Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, July 30, 2010

Nicholas J. Matzke is a Liar, Loser and Cry-Baby

Recently Nicholas J. Matzke wrote an article trying to make Intelligent Design and Creation the same thing.

He makes the connection because some or even most IDists think that the Designer was/ is "God".

By Nick's "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because some/ most evolutionary scientists are atheists who say exactly that.

That isn't the only lie Nicky spews.

In another article he authored he sez:
As far as I know, despite all of us using Long et al. (2003) as a club with which to beat the helpless baby seal that is the ID “evolution can’t produce new genetic information!” argument, ...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Measuring Biological Information

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.

In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”

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).

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Intelligent Design and Directed Mutations

The ignorance of anti-ID evotards never ceases to amaze me.

Their ignorance is not only of evolution and what is being debated but they do not seem to understand Intelligent Design although they rail against it on a daily basis.

I tell them that neither Intelligent Design nor Creation are anti-evolution because both accept "evolution" as in the change in allele frequency over tme and how larry Moran defines it in What is Evolution?.

Both IDists and Creationists accept that mutations occur. However in our scenarios the bulk of them are directed, not random with respect to X.

Dr Spetner wrote a book about this- "Not By Chance" in which he discusses the role of "built-in mechanisms to environmental cues" as part of his "non-random evolutionary hypothesis".

The point being is that mutations are directed pretty much t a computer program directs an output, as spell-checker is so directed.

Yet one mention of this to the evotard minions and the evotardgasms reach epic proportions within seconds!

They would rather remain ignorant of their opponents, erecting and refuting strawman after strawman, as opposed to actually learning what their opposition claims.

Then when their ignorance is exposed they just ignore the people who exposed it.

Life is sweet for evotards...

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Zachriel Bites the Big One!

For years Zachriel has been running around claiming that a nested hierarchy is what we would expect from evolutionary processes.

Yet a peer-reviewed paper from 1998 refutes his claim:

"The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49.

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification.

I hope you choke on it Zachriel...

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

The Four Fundamental Entities of Intelligent Design

By now everyone is aware that matter and energy are the two fundamental entities in a materialistic universe.

Intelligent Design accepts that matter and energy are two fundamental entities of this universe but also add Information and Life as two other fundamental entities.

Now one could argue that plasma is another FE and I would not oppose that, but would have to change the tilte of this blog and the first sentence accordingly. :)

My point is taht in addition to the materialistic universe ID brings two more fundamental entities that need to be explored.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Oleg T- Ignorant of Cladistics too

oleg said:
Joe, give it up already. We've been talking about clades for ages and you still don't understand what a clade is! It is not defined by shared characteristics, it is defined by common ancestry.

Reality check-

intro to cladistics
The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

And also what is cladistics?

The common theme is that they all agree with me.

Go figure...

Monday, July 05, 2010

Oleg Tchernyshyov- How low can you go?


Oleg Tchernyshyov is turning out to be one hell of a low-life loser.

Trying to get him to support his claims is close to useless.

But that isn't even the worst of it.

When discussing nested hierarchies oleg was shown the following website with definitions of hierarchies, including nested hierarchies:

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

Does oleg address any of the content?


oleg attacks the owners of the website- the organization ISSS.

Did you get that? He attacks the organization!

What a little pussy.

Does he ever provide a valid reference as to what nested hierarchies are and what rules must be followed in their construction? No.

Does he ever give any indication he knows something about nested hierarchies? No.

But he did expose his ignorance of nested hierarchies when he agreed with Zachriel that a nested hierarchy can be constructed without calling on characteristics to do so.

He never did provide a valid example. He did try to defend Zachriel's misuse of set theory.

IOW oleg will say anything and help anyone who disagrees with me.

Case in point- oleg links to UC Berkley Understanding Phylogenies which says that:

Clades are nested within one another—they form a nested hierarchy.

The site never defines nested hierarchy nor does it say why clades form a nested hierarchy.

But that doesn't matter because oleg thinks they disagree with me so that is good enough for him.

Pathetic- and this asshole is a professor at a US university.

So I found another website hosting the Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory- the University of Wisconsin (Botany dept).

I asked oleg if the university was also full of crackpots.

He didn't respond. And he still has not demonstrated any knowledge of what a nested hierarcy is.

Yet he "knows" I am wrong and sez that I am unable to learn.

Working with frustrated magnets must have turned his brain into mush...

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Oleg Tchernyshyov - Intellectual Coward and Crackpot- exposed again

olegt is back at it again, still talking out his ass, as usual.

I had said:

That is what a power set is- a set broken down.

olegt replied:

I suppose that's why it has to be kept together with a pair of extra braces.

Well English is his second language so perhaps he just didn't understand what I said.

Ya see olegt with set {x,y,z} it can be broken down to its subsets:

power set:

If S is the set {x, y, z}, then the subsets of S are:

{} (also denoted , the empty set)
{x, y}
{x, z}
{y, z}
{x, y, z}
and hence the power set of S is

P(S) = {{},{x},{y},{z},{x,y},{x,z},{y,z},{x,y,z}}

There you have it-the set {x,y,z} broken down into all of its possible subsets.

IOW olegt you are an intellectual coward and a crackpot...

Friday, July 02, 2010

Zachriel, Nested Hierarchies and Set Theory- The Ignorance Exposed, Again

I had challenged Zachriel

Perhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.

Zachriel said

However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.

That's it. That is as far as it goes.

He made up {{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}} because he thought he could slide one by.

Too bad he is just another exposed internet poseur .

And now he is choking on it, trying anything to distract from that fact.

Life is good.

Thanks Zachriel...