Kevin R. McCarthy, aka OgreMKV, Still Lying, Still Ignorant and Still a Coward

-
EvoTards, when shown to be a clueless lot attack, lie, bullshit, but don't try to support your nonsense with evidence.

Kevin's latest lying rant:

He sez:

Now he's trying to convince people that Tiktaalik has a wrist due to convergent evolution... forgetting that the evolutionary sequence needed to get a wrist would negate his entire pro-ID argument.

Convergent evolution is a possibility dipshit. And convergent evolution doesn't affect ID at all- ignorance is not a refutation, moron.

Then he goes to lie:

I've destroyed his pathetic attempt to calculate something.

Only in your pathetic little head.

It's amazing how the clueless think multiplying two numbers together results in a powerful argument.

If that is what you think is going on then it is obvious that you are clueless.

Of course, he's conflating DNA and proteins, forgetting some fundamental Biology (if he ever knew it) along the way.

Nope, I am not conflating DNA and proteins. IOW all you can do is make shit up. Coward.

I even introduced a conceptual math error in my response, but so far he hasn't even noticed it or tried to figure it out.

You have made several errors and have yet to address the topic. You are a coward and a loser.

As far as the rest, he's still holding science to standards he refuses to accept for ID or even himself.

And your evidence for that is what?

Geez Kevin you even appear to be ignorant of the theory of evolution. And your paranoia is hilarious- my moderation policy matches yours. Coward. Liar. Loser.

"Sun and Planets Constructed Differently Than Thought, NASA Mission Suggests"

-
Say it ain't so, Joe!?!

Sun and Planets Constructed Differently Than Thought, NASA Mission Suggests:

Researchers analyzing samples returned by NASA's 2004 Genesis mission have discovered that our sun and its inner planets may have formed differently than previously thought.

"Well tie my face to the side of a pig and roll me in mud" (forgot the show)

Strange, weren't we just having a discussion about how the earth was formed?

Of Ticks, Watermelons and EvoTards

-
This seems to have spawned a life of its own so I will tell you what happened.

During one dry summer, after a cook-out, I threw some watermelon rinds (with some fesh still on) into the woods across the street from my house.

A couple-few days later I was out in the same woods with my daughter's dog and on our way out we came across the watermelon rinds. Most were eaten side down, so I flipped one over just to look. It looked all moldy. I flipped another one over and it had "mold" on it to. But one piece didn't have anything but rind- it was eaten side up.

I took the dog home and grabbed two different powers of magnifying glass and went back to the watermelon rinds.

The "mold" wasn't mold. Ticks were all over the rind- I dropped it like a hot potato.

My thinking is that they were after the water or even better they were looking for a place that animals may gather- ie around discarded food.

Did I ever say, imply or think that ticks prefer watermelon to animals? No.

However I did put orange rinds out and nothing happnd so I would infer they prefer watermelon rinds to orange rinds.

I will repeat the process as soon as we have a dry spell -> 2-4 weeks without rain and with hot temps (80+) may do it

CSI Revisited

-
Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:

CSI- Complex Specified Information.

Information- see Shannon, Claude

(When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":

The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specified complexity.)

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function

Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information


Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons (including STOP), 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.

The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).

Kevin McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Exposing His Ignorance

-

Recently Kevid said:

Are you aware that you can change the DNA of an allele and it NOT change the protein?

Yes there are amino acids that are coded by more than one codon. However it has been shown that even if the codon codes for the same amino acid it may have an impact on how the protein is constructed and can change the protein.

IOW even though the amino acid sequence is the same, even though it was coded for by a different DNA sequence, the protein can be altered due to the availability of the corresponding tRNA. It's a timing thing.

For example Researchers Find That a 'Silent' Gene Mutation Can Change the Function of an Anticancer Drug Pump:

A genetic mutation that does not cause a change in the amino acid sequence of the resulting protein can still alter the protein's expected function, according to a new study conducted at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study shows that mutations involving only single chemical bases in a gene known as the multidrug resistance gene (MDR1) that do not affect the protein sequence of the MDR1 gene product can still alter the protein's ability to bind certain drugs. Changes in drug binding may ultimately affect the response to treatment with many types of drugs, including those used in chemotherapy. The results of this study appear online in Science Express on December 21, 2006*.

But anyway-


Kevin goes on to say:

Are you aware that you can NOT change the DNA and still have a change in the protein?

Prions, Kevin. Prions are infectious proteins that alter the 3D shape of its "sister" protein in the infected organism. It "forces" its "sister" to assume its shape- every "sister" it touches.

Lesson over...

Clueless EvoTards and Transitional Fossils

-
The word "transitional" is based on the word "transition". And a transition occurs BETWEEN two points.

As wikipedia (the evotard "bible" says:

Transitional fossils (sometimes popularly called missing links) are the fossilized remains of lifeforms that exhibit characteristics typical of two distinct taxonomic groups, and which can be considered to represent the evolutionary transition between those groups.

Another source concurs:

Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils — they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it.

Geez that was the whole reason Shubin et al., went looking where they did because they thought the transition occurred between 385-365 million years ago.

However it has become painfully obvious taht evotards are too stupid to understand any of that.

Oh well...

Of Tiktaalik and Clueless EvoTards

-
EvoTards are such a clueless lot. So I will repeat-

Shubin said- SHUBIN SAID- he was looking where he did because he had data that put the transition from fish to tetrapods between 385- 365 million years ago.:

Chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish" tells us why:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythungs" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

However new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning his data was out-dated and is wrong.

And yes a transitional HAS to be found- IN TIME- between the alleged parent and alleged child species. And yes parent, transitional and child species can overlap- all transitionals can overlap. However any given transitional absolutely HAS to exist (or had to have existed) between the alleged parent and alleged child.

That seems to be something evotards cannot grasp and it is the only point I have been making.

Morons...

What the ID Leadership says About ID and Evolution

-
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

Only a dishonest evotard- wait that is a repetitive as all evotards are dishonest- would say ID is anti-evolution.

Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth- Revisited

-
Here and on other blogs some people are asking about ID's position on the age of the Earth. Here I will atempt to answer that query.

ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.

Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.

First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An intelligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.

So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

How EvoTards Define "Creationist"

-
From the rantings of OM and RichTard Hughes it has become quite clear that anyone who follows the evidence is a "Creationist".

The evidence says life begets life-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.

The evidence says fish beget fish, humans beget humans, ie baraminology rules, and no amount of mutational accumulation can change that-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.

And if those facts ever change I will adjust my opinion accordingly.

A Note on the Transition from Fish to Tetrapods

-

"In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223

That is a big OOOPS for my evotard opponents...

Tiktaalik- Why was Shubin Looking Where he Found it?

-
Before going North and finding Tiktaalik Shubin had searched in other places for a transitional between fish and tetrapods.

So here are two questions for my detractors to answer:

1- Why didn't Shubin find a transitional between fish and tetrapods at those other locations? According to you they could be anywhere except for in strata that predate fish.

2- What was it that convinced Shubin to look where he did (to find Tiktaalik)? I say it was the data I quoted from the book-> the data that has been proven to be wrong. If you say the same then you hve some splainin' to do.

Your Inner Fish"- Shubin's Faulty Data

-
When I say 'faulty' I mean wrong-

Chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish" tells us why:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythungs" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

The new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning the 365 million year end of bracket now gets moved to that 390+ million year mark. IOW his brackets were wrong because the data he used to form them was wrong.

Strange that evotards cannot grasp that simple fact.

The "Children First" Rule of Evolution

-
What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the "children" have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

Tiktaalik.

That's right- Tiktaalik is the poster child for the new evolutionary postulate "children species can show up before their parent species".

And that is part of the evolutionary solution of "just say anything and if you get questioned just start throwing around false accusations until you have completely messed up the discussion", ie Rule 1 in the pocket version of the evotard "How to Debate" manual.

"Your Inner Fish"- Chapter 1

-
In previous posts about Tiktaalik I have called it a failed prediction. Chapter 1 of "Your Inner Fish" tells us why:

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythungs" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10

Just as I have been saying- go figure.

But anyway, the point is had the new data been available to Shubin- the data that puts the transition back to before 390 million years ago- that whole set up would be meaningless and wrong. Meaning he would not have been looking where he did.

Strange how evotards cannot understand any of that.