Allan Miller Doubles Down of his Dishonesty

-
It just keeps getting better and better. Now Allan spews:

You’re just making stuff up. Insertion/deletion, point mutation etc do not come from ‘reactions’. They come from errors in replication. Replication is a copying process of descent, not design.

Please tell us how you determined tat insertions and deletions are due to errors in replication. Next please tell us how you determined that blind and unguided processes produced replication.

Or just admit that you are a dishonest evobabbler.

EvoTARDS, always lying and overselling their position.

Richie Hughes- Fishes for Stupid and Catches Himself

-
Just another Friday full of Richie's evoTARDgasms.

Allan Miller and Richie Hughes Liars or Ignorant? Notes from TSZ

-
Allan Miller spews:

 Yet you insist, at the same time, that there was massive speciation after the ark, to expand the ‘kinds’. This is common descent.

If we find your DNA at a crime scene, you will be incriminated by Common Descent evidence.

Bullshit. He goes on to spew more bullshit:

 Yet you insist, at the same time, that there was massive speciation after the ark, to expand the ‘kinds’. This is common descent.

Not in the way you mean "common descent". It is common descent in the same way humans giving rise to humans is common descent.

But I know you don’t care about the ludicrous inconsistencies in your position.

Your ignorance does not = inconsistencies in Robert's position.

Common Design can only explain the patterns if it involves deceit  

Wrong again. Common design is an observed phenomena. OTOH Common Descent has NEVER been observed and can't even be tested.

So here is Allan Miller overselling his position and ignorantly flailing away at Common Design.

Now for Richie:

By remaining skeptical, we enable better explanatory models to come forward and allow sufficiently good models to re-affirm themselves. Science itself is skeptical, holding findings provisionally – and also surviving experimental disconfirmation is also a form of skepticism, requiring the hypothesis to actually deliver.

What a total crock of bullshit. Richie's position can't even muster a model. It can't muster testable hypotheses and it can't deliver anything.

Proponents of materialism and evolutionism are not and cannot be skeptics as they accept total bullshit as reality.

Christine Janis, Professor of Biology, All Bluster and No Evidence

-
Kevin ReTARD McCarthy has a guest post by Christine Janis pertaining to Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" chapter 12. It reads like a child's rant. She spews:

Whether or not the reader might find Frazetta’s explanations fanciful (and it must be remembered that Frazetta was writing almost half a century before our current knowledge of evo-devo, and our current understanding of how rapid morphological transitions can be effected by changes in regulatory genes), one thing is certain: he is *not* making a case that the morphological change in bolyerid snakes could not be achieved by evolutionary means. 

Umm Christine, blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution cannot account for regulatory genes. It cannot account for metazoans. Given the starting points of prokaryotes it cannot get beyond prokaryotes. So perhaps you should just shut up as it is obvious that you are just another dishonest evo. And also ID is not anti-evolution so it would be a good idea to learn what ID actually is before you attack it. Oh and it would be a better idea to have actual support for your position before calling anyone else dishonest.

Again, if unguided evolution is the mechanism: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. So if unguided evolution doesn't require coordinated mutations, meaning that just about any ole mutation will add to the advantage (bullshit), then it has a chance (pun intended). If it does then it is doomed.

And that leads us to the title of the OP-

Christine Janis did NOT present any evidence that blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution can account for the boyerines jaw, nor anything else for that matter.

Common Design or Dissimilar Design?

-
So what is the point of a common design? The point is, based on direct observations and experiences, that a common design leads to a number of similarities. And all living organisms show similarity at the genetic level. All nucleotides are the same. All amino acids are the same. Protein manufacturing is also the same.

That said a common design explains the similarities and the differences are explained by the different applications and differing functional requirements. For example- All houses built to the same building code(s) will have that degree of similarity and the differences are explained by the customer's wants/ requirements (or even budget constraints).

Also a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.

Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.

So why, if there is a common design, is there such a wide variety of organisms? Again system requirements. The Earth being the system and it requires a variety ofg organisms to keep it habitable.

Designers can and do take parts that work for one thing and use them for something totally unrelated. For example we use tires on cars and also we use tires on carnival rides, baseball and football throwing machines. That is also a common design- using common parts for different applications.

So far from being a dissimilar design living organisms obviously have a common design.

Cladistics is a method of catergorizing organisms based on shared characteristics. Each clade allegedly consists of a common ancestor and all of its descendents. However we can also say that each clade consists of a common design and all its descendents. All cars are descended from the originally created cars- descended by design. All computers are descended, by design, from the originally created computers. The closer the ancestry the more similarities.

And so it would go for living organisms.

Is DNA Analogous to a blueprint or a Computer Program?

-
No, I don't think so but plenty of evolutionists did/do:

DNA: Blueprint of Life

Heck just do a google search and you will get mixed reviews.

 How about DNA and a computer program? Maybe some people do, but I don't. DNA is part of the system. It, along with mRNA, seems to act pretty much like the 1s and 0s on a computer bus- that is the analogy. The ribosome is a genetic compiler- that isn't an analogy. The genetic code is a code- that is not an analogy.

Cells are and contain automated assembly factories- observation.

The rotary motor of bacterial flagellum - observation.

The point? EvoTARDs get all wound up over the use of analogies and what they think are metaphors. Most of the belligerent anti-IDists will claim they don't over design at all in biology and the analogies and alleged metaphors get their panties in a knot so every now and then they have to make sure people know what's what.

Unfortunately, for the evoTARDs, we use the language we do because it is what it is. And it doesn't matter what you call it, blind watchmaker evolution can't explain it.

Malaysia Airline Missing 777 Part 2

-
In part 1 I talked about the possibility of the missing 777 being stolen- hijacked and taken for some terrorist purpose. The next question is where could it have landed.

The 777 needs about a mile of landing strip. It needs to be wide enough too, 200-300 feet across.

Could the terrorists have built a suitable runway in some remote part of a country? All they needed were time and resources. Does anyone doubt that they had those?

And if they landed in some remote area cellphones would not be useful. The passengers, if alive, would be cut-off from the rest of the world.

By now the 777 and landing strip have been covered, meaning satellite fly-overs wouldn't detect anything. The search needs to be focused on any land in the radius suitable for such an endeavor. I would look in extremist-held lands. If the plane is downed in the water there aren't any survivors and no urgency. If I am right then there is a great deal of urgency and it must be dealt with.

A plane downed in the water will eventually have debris washing up on some shore. And we will then go from there.

Biological Information- What is it and can it be measured?

-
Just a mere mention of the word information wrt biology causes evoTARDgasms so intense that if all the TARDs were together it would cause an earthquake. Yet a little history demonstrates that Sir Francis Crick talked about biological information in his "Central Dogma". For example:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

Each protein consists of a specific sequence of amino acid residues which is encoded by a specific sequence of processed mRNA. Each mRNA is encoded by a specific sequence of DNA.  The point being is biological information refers to the macromolecules that are involved in some process, be that transcription, editing, splicing, translation and functioning proteins. No one measures the biological information in a random sequence of DNA nor any DNA sequence not directly observed in some process. The best one can do with any given random DNA sequence is figure out its information carrying capacity. You couldn't tell if it was biological information without a reference library.

And Leslie Orgel first talked about specified complexity wrt biology:

In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

As far as I can tell IDists use the terms in the same way. Dembski and  Meyer make it clear that it is sequence specificity that is central to their claims.

That is the whole point- if sequence specificity matters the tighter the specification the less likely blind physical processes could find it. Yup those dreaded probabilities again, but seeing yours doesn't come with a testable model it's all we have. See Is Intelligent Design Required for Life?

With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

ETA for OMagain:

 First, as observed in Table ​Table1,1, although we might expect larger proteins to have a higher FSC, that is not always the case. For example, 342-residue SecY has a FSC of 688 Fits, but the smaller 240-residue RecA actually has a larger FSC of 832 Fits. The Fit density (Fits/amino acid) is, therefore, lower in SecY than in RecA. This indicates that RecA is likely more functionally complex than SecY.  (results and discussion section) 

And more TARD- what else when he has been expsoed as an asshole:

So you are saying that you can measure the FSCO/I in a protein but can’t measure it in a paragraph of text?

I did it with text. I used the definition of an aardvark.

Also, I find it odd that “FSCO/I” does not appear in the article you link to, neither does “CSI”. Why not?

If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I. Just read this OP.

So if you can indeed measure FSCO/I did it increase or decrease in Lenski’s experiment after the citrate mutation occurred? Please show your working!

The protein does the same thing. No new functionality arose. And you need to show us how what occurred was a blind watchmaker process. And yes, show your working! 


Here is a formal way of  measurinmg biological inforamtion:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).

Malaysia Airlines Missing 777

-
OK what if the missing jet didn't crash nor explode? What if it was hijacked and stolen? Yes, taken to some unknown airport to be used in some terrorist plot. Do you know how much explosives one could pack into a 777?

Transponer was turned off. The jet allegedly made a huge turn away from China. It had plenty of fuel to go some other place. All it needed was pilots to fly it there.


Just a thought...

Intelligent Design, The Designer(s) and the Process(es), Back by Demand

-

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski

Yes, they can.

Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”

Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of  No Free Lunch

Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

As for the people who have some "God phobia":

Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

(As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”.)

For more information please read the following:

Who designed the designer?:

Critics of intelligent design theory often throw this question out thinking to highlight a weakness in ID. Richards shows that the theory's inability to identify the designer is not a weakness, but a strength. ID does not identify the designer is because ID limits its claims to those which can be established by empirical evidence. As CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe puts it: " [A] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open."

(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)

Mechanisms- in context

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.

All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.


Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

Kevin ReTARD McCarthy, Still Having Issues with Termites

-
Kevin ReTARD McCarthy is one sad fuck of a human. He just refuses to understand how science operates and what ID posits. And he is so stupid that he cannot grasp the fact that termites are designing agencies, ie they exhibit intelligence. Well Kevin termites can and do manipulate nature/ the environemnt for their own purpose. That makes them intelligent.

ETA the definition of intelligence: (the bold & underlined parts apply)

1a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also: the skilled use of reason 

      (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think     abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Nature, operating freely, cannot produce termite mounds. The existence of termite mounds means termites were or are around.

BTW Kevin, blind watchmaker evolution cannot account for the hemoglobin gene. You lose, again.

RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance

-
It never fails- ask evoTARDs to support the claims of evolutionism and instead of doing that they spew evoTARDgasms. Enter RichTARD Hughes, AKA Captain Coward. Ya see kairosfocus has issued a challenge to evoTARDs asking them to support blind watchmaker evolution. The point is is bwe is a bottom-up approach that posits incremental steps. That is the nature of the beast so it is up to its supporters to provide the evidence to support that claim.

In contrast there is Intelligent Design, which is a top-down approach. It does not posit anything about the designer(s) except that at least one existed. It does not posit how the design came to be. The who, how, why, where and when all come AFTER design is detected and studied.

Back to the ignorant fuck RichTARD Hughes who is obvioulsy too much of a coward to actually respond to KF by supporting bwe. Instead RichTARD sez:

KF is of course free to set the bar for his personal satisfaction at whatever pathetic level of detail he requires, but given that he’s often accused of being a massive hypocrite I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide us with a corresponding ID narrative. 

I mean, ID isn’t just a negative case against Evolution, is it? 

Things I’m sure he’s eager to include:

Who is / was the designer?  

What was their motivation(s)?  

What was their method of fabrication?  

How many design interventions were there?  

What specifically was designed?  

What specifically wasn’t designed?

Please feel free to add your questions in the comments. I’d ask that if math is invoked for any design justification then in is comprehensively completed and not just talked about in a big numbers / hand-wavy sort of way. Any new concepts you bring to the table must be empirically tested rigorously so we can attest to their design detection capabilities. Thanks in advance KF, we know you’ll engage us in good faith and we’re eager to have productive dialogue.

Where to even start- 1- As I said ID doesn't require a corresponding narrative as ID does not posit the same thing that bwe does

2- ID is not anti-evolution so no, it is not a "negative case against" (wtf is that? double-negative) evolution. ID is anti-bwe having sole domion over evolutionary processes. IOW Richie is totally ignorant of ID and very proud of it. And I have already proven to Richie that ID is more than an argument against something.

3- Who the designer is is irrelevant to ID.

4- Motivation is irrelevant to ID.

5- Methodology of manufacture is irrelevant to ID

6- How many design interventions is irrelevant to ID

All of those come AFTER detecting and studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? THAT is exactly how it goes with archaeology and forensic science. And yes, SETI too.

As for what was and wasn't designed, well that is what science is for, dumbass. Unlike you cowards we have provided a methodology for making such determinations.

IOW there isn't having any productive dialog with a willfully ignorant shit-eating cowards like RichTARD Hughes and the rest of the cowardly minions of the septic zone.

The sad part is Richie and the other evoTARDs only attack ID because they can't support their position's claims. If they could then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims blind physical processes are not up to the task.

ETA:

The RichTARD does prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end as it is obvious the design inference opens up new questions that we will attempt to answer via scientific investigation.

LoL@ RichTARD's confusion. Wm Dembski, in "No Free Lunch" says your first four questions are irrelevant wrt Intelligent Design. Wm Dembski and the others have limited ID to the detection and study of design. It's as if you are really proud to be an ignorant ass.

OM(again) Throws The Blind Watchmaker Under the Bus

-
Yes it did- see for yourself- OMagain said:

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Can you test it? If not, is it really a scientific hypothesis?

And if it’s not scientific why is it worth spending any time on?

Can blind watchmaker evolution even muster a testable hypothesis? I have been asking for decades and no one has even produced one. So why are evoTARDs still wed to the blind watchmaker thesis if it isn't science and therefor not worth spending any time on? Oh, that's right, they are evoTARDs.

Materialism: The Advancement of Faith over Knowledge

-
Cosmos has been reborn. Don't ask me why, well, it is visually stunning, so maybe that is why. Or perhaps atheistic materialism is slipping and it needs more supporters. But at least Tyson should tell the truth- that in the absence of design or Special Creation all that is left is many improbable coincidences, ie sheer dumb luck, to explain our existence. And sheer dumb luck requires faith and doesn't give us any knowledge. Somehow I doubt Tyson is that honest, meaning we won't hear about any of thay. Hawking is that honest but this show didn't need that.

Look the fact is we can observe how the universe works without materialism.

Why Evo-Devo/ Developmental Biology is Useless wrt Universal Common Descent

-
If you have read "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" or "Making of the Fittest" by biologist Sean Carroll you will read a lot about stripes and spots. But what you will not read is how natural selection or any other materialistic process A) produced metazoans in the first place B) produced the genetic toolkit required to build metazoans nor C) how eveo-devo can change body plans.

The same goes for "Your Inner Fish"- all three books start with huge claims but then fail to advance them nor provide scientific evidence to support them.

It's pathetic that anyone still calls on these books to actually try to support some position because they don't support anything. Only gullible morons would thinks these are science books. Well they are n part because they do discuss developmental biology. However when the authors start using developmental biology for evidence of universal common descent that is when they smooch the pooch.

Evo-devo/ developmental biology has been a bust wrt universal common descent. No one has been able to take any of its principles and demonstrate that new body plans can arise from mutatimg any of the genetic toolkit genes that evos think determine the body plan. That is because genes influence but do not determine body plans. Evos need thenm to determine body plans so we are wasting millions of tax-payer dollars looking for something that doesn't exist. Nice.

What is the point? Kevin Reject McCarthy thinks that these books actually refute Meyer's claims in "Darwin's Doubt". Kevin must be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Wells is also a developmental biologist who has as much knowledge of the subject as Carroll and Shubin and Meyer and Wells worked together.

AS I have already posted:

What prevents macroevolution? This says it best

Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

Nothing has changed since 1983- not wrt macroevolution. Evo-devo has been a huge bust but evos are still clinging to it because that is their only hope.

What Prevents Macroevolution?

-
What prevents macroevolution? This says it best

Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes  that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

Materialism and Science- Does Anyone use it?

-
Does anyone use materialism for anything? I doubt is because materialism is a failed philosophy. I would love to see any evidence that demonstrates scientists go into a lab and say "Matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions is all there is so I should see X." No, no one does that.

Also:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.” Norbert Weiner

Information cannot be reduced to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. I would love to see someone try to do that-> reduce information.

True materialists will say, without evidence, that our mind and thoughts emerge from the interactions in our physical brain. But as I said they cannot support that claim so it makes no difference to science. Materialists make many unsupportable claims. Yet they don't seem to realize that absent design all they have is sheer dumb luck, ie a bunch of improbable coincidences. And only morons think that is science. And only morons would use materialism as a scientific framework. That is why scientists don't use it.

Kevin Reject McCarthy on Coevolution, so Ignorant

-
Kevin REject McCarthy has an post up called Coevolution.

Coevolution, according to Kevin's cite::

Coevolution (covariation/correlated mutation) is the change of a biological object triggered by the change of a related object.

Wait just a minute. Mutations are random, ie happenstance events. Only directed mutations can actually respond to some stmuli. What evolutionism says is that mutations just happen, regardless of the environment, other population or external stimuli. However, according to Dr. Spetner in "Not By Chance" organisms do react via "built-in responses to environmental cues"

Then Kevin sez:

Gould and Mayr’s punctuated equilibria (original 1977 PDF) theory suggests that populations of organisms are generally stable unless acted upon by an outside force.

Imbecile, the paper he linked to plainly says that Gould and Eldridge formulated PE, Mayr didn't have anything to do with it. Anyone remotely familiar with punk eek knows it was Gould and Eldridge. As I said before Kevin is just learning ths shit and obviously doesn't understand any of it.

A few paragraphs later we get this gem:

So the bacterial population is evolving to be resistant to antibiotics.

That's wrong. Bacteria just evolve and if they happen to be resistant to anti-biotics then that is fine and dandy. Only in Dr Spetner's scenario do bacteria actively evolve to beat anti-biotics.

Then Kevin proves his ignorance:

 Even creationists who don’t accept evolution still take all their antibiotics.

What an ignorant fuck you are Kevin. And apparently you are proud of your ignorance. Baraminology is OK with bacteria evolving, ie changing allele frequency over time. For someone who has allegedly been in this debate for 15+ years, Kevin is amazingly ignorant of what his opponents' poitions say. Well heck he is ignorant of what evolutionism says.

But anyway the rest is just more blah, blah, blah. No evidence to support the claim of coevolution, just examples of plants and insects- they MUST have coevolved 'cuz Kevin knows they weren't designed. Kevin also brings up the alleged "arms race". Pathetic.

How evolutionism is supposed to work- happenstance mutations ocuer in gametes. These then get passed down. Some mutations may be beneficial, most are neutral and some are bad. Beneficial is relative and whatever is beneficial for one genration in one envirnment may not be when the envirnment changes. And in the wild the environment changes often. And now evos want us to belive in correlated mutations across different populations.

Then there is the following paper: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. And evos want us to believe that corerlating mutations can occur in two or more different populations? Total bullshit. That is not the nature of variation under evolutionism. However it is the nature of variation under ID.

Kevin Reject McCarthy, Proudly Ignorant

-
Kevin is such a fake that it is pathetic. Sometime in the last year Kevin heard about Shannon information, read a little bit about it and now he thinks he is an expert. Unfortunately he's just stupid. Kevin sed:

Shannon Information is a measure of the compressibility of a string of data. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

No Kevin, that would be Kolmogorov complexity. Shannon is about information carrying capacity, measured in bits transmitted, received and stored. Shannon gave us the binary digit, ie the bit.

But I am sure that Kevin thinks he is right...