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

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

The Severe Desperation of Evolutionists

-
The following takes the cake and proves that evolutionists are a clueless and very desperate lot. The paper “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation,” is still being used as evidence that natural selection can produce irreducible complexity.

However, as Dr Behe responded in Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity, this was the lamest attempt ever in attacking IC.

For one it was a single gene that no one has ever shown to evolve via blind and mindless processes. For another it is a SINGLE gene whereas IC refers to systems with multiple parts.

1) This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man.

2) The authors (including Christoph Adami in his commentary) are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as anywhere near IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex.

3) In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away.

4) Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly. (Figure 4C)

5) Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.

6) In the “least promising” intermediate (L111Q) the protein has essentially lost its ability to bind any steroid. In the “most promising” intermediate protein (the one that has just the S106P alteration) the protein has lost about 99% of its ability to bind DOC and cortisol, and lost about 99.9% of its ability to bind aldosterone. (Figure 4C)

7) Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold.

8) One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties.

9) The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.

10) In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic
scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Beware of the Cinnamon Craze!

-
Cinnamon is being highly touted as a spice that will help you control your insulin levels and help control your weight. However the regular cinnamon you can get in most grocery stores contains coumarin, which is toxic- see 12 side effects of cinnamon.

But, as that article says there is Ceylon cinnamon, also known as the true cinnamon. It has much less coumarin than the other species. And it tastes much better than the others too. But you either need to order it online or maybe you are lucky enough to live near a health food or herb and spice shop that sells it.

It is more rare than the other species and may cost a little more but it's worth it.

Monday, September 10, 2018

High School Freshman and IDist Scores in the Top 1% in the State for Biology

-
Wow, go figure- a High School freshman, who is also an IDist- like Dad- scored in the top 1% in the State biology MCAS test- Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System.

Way to go ye fruit of my loin!

Wednesday, September 05, 2018

John Harshman is Proudly Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
John Harshman is ignorant of nested hierarchies. Read what he spews:
I do claim that we expect common descent to show an objective nested hierarchy, by which I mean one that exists in the world to be discovered, independent of our prejudices and biases.
No, dumbass, there would be innumerable transitional forms which would ruin any and all attempts to create a nested hierarchy. You would have to cherry pick.

He goes on to spew:
Finally, I do claim that we would not expect a nested hierarchy of life to result from separate creation of species by an omnipotent being unless that being were attempting to convince us of common descent. 
Hey jackass, Linnaean Taxonomy is the objective nested hierarchy and it has everything to do with a Special Creation and common design and nothing at all to do with Common Descent.
 

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Joshua Swamidass is Confused

-
In the "Is evolution speculation thread" Joshua said:
Um, I do not accept neo-Darwinism. No one in science does. Neo-Darwinism was falsified in the 1960s with Haldane and Kimura.
What? How did Haldane and Kimura falsify NDE? He never says- because they didn't.

Jerry Coyne still endorses NDE. The way evolution is taught in colleges endorses NDE. All those two did was add to the concept, not falsify it.

Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless- THAT is NDE in its modern form, ie with the addition of Haldane and Kimura.

The point is the majority in science accept NDE. So I don't know what Joshua is talking about and no one there is going to challenge him so we may never find out what he is talking about.

Joshua mistakenly also sez: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/hunts-2007-critique-of-axe/1245/133
There is zero evidence conscious intelligence can produce anything like the complexity of DNA.

Dr Venter would tend to disagree

Friday, August 24, 2018

Peaceful Science Endorses Cowardly Equivocation

-
In the thread Is Evolution Speculation? the entire pint is equivocated away. What is the point? BLIND WATCHMAKER evolution, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. THAT is untestable claptrap.

Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes so there is no way universal common descent could happen under that scenario.

Darwin, the man himself, said one had prove a negative to refute his theory. Unfortunately he never demonstrated anything that needs to be refuted. He just made unsupportable claim after unsupportable claim. And all through the lense of ignorance of what the inner workings of the cell were and heredity.

It is very telling that no one on Peaceful Science has ever said how to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Well the theistic evos there deny blind watchmaker evolution and jump to God did it via evolution- whatever that means. If God used evolution then it isn't blind watchmaker evolution. It is telic evolution. But to them that is OK.

TJ Runyon chimes in with:
I really want to see ID models for universal common ancestry
I would love to see blind watchmaker evolutionary models for universal common ancestry. However there still isn't a mechanism to produce eukaryotes so there never will be such a model. Clearly TJ is proud to be an equivocating coward.

And asshole Patrick Trischitta is there making his ignorant-based assertions. Earth to Patrick- no one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is useless and most likely harmful. Clearly you are also proud to be an ignorant ass.

I almost forgot this gem by TJ:
My favorite creationist saying is, “evolution isn’t science. You can’t test it. It isn’t falsifiable.” Then immediately after they will make arguments about proteins or something to show evolution is false. So you mean… You just falsified evolution? Something you just said can’t be done. Can’t count how many times I’ve seen that.

Umm, dumbass, evos do the same thing with ID. They say it isn't testable or falsifiable and btw we have falsified it. That said please do tell how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. If you can't then you see the problem.

Clueless evoTARDs at The Skeptical Zone

-
There is a new post @ TSZ about the book "Forbidden Archaeology". The book has 952 pages, including the appendices, bibliography, tables and index.

Enter dumbass acartia and fool Joe Felsenstein. They try to compare "Chariots of the Gods?" 192 pages and "On the Origin of Species" 502 pages, to "Forbidden Archaeology".

How freaking ignorant can they be? And they are proud of their posts, too.

See the TARD for yourselves

One of the best evidences from FA is an alleged 25 million year old mortar and pestle found in Table Mountain back in the 19th century. But they will never discuss it because they are ignorant of it.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

"Dr." Patrick Trischitta- Pathological Liar for Sciencism

-
Over on Peaceful Science there is an asshole named Patrick Trischitta. All he does is run his mouth like he had diarrhea of the mouth. He never supports anything. He definitely will never tell you how blind watchmaker evolution produced ATP synthase. He doesn't seem to understand anything about science. Yet he is given free reign on Peaceful Science.

Is Joshua really that desperate that he allows losers to lie and get away with it?