Allan Miller is Still Proudly Ignorant

-
The TSZ is a treasure trove of misinformation and ignorant spewage. Now Allan Miller sez:

Phylogenetic nested hierarchies are based upon similarities and differences, but the point at which the difference arises is key.

Umm " Phylogenetic nested hierarchies" is a contradiction of terms. Phylogenies do not form a nested hierarchy. See Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics.

But hey, evoTARDs like Allan don't care about the facts as long as they can spew there shit without consequence.

ADDED- Allan Miller is complaining that I never said how the paper I linked to supports my claim and yet the sentence is in the post:

Phylogenies do not form a nested hierarchy.

It is an either/ or thing. Either it is a phylogeny OR it is a nested hierarchy. But then again Allan is proudly ignorant.

Mikkel Rumraket- Proudly Ignorant of Irreducible Complexity

-
Mikkel Rumraket is a special case. He did say that it requires the right mutations in order for Common Descent to happen. But he never says what those are and he doesn't even know if it is true.

Now he is choking on irreducible complexity. IC refers to something that has several parts that are all required to allow for functionality. SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARTS. So what does Mikkel say? He sez that chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum is IC cuz it requires several mutations to produce. However no one has ever demonstrated that blind and mindless processes didit! And THAT is the whole enchilada as IC is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution. But that still misses the point- there was NEVER multiple parts required to produce the resistance.

Next Mikkel spews about Lenski's experiment and the evolved ability to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions. Again no one has demonstrated that what happened was via blind and mindless processes and again it did NOT involve multiple parts having to be configured just right for functionality.

Moronic evoTARDs think that if they show the most simple thing evolving then IC is refuted. That is just plain ignorance. You don't show that someone can lift 300 pounds by having them lift one pound. You don't show that someone is an expert bridge builder just because they dropped a board across a stream.

The way to refute IC as an indicator of intelligent design is by showing nature can produce the highest degree of IC observed in biology. Once that happens then IC can no longer be used as evidence for ID. No one has even come close and I say no one even knows how to do so.

And BTW, IC is not an argument against "evolution" as evolution by means of intelligent design can produce IC. IC is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution. And no one has ever demonstrated that blind and mindless processes can produce IC of any degree.

Mikkel Rumraket is just another ignorant asshole who couldn't understand his opponent's position if his life depended on it.

Read his ignorant spewage for yourself.