Wesley R. Elsberry, Still Clueless wrt Genetic Algorithms

-
EvoTARDs just can't it it through their thick skulls that genetic algorithms are search heuristics designed to find a solution for a given problem. Contrast that with natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions, none of which are search heuristics.

Enter Wesley R. Elsberry, clueless evoTARD @large:

It's amazing how little Dembski has learned about evolutionary computation since I introduced the phrase "genetic algorithm" to him in 1997.

It appears that is all you know Wesley, the phrase.

Dembski goes on about Dawkins' "weasel", but I've never heard him address the example I challenged him with back in 1997, which was to explain how a genetic algorithm could find a close-to-optimal path for the Traveling Salesman Problem given that his stance was that functions and algorithms could not generate information.  

1- It was designed to do that
2- All the information and resources required for the algorithm to do that was programmed into the algorithm for that purpose.

Wow, that was easy and it makes it appear as if Wesley doesn't know anything about genetic algorithms.

Again, if you design a program to do something and it does it, then it did it by intelligent design. Period. And you have to be an absolute moron or someone on an agenda to obfuscate to not be able to grasp that simple fact.

Added:

Both Dembski and Meyer have said that the amount of information generated by algorithms will never be greater than the information required for them to produce that information. And in most cases the output will simpler than the input. That is it requires more information to get the solution than the solution gives back.

Drought in the Southwest USA?

-
This is the 21st century in a country that is more technologically advanced than any other and we haven't figured out how to combat droughts and floods. Well most of us haven't, anyway.

Over 2,000 years ago the Romans figured out how to get water from where it is plentiful to areas where it is needed. Heck New York City, Boston and Los Angeles get their drinking water from areas many miles away from the respective cities. If we can do it on that scale, all we would have to do is ramp it up to a larger scale so that although parts the country may not get any rain they will still have plenty of water.

If we can connect towns and cities with roads and highways we should be able to do that with canals, aqueducts and tunnels. All it takes it workers, equipment and yes, money. The money part is where the 1%ers come in. They can finance it and then get paid back by a water tax. It would be an investment.

See also:

The Interstate Canal System   and   Got Drought? Get the Interstate Water Distribution System


Look we know the climate changes. That means we should change too and this is the change we need to survive.

An Evolutionary Biologist Said What? HT Evolution News and Views

-
I am in shock!

If the overall biology of the animals tells you that they are very different, and the genetics tells you that they are nearly identical, it follows that the genetic comparison is telling you something relatively trivial about the overall biology.

Kudos to Jonathan Marks for being an evolutionary biologist who makes sense!

He also wrote:

Does it not stand to reason that if you essentially cannot tell human hemoglobin from gorilla hemoglobin, the sensible thing to do is to look at something else? In other words, if you cannot tell a human from a gorilla, you really should not be in biology.

And:

If hemoglobin provides you with a lens that blurs the difference between human and gorilla, then just get a different lens. What is curious is why anyone would want to privilege such a weird dataset, a dataset that makes a human seem like a gorilla.

There may be hope after all...

Evolutionism, 155 Years After Darwin is Still a Failure

-
In 1859 Darwin's "On the Origins of Species..." was first published. In it Darwin posited a mechanism by which design could be reached without a designer. That mechanism Darwin called "natural selection". However Darwin didn't have any evidence to support his claim of design without a designer. All he had was a concept for which he was hoping to find evidence for. Unfortunately he never did and neither has anyone else in the 155 years since the book was first published.

The lack of supporting evidence and the lack of science has not prevented evolutiuonism from being accepted by scientists and taught in schools around the world. And is given the fact that it has been pointed out again and again that evolutionism is a worthless concept that no one uses because it cannot be tested and cannot even be modeled. All issues that evolutionism has are hand-waved away by the evolutionists who are intent on saving evolutionism at all costs. This is not how science is supposed to proceed but then again evolutionists don't seem to understand nor care about science.They just want to push their pseudo-scientific nonsense on unsuspecting children so that they can hope to keep their bullshit alive.

So if someone tells you that evolutionism is science, or that natural selection has proven to produce design-like features, ask them for a model and evidence. Then sit back and watch the flailing begin.

Human Chromosome 2- Evidence Against Fusion

-
Yes, you read that correctly, there is evidence against the alleged fusion of two smaller chromosomes to form human chromosome 2. The evidence is a functional gene in the alleged fusion site- that is the alleged fusion site is in the middle of the gene! And that means the fusion site is not indicative of the ends of genes spliced together.

Did evolutionary biologists discover this? Nope. Jeff Tomkins found it- he is a member of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

Intelligent Design- Still Supported by Science and Going Strong

-
Let's face it, materialism has proven to be a total failure. This also includes all materialistic concepts of the origin of life as well as its subsequent evolution. Yes, that's right, materialistic concepts of evolution have been a total failure also. That is because it cannot be modeled. Wm. Dembski, yes he's an ID advocate, tried to model materialistic evolution as a random search only to be told by evos that it isn't a search at all!

On the other hand Intelligent Design has expanded beyond biology and is evidenced in, for example, cosmology, physics and chemistry. Irreducible complexity has proven to be well beyond the reach of materialistic processes. Heck it seems that anything requiring more than two specific mutations is beyond the reach of materialistic processes unless one has an unrealistic unlimited population with short reproduction times.

Intelligent Design Evolution is exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms. IOW it is a known and used commodity. No one uses materialistic evolution for anything. It is useless mainly because it cannot be modeled. And it cannot be modeled because no one knows how it works.

So if your hear someone say or write about ID being dead or that ID books/literature has been thoroughly refuted, you can be assured that the person/ people writing and saying such things are totally ignorant or just pathological liars. Seriously just ask them for the evidence for natural selection actually producing something and see what happens. The only way natural selection does anything of note is via bald declarations and that is just a fact.

Kevin R. McCarthy (D- Texas) is an Ignorant Coward

-
Yup Kevin the shit eater is at it again. He spews:

I have had a creationist argue for years (and I mean that literally, late 2009 through 2012) that

I wonder how Kevin defines "creationist"? He never sez.

• ice was not water

It isn't. Ice is less dense than water. Go to a restaurant and ask for a coke with ice and see what they bring you, moron. Then order a glass of water and see what they bring you. Also the molecular lattice of ice is different from the molecular lattice of water.

We can swim in water and we can skate on ice. We cannot swim in ice and skate on water. We can ski on both ice and water- perhaps that is what has Kevin so confused.

• that “size” included a measurement of mass (so a rock could never be the same size as a baseball because it would have a different mass)

LoL! It all depends on what type of rock But yes size does include weight. That is just a fact. Why does Kevin doubt that fact? Educated people would say that the rock is the same diameter as the baseball. Educated people say the hail was the diameter of a nickel. Eductaed people know the correct words to use. Kevin doesn't. Go figure.

• that TICKS preferred watermelon to oranges (ticks, of course, being obligate hemovores)

More ignorance as I never said why they preferred watermelon to orange peels. And again that was an observation that was reproduced, ie science.

The funny part is Kevin's post is about the alleged "Gish Gallop" and yet evos are guilty of using this tactic on a daily basis. Not only that they don't have any evidence to support their claims- heck it has been proven that they don't even have a model!

Kevin sez something about never admitting being wrong- well that is Kevin as he has been proven to be wrong on many occasions yet he never has admitted it.

For example he posted here that I was wrong to say that with universal common descent there had to be organisms with 47 chromosomes. That is because with the chromosome 2 fusion there would have been 23 in the sperm but 24 in the egg (or the other way with 23 in the egg and 24 in the sperm).

Another example is ID is not anti-evolution. Kevin sez it is because it is anti-Darwinian evolution. Kevin is too stupid to grasp the fact that not all evolution has to be Darwinian. And when asked in what way ID is anti-evolution Kevin the coward refuses to answer.

Kevin also sucks Prothero, not realizing that Donald did not show how Darwinian evolution produced the Cambrian nor pre-Cambrian organisms. Prothero is a joke that Kevin takes seriously. That is part of the problem. Everything someone sez against ID Kevin accepts as the truth because he is just too stupid to do any real research. And anything people say against Kevin's views are just wrong cuz he sez so.

Kevin the coward won't let me post on his blog because he is sick and tired of me correcting him all the time.

EvoTARD Wisdom- The "Sensuous Curmudgeon, Blissfully Ignorant of Biology

-
Just checking around to see what the anti-ID morons are spouting off about and I found the sensuous curmudgeon who is always full of shit. It sed:

Actually, Tom, yes — DNA can organize itself. It does so every time it replicates. 

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- what an ignorant asswipe. DNA doesn't organize itself. DNA gets replicated as part of the cell replication process and is organized via many proteins working in conjunction to make it happen.

The sadest part is it was responding to this:

Isn’t DNA information? Where did the information come from? Can information invent itself?

And it's response didn't even address that. Pathetic. It's position can't even account for the existence of DNA. Strange how it avoids that reality.

Now I understand why the sensuous curmudgeon doesn't want to debate people who disagree with it.

Is an Unfertilized Egg also a Living Cell? Andy Schueler Chokes

-
Is an unfertilized egg also a living cell? In reality it is more of a formed element akin to red blood cells. Unfertilized eggs do NOT reproduce and reproduction is key to being a living cell. Unfertilized eggs only have 1/2 of the chromosomes as the other cells in the body.

The point? My loser buddy Andy Schueler sez that:

There is no transition of "non-life" => "life" in human development, it is a continuous cycle, and the unfertilized egg is just as much a) "alive" as the fertilized one and also just as much b) a "human cell" as the fertilized one. 

If an unfertilized egg doesn't reproduce then obviously it cannot be just as much alive as the fertilized one that does reproduce. It is even doubtful that an unfertilized egg is a cell given the fact that it doesn't reproduce and has only 1/2 the chromosomes as the cells.

Andy Schueler is allegedly a biologist...

Are All Anti-Life People Unaware of How Babies Come to Be? Jonathan MS Pearce is Clueless

-
Anti-lifers love to call themselves "pro-choice" yet that obviously only applies to birth. They are anti- gun rights. They are anti-capital punishment. They don't want you to be able to choose if you want healthcare or not.

Back to the title- the anti-life mob doesn't seem to be able to grasp the fact that humans develop over time. And that 6-9 months of that time is spent in the womb where the eventual humans are the most defense-less. They even actually use the bullshit that there are so-called natural abortions to support their call that it is OK to destroy over 1 million eventual humans a year (that number is much higher as in the USA there are 1.2 million abortions a year). The anti-life losers blame God for those natural abortions- talk about cry-baby losers.

The anti-life mob who wants to be called pro-choice doesn't really want people to be able to choose. When a person murders another person the choice for capital punishment has already been made. Owning guns? That is our RIGHT. Going to war? Only when we are attacked.

Jonny Pearce wants people to think that Pro-life people (anti-abortion) are for war, capital punishment and guns and against universal healthcare. No Jonny, we want people to be able to choose healthcare. Not everyone owns a gun but it is our RIGHT to do so. Capital punishment is justice and due to the many assholes wars have become necessary- unfortunately. But I will take war over someone trying to force me to be like them.

Jonathan MS Pearce is a Confused Imbecile

-
Skeptic Ink member Jonathon MS Pearce has denounced free will at just about every chance he gets. That is OK, he is free to do so. However he turns around and calls himself and other alleged skeptics, free thinkers.

What?

Jonathon is obviously too dim to grasp the fact that in order to be a free thinker one must have free will. Jonathon MS Pearce is indeed a confused imbecile.

Dembski Undresses Evolutionists at the University of Chicago

-
Too bad Coyne was too much of a coward to attend, but yes Dembski undressed evolutionists. Ya see Dembski compared evolutionism to a search. That caused an uproar with evolutionists who say that it isn't a search.

Dembski then asked for a model so it can be tested and nothing was ever offered.

So there you have it- evolutionism cannot be modeled and according to Lizzie Liddle and others that means it isn't science.

Responding to Joe Felsenstein

-
Full quote:

But the whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred in evolving systems. There the “meaning” would be biological function which leads to adaptedness, hence highish fitness. It would not be a matter of whether we can see the meaning, as long as the bird could fly or the fish could swim.

The inference of Design would have to made by finding some pattern that could only be from Design, or finding that this high a fitness could not be achieved by non-Design forces.- Joe Felsenstein

 Starting with the first sentence:

But the whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred in evolving systems. 

No. The whole point is to see whether Design can be inferred given the evidence and the known options. Intelligent Design is OK with evolution by design. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms, ie goal-oriented search algorithms (natural selection isn't a search, neither is genetic drift. natural selection doesn't have any goals and neither does drift) are examples of evolution by design. So one point would be to see if Design is a better explanation for evolving systems than, for example, the blind watchmaker thesis.

There the “meaning” would be biological function which leads to adaptedness, hence highish fitness. 

If one defines "adaptedness" as survival and "fitness" as differential reproduction, then that all seems meaningless, Joe. "What organisms are better adapted to their environment?" - The organisms that weren't eliminated. And what about fitness? The organisms that didn't get eliminated that had the most offspring were the fittest. So it's all an after-the-fact assessment then?

 It would not be a matter of whether we can see the meaning, as long as the bird could fly or the fish could swim.

Well the meaning comes from Crick's definition of biological information and the debate is about what process can explain its existence-> design, emergence, sheer dumb luck, destiny, whatever else.

The inference of Design would have to made by finding some pattern that could only be from Design, or finding that this high a fitness could not be achieved by non-Design forces.

And we have found that which can only be from Design, Joe. And no one even knows what non-design forces could produce a living organism. Even given a starting point of populations of prokaryotes there aren't any known non-design forces that can get beyond that.

Do you want to simulate non-design forces? Run Dawkins' "weasel" program without the target phrase and see how long it takes to hit that phrase.

What Does Intelligent Design Claim?

-
Mike Gene had an essay about Intelligent Design that opened with:

"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena.

For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":

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?

"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."

I just love that for an opening when discussing what Intelligent Design claims. Onward to the rest->

What is Intelligent Design?

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

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

ID claims that Complex Specified Information, not Shannon's "information carrying capacity", is an indicator of agency involvement. Just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. Others have called it "functional sequence complexity". It is all the same and all based on Crick's biological information concept.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:

Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

So science asks the question:

"How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required. That means if one can demonstrate nature,operating freely can produce DNA with FSC, ID would be in a seriously compromised, if not fatal, position.

OMagain Just wants to be Ignorant

-
Yes, it's hopeless but here goes:

The point rather is, JoeG, that if we replace the input of “random noise” with “radio telescope data” can you use FSCO/I to tell the difference between the two?

1- Who cares?
2- What does that have to do with ID?
3- The input is what we would be investigating. Nothing else matters

And why are you stuck on FSCO/I? It's as if OM is a little simple-minded child.

But anyway the first thing a scientist would do is ask for the source of your sequence(s). If you were unable to say then the scientist would say who the fuck cares? Then you would have some serious explaining to do.

For some reason OM thinks science is a parlor game- "Hey look, if we take nature and do this and this and this, and then take a man-made sequence and do this and this and this, I bet no one can tell one from the other!!!11!!!!111!!!"

 Unfortunately he is so self-unaware that he doesn't realize or doesn't care that materialism cannot even muster a methodology to test its claims. So he has to flail away at ID. Too bad the only people listening are the morons who don't know any better. And BTW, your position claims to be able to determine design from not. I bet you didn't realize that either.

Messages printed out are designed, irrespective of the content of the actual message, so it *must* have had agency involvement to be printed!

No, you ignorant fuck.  Again don't blame us because you are too stupid to figure out a proper example.

Do scientists try to determine if etchings on a cave or rock wall were from possible humans, animals or nature? Yes. The context, OMassface. Messages and character sequences do not exist in isolation. Even if received over the airways it will have a certain signature. Mother nature just blasts away. Intelligent agencies use narrow communication bands.

And you said that they were both obviously designed because they were print outs on paper.

You are misremembering.

Then Richie ReTARDo chimes in with his oft refuted tripe:

also, any experiment shows design because experiments are designed.

No Richie, only ignorant assholes like you say that. If an experiment takes intervention, unreal initial conditions or non-natural conditions, then you cannot say "nature didit!" because obviously it didn't.

Joe Felsenstein asks:

Are these folks claiming that they have some way of telling whether a message is a message (as opposed, say, to random noise)?

Random noise not run through any man-made apparatus. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Leave nature alone and yes, we can use tried and true design detection techniques to determine if an intelligent agency was required or not.

But we understand why you cannot do so- your position can't explain anything except disease and deformities.

OK OM chooses ignorance"

I think I must have missed this step in the EF, the calculation of CSI and FSCO/I. Can you provide a reference to the ID literature where the source of the object under question is considered?

LoL! It's called SCIENCE you ignorant little-minded punk. With SCIENCE we make observations in nature and then try to explain them. Crime labs work at the scene of the crime. Archaeologists work at the site of the dig. Everything is tagged and bagged. Scientists know the context in which the objects were found.

The only way to be sure we can avoid doing “this and this” to the data is to channel it straight into our minds directly. 

Right, and you can do that just by making the observation of nature, duh. Once you run it through a machine it becomes an artifact, duh.

For example, I measured which way the wind was blowing once an hour.

N, E, E, E, N, N, N, E, E, W, E, E, E, N

Good for you. And you just turned it into an artifact. You are just an ignorant asshole, OM. And obviously you don't know anything about science.

As I said above, you seem to have given up on the whole “FSCO > X == Design” idea. 

No, you ignorant fuck. I just know there are other tools beside that one that I can use to determine if agency involvement was required.

Now it’s “is it blasted? Not design. Narrow band = design”. 

One, I did NOT say that "narrow band=design". Obviously you have mental issues. Also Seth from SETI said it::

A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. (a sine wave, is the example he gave)

Consider pulsars - stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn't have much to say. Regular pulses don't convey any information--no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That's bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously moreefficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI. - Seth Shostack

Blasted.

And I know you are misremembering our earlier conversation. If you have evidence to the contrary then post it.

Can you describe an experiment that would not require ‘intervention’?

Miller-Urey; Lenski ; Flemming; Pasteur

The "wow" signal was interesting but unverifiable- that is no one ever found it again. We don't know where it came from except "out there", and that just isn't good enough. What needs to be done is to figure out what can transmit on the wavelength and in a narrow-band. You know- science! Oh you don't know science...

And it's very telling that OM ignored most of my post...

More Ignorance from The Skeptical Zone- OMagain Chokes, Again

-
OMagain is one of the most ignorant people ever.

`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$”,$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=( $!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)……(.)/,$”),$=++;$.++;$.++; $_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$”.”$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]“,$”&$~,$#,);$,++ ;$,++;$^|=$”;`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$”$^$~$*.>&$=`

OMagain wants to know if that was designed by an intelligent agency. LoL! That makes me wonder how many times OMagain has observed nature,operating freely, producing those symbols.

The anti-IDists are so clueless it is pathetic.

socle chimes in with more ignorance:

Another idea: Start with a 100+ character ‘message’. Encrypt it using the One-time pad scheme with a random key of the same length as the original message.

How will StephenB determine, without access to the pad, whether the original ‘message’ was intelligently designed or just random characters?

Again, morons, intelligent agency involvement is what we are determining. Have you ever observed nature, operating freely, producing any sequence of characters that would be used in an encrypted message?

OMagain posts:

On this very site I provided two strings of equal length that appeared, superficially, very similar. One was designed (by evolution) to be incompressible, the other was simply random.

Not one single PERSON at UD determined which was which, or even that there was any significant difference between them.

No doubt no one even saw it. Also no doubt it was a total strawman- hint ID is not anti-evolution. IF OM again ever posts that alleged challenge and I see it, I will point out the bullshit- yes I know it is bullshit without seeing it because I know how OMagain's M.O.

OMagain whines:

But, of course, it’s context is a web-page, therefore it’s designed. So FSCO/I adds nothing.

Not in this case. Don't blame us because you are unable to provide a proper example.

ID claims that we can determine what nature, operating freely can produce from what requires an intelligent agency to produce. If an intelligent agency creates a machine that generates characters from random noise then those characters are traced back to the intelligent agency that produced the machine. Duh.

Richie Hughes, Too Much of a Coward to Correct Andy Schuler

-
Well Richie is waving his pom-poms for Andy, because Richie thinks Andy has refuted me, however Andy is claiming that the transitional forms must be gone otherwise he agrees that the nested hierarchy would be ruined. The point? On all the discussions of Tiktaalik, Richie loves the mantra of "your grandfather can live when you are born", meaning transitional forms can live long after they have been replaced by a more evolved form and Andy is saying that evolution somehow predicted a nested hierarchy because we observe one with Linnean taxonomy, which excludes all alleged transitionals.

So does Richie jump in and correct Andy? Of course not. Heck most likely Richie doesn't even understand what Andy is saying and it is a given he doesn't grasp the concept of nested hierarchies.

Andreas "Andy" Schuler- Lying about Dr. Denton

-
Andy Schuler is a big fat liar. He lied about understanding nested hierarchies and when forced into his corner he lied about Dr. Denton. Well he was forced to lie about Denton because Denton refuted the claim that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.

Andy's lie:

On page 276, Denton states that comparable distances in Cytochrome C similarities between proteins from fishes, frogs, reptiles and mammals demonstrates that fishes are unlikely to be ancestors of frogs (and those ancestors of reptiles and those ancestors of mammals). Which relies on the idiotic misconception that extant fishes are ancestors of extant mammals instead of cousins who diverged from common ancestors for the EXACT SAME amount of time. This misconception would be excusable for a teenager, it isn´t excusable for someone who wants to write a book about the subject, it´s as lazy and moronic as writing a book about Islam while believing that Islam teaches that Jesus was God and not bothering to read up even the most elementary of sources to fact check your claims.

So I re-read chapter 12 and guess what? Dr Denton never made the claim that Andy posted! What Denton said, and was supported by evolutionary biologists, is that the alleged living fossils should have protein sequences very close to their ancestral state, ie their ancestors that lived millions of years ago. However when checked the living fossils'molecules are as derived as any other extant organism. That means there isn't any evolutionary relationships that can be gleaned from the molecular data.

 

Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of the ancient organisms. In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, the shark and among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago.- Zuckerkandl, E, (1965), "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18 , see p111

For if the ancient representatives of groups such as amphibia, lungfish, cyclostomes, and reptiles manufactured proteins similar to those manufactured by their living relatives today, and if, therefore, the isolation of the main divisions of nature was just the same in the past as it is today, if for example ancient lungfish and ancient amphibia were just as separate from each other as their present day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses." Denton, page 291

And that makes sense. However that is not what we observe. The "living fossils" have the same degree of difference as all other animal groups. There aren't any intermediates. All organisms are just as derived as the other. That means we cannot see any evolutionary relationships, just alleged sister groups. Evolutionary relationships have to be assumed as they are not observed by the data.

Andreas "Andy" Schuler Proves that He is Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
This assface should just give up, seriously. Andreas Schueler sed that he knows more about nested hierarchies than I do. However he didn't know the difference between a non-nested hierarchy, a semi-nested hierarchy and a nested hierarchy until I pointed it out to him. Also he didn't have any clue about the concept of summativity. Summativity is a key to nested hierarchies. But those are all minor compared to the ignorant spewage he has been laying down recently.

I had reminded Andy that nested hierarchies are completely a man-made/ artificial construct. That is because nested hierarchies require definitions for each level as well as definition for each set on each level. Andy is too stupid to grasp any of that and insists nested hierarchies exist if some pattern exists- total asshole moron, that one. Nested hierarchies do form a pattern but a pattern does not make a nested hierarchy. The fool is too stupid to grasp that fact.

The strange part is Andy agreed with me that if all the alleged transitionals were still alive it would be impossible to make distinct sets. He gets around this by insisting nested hierarchies only need to include extant organisms! As if there is no need to classify all the alleged transitional fossils as they are found. More stupidity.

If that wasn't enough I told him that Linnean Classification, the observed nested hierarchy, doesn't have anything to do with descent with modification and he just drooled. I also reminded him that the US Army forms a nested hierarchy and he drooled some more.

The sad part is when I told him about the definitions he sed he was using what I posted. However I posted the definition of a nested hierarchy, not of the levels and sets. As I said Andy is one ignorant chump.

Nested hierarchies are purely a man-made construct. That is because without those definitions of the levels and sets there cannot be a nested hierarchy. Andreas Schueler is too much of a willfully ignorant punk to grasp that fact. Too bad I will never collect that $10,000 from him.

Added:

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993

The sad part is I gave Andy that reference.

RichTARD Hughes, Still a Physics FAILure

-
For whatever reason RichTARD Hughes is still hung up on his huge physics FAIL with respect to, get this, a universe that had only one star and one orbiting planet that also had an orbiting moon. Yes he pulled it from his ass because that is all he had to try to make some retarded point.

Richie thought what I said was wrong-

For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.

That counter-balance is called EXPANSION, without which said universe would collapse on itself. That means the planet/moon system would spiral or even just straight fall right into the star. Even this universe will start collapsing, if it hasn't already, once the expansion stops. And a universe with only one star with a planet moon system in orbit wouldn't have enough stuff to keep it expanding.That is another point-; RichTARD's universe could never exist in the first place.

H2O2 Therapy vs EvoTARD Ignorance

-
H2O2 therapy has been used for decades. It has been used on humans and other animals with great success.

Drink H2O2 highlights many of the proven cases of H2O2 being used successfully:

In the 1950's, Dr. Reginald Holeman gave cancerous mice hydrogen peroxide in their drinking water. 60 days later their tumors had disappeared. The mice who received hydrogen peroxide in their drinking water, grew much larger and lived twice as long. In the 1980's, Winifred Wirth repeated Dr. Holeman's experiment twice with the same results. Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, healed birds using sodium perborate. Sodium perborate combined with water creates hydrogen peroxide.

Adding 30 parts per million of hydrogen peroxide to drinking water on farms causes chickens to not get avian flu, egg production goes up, chickens taste better, turkeys weigh more on less feed, turkeys have lower mortality rates, hog meat is leaner and of a higher grade, reduces or eliminates need for antibiotics, increases milk production and butterfat content, decreased bacteria count, less mastitis, etc.

In 1985, a dairy farmer began putting hydrogen peroxide in the water for his entire farm. The water on his farm was polluted and mastitis was a problem with his cows. After using hydrogen peroxide for some time, the farmer noticed the improved health of his cows. In April 1988, the butterfat content of his Holstein cows was up 5.3%. Another farmer weighed the milk from every cow after milking, and seen his milk production increase from 6 to 8 pounds, per cow, per milking. Others farmers have reported that bacteria counts have gone down to less than 2,000 per cubic centimeter.

When hydrogen peroxide has been used for cattle, an increase in milk production and an increase in butterfat content have been reported. Farmers have also reported less mastitis in their herds. Hog farmers have reported their hogs using less feed and a shorter growing time (as much as 30 days less). Turkey and chicken growers reported increased weight per bird using less feed. A man in Wisconsin said he has had the best reproduction rate of his buffalo by using hydrogen peroxide in their drinking water.

Some animal research indicates that when hydrogen peroxide is given orally, it combines with iron and small amounts of vitamin C in the stomach and creates hydroxyl radicals. The rule of thumb is adding 8 oz. to 10 oz. of 35% hydrogen peroxide to 1000 gallons water. Chickens and cows have remained healthy by using 8 ounces of 35% Food Grade hydrogen peroxide in 1,000 gallons of drinking water @ 30 ppm. Hydrogen peroxide application into well water, or city water can best be accomplished by a metering device / injector, which keeps the application more constant and thorough, although manual application works just as well. If you do not have an metering device, start out by using 1 teaspoon of 35% hydrogen peroxide in the animal's drinking water. This same ratio is used for all farm animals: cows, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, rabbits, birds, etc.

Use on humans:

There are two methods of taking hydrogen peroxide, orally and intravenously. Most medical conditions respond very well to oral ingestion of hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen Peroxide Therapy is also used as an alternative medical treatment for cancer. Hydrogen Peroxide is injected intravenously in very low concentrations (less than 1%) into the blood stream. The use of intravenous hydrogen peroxide was reported in 1920 during the influenza epidemic. Intravenous hydrogen peroxide infusion was used successfully used to treat pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I. Intravenous hydrogen peroxide cut the death rate of pneumonia in half.

In the 1940's, Father Richard Willhelm, reported hydrogen peroxide being used to treat bacterial related mental illness to skin disease and polio. Father Richard Willhelm is the founder of "Educational Concern for Hydrogen Peroxide" (ECHO), a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public on the safe use and therapeutic benefits of hydrogen peroxide. According to the American Cancer Society: "there is no scientific evidence that Hydrogen Peroxide is a safe, effective or useful cancer treatment". More Information on the uses of Hydrogen Peroxide are available from Educational Concern for Hydrogen Peroxide (ECHO), PO Box 126, Delano, MN 55328 @ (813) 597-4111 or (606) 635-9297.

Tumor cells, bacteria, and foreign elements in the blood can usually be destroyed with hydrogen peroxide therapy. Surgery and chemotherapy destroy brain tissue. Intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide may be the greatest breakthrough ever for brain tumors. Intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide also helps PULMONARY DISEASE, gangrene, arteriosclerosis, aids, flu, asthma, cancers, etc. Chelation Therapy is a useful treatment and preventive for at least 80% of peripheral circulation problems but cannot clean out hardened plaque in the large heart arteries and the aorta. Hydrogen peroxide IV dripped into the leg and carotid vessels of patients with arteriosclerosis cleans the arteries of disease and plaque. When these patients died, autopsies compared the arteries that had been treated with H2O2 with those not treated. The separation of lipids from the arterial wall from the hydrogen peroxide had been accomplished. The plaque in the arteries was removed by injecting H2O2 into the blood vessels. The improvement was not temporary. Hydrogen Peroxide has been shown to dissolve calcium and cholesterol deposits in the body and stimulates peroxidase production.

Other proven methods of reducing arteriosclerosis and the build up of plaque in the arteries require the consumption of supplements. The oldest known method is the Pauling therapy, which uses the consumption of vitamin C (asorbic acid) and lysine. Consuming lecithin for fat emulsification, is believed to work because the elevated licithan levels help the body melt the accumulated plaque on the arterial walls. Serrapeptase is another supplement used to reverse arteriosclerosis. Niacin and niacinimide (B3) dilate blood vessels. Niacinimide has been shown to prevent and reverse Alzheimer's.

There are two methods of administering hydrogen peroxide: orally or intravenously. Emphysema is one condition in which intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide is best. Emphysema is destruction of the alveoli, the small air sacs in the lungs. An inadequate amount of oxygen reaching the tissues forces the heart to pump more forcefully; causing high blood pressure, enlargement of the heart and eventually heart failure. A vaporizer improves night time breathing by using at least 1 ounce of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide mixed in 1 gallon of non-chlorinated distilled water. Hydrogen peroxide intravenous (IV) infusion has the ability to cleanse the inner lining of the lungs and restore the ability to breathe. Within minutes, oxygen from hydrogen peroxide begins to bubble up between the membrane lining, the lungs sacs and the accumulated mucus. The patient begins to cough and expel accumulated material in the lungs. The amount of bubbling, coughing, and cleansing can be regulated by simply turning the hydrogen peroxide on or off. As the hydrogen peroxide cleans the lung surface and destroys bacterial infections, the patient regains the ability to breath better. Hydrogen peroxide is being used intravenously and intra-arterially by doctors in the United States and foreign countries. The International Bio-Oxidative Medicine Foundation supports clinical research in Hydrogen Peroxide Therapy. To find a doctor near you call (405) 478-4266 or write to The International Bio-Oxidative Medicine Foundation, P.O. Box 13205, Oklahoma City, OK 73113.

A complementary emphysema therapy uses DNA-Nucleotide Immunotherapy and Natural Microdose DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) Mucolyxir. The use of a single sequence of synthetic DNA composing guanine and cytosine, has been shown to improve immunity, allergies and inflammation. It is being studied for use as a vaccine, an immunotherapy and it appears to be safe and fast-acting. Some medical and veterinary doctors have been using microdose DNA (Mucolyxir) to treat respiratory ailments in dogs, cats, horses, infants, children and adults. Millions have been spent and dozens of researchers are involved, but more research is required for use as an FDA-approved DNA drug.

Can it also harm you? Absolutely. So can chemo-therapy. So can any surgery. Geez just about anything can be harmful if you don't use it correctly.

The only time I get sick is when I am off my H2O2 therapy for a few months. Go figure...

Ebola vs H2O2

-
Ebola is back in the news. The good news is that it is not an airborne virus. That means you have to have direct contact with bodily fluids that contain the virus. That may tell us how to combat this bastard.

Enter food grade H2O2, intravenous FG H2O2, of course. Do that therapy, possibly add a course of "Oxydrene" (a deep tissue oxygenator) and see what happens. Heck there are many patients who would love the opportunity to try that while the newly developed cure is being checked.

And that brings me to another point- why infect monkeys when there are humans already infected? And if you need more human subjects go to any "death row" or lifers in prisons.

OK, time to write to the CDC...

Alan Fox Doesn't Understand Evolution

-
From Alan:

Not true, as far as I understand evolution. The generation of variation is stochastic but the selection process, environmental design, as I like to call it, is not.

1- There isn't any selection process- natural selection is a process of elimination- Mayr "What Evolution Is". Basically whatever is good enough to survive and reproduce seeds the next generation.

2- The environment doesn't design so calling it environmental design is wrong and misleading

Alan was responding to the claim that Darwinian evolution (and the modern synthesis) posits a meaningless collection of accidents. Apparently Alan is unaware that natural selection is just one way genetic accidents accumulate. And seeing that natural selection is being blind, mindless and without purpose those accumulations of accidents would be meaningless.

According to Darwinian evolution all genetic changes are accidents, mistakes and errors.


Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is”

To be fit means to possess certain properties that increase the probability of survival. This interpretation is equally applicable to the “nonrandom survival” definition of natural selection. Not all individuals have an equal probability for survival because the individuals that have properties making survival more probable are a restricted nonrandom component of the population. Page 118

It isn't non-random in any significant way. Not in any way that would make it non-stochastic nor anything other than a meaningless collection of accidents.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force

What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

On the role of chance:

The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

Alan Fox, ignorant of evolution but determined to defend it against other positions that he is even more ignorant of. And the sad part is no one from the evo camp is stepping forward to correct him- sad in a funny way because most likely they don't know any better than Alan!!!111!!!!!11!!

The "10% (of our) Brain" Myth?

-
OK by now most, if not all of you have heard of the "we only use 10% of our brain" saying. Some people think it means that we only use a small part of our brain. That is falsified by fMRIs which show we do use our entire brain.

OTOH I have always heard it in the fashion that it is true that we use every region of our brain we only use it to 10% of its capability. Clearly you can also see the issue with that-> how do we know? That was the first question I asked, followed by who did the study and what journal is it in.

I never understood the first argument. and the second argument is only as good as its evidence, which is missing.

The point? The next time you hear someone say that we only use 10% of our brain ask them what they mean by that and how was it determined. You will either learn something or be entertained.