Is Gary Hurd fighting another strawman?

Over on the another tired baby crying forum Gary Hurd says that is he is about 100 pages through a manuscript pertaining to the "Darwin=Hitler lie".

Perhaps he meant Darwinism = Nazism, whatever.

In "Expelled" it was made clear that Darwinism did NOT suffice as a cause of Nazism.

A necessary ingredient, but not sufficient by itself.

Is THAT the alleged "lie"?

Or has Dr GH got his panties in a knot over something his little mind twisted into something else?

"Self-Replicating RNA"?????

A recent culmination of research provided the following paper:

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce.

It was touted as evidence for self-replicating RNA and "evolution in a bottle" (SciAm).

The research is leading edge stuff and should give us a glimpse at the reducibility of living organisms.

If this paper is any indication, origin of life research isn't looking so good.

I say that because all the synthesized RNA did was make- catalyze- ONE connection.

It took two pre-synthesized sections and joined them together.

The "evolution" came with variance of sequence but the new sequences still performed the same function (the original sequence "died out").

This is a start and I hope they continue to see how far they can go-

Sooner or later the "mainstream" will come to realize what IDists have been telling them- living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

Patrilineage vs. a Paternal Family Tree

Seeing that Erik Pratt- blipey the moronic clown- still thinks that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree I felt it is once again time to expose his continued ignorance.

Patrilineage:

Line of descent as traced through men on the paternal side of a family.

A paternal family tree traces ALL the relatives on the father's side (leading to the father)- women included.

The following is an example of a paternal family tree:

Paternal Family Tree

Another example, complete with a diagram, can been seen HERE-

Note that women ARE included in both examples.

For example any paternal family tree has the father's father AND mother, and each of their fathers and mothers, and so on. All siblings in each ancestral generation are also included

Another problem clownie has is with nested hierarchies.

He still thinks that nested hierarchies are built on descent not characteristics.

Yet he has NEVER supported that claim and as a matter of fact I have provided the data which refutes it.

Does that matter to blipey? Absolutely not.

He wears his ignorance as a badge of honor.

The wind blew, the shit flew and in walked blipey

In the thread Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant
I said the following pertaining to awards:

People get paid for what they do. That should be enough.

blipey managed to twist that into:

As for awards--I think it's quite clear that you believe scientists should not be given awards. As you think that no one should be given awards if they are paid.

What's the twist?

Well for one thing I said SHOULD be enough. And I don't think that scientists get paid enough for what they do- (perhaps some do- you know the ones that do nothing and get paid anyway). Nor do they get the proper recognition.

And what started this?

The fact that I made the observation that entertainers are basically useless and they have to have awards in a vain attempt to try to put some societal value to their existence.

Sea Marshals?

What to do with the present day pirates?

Should freighters have Naval escorts?

Should there be well-armed sea marshals assigned to freighters?

I think a well-armed and well-trained team would be better than just having the crew be armed to protect themselves. Although a well-trained team with an armed crew as back-up may not be a bad thing.

Technology- is there a passive system that can be employed aboard freighters that would either disable the boat or the crew as they approach?

Amplified, directed soundwaves- we have deployed that technology in Iraq. I would bet that would stop their approach.

I am sure any readers will have their own suggestions.

What say you?

Mysterious Definition of Nested Hierarchy?

David Kellogg believes that I am unable to be reasoned with because he told me, without any support, that the few evolutionary scientists I disagree with pertaining to nested hierarchy and the theory of evolution, use a different definition of a nested hierarchy.

Did you get that?

They do not use the standard and accepted definition that I and the majority of people use, they have some ultra-secret version only they can understand.

So how about Kellogg- can you produce the allegedly different version of nested hierarchy that those evolutionary scientists use?

I promise I will do my best to understand but I first have to know what it is I am supposed to be understanding.

Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant

Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant

Over on uncommon descent, both Alan Fox and David Kellogg have tried (and failed) to tell me that the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.

In an attempt to try to reason with them I asked them if evolution had a direction. They both agreed that it does not.

The next step was to ask them if nested hierarchies required a direction of additive characteristics. They both agreed that NH does not require a direction.

I provided a definition of nested hierarchy that stated nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

That means if defining characteristics are lost then containment is also lost, therefor nested hierarchy is lost.

And if defining characteristics stay the same then we remain with that set- no nested hierarchy.

Note how, as in any hierarchic system, the divisions are clear in a systematic way, becoming increasingly intense as the hierarchy is ascended.

After reasoning with these dolts didn’t work I asked them to provide an example of a nested hierarchy in which the characteristics were not additive.

Did they provide one?

Nope. Instead Kellogg pulled his head out of his ass long enough to tell me that I am incapable of being reasoned with!

And yet he has never provided any reasoning to support his position!!!!

You are a piece of shit Kellogg and you had better hope we never meet even though I am going to try to make that happen.

Thought Provoker's big questions!!!!

In the last thread Dave, the Thought Provoker posted the following:

While we wait for Oleg to comment, would you be so kind as to answer my questions I have asked you multiple times as far back as 2006?

I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?

Wow as far back as 2006!

Couldn't he find the answer himself?

But anyway as I told Dave yes non-living thing can have information content, yes a simple roch contains information- Shannon information and therefor two rocks would contain more Shannon info than just the one.

Was that answer enough for TP?

Nope.

His true reasoning come out later in that thread:

if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?

How about if there were two baseball-sized rocks (and two broken windows)? Would that be more specified information?

TP just wants to muddy the waters until no one can see what is there.

Ya see TP in order for anyone to make a determination that person would need to examine the scene.

Only a dolt would ask for an investigation into a hypothetical scenario in which no real investigation can take place.