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, July 25, 2013

Ribozymes are NOT Information Processors- Kevin McCarthy is a Liar or Ignorant

Kevin ReTARD McCarthy thinks that the existence of ribozymes refutes Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" because, according to Kevbo, ribozymes are both information and information processors.

Well unfortunately for Kevin ribozymes are catalysts, not information processors. OTOH a ribosome is an information processor- it takes a nucleotide input and processes an amino acid output.

So Kevin thinks that his lies or ignorance actually mean something. Strange...

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Process(es)

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

Yes, they can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information please read the following:

Who Designed the Designer?

(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)

Mechanisms in Context

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

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

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

Alan Fox- Totally Clueless and Proud of it

Alan Fox is so ignorant it is funny reading his drivel. On TSZ Alan sez:

Lenski’s long-running experiment is widely considered to be a demonstration of the power of natural selection (and variation).

Umm Alan, Lenski's experiment demonstrates there are severe limits to evolution/ natural selection. No new proteins were created. No new multiprotein configurations were created. There isn't anything in Lenski's experiment tat we can extrapolate into natural selection is a designer mimic. Nor can we say that evolution can produce the diversity of life starting with some unknown populations of prokaryotes.

If evos are to rely on Lenski's experiment then their position is in more trouble than I thought. Either that or they are just ignorant...

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Kevin ReTARD McCarthy- Moron at large

Kevin is trying to review "Darwin's doubt" by SC Meyer. Yet he is having trouble with the prologue- he sez:

Our story opens with a brief mention of Watson and Crick who “first illuminated the chemical structure and information bearing properties of DNA”. And right there, on page one, we have a problem. Now, I freely admit that I am hyper sensitive to this book and may be biased.
So, with that being said, I’ll point out that Watson and Crick did not “illuminate” the structure of DNA. That work was actually done by Rosalind Franklin. She was the one who actually created the images (via X-Ray diffraction) that Watson and Crick used to formulate the hypothesis about the structure of DNA.

LoL! Kevin, you moron. Franklin took the image but she had no idea what she was looking at! It was Watson and Crick who came up with the double-helix, not Franklin. She had plenty of opportunity to do so but she FAILED. Franklin said there wasn't any evidence that DNA formed a helix.

He goes on to spew:
While the nucleotide pairing structure of DNA was developed in the 50s (as stated by Meyer), the actual knowledge of how DNA transfer information to ribozomes (via nucleic acid triples) wasn’t discovered until the 60s.
Meyer did NOT give a date for that. You are tilting at windmills because you are a moron.
My problem isn’t so much that Meyer got it wrong, most people get it wrong. Almost no one outside of molecular biology circles knows about Rosalind Franklin. But Meyer should know about her. To me, this continues the shoddy research that Meyer had major problems with in Signature in the Cell.
Rosiland Franklin is discussed in "Signature in the Cell". Kevin the moron would have known that had he actually read the book.

Kevin then goes on to talk about evo-devo yet he doesn't realize that his position cannot explain how genetic switches and controllers came to be in the first place! And then he slings his usual false accuations saying that IDists do not know about evo-devo.

Kevin is just a clueless fuck, proudly spewing his ignorance for the ignorant evo minions.

Questions for Those Who Accept (Universal) Common Descent

OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?

How many mutations does it take to get a eukaryote starting with populations of prokaryotes- you can use each alleged symbiotic event as one genetic change/ mutation?

How many mutations does it take to get a chordate starting with populations of invertabrates?

How many mutations does it take to get a fish-a-pod starting with populations of fish? What genes are involved? Are any new genes required? If "yes" how many?

Science says that genes control traits- traits being eye color, hair color, ear-lobe style, etc. What is your evidence that being human is just a collection of traits?

And the killer question:

What makes an organism what it is? Without knowing that no one can say one type can evolve into another.

In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

The bottom line is people accept universal common descent for personal, not scientific, reasons. And the comments will bear that out.

Saturday, July 06, 2013

"Assume the IDers are right"- from the TSZ


Assume the IDers are right.

When we look at designed objects we can often tell a lot about the designers. For example, if we look at medical tools, fluffy teddies and cellos, we can see that the designers are compassionate and Value music. When we look at iron maidens and racks, we can see they have a sadistic streak.
Look at life on earth and assume it is designed, what can we tell about the designer?
First the title- IDist, not IDer- although it is true that we are also designers (evolutionist, not evolutioner), but it is IDist.

On to the post:

For one we can tell that the designer is well above our pay grade. Also we have to look at the whole picture and not just the life on earth. By looking at the whole picture we could infer that the universe was designed for scientific discovery. And if that is so then it would require inhabitants capable of investigation.

So under that context we would look at life on earth and see that it has the requisite scientific discoverers, along with a wide diversity of living organisms for investigation.

Yes we could assume multiple designers. And pain/ suffering lead to scientific discoveries, meaning Patrick May is totally off base with his stupid remark:

With respect to the original post of this thread, if we accept arguendo that life on Earth was designed, one conclusion we can draw from the evidence is that the designer(s) either cared little about the suffering of sentient creatures or that he/she/it/they lacked the capability to minimize such suffering.

In a perfect world, or one free of suffering, there would be little need for scientific discovery.

That said, if you are just looking at life on earth you wouldn't grasp the context of that life's existence. The many factors required for that existence have to be considered because living organisms, especially metazoans such as humans, do not exist in isolation. As I said many factors are required if we are to be in existence.

“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
Those three quotes are from "The Privileged Planet". 

“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one. 
This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime."- Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

aiguy, a willfully ignorant crybaby and proud of it

Over on TSZ crybaby aiguy asks "What Does “Intelligence” Mean in ID Theory?"

LoL! It means exactly what I have been telling aiguy/ RDFish for years-> it means agency, ie one that can manipulate nature for its own or some purpsoe.

aiguy sez:

[Footnote: As an aside, ID proponents often change the subject when talking about computer intelligence. If I point out that computers can design things, they respond that the computer only can do this because it was itself designed by a real intelligent agent, a human being. In other words, rather than try to judge whether or not a computer that can design things is intelligent per se, ID proponents start talking about "Who designed the designer?" and about how this computer came to exist. I'm not sure why ID proponents don't realize that they believe human beings were also designed by a real intelligent agent, yet this doesn't disqualify us from being intelligent per se!]

What a total asshole! IDists have explained all of that ad nauseum. And yes we realize that we are also designed by a real agent.

Whatever a computer spits out can be traced back to the designer of the computer and program(s). Whatever we spit out can be traced back to our designer.

The rest of aiguy's diatribe just proves that he is totally ignorant of investigation techniques. Not only that he doesn't understand that saying someting was deigned by some agency is a total game changer.

And dipshit Neil Rickert chimes in:

My first reaction to the idea of ID was “of course biological organisms are intelligently designed; evolution is itself an intelligent design system.” 

LoL! Evolution didn't produce the first living organisms, moron. Evolution occurs AFTER living organisms are on the scene. And Neil's cowardly equivocation is also duly noted.

So intelligence just refers to some agency. Intelligence designed and built Stonehenge.

Q- What designed and built Stonehenge?
A- Intelligence!

Q- What do you mean by Intellgence?
A- Agency

Q- How can you tell when agencies act?
A- We find signs of counterflow and work

aiguy ignored that too because he is proud to be a willfully ignorant asshole.