Information, Probability and DNA- Responding to Smilodon's Retreat

-
Smilodon's Retreat has a recent post titled Information, Probability, and DNA. In it the author attempts to poke holes in the argument from probabilities wrt DNA sequences. The author's first mistake was pointing to the genetic code as his position doesn't have anything to explain its existence. That isn't the entire problem. In order to function the genetic code requires several macromolecular machines. But I digress...

And that’s interesting, because you can make some pretty massive changes to that DNA sequence and still get the exact same protein.

Actually you can get the same amino acid sequence but we already know that so-called silent mutations, mutations that change the codon sequence but not the represented amino acid,  can change the protein, ie the folded shape that allows for functionality.

The author babbles on about that proteins are able to withstand variation and still perform the same function. Does this moron not understand that his position requires variation that leads to new functions and forms? But that isn't even the point.

The point is the only reason probability arguments exist is due to the fact that the author's position doesn't have any way to scientifically test its claims. And if you ask me his position doesn't even deserve a seat at probability discussions.

RichardTHughes is an Ignorant Asshole and Proud of it

-
Yup, he is at it again. Read the ignorant spewage:

 CSI (the S part) is defined as existing if natural explanations are ruled out.

That is incorrect and proves Richie is a willfully ignorant asshole. CSI exists regardless of what caused it- See Dembski, "No Free Lunch" 2004. It is just that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via an intelligent agency. Add to that the fact that no one even knows how to test the claim that mother nature can produce CSI and we get a design inference.

Not even in Dembski's 2005 paper on "Specification" is there anything that says what Richie spews. The point of that paper was to see if specification alone can be used to warrant a design inference. And that is where what Richie says comes into play. Specification only warrants a design inference once stochastic processes have been ruled out for its existence.

However Richie is way too stupid to understand that.

Kevin McCarthy- Clueless Pinhead

-
In a new blog post Kevin spews:

I’m over 70,000 words in and basically finished explaining how genetics actually works. 

Earth to Kevin- you are too stupid to explain how genetics actually work. You are not a geneticist. You are not a biologist. The best that you can do wrt to genetics is parrot what the experts have already written. And it is a given that you don't grasp much of that. Heck just a few years ago Kevin was too stupid to grasp the genetics pertaining to the alleged transition to humans. Humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48. One chromosome allegedly fused and upon mating with a like organism without the fusion the offspring would have had 47. Kevin fought and fought against that until someone he trusted corrected him.

Heck it is a given that Kevin doesn't understand why gene binding sites has to be hundreds to thousands of nucleotides away from the gene in eukaryotes. It has to do with the way the DNA is coiled. Once coiled the binding site actually ends up next to the gene. The alleged junk DNA helps make that so.

Kevin is also a psychic as further down he spews:

In the US, when a legislator says “students should be allowed to make up their own mind”, what they really mean is “students should be taught that evolution is wrong and the Bible is correct”.

Kevin knows bullshit. That is about it. Kevin is too stupid to grasp that ID is not anti-evolution. He is too stupid to grasp the fact that being anti blind watchmaker evolution (a term he thinks is a strawman even though Dawkins, someone who understands evolution more than Kevin ever will, coined the term and its meaning) does not make it anti-evolution. Kevin is the worst type of enemy of science- the type that refuses to listen to the facts and doesn't give a shit about evidence. And Kevin refuses to examine his chosen belief with the same scrutiny that he examines the material he disagrees with. 

I agree with Kevin in that students should not be able to make up their minds as to what they want to be taught. However I urge all students to challenge their teachers who spew the gospel of evolutionism. Ask your teachers how to test the claims of evolutionism. Ask them how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction. And then tell the teachers if it cannot be tested it isn't science and does not belong in a science classroom.