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

Monday, November 29, 2010

Information- The "I" in CSI, Revisited

Information. The information age. Information technology. Information theory.

When IDists speak of complex specified information they are using it in the following sense:

information- the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

It is producing those specific events which make the information specified!

When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specified complexity.

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.

With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

I have even provided an example and by following my process produced a result.

And even a spoon-fed explanation with a worked example isn't going to be good enough. I anticipate a lot of choking on this post...

RichTard Hughes- STILL Choking on Information

Yes it is true- Richtard Hughes is such an intellectual midget that he sez I am wrong- he doesn't have anything to offer demonstrating I am wrong, he just sez it:

RichTard Hughes, STILL choking on information:
Joe, you're entirely wrong. Your hilariously idiotic cake episode highlights that, but you're too stupid to see that. You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer.

Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:


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.

IOW RichTard Hughes really thinks his ignorance is a refutation!

But that is to be expected- ya see his position is based on ignorance so he "thinks" that his ignorance can be used as a refutation.

And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...

Thanks again.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Cellular Waste Management- the Proteasome

Proteasomes are cellular waste management macromolecules. They are even barrell-shaped complexes, with a lid!

What does the proteasome do? Breaks down useless, used and damaged proteins/ enzymes (well any protein/ enzyme that is marked for destruction)- breaks them down into smaller amino acid chains so they can be used again to form some other protein/ enzyme.

Understanding/ knowing which proteins/ enzymes to degrade is key as these protein machines can degrade all proteins/ enzymes in the cell. We wouldn't want to have these binding to and degrading proteins/ enzymes at will.

So recycling the waste, the used, the damaged and the useless is the job of these barrel-shaped waste management machines. The number of components? Nineteen, well above the five needed for the mousetrap depicted in "Darwin's Black Box", meaning well above the reaches of blind, undirected chemical processes.

Bohn, Beck et al, “Structure of the 26S proteasome from Schizosaccharomyces pombe at subnanometer resolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published online before print November 22, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015530107.

Friday, November 26, 2010

RichTard Hughes- Chokes On Information, Again

It is sad to see evolutionists reduced to babbling incoherently just at the mention of the word "information". It makes me wonder how they have made it as far as they have in their life. We live in the information age- thanks to the interwebs information is at the ends of our fingertips. Information allows our world to function.

But mention the word "information" to an evolutionist, and as with Pavlov's dogs, they start drooling and appear unable to function.

I tell them how to measure information, I tell them how to measure information in biology. And they just mess themselves all in a hurry to misrepresent what I say.

Getting the information down to bits is how the interwebs function- it is how computers function. Letters are broken down into bits, then sent on their merry way.

The point being is CSI (Complex Specified Information) is about bits. And to determine the number of bits we have to first break down the information into bits.

What does all of this have to do with RichTard Hughes? Apparently he is too ignorant to grasp these concepts and therefor Intelligent Design is wrong.

That is right, because evolutionists refuse to understand simple concepts and also refuse to support their claims, Intelligent Design is false.

Yes it does give me a sense of pride to have a thread in my honor over on the another tard bloviating chicaney forum. The sad part is even with the "protection" of their little monkey group they still don't have a set to ante up.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

An Equivocating Ogre

Evolutionists are such strange animals. They bark and drool and foam at the mouth because people actually question their dogma. All that drooling and foaming must get in the way of actually taking the time to understand what people are saying- case in point Ogre the equivocator presenting evidence for evolution:
One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever. Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD). I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis. So don't worry your little head about the math. I can take it. If I can't I can get help.

Two: Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]


Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.

Hey green-teeth "evolution" is not being debated! Do you think you can find ONE paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct a multi-part system?

To hell with your equivocating literature bluff. If that is the best you have then your position is in deeper shit than I thought.

Here is a hint- both YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with Universal Common Descent.

Ya see evidence for speciation and/ or UCD is not evidence for any mechanism, let alone your position's mechanism of "shit just happens".

Chalk up OgreMkV as just another ignorant evotard. And this asshole wants to engage in a debate?

Saturday, November 20, 2010

"Intelligent Design put to Good Scientific Use"

Intelligent Design put to Good Scientific Use:
Evolutionists try to portray intelligent design as something outside of science that threatens science. Actually, the techniques of intelligent design are hard at work within science, and have been for some time. Examples are not hard to find on a variety of fronts.

1. Archaeology: “The ability to tell the difference between crystals that formed naturally and those formed by human activity can be important to archaeologists in the field,” began an article on PhysOrg. Scientists at Duke University have “developed a process that can tell in a matter of minutes the origin of samples thousands of years old.” Merely from the way that the calcite crystals are organized, they can detect whether a rock is natural or comes from man-made plaster. Incidentally, the technique was recently tested “at an ancient site in central Israel at Tel Safit, close to where David is thought to have slain Goliath,” the article said.

On a related note, Science Daily reported on a team at Monash University in Australia that claims to have found the “world’s oldest ground-edge implement.” This indicates the ability to distinguish natural structures from those worked by human hands on purpose – by design.

2. Biomimetics: The science of imitating natural designs is a form of intelligent design science in practice (11/04/2010, 10/30/2010). PhysOrg reported on work by Newcastle University students who engineered bacteria to form a sealer for repairing cracks in concrete. They make the bacteria swim into the cracks, where the microbes “glue” the sides together with their secretions. This may make it possible “to prolong the life of structures which are environmentally costly to build.”

Similarly, Science Daily said that a researcher at Delft University in the Netherlands trained bacteria to convert biowaste into plastic. And then there’s this: New Scientist reported that students in Tokyo got E. coli bacteria to solve Sudoku puzzles.

3. Code in the nose: Codes and information are stock-in-trade of intelligent design: conveying messages from one entity to another. Did you know you have a code in your nose? (06/26/2005, 02/01/2008). It’s a sophisticated one, too: “Odor Coding in Mammals Is More Complex Than Previously Thought,” reported Science Daily. “A new study in the Journal of General Physiology (JGP) shows that the contribution of odorant receptors (ORs) to olfactory response in mammals is much more complex than previously thought, with important consequences for odorant encoding and information transfer about odorants to the brain.” The patterns that researchers at Rockefeller University studied “may contribute heretofore unsuspected information used by the olfactory system in categorizing odorants.”

Another recent story on coding can be found on PNAS, where scientists at Johns Hopkins University found another molecule that is part of the “histone code” in genetics (09/25/2010, bullet 3; 07/26/2006).

Other examples of current scientific practice using intelligent design techniques include SETI (10/16/2010), forensics, paleoanthropology (e.g., determining when self-cognition arose), computer science, information science, cryptography, steganography, operations research, cognitive neuroscience, some theories of psychology, sociology, political science, artificial intelligence, robotics, optimization, historiography, linguistics, philology – and, in biology, arguably biophysics, genetics and systems biology.

This stuff is nothing new but it has been denied by evotards as having anything to do with ID.

Friday, November 19, 2010

"It's Life, All the Way Down"

The hopeful thing is that molecular biologists today — slowly but surely, and perhaps despite themselves — are increasingly being driven to enlarge their understanding through a reckoning with genetic contexts. As a result, they are writing “finis” to the misbegotten hope for a non-­lifelike foundation of life, even if the fact hasn’t yet been widely announced.

It is, I think, time for the announcement.

There is a frequently retold story about a little old lady who claims, after hearing a scientific lecture, that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise. When asked what the turtle is standing on, she invokes a second turtle. And when the inevitable follow-up question comes, she replies, “You’re very clever, young man, but you can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.”

As a metaphor for the scientific understanding of biology, the story is marvelously truthful. In the study of organisms, “It’s life all the way down.” (bold added)
From Getting Over the Code Delusion

It appears we are not the sum of our genes, ie our DNA does not make us who/ what we are. The observed levels of specified complexity, from top to bottom, scream of software control and therefor an intelligent design.

No Jacques Monod, we are not the result of mere accidents. There isn't any evidence for that and there isn't any way to test the premise. The theory of evolution's shit just happens mechanism is devoid of content.

The evidence for intelligent design is so overwhelming that long time atheist Anthony Flew couldn't deny it any longer. It is only a matter of time for the rest to either die off or pull their heads out of their asses. My bet is most would rather die first.

Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!

Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Advances in the Name of the Theory of Evolution? Enquiring Minds want to Know

OK I am still hearing that the theory of evolution has brought forth scientific advances in its name.

So please could someone tell me what advances have been made in the name of an accumulation of genetic accidents/ blind, undirected chemical processes?

These could be medical, technological, scientific- what advances have been made?

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Reciprocating Bill Continues His Assault on the Theory of Evolution

Reciprocating Bill is nailing the coffin shut on the theory of evolution. It is:
A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

That is always best coming from an evolutionist. I would say Philip Skell and others echo those sentiments.

Carry on RB...

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reciprocating Bill Admits his Position is Not Scientific

That's right when I told RB what would refute ID- demonstrating tat blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for what IDists call CSI and/ or IC he said:
There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens.

And yet refuting ID merely means that his position has to actually produce some positive evidence.

In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable?

Behe responded:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.

Well RB, even though you are a chicken-shit intellectual coward you did manage to admit your position is total bullshit.

Thumbs high for that. Nicely done.

Note to blipey

Erik, if you are so desperate to be heard, or be part of the discussion perhaps you should try forming a coherent argument for your position. That way you wouldn't be forced to badger people with your ignorance. IDists and Creationists can get that from any ole evotard. So banning you goes relatively unnoticed because there are any number of replacements. It's like one less pimple on the ass of progress covered with pimples.

So I will keep checking the spam folder to see if you have developed a spine*, and if you do I will post it.

*you need to form a coherent argument for your position, complete with a testable hypothesis in the context I have been discussing.

blipey and the spam filter

Yes the spam folder is still filling up with clownie's comments- Erik still doesn't have anything to say beyond the usual lies and bullshit he is infamous for.

Yes Erik I do hope you show up at my house- I will leave the light on just for you.

And yes I do check out the spam folder once a week. Usually on my bath day.


Evolutionists- Too Afraid to Answer a Few Questions

It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.

So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullshit it is.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

A Testable Evolutionary Hypothesis? Is there such a thing?

Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.

IOW it appears the theory of evolution cannot even muster a hypothesis that is exclusive. Not only that there still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part system.

Are there any evoltionists out there who are up to the task of producing a testable hypothesis for your position? One that excludes other alternatives?

Or is the best you can do is to attack ID and all alternatives- IOW do you really think your negative attacks amount to positive evidence?

Friday, November 12, 2010

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Processes- Revisited

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski

Yes, they can.

Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

As for the people who have some "God phobia":

Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

(As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”.)

For more information please read the following:

Who Designed the Designer?

(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)

Mechanisms in Context

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.

All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.

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

Double-standards of the day

Double-standards anyone? Get your double-standards here!

Evotards are so freakin' clueless. They attack ID and say IDists are being evasive because ID is not about the designer. Yet the evolutionitwits, by the same standard, are being evasive for trying to separate the ToE from the origin of living organisms.

Sure they will say that the ToE is only about living organisms- but ID is only about the design, so what the fuck? Double-standard.

Then they say that the mechanism of deign is devoid of content = empty because we don't know the designer. Yet when applied to their position it means the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty because it doesn't say anything about te OoL. Yet the just brush that off and prattle on about ID. Double-standard.

The point is if the evotards apply 1/2 the skepticism they have for ID towards their position they wouldn't be evolutionists.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Spam folder is filling up fast

Now that blipey has been banned his comments go directly to the blog's spam folder and it is filling up fast with clownie's spewage.

You go girl!

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Reciprocating Bill's "logic" the theory of evolution is devoid of content= empty

Reciprocating Bill has said that unless ID can describe the agency/ agencies responsible for the design, then saying design is a mechanism is devoid of content = empty. That is because design being a mechanism entails and agency/ agencies.

He never supports his claim- it is just his say-so.

However if we apply this "logic" to the theory of evolution we can easily see that it is devoid of content = empty because the ToE entails the origin of living organisms. So without a description of how that happened that means the ToE is devoid of content = empty. Ya see according to Bill's "logic" a description of the OoL is the only way to cash out the ToE's proposed mechanisms.

Thanks Bill- I am sure you will be writing to science journals explaining your break-through.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Why Design is a Mechanism and Only Ignorant People can Deny it

If a mecahnism is a method or means of doing something and design is the way is which something is planned and made then it is obvious and undeniable that design is a mechanism.

And in the context of ID vs the ToE mechanism pertains to a method or means of doing something- For example according to the ToE an accumulation of genetic accidents is the method or means (ie the way) by which the diversity of living organisms arose.

And according to ID they evolved by design, as in a targeted search and/ or built-in responses to environmental cues.

Monday, November 08, 2010

Blind, Undirected (chemical) Processes Revisited

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...

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Water, Ice and Steam

For some reason I am getting flak for saying that ice is not water, even though I clarified that by stating ice is water that has been frozen.

My reasoning is as follows:

1- Water is a liquid

2- Ice is a solid

3- Steam is a vapor(gas)/ mist

For example when I order a double Captain on the rocks I get a good amount of Captain Morgans poured over ICE. I do not get a good amount of Captain poured in some water.

When I go into a resturant and order a glass of water without ice, they do not bring me an empty glass. If I just order a glass of water they do not bring me a glass of ice nor a glass of steam. Unless they are out of ice I would get a glass of water with some ice floating in it.

So bartenders know and understand the difference between the three. Waiters and waitresses also know and understand the differences between the three.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is a given that most people know and understand the difference between the three.

Not only that we can DEMONSTRATE the differences.

Yet I have this alleged PHD in chemstry- Doc Bill- telling me that I am a moron for suggesting there is a difference.

Another Tard Bloviating Chicanery

Friday, November 05, 2010

Autocatalytic (converters) Networks

OK, OM brought up autocatalytic networks but never made any point about them. However Dean Kenyon was one of the first on that scenario and he is now an IDist.

I am not sure what OM's point is but my bet is that he thinks that once you get the right mix of chemicals, shit happens and living organisms emerge.

So you may have this warm pond of chemicals just sitting there and then one day some other chemical is added somehow and badda-bing, badda- boom autocatalytic reactions!

But anyway what is your point OM? You do realize that Meyer deals with this in "Signature in the Cell"...

Thursday, November 04, 2010

"Panspermia Past and Present"- OoL looking good for ID

- Astrophysical and Biophysical Conditions for the
Dissemination of Life in Space

It has been known for a long while that random chemical interactions cannot produce the genetic information of the organisms we currently see on Earth (Argyle 1977, Hoyle 1980, Hart 1982, Barrow and Tipler 1986, Wesson 1990). For example, in a model of the prebiotic Earth with an appropriate complement of amino acids, random molecular interactions over a period of 500 x 106 yr would produce only about 194 bits of information (Argyle 1977). This is far short of the 1.2 x 105 bits in a typical virus, and tiny compared to the 6 x 106 bits in a bacterium like E. Coli. The low gain in information I from N trials is because the two things are related by I = log2 N . There are in principle two ways to circumvent this problem. One is that life in fact evolved solely on the Earth, but by some non-random, directed molecular process. The other is that life evolved on the Earth and other planets because they were seeded by biological molecules which already had a large information content. Both of these hypotheses have objections; but in view of the near-inevitability of this process shown above, the second appears to be the more plausible.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Rich Hughes' concerns for Blipey has me all teary-eyed and shit

Rich Hughes is so concerned for blipey it brought a song to my head:

"Muskrat blipey, muskrat Rich
Rich says to blipey come and be my bitch
And they shimmy
blipey's so skinny"

"And they whirled and they twirled and they tangoed
Singin' and jingin' the jango
Floatin' like the heavens above
It looks like muskrat love"

Cakeboy strikes again....

Your attention please- again...

Evolutionitwits love to give their opponents shit for enabling comment moderation on their blogs.

Well those same evolutionitwits prove why people do so- evolutionitwits appear to be too stupid to stay on-topic and they definitely are too cowardly to try to support their position.

That means they are forced to badger their opponents with their ignorance.

I have been allowing evolutionitwits to post here despite all of that because they help make my case when presenting ID to high school students.

You chumps not only help me but also provide plenty of laughs.

Thank you.

So stay on-topic, demonstrate an understanding of what is posted, support your claims and provide positive evidence for your position or scream at me from atbc.

Thank you for your understanding...

Why has blipey been banned?

This one is easy- Erik Pratt, aka blipey, has been banned for continually acting- well perhaps not acting- like a belligerent asshole.

Even when proven wrong using his own references he just continues to badger with his ignorance.

He is a proven liar and a proven intellectual coward.

He can go pollute other blogs and forums- his spewage fits in well with the rest of the evotardgasms spewing from atbc.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

The Ribosome and the Explanatory Filter

What happens when we run the ribosome through the EF?

Step 1- Can law/ regularity account for the ribosome?

No evidence that even given all the components that a ribosome will form

Step 2- Can chance and necessity account for the ribosome?

In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.

Step 3- Probabilities- can small probabilities account for the ribosome?

In over 150 years of experimentation no one ahs ever observed blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a simple functional multi-part system, so the answer would be no.

Step 4- Is the ribosome specified?

Yes it has a biological function that is dependent upon the correct configuration of its parts- and the function of the ribosome is separate from the function of its parts.

Monday, November 01, 2010

Archaeology, Forensics, SETI and the Explanatory Filter

Archaeology, forensics and SETI are three active areas of research that propose they can differentiate between nature, operating freely and agency involvement.

But how do they do so?

My claim is that they all use the explanatory filter. My reasoning is as follows:

1- In archaeology you cannot be holding an artifact if nature, operating freely can account for the object. In forensics you cannot have a crime scene if nature, operating freely can account for the evidence. And in SETI they do not infer an alien civilization is sending a signal if nature, operating freely can produce that signal.

So that is the first two decision nodes of the EF- eliminating chance and necessity, ie nature, operating freely.

However just getting beyond the first two nodes is not enough to infer design (nor a crime). You still need some positive evidence. And that is were the third node comes in.

2- In archaeology once nature, operating freely has been eliminated and there is some specification- tool marks, the way pieces fit together, for example- then they infer it is an artifact. The same with forensics- once nature operating freely is eliminated they have to look for things that known agencies can do. And the same for SETI- eliminate nature and then look for something agencies have been known to do.

With living organisms there isn't any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a living organism from non-livng matter. All scientific data says that life begets life. And yes we observe specification inside of living organisms.

So we have eliminated nature, operating freely and have observed a specification and that is why we infer living organisms are the product of intent and design.