Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, September 19, 2014

Skeptics Focus on What?

Another comedic outburst by Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas):

We focus on things like logic, evidence, and critical thinking. 
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The "skeptics" I know of, including Kevin, focus on lies, equivocation and bullshit. Evidence? There isn't any evidence that supports materialism nor evolutionism. Kevin doesn't understand evidence and is too stupid to assess any.

If only these alleged skeptics would apply their skepticism to their position...

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Some Thoughts on Polar Bears

Recently I have been discussing polar bears and their whiteness*. Some people seem to think that their whiteness helps them in catching prey and that is why whiteness won out over some other color, like brown. The point being is that they say polar bears evolved from brown bears.

However if humans were the prey that may make sense, but humans could spot a polar bear unless it was very dark out or there was a blizzard. So the whiteness wouldn't help. Other prey animals are smaller than the bears and that means their perspective is changed, they are looking up with the blue sky as the back-drop. Being white wouldn't help in sneaking up on those prey. Camouflage only works when it is used correctly, meaning it is all about the perspective of that you are trying to hide from.

Being white would protect the bears from attacks from above, though. But just what type of organism could attack and kill a polar bear from above, I don't know. Perhaps eagles could feed on polar bear young, so in that case white could protect them until they grew up.

There is one scenario that would help- polar bears in the water could resemble floating ice and that would allow the bears to sneak up on seals resting on top of floating ice.

OK winter is coming and it looks like that will be a good time to build a snow bear to check it out from different angles to see how it blends in with its surroundings.

* polar bears do not have white fur- it is transparent with a hollow core. the whiteness is an effect of light scatter and reflection. however there are bears that have white fur tat are not albino.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Back to Nested Hierarchies- Why Andy Schueler and Jonathan MS Pearce are Ignorant

Amazing even after all the evidence that demonstrated Andy was ignorant of nested hierarchies Jonathan MS Pearce is still going around telling people that I lost the bet. That is total bullshit and here is just another reason:

Andy sez that descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy. However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH. For example the definition of a human includes all of the other definitions in the line of descent above it as well as the definition of a human (Homo sapiens). Pretty simple actually.

The problem is descent with modification is not like that. Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Genetic Algorithms vs. Natural Selection

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Natural selection is a process of elimination. What does that mean?: 

Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions. {natural selection is in this category}

With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force:
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population.
On the role of chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

So natural selection eliminates the less fit and genetic algorithms select the most fit (based on some arbitrary functions). Only imbeciles and dishonest assholes think that genetic algorithms simulate natural selection.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

With Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas) the Stupid Never Ends

Kevin is trying to refute something someone posted on his blog. Unfortunately for Kevin he obvioulsy has reading comprehension problems because he totally misses the point. The following is whay Kevin tried to refute:
Void, since computer science was one of my undergraduate degrees, I’m gonna do you a solid and answer your question. Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information. Consider the following digital code: 01001000011000010010000001001000 01100001001000000100110101100001 01100100011001010010000001111001 01101111011101010010000001101100 01101111011011110110101100100001 
If you take the time to translate the above binary code, you will have used the same intelligently designed information processing that cells have used for billions of years to turn a sequence of A,C,T & G into a protein. Here are the parallels and you’ll see that they are certainly not dissimilar. hard drive = DNA bits = nucleotides bytes = codons ASCII table = codon table letters = amino acids words = proteins One of these information processing systems was intelligently designed and the other one we use every day. Which one is which? It should be easy to see why some infer ID from biochemistry.
The important part is in the beginning sentences in which the poster clearly states Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information. Got that? The poster did not say that DNA was a computer nor was it like a computer. All you could take away from what was posted is that the CELL may act like a computer in some respects and those are discussed.

 The genetic code is a code. DNA is binary with each nucleotide equaling two bits of information. DNA is transcribed into RNA which is then processed and sent to a ribosome for translation into an amino acid sequence.

This is what Kevin sed:
This post talks about the old ID canard that DNA is like a computer or DNA is like computer code or DNA is like data on a hard drive. Whatever. 
Wrong! For one Dawkins said:
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike.
Dawkins is not an IDist.

Kevin goes on to spew:
Make a change in a computer code and the whole thing likely crashes. 
Only if one makes random changes or the wrong change. Intelligently designed changes just modify the existing program and allows it to run with the change. Programs are modified on a daily basis and they don't all crash because of it.

Make a change in a DNA code and you might make it run better. -
Or it could be fatal.

But anyway obvious;y Kevin has reading comprehension issues as the poster talked about the cell and Kevin switched that to DNA. What a pathetically ignorant little punk Kevin is.

I wonder if he will ever deal with what the poster actually said? I say he won't because obviously he is too stupid to do so.

DNA is not like a computer- well who said that it was?

BTW Kevin, DNA doesn't fold, it coils around the histones.

Summer Snow, Brought to You by Global Warming?

Snowing during the summer months- it can't get much worse for global warming alarmists. Even without the snow this summer has been colder than any other this century. Our garden produced less than 1/3 of what it usually does with most tomatoes left behind, looking very green and blotchy. The peppers didn't even show up at all.

CO2 is increasing and yet the temps are not. Yet the prediction is as CO2 rises so would the temps. Except that isn't what we are seeing.

The Atlantic hurricane season has been wimpy even though it was predicted to get worse due to global warming. Worse than what? Well think of 2005's season happening every year. Happily 2005 seems to be an anomaly.

All of this should tell us that CO2 isn't the climate changer some people claim it to be, but somehow the alarmists just refuse to get it. They will prattle on how weather isn't climate (bullshit) and that by focusing on the weather we are missing the big picture (more bullshit).

Summer snow and global warming just don't belong together and the existence of summer snow should be a clue for alarmists but they have their heads so far up their arses they just don't see it.

Monday, September 08, 2014

Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas) Proudly Ignorant

Evolutionists are proud to be ignorant and proud to be liars. Well they have to le because they sure as hell don't have any evidence to support the claims of evolutionism. And they also lie about their opponents.

Case in point Kevin R. McCarthy from Round Rock, Texas. In a recent post Kevin talks about Carl Von Linne (Carolus Linnaeus) and the species concept. The funny part is he doesn't understand that Linne was a Creationist searching for the Created Kind when he came up with hos classification concept. Linne also understood that speciation occurs which means that Creationists have accepted speciation for over 200 years! Kevin is obviously too stupid to understand that.

Kevin seems to think that speciation is an issue for Creationists which means Kevin is ignorant of what Creation states even though he sez that he has been in this debate for over 15 years. How the heck can someone be that ignorant of his opponents' positions? (yeah I know Kevin will say the same thing about us yet we can support and have supported our claims wrt evolutionism- IOW Kevin is also ignorant of mainstream evolution).

BTW Kevin Creationists have said where all the species came from so it isn't a "quandary" for them.

That said evolutionism doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond prokaryotes, which is what evolutionism is given as a starting point. Now THAT is a quandary! But Kevin will never admit to it. Heck Kevin is so foolish that he really believes that macro-evolution is just a continuation of micro-evolution! Too bad he doesn't have a way to test that claim. Not only that there aren't any known instances of micro-evolution that can be extrapolated into macro-evolution.

But anyway, Kevin is an ignorant asshole who doesn't understand that for over 200 years educated Creationists have understood that change was OK and so is speciation.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Evolution is Guided!- by whatever survives

Over on the Amazon discussion of "Darwin's Doubt" I have this evoTARD named William Farrell telling me that I am 70 years behind the times by saying evolution is unguided. He sed that evolution is guided by contingency, the environment, differential reproduction, neutral genetic drift, blah, blah, blah. In other words what Billy is saying is that evolution is guided by the surviving reproducers, whatever they are. Seriously.

Yes Billy, evolution has a direction too-> one generation gives rise to the next. BWAAAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA

Evolutionism, making morons out of people since 1859.....