Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Kevin R. McCarthy, Still a Lying Piece of Shit

Posted at Kevin's blog- Kevin on front-loading


You are just totally clueless and apparently proud of it.

IDists say GAs work just as your link says:
In a broadly general sense, GAs do have a goal: namely, to find an acceptable solution to a given problem. In this same sense, evolution also has a goal: to produce organisms that are better adapted to their environment and thus experience greater reproductive success. But just as evolution is a process without specific goals, GAs do not specify at the outset how a given problem should be solved. The fitness function is merely set up to evaluate how well a candidate solution performs, without specifying any particular way it should work and without passing judgment on whatever way it does invent. The solution itself then emerges through a process of mutation and selection.

Mutation and real selection all directed towards the goal, ie the solution. But TO is wrong in that "evolution" does not have that stated goal. It doesn't give a rat's ass.

You say:
Look closely at the examples and notice that, in every case (and every case that I am aware of) genetic algorithms outperform human results. In at least one case, humans still don’t even understand how the evolved system works. If no one can figure out how it works, then it’s not likely to be front-loaded is it?

The two aren't related. Also not everyone tried to figure out how they worked.

But why couldn’t alleles be front-loaded into a genome and then be ‘turned on’ in the future.

That is a possibility.

The creationist belief is that science was once wrong about what ‘junk DNA‘ is, then science is wrong about everything else.

Spoken like an asshole loser. Is lying the best you can do? Is that your "original" content?

Anyway, the problem is that creationists who want to argue for front-loading have to talk about how that squares with all that non-coding DNA.

Only in your little bitty evotard mind.

But what’s worse for the creationist is that, back to the ‘mutations cannot add information or produce functional proteins’, the method for ‘activating’ these front-loaded alleles must have been… gasp… mutation.

Umm THAT is NOT the argument.

You are just an ignorant, strawman creating piece of shit loser.

What the creationist is saying with the front-loading argument is that the ancestral dog had every gene and allele to make every single dog from the toy dachshund to the Bull Mastiff.

Fuck you- no creationist says that you fucking liar. And the front-loading argument does not require it.

You really should learn about something before you try to refute it. That way you wouldn't come off as such an ignorant asshole


Post a Comment

<< Home