"Rolling Stone" 100 Greatest Guitarists?

-
The latest issue of Rolling Stone has the (alleged) "100 Greatest Guitarists" as voted on by people they picked- guitarists and people in the music industry.

Jimi was #1, although he is more of a "guitar god", as in there is Jimi and then everyone else. But there are some that didn't make the list and some that shouldn't have- Bruce Springsteen doesn't belong on that list.

Steve Howe of Yes is not on that list even though he was voted as the best overall guitarist for 5 years in a row (late 70s- early 80s)- what is he too perfect, too clean to be on the list? But Bruce is? Bullshit

Stevie "Guitar" Miller is not on the list.

Joe Satriani is not on the list. The guy is so good he doesn't need lyrics.

Pat Metheny is not on the list.

Stanley Jordan, shit my bet is the voters never heard of him, not on the list.

Alex Lifeson, one of the voters, was 98th. Yet he can out-play #s 2-97.

Gary Richrath, not on the list.

Robin Trower, not on the list. Rick Nielson, not on the list.

UNCLE TED is not on the list- may all the voters who kept the Motor city madman off the list get "Cat Scratch Fever".

Peter Frampton didn't make it.

Paul Simon is on the list. Might as well put Jimmy Buffet on it too.

As I think of more I will list them. So far all I have listed could easily replace some on the list that shouldn't be there- John Lennon, no he shouldn't be on the list of 100 greatest guitarists.

How to Test and Falisfy Intelligent Design

-
Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.

However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend!

So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away.

How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?

1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker

2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).

Evolutionary Research? Where is it?

-
EvoTards still insist that unlike them IDists and Creationists do not do scientific research.

However when one looks one cannot find any evolutionary research.

Can you present any research, past or present, that supports the the notion of universal common descent via an accumulation of random mutations?

Can you present any research, past or present, that demonstrates that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise not only to new protein machinery but also to new body plans?

How about research that demonstrates that prokaryotes can "evolve" into something other than prokaryotes?

Or are evolutionists still conducting "science" via promissory notes and majority rule? (meaning my questions may be answered some time in the future and that many scientists accept it is good enough to validate the theory now)

You would think that the lack of evolutionary research would count against them, but it doesn't.

David Coppedge vs JPL/ Cal Tech

-
I have been seeing quite a bit of David Coppedge vs JPL/ Cal Tech. It all seemed too surreal to be real. Then I read the complaint.

Holy shit! Things like that is why there are altercations at work. Coppedge must be really mild-mannered. I am pretty sure I would have gave it to Chin on the chin and let the dice play out.

Now, unfortunately for JPL & Cal Tech, the alleged accusers are going to have to come forward and face the accused. And even more unfortunately other JPL employees, those who were not harassed, not felt harassed and even welcomed the academic freedom will be next in line for termination.

Key evidence in the case will be the two videos-> "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and not even an atheist on an agenda can say those are religious videos. (a twisted atheist with its head up its ass could possibly make the connection, then again the United States Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion, oops)

So the judge and jury will watch the videos and hear testimony- but who will testify? Is the JPL to bully people into lying for them?

Pathetic evotard bullying at its finest. I hope the JPL loses so much money they are forced to shut down and the perpetrators of this shit are brought up on charges.

Case number- BC435600 jury trial starts on December 14...

Kevin R. McCarthy Still Lying

-
Yup, Kevin has a new post that starts off with a big LIE:

Many… many times I have presented a paper that effectively crushes the claims of creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.

Wow- seeing that no such papers exist what the heck is McCarthy talking about?

Oh, that's right he probably really thinks he did something like that. Unfortunately he will never produce those papers on this blog nor any other forum in which his opponents can respond.

Kevin goes on to say:

A very common example in the creationist world (and the one that inspired this post (Thanks Southstar and Cubist)) is that of Michael Behe making the claim that two more mutations cannot happen because it is so improbable.

Except that isn't what he says. He said that two new protein-to-protein binding sites is the edge. However evos have said something about two mutations:

Waiting for Two Mutations- it seems if the second mutation needs to be specified, that is needs to be in some specific locus, then it is doubtful that blind, undircted chemical processes can do it (not impossible because evos have the magical "time" element). However that requires that the first mutation stay and no other detrimental mutations pop up while waiting for the second mutation.

So here we have Kevin lying again and he really thinks his lies are refutations.

EvoTards are so pathetic.

Front-Loaded Evolution and "junk DNA"

-
Yeah, yeah, enough with "junk DNA" already. Relax this is a different angle.

In Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution, I said:

So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen. (bold added)

As with Richard's Dawkins "weasel" program, which took scrambled letters and having the whole alphabet as its resource, was able to create a pre-specified target sentence, front-loaded evolution would be able to take truly non-functioning DNA sequences and splice them together to meet some pre-specified function.

That is why front-loaded evolution does NOT need to have all the alleles present as evotards so wrongly claim. All front-loaded evolution requires is that the future design be obtainable through the present design.

In this case the alleged "junk" is just stock to select from, ie "the required resources".

Is Macro-Evolution Really Just more Micro-Evolution?

-
EvoTards claim that macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution. IOW micro-evolutionary events add up to equal macro-evolution.

But is that claim supported by the evidence?

Let's look. With micro-evolution we get variation in beaks in finches. Variation in beaks cannot be added up to get something other than a bird, nor something other than a finch. No new body plans. No new body parts.

Well how about anti-biotic resistance? Another no:

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

Got that? No matter how many mutations occur bacteria give rise to bacteria. Even with endosymbiosis all you get is bacteria with mitochondria or chloroplasts, which does not make it a eukaryote.


Modifying existing structures- well just what in an invertebrate can be modified as to give rise to vertebrates?

Single-cell anemia is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.

Change in eye color is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.

The point being is there isn't anything in micro-evolutionary events that anyone can extrapolate to a macro-evolutionary event meaning evotards are liars. But we already knew that.

However I am sure evotards can IMAGINE micro-evolutionary event adding up to a macro-evolutionary event. And as long as they can IMAGINE it they think it is science.

Climategate 2.0- More Deception

-
Not that this was unexpected:

ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists

IF they had science on their side would they need to be so deceptive?

Kevin R. McCarthy Admits His Position is NOT Scientific

-
Strange thing is he doesn't realize it!

Let's look:

In his post What is Macroevolution? Kevin rightly states:

The critical point in both these definition is time. The simple reason is that we cannot see, in our lifetime a population evolving beyond the species level.

Throwing time around is NOT science. Time is NOT a cure-all. Time is NOT a do-all. When all you have is to throw time around you have left science behind.

In a new post Kevin sez:

Intelligent design supposes a designer because things ‘look’ designed.

That's not true but that isn't the point. Kevin goes on to say:

Homonid fossils do prove that evolution has occurred. It can easily be shown that certain changes to brain volume and various structures (hips, knees, jaw, etc) can be shown to change over time… therefore evolution.

IOW "it looks like they evolved"! Never mind that ID is OK with common ancestry but Kevin just demonstrated that his position is nothing but "it looks like evolution to me." Well I have already proven that a "transitional fossil" boils down to nothing more than "It looks like a transitional", so all his position has is time and "it looks like it to me".

Is THAT what passes for peer-review these days?

Is there ANY way to scientifically test the claims of evolutionists? I say absolutely not. But perhaps one will show up and explain how to test their position- it hasn't happened yet but maybe one evotard will grow a set and actually ante up.

Thorton Hears Another Who

-
ThorTard sed:

Joe G, why are you stalking Ogremk5 around the internet? I know he’s make you look like a complete fool numerous times over your scientific ignorance, but is that a reason to stalk and harass him? You’re going to get yourself in deep legal trouble one day.

As usual ThorTard does not provide any evidence to support any of its claims. But let's take a looksie:

Joe G, why are you stalking Ogremk5 around the internet?

1- I am not stalking anyone. Kevin R. McCarthy, like you, is a piece of shit liar and I will expose him every time he posts his bullshit lies. He lies about me. He lies about ID. He lies about science. And he lies about evolution.

I know he’s make you look like a complete fool numerous times over your scientific ignorance, but is that a reason to stalk and harass him?

2- Kevin R. McCarthy, like you, is a scientifically ignorant drooler. He has only made himself into a fool. So all KEVIN has to do is stop with his bullshitting and lying ways.

You’re going to get yourself in deep legal trouble one day.

3- Bring on the legal, if you can. My case against evotards, especially Kevin, is very strong.

Genetic/ Evolutionary Algorithms and My Front-Loaded Evolution

-
An article on Talk Origins states:

In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

Forget that evolution does not have the goal stated- the point is that GAs are an example of front-loading- that is they start with everything they need to solve some problem. Front-loading does NOT require that the solution be known nor that the specific process to finding the solution be known.

What is required is the specification of what you need- what are you trying to solve.

For example a GA was used to design an antenna. The engineers did not know what the antenna would look like. But what they had were the specifications the antenna needed to meet- again from Talk Origins:

Altshuler and Linden 1997 used a genetic algorithm to evolve wire antennas with pre-specified properties. The authors note that the design of such antennas is an imprecise process, starting with the desired properties and then determining the antenna's shape through "guesses.... intuition, experience, approximate equations or empirical studies" (p.50). This technique is time-consuming, often does not produce optimal results, and tends to work well only for relatively simple, symmetric designs. By contrast, in the genetic algorithm approach, the engineer specifies the antenna's electromagnetic properties, and the GA automatically synthesizes a matching configuration.

THAT is front-loaded evolution.

So with my idea of front-loaded evolution we would have the initial conditions, the required resources, the specified result (ie what you are trying to accomplish) and then the algorithms to make it all happen.

Sadly evotards will never grasp any of that.

Kevin R. McCarthy, Still a Lying Piece of Shit

-
Posted at Kevin's blog- Kevin on front-loading

Kevin,

You are just totally clueless and apparently proud of it.

IDists say GAs work just as your link says:

In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

Mutation and real selection all directed towards the goal, ie the solution. But TO is wrong in that "evolution" does not have that stated goal. It doesn't give a rat's ass.

You say:

Look closely at the examples and notice that, in every case (and every case that I am aware of) genetic algorithms outperform human results. In at least one case, humans still don’t even understand how the evolved system works. If no one can figure out how it works, then it’s not likely to be front-loaded is it?

The two aren't related. Also not everyone tried to figure out how they worked.

But why couldn’t alleles be front-loaded into a genome and then be ‘turned on’ in the future.

That is a possibility.

The creationist belief is that science was once wrong about what ‘junk DNA‘ is, then science is wrong about everything else.

Spoken like an asshole loser. Is lying the best you can do? Is that your "original" content?

Anyway, the problem is that creationists who want to argue for front-loading have to talk about how that squares with all that non-coding DNA.

Only in your little bitty evotard mind.

But what’s worse for the creationist is that, back to the ‘mutations cannot add information or produce functional proteins’, the method for ‘activating’ these front-loaded alleles must have been… gasp… mutation.

Umm THAT is NOT the argument.

You are just an ignorant, strawman creating piece of shit loser.

What the creationist is saying with the front-loading argument is that the ancestral dog had every gene and allele to make every single dog from the toy dachshund to the Bull Mastiff.

Fuck you- no creationist says that you fucking liar. And the front-loading argument does not require it.

You really should learn about something before you try to refute it. That way you wouldn't come off as such an ignorant asshole

What is Incompitable with Intelligent Design

-
What is incompatible with Intelligent Design?

That's easy:

1- If there weren’t any similarities that would count against a common design.

2- And if living organisms were reducible to matter and energy that would count against design, ie be incompatible with Intelligent Design.

New "Local" Band- Wolfman Conspiracy

-
I have a demo CD from Wolfman Conspiracy- love the brass section.

When Are (We) Sports Fans Going On Strike?

-
NFL lockout

NBA season in doubt

NHL lockout (2004-05)

MLB strike (1994)

And this is just the USA's major sports.

Just ONCE I would love to see the fans go on strike- do not buy any tickets. Do not buy any sports merchandise.

If you must, go tailgating, have a party there, just do NOT purchase any tickets to the event.

Football fans stay away for one month- 4 games- OR until they make it affordable to take a family of four to a game- has to be $100 for the tickets, the parking and food (alcohol not included).

WE HAVE THE POWER.

And I say it is about time that we used it.


When in the course of professional sporting events it becomes necessary for one people (fans) to dissolve their unions that have connected them to various sports franchises and athletes and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of fans requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We, the fans of professional sports, in order to obtain a more affordable entertainment, do hereby declare a general boycott of all professional sporting events.

I would like to give thanks to the founding fathers for their words of wisdom and inspiration which I have used because I do believe this is a dire situation and dire situations calls for no-holds-barred.

Of Speciation and Strawmen

-
Let it be said that ignorance of your opponents' positions is not a refutation of them. (yeah, yeah, I know, evotards always accuse me of being ignorant of the theory of evolution but they never have supported that accusation)

But anyway, a bit of history-

Karl von Linne (aka Carolus Linnaeus) was a Creationist in search of the originally Created Kinds when he created binomial nomenclature. At first he thought the "species" level was the level of the Kind but later changed that to the level of "Genus", meaning speciation is just variation within a Kind.

What that means is that Creationists understood and accepted speciation took place and as a matter of fact they posit rapid speciation took place following a large extinction event (the Flood).

For example a search of Answers in Genesis on "speciation" yileds many references documenting what Creationsists say about it.

And then there is The Current Status of Baraminology

The point being is that the fixity of species is a strawman. It appears Charles Darwin got the concept from Lyell but he never bothered to check its veracity.

What does this have to do with anything?

The strawman is alive and doing well thanks to mental midgets like DrGH/ Gary S. Hurd. Ya see Gary is proudly pointing out his blog on the
emergence of new species as some alleged evidence that refutes this strawman.

The real pathetic thing about that is Gary has been told, on several occasions, that this is a strawman but he still persists. And that means he is just a dishonest loser who should be ridiculed yet he is stroked by evotards of all stripes.

Go figure...

How Intelligent Design Defines "Information"

-
Actually the title is misleading because Intelligent Design doesn't define "information", it is perfectly OK with the accepted definition commonly used:

information:

b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

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

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.

So when IDists speak of "information" the are talking about specified information, which is the information used in and associated with information technology and every day living. The "information", without which communication would be impossible.

I still don't understand why evotards think that Intelligent Design uses some "top-secret" definition of "information". Oh, evoTARDS- nevermind....

Kevin R. McCarthy signs off from Scientopia and leaves some whine

-
Kevin is saying goodbye, his two-week guest blogging stint is over on Scientopia guest blog. But in leaving he had to throw out another glass of whine.

So as I said, which will most likely be removed, is that if Kevin didn't want people following hom then he should stop lying about people, ID and science.

Also I will point out that Kevin himself told everyone who visits his lying blog where he would be and to come by.

Is this asshole really for real?

Biological Fitness vs Physical Fitness

-
Fitness- Seems like an easy enough word to understand. If you want to be fit you eat right and cross train.

Ahh but that is physical fitness, and although physical fitness deals with biological organisms, it is different from, though may affect, biological fitness. IOW you don't have to be the most physically fit to be the most biologically fit, although it may help.

Biological fitness can refer to either a population's or individual's reproductive success. It is basically an after-the-fact assessment. If the population size increases it has a positive fitness. If it decreases it has a negative fitness and if it stays the same it is in equalibrium. And the individuals in the population that have the most offspring are the fittest, even if they get their ass kicked by others who have fewer offspring. They are the lovers, not the fighters.

What's the point?

Look at humans. With some exceptions it appears the "fittest" humans are the biggest losers- and I ain't talkin' 'bout no game show.

People pumping out kids just to stay on welfare- let the State support you for being so fucking fit! :)

IOW it just seems like a useless concept.

On the Capabilities of the Designer(s)

-
Another old "stupid" argument against Intelligent Design is that we cannot determine design unless we know the capabilities of the designer(s)- as in how do we know any agenc could design something like that?

Well how do we know stone-age people had the capability of designing and building Stonehenge? Stonehenge

How do we know bronze-age people had the capability to design and build the Antikythera mechansim? The Antikythera mechanism.

Point being if the mechanism did not exist- say we hadn't found it yet- if someone said the ancients had such a device no one would believe him/ her.

Ya see, as I have said before, designing agencies, successful designing agencies anyway, usually do have the capabilities to design what it is they are designing. Duh.

Scientopia Guest Blog

-
Scientopia has a guest blog:

This is a new Scientopia blog that will be hosting a wonderful slate of non-Scientopia bloggers for two-week guest-blogging stints. Have fun!

Scientopia states:

Scientopia is a collective of people who write about science because they love to do so. It is a community, held together by mutual respect and operated by consensus, in which people can write, educate, discuss, and learn about science and the process of doing science. In this we explore the interplay between scientific issues and other parts of our lives with the shared goal of making science more accessible.

As a community, we strive to be welcoming of anyone with an interest in science and its place in our world, regardless of any feature, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, which may act or have historically acted as a barrier to full participation in science or discourses about science.

What the guest blog does is invites people from outside their collective to talk about science- science without barriers.

That is important as some people love to put barriers around science and refuse to discuss anything they deem outside of those barriers- even if reality is outside of those barriers.

Those people are like the drunk who is looking for his lost keys under the street light (even though he/she didn't drop them there) because that is the only place that has enough light so he/she can see.

Where was I...

OK so there is a guest blog for people who want to discuss their ideas on science. Unfortunately they allow people who have such a narrow view on science they cannot accept any critisism nor account for their mistakes and can only "respond" by saying their opponents don't understand science and don't have any right being there.

When that doesn't work they throw a hissy fit, get their evogoons involved, send out emails contacting the collective- get others to do so too-> can't do anything without the mob- and settle it "scientifically".

But until it gets settled Kevin will take his ball, go home and come back only if the collective agrees to ban me.

Is that about right, Kev?