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

Monday, March 03, 2014

Kevin Reject McCarthy on Coevolution, so Ignorant

Kevin REject McCarthy has an post up called Coevolution.

Coevolution, according to Kevin's cite::

Coevolution (covariation/correlated mutation) is the change of a biological object triggered by the change of a related object.
Wait just a minute. Mutations are random, ie happenstance events. Only directed mutations can actually respond to some stmuli. What evolutionism says is that mutations just happen, regardless of the environment, other population or external stimuli. However, according to Dr. Spetner in "Not By Chance" organisms do react via "built-in responses to environmental cues"

Then Kevin sez:

Gould and Mayr’s punctuated equilibria (original 1977 PDF) theory suggests that populations of organisms are generally stable unless acted upon by an outside force.
Imbecile, the paper he linked to plainly says that Gould and Eldridge formulated PE, Mayr didn't have anything to do with it. Anyone remotely familiar with punk eek knows it was Gould and Eldridge. As I said before Kevin is just learning ths shit and obviously doesn't understand any of it.

A few paragraphs later we get this gem:
So the bacterial population is evolving to be resistant to antibiotics.
That's wrong. Bacteria just evolve and if they happen to be resistant to anti-biotics then that is fine and dandy. Only in Dr Spetner's scenario do bacteria actively evolve to beat anti-biotics.

Then Kevin proves his ignorance:

 Even creationists who don’t accept evolution still take all their antibiotics.
What an ignorant fuck you are Kevin. And apparently you are proud of your ignorance. Baraminology is OK with bacteria evolving, ie changing allele frequency over time. For someone who has allegedly been in this debate for 15+ years, Kevin is amazingly ignorant of what his opponents' poitions say. Well heck he is ignorant of what evolutionism says.

But anyway the rest is just more blah, blah, blah. No evidence to support the claim of coevolution, just examples of plants and insects- they MUST have coevolved 'cuz Kevin knows they weren't designed. Kevin also brings up the alleged "arms race". Pathetic.

How evolutionism is supposed to work- happenstance mutations ocuer in gametes. These then get passed down. Some mutations may be beneficial, most are neutral and some are bad. Beneficial is relative and whatever is beneficial for one genration in one envirnment may not be when the envirnment changes. And in the wild the environment changes often. And now evos want us to belive in correlated mutations across different populations.

Then there is the following paper: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. And evos want us to believe that corerlating mutations can occur in two or more different populations? Total bullshit. That is not the nature of variation under evolutionism. However it is the nature of variation under ID.


Post a Comment

<< Home