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, September 30, 2014

Using Richie Hughe's "Logic"

Richie Hughes thinks that interest in ID is waning because of internet search trends. How fucking ignorantly desperate is that?

Well I have news for Richie- interest in blind watchmaker evolution is nil:

Blind watchmaker evolution- INSUFFICIENT results- interest in non-existent.

Jeffrey Shallitt- So Cowardly and Ignorant it Hurts

Shallitt has become a little whiny baby. Well perhaps he has always been a little whiny baby, I don't know. He attacks ID as if his position has all of the answers and all of the science. However it is obvious that he has neither. He and his puke pal, Elsberry, had issued a "challenge" to IDists. Yet these ignorant assholes cannot even muster the courage to try to support their position!

Rigorous mathematical definitions? Not with materialism and evolutionism- nothing is rigorous.

Providing real evidence that natural selection can produce design? Nothing, ever.

Apply materialistic methodology to biology? There isn't any such methodology.

And no Jeffrey, IDists do NOT say that the opposite of random is design. So Jeffrey cannot produce the science that supports the claims of his position and he is forced to lie and misrepresent ID and IDists.

Nice job, asshole.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Selection vs. Elimination

Evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a process of selection and one of elimination.

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.
The point is evos spew that selecting for A is the same as eliminating everything but A. And this is true, however it is irrelevant with respect to natural selection. With natural selection the eliminated class is very small so it would be like eliminating Q and Z. Eliminating Q and Z is very different than selecting A.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Just Another Stupid Argument Against God

The lowlifes just don't get any lower than this-

Why doesn't God give you a roll of toilet paper if you are on the toilet and there isn't any within reach?
Only a fucking childish asshole would ask a question like that and here are the atheists doing just that.

Why aren't people smart enough to check for a roll BEFORE sitting down? What family is sooooo stupid that they don't keep rolls of toilet paper in their bathroom(s)?

See the stupidity for yourselves: keiths, continuing to prove that he is an ignorant asshole

Friday, September 19, 2014

Skeptics Focus on What?

Another comedic outburst by Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas):

We focus on things like logic, evidence, and critical thinking. 
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The "skeptics" I know of, including Kevin, focus on lies, equivocation and bullshit. Evidence? There isn't any evidence that supports materialism nor evolutionism. Kevin doesn't understand evidence and is too stupid to assess any.

If only these alleged skeptics would apply their skepticism to their position...

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Some Thoughts on Polar Bears

Recently I have been discussing polar bears and their whiteness*. Some people seem to think that their whiteness helps them in catching prey and that is why whiteness won out over some other color, like brown. The point being is that they say polar bears evolved from brown bears.

However if humans were the prey that may make sense, but humans could spot a polar bear unless it was very dark out or there was a blizzard. So the whiteness wouldn't help. Other prey animals are smaller than the bears and that means their perspective is changed, they are looking up with the blue sky as the back-drop. Being white wouldn't help in sneaking up on those prey. Camouflage only works when it is used correctly, meaning it is all about the perspective of that you are trying to hide from.

Being white would protect the bears from attacks from above, though. But just what type of organism could attack and kill a polar bear from above, I don't know. Perhaps eagles could feed on polar bear young, so in that case white could protect them until they grew up.

There is one scenario that would help- polar bears in the water could resemble floating ice and that would allow the bears to sneak up on seals resting on top of floating ice.

OK winter is coming and it looks like that will be a good time to build a snow bear to check it out from different angles to see how it blends in with its surroundings.

* polar bears do not have white fur- it is transparent with a hollow core. the whiteness is an effect of light scatter and reflection. however there are bears that have white fur tat are not albino.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Back to Nested Hierarchies- Why Andy Schueler and Jonathan MS Pearce are Ignorant

Amazing even after all the evidence that demonstrated Andy was ignorant of nested hierarchies Jonathan MS Pearce is still going around telling people that I lost the bet. That is total bullshit and here is just another reason:

Andy sez that descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy. However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH. For example the definition of a human includes all of the other definitions in the line of descent above it as well as the definition of a human (Homo sapiens). Pretty simple actually.

The problem is descent with modification is not like that. Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Genetic Algorithms vs. Natural Selection

Clueless evoTARDs think nature selects because the word "selection" is part of natural selection.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Natural selection is a process of elimination. What does that mean?: 

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. {genetic algorithms are in this category}

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. {natural selection is in this category}

With biology fitness is determined by reproductive success. It is an after-the-fact assessment. With GAs fitness is determined before reproduction.

page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force:
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population.
On the role of chance:
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.

It's funny watching evos continue to misunderstand the very idea they are supposed to be defending.

So natural selection eliminates the less fit and genetic algorithms select the most fit (based on some arbitrary functions). Only imbeciles and dishonest assholes think that genetic algorithms simulate natural selection.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

With Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas) the Stupid Never Ends

Kevin is trying to refute something someone posted on his blog. Unfortunately for Kevin he obvioulsy has reading comprehension problems because he totally misses the point. The following is whay Kevin tried to refute:
Void, since computer science was one of my undergraduate degrees, I’m gonna do you a solid and answer your question. Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information. Consider the following digital code: 01001000011000010010000001001000 01100001001000000100110101100001 01100100011001010010000001111001 01101111011101010010000001101100 01101111011011110110101100100001 
If you take the time to translate the above binary code, you will have used the same intelligently designed information processing that cells have used for billions of years to turn a sequence of A,C,T & G into a protein. Here are the parallels and you’ll see that they are certainly not dissimilar. hard drive = DNA bits = nucleotides bytes = codons ASCII table = codon table letters = amino acids words = proteins One of these information processing systems was intelligently designed and the other one we use every day. Which one is which? It should be easy to see why some infer ID from biochemistry.
The important part is in the beginning sentences in which the poster clearly states Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information. Got that? The poster did not say that DNA was a computer nor was it like a computer. All you could take away from what was posted is that the CELL may act like a computer in some respects and those are discussed.

 The genetic code is a code. DNA is binary with each nucleotide equaling two bits of information. DNA is transcribed into RNA which is then processed and sent to a ribosome for translation into an amino acid sequence.

This is what Kevin sed:
This post talks about the old ID canard that DNA is like a computer or DNA is like computer code or DNA is like data on a hard drive. Whatever. 
Wrong! For one Dawkins said:
The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike.
Dawkins is not an IDist.

Kevin goes on to spew:
Make a change in a computer code and the whole thing likely crashes. 
Only if one makes random changes or the wrong change. Intelligently designed changes just modify the existing program and allows it to run with the change. Programs are modified on a daily basis and they don't all crash because of it.

Make a change in a DNA code and you might make it run better. -
Or it could be fatal.

But anyway obvious;y Kevin has reading comprehension issues as the poster talked about the cell and Kevin switched that to DNA. What a pathetically ignorant little punk Kevin is.

I wonder if he will ever deal with what the poster actually said? I say he won't because obviously he is too stupid to do so.

DNA is not like a computer- well who said that it was?

BTW Kevin, DNA doesn't fold, it coils around the histones.

Summer Snow, Brought to You by Global Warming?

Snowing during the summer months- it can't get much worse for global warming alarmists. Even without the snow this summer has been colder than any other this century. Our garden produced less than 1/3 of what it usually does with most tomatoes left behind, looking very green and blotchy. The peppers didn't even show up at all.

CO2 is increasing and yet the temps are not. Yet the prediction is as CO2 rises so would the temps. Except that isn't what we are seeing.

The Atlantic hurricane season has been wimpy even though it was predicted to get worse due to global warming. Worse than what? Well think of 2005's season happening every year. Happily 2005 seems to be an anomaly.

All of this should tell us that CO2 isn't the climate changer some people claim it to be, but somehow the alarmists just refuse to get it. They will prattle on how weather isn't climate (bullshit) and that by focusing on the weather we are missing the big picture (more bullshit).

Summer snow and global warming just don't belong together and the existence of summer snow should be a clue for alarmists but they have their heads so far up their arses they just don't see it.

Monday, September 08, 2014

Kevin R. McCarthy (D-Texas) Proudly Ignorant

Evolutionists are proud to be ignorant and proud to be liars. Well they have to le because they sure as hell don't have any evidence to support the claims of evolutionism. And they also lie about their opponents.

Case in point Kevin R. McCarthy from Round Rock, Texas. In a recent post Kevin talks about Carl Von Linne (Carolus Linnaeus) and the species concept. The funny part is he doesn't understand that Linne was a Creationist searching for the Created Kind when he came up with hos classification concept. Linne also understood that speciation occurs which means that Creationists have accepted speciation for over 200 years! Kevin is obviously too stupid to understand that.

Kevin seems to think that speciation is an issue for Creationists which means Kevin is ignorant of what Creation states even though he sez that he has been in this debate for over 15 years. How the heck can someone be that ignorant of his opponents' positions? (yeah I know Kevin will say the same thing about us yet we can support and have supported our claims wrt evolutionism- IOW Kevin is also ignorant of mainstream evolution).

BTW Kevin Creationists have said where all the species came from so it isn't a "quandary" for them.

That said evolutionism doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond prokaryotes, which is what evolutionism is given as a starting point. Now THAT is a quandary! But Kevin will never admit to it. Heck Kevin is so foolish that he really believes that macro-evolution is just a continuation of micro-evolution! Too bad he doesn't have a way to test that claim. Not only that there aren't any known instances of micro-evolution that can be extrapolated into macro-evolution.

But anyway, Kevin is an ignorant asshole who doesn't understand that for over 200 years educated Creationists have understood that change was OK and so is speciation.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Evolution is Guided!- by whatever survives

Over on the Amazon discussion of "Darwin's Doubt" I have this evoTARD named William Farrell telling me that I am 70 years behind the times by saying evolution is unguided. He sed that evolution is guided by contingency, the environment, differential reproduction, neutral genetic drift, blah, blah, blah. In other words what Billy is saying is that evolution is guided by the surviving reproducers, whatever they are. Seriously.

Yes Billy, evolution has a direction too-> one generation gives rise to the next. BWAAAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA

Evolutionism, making morons out of people since 1859.....

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Little Wesley Elsberry Continues to Choke on Genetic Algorithms

As a "response" to my recent post exposing his ignorance of GAs, Wesley refers us to his bogus rantings of 15 years ago. I had said that natural selection is not a search heuristic, it isn't, and that the information that went into the program is what allowed the computer to provide a solution. We must remember that computers cannot do anything we could not do. They just do it faster given the proper programming and resources.

Specifically the following:

  1. Natural selection simulated on computer produces solutions which are informed by the intelligence that went into the operating system, system SOFTWARE, and evolutionary computation software.
Natural selection can't be simulated on computers. Too many unknowns. But that is beside the point as that sentence is what Wesley tries to refute:
If we take a limited form of evolutionary computation for simplicity's sake and analyze it, I think that we will come out ahead. Genetic algorithms, as presented by John Holland in 1975, work on a population of fixed-length bit strings. The bit-string representation is generic. The operations which the genetic algorithm performs involves the manipulation of these bit strings, with feedback from an evaluation function.
Nature doesn't have an "evaluation function", but people do. To nature all organisms that are "good enough" survive and may get the chance to reproduce. Natural selection eliminates, it doesn't select Strike 1.

What are the manipulations on the bit-strings? The GA can copy bit-strings with mutation (change in state of a bit), crossover (production of a new bit-string using parts of two existing bit strings in the population), and a variety of other "genetic" operators. The GA selects bit-strings for reproduction based upon results returned from an evaluation function which is APPLIED against each bit string in the population.
Reproduction is the very thing that needs explaining and Wesley thinks it isn't any big deal that bit strings reproduce. And again with that obviously artificial evaluation function- nature doesn't have one. Nature doesn't have any goals. Strike 2

The purpose of the evaluation function is to provide a metric by which the bit-strings can be ranked. The critical point to be grasped is that neither the operations of the GA nor those of the evaluation function need information about the pattern of the end solution. The GA's operations are completely generic; there are a variety of GA shell tools available for use, including plug-ins for MS Excel spreadsheets. Since the same GA tool may be used for job-shop scheduling in one instance, and oilfield pipeline layout in another, the objection that the intelligence of the GA programmer informed the specific designs that result from its application quite soon appear ludicrous. That a programmer might code a generic GA shell and also happen to somehow infuse it with just the right information to optimize PCB drilling movements might be possible, but to insist that the same programmer managed to infuse specific domain knowledge for each and every application to which his tool is put stretches credulity.
Strawman. No one said the programmer had to do that. All that is needed is the properly written program. The evaluation function is the purely artificial part of the GA, meaning it represents artificial selection. Strike 3

Now, let's eliminate the evaluation function as a source of domain-specific information. Obviously the evaluation function does give information to the GA, but that information does not give a direction for adaptive change for each bit-string evaluated, but rather just how well each bit-string performed when evaluated. The result passed back to the GA does not give the GA insights like "Toggle bit 9 and swap 20-23 with 49-52". It merely passes back a scalar number, which when compared to other scalar numbers, forms a ranking of the bit strings. The evaluation function can require very little in the way of domain-specific knowledge. For the PCB drilling application mentioned above, the evaluation function can very simply be instantiated as "return closed path length of the route represented by the input bit-string", which says nothing at all about what the path looks like, and works for any set of hole coordinates. Because the evaluation function can be generic over cases, again we have the argument that domain-specific information is unavailable here on the same grounds as for the GA operations. While we might be able to conceive of an evaluation function that somehow encapsulated information about a particular solution, for problems like the PCB routing one mentioned it is highly unreasonable to credit that information about all possible PCB ROUTE configurations has somehow been instilled into the code.
 More trivial nonsense and a continued strawman. Take that "evaluation function" out of the GA and you won't get a solution to the problem. It does not matter how the computer reaches the solution. It matters that it is guided for a solution it is actively searching for.
What's left? Merely the information content of the initial bit strings in the GA population. Since this is often, if not always, done by filling the bit-strings based upon random numbers, any non-trivial bit representation is highly unlikely to correspond to a final solution state.
Yes the initial conditions are pre-set.No big deal. Reproduction is just a given and that is a big deal. The evaluation function is huge and the solution could not be achieved without it.
The information or designs said to be produced by GA are the contents of the bit-strings at the end of the GA run. It can be confirmed that the end bit-string content differs from the initial bit-string content. It can be demonstrated that the evaluation of the initial bit-string indicates poorer function than the final bit-string. The question which those who object to evolutionary computation via the assertion that intelligence has somehow been infused into the result must answer is that if intelligence intervenes to shape or produce the final bit-string, *how* does it accomplish that, and *where* did the domain-specific knowledge come from? I've already sealed off infusion via the GA, the evaluation function, and the initial bit-strings for "how". The "where" question poses an extremely serious difficulty for proponents of this assertion, since if the information needed to solve all the problems which a GA can solve is present on every machine which a GA can be run upon, the information capacity of each machine is demonstrably smaller than the information content of all those possible solutions. It is problematic where the information is stored, and even if that information were capable of being stored somehow, the problem of *why* computer designers and programmers, who would be shown by this to be very nearly omniscient, would chose to put all that information into their systems when the vast majority of it is very likely never to be used.
Strawman- no intervention required, just the properly written program containing the correct evaluation function. The only thing Wesley has "sealed off" is his mind.
I'll note that it is entirely possible to point to or construct evolutionarycomputation examples whose evaluation functions incorporate a known final solution state. I only know of such simulations done for pedagogy. Dawkins' "weasel" program from "The Blind Watchmaker" is a fine example of this. However, the mere existence of that simulation is not sufficient to show that all evolutionary computation does so.

Again you don't need the solution to be part of the program.

All the information to find the solution is programmed into the GA. GAs would not find solutions if the correct evaluation function was not included in that GA. Therefor evaluation functions are one way of sneaking an intelligent agency into a GA as there isn't any difference between a evaluation function selecting and a human selecting based on the same criteria (except for the speed). The evaluation function is the artificial selection part of the GA. The only part of a GA that could be considered Darwinian or neo-Darwinian, is the mutation process. And even that is debatable.

See the first post Wesley Elsberry Clueless About GAs

Forced Ambiguity and Cherry Picking, Evolutionism in a Nutshell

Evolutionism, AKA unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution and/ or the alleged theory of evolution, is the claim of descent with modification via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral evolution. It also alleges universal common descent via those mechanisms from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms. Unfortunately none of that can be tested, scientifically and that is why the forced ambiguity.

Evolutionism is rife with ambiguity because it cannot be tested. And that is also what makes it forced ambiguity.

Cherry picking- again that is all evolutionism has-> anti-biotic resistance, finches, peppered moths, all of which have no chance at explaining anything beyond slight variations which fit in nicely with baraminology.

The bottom line is the only support evolutionism has are the lies told by evolutionists.