VIDEO=> KKK Grand Dragon Endorses Hillary Clinton
She never should have pulled the KKK stunt on The Donald.
Friday, August 26, 2016
KKK Grand Dragon Endorses Hillary
Well the KKK was always the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party...
She never should have pulled the KKK stunt on The Donald.
She never should have pulled the KKK stunt on The Donald.
The Alt Right and PBS
I occasionally watch PBS News to see what news of the day is being omitted. Yesterday I happened onto the PBS News approach to the Alt Right, which they had just discovered somehow. Here's how they approached it: they had a WaPo Leftist and a NeoCon in an interview to tell the world about the Alt Right. It apparently did not occur to them to interview any member of the Alt Right to ask about their views, like maybe Milo. So the interview revealed that that the Alt Right has been around for a long time in the form of white supremacy, misogeny, and of course the ever popular racism.
Now that it has established that as Fact, the term, "Alt Right", can be used as a pejorative, a smear on the thoroughly reviled Donald Trump. If "Alt Right" means "evil" and is attached to Trump, well you see the game.
Hillary actually went to the gutter with KKK attachments to Trump. From now until November, Hillary lies will fill the air, funded by billionaires who want her in the presidency. The first trillionaires will be funded by Hillary's administration, if...
Teddy Roosevelt, where are you??
Now that it has established that as Fact, the term, "Alt Right", can be used as a pejorative, a smear on the thoroughly reviled Donald Trump. If "Alt Right" means "evil" and is attached to Trump, well you see the game.
Hillary actually went to the gutter with KKK attachments to Trump. From now until November, Hillary lies will fill the air, funded by billionaires who want her in the presidency. The first trillionaires will be funded by Hillary's administration, if...
Teddy Roosevelt, where are you??
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Dr. Dawkins’ Deceptive Demonstration Doesn’t Display Descent
Evolutionists sometimes claim that there is nothing which evolution cannot “explain”. Stories can be created to cover everything and nothing. However, there are some creatures which serve as falsifiers, in the sense of not having any stories possible to account for their existence. Of a number of cases which have no story – e.g. woodpeckers, platypus - the Bombardier Beetle is a common first-lister.
The Bombardier Beetle is named for its ability to discharge and aim a hot, steaming chemical toxin from its posterior glands to repel predators. This entails generating and combining two chemicals in the presence of two specific necessary catalysts in an internal reaction chamber, also called the explosion chamber [1]. The resulting heated toxin and steam are aimed and directed toward predators, with some being able to deflect the stream straight forward and even to cover themselves with the offensive defense soup, to prevent being eaten. Others merely expel a hot, toxic fog in front of the predator.
The issue is how this evolved; specifically, what evolutionary path created the many components needed for this defense mechanism to work, even at a minimal level. Where are the precursor beetles which evolved in steps to this condition of complexity?
There are several components which must simultaneously exist for this to happen.
Watch Dawkins take on the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle in his video:
Dang. I missed it, I guess. Where in this "explanation" does Dawkins reveal the evolutionary steps required to develop the internal chemistry and structure of the beetle? Where does he enumerate the mutations and their exact locations in the DNA which made this beetle entirely different from all others? Where does he point out the "gradual" mutations which were kept, and which must have included both the peroxide, the claimed catalyst, and the hydroquinone. Not to mention the output of boiling temperature benzoquinones and steam. And also not to mention the fully aimable, pulsed jet stream which can be directed nearly 360 degrees including forward, or to the beetle’s own shell to deter attackers.
Here’s what Dawkins purposefully did: he ignored the actual conditions for catalyzed explosion in the beetle’s explosion chamber. He did this in order to prove his point that some catalyzed oxidation events can be shown to have gradations in the volatility which correspond to the amount of catalyst. He did this by using gun powder, which does not at all correlate with the process used in the chemistry of the beetle’s explosion. He did NOT show that to be the case for the beetle, and further he showed absolutely zero interest in defining the evolutionary steps required – and requiring isolation empirically – for the development of the beetle’s chemical processes. However, Dawkins was successful in demonstrating the possibility of gradual hardening of the explosion chamber, IFF the beetle used gun powder instead of the actual components.
Here’s the full story, which Dawkins dishonestly avoids by claiming that the hydroquinone is of no importance, when in fact it is of specific importance.
1. The output spray product is at roughly 100 degC, and is a caustic product called benzoquinone along with steam. Benzoquinone has been compared with burning plastic, and it is an interrupter of synapses in the control of skeletal muscles.
2. The process starts internally in cells that are said to produce both the hydrogen peroxide and the hydroquinone; they are stored separately, and are recombined on demand. The chemical process requires the presence of catalysts, one for the reduction of the peroxide in order to form oxygen, another which catalyzes hydroquinone with oxygen to produce benzoquinone and H2O plus heat. The catalysts are present in the explosion chamber.
3 There is a valving system which allows the two chemicals into the reaction chamber when the pressure inside the chamber is lower than the supply line pressure. When the reaction chamber pressure increases to greater than the supply line pressure, the inline valve closes, preventing backwash. The high pressure in the reaction chamber is released outward past deflection devices which are muscle controlled and are aimed with high accuracy. The deflection devices change the path of the ejecta to the direction chosen by the beetle.
4. Tests on various predators show revulsion and confusion when hit with the hot toxin which is sprayed by the beetle. Some show loss of control of musculature.
5. The spray varies by beetle “tribe” or sub-clade from a mist to a pulsed jet.
It’s no wonder that Dawkins didn’t use the hydrogen peroxide with the hydroquinone: it might have damaged the audience and himself. That would demonstrate the improbability of that combination of chemicals being developed accidentally, without the protective chambering and valving pre-existing. And why would the chambering and valving become so complex without having the combination of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone production systems to use it?
And why is the beetle not affected by this toxin?
What Dawkins did was to use the magician’s trick of diverting attention away from the actual subject. He did this with a misdirection to a pretense of scientific experiment – smoke and beakers. And he made a point which fails the slightest examination (beetles don’t use simple gunpowder), yet which the audience accepted completely.
And more conclusively, Dawkins provided absolutely zero validation for the claim that evolution actually did produce this one-off capacity. In the final analysis, it’s all smoke. All of it.
Might we legitimately conclude that Dawkins, Darwin's Chihuahua, has no actual "story" for explaining the Bombardier Beetle? Yes, we might.
UPDATE:
After watching the video one more time, I notice that Dawkins actually says that "the hydroquinone does nothing at all, and we can set it aside". That is more than a misdirection; it is false, and is a purposeful lie. The actual, real reaction involves hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, and two (2) catalysts. The result is not what Dawkins produces in his science-fair misdirection cum lie. The actual reaction is more complex.
UPDATE 2:
Two interesting videos on Bombardier Beetles (there are a number of less interesting ones of course).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqF-ND2XcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukSdJizRFI
NOTES:
1. http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-bombardier-beetles-produce-defensive-spray-0430
The Bombardier Beetle is named for its ability to discharge and aim a hot, steaming chemical toxin from its posterior glands to repel predators. This entails generating and combining two chemicals in the presence of two specific necessary catalysts in an internal reaction chamber, also called the explosion chamber [1]. The resulting heated toxin and steam are aimed and directed toward predators, with some being able to deflect the stream straight forward and even to cover themselves with the offensive defense soup, to prevent being eaten. Others merely expel a hot, toxic fog in front of the predator.
The issue is how this evolved; specifically, what evolutionary path created the many components needed for this defense mechanism to work, even at a minimal level. Where are the precursor beetles which evolved in steps to this condition of complexity?
There are several components which must simultaneously exist for this to happen.
Watch Dawkins take on the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle in his video:
Dang. I missed it, I guess. Where in this "explanation" does Dawkins reveal the evolutionary steps required to develop the internal chemistry and structure of the beetle? Where does he enumerate the mutations and their exact locations in the DNA which made this beetle entirely different from all others? Where does he point out the "gradual" mutations which were kept, and which must have included both the peroxide, the claimed catalyst, and the hydroquinone. Not to mention the output of boiling temperature benzoquinones and steam. And also not to mention the fully aimable, pulsed jet stream which can be directed nearly 360 degrees including forward, or to the beetle’s own shell to deter attackers.
Here’s what Dawkins purposefully did: he ignored the actual conditions for catalyzed explosion in the beetle’s explosion chamber. He did this in order to prove his point that some catalyzed oxidation events can be shown to have gradations in the volatility which correspond to the amount of catalyst. He did this by using gun powder, which does not at all correlate with the process used in the chemistry of the beetle’s explosion. He did NOT show that to be the case for the beetle, and further he showed absolutely zero interest in defining the evolutionary steps required – and requiring isolation empirically – for the development of the beetle’s chemical processes. However, Dawkins was successful in demonstrating the possibility of gradual hardening of the explosion chamber, IFF the beetle used gun powder instead of the actual components.
Here’s the full story, which Dawkins dishonestly avoids by claiming that the hydroquinone is of no importance, when in fact it is of specific importance.
1. The output spray product is at roughly 100 degC, and is a caustic product called benzoquinone along with steam. Benzoquinone has been compared with burning plastic, and it is an interrupter of synapses in the control of skeletal muscles.
2. The process starts internally in cells that are said to produce both the hydrogen peroxide and the hydroquinone; they are stored separately, and are recombined on demand. The chemical process requires the presence of catalysts, one for the reduction of the peroxide in order to form oxygen, another which catalyzes hydroquinone with oxygen to produce benzoquinone and H2O plus heat. The catalysts are present in the explosion chamber.
3 There is a valving system which allows the two chemicals into the reaction chamber when the pressure inside the chamber is lower than the supply line pressure. When the reaction chamber pressure increases to greater than the supply line pressure, the inline valve closes, preventing backwash. The high pressure in the reaction chamber is released outward past deflection devices which are muscle controlled and are aimed with high accuracy. The deflection devices change the path of the ejecta to the direction chosen by the beetle.
4. Tests on various predators show revulsion and confusion when hit with the hot toxin which is sprayed by the beetle. Some show loss of control of musculature.
5. The spray varies by beetle “tribe” or sub-clade from a mist to a pulsed jet.
It’s no wonder that Dawkins didn’t use the hydrogen peroxide with the hydroquinone: it might have damaged the audience and himself. That would demonstrate the improbability of that combination of chemicals being developed accidentally, without the protective chambering and valving pre-existing. And why would the chambering and valving become so complex without having the combination of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone production systems to use it?
And why is the beetle not affected by this toxin?
What Dawkins did was to use the magician’s trick of diverting attention away from the actual subject. He did this with a misdirection to a pretense of scientific experiment – smoke and beakers. And he made a point which fails the slightest examination (beetles don’t use simple gunpowder), yet which the audience accepted completely.
And more conclusively, Dawkins provided absolutely zero validation for the claim that evolution actually did produce this one-off capacity. In the final analysis, it’s all smoke. All of it.
Might we legitimately conclude that Dawkins, Darwin's Chihuahua, has no actual "story" for explaining the Bombardier Beetle? Yes, we might.
UPDATE:
After watching the video one more time, I notice that Dawkins actually says that "the hydroquinone does nothing at all, and we can set it aside". That is more than a misdirection; it is false, and is a purposeful lie. The actual, real reaction involves hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, and two (2) catalysts. The result is not what Dawkins produces in his science-fair misdirection cum lie. The actual reaction is more complex.
UPDATE 2:
Two interesting videos on Bombardier Beetles (there are a number of less interesting ones of course).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqF-ND2XcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukSdJizRFI
NOTES:
1. http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-bombardier-beetles-produce-defensive-spray-0430
Headline of the Day
Nigel Farage at Trump Rally: Anything Is Possible If Enough Decent People Fight the EstablishmentAnyone paying any attention at all can see that the American establishment is totally corrupt. 100% corrupt. All one need do is to look at the daily revelations concerning Hillary and her use of the State Department for her own personal enrichment, compare that to the polls which say that nearly half of the nation approves, and wants her to have the presidency, too.
The reasons for this corruption of morality are various, but I think include the drift away from any concept of standards. At least half the nation, it appears, accepts that standards are now redefined as variables, depending on... Well depending upon who wants what, and how badly they want it. Standards are now personally derived, influenced not by actual standards but by how the person wants others to behave toward themselves - not that they would return the favor. Hence Obama's decree that men can use the girl's room and shower with them.
The corruption of Hillary Clinton has been called congenital: she cannot tell the truth. Not ever. Today her newest emails show her statements regarding her Russia transaction... were lies. No surprise. And her polls slip so slightly as to be just noise in the polling method. Half a nation is also just as corrupt as Hillary.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
When I Was a Kid, I Didn't Even Know You Could Do This
Teen Who Impregnated Teacher Gets $6M From DistrictNow all the kids will want to try this. Probably with video...
Quote of the Decade
"Well, just like Big Brother in 1984, people don’t suppress opponents’ ideas because they are confident in their own. They suppress opponents’ ideas because they have more confidence in the argument of force than in the force of their arguments.
And that leads to a general rule: The people who are trying to silence their political enemies aren’t doing it because they’re right. They’re doing it because they’re afraid that otherwise, people will realize they’re running a scam. Bear that in mind, this election season, and beyond."
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aka Instapundit
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)