Kevin R. McCarthy, aka Ogre MkV, Proves He is a Lying Loser
-
Yup Kevin is at it again. This time he exposes his ignorance of complex specified information.
In the book "No Free Lunch" Wm Dembski explains the concept very well. He goes over what is complexity, specification and information.
Stephen C. Meyer explains exactly what information is wrt biology. He also explains the specification part wrt biology. This he has done in several of his writings most recently in "Signature in the Cell".
So who is Kevin trying to fool? Must be the fools because no one else pays him any heed.
This is an asshole who says he has been involved in this debate for years yet it is obvious that he doesn't have a clue as to what Intelligent Design is nor what it claims.
Yet all of that is in the pro-ID literature. All it takes is a little reading. Yet obviously Kevin is too stupid to even do that.
Well I posted at his blog but my post won't be shown because Kevvy is too much of an intellectual coward to face reality.
BTW, Kevin, the thing about the royal flush isn't if you get ONE- and it goes for any hand- that being if you are dealt a royal flush for 5 hands in a row you know something other than chance is at play. And the same goes for 3c, 7d, Js, Jd, Qh. You get that same hand for 5 hands in a row and if you aren't suspicious then you are a fool, which you are so you won't notice.
Yup Kevin is at it again. This time he exposes his ignorance of complex specified information.
In the book "No Free Lunch" Wm Dembski explains the concept very well. He goes over what is complexity, specification and information.
Stephen C. Meyer explains exactly what information is wrt biology. He also explains the specification part wrt biology. This he has done in several of his writings most recently in "Signature in the Cell".
So who is Kevin trying to fool? Must be the fools because no one else pays him any heed.
This is an asshole who says he has been involved in this debate for years yet it is obvious that he doesn't have a clue as to what Intelligent Design is nor what it claims.
Yet all of that is in the pro-ID literature. All it takes is a little reading. Yet obviously Kevin is too stupid to even do that.
Well I posted at his blog but my post won't be shown because Kevvy is too much of an intellectual coward to face reality.
BTW, Kevin, the thing about the royal flush isn't if you get ONE- and it goes for any hand- that being if you are dealt a royal flush for 5 hands in a row you know something other than chance is at play. And the same goes for 3c, 7d, Js, Jd, Qh. You get that same hand for 5 hands in a row and if you aren't suspicious then you are a fool, which you are so you won't notice.
posted by Joe G @ 2:47 PM
5 Comments:
At 7:36 PM,
Unknown said…
I guess you didn't click on the link to see where he quoted what complex specified information is?
You call him a liar, but his quote is directly lifted from, Creation Wiki. I suggest if you have issues with the definition, expend your vitriol on them.
Not withstanding this, it wouldn't really matter how they describe it. Dembski's own thesis on the subject has been rejected, and forms no basis for any other mathematical principle (because it is mathematics not biology that it concerns, no matter how much he wishes for it to be otherwise)
When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. On page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically, but he often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".
Perhaps he shouldn't be presenting what he considers to be one subject (biology) to a group of qualified peers (mathematicians) that specialise in the language he actually uses (maths)?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe any of Dembski's work has peer-reviewed by biologists?
At 7:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Tris,
Kevin doesn't understand what he quoted. Kevin doesn't know what CSI is.
As for being rejected, well, evolutionism should be rejected because it lacks a testable hypothesis and lacks supporting evidence.
And correct me if I am wrong but no biologist has ever published anything pertaining to blind and undirected processes actually constructing some biological system.
I don't believe there is anything in peer-review that supports evolutionism.
Go figure...
At 9:46 PM,
Unknown said…
(Sorry for the length of this comment, but the way you worded your own begged a substantial response. I tried to keep it as clear, concise and linear as I could.)
"Kevin doesn't understand what he quoted. Kevin doesn't know what CSI is."
Perhaps he isn't interested in mathematics?
"As for being rejected, well, evolutionism should be rejected..."
I don't see the connect here. I trust your moving onto a different subject is acceptance of the fact that Dembski's work on CSI has been rejected. Bravo.
"Evolutionism"
I don't even know what that is. It helps if one uses the correct terms. It would certainly explain why evolutionism (whatever you think it means):
"...lacks a testable hypothesis and lacks supporting evidence."
I'll assume you meant the theory of evolution, though.
The are numerous hypotheses that make up the theory of evolution, but for brevity I'll introduce just the one; common ancestry should be observed in two closely related organisms through a common ancestor.
All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. The hypothesis was that Human chromosome 2 was expected to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
By studying chromosome 2 of the humans and chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee, we find evidence that:
There is a correspondence between chromosome 2 and the two chimpanzee chromosomes. Our closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
There is a presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.
Using this evidence the conclusion drawn is that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B on the human chromosome is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
This chromosomal fusion (or mutation) is not enough in itself to justify the theory of evolution. It is just one hypothesis that has been postulated and observed as fact, but natural selection pressures (which unlike mutations are not blind or undirected) need to be observed also.
Mutations are more often than not, of any direct evolutionary consequence. Sometimes their appearance can be downright hostile to the organism. But beneficial mutations will continue within a population because they will be sexually selected for at the expense of those that lack them. This means either the original population dies out, or each divergent population goes its environmentally 'fittest' path; separating the two populations.
Our present divergence as a speciation event is confirmed by our shared genetic heritage. And so it is the theory of evolution can be hypothesised, tested, proven and peer-reviewed.
This is, of course, just one aspect of the theory, but there is an ever increasing swathe of evidence for the theory of evolution (including speciation) which you can find at talkorigins.org. And it is ALL peer-reviewed.
To state that there are no testable hypotheses, is no evidence and is not peer-reviewed is demonstrably false. Perhaps you didn't know that.
At 10:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Evolutionism is the premise that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumaultions of genetic accidents/ copying errors/ mistakes.
common ancestry should be observed in two closely related organisms through a common ancestor.
That refers to mere parent-offspring relationships. And YECs are OK with speciation, ie limited common ancestry.
But that is moot as you need a way to test natural selection, for example. A way to test that natural selection is the designer mimic it is said to be. IOW a hypothesis that pertains to the MECHANISMs.
Human chromosome 2- the fusion occurred in the human lineage only. Meaning it had nothing to do with any common ancestry.
But anyway given the fusion, from 24 to 23 in a gamete, do you agree that there should have been some individuals with 47 chromosomes?
Chimps have 48- 24 per gamete. Early humans also had 48 and then a fusion occurred in a gamete which then had to pair with a gamete that had 24, making a total of 47. That is unless a gamete from the opposite sex- the actual mate no less- also contained the same or some other chromosomal fusion that brought that gametes total from 24 to 23?
My position is that there had to be some members with 47 until interbreeding could have intervened. Kevin sez there was never any with 47 cuz its impossible with meiosis and all.
But anyway I have a piece of HC2 and ID.
All that said there isn't any genetic evidence that supports the differences observed can be accounted for via genetic changes. We don't know what makes a chimp a chimp nor what makes a human a human. There isn't any evidence we are the sum of our genome.
Genetics influence and have some control over development. Genetics does not determine what type of organism will develop. Genes influence traits and being human is not a trait.
Also nothing you said pertains to any mechanism.
For example how can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection and/ or gentic drift? What would the hypothesis be? Then how could we test it?
At 10:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Tris- I don't care if Dembski's work is rejected, especially given what the rejectors accept.
Post a Comment
<< Home