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

Saturday, December 01, 2012

Kevin R. McCarthy- Still Chocking on Complex Specified Information

Cowardly Kevin is at it again. This time misrepresenting Complex Specified Information, again, and also exposing his ignorance wrt natural selection:

Complex Specified Information and Intelligent Design

Kevin says:

So, here’s the concept of CSI, in a nutshell. If the probability of something happening is greater than 1:10150 then it’s too improbable for it to come about by chance and therefore it was designed. 
Bad start. Complex Specified Information is just complex Shannon Information with meaning/ function. The complexity level is set to 500 bits, even though the evidence says it, the amount of specified information blind and undirected processes can produce, is much lower.

What that means wrt biology is there are 4 nucleotides, 2^2 = 4, therefor each nucleotide has 2 bits of information. (Take the lower case alphabet plus six other characters, for a total of 32, then each character would have 5 bits (2^5 = 32)).

OK so each nucleotide is 2 bits, which means each codon is 6 bits. And that maps directly to amino acids, each which has 6 bits (64 codons = 2^6). Given that, a protein of 100 amino acids has the information carrying capacity of 600 bits.

But anyway, back to Kevin:

Anyway, it should be pretty obvious that there are a number of major problems with this notion of CSI.
 The first is that the ID proponents are saying that either something (protein, organism, rock, whatever) is randomly constructed or it is designed.
 Not quite. Either it arose via blind and undirected processes, ie necessity and chance, or, if not AND it meets the criteria, it is designed.

Kevin continues:

This, however, is wrong, there is another possible answer. That is random mutation, natural selection, and descent with modification.
That has been considered and it has failed, miserably. For one no one seems to be able to tell anyone how to test it to see if it can produce CSI. For another if you have natural selection it is a good bet that you already have CSI, ie the very thing that you need to explain. And finally even given living organisms natural selction, a result, doesn't do anything.

On a roll with his spewage, Kevin sez:

 I bet if one really thought about it, one could come up with a few more notions like this. So, that right there destroys the entire premise of CSI.
LoL! Really?!

 No Kevin, it takes actual EVIDENCE, not imagination to destroy the premise of CSI. But unfortunately for you all you have is imagination and absolutely no evidence to support it.

The moron goes on to say:

The ID proponents claim that this whole enterprise is ONLY about detecting design.
Nope. We claim the whole enterprise is about the detection and study of design in nature.

However, when presented with a sequence of random proteins and an actual protein sequence, they refuse to try and determine which is which. Then they claim that my request has nothing to do with actual CSI.
It doesn't have anything to do with actual CSI. Obviously kevin is totally ignorant of how science is done. We observe functionality, Kevin. We observe proteins and enzymes actually doing something. And then we investigate and try to figure it out.

Also, as I have told the asshole many times, archaeology and forensic science are also in the design detection business. Therefor by Kevin's "logic" they should be up for Kevin's "challenge".

Second, the ID proponents are assuming that all possible amino acids are equally likely to combine with each other in a sequence.
Back up moron- NUCLEOTIDES, and yes they are equally likely to combine with each other in a sequence. Ya see kevbo, can't get proteins without first having the nucleotide representation and a compiler to make the changeover.

Third, and most importantly, the IDist is assuming that all modern proteins and the living things that they are made from all appeared randomly from a great pile of amino acids.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Notice he doesn't provide any references for his tripe.

How do modern proteins form? By the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which is that DNA contains the codes for proteins, which is translated into mRNA and transported through the nuclear membrane to a ribosome, which reads the mRNA strand and uses tRNA to construct a chain of amino acids to form the protein.
Earth to Kevin- Your lame-ass position cannot account for that central dogma, which BTW needs to be edited to include prions- heredity by contact.

So to sum up we have Kevin's inability to grasp a concept, coupled with delusions of science proceeding by imagination rather than actual evidence, smothered with lies and misreprentations and topped with an ending his position cannot account for.

But in his little-bitty mind he has destroyed ID....

LoL! Kevin posted a comment. In it he spews:

 I've had a ID proponent use a dictionary definition of aardvark, calculate the probability of those letters combining randomly (in binary), and claim that it's an example of CSI.
What a complete dipshit! No Kevin, a dictionary definition is an example of Specified Information- ALL dictionary definitions are examples of SPECIFIED INFORMATION, you moron. All I did was figure out how many bits were in the definition of aardvark- ya know via Shannon's methodology- and determined CSI was present.

It was an EXAMPLE of how to calculate/ measure CSI. And nice to see that you are too fucking stupid to grasp that simple example.


Post a Comment

<< Home