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

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Correcting Science Teacher Kevin R. McCarthy's, AKA OgreMKV, "Explanation" of Natural Selection

EvoTards love to rewrite history. Case in point "natural selection". There were published articles in the early 19th century that discussed the exact concept that Darwin called "natural selection" (On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Darwin may have coined the term but he did not "invent" the concept.

And even in Darwin's day there was an uneasiness about the term because they knew that nature does not select. Darwin was trying to compare this concept to artificial selection/ animal husbandry, so "natural selection", although wrong and misleading, was what he came up with. And that is also why the term "survival of the fittest" was coined, as a replacement.

But anyway, what is it- what is this concept, what does it consist of?

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

Differential reproduction means that some will out-reproduce others. For natural selection that differential reproduction has to be due to heritable variation. So it really isn't as simple as saying some will out-reproduce others, therefor natural selection.

What does Kevin McCarthy say:
In the simplest terms, natural selection says that organisms that are more for fit for their environment tend to preferentially survive and pass their traits to their offspring.

Does Kevin understand that fitness is linked to reproductive success? Obviously not. Such is the life of an ignorant science teacher.

Then Kevin asks:
But how can simple changes in the gene pool, which are usually changes in the percentage of each allele, result in the massive diversity around us?

No one knows, Kevin. Not even you. And that is because no one has demonstrated changes in genomes can account for the diversity we observe. There isn't anything in genetics that supports the claim.

Genes influence traits. Blue eyes are a trait. Being human is not a trait that can be linked to any genome.

So here we have a science teacher spewing unscientific garbage and feeding it to his students.

Now I understand the problem with Texas and education.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Of MathGrrl, CSI and Being Purposely Obtuse

Over on Uncommon Descent MathGrrl had a guest post on Calculating CSI. She said:
In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

As someone with a strong interest in computational biology, evolutionary algorithms, and genetic programming, this strikes me as the most readily testable claim made by ID proponents. For some time I’ve been trying to learn enough about CSI to be able to measure it objectively and to determine whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating it. Unfortunately, what I’ve found is quite a bit of confusion about the details of CSI, even among its strongest advocates.

My first detailed discussion was with UD regular gpuccio, in a series of four threads hosted by Mark Frank. While we didn’t come to any resolution, we did cover a number of details that might be of interest to others following the topic.

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

1.A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”

2.Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)

3.Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.

4.The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

There is more but I will focus on that part.

In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

Archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers agree with what Dembski said. Their jobs depend on it.

The point of CSI as an indicator is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some designing agency. And we have never observed Mother Nature producing CSI.

Next MathGrrl wants a "rigorous mathematical definition of CSI". I am not sure what she is looking for- an equation? Computer programs contain CSI, is there a mathematically rigorous definition for computer programs?

But anyway- Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in "No Free Lunch".

That is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.

Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something.

Why is this important? She brings up gene duplications. Gene duplications in already existing organisms. That is cheating as gene duplications can only be called blind watchmaker processes if living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind watchmaker processes- all about origins.

The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it. And if the blind watchmaker produced living organisms from non-living matter then you don't need gene duplications, ID is already falsified.

Which brings us to her equivocal use of "evolutionary mechanisms". The point of CSI is that blind watchmaker processes cannot generate it it from scratch and "evolutionary" mechanisms can, for all she knows, be design mechanisms.

She thinks that just because we understand the process it means it is a blind watchmaker process. She also thinks that ID requires a designer to come in and physically change the DNA. I'm telling you this person is fried. To wit- we understand the process of executing computer programs- the paths the signals take to produce a result. Yet no one would say computers run via blind watchmaker processes. And I don't need a computer programmer here to make the decisions the program can make without intervention. IOW she doesn't even understand the first thing about Intelligent Design.

OK, moving on. In her point 3 she has a digital organism of 22 bytes. 22 bytes = 176 bits. That is 176 bits of information carrying capacity so depending on the specificity that will determine the amount of specified information.

So that is how you do it- count the bits and check on the variability. If you have 500 bits but any arrangement can cause the same effect then it ain't specified.

Science Teacher Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Provides An EvoTard "Explanation" For the Diversity of Life

I am starting to understand evotard stance against "critical analysis".

Good ole science teacher OgreMKV sez that since we observe a wide variety of dogs that are so morphologically dissimilar such as some should be separate species, and we did that in a very limited time, then nature can produce the diversity of life given eons of time. (here)

It is basically the same bullshit "argument" Darwin used- except he didn't use dogs as his example. Darwin was well practiced at animal husbandry so he also extrapolated from his observations and experiences.

Unfortunately the dogs are dogs and will remain dogs. The body plan is all the same. You have extremes that may not be able to interbreed but you have varying degrees- ie intermediates- leading to and from those extremes who can.

And if left to themselves they would become feral- all mixed, well those who could survive, will not segregate. IOW science teacher Ogre's analogy is a big fail. Take humans out of the equation and the observed phenotypic plasticity disappears. And mother nature is powerless to bring it back.

So there you have it OgreMKV but I bet you won't be telling your students any of that- using your example, nature, if left to itself, reduces diversity.

I'll get your your bullshit "explanation" for natural selection tomorrow.

Intelligent Design, Evolution and the EvoTard Confusion

I have blogged that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. I have supported my claim with the fact that "evolution" has several different meanings and Intelligent Design is only in conflict with one. See biological evolution- what is being debated and Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.

That said the theory of evolution is all about promoting the blind watchmaker thesis. And that is why ID is not anti-evolution and positive evidence for the theory of evolution would argue against ID.

EvoTards seem to have a difficult time grasping that even though I have spelled it out several times. But they are happy in their ignorance, so that is something...

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

"A Totally Different Type of Biology"- and EvoTard Confusion

The seems to be a rumble of evotardgasms over "A Totally Different Type of Biology". Let me attempt to clear the air:

Richard Dawkins said those words:
The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

It is a direct quote from him. If I quote Richard Dawkins does that mean I am saying it and those are my words? What happens if someone else also quotes him? Are we all Richard Dawkins? EvoTards are so pathetically predictable.

But anyway- RICHARD DAWKINS said it. That was taken from here- Dawkins starts talking near the 14:30+ mark.

What makes it "a totally different type of biology"? Origins- it is the difference between geology and archaeology, ie all the difference in the world. And that is why one of the three basic question science asks is "how did it come to be this way?"- because it matters to any investigation how it did come to be the way it is.

IOW the only people who would even question that are people who are scientifically illiterate.

Spreading the Soot- Sunlight Hits the North 40

Now that sunlight is hitting the north side of my yard I have started spreading wood pellet ashes on the snow to get it to melt faster.

I have noticed that in areas with a concentration of soot it doesn't melt as areas with a moderate dusting melt.

The snow melts and the soot "melts" into the topsoil.

A Deal for Jerry Coyne

Jerry Coyne thinks it is OK to discriminate against IDists. So I have a deal for him:

Discriminate away. However any evolutionist who cannot produce a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence (for their anti-ID position) to support it must be terminated.

So how about it Jerry, are you OK with that? Or are you just another evotard intellectual coward?

Sunday, March 27, 2011

EvoTard Methodology Revealed at Last!

Finally a breakthrough in understanding evotard methodology- how to rid the world of irreducible complexity:

How to do it

(ht bevets UD)

Complex Specified Information

CSI- Complex Specified Information.

Information- see Shannon, Claude

(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.)

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function

Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information

MathGrrl wants a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI and I say that is like asking for a mathematically rigorous definition of a computer program (which contains CSI).

The mathematical rigor went into calculating the probabilities that got us to 500 bits of SI = CSI

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.

Biological functionality is specified information.

So what do we have to do to see if it contains CSI? Count the bits and figure out the variation tolerance because if any sequence can produce the same result then specified information disappears.

And again, CSI is all about origins…

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Can the "Theory" of Evolution even Muster a Testable Hypothsis?

I have been involved in these debates for decades. And not once has any evolutionist shown enough integrity to produce a testable hypothsis along with positive (supporting) evidence for their position.

Is the theory of evolution really that barren and devoid of content?

So how about it- can any evo produce such a testable hypothesis here?

Friday, March 18, 2011

Global Warming? Apparently Not in Greenland

The 1950s saw the hottest Greenland in about 800 years and it is colder now than the 50s. Greenland during the Midevil Warm Period had periods warmer than any other recorded era. In the 1950s temperatures in Greenland approached those of the MWP but Greenland has been** colder ever since.*

So if the temperature is lower and the glaciers are melting anyway that would support my claim that soot, not CO2, is driving the meltdown.

*Kobashi, T., J.P. Severinghaus, J.-M. Barnola, K. Kawamura, T. Carter, and T. Nakaegawa. 2010. Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change, 100, 733–756

** changed from grown HT Zacho

"A Totally Different Kind of Biology"

That's right- under ID or Creation we are looking at a totally diffrent kind of biology than we are today, even though we are looking at the same biology!

That is because once you change the way you look a things, the things you are looking at change.

But anyway who says it is a different kind of biology? Richard Dawkins:
The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

That was taken from here- Dawkins starts talking near the 14:30+ mark.


In other forums I have been asked to describe/ define intelligence. I have stated that intelligence is that which can create counterflow*. Now I will tell you why that is important. Sorry, very, very important.

ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.

But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.

IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. The first is the detection- that is what gets archaeologists and SETI researchers going. Then we look for more (clues of design) while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42** but we don't know the question. (those darn mice).

I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. IOW the theory of evolution is about what happened after life appeared. But if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, i.e. the only scenario that excludes ID, then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway...

Why isn’t ID interested in those questions? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. SETI- first detect then try to understand; archaeology- first identify artifacts (detect) and then put the pieces together (understand). In the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make a reasonable inference about the designer is by studying the design. The same goes for how, why, when and where.

Can anyone tell me how to get any information about the Wright brothers JUST by studying airplanes? How about how it was designed or manufactured?

The odd part is the people who rail against ID insist we have those answers or ID isn’t science. However if we had the answers then we wouldn’t need science to help us find them, ID would be a given and the point would be moot.

The design inference matters because reality demonstrates we care whether or not something is intentionally designed. We care enough to have the word artifact as part of our defined vocabulary. We care enough to have laboratories set up to help us make the determination (intentional design or not). And we know it does make a difference to any investigation- that is it matters whether the object/ structure/ event in question was intentionally designed, happened by chance/ accident, or happened by necessity. For example when a fire investigation determines arson, the investigation from that point on is different than had the initial investigation determined “accident”. And guess what? We didn’t have to know who the arsonist was to determine arson as the root cause. Nor did we have to know how the arson was initiated. We know that only via rigorous investigation can we hope to determine those answers. And sometimes the person/ people who made the determination of arson aren’t the same. IOW one “team” made the determination of arson and another went about finding the arsonist. With ID scientists have enough to do with the detection and understanding part. And I agree the questions not answered by ID- the who, why, where, how- can and should be a guiding “force” behind extending the design inference- i.e. using the design inference as a foundation from which to ask those questions. Nasca, Peru- the lines and the figures- designed? Yes. The who, why, how were only “answered” via years of investigation, and we are still working on what we do have. The point being that the discovery of design led to the research. And it also disproves the foolish notion that the design inference is a show stopper (held by those who say ID is another way of saying “Goddidit! We give up!”).

*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science

or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.

** from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Yes, Termites Are Designing Agencies

EvoTards never cease to amaze me because they are so freaking clueless. case in point- termites. Ogre MKV thinks that termite mounds are an example of blind, undirected processes constructing something- complexity without intelligence, is what he calls it.

First ID does not claim that complexity, mere complexity, requires intelligence. Second termites are designing agencies- ALL organisms have that distinction, meaning they are "intelligent" in the way ID uses the word-> termite mounds cannot be produced by nature, operating freely. When you see a termite mound you know that, at one time anyway, termites were active there.

The sad/ pathetic part is Ogre sez he has been engaging in this argument for 15 years and he still doesn't know anything about ID and is forced to lie and make shit up.


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Taxonomy, It's All About the Measurements!

That's right, according to RichTard Hughes taxonomy is all about measurements:

Joe, it's a taxonomy. To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it.

It ain't about characteristics as scientists have been saying, it's about the measurements! Small things are to be categorized separately from large things.

Rich uses a dipstick to do his measuring. I wonder when his ground changing paper will be published?

Monday, March 14, 2011

Jonathan Wells on Intelligent Design and Religion

"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Three for me, still zero for the lying evotards.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Matter, Energy and Information

Recently I had an atheistic nut-job who goes by Negative Entropy come here and baldy declare that "energy flow can explain information content".

Yet after many posts NE never did support his claim. He did not link to any information scientists, nor information theorist, nor information technologist (like me) to support his claim. What did he do? Just kept repeating it. That's it.

No one has ever demonstrated that energy flow can explain information content. As far as I know Negative Entropy is the only person making such a claim. So that would be a negative point against him.

He also claims that E=MC^2 says that energy is matter, matter is energy. That is nonsense. The equation tells us the equivalence- this amount of mass is equivalent to this amount of energy. It does not say that energy and matter are the same thing. Matter can be destroyed, energy cannot be destroyed. But that is besides the point.

Norbert Weiner- who is an authority on information said:
Information is information, neither matter nor energy

How does Negative Entropy respond? Like all intellectual cowards respond- by a bald declaration that Norbert Weiner is wrong- a bald declaration.

For all of his bluster negative entropy has failed to support any of his claims and then runs away crying that I am unable to be educated.

The truth is that Negative Entropy was unable to make his point. And until he provides valid references to support his claim he never will.

Matter and enery are information carriers only - that is the relationship, well that and neither would exist without information...

Everything in the universe is made up of essentially 2 things: matter and energy.- add information to that short list.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Dual Action Cleanse- A Warning for Evolutionists

Dual Action Cleanse is a product designed to rid your body of waste. The colon clear formula cleans out your colon- all the shit that has collected for all the years you have been eating.

The warning should be this:


Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design and Religion- a Continued Refutation

In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

OK so that takes care of Dembski and Meyer- that is two for me and zero for the lying evotards.

Evidence- What is it?

When conducting an investigation you need to collect information, including ohysical items, to proceed. All of this information is evidence. Whatever is relevant to the case you are trying to make, ie the reason you are investigating.

Evidence can be, but not limited to, facts, bodies, body parts, guns, weapons, money, markings, emails, postal letters, DNA and witnesses.

If you are trying to determine whether or not something is designed, well that something is evidence, as are everything that goes along with it- scratches, grooves, etchings. And when it comes to biological organisms that entails all systems they contain.

So you have this evidence and you must decide what is it evidence for? A dead body is only evidence that you have a dead body. Then you look for a/ the cause of death.

This is where you start to separate design from nature, operating freely- was it a homicide, suicide, accident or "natural" death? You can usually figure that out by determining the cause of death.

A bullet hole would be more evidence- then you would check to see if the bullet hit any major organs, veins or arteries. You would also look for bruises, cuts, scrapes and broken bones. What you find is all evidence.

The point? Well I said that the wet electricity that runs through our bodies is evidence fo Intelligent Design. Now it is evidence, there isn't any doubt about that- well except to maybe Ogre MKV and some other evotards who are clueless about investigating. It exists and has to be explained, meaning it is evidence.

So I took that evidence and added more- the details and came to the inference that wet electricity is evidence for Intelligent Design. I made my case.

Here it is- again:

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 thepotassium 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 is 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.

Ogre's evotardgasm? "That is not evidence!" And this chump is allegedly a school teacher in Texas. Now I understand the education problems in that State.

Monday, March 07, 2011

Ogere MKV Chokes Again and Continues to Prove he is an Intellectual Coward and a Liar

Ogre MKV has a post titled Standards of Evidence. Yet he never posts any evidence for his position to set that standard.

And when I post evidence for Intelligent design all it can spew is:

This is not evidence Joe.

That is it just a bald declaration followed by more of its ignorance. All it had to do was produce the evidence taht supports its position so that we can compare. But that ain't going to happen.

The Ogre is an intellectual coward and a liar.

He does continue to spew his position has the evidence but has yet to post a testable hypothesis nor the evidence.

What else would I expect from an imp who sez that evolution is the process of evolution?

Q-How did organisms evolve-

Ogre- by evolution!

So Ogre is scientifically illiterate intellectual coward and a liar.

Sunday, March 06, 2011

A Terrified and Cowardly Ogre

It was bound to happen- evotards don't like it when their lies and cowardice are exposed. The Ogre is censoring my comments- deleting most that expose his bullshit lies.

Now he has reposted his bullshit "challenge", to which I have responded:

Your "test" has nothing to do with ID. It doesn't have anything to do with science.

If both code for a protein then both have a specification. Also the design inference is pitted against chance and necessity. And there isn't any way you can show that either sequence can arise via chance and necessity.

But anyway you won't publish this so it doesn't matter anyway- you will run around the table with your hands in the air as if you just accomplished something.

I am saving all my comments and posting links to your cowardice...

He has allowed my comment but he is still insisting on being an evotard:

You said that people can decide on design versus random all the time.

That is not what I said. I cannot engage in civil discourse with you.

Both of the sequences I present code for a protein...

And unless one of them was produced by randomly selecting nucleotides it has no bearing on ID.

That is what ID claims- the WHOLE sequence, not just one that has been randomly altered.

Not that you will understand any of that.

William Dembski Refutes the Ogre and other EvoTards

The Ogre and other evotards say that Dembski provs ID is a religious venue- driven by religion. However in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:

Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.

But I am sure that will be ignored also...

Ogre MKV is a Liar and a Twisted Freak

Ogre MKV is just another lying atheist. There was a time I thought he had something real to say. But since visiting its blog I see it is just another lying evotard spewing evotardgasms.

Ogre is another moron who thinks because Dembski, Behe, Meyers and Wells are religious that alone makes ID religious. However when pointed out the the majority of evotards are atheists so by Ogre's "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory the Ogre chokes, as do all evotards.

I feel real bad for Texas as it seems this moron has taken a test to become a certified teacher. IOW there is another reason to hope for a global cataclysm...

But anyway Ogre enjoy your blog where you get to spew your lies and nonsense and have people pat you on the back for it.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

The Reason Why a Global Cataclysm May be a Good Thing

That's right- there is a reason why a global cataclysm may be a good thing. For one I am sure it will rid the world of creatures such the human ape, because this freak embodies all that is wrong with humanity.

Charles Manson has nothing on this deranged freak. Geez I just went to its blog and now need to go take a shower.

Hopefully it never breeds...

(more to follow but I really need that shower, between it and Ogre MKV this has been an IQ lowering day)

Another EvoTard and Another Ignorant Attack on Intelligent Design

Ogre MKV has a blog from which he attacks Intelligent Design- well a straw man/ cartoon version of Intelligent Design- this person(?) is as ignorant as OM and RichTard. These assholes really think their ignorance is meaningful discourse.

In one post Ogre sez:
Intelligent Design, that nebulous concept that supporters think will remove evolution from the classroom, is useless.

Wrong- ID is not anti-evolution.

In another post he spews:
Intelligent Design proponents suggest that complexity cannot exist without intelligence.

Wrong again asshole. IDists freely admit mere complexity can arise without intelligence.

And here is the moron's challenge to IDists:
The challenge is thus: I have provided a sequence of about 975 nucleotides that are known to be designed (because a human designed them). In addition, I have provided a sequence of random nucleotides of approximately the same length. It would be child’s play to modify this to proteins or RNA or even just strings of numbers. The two sequences are presented side-by-side (depending on the forum). Can ID proponents distinguish between the two?

Total bullshit. EvoTards can't even demonstrate blind watchmaker-type processes can string together tha many nucleotides! But anyway that challenge doesn't have nything to do with ID- Ogre is just an ignorant troll.

The interweb is a wonderful place- it gives anonymous ignorant morons like Ogre MKV a place to spew its ignorance. It is amazing that he has the capability to use the intertubes though...

Dtay tuned for more of Ogre's ignorant spewage- it should be very entertaining...

Friday, March 04, 2011

OM- Willfully Ignorant and Proud of It

As if it had to be said but OM is willfully ignorant and proud of it. Even though I have been over and over this with OM, the obtuse moron sed:

If ID is not anti-evolution like you keep claiming why would finding evidence for my position refute ID?

Not only have I and others claimed that ID is not anti-evolution, we have produced overwhelming evidence to support it.

But anyways the point is obviously OM is ignorant of what Intelligent Design is, otherwise the obtuse moron would not have asked that question. Amazing that someione so ignorant of something thinks it can speak out about it.

I am sure OM and the other addled tards behaving cowardly will and do say that I am the one who is ignorant, but it is strange how they just say it without ever supporting it.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Evidence for Common Ancestry Going the way of the Dodos

That's right it looks like the evidence for Common Ancestry is turning out not to be such good evidence after all.

This is summed up rather neatly in two posts by Jonathan M over on Uncommon Descent. (and here)

Chromosomal fusion, ALU and ERV arguments bite the dust. The 1-2% difference in genomes- chimp and human- is bogus because it only dealt with DNA sequences that are similar- similar DNA sequences are 98-99% similar. No one has done a complete side by each comparison. But even that won't help because of overlapping genes and alternative gene splicing.

Knowledge is not a good thing for the theory of evolution. The more we know the more the evidence goes the way of the dodo.

RichTard Hughes- Another Day, Another Lie

RichTard Hughes is lying again- different day, different lie:

Funny how ID_Guy and Joe are both barking up the same stupid tree - mutations only cause harm!

I never said nor implied such a thing. IOW RichTard, you are a liar. That seems to be the evotard way- lie, just lie.

In a later post Richtard exposes his ignorance as if his ignorance is meaningful discourse:

The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!

The answer is the designer didn't need to fuck with anything-> built-in responses to environmental cues and all.

Geez Richtard I have only been over that many times with you. You must be proud of your willful ignorance.

The evotard motto- "Since we can't beat them, we will lie about them".