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, December 27, 2010

Nick Matzke, the Great Equivocator

Evotards never get tired of equivocating. They think that all evidence for "evolution" is also evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes.

Well Nick Matzke is at it again and he has many followers, including the big oaf with a little mind, Ogre MKV.

And even the "evidence" for the evolution of the immune system relies on the assumption it did evolve- IOW it is circular.

Evotards are so freaking clueless it is amazing that they have the capability to use a computer.

Yeah Nick I will gladly ask Dr Ewert to testify if there is another "ID trial" and I am involved. And hopefully you will testify also so I can have you exposed as the ignorant ass you are...

"The Coherence of an Engineered World"- another Pro-ID Peer-reviewed paper

The coherence of an engineered world:


Normally, information from scientific discoveries is funnelled into the development of engineered products that benefit humanity.

But recently a strange turnabout in the flow of practical information has occurred.

Concepts from the field of engineering have been found extremely useful in areas of science.

From the very large aspects of the universe (i.e.

big bang cosmology and galactic and stellar evolution) to the very small aspects (i.e.

the fitness of the chemical elements and the coding of DNA for life), the cosmos is so readily and profitably reverse-engineered by scientists and engineers as to make a compelling argument that it was engineered in the first place.

The linking of extraordinarily complex, but stable functional structures with the production of value provides the strong impression of a calculating intentionality, which is able to operate in a transcendent fashion.

The most coherent view of the universe is that of a system of subsystems that efficiently interact to prepare for, develop, and support advanced life, subject to various physical constraints.

The quest for understanding our universe as a whole benefits from the integration of knowledge from all areas of study, including those that consider questions of purpose, such as design engineering.

The synthesis of this knowledge that provides the most satisfying answers regarding human experience is one that admits the recognition of purpose and the existence of an (as yet, not-wellunderstood) engineering influence.

HT Casey Luskin ENV

Sunday, December 26, 2010

The Evolution Song- Poof, the Magic Mutant

Poof, the magic Mutant (to the tune "Puff the Magic Dragon")

Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be.
Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof.
And wrote him books to appease the kooks, oh what a silly goof!

Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be

Together they would mutate Poof into a beluga whale
Richard kept a spectroscope trained on Poof’s mutating tail.
Nobel things and atheists bowed whene’er they came
Scientists would lower their flasks when Poof mutated a mane

Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be

Mutations can’t go on forever, just like little boys
Antennaed wings and giant things doom nature’s mutant ploys
One gray night it happened, natural selection said no more
And Poof that Magic Mutant, mutated one last roar

His head was bent in sorrow, his tears fell like rain
Richard no longer went to write it gave him so much pain
Without his life-long friend Dick could not be brave
So Dick that evo-poofer sadly slipped in to his cave

Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be
Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c
And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be

(repeat chorus and fade...)

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Professor Scott Page- Still as Ignorant as Ever

Professor Scott Page of Norwich University in Vermont, just doesn't stop with his ignorant spewage.

Scotty has the following to say about specified information:
But the specified information is the same as the non-specified information.

But it's NOT the same you moron- one is specified information and one is mere complexity. Just because a snake and a boat can be 22 feet long doesn't mean the are the same thing.

Scotty spews more:
If you need to know up front what the sequence is/does,...

Don't need to know what it does, just that it does something. That is the definition of SI as pertaining to biology- function*.

He finishes with ignorance:
...then the methodology you espouse is worthless, for you simply subjectively apply a parameter.

By that "logic" natural selection and evolution are worthless but BOTH are RESULTS- you have to know who survives and reproduces and then subjectively apply a parameter.

It also looks like Professor Scotty received another education- at one time he did not know that spiders have a femur until I told him and now he knows that ticks also like watermelon.

Ya see perfessor ticks don't always get blood so I am sure they will take whatever they can get in order to survive.

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Richtard Hughes, Still a Clueless Dolt

Yup ole Richtard Hughes never stops with the tard. Here's a clue richtard- quote mining is also looking for a quote that you have no idea if it is accurate or not and then using it as if it is all you need.

That goes for the quote you mined you imp- you have no idea if it is accurate nor who even said it.

As for the math requiring sponataneous creation, that may be but spontaneous, in that scenario, does not mean sudden nor instantaneously.

As for stepwise creation, well until you show that is even feasible all you have is wishful thinking. Ya see we have evidence for the stepwise creation of many things which also occur spontaneously but not instantaneously. It is just that not one of them comes close to being a living organism.

IOW Richtard you are full of shit with your ignorant assertions. As for all the things I have been confronted with- I take it you are talking about all of your ilk's ignorant spewage and inability to produce positive evidence for your position.

Yeah I get confronted with that stuff quite a bit.

A Toothless Ogre or Just an Ignorant Oaf?

Ogre asked me three questions:

What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?

Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?

What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?

To which I correctly answered:

1- Motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

The dumbass didn't like those answers so he sed the function of the BF is excretion but provides a reference that sez it also SECRETES- secretion and excretion are not the same.

But anyway, yes while the BF is forming there is some excretion going on- but it is not a BF so that is not the function of a BF. Even the Oaf's reference says the BF is a motive organelle- so what the fuck is her dumbass problem? Secretion is a secondary function.

The second question was bogus to begin with. Ya see there may be only two TYPES of motor proteins (motA and motB) but there are more than two proteins in the configuration. And what is the evidence that if the BF stops spinning-ie all motor proteins are missing- that it can still secrete?

The oaf's third question proves it doesn't understand the argument and thinks its ignorance is some sort of refutation.

Next the dumbass links to the paper* about scientists creating a 5 nucleotide long catalyst- only 3nt are required for the catalyzing portion of the string.

It was a designed catalyst. It did not arise via blind, undirected chemical processes and there isn't any evidence that it could. However even given its design it is very, very limited- it's not a replicator nor part of the replication process.

Then the oaf sez:
BTW: It's your hero's contention that bacteria flagella have no function without both MotA and MotB.

No it isn't. And he has written about that very thing.

First, the flagella maintains a secretion function without either AND if MotB is missing, then MotA and several other proteins take over.

Irreducible Complexity is an obstacle for Darwinism even if parts of a system have other functions- Also you still have to demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for that other function.

*Turk, Chumachenko and Yarus, “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences February 22, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912895107.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Spontaneous Generation

Richtard Hughes is flailing away trying to find someone who agrees with him on the meaning of "spontaneous". Well he managed to find a couple of people who do. No surprise there as there are many dolts in this world who also have access to the intertubes.

So the following is a reference from a biology course:

Spontaneous Generation

It doesn't support Richtard. Go figure.

Wikipedia on spontaneous generation
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances.

It is all about living organisms coming from decaying/ rotting stuff- and that does not happen instantaneously.

Talk origins doesn't say anything about suddenly/ instantaneously.

I have also found Richtard's quote-mine but with different wording:
The assertion that life can commonly arise from nonliving matter is called spontaneous generation. Here are the critical experiments that busted the myth.

Richtard's quote-mine can be found here- it contains the word "instantaneously" as opposed to "commonly".

I have also found a more recent article from that same author who has seemed to change her tune- the word "instantaneously" is missing.

What's in a number? Reciprocating Bill wants to know

Reciprocating Bill seems to think that since the number of bits is the same for a specified/ functional sequence of say 250 nucleotides and a random/ non-functional sequence of 250 nucleotides, that the NUMBER doesn't tell us anything.

Big duh. The difference is one is a measure of specified complexity and the other of mere complexity.

When you weigh something, the weight, ie the number, doesn't tell you anything about what it is you weighed. Nor does it tell you if it is pounds, ounces, grams,- nothing.

The bottom line is a number is just a number unless there is a context.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

RichTard Hughes Still as Clueless as ever

When I asked Richtard Hughes what is the definition of the wrod "spontaneous" he sed:
Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

IOW Richtard can't even read a dictionary as that is not what the words means:


Richtard knows nothing about science and nothing about English. No surprise there...

Friday, December 10, 2010

Evolutionists, STILL Confused about Natural Selection

a repost because evotards are too chicken to face the facts:

All too often evolutionists say that natural selection is non-random.

But is it?

Well let's look at what natural selction is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:




which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet. But when one pulls back the curtain all you have is some dude with a twinkie in each hand and a big fatty standing by.

That's evolution for ya...

Next they will be telling us that all the books in the world are descended by modification from the last universal common document.

Ya see slight copying errors were introduced to the first document, an illiterate population didn't know, so those bad copies were allowed to stay in the population.

Then those bad copies were copied and more errors introduced- and here we are.

It was all one author and many copying errors...

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will.

Natural selection is an after-the-fact statistic. Not only that you can't tell if natural selection was involved! It is all after-the-fact guess-work.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Reciprocating Bill, still choking-

Yup the imbecile is totally clueless. His latest ignorant rant is a beauty.

RB's little mind is confused about my example of measuring biological information.

He doesn't understand that ALL of those base pairs are required by the organism and therefor are part of the specified complexity, ie the complex specified information.

As for the information carrying capacity I would have counted ALL of the nucleotides and multiplied by two. That answer would have been higher than the amount of SI.

IOW RB you are a little man with a very little mind. Thanks for the laughs...

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

"Formal Accounts of Information" That Do Not Account for Information

Yup you read that title correctly- this is about "formal accounts of information" that do not account for information.

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

Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).

Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information.

And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information.

And without even blinking an eye, evotards always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless shit when trying to refute the meaningful.

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).

Hopefully evotards have keyboard protectors as I am sure this entry will cause quite a bit of drooling and spewage.

And Reciprocating Bill Still Choking...

RB has his panties all in a knot because he is choking on information.

RB sez:
So it is not possible, using your technique for measuring specified information, to determine whether a given sequence of unknown function actually bears specified information.

Bill, as I and other IDists have said specification in biology refers to biological function. But what can be done is to measure the information carrying capacity.

He babbles on:
Rather, one must already know that a sequence contains specified information, and exactly how much, before applying your measure.

Umm you don't know what the sequence is nor how much. That is what you have to figure out by applying my measure.

Are you really that stupid?

But anyway let's compare to natural selection- you cannot tell anything about natural selection until after reproduction. Only then can we say which are the fittest. IOW we have to know who survived and who reproduced the most- all after the fact measurements.

So like a gauge that always reads "very hot" natural selection only works when applied to organisms after the fact.

Wesley J Elsberry still choking on information

Wes Elsberry is one thick evotard. He claims::
You said that two copies of the same information holds no more information than one copy alone. You are wrong by formal accounts of information (unpublished connotations don't count). Again, anyone having actually read Elsberry and Shallit 2003 would have found the discussion of increasing information via functions on pages 47 and 48, and might even have seen footnote 19:

Only a complete imbecile would say that Wes. Ya see the problem is you are so wed to definitions of "information" that have nothing to do with information it has made you stupid.

And BTW all "formal accounts of information" don't seem to have anything to do with information:
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

Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

He then babbles on about polyploidy:
Further, your response to the biological examples provided by tetraploid daughter species is a capitulation, not a denial: you apparently agree that two copies of the same information does result in morphologically distinct species. Dismissing the degree of difference in the morphology is irrelevant; under your claimed paradigm of how two copies of information is no different than one copy of that information, no difference of any sort would be appreciable. You are wrong about information and ought to own up.

Yes Wes two copies of the same dictionary take up twice as much space as one copy does. But you do not have twice as much information by having two copies just twice the mass. IOW Wes, under my cliamed paradigm there is a difference, just not in information content.

IOW Wes you are wrong, again, as usual.

Having mulitple copies of the genome does not produce more protein machines. It does not produce more functions and more functionality.

Not, of course, that I am expecting that. But at least we have your documented failures here on record where you can't expunge it.

That is OK Wes. I am documenting all of your failures also although I will run out of archive space well before you do.

Evos are so freaking stupid that they cannot grasp reality. They cannot support their position so are forced to lash out at everyone who opposes them. They seem to be too stupid to understand that all they have to do is start producing POSITIVE evidence for their position. Yet it is obvious that they cannot.

Monday, December 06, 2010

Information vs Information Carrying Capacity

Even though Reciprocating Bill choked on biological information, his choking highlights the major malfunction one encounters when talking about information with evolutionists.

One point being is that evolutionists confuse information carrying capacity with information. Billy Bob's example of
Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects."
means I would be measuring the information carrying capacity. Stephen C. Meyer goes over all this in "Signature in the Cell".

Shannon's theory and algorithmic information theory are about complexity, not content, ie information.
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

Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

An empty gallon of milk still takes up the same space as a full gallon Billy. I know, I used to have roommates how would put the freakin' empty gallon jug back in the refrigerator. But it is still an empty gallon- devoid of content, meaning empty. ;)

IOW Billy Bob your randomized functionless string of nucleotides is only a measurement of information carrying capacity. And the real sad part about your position is that blind, undirected chemical processes don't seem to be capable of cobbling those together.

Dr Behe's new Peer-reviewed paper

Mike Behe has been doing some scientific research after all. He has been combing the literature looking for mutations that are constructive, mutations that can actually build something functional. Mutations that are required by the current understanding of the theory of evolution:

Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).

It doesn't look like he has found any. That should be evidence against the theory, don't ya think?

Friday, December 03, 2010

Reciprocating Bill Chokes on Biological Information

In a sad attempt to respond to my post on Measuring Biological Information, RB chokes on biological information:

Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures specified information?

Now do it backward:

Start with the randomized sequence of nucleotides. Bring in your designer of choice - supernatural, extraterrestrial, human, whatever. Have your designer carefully tweeze thousands of entries in this nucleotide sequence such that it specifies a wonderfully complex metabolic pathway capable of minimal function, viability, and specific effects.

Count 'em up and multiply by 2 to arrive at - well, to arrive at exactly the same number.

So, Joe, given that neither the careful actions of the designer nor randomization of those actions change your value by jot or tittle, in what way is specification reflected in your calculation?

One step at a time:
Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

Well Bill, if you could read you would have read that what I said only applies to sequences with a biological function. So I wouldn't arrive at the same value.

Are you really that stupid or is it that you are just dishonest?

That's it - it only took one step to expose the evotard ignorance.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

David Kellogg- Being Unreasonable and Disrespectful

David Kellogg- Being Unreasonable and Disrespectful:

Joe knows more about biology than biologists.
Joe knows more about genetics than geneticists.
Joe knows more about information than information scientists.
He doesn't need to learn about biology, genetics, or information to know about them.
IOW Shut up!

Actually, an interesting question does emerges from reading Joe's ravings, namely: why does he think he has so obviously refuted standard science?

From what I can tell, Joe holds that any explanation that doesn't include a complete repetition of the origin of life with all the steps explained completely is worthless. And anybody who doesn't "understand" that is an idiot. It's a version of the argument that each knew understanding creates two new gaps, but with added profanity and bluster. However, it saves him the trouble of actually having to know what he's talking about, or of speaking to others in a civilized fashion.

Nice content-free rant-

Joe knows more about biology than biologists.
Having never made nor implied that claim, which biologists? And why would you even say that?

You do realize that both ID and Creation have their hosts of biologists.

Joe knows more about genetics than geneticists.
Having never made nor implied that claim, which geneticists? And why would you even say that?

You do realize that both ID and Creation have their hosts of geneticists.

Joe knows more about information than information scientists.

Me JoeJoe. Me information technologist. Me have decades of sperience with information. And last I checked information technology is what runs the world.

He doesn't need to learn about biology, genetics, or information to know about them.

Strange that I am learning about each, every day.

I am also learning that there are people like you who are full of bluster yet cannot muster anything beyond negative attacks.

Actually, an interesting question does emerges from reading Joe's ravings, namely: why does he think he has so obviously refuted standard science?

And even more interesting question- for me anyway- is what standard science do you think I think I am refuting?

I would say I am pretty much calling into question your claim you have science on your side. I would say it is pretty freaking clear that I have been asking for someone from your side to produce a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for your position.

Yet you choose to babble on. I can only guess that you do so in the hope people will forget that you still haven't met my challenge.

So what do you do? Throw out more bullshit and then utter a flase challenge- first the bullshit- I have already covered the challenge-

From what I can tell, Joe holds that any explanation that doesn't include a complete repetition of the origin of life with all the steps explained completely is worthless.

David, you don't have anything. Your whole position is "anything but design, no matter what."

If you had something to support your position that would be different- we would have something to discuss.

After that raw spewage he comes here as if nothing happened.

I bet David farts in elevators when others are in them and acts as if all is well...

The David Kellogg "Challenge"!

Well David Kellogg has thrown down the gauntlet:

Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you. Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life? If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life. Can you do this without invective? Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself. Imagine that your reader has no access to a library. You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument. It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).

Deal? This should be easy. After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words). You are the mighty Joe G!

Notice the bullshit equivocation- David ID is not anti-evolution. So in order for your challenge to have any merit you must say why you think blind, undirected chemical processes is a good scientific explanation for life.

And if you are OK with that I say let's get it on...

The Little EvoTards

The Little EvoTards (to the tune of "The Little Drummer Boy")

E-vo-lu-tionists are dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Not just illogical but dumb-de-dumb-dumb
They’re also ding-a-lings so dumb-de-dumb-dumb
They twist the truth and sing we’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Dumb-de-dumb-dumb, dumb-de-dumb-dumb

Oh little evo-tards why are you so dumb?
Dumb as a drum

Little evotards you’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Cry all you want to but you’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Don’t have a fit you ding you’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
No hissy-fit you ling you’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Dumb-de-dumb-dumb, dumb-de-dumb-dumb

Shall I splain it to you, you’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Dumb as a drum

Richtard nodded he’s so dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Thorton and a clown chimed in we’re dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Zachriel is dim and dumb-de-dumb-dumb
All the rest were heard we’re so dumb-de-dumb-dumb
Dumb-de-dumb-dumb, dumb-de-dumb-dumb

I just smiled and said my job here is done
They’re dumber than dumb.

What's Up with Global Warming?

Antartica-Highest September snowfall on record And third largest sea-ice extent:
17 Oct 10 - "Antarctic sea ice reached its annual maximum in September. September 2010 was the third largest sea ice extent on record (2.3 percent above average), behind 2006 (largest) and 2007 (second largest).

"According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent received an average precipitation of 1.91 inches (48.4 mm) during September — nearly double the 1961–1990 average and the highest September value on record.

"Keep in mind that at an average temperature of -60 C extra precipitation is SNOW. And a new record. But don’t expect the MSM (mainstream media) to report it."

The Artic ice volume is up too. Oceans are cooler. Hurricane seasons have not been as brutal as predicted.

So what's up- is our climate getting warmer or not?

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

One Word (information) = Multiple EvoTardGasms

It is sad, but true, that in this- the Information Age- people can still get confused over what the word information means.

Not most people mind you- most people understand perfectly well what the word "information" means.

The people who get confused are the same people causing the confusion-> namely evotards. However they do have a scapegoat- Claude Shannon. Ya see it was Shannon, et al., who once told us that "information" isn't information:

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

So now every time an evolutionist hears/ sees the word "information" he/ she starts twitching and out spews one evotardgasm after another. These convulsions cause problems with their hearing and reading because they do not seem to understand anything said/ written after the word "information".

They do not seem to understand that information has a normal use in the real world. They do not seem to understand that without this normally used version of information the world would basically shut down.

So I guess the question would be is how can some allegedly educated people be so freaking obtuse as to not understand something that they use every day?

I am telling you, evolutionists are the best evidence that humans evolved from lower animals...

Wesley Eleberry Chokes on Information

Wes chokes on information:

Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have twice as much information- not in the sense I and ID are talking about. If that is what you and Shallit wrote then you two are ignorant.

As for your example- well Wes how much of the genome is ACTIVE? Is it just n or is it 2n?