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

Friday, September 28, 2018

FBI Probe? Are Democrats really that ignorant?

Wow, so women come out from wherever and accuse Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. No evidence to support anything they say has been forthcoming. Just their word. No one can corroborate what they said. It's just their word.

Where were these women when he was being appointed a federal circuit court judge? Is it OK to be a pervert and be life-time appointed federal judge?

Where were they when he worked for the White House?

Now some, most or all dumbass democrats want a FBI investigation. Umm, morons, they are only involved in FEDERAL crimes. And this doesn't count.

These women should never have been given the opportunity to smear Judge K. I say smear because they didn't have anything beyond their say-so. Their cases would never even make it to Court.

And let's not forget that former President Clinton was accused of rape and nothing ever happened to him. Of course he was a democrat.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Neil Rickert- Proudly Ignorant

Neil should just give up. Now Neil spews:
Evolution is not a claim about abstract sequences of symbols. That is to say, it is not a claim about information.
What? Evolution needs to account for the codes in biology, ie abstract sequences of symbols. DNA codons are the symbols for the amino acids they represent.

There are books about it: Information Theory and Evolution

And articles: Evolution of biological information

Neil spews:
That the ID folk continue to construe evolution as a claim about information, only demonstrates the weakness of their program.
It is a claim about information you ignorant ass. Crick is the one who defined information with respect to biology. It is what needs to be accounted for.

Neil Rickert, ignorant ass and proud of it.

Evolution is obviously a claim about information. The only people who doubt that are willfully ignorant asswipes- like Neil

In "Steps Towards Life" Manfred Eigen wrote:
Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information.


Then there's "Information and the Origin of Life" by Bernd-Olaf Kuppers.

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.