## Tuesday, October 31, 2006

### The official spokesperson for ID speaks: More ID math!

Over at the stinking abcess known as http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com
TRoutMac was asked to show his working for a particular instance of claimed CSI. The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer said

"Quantifying the CSI of one is pointless when the other has none"

So it looks like we have another math rule for ID. To recap:

CSI must be a non-zero number
It's several orders of magnitude greater then 1 or 0 or some other number we've not determined yet

And now we have

Quantifying the CSI of object A is pointless if Object B has obviously no CSI at all.

Huzzah. Soon we'll have enougth for a whole math lesson. Perhaps that's what they mean when they talk about getting iD into the classrooms?

But it does not stop there. There's more.

We only reject Darwinian evolution which has two major components: A) life developed as a result of purely undirected, unintelligent natural processes and B) that a one celled animal can, if given enough time, eventually become something as complex as a human being. Or even a turnip, for that matter. (the idea of universal common ancestry) We don't reject the idea that changes take place over time within species. We don't even reject the idea of common ancestry, necessarily. We only reject the idea that this 'micro-evolution' can be extrapolated to support macro-evolution. Therefore, I have no problem with the idea of God having designed a system for transmitting genetic information which allows a certain amount of adaptability over time… that's evolution. I do have a problem with the idea that God designed a system which would allow a one-celled animal to become, through random mutation and natural selection, a more complex organism.

I suspect a turnip would be more interesting then his drivel.
It really just stands on it's own. But i'll comment anyway :). So gawd is allowed to do almost everything, apart from make the gradual change from micro to macro evo. Presuming that's the case, why on earth not? Who's writing this rulebook for gawd that only TroutPrat can see? At the moment he's basically the offical spokesperson for ID over at OW. Nobody else is posting anything at all, it's a one man band. Unlike Myspace et al, people get something out of those sites. ALl there is over at OW is vultures like me waiting..... The corpse aint quite a corpse yet, but considering the 100's of new ID'ers graduating university now i suppose somebody will know enougth CPR to keep ID going another generation. After all, it's not that long since lead paint was phased out, and I know that there's little other reason for some of the moronic spouting on pritty much any site thats pushing ID or whatever they want to call it.

## Tuesday, October 03, 2006

### bFast "smells" the way forwards for ID

the IDiots over at UD are attempting to co-op somebody else's work, as usual. After quoting somebody else's hard work. The UD spin on it is to highlight words in the text that they have or would like to co-opt.

are somehow encoded within minute fractions of our genetic
code. Nobody yet knows precisely where they are or how they work, but
somewhere in the nuclei of our cells are handfuls of amino acids, arranged in a specific order, that

Their highlightin. How exciting - bold font's must be true (something AFdave suffers from also).

So, as this article is appearing on the front page of UD and I guess OW (their new front, fer the kids) then they are claiming this as a victory for ID. And that's the best they can do, so no wonder the towering edifice of darwinism is about to fall.

And in the comments section the zinger in the article was quoted

And indeed, humans with a defective FOXP2 gene have trouble articulating words
and understanding grammar

then bFast sees the light

Pretty darn good ‘eh. I smell front-loading here. The only possible way this
could be is if the two changes reference significant code somewhere else in the
DNA — call a subroutine, so to speak.
It is clear that a mutation which disables this mutation creates speach problems in humans. The bigger question would be, what happens if we enable these mutations in a chimp. Would the chimp suddenly have significant abilities for speach? If so, I think a case for front-loading would have been very much established!

hurrah. My highlighting. Here's an experiment you could carry out, you could enable bFast's FOXP2 gene and see if he gains the ability to think straight. After that, he could write up his research proposal and sent it in for the big \$\$\$, there's nobody else claiming the money on offer to any ID research project. A step too far for the ID'ers? The prefer to smell their way forwards.

And his comment about a mutation disabling a mutation, does that mean that a mutation can disable a mutation that disables another mutation? So does that mean that everythings a mutation? Hmm, so perhaps chance had some role to play in there after all? Lol, bFast you are one funny guy! Get that lab coat on and get yer hands dirty! Be sure to post your results, perhaps you'll make it into Time as well!