Alan Fox Humps a Straw Man

-
This clown never stops with his ignorant spewage. Now he says:

If ID proponents could demonstrate a capability in discerning a meaningful DNA sequence from a non-meaningful sequence, I’d be impressed.

That has nothing to do with anything ID claims. Meaningful DNA sequences are observed and as such require an explanation. Part of that explanation needs to deal with how they came to be. Your position doesn't have anything that explains it. So perhaps you should focus on that. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have anything to explain what we observe.

Alan goes on to say:

The mathematical approach so far has proved useless.

That's because there wasn't any such attempt that I am aware of. All attempts to measure the information in DNA or amino acid sequences used existing known meaningful sequences.

Undeterred Alan spews:

But to really impress me, how about reading DNA language?

There is an irreducible complex genetic compiler- a structure your position cannot account for- that does just that. All indications are it was intelligently designed. All indications are the genetic code was intelligently designed.

Then Alan shows his ignorance and agenda with his cowardly equivocation:

(Unless you synthesize the protein and test it for function – rather like evolution is supposed to).

What does that even mean? Your "evolution" can't produce the machinery and processes that synthesize proteins. You have to be given it all to start with.

Alan then puffs out his chest and proclaims:

Cargo cult science remains a valid charge till ID proponents get their hands dirty.

You ignorant ass. For starters you don't seem to know what science is if you think that your version of evolution has any. For another you seem to be too stupid to be able to assess any evidence. You and yours need to get your hands, dirty, dipshit.  You are lacking testable hypothesis and testable methodologies for the claims of your position.

You want to impress someone, Alan? Stop equivocating and cowering on sites that prevent responses to your bullshit ignorance and blatant lies. Put up the evidence and let's compare. Or shut the fuck up you ignorant coward.

 

 

Neil Rickert- Proud to be a Willfully Ignorant Ass

-
Neil needs to shut up or else everyone will know that he is an ignorant asshole without a clue. Neil's newest spewage proves he is ignorant and willfully so:

When can we expect to see the ID people stop their nonsense about “teach the controversy”, and instead start on that 50 year program of coming up with empirical support for their claims?

ID already has more empirical support for its claims than evolutionism has. Biological codes are empirical evidence for ID, Neil. All of our knowledge, which is based on observations and experiences, says that codes only come from intelligent agencies. No one has ever observed nature producing a code. No one even knows how to test such a claim.

That is just for starters, Neil. So clearly Neil Rickert is just a willfully ignorant ass and clearly he is proud of it.

Evolution is NOT about Progress- Proving Jerry Coyne and Joshua Swamidass are Ignorant

-
Both Jerry Coyne and Joshua Swamidass conflate "evolution" with "universal common descent". Yet "evolution" is not about progress. Traits can be lost which means evolution can makes organisms less complex. Living fossils may resemble their contemporary ancestors but no one says there wasn't any evolution going on during all of those missing generations.

The point is only a complete ignoramus would conflate "evolution" with "universal common descent" as much evolution occurs without anything resembling UCD occurring.

“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”-  David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.

So what is wrong with Jerry and Joshua? Are they really that ignorant with respect to evolution that they have change the definition to suit their ignorance?

Joe Felsenstein is Totally Clueless

-
Back in March of 2012 Joe Felsenstein had a post that supposed to refute the claim that natural selection could not put CSI in the genome.: Natural selection can put Functional Information into the genome.

However the essay doesn't even address CSI/ functional information. He talks about gene distribution whereas CSI/ functional information refers to the genes themselves.

In “Signature in the Cell” Meyer defines “information” basically as it is found in standard and accepted dictionaries:

the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

His wording may be slightly different as I pulled that from Merriam-Webster. Both Meyer and Dembski also reference the not-so knightly Francis Crick:

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

Durston, et al’s Functional Sequence Complexity appears to follow the same definitions. Their measure corresponds to distinct proteins and not their distribution within a population.

In “No Free Lunch” William brings up “discrete combinatorial objects” in reference to irreducible complex biological structures. One of his 3 parts of a DCO is the origin of the parts, which would be the proteins of say ATP synthase. Those proteins are coded for in the DNA.

The other two parts of the DCO equation are the getting the parts to the right place (at the right time) , ie the localization issue and properly assembling them into the functional unit, ie the configuration issue.

One thing that stands out is the holistic nature of what is being discussed. It is more than just getting the words of “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL”. You need the sentence or you get nothing but a “you tried”.

There isn't anything in the ID literature that supports Joe Felsenstein' s (mis)representation of CSI. Clearly Joe Felsenstein is quite content to argue from ignorance.

Jerry Coyne is an Ignorant Coward

-
Jerry Coyne has proven, once again, that he is nothing but a blowhard and a coward. I had posted the following:

ID is not anti-evolution and fossil evidence does not support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Your alleged reptile-mammal transition would require so many just-so mutations as to be well out of the reach of blind and mindless processes. Just the evolution of the inner ear from the jaw bones is too much for blind and mindless processes.

To which Jerry responded:

Oh dear, Joe G., I’ve missed most of your comments about ID, which show a profound ignorance of both evolution and even ID. You spout nonsense with no backing (“ID is not anti-evolution”–seriously?), and you have no data or calculations showing that the reptile-mammal transition could not occur by “blind and mindless processes.” We’ve seen very rapid evolution in real time depending on those “blind” processes (a 10% change in finch beak size in ONE YEAR), as well as humans using those random mutations to create big changes through artificial selection. You can give no reason why natural selection, an analogue of artificial selection in which nature determines the optimum, couldn’t do the same thing. Your dislike of evolution is based on no data at all, but your ignorance and perhaps your religiosity. I don’t know if you’re religious, but you’re certainly ignorant about the things you speak of.

As Laura Nyro sang, “Goodbye, Joe.”

Yes, Jerry, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution. ID is OK with descent with modification, ie evolution. It is only if you define evolution as the blind watchmaker thesis that ID is anti-evolution. ID is OK with every textbook definition of evolution I could find. You lose, Jerry

The calculations to support my claim are in the peer-reviewed paper titled "Waiting for Two Mutations". It shows the difficulty of getting a mere TWO specified mutations. The change from reptile to mammal requires more than that. You lose, Jerry.

Beak size- wow! Too bad beak size means nothing in the grand scheme of things and as far as you know it is all designed in variability. You have nothing that can account for the existence of birds, loser.

Natural selection is not an analogue of artificial selection. Ernst Mayr explained the differences in "What Evolution Is":

Page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

"BY CONTRST" means they are not analogues but dissimilar. So clearly there is no "nature determines the optimum" except in the ignorant and wishful minds of evpoTARDs, like Jerry Coyne. Natural selection could never do what we can do. It could never produce the different breeds of dogs but take away humans and NS will take away those breeds. NS is good at undoing what we have done.

Jerry Coyne is an ignorant loser feeding the Kool Aid to the ignorant minions.

Timothy Horton- Proud to be an Ignorant Coward

-
This is just crazy- cowardly liar Timothy Horton is so fucking retarded he doesn't understand that ID exists in part due to the utter failure of his position to come up with anything. Tat must piss it off as it spews its usual ignorance:

1. ID as presented now makes no testable predictions which are unique to and arise from ID.
2. ID as presented now is not falsifiable

And yet I have posted what ID predicts and exactly what will falsify it!

To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that  blind and mindless processes can produce living organisms, the laws that govern the universe, stars, planets-> our planet with all that it has, our solar system, etc. In other words all one has to do is demonstrate that materialism has something beyond the lies and bluffs of the cowardly materialists.

The testable predictions are we will find irreducible complexity and/ or complex specified information, ie things that blind and mindless processes cannot produce and things we know that intelligent agencies can.

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.

That is by far more than Timmy's lame-ass position can muster.

Alan Fox- Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

-
Earth to Alan Fox- Intelligent Design has more evidence and science than your position will ever have. Unlike Alan's position ID makes testable claims. Unlike Alan's position ID has the evidence to support its claims.

The point? Alan's ignorant spewage:

There is no ID. There never was, beyond a snappy title. There was only ever sleight-of-hand.

Nice projection you ignorant sow, Alan. Unfortunately for him, Alan could never support what he says about ID. Alan could never show that evolutionism is science. And Alan will always be a waste of skin looking for a soundbite to post.

Dumbass "Acartia" chimes in with its ignorance:

If ID were to concede that all life evolved without intelligent intervention after the initial life form arrived (either by design or not) then they could possibly be unified.

That is what Dr Behe says. And with YEC after the original life forms where here all extant life evolved from them. So according to Acartia they should be unified

Neil Rickert is a Lying Asshole

-
Shit-eating Neil Rickert needs to buy a vowel and shut up. He is a totally clueless lar and asshole- apparently he is proud of that. Now Neil spews:

The word “information” has many different meanings. The information argument from ID depends on equivocation between different meanings. It is all sleight of hand, much like so many other apologetics arguments.

That is total bullshit that Neil doesn't even try to support.

Information and meaning has a link to what IDists have always said about information.

According to Meyer in "Signature in the Cell" information is -  the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects- Just ;like in the dictionary.

It is all based on what Crick said years ago when discussing information with respect to biology:

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

The only equivocation comes from the anti-IDists who just plain refuse to understand what ID says.

Natural Selection- "It's the FEEDBACK, stupid"

-
From "What Evolution Is" page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

EvoTARD ignorance at its finest has "whatever is good enough to survive and reproduces", ie the "feedback" with respect to natural selection, as some sort of magical mechanism that can produce complex adaptations. 

Then there is the fact that the fittest of any population is still that same type of organism- the fittest clown fish is still a clown fish; the fittest bull shark is still a bull shark; the fittest humans are all still human. The point is that natural selection is a mechanism that eliminates the weak but keeps the type (body plan) intact. For example, natural selection isn't a driving force that can produce land animals from fully aquatic populations. The "feedback" is impotent in that respect.

But it is funny watching evoTARDs shout into the wind that there's is a magical feedback aided by father time that we just cannot comprehend...

Timothy Horton Proudly Ignorant of Codes

-
Codes- all of our knowledge says codes only come from an intelligent source.  It goes against everything that we know to suggest any code arose via blind and mindless processes. Not only do you need the codes but also the physical systems that can carry them out.

That is an irrefutable fact. Every experience and observation supports that claim. So what does the dumbass Timothy Horton spew?

Still wrong Joe. Only codes which use arbitrary symbols as abstractions for other values require an intelligent source. There are plenty of natural processes which encode information. Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star in its spectral bands. Tree rings encode local weather patterns in the width of the rings. Evolution is a natural process which encodes information about the environment into the genome of living creatures. So no, all coding codes doesn’t require intelligence.

By that logic shit is a code. Urine is a code. But I digress.

There are plenty of natural processes which encode information. 

That is your opinion but let's take a look:

Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star in its spectral bands. 

There isn't a definition of encode that fits that description:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encode

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/encode

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=encode

There isn't any code with tree rings.

Timothy is ignorant of codes and proud of his ignorance. Not one thing that Timmy mentioned is a code. Not one. This has been explained to that moron thousands of times and yet it still spews its ignorance as if it means something.

The genetic code is arbitrary as it is not determined by any physical/ chemical process. The RNA codes REPRESENT their respective amino acids, they do not chemically transform into them.

Neil Rickert- Stupid or Ignorant?

-
Neil Rickert posted the following drivel on "Peaceful Science":

I’m replying to this using my computer. And, when I think about it, the operating system of my computer is a blind and mindless process.

Except for the fact that the operating system is a well scripted program that manages the computer's software and hardware  resources via intelligently programmed telic processes. There isn't anything bind or mindless about an OS. Total dumbass call there, Neil.

Then Neil ignorantly spews:

Yes, the critics of evolution do often use the “blind and mindless” expression in their criticism. But perhaps they cannot help themselves, because of the way that they have been caught up in a blind and mindless way of reading their Bible.

Actually it was Darwin who started the bind and mindless processes claim when he conjured up natural selection as a designer mimic, ie design without a designer.

Jerry Coyne wrote Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless.

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.”- UC Berkley on Evolution

The entire debate is about what blind and mindless processes can accomplish vs. what requires intelligent intervention to produce. So clearly Neil's ignorance is willful and runs deep.