Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

More Ignorance from TSZ

A poster named Rumraket is a special type of TARD. It now spews that genetic algorithms model natural selection.
The method has been used to design things like windmill propellers, aircraft wings, spacecraft antennae and who knows what else.
See for example this link where a Darwinian algorithm was used to evolve a very efficient spacecraft antenna design:
Or here where a similar process was used to evolve a very efficient aircraft design: Parametric Study of a Genetic Algorithm using a Aircraft Design Optimization Problem.
So human designers DO apply the natural selection method, because it IS feasible.
Except that is all wrong. Those algorithms have pre-specified goals and are given the coding and resources to reach those goals. Natural selection doesn't have any goals beyond survival or elimination. All of those algorithms are intelligently designed to produce specific results. Natural selection isn't like that at all. The antenna algorithm was going to produce the antenna is was designed to produce and nothing else.

Genetic algorithms are clearly a case of evolution by means of intelligent design. Only a desperate and willfully ignorant person would say they apply the natural selection method.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

John Harshman and Bird Kinds

John Harshman on Birds and Kinds

I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?

1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.

You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes. 

Atheism Doubles (Gen Z) but Could be a Problem for Evolutionism

It looks like generation Z is choosing atheism over religion. But:
Nearly half of teens, on par with Millennials, say “I need factual evidence to support my beliefs” (46%)
If that is true then that 46% should be very skeptical about the evidence-free evolutionism. Hopefully they pound their teachers with questions the teachers cannot answer- like how can we test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic? Or how can we test the claim that vision systems evolved via blind and mindless processes?

Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z

Monday, February 12, 2018

How I beat the Flu Every Year without a Flu Shot

I don't get flu shots and I don't get the flu. How do I do it?

First off I keep my immune system strong by consuming several different anti-oxidants, including vitamins C and E. I take NAC to boost my serum glutathione, which is a powerful anti-oxidant.

Second I boost my immune system with daily doses of warm lemon/ honey water and apple cider vinegar. Fresh squeezed lemon juice, raw honey and pure water (not tap).

Vitamin D is also crucial for a strong immune system. I make sure I take 4,000 IUs/ day with my Omega fats.

Zinc is another necessary ingredient. 45-60 mg during flu season spread throughout the day.

I take daily doses of "Cell Power" as directed.

I take "emergen-C" when I think I may have come in contact with contaminated people.

Putting H2O2 drops in the ears also works if you catch the sickness in time.

I also wash my hands constantly, eat right, get my rest and drink plenty of fluids. It helps to take a shower after coming home from work, shopping or just being around other people who are sick.

Monday, February 05, 2018

Once Contrary to Expectations it is now Evidence for the Concept

In 1963 Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis, had a book published titled "Animal Species and Evolution". In that book Mayr said that we should NOT expect to see deep genetic homology, meaning that genetic homology is restricted to the closest of relatives. However when deep genetic homology was uncovered it somehow became evidence for Common Descent.

The thought was that homologous structures came about via different genetic pathways.

What's up with that?

Friday, January 19, 2018

Darwinian evolution is not undirected? More Ignorance from The Skeptical Zone

An anonymous ignoramus that goes by Entropy spewed the following nonsense on TSZ:
Darwinian evolution is not undirected. Darwinian evolution is explicitly about an interplay between life forms variability and their environment.
LoL! Darwinian evolution is explicitly about blind and mindless processes- totally unguided and undirected. Nothing directs specific mutations to occur and nothing directs mutations to any goal.

In Kansas 38 Nobel laureates sent a letter and it said:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
And no, Alan Fox, the environment does not guide nor direct evolution. You will not find any such claim in any scientific theory of evolution- well because there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. And seeing that neither you nor Entropy is an authority on the subject your spewage is easily dismissed.

Now I know why Alan Fox is too chicken-shit to let me post on TSZ. His ignorance is easily exposed and he can't have that on a site he moderates.

ADDED- The claim now is cuz natural selection isn't totally random that means it isn't undirected.

And now an unguided missile- think Germany's V2- isn't a missile, it's a rocket. Guess what? It's actually both!

Friday, December 29, 2017

Biological Information in 3 Dimensions- Evidence for Life's Software, Again

Up to now biological information has always been related to the DNA sequence (sequence related). IOW the information depended on the sequence.

I do not believe this is a tenable position. I say that because in biology we observe that DNA just doesn't replicate itself, it does so with the help of other molecules in the cell. Those molecules are constructed by the information stored in the DNA. That's right- stored in- as in the data that is stored in a computer's hard drive, ROM and RAM.

And this is my point- that DNA, RNA and other cellular components are actually data carriers just like the computer components I just mentioned.

IOW the sequence is not the information. The sequence is important to carry out the instructions, that is the information embedded in the DNA (and perhaps other cellular components).

As I said in an earlier entry- Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with transcrition factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell.

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthase is used.

There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23

And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.

So this is how I envision DNA- both sides of the ladder carry redundant information. One side does the work, that is transfers programming data to other molecules it contacts (mRNA for example) and the other side is a template for DNA replication.

Once DNA replication is complete the program is transferred to the newly constructed side via the hydrogen bonds that connect the two sides.

When other molecules are made- mRNA for example- they are given their instructions via the same hydrogen bonds. That information consists of editing instructions, as well as configuration/ assembly instructions and destination instructions.

These instructions are not the sequence, rather they are embedded on the sequence, just as computer data is embedded on the disk.

The ribosome is a genetic compiler!

The enzyme machine that translates a cell's DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist.

Think about it-

What happens to a newly written or modified computer code that has an error? All new and modified codes have to go through a compiler.

A compiler is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist!

I bet if we were to watch we would see the compiler doing its thing right up to the point the error occurs and then spits it out much faster than if the code was OK, ie error free.

Biologists need to be introduced to and experience computer science.

Then this sort of discovery wouldn’t be so “shocking”.

Compiler- source code in, object code out. Ribosome- mRNA in (string of nucleotides), polypeptide out (string of amino acids).

So where is the software? In the cell, meaning it is all throughout the cell- it isn't just in one place in the cell.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Jerad the Broken Record

Ever try to have a discussion with someone who just lies and spews the same refuted shit over and over again? That is what it is like trying to have a discussion with UK Jerad. All Jerad has ever done here and anywhere else I have encountered him is lie and bluff. You can never get an answer from him. All you get is the same old shit over and over again as if his repeating hos shit is an actual argument. He never responds or actually addresses anything anyone actually says. He never supports any of his dumbass trope. He just repeats it ad nausea.

It's as if he is incapable of thinking. He attacks ID cuz ID isn't doing what ID was never meant to do. What the fuck is that besides ignorant desperation? He can't even read. I say that because some of his responses don't even follow from what he was responding to. He issues challenges that he hasn't even thought through and when his challenge is questioned he ignorantly claims victory. Typical for all evoTARDs.

EvoTARDs are so clueless and predictable. They harp and harp on ID all the while their own position remains untestable bullshit. Then they lie about that and yet never produce any methodology to test their claims! They ignorantly point to peer-review all the while peer-review never supports their position. When they do try to use peer-review it always blows up in their face and then they start accusing you of not understanding it all the while not being in able to make their own case.

That said it is time to say bye-bye to Jerad as I am sick of having my blog spammed with his cowardice and ignorance. If Jerad ever does actually ante up and start providing the evidence that supports his position and his claims I will post those. However given his track record that will never happen. All the while ID is growing stronger and stronger because the evidence for it is growing and growing. But Jerad wouldn't know because he is too stupid to assess the evidence.