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

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Is Joshua Swamidass Confused or just Pathetic?

Joshua is most likely confused and pathetic:
SETI seeks to infer the design of hypothetical creatures. Incidentally, they also have an excellent track record of avoiding false positives (unlike ID).
ID has avoided false positives. Joshua is a pathetically confused and ignorant of ID.

We do not infer divine design because God is not susceptible to scientific inquiry.
That doesn't follow, but ID does not infer divine design. ID doesn't require God.

IDists infer design because of our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships.

Joshua is such a pathetic excuse for a human. He wouldn't last one week over on Uncommon Descent. That is why he had to start his own site. So he can bash ID with his ignorance and hump his strawman whenever he wants to.

John Harshman is spewing Bullshit, Again

John Harshman bullshit on the genetic code:
Evolutionary biology would predict a better than average code.
BULLSHIT! Evolutionary biology didn't predict the existence of any codes. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes. And you don't have a methodology for testing the claim that nature produced the genetic code.

That means you don't have any science to support your spewage, John.

Just before the above response, Harshman spews:
Of course those designers are not god, right? This raises the question of how those designer arose. You should consider that too.
Wow, what a scientifically illiterate ass. No, dumbass, no one has to consider that. ID is NOT about the Designer. We cannot study the Designer so we don't have a say.

The DESIGN- you ignorant ass. The key is the DESIGN. And if your lame-ass position had the science you could easily refute ID. But you don't and all you have is childish whining.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Is Nathan Lents a Fool and a Liar?

The evidence says yes. A recent article supports that claim. 
There is no coherent theory about intelligent design; according to Lents, the one commonality is that supporters “don’t buy modern evolutionary theory, or some part of modern evolutionary theory. They hold a whole variety of incompatible positions.”
There is no coherent theory of evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes, you ignorant jerk. You don't even have a methodology to test the claims made by such a concept.

Irreducible complexity is the idea that evolution must be false because natural selection acts by propagating mutations that create advantage for the organism.
Liar- total bullshit.

1- IC is not the idea that evolution must be false because,
2- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.
“What we do know is that these structures don’t evolve as fully-formed units. When the eye was evolving, it wasn’t like a fully-formed retina — boom — just appeared, and then a full-formed lens, that’s not how it works. The whole thing becomes gradually more complex, and then, of course, many, many steps later it looks like if you remove any one part the whole thing doesn’t work, but that’s because it’s evolving as a unit, not stepwise. It’s not like building a car. The good thing is that, if you look at the eye, we can find intermediates, not in the fossil record but in living things right now, that have an earlier version of the eye.”
Evidence, asshole. What is your evidence for such a scenario and how can that scenario be tested? You need to cash it out in terms of genetics and you have FAILed to do so.
In this review, Lents sticks to the science.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
They point to sections or examples in Darwin Devolves that fail to take into account evidence produced by testing modern evolutionary theory.
...I’m just speaking to the general public, trying to correct the record on science.” 
But intelligent design supporters, including Michael Behe, their starting point is that they have a truth that they already believe is true, and then they try to mold an explanation for the science around that preconceived notion.
Fuck you, you lying asshole. Intelligent Design does no such thing and Lents will NEVER support his bullshit lies.

Nathan Lents is a fool and a liar.

Faizel_Ali, Scientifically Illiterate Pyschiatrist

Peaceful Science, where the bullshit never stops. Meet Faizel_Ali:
Universal human rights violate no scientific evidence.
Denial of common ancestry does.
What scientific evidence does the denial of common ancestry demonstrate? There isn't any science behind common ancestry- not if by "common ancestry" you mean that, for example, humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

No one knows if there is a mechanism that can produce the transformations required for humans to have evolved from knuckle-walkers. Heck science can't even account for the origin of eukaryotes.

So according to the scientific evidence common ancestry is a non-starter.

Psychiatrists don't know jack about science

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Chris Falter's Mistake

Chris Falter is another clueless ass on Peaceful Science:
In computer science, an evolutionary algorithm can produce novel, useful sequences of great length.
No shit- they were intelligently designed to do so. Their mechanisms are purely telic, actively searching for solutions to given problems.

Evolutionary algorithms don't model evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Nor are the examples of it.

Chris also thinks that all births are statistically improbable because he doesn't understand how to do the math.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

CLAVDIVS, ie Claudius, is Confused

Peaceful Science bans most IDists and drivel falls like rain:
I really don’t understand the main argument of Darwin Devolves.
If, overall, natural processes ‘degrade’ the genome, then all life should now be extinct. But life is not extinct, so something other than natural processes must be operating?
What I’m not getting is: How does Behe eliminate the possibility that overall natural processes do not degrade the genome? Can he really extrapolate from a handful of recent examples to all life over deep time?
It's called Intelligent Design, CLAV. ID says that organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to evolve and adapt.

Darwin Devolves demonstrates that if Darwinian processes rule biology then biology started out pretty much with the diversity already set. And from there it just degraded. That means if universal common descent is true then it did not happen via Darwinian processes.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The Not-So Brights

The not so Brights.
We are participants in an international internet constituency of individuals. All of us have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural or mystical elements.

Currently, the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures - even politically and socially repressed. To be a Bright is to participate in a movement to address the situation.

The not so brights have nature producing codes. The not so brights have minds arising from the mindless via blind, mindless and purposeless processes.

The brights couldn't support their position with science if their lives depended on it.

The naturalistic worldview is a total failure. That would be why it is insufficiently expressed.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Is Joshua Swamidass a Clown?

Or maybe he is just a sad little comedian. You decide.

Now Joshua says the following:

(Joshua): I agree. We are waiting for him to respond. Why do you think he continues to avoid responding to it?
This is strange because Bill Cole posted Dr. Behe's response on Peaceful Science. See my post on that- The Double Standard of Art Hunt 

Now it is up to Art Hunt to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes did it. Yet we already know that maize exists only due to artificial, and not natural, selection. And yes, that makes all of the difference in the world.

Even given that, there is still the main issue. Hunt needs a way to determine recombination is spontaneous- as in it just happens as a matter of course. He can't do that.

Dr. Spetner has already explained why recombination occurs "Not By Chance".

So, not only has Dr. Behe responded, there hasn't been anything beyond handwaving to Dr. Behe's response.

If all Hunt can do now is keep repeating his claim then there is nothing else for Dr. Behe to do but move on. Now it is up to Hunt to support his claims instead of merely repeating them.

Maybe Joshua is just oblivious, ie willfully ignorant, to what is being debated with respect to evolutionary biology. Still sounds like a clown to me.

Is John Mercer- Molecular Biologist- an Ignorant Coward?

The cowardly losers on Peaceful Science are clueless. They ask things about ID when they know there are very few there who grasp the concept. For example, John Mercer asks:
Edgar, why doesn’t anyone in the ID movement have an ID hypothesis that makes testable predictions?
Hey John, why don't you and yours lead by example by showing us the testable hypotheses and predictions borne from blind, mindless and purposeless processes? Why the obvious double-standard?

But I digress- ID predicts that living organisms are not reducible to materialistic processes. That also means there is more to living organisms than what meets the eye- immaterial information that runs life.

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.

And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Joshua Swamidass is Confused about Information and Intelligent Design

The following takes place on Peaceful Science. Joshua Swamidass is the responding quote:

That is it. And ID uses the technical definition.
No, Joshua. ID does not use the technical, ie Shannon's, definition. If you read what IDists, like Stephen C. Meyer, have to say then Shannon only provided a way to measure the (possible) information carrying capacity of any sequence of nucleotides (for example).

With respect to biology Intelligent Design uses the not-so-knightly Francis Crick's definition:
Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
In “Signature in the Cell” Meyer defines “information” basically as it is found in standard and accepted dictionaries:
the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
I doubt that Joshua has actually read anything about ID from the IDists. Now that I am reading "Darwin Devolves" I get the impression that he just skimmed through it at best.

Joshua also needs to read Dr. Lee Spetner's books to understand why he is wrong about information- "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution", Josh.

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Peaceful Science is a Cesspool

Take a look at a moronic post on PS: Moronic spewage on Peaceful Science.

A total asshole moron who goes by T_aquaticus sez that because HUMANs don't know what they are doing with respect to germline editing, that means all intelligent designers are also inept at doing so. Seriously:
Interesting. Apparently, an intelligent designer can not safely alter a genome. EVER!! 
How stupid and desperate are the assholes on Peaceful science? Does Joshua really think these morons help his cause?

Evolutionists are not only the most dishonest people in the world they are also the dumbest and most desperate

Neil Rickert- Still Confused and Lying

This guy is clueless. Now he spews:
If we go by all known methods of design, they are materialistic and mechanistic.
WRONG! All known methods of design use MINDs and intelligence- neither of which is reducible to matter and energy.

He goes on:
And the DI strongly against anything that is materialistic and mechanistic.

Liar. ALL instances of ID are material, Neil. The DESIGNS are material, Neil. And design is a mechanism.

Neil Rickert is ignorant of science and totally ignorant of ID

Saturday, March 16, 2019

On the Evolution of a Novel Function by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution

Yup, back to the antifreeze protein. Molecular mechanism and history of non-sense to sense evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene in northern gadids
The diverse antifreeze proteins enabling the survival of different polar fishes in freezing seas offer unparalleled vistas into the breadth of genetic sources and mechanisms that produce crucial new functions.

Again, this is a perfect example of "built-in responses to environmental cues", ala Dr. Lee Spetner (1997). If blind and mindless processes did it there wouldn't have been enough time- again see Waiting for TWO Mutations.

Only wishful thinking sez this novel protein arose via blind and mindless processes. But if you read the paper the mechanism says intelligent design, ie guided.

Mikkel R Rumraket is a Willfully Ignorant Asshole

How many times do we have to tell the evos that ID is NOT anti-evolution?

How many times do we have to tell them that ID claims that organisms were not only intelligently designed but they were so designed with the ability to evolve and adapt?

How many times do they have to be told that the onus is on them to demonstrate that evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can produce new proteins, protein machinery and complex systems?

Dumbass Mikkel sez:
An issue at work here is the religious underpinnings of the anti-evolutionism of Cdesign Proponentsists, who appear to be motivated to destroy evolutionary biology for purportedly moral, cultural, and social reasons.
WRONG! At work here is the anti-science evos trying to force people to accept their pap as science.

ID has nothing against evolution, per se. So what is really at work here is evoTARD ignorance, cowardice and equivocation.

Look, Mikkel- you morons don't have a scientific theory. That is because you don't have any testable hypotheses and your "predictions" are limited to "change or stasis".

Friday, March 15, 2019

Two of the Positive Evidences for Intelligent Design

Positive Evidence for Intelligent Design (for a start):

1- Biological codes and the systems required to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner

2- The ribosome is a genetic compiler which not only translates the source code (mRNA) into an object code (proteins), but it also detects errors and stops the translation process

The first comes from the fact that in all of our experience only intelligent agencies produce codes. Yes, I accept that for the most part that the sample size is just humans. But that sample includes many, many examples. And, of course, on the flip side, no one has ever observed nature producing a code. Not one. Not once. And guess what? Nature doesn't care.

Anyone who thinks that nature, without even wanting to or trying, produced the biological codes and the systems required to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner, needs to step up and show us how to test the claim. Then they need to test it and publish their results.

The second comes from observations and science. For example The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors . The translation part has been widely known for decades.

The positive evidence for blind watchmaker evolution:

1- Genetic diseases

2- Deformities

Jerry Coyne is Willfully Ignorant and Desperate

Too funny- after Dr. behe destroyed Jerry' ignorant review of his book, Jerry, unfazed, posts more desperate bullshit- The evolution of “irreducibly complex” antifreeze proteins in a polar fish 

Total bullshit, Jerry. Intelligent Design claims that organisms were designed with the ability to evolve and adapt. And this scenario is a perfect example of Dr. Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"

Jerry doesn't even have a mechanism capable of producing fish. Given starting populations of prokaryotes, jerry is stuck there.
He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108 
The antifreeze gene is an excellent example of that.

No need for intervention, Jerry. No one intervenes with genetic algorithms.

Jerry Coyne is willfully ignorant and desperate.

T_Aquaticus- More Ignorance from Peaceful Science

Evos are such a clueless lot. Now a moron who goes by T_Aquaticus spews its willful ignorance:
You expect excruciating detail for evolutionary pathways, but expect absolutely zero detail for how features like the flagellum emerged in the intelligent design model. Why?
What a dolt! Your side says it has a step-by-step mechanism for producing what we observe. We are merely asking for it. If you don't have it than stop making the claim.

That said, there isn't any design-centric venue in which we need to know the how BEFORE we can determine whether or not intelligent design exists. REALITY dictates that the only way to determine the how, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

Science 101, THAT'S why. DumbASS.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

More Lies from Evolutionists- Behe's Colleagues Choke on "Darwin Devolves"

It never fails. Evos lie, lie, lie and lie again. This time it is two of Dr. Behe's colleagues writing another bullshit review of "Darwin Devolves"
Why evolution by natural selection is difficult for so many to accept is beyond the scope of this review; however, it is not for a lack of evidence: the data (only some of which we present here) are more than sufficient to convince any open‐minded skeptic that unguided evolution is capable of generating complex systems.
Look, assholes, we reject the notion because it is untestable pap. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing replicating RNAs so forget about living organisms. And even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

Only in the world of biology do scientists think that differential accumulations of accidents, errors and mistakes can actually produce novel body plans, complex protein machines, and codes.

If any engineer said that they could build a bridge that way no one would trust the structure.

If someone told you that the entirety of literature arose that way starting from the sentence "A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog", would you believe them? That scenario would easier to explain than the diversity of life via those same processes.

They complain:
Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality.
True, but it is a ROTARY MOTOR. And it really doesn't matter what it is called. You still don't have a mechanism capable of producing it.
By acknowledging the reality that proteins are proteins, and not machines, we immediately recognize the shortcomings of irreducible complexity—a central pillar of the intelligent design movement
Total bullshit as they don't have a mechanism capable of producing proteins.
The concept of irreducible complexity is flawed for two reasons. First, it considers a system only in its current state and assumes that complex interdependency has always existed.
That is not true and it is very telling they didn't provide any evidence for it.

Second, irreducible complexity does not consider that proteins perform multiple functions and, therefore, evolutionary paths that seem unlikely when considering only one function may be realized through a series of stepwise improvements on another function.
Again, simply not true and again they did not provide anything to support that claim.

The authors seem clueless that they have to provide then evidence that shows blind and mindless processes are up to the task. They FAILed to do so.

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

So, here we have two people who work at Lehigh choking on Behe's book. I cannot wait for his response to those clueless losers

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Michael Behe Responded to Richard Lenski SEVEN Years ago

Recently, Richard Lenski posted another review of Michael Behe's recent book "Darwin Devolves". The cool thing about this book is that I have been saying that Darwin's mechanisms are good for genetic diseases and deformities. But clearly that isn't the point of this post.

Dr. Lenski's post is Evolution goes viral! I provided my take on it earlier. However, when I did a little searching, I found that Dr. Behe responded to it over SEVEN years ago! I kid you not:

One Small Step Sideways, Two Huge Steps Back - 31 January 2012.

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Michael Behe Destroys Jerry Coyne

Oh my- that was way too easy. Michael Behe destroys Jerry Coyne:
Coyne is quite the prominent evolutionary biologist, and has been antagonistic to intelligent design arguments for decades. If Darwin’s theory were actually the powerful idea it’s claimed to be, Coyne should have been able to counter design easily, simply by summarizing its arguments and showing how Darwin deals with them. Yet he can’t even bring himself to mention what those arguments are. Instead he tries to whip up hysteria against a book that argues for what most people already believe. That speaks volumes about the actual strength of Darwin’s theory.
I am beginning to wonder if Coyne actually read the book.

How Stupid and Desperate is Jerry Coyne?

According to Jerry Coyne, humans with minds that can contemplate and examine our existence arose from the mindless via blind, mindless and purposeless processes.

That is an untestable claim and as such outside of science. It is also a very desperate claim that requires more faith than any existing religion.

How desperate do you have to be to think that nature can produce codes without even trying? That nature produced minds without even trying?

Does Jerry realize that he thinks that nature, blind and mindless as it is, is very much smarter than he is? And if so, then why would anyone listen to what he has to say?

Saturday, March 09, 2019

Why Gene Duplication is NOT a Viable Blind Watchmaker Mechanism

Evolutionists love to call on gene duplications to explain genetic similarities between different genes and to also explain how new genes arise. They say the new genes are duplicated genes that have accumulated mutations that changed them. But is this viable? I say that it is NOT viable for blind and mindless processes, ie the posited mechanisms of evolutionism. It isn't viable for several reasons:

1- The duplicated gene needs a new binding site. And despite Art Hunt's protestation binding sites do not get duplicated along with the gene- see Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment.

2- The duplicated gene needs to be in the correct position on the spool or it will never be seen to be expressed even if it had a binding site.

3- Waiting for two mutations makes it very clear that creating a new binding site from scratch will be very time consuming

4- To change the gene requires specific mutations which in turn are very time consuming- see step 3's paper

So when you see/ hear evolutionists claim gene duplications you know they are desperate and ignorant of what that entails.

There isn't any justification in calling a gene duplication a blind and mindless process. Evolutionists are the most deceptive and dishonest people, ever.

Jerry Coyne gets even Dumber

Jerry did a review of Dr. Behe's new book and the review is full of bullshit. It starts out with total bullshit:
The notion of “intelligent design” arose after opponents of evolution repeatedly failed on First Amendment grounds to get Bible-based creationism taught in the public schools.
WRONG! Teleological thinking goes back to the ancient Greeks, you ignorant ass.

Then this clown thinks that the work of Dr. Joe Thornton, et al., refute Dr. Behe. Dr. Behe responds.  

Sad, Jerry. Evos will accept the most bullshit ideas if they think it refutes ID.

Then Jerry talks about gene duplications. And yet the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says there isn't enough time to A) duplicate a gene, B) build it a new binding site and then C) change it so that a new function is gained from the altered duplicate.

Jerry is so stupid he doesn't understand that if he could just find scientific support for his position then ID would be falsified. But the asshole doesn't even know how to test the claims of his very own position! How pathetic is that?

Friday, March 08, 2019

"Human Errors" by Nathan Lents- Straw Man Humping at its Finest- Opening Comment

I borrowed a copy of "Human Errors" from the C/W MARS library network to see what the fuss was all about. Lents seems to think that humans are supposed to be perfect. That all opposition to evolutionism claims that humans are perfect. That is a major straw man that Lents humps throughout the book.

Even YECs have an explanation for the observed deterioration- the Fall form Grace that led to genetic entropy.

Michael Behe explains it with respect to ID- random changes creep in and either break, blunt or damage genes.

A broken vitamin C gene is not evidence for common ancestry.

Lents chokes on the fact that we have our airway linked to swallowing. We need that connection in order to talk.

Lents is blind to the fact that our eyes are not wired backwards. Our eye configuration is actually optimal. We have athletes that can hit a small round ball coming at them at 100MPH.

Of course Lents sez that nature invented eyes- total untestable bullshit, Nathan. So much for you caring about science.

Oh, and that recurrent laryngeal nerve- the one that actually innervates along its alleged circuitous route.

It's strange that this guy railed against Dr. Behe's claim that random mutations mess things up and then presents the evidence that supports Behe.

More to follow as I read through this trope- Nature Did It, I tell You!!!!111!!1!

Nathan Lents and Joshua Swamidass are also Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

EvoTARDs crawl from under their rocks in record numbers when an IDist has a book published. Nathan Lents of the moronic "Human Errors" is just one of them.
In perhaps the most dramatic example, a multisubunit complex called T-urf13 was cobbled together from various pieces of noncoding DNA in the maize mitochondrial genome.
Yes, maize is a product of ARTIFICIAL selection which means natural selection had NOTHING to do with it. Also it is only ONE part. And then there is the fact that recombination played a role. Recombination was discussed in "Not By Chance" as a designed mechanism to bring about variability- meaning organisms are designed to evolve.
This is a key example because the T-urf13 complex is a gated ion channel, a molecular structure that Behe specifically held up as an example of irreducible complexity in his first book, Darwin’s Black Box .
AGAIN, it is only ONE part. The membrane already existed.
That this structure was formed through several random DNA rearrangement events is nothing short of incredible, but there it is.
The word recombination appears only once in this book (outside of the notes) and neither exaptation nor horizontal gene transfer are mentioned at all. As these are key forces in generating diversity and innovation, I’d say they merit discussion, especially by someone intending to challenge their importance.
This is a major what the fuck!? The author has absolutely no clue at all. Exaptation? Really? Where did you get the body parts that were altered? How did you determine that HGT is a blind and mindless process? How did you determine that recombination is a blind and mindless process?

Why are ALL evos such cowardly equivocators? Why do they think that their willful ignorance means something?

Thursday, March 07, 2019

More Pathetic Ignorance on Peaceful Science

Richard Lenski starts the ignorant spewage: (2/3 of the way down)

Anybody remember Behe’s first book, Darwin’s Black Box , published in 1996? There, Behe claimed evolution doesn’t work because biological systems exhibit so-called “irreducible complexity,” which he defined as “… a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

Then he talks about 4 mutations to ONE EXISTING protein! And he cannot say how that protein came to be. So no, evoTARD scientist, that experiment has nothing to say about an IC SYSTEM. And even Dr. Behe's mousetrap had FIVE different parts.

That would mean, to any honest person, that you need a functioning protein machine consisting of FIVE DIFFERENT proteins. And even then all you would have shown pertains only to a five part system or a more simple system. It says nothing about a six part system, let alone the thousands of parts required for something like a bacterial flagellum.

Then super dumbass T aqualung chimes in with:

The example of the evolved viral protein Lenski describes in the article fulfills that challenge. The new function of the final viral protein required the irreducibly complex interaction of 4 different mutations, and Lenski was able to show how it evolved step by step.

The example doesn't come close and only a willfully ignorant asshole would think that it did. IC is not about evolution but about evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. 

A SYSTEM, not just one protein. And definitely not just modifications to the tail of a protein.

Richard Lenski is a Willfully Ignorant Fool

This relates to yesterday's post. Lenski ignorantly wrote:
Evolution can’t explain these functions, according to Behe, because you need everything in place for the system to work. Strike one! Lambda’s J protein required several well-matched, interacting amino acids to enable infection via the host’s OmpF receptor.
No, dumbass. That J protein is only ONE part. And guess what? You don't have anything to explain its existence. STRIKE ONE ON LENSKI
The Edge of Evolution , Behe’s second book, claimed that evolution has a hard time making multiple constructive changes, implying the odds are heavily stacked against this occurring. Strike two!! Lambda required four constructive changes to gain the ability to use OmpF, yet dozens of populations in tiny flasks managed to do this in just a few weeks.
The Edge of Evolution refers to genetic accidents, errors and mistakes. This example is clearly a case of "built-in responses to environmental cues". Meaning it did NOT happen by chance. STRIKE TWO ON LENSKI
Darwin Devolves says that adaptive evolution can occur, but that it does so overwhelmingly by breaking things. Strike three!!! The viruses that can enter the bacterial cells via the OmpF receptor are not broken.
Double- dumbass. "Overwhelmingly" does NOT mean "every single time". And AGAIN the book refers to evolution by chance, ie Darwinian evolution. STRIKE THREE- LENSKI WHIFFS.

Lenski cannot explain the existence of life. Lenski cannot explain the existence of biological reproduction. And Lenski definitely cannot explain the existence of that J protein nor the virus nor E. coli.

Lenski thinks science is done via fairy dust.

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Dr. Lenski Misses the Clues

Dr. Lenski has another Dr. Behe-bashing post. This one talks about really cool research involving E. coli and a little lambda. Please read it as it definitely looks like the virus is trying, actively, to get inside of the bacteria which altered itself due to environmental cues.

In other words this looks like a fine example of "built-in responses to environmental cues" that Dr. Lee Spetner wrote about in "Not By Chance" 1997. There isn't any need of guidance. Just the built-in ability to evolve and adapt. And to solve the problems that need solving.

Or are you going to deny that the virus was actively seeking a solution?

The whole problem is that Dr. Lenski has clearly read very little pro-ID literature. As with Drs. Nathan Lents and Joshua Swamidass, he also is clearly oblivious as to what ID claims.

And when we try to correct them, their arrogance won't allow it. They would rather hump a strawman then be bothered with actually learning what the are opposing.

He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108
The amazing power of natural selection my ass 

Pathetic Ignorance on Peaceful Science

I couldn't make this shit up if I tried- Peaceful and ignorance whining 
I’m more concerned with the blatant hypocrisy of demanding infinite detail for evolutionary histories from science while making zero similar demands from the ID-Creationist camp.
It started with Charles Darwin:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175]

So, that means evolutionism posits "numerous, successive, slight modifications". And that puts the onus on evos to support their claims.

ID does NOT make such a claim so clearly ID does not have to support it.

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science.- UC Berkeley
This has been pointed out to that whining scumbag and many occasions. Clearly Horton is just a pathetic lying coward who couldn't grasp science if its sad life depended on it.

Constructive Neutral Evolution- Evo Desperation at its Finest

Constructive neutral evolution. Total bullshit. this is supposed to happen when you have proteins diffusing around the cell, they bump into other proteins and just happen to form something. And if that something is useful it gets added and kept. This can go on to include several proteins (yeah, right).

However that is only a one-off thingy. There isn't any heritability there. Any offspring will also have to go through the SAME CNE to get that same protein configuration.

Larry Moran does a decent write-up for this- constructive neutral evolution
Imagine an enzyme "A" that catalyzes a biochemical reaction as a single polypeptide chain. This enzyme binds protein "B" by accident in one particular species. That is, there is an interaction between A and B through fortuitous mutations on the surface of the two proteins. (Such interactions are common as confirmed by protein interaction databases.) The new heterodimer (two different subunits) doesn't affect the activity of enzyme A. Since this interaction is neutral with respect to survival and reproduction, it could spread through the population by chance.
How could it spread through the population? It isn't a heritable change. Contingent serendipity is not passed down. It has to be renewed.

CNE is nothing but another atheistic "Hail Mary pass". Too bad it doesn't have a prayer.

I would love to know how evos plan on testing this idea- my guess is they are going to try to make any opponents disprove it.

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. from  Testability and science

Evos are getting very, very desperate. And it shows.

Sunday, March 03, 2019

Thumbs Up to "Fan65"- Everyone Join Peaceful Science

I was informed that someone posting by the name Fan65 on Peaceful Science posted a link to my blog and was subsequently censored and banned.

Thank you. I highly encourage more people to do that. Go to Peaceful Science, create an account- it's free- and post links back here or copy and paste my arguments there.

Flood their site with science and facts. Challenge their lame bullshit and expose their cowardly equivocations.

Thank you, Fan65. Hopefully there will be more people who follow your lead.

Saturday, March 02, 2019

Why the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is Evidence for Intelligent Design- Responding to Coyne, Lents and Peaceful Science

ALL nerves are evidence for Intelligent Design.

Wet electricity.

Whereas the electricity that powers our computers comes from the flow of electrons through a conductor and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to help convey differing messages to our command center.

In this environment mere electrons are of little use because they would be easily dispersed. What is needed is something bigger. And as I eluded to in my opening an ion or ions will fit the bill. Well there just happen to be two atoms well suited for ionization- two atoms with 1 outer valence electron.

If we take a look at the Periodic Table, and also a look at the electron shell arrangement (note the sodium diagram on the right and also the potassium arrangement, we see these atoms are perfect fits for the job of positive ions (as both have only one outer valence electron).

Now we have the ions but we need a way for them to get into and out of the cell- Ion Channels

Ion channels are proteins that line holes in the plasma membrane. They can open on demand to let ions in and out of the cell. They allow nerve impulses to travel, cause your heart to beat, and allow your muscles to contract. In many cells, channels and another kind of protein called a pump together maintain a relatively constant negative charge within your cells. This net negative charge, or membrane potential, affects the entry and exit of a variety of materials. page 15 of Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture
10 million to 100 million per second!
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.- Ibid page 19

However even these, in comparison to electrons, huge ions also get lost in the wet environment. So what is needed are pumps along the way to pump ions in and also out. In the case of our nerve cells, ions go in to start the signal and are pumped out to reset that part of the system so it is ready for the next (or continuing) sensation. See nerve cell.

(Some venoms and poisons effect these pumps (stop them from working) thereby shutting down the nervous system of the inflicted- ie paralysis sets in.)

However our nerves to not touch each other as wires do in an electrical system to make a circuit. Neurons have functional connections called synapses. These can connect neuron to neuron or other types of cells (for example muscle). Between the synapse and the next cell is a gap- the synaptic cleft.

This gap is too large for even ions to traverse. So to make the connection- to send the signal from one cell to the next, neurotransmitters are sent. These flow in one direction. And once the neurotransmitters reach their destination, that cell responds accordingly, and all the neurotransmitters are dismantled and shuttled back to the transmitting site to be refabbed and ready for the next signal. (some do linger a bit longer and then disperse)

This is key because if the neurotransmitters stay docked the receiving cell would remain locked in that sensation. And if any unused neurotransmitters- the synaptic cleft is basically flooded to ensure signal transmission- remain they will just fill in the docking site when the first arrivals are gone. IOW the receiving cell will be locked in that past sensation.

And there are different types of neurotransmitters for different sensations and purposes.

How is this evidence for ID?

The nervous system exhibits planning- it takes planning to get the right ions, ion channels, pumps and neurotransmitters.

Yes, evoTARDs claim that nerves evolved via blind and mindless processes. However, given starting populations of prokaryotes they don't have a mechanism (endosymbiosis doesn't help) capable of producing eukaryotes. To them all of what I described basically just happened via the culling and accumulation of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes.

Those clueless morons think that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolutionism just cuz they cannot comprehend why it takes the route that it does. And even when it is explained they just handwave it away.

See also The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design