because they don't have anything else- we can beat them like a rug.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Rich Hughes- The Universe is 100% Efficient

Rich Hughes has provided an equation for determining the efficiency of the universe based on the premise that it was designed for scientific discovery:

[number of stars that teach us something new] / [total number of stars]

He then challenges me to:
Do the math, Joe. If you can.

Sure thing Rich-

[number of stars that teach us something new]- Every star has the potential of teaching us something new, so we would have:

[all of the stars]/ [total number of stars] = 1.00 = 100%

Thanks Rich...

"The privileged planet argument isn't that great."-Rich Hughes

So Rich Hughes sez that the priveleged planet argument isn't that great-

two points:

1- It is better than anything Rich's position has to offer


2- I doubt that Rich understands argument put forth in "The Privileged Planet"- ya see it contains real science which is over Rich's head.

However I could be wrong- so here is Rich's- or anyone elses- chance-

1- Present a better argument that supports your position


2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"

Monday, October 04, 2010

What is a "targeted search"?

I have been saying that a targeted search is a possible mechanism for Intelligent Design.

But what is a targeted search?

For one, Richard Dawkins' "weasel" program ("The Blind Watchmaker"), is a targeted search.

1- Start with a goal/ target in mind (dawkins' weasel goal was a senetence "Methinks it is like a weasel")

2- Set the initial conditions (Dawkins started with a string of letters)

3- Write an algorithm and provide the resources to reach the goal/ target (Dawkins provided the alphabet and wrote an algorithm that would mutate the initial string and then check for "closeness" to the target)

That is a targeted search in a nutshell.

Targeted searches have been used to design antennae and to also reproduce patented electronic circuits.

A targeted search is a very powerful tool/ mechanism.