Evidence That Kevin R. McCarthy is an Ignorant Ass

-
The following is Kevin's test for ID . I will explain why it is total bullshit and I have explained it to Kevin, several times. That means he chooses to be a douche-bag asshole. Kevin writes:

I have suggested (several times) comparing a DNA sequence or protein sequence that is known to be designed (because a human designed it) and a totally random sequence of a similar length.

And I have explained to you why that is total bullshit. For one ID does not claim to be able to detect design from random. And CONTEXT is important. DNA exists in living organisms. We observe DNA and we observe that it is involved in processes required for living organisms to live and reproduce.

In this way, design principles could at least be compared between totally random and totally designed.

That is a strawman. ID is about what is designed and what nature,operating freely, can produce, ie blind and undirected processes. And doesn't your position say it can determine random from designed? I believe it does. Strange Kevin always forgets to mention that.

Now, ID proponents have said that this doesn't work because there must also be "specification". And one is left to wonder how that is quantified. All of the ID proponents I've read about this (including some commentors on this blog) have said that, for all practical purposes, specification is "it looks designed for a purpose".

Wrong again, moron. Crick is the one who gave us biological information-

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.  Sir Francis Crick in "Central Dogma"

Leslie Orgel gave us specified complexity:

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.

Kevin's ignorance runs deep.

What these proponents completely fail to realize is that evolution produces results that are extremely similar (in many cases superior) to designed systems.

What Kevin fails to realize is that he is equivocating. Only Intelligent Design evolution produces results that are similar to or better than human designed systems. IOW they are designed systems.

So, the ID proponents really must talk about the actual intelligence, because evolution is shown to be a designer of some note, including novel systems and irreducibly complex systems.

Unguided evolution has never designed anything. Natural selection is not a designer nor a designer mimic.

So, back to your question, I would propose that if an ID proponent could describe a method, usable by anyone, by which they could correctly choose between designed and random at a better than 50% rate (although, it should be expected to be closer to 90%).

There are tried and true design detection techniques that are used to determine nature operating freely from agency activity. That is what ID is about. The problem is Kevin doesn't have any clue and doesn't care.

Then we could compare systems that were designed (again, by humans) and evolved. If they could consistently determine the difference between evolved and designed systems at that same rate (again, using some presently non-existent ID principles), then I would be willing to admit that there is something to ID principles.

Systems that evolve by design are designed systems. And ID is not anti-evolution. Kevin is so retarded, so set against reality, that he refuses to grasp what ID is even though he has been told many times.

Not only has no ever even attempted this, I have posited to several mathematicians that such a test is fundamentally impossible and they have tentatively agreed with me. Without a rigorous mathematical proof, there's no way to be sure, but it seems highly unlikely.

It is a bullshit test devised by a totally ignorant asshole. What do you expect? 

Through statistical measurement of large groups of numbers, there might be a way to tell random strings from designed strings, but that's not an ID principle.

Actually it is an ID principle. As I said, Kevin's ignorance runs deep.

And only a cowardly liar would say that we claim:

"If we defeat evolution, then design wins be default."

ID has plenty of positive evidence. Unfortunately Kevin doesn't know anything about evidence.