RichTARD Hughes- Nothing But a Stroking Cheerleader

-
As if this needs to be said- Richard T Hughes- evobabbler- is nothing but a stroking cheerleader.

All you have to do is look at its posts. Over on "The Skepticl Zone"-

See this bit of stroking and this bit of cheerleading- and that is just in one post.

And more stroking and cheerleading can be found in this thread

The bottom-line is Richie has nothing so he is relegated to stroking and cheerleading...


Too fucking funny- Richie pom-poms

Genetic Algorithms Have a Goal

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless and ignorant. I have some telling me that GAs don't have a goal even the the wrod "algorithm" means to solve problems. The point being is that GAs are written to solve problems, which means solving the problem is the goal of the GA.


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. (bold added)

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.

Solved a problem/ goal.

wikipedia:

In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.

The goal is to solve problems.

OTOH evoTARDs' goal is to spew lies and bullshit...

Oleg Tchernyshyov- Still Ignorant of GAs

-
Oleg should just give up as he is totally out of his realm when it comes to anything beyond speaking Russian.

Now the moron sez:

That’s actually not true. A genetic algorithm has no goal. Left to its own devices, it keeps working churning out out new genomes. The programmer stops it when he decides that the produced organisms satisfy his goals.

Unfortunately for Oleg, anyone can google "genetic algorithm" and find:

Concisely stated, a genetic algorithm (or GA for short) is a programming technique that mimics biological evolution as a problem-solving strategy.

that is from talk origins- an evo site- GAs solve problems.

So I said to Oleg:

Please reference the genetic algorithm that does this (Left to its own devices, it keeps working churning out out new genomes.). Also please show us that ALL genetic algorithms do that and only that.

He never will because he is nothing but a lying coward...

Natural Selection: What is it and What Does it do?

-
-

Well let's look at what natural selection is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output. But is it really non-random as Allen said? Nope, whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce. And that can be any number of variations taht exist in a population.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet.

So what does it do?

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will.



Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

Not such a powerful designer mimic after all.


But there is one thing it can do- it can undo what artificial selection has done.

Coppedge vs JPL- Trial Over, Now it is up to the Judge

-
OK Coppedge vs JPL, the trial, is over. Now the judge has the case and the lawyers still get to file legal briefs.

From the exerpts of the trial it appears as I thought- the anti-IDists have no idea what ID is, but they are sure it is religion. If nothing else it was nice to see their ignorance exposed.

Also there seems to be another contradiction. Coppedge started working for JPL as a contractor. This allows both the employee and employer to see if it is a good fit- that the employee can do the job well and that the employer is a good to work for.

Coppedge passed that test and was hired as a full-time employee. Meaning if he was as bad as they now say that should have been caught in the YEARS he was a contractor and they never would have hired him in the first place.

But OK, now it is a "wait and see" game...

Coppedge vs JPL- My Notes

-
OK Coppedge vs JPL has been going on for weeks- and I have no idea what is really going on. Sure there are hints, little blurbs and summaries, but that is about it.

My thoughts on this have always hinged on what Coppedge's job performance was. Was he good at what he did, was he one of the best, just adequate, above average, hard worker- because if his performance was better than most, at his position, then he would have a case against JPL pertaining to be laid-off being linked to his religious, political and scientific PoV. Especially if he was better than those they retained.

That said, last week there was something about an employee performance evaluation that had Coppedge ranked below average, but I have no idea about the metric used nor who used it to make the evaluation. Then again JPL said it didn't use that to determine who got laid-off and who was retained.

So that is another question- How did they decide who to let go? I have always assumed it was based on performance, however I know reality says the ass-kissers get to stay and the alleged boat-rockers get the heave-ho.

Any thoughts?

RichTARD Hughes- As Clueless as Ever

-
LoL! RichTARD really thinks that something's age is directly linked to whether or not is was designed!

Richie sez:

Joe if you can’t give a date range for the age of the universe, you’ve got no business opining on if you think it’s designed.

Only a little faggot moron would say such a thing and here is Richie.

How does that even follow? Is Richie trying to say that no one could say Stonehenge was designed before they figured out how old it is? LoL!

RichTARD, thank you for continuing to prove that you are nothing but a mental midget.

Refuting Robin- The Way TO the Design Inference is THROUGH Materialism

-
Robin, the clueless "scientist" does not understand that the way to the design inference is through materialism. Well it doesn't seem to understand that materialism is the claim that everything is reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance (no agency required).

That said, a simple look at the (design) explanatory filter proves that the way to the design inference is through necessity and chance!

I point that out to Robin and it choked on it.

See also Newton's Four Rules

The point being is that Robin, an alleged scientist, is ignorant as can be.

Oleg Tchernyshyov Still a Lying Little Bitch

-
Yup Oleg is at it again. This timne he is saying that our solar system in this universe is actually a universe with only one star and one planet/ moon system:

oleg chokes and lies, again

evoTARDs are pathic excuses for people...

Cancer Science and Evolutionary Science- a Replication Problem

-
In the article In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up we read that out of 53 "landmark" publications pertaining to cancer studies, only 6 could be replicated.

Enter evolutionary science in which barely anything can be replicated- endosymbiosis and the origin of eukaryotes? Cannot replicate. The evolution of any flagellum? Cannot replicate. Fish to fishapods? Cannot replicate.

Our tax dollars hard at work...

Paging Batman- Robin has Totally Lost It!

-
I don't know who this dumbass that goes by "Robin" is- it claims to be a scientist- yeah right- but it thinks that scientists would use a simple dictionary definition of words- I guess that is all words except "information"- as oppsed to a more complete definition tat may be offered by a Stanford Encyclopedia article.

Take a look for yourself.

For example the word "artifact". Most people associate that word with human activity. However we also know that other animals can and do intentionally make things to use. The dictionary definitions of "artifact" do not cover that, although they do not disallow such a thing.

However the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on "artifact" says that other animals can and do make artifacts.

"Robin", an alleged scientist, cannot grasp that simple point and thinks the dictionary definitions trump the Stanford article.

evoTARDs, too many evoTARDs...

Trying to Parse RichTARD Hughes' Comment

-
RichTARD Hughes must use English as a second, third or forth language. Either that or he is just a dumbass- here read what he wrote:

Non of this would be an issue if it wasn't for your shameful behavior with hermagoras and Ogre Mk V. That pic just makes me LOL and want to tickle you till you go "Squeeeeeeee", you're such an innocuous cutie-pie. If that was 5 years ago I probably shouldn't as you're getting on. Is the 5% body fat only in your chins? LOL.

That whole website, along with your batshit crazy YEC stuff was a hoot. Thanks for the LOLs, Grandpa!

Non of this would be an issue

1- None of what would be an issue, RichTARD?

if it wasn't for your shameful behavior with hermagoras and Ogre Mk V

2- What shameful behaviour are you talking about?
3- What about the proven shameful behaviour of David Kellogg (hermagorus), Kevn R McCarthy and all evoTARDs?

That pic just makes me LOL

4- Of course my pic would make evoTARDs laugh- again I wouldn't expect anything less from you and your ilk

If that was 5 years ago

5- That pic is from 8 years ago

Is the 5% body fat only in your chins?

6- Only one chin in the pic, RichTARD FAIL

That whole website

7- What whole webite?

along with your batshit crazy YEC stuff

8- What YEC stuff?

Grandpa

9- Not a grandpa yet and still young enough to put you down

So RichTARD FAIL, you obviously have mental issues along a huge failure to communicate.

But any time you feel froggy and wish to see what I can do, please stop by- that goes for any evoTARD that wants to see natural selection up close and personal.

In Fairness RichTARD Hughes is a Clueless EvoTARD

-
Life is good, RichTARD Hughes finds an old photo of me and thinks he can deduce what I look like under a 2XL sweatshirt. There is about 200 lbs with about 5% body fat under there Rich.

And yes RichTARD I know I don't scare people, but then again I am the one standing up to the cowardly bullies, not the one trying to be so menacing that I drop ID for materialism. Ya see RichTARD FAIL, I am not afraid of YOU. YOU don't scare me- I will keep telling kids about ID and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me. If anyone tries it will lead to their demise.

But I will feel better knowing that you weren't frightened by me when I am putting you down...

Project "Steve"- 1,200 and Counting but Still No Supporting Evidence...

-
Yes Project Steve has just collected number 1200 but still not one Steve has brought and supporting evidence along with the signature.

Oh sure there is evidence that the "Steve" is a Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, but those "Steve"s don't have any supporting evidence for their position pertaining to biological evolution. So that would be a problem.

ONE scientist with supporting evidence is worth more than 99 without any. So it doesn't matter how many signatures Project Steve gets, as those signatures are as hollow as the position they are supposed to support.

Coppedge vs JPL- Case Coming to a Close

-
According to the following the JPL 'intelligent design' trial coming to a close.

It looks like Coppedge pissed some people off by not breaking the rules for them by granting them computer system privileges they were not cleared to have, ie he was "stubborn and uncooperative".

It also looks like JPL's HR person in charge of this, messed up big time.

But anyway, closing arguments next week...

A "Sensuous Curmudgeon" or Just Another Ignorant evoTARD?

-
By looking for news for the "Coppedge vs JPL" trial I have found a gold-mine in evoTARD ignorance. There is a gossip-hound- a very ignorant gossip-hound- that goes by the "sensuous curmudgeon". You want to see someone who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good gossip-rant, that is the person to see.

Take a look at a recent blog:

Is Barack Obama a Creationist?

Even though this person is attacking President Obama, something I don't mind, it is doing so through sheer ignorance.

Neither the term "social darwinism" nor "Darwinism" nor "Darwinist" were invented by Creationists. "Social Darwinism arose in the latter part of the 19th century and Thomas Henry Huxley coined "Darwinism".

Not only that when Creationists use "Darwinist" or "Darwinism" they do not use it as an insult. Evos still call themselves that. What would the insult be?

But anyway, this curmudgeon is a classic evoTARD- ignorant as hell and very proud of it.

Front-Loaded Evolution, circa 1914

-
What's new in Cosmic Ancestry gives us William Bateson, in the Presidential Address at the Australian meeting of the British Assiociation for the Advancement of Science, 1914:

We must begin seriously to consider whether the course of Evolution can at all reasonably be represented as an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.

Very interesting. It appears that he also didn't see any positive evidence for accumulations of random mutations constructing things.

Coppedge vs JPL- Media Leaks Vague Claims of Sloppyness

-
Of course we already knew there were vague claims of sloppyness- Last week barely anything came out about this trial. ENV said that the HR person took the stand and basically admitted she messed up. And then it was Greg Chin's turn- Chin is one of the antagonists, the guy who equated Intelligent Design with religion. The guy that told Coppedge to stop with the ID DVD pushing during working hours.

So now Mr Chin is testifying and again we get vague claims against Coppedge- but I don't know if that is due to Mr Chin or the media. I am sure Coppedge will get a chance to respond to all allegations.

It would also be interesting to know how many clients/ customers Coppedge had vs how many complaints, what the nature of the complaints were and what specifics and supporting evidence exists.

JPL, former employee fight over religion in science