Reciprocating Bill Chokes on Biological Information

-
In a sad attempt to respond to my post on Measuring Biological Information, RB chokes on biological information:

Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures specified information?

Now do it backward:

Start with the randomized sequence of nucleotides. Bring in your designer of choice - supernatural, extraterrestrial, human, whatever. Have your designer carefully tweeze thousands of entries in this nucleotide sequence such that it specifies a wonderfully complex metabolic pathway capable of minimal function, viability, and specific effects.

Count 'em up and multiply by 2 to arrive at - well, to arrive at exactly the same number.

So, Joe, given that neither the careful actions of the designer nor randomization of those actions change your value by jot or tittle, in what way is specification reflected in your calculation?

One step at a time:

Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

Well Bill, if you could read you would have read that what I said only applies to sequences with a biological function. So I wouldn't arrive at the same value.

Are you really that stupid or is it that you are just dishonest?

That's it - it only took one step to expose the evotard ignorance.