Entropy is Still Choking on Natural selection

-
I don't know why this is so difficult but the "random" in "random mutations" just means they are strictly a chance, as in happenstance, occurrence. They are accidents, errors and mistakes.

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.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"

That is it. Errors and mistakes happen during copying. Accidents occur when an organism is subjected to some environmental mutagen.

Nothing is planned. It is all spontaneous.

  Causes of mutations

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.

Artificial selection = the selection definition whereas natural selection = the elimination definition. The difference is huge, as Mayr describes. Natural selection could NEVER produce the different breeds of dogs. However remove humans and natural selection will get rid of those breeds.

It appears that evos are too dim to grasp any of that.

There is a HUGE difference between selection and elimination. But entropy is too stupid to grasp that fact.

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

That means that heritable variation is part of natural selection. entropy disagrees but it is an ignorant asshole and we can dismiss its uneducated opinion. I will go with the evolutionary experts who say it is part of NS.

entropy sez it doesn't care about any designer mimic. No one cares, entropy. The whole point of NS is that it is a designer mimic. And it canNOT be a designer mimic is the processes of NS are intelligently designed. NS doesn't care about the SOURCE of variation. But it cares about the TYPE.

EvoTARD entropy is Ignorant about Personal Incredulity

 -

Entropy is an ignorant evoTARD who doesn't understand personal incredulity. So I will explain it.

It canNOT be personal incredulity when there isn't any evidence for something. It isn't personal incredulity to say there isn't a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. And it isn't personal incredulity to say that there isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

 Alan said that he doesn’t know of any other plausible explanations.

That is personal incredulity. 

“common design” is not plausible

That is personal incredulity. Common design is observed.

There’s plenty of evidence that our current life forms diverged from prior life forms. 

That is what YECs say, too. That extant life evolved from the originally Created Kinds.

There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

Yes, there is

Liar. Your lies just prove that you are a pathetic waste of skin.

All the life I see around me is natural, and all of it reproduces, no problem,

You are a liar and an equivocating coward. You don't have any evidence that nature produced life. You lose, loser.

There isn’t any evidence that we were produced by nature you equivocating ass.

So your mother was impregnated by the holy spirit?

Nope. My mother wasn't impregnated by nature, dumbass.

It happens by design just because you say so, evidence and reason be damned?

You don't know anything about evidence an reason, assface.

So far we have entropy "arguing" like an ignorant infant.

There isn't any evidence in any peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that nature can produce coded information processing systems. So dumbass entropy uses that which has to be explained, living organisms complete with coded information processing systems, to "explain" the existence of coded information processing systems.

Entropy is clearly a pathological liar and clueless tool. Good luck with that, asshole.

 

 

 

 

The Genetic Code is Evidence for Intelligent Design

 -

The genetic code is evidence for Intelligent Design based on the following facts:

1- The genetic code involves a coded information processing system

2- There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems

3- There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information systems

4- There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition

Peer-review is devoid of any science showing that nature can produce coded information processing systems. The fact that the genetic code is still called a "frozen accident" tells us there still isn't any way to test the claim that nature can do it. And peer-review and textbooks are absent such a test

EvoTARDs may disagree but they will NEVER be able to refute any of those 4 facts. entropy will be its normal lying self and post total lying bullshit about what I posted. But it will NEVER present any science to refute what I posted.

And morons, if it could not have been humans that produced the genetic code then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature doesn't magically get an ability just cuz humans were not around.

Entry is Proud to be a Total Lying Asshole

 -

Entropy the moron has taken exception to what I said about the genetic code. But its "rebuttal" is full of lies and bullshit.

I don’t see Alan here being personally incredulous.

Here it is, again:

 I know of no other plausible explanation for this than life’s diversity radiates from a common ancestror.

That is person incredulity, dumbass. About common design, entropy spews:

Sorry Joe G, but your personal and naïve credulity about magical beings in the sky is not an argument.

Yes, you are sorry. I don't need any magical beings in the sky you cowardly strawman humper. 

Alan is not producing the diversity of life himself, so I take you to mean that Alan doesn’t know of any mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting from a common ancestor. However, you seem to be willfully ignorant here, since many people have explained to you the mechanisms capable of doing precisely that. They’re collectively called evolution.

Evidence, please. There isn't any evidence that "evolution" produced the diversity of life. Because there aren't any known evolutionary mechanisms capable. So you lose, you pathetic lying bitch.

There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

I think someone very close to you claimed that personal incredulity is not an argument.

What I said is a fact, asshole. There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed paper that shows that blind and mindless processes did it. Next comes the bluffing equivocation:

Every day more and more life forms arise, naturally, from their parent ones. All of them have ribosomes, naturally produced, since nobody has seen anything unnatural going on there, and these ribosomes process coded information. All goes on very naturally.

Wow, what a total shit eating freak you are. There isn't any natural, non-design, processes capable of producing a living organism. You lose.

To go one step further, let’s not forget that we’re part of nature.

There isn't any evidence that we were produced by nature you equivocating ass. And more equivocation on "natural"

And as far as we can see, it works naturally. It diverges naturally. The coded information changes naturally, Since it changes, new encoded information arises all the time, again, naturally.

You only assume it happens naturally. As far as anyone knows it happens by design, dipshit.

So there’s no natural reproduction Joe G?

Living organisms reproduce. No one knows if it happens naturally because there isn't any evidence that nature can produce living organisms containing coed information processing systems.

Entropy FAILED to provide any evidence that nature produced the genetic code. Entropy is nothing but a lying bitch intent on cowardly equivocations and science-free bullshit.

Science and evidence, entropy. You don't have any of that to support your asinine claims.

Still no evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and still no way to test the claim that it can. And still no one can present a way to test the claim of universal common descent as no one knows of any mechanism that is capable. Heck evolutionary biologists still don't know what determines biological form!

 

 

 

 

Entropy is Still an Ignorant Ass

 -

Earth to Entropy- Natural Selection is a process of elimination. It does NOT select, dumbass.

So far you’ve shown what I already told you: that there’s a need for variation in order to have something to select, but you failed with the “mandates”, because, again, natural selection is not about the source of such variation, it’s what happens because there’s variation.

Wrong. There isn't any selection going on, dipshit. So there isn't anything to select, moron. Artificial selection involves actual selection.

Natural selection includes the variation. That much is obvious from the several references that I have provided. Mayr calls the variation the first step in natural selection.

Natural selection is the RESULT of THREE processes. That means those THREE processes are part of NS. NS cannot occur unless we have those three processes present. And yes, you can have mutations absent of NS. But we are discussing NS.

Next, entropy chokes as it is too fucking stupid to understand that I only need ONE definition of the word "chance" to satisfy what I have posted. Only ignorant assholes think that I need more than one or all definitions of the word to satisfy my claim.

It isn’t the one and only definition Joe G. Not being planned is but one of the parts of the one definition you decided to quote.

Don't care. All I need is ONE. So the asshole spews:

So, if there’s an observable cause, it’s no longer chance, as in not being merely random or unexpected or unpredictable.

Thank you for proving that you are an ignorant ass. That pretty much means everything with an observed cause didn't happen by chance. Accidents in which people ran a red light are no longer accidents. They are planned according to the moron entropy.

The with respect to telic and chance being antonyms the ignorant ass says:

I see words there that have nothing to do with telic Joe G.

Design, intended, purpose are all there and all represent telic processes, you ignorant ass.

On Mayr agreeing with me the moron sez:

If he did, he wouldn’t have written “almost” and “except.”

CONTEXT matters, dumbass. And his context was the mutations are constrained. Meaning they are more likely to occur in some sequences and not others. Read the book. That just makes them non-random in some respect. They are still unpredictable and spontaneous.

Now the piece-of-shit is actually trying to ay something about my clarifying my post due to ignorant evoTARDs.

Too bad YOU don't get to tell me what I did nor why I did it, entropy.

According to Darwin the variation is a chance event. Period. Read the book as your ignorance is not an argument. According to mainstream evolution, the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes- all chance events. Variation has ALWAYS been part of the concept, dumbass. Read the book as your ignorance is meaningless.

Natural selection does not include mutations that happen by design. If the mutations happen by design then the result is not natural selection. That's because mutations by design ruins the designer mimic requirement of NS. The whole point of NS was design WITHOUT a designer. So if you have a designer forcing specific mutations then you do NOT have natural selection. It is that simple. Natural selection does care about the source of variation, moron. Design via telic processes is not a designer mimic.

Entropy Enjoys being a Willfully Ignorant Ass

 -

Entropy just can't help itself. Now it spews:

Yes, natural selection can happen even when mutations are purposefully introduced by people.

That all depends, touch-hole. If they just blast the genome with radiation then the mutations are accidents, meaning they are chance events. If they purposely change specific sequences, then no, it isn't natural selection, dumbass. 

This entropy asshole even agrees with me that NS includes variation then harps on one of my references that support my claim!

Either way Joe G, you failed to read your source properly. “A result of”, doesn’t mean “is composed of”.

YOU just agreed that NS includes variation!

Of course it includes the variation.

So what the fuck are you harping about? My references are to show that NS INCLUDES variation, dumbass. 

The ignorant asshole posts the following:

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Yes, I know, We are discussing that one, dipshit. Do TRY to follow along. 

It spews more nonsense:

 So far you seem to insist on mistaking chance events for non-telic events.

That is the definition of chance, dumbass.

Again, the opposite of chance events is not telic events. Both, deterministic and biased events would not qualify as “chance events”.

Biased events that are accidents are still chance events. Deterministic depends on contingencies.

The definition of chance that is relevant is “do something by accident or without design”

Biased events that are not designed are chance events. Deterministic events that are not designed are chance events. It's right there in the definition.

They can be either biased or deterministic. No intentions necessary.

Right, and they are still chance events, by definition, dumbass. Your dumbass mistake is thinking the odds have to be equal. They don't. No intentions means no design which equals chance. By definition.

Of course a rock that is balanced on an edge is going to be biased towards falling off of that edge. It is still a chance event that it falls.

Again, the opposite of chance events is not telic events.

Thesaurus disagrees with you, dumbass. antonyms of chance

Ernst Mayr agrees with me, dumbass. Read the book "What Evolution Is". Read Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species..." Chance events are what drives natural selection.

Now the piece-of-shit is actually trying to ay something about my clarifying my post due to ignorant evoTARDs.

So here we have an ignorant entropy trying so hard to look smaht. What a total loser.

 

 

 

The CSI of a Song- Why is SteveStory such an Ignorant Ass?

 -

EvoTARDs are so fucking stupid that they can't even follow a discussion. To find the CSI of a song all one has to do is write down the lyrics and using Shannon's theory, calculate the number of bits. Then you see if the 500 bit threshold has been reached.

This has been done with with protein sequences. Someone has calculated the information content of protein sequences using that methodology. I have blogged about it.

SteveStory thinks that its willful ignorance is an argument. He is one of the most pathetic losers the earth has ever had. Well, that goes for all evoTARDs. They are all pathetic.

Alan Fox is an Ignoramus Arguing for Personal Incredulity and Willful Ignorance

 -

That fat bastard is at it again. This time he spews:

With few and very interesting exceptions, the genetic code—the way information that terrestrial organisms use to function, grow and reproduce is stored—is shared across all extant species (and in extinct species where DNA is still recoverable). I know of no other plausible explanation for this than life’s diversity radiates from a common ancestror. 

Your personal incredulity and willful ignorance are not arguments, Alan. A Common Design explains it, Alan. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from a common ancestor, Alan. So you lose.

There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can produce coed information processing systems. So, according to Hitchens, we can dismiss the claim.

However there is ONE and ONLY one known cause able to produce coded information processing systems. And that is via intelligent agency volition.

That means science says the genetic code was intelligently designed.

Flint, Another Ignorant EvoTARD

 -

You can't make these people up. Flint has always been an asshole evoTARD. Now it spews:

I remember reading somewhere that of all the creationists entering college who graduate with degrees in biology, 80% of them are STILL creationists. Generally speaking, education does not cure creationism.

The reason is simple, dipshit. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced the solar system, the planet and life. You asshole evoTARDs don't have anything that would change anyone's mind with respect to how we arose. 

Heck thanks to evolutionary biology, evolutionary biologists still don't know what determines biological form! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered because your paradigm is total bullshit.

So until evoTARDs come up with some actual science that supports their asinine claims, no one will switch to evolutionism. The only people who stay with evolutionism are asshole atheists and liars of christianity.

What are the Odds? Acartia Kevin, SlimeBall

 -

Can someone tell me the odds of two people with the same arguing style, both from Canada and both with a daughter that had an ectopic pregnancy and had to have an abortion? Did I mention the twins? Grand daughters.

Unbelievable coincidences, eh?

Ignorant EvoTARDs Choking on "Chance"

 -

EvoTARDs need to buy and learn how to use a dictionary. The word "chance" means Do something by accident or without design.

According to evos all mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They happen without design. That means they are chance events.

How pathetic does one have to be to not understand that simple fact?

Entropy is another Ignorant EVOTARD- Natural Selection

 -

Natural selection INCLUDES the variation. But dumbass entropy says:

Selection is not the same as the source of the variation over which selection happens. 

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin: Variation Inheritance Fecundity which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allan McNeil, professor @ Cornell

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

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

Got that, asshole? Natural selection is the RESULT of THREE processes, one of which is variation.

The dumbass spews:

Mutations can happen for a number of reasons: failures in replication, exposure to different kinds of radiation, and each of these might have biases. It’s because of potential biases that I’d prefer not to call them chance events.

Holy shit! No one cares what YOU say, asshole. Mutations are said to be accidents, errors and mistakes. They are NOT planned. Look at how many times Darwin used the word "chance" to describe the variation.

So what does the asshole do? It picks on the Mayr quote:

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.- Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is”

Because of the words "almost" and "except" it thinks somehow ruins my argument. Yet if it could read for comprehension it would know I am right and it is wrong. The almost and except pertain to the constraints. They are still all chance events in that they are accidents, errors and mistakes, meaning they are not planned and do not happen via telic processes- according to evos.

Darwin conjured natural selection to be a designer mimic. The appearance of design without a designer. Without intent. Without a goal. If the mutations occur via telic [processes then it isn't natural selection as it violates those terms.

The very telling part is entropy NEVER provided any evidence or a reference that what I said was incorrect. All it did was prove it is an ignorant ass.

Then it actually tried to harp on me for clarifying a post that evoTARDs misread!

Again, I will go with what the experts say over some internet asshole who can't even form a coherent argument. Anyone can read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..." and see how he describes the variation as chance events. And you can see how Darwin used NS to replace the designer. Mutations as telic events wouldn't do that.

Entropy is so stupid it doesn't even understand the word "atelic". 

Radioactivity does NOT decide which bases are going to be mutated. It is still a chance event that the mutations occurred as they did.

The definition of chance that is relevant is "do something by accident or without design"

entropy will be too stupid to understand that.

 

SteveStory is Proud to be an Ignorant Faggot

 -

Just because I said that marriage should only be for procreation, the ignorant faggot stevestory wrote:

When Joe becomes king all women will have to get divorced as soon as they hit menopause.

WRONG! There would have already had their children by then, dumbass. I never said they always had to remain fertile, you ignorant donkey sucking freak.

And yes, fnxtr, fertility tests should be mandatory for those wishing to get married. 

There isn't any reason to get married if the couple is not going to have and raise at least one child.

SteveStory is an Ignorant Ass

 -

SteveStory is proud to be an ignorant ass. He ignorantly spews:

But I am currently reading The Sparrow and it ain’t Specified Craplexity that tells them it’s aliens.

Wrong again, asshole. They detected singing. Singing is specified complexity, dipshit.

How fucking desperately ignorant can you be, stevie? You are a liar. You are an equivocating coward. And you are an ignorant ass.

You are a pathetic waste of skin.

Earth to Allan Miller, Loser

 -

Earth to Allan Miller, loser: Lee Spetner has a PhD. That makes him Dr. Lee Spetner. It is also obvious that he understands biology and evolution better than you and every evo that posts on TSZ.

So I don't understand your cowardly issue with me calling him by his proper title.