Month: December 2016

California’s Green Death of a Thousand Cuts

Published by Papa Giorgio

John and Ken read from an L.A. TIMES article that raises the alarm a bit too late for Californians.

  • Californians are likely to pay more for gasoline, electricity, food and new homes — and to feel their lives jolted in myriad other ways — because their state broadly expanded its war on climate change this summer. The ambitious new goals will require complex regulations on an unprecedented scale, but were approved in Sacramento without a study of possible economic repercussions. Some of the nation’s top energy, housing and business experts say the effort may not only raise the cost of staples, but also slow the pace of job and income growth for millions of California families.

Not that most them care about the business climate anyways. The attrition has been happening for many years (More Businesses Leave California), and California is chasing alternative energy companies (Two Models: Prosperity or Egalitarianism) out of the state as well. An earlier discussion mentioned these new regulations hurting the economy of California (Jerry Brown Just Destroyed California’s Economy), but this article is just another nail in the coffin. Not to mention the many other factors killing California… like the teachers unions (California Teacher Unions Draining State Budget) and the pension promised benefits to the state’s other unions (State Deficits Budget Shortfall on Pensions || The Author of “Plunder” Interviewed).

Why You Should #DumpStarWars

Published by Papa Giorgio

There is a LANGUAGE warning that accompanies Gavin:

White Privilege in ROGUE ONE… no thanks, I will pass. Here is some info via HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

In the wake of this week’s U.S. election, the symbol of Star Wars‘ Rebellion had been adopted by many fans protesting the victory of Donald Trump — and now, two of the writers of next month’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story have referenced the relationship between that movie and the current political reality on social media.

Chris Weitz tweeted the following Friday morning:

  • “Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization.”

Gary Whitta, the original writer on the project, responded in kind, tweeting:

  • “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women.”

By Friday night, the tweets had been deleted, but this from Weitz remained (to the right – link to another Hollywood Reporter story in graphic):

Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill, retweeted the “Star Wars against hate” tweet.

As if to cement the connection, both Weitz and Whitta have changed their Twitter avatars to an image of the Rebel insignia with a safety pin through it, a reference to the symbol of solidarity with persecuted minorities that has gained currency in the U.S. following the election….

The DAILY CALLER continues to discuss the above graphic:

…The symbol was in fact spread and became a popular symbol for those wishing to resist Trump’s ascension to the White House, thereby giving the strong impression that the Star Wars franchise was opposed to the next president. The actor who plays Luke Skywalker, Mark Hammill, sharing it didn’t help alter that impression.

Weitz and Whitta both deleted the tweets in reference to the Empire as a white supremacist power and previous ones in which they compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and other unsavory figures. But not before their messages had spread around Twitter, providing further evidence to Trump supporters for why they would want to boycott the film. (RELATED: Obama’s Brother Boycotts Upcoming Star Wars Movie Over Trump Criticism)

Of course, many left-leaning journalists scoffed at this proposal. Esquire guffawed that Trump supporters had “no evidence” that the newest Star Wars iteration had anti-Trump overtones, even though the same publication had written up about the safety pin Rebellion badge previously.

The Daily Beast took the high road in covering the boycott by calling its adherents “no-sex-having, basement-dwelling neo-Nazis.” Numerous other outlets covered the protest in a similar fashion, all with the implication that you definitely need to see the new movie regardless of its quality.

A bit weird how all these journalists demand their audiences to see a movie because it’s being attacked by people you should hate. It reminds one an awful lot of the positive press surrounding the all-female Ghostbusters reboot, which was praised effusively simply because “misogynistic” trolls hated it. (RELATED: The Stars Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ May Be Killing Their Own Film)

Sadly, that’s not the only similarities the latest Star Wars films share with the estrogen version of Ghostbusters. Both movies fit within the depressing Hollywood trend of pilfering popular franchises for every dime their worth with half-baked, banal rehashes of their original classics. The only difference between the original versions and the new reboots is better special effects, more diversity in the casting and a greater emphasis on “current year” values. (RELATED: 11 Serious Problems With The New Star Wars Movie)

And of course, the steep decline in quality.

So there’s enough of a reason to not want to see Rogue One to send a message to Hollywood to start making new and original projects instead of making an inferior version of “A New Hope” two years in a row….

Over-Simplifying the “Business” of Trump’s Presidency

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the article Dennis Prager is reading from, and it is by Edwin Williamson via the WALL STREET JOURNAL (saved at Free Republic). Mind you, I wasn’t going to upload this audio, but after reading the article over at THE BLAZE,  I figured this myopic view that deconstructs things in a simplified manner may need a counterweight. At any rate, this whole “what Trump should do with his businesses” is more complicated than the media will allow for [both sides of the isle]. People like Ralph Nader are “already” calling for impeachment:

The media are full of warnings by self-appointed ethics watchdogs about President-electDonald Trump’s potential conflicts of interests. That Mr. Trump’s vast, complicated business empire presents a piñata of targets is undisputed. For his part, Mr. Trump has promised to hold a news conference on Dec. 15 to discuss his plans to leave his business operation “in total” so that he can “fully focus on running the country.”

Concerns stem from the fact that the Trump business empire extends to the far reaches of the globe, including to countries that may present tough policy decisions for President Trump. In both Turkey and the Philippines, the local Trump partner has close ties to a problematic government. Businesses in which Mr. Trump has an interest, such as Trump National Doral golf complex in Miami and an office building at 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York, have substantial borrowings from entities that will be regulated by the Trump administration or that are owned by potentially rival states, such as China.

The watchdogs fear that third parties, again including foreign state-owned entities, will lavish favorable deals on the Trump businesses, including staying at Trump hotels or entering into new partnerships, in the hope of currying favor with a Trump administration.

While no one outside the Trump family appears to know the details of the Trump businesses, a few key facts are known. They are complicated and based on two illiquid assets—real estate and the Trump name. Although the basic federal conflict-of-interest ban specifically exempts the president, some have proposed measures designed to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest, generally based on the federal rules.

This newspaper editorialized on the subject, suggesting that Mr. Trump “liquidate his stake in the company” through a plan similar to one endorsed by Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and President Obama, respectively. They have called on Mr. Trump to divest all of his holdings in the Trump Organization through an initial public offering or a leveraged buyout. Yet divestiture is unrealistic for many reasons. Besides their complexity and the time required to see them through, an IPO or buyout would generate other ethical issues.

An IPO would have to be cleared by the Securities and Exchange Commission. By the time Mr. Trump becomes president, there will be three SEC vacancies, and in the time required to organize and implement an IPO, the other two commissioners’ terms would expire. Mr. Trump would thus be appointing all five members of the agency regulating his IPO. Similarly, a leveraged buyout would require lending by Trump-regulated banks.

But the biggest problem with divestiture is that the value of Trump businesses is significantly dependent on, and inextricably tied to, the Trump name. Even if a buyer could be found who would pay what the Trump family considers the name to be worth, the buyer would certainly insist on perpetual, exclusive use of the Trump name. This would require that all users of the name—including Mr. Trump’s first wife, his minor son Barron and present and future grandchildren—relinquish their rights to the name.

In recent tweets on the subject, Mr. Trump has said he would turn over the running of his businesses to his children, and that “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.” The watchdogs want him to go further by establishing a “firewall” between himself and those running the Trump businesses, i.e., his children.

Clearly, this is unrealistic and would constantly generate allegations of unauthorized communications, shifting the focus from real conflicts of interests to whether the firewall has been breached. This would likely lead to demands for the installation of an intrusive “corporate monitor,” typically a $1,000-1,500 an hour ($2 million a year) ex-federal prosecutor.

[….]

Appearances of conflicts will be impossible to avoid. Almost any decision Mr. Trump makes as president will have an effect—good or bad—on his business interests. There is nothing that he can do to prevent those who believe that staying in his hotels or otherwise doing business with the Trump Organization will improve their relationships with the U.S.

There has been much talk about the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust . . . shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The problem is that no court or the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has considered the clause in a context that is helpful in discerning how it will apply to the Trump businesses. So, we do not know what the clause means in the Trump context—other than that paying a market price to stay at a Trump hotel is not a violation….

The Climate Is Changing At Catholic Seminaries

Published by Papa Giorgio

Pope Francis is the only pope in history to explicitly intervene in an American presidential election—and while the pontiff’s goal is evidently to attract Millennials, record numbers of young people mistrust the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic, I honor the Church’s history of furthering the advancement of human knowledge. Yet Pope Francis makes the mistake of embracing the fake science of man-made climate alarmism—while pontificating to you and me about “fake news.”

As the world’s most powerful religious leader, the Pope is in a unique position of influence. Which is why I entreat Pope Francis to refrain from interjecting himself into American politics until he is willing to engage in careful scientific research and verbal articulation.

“The media misinterprets the Pope!” is the common excuse Catholics give for the illogical and uncharitable-sounding remarks that Pope Francis routinely makes in public. I’ve given the Pope time to improve, and even ardently defended him against the media early on….

(TOWNHALL)

Dennis Prager touches on the issue of culture influencing religion more that the other way around. In this case, Catholic Priests going through seminary will have to be taught about “climate change.” Mind you, the Catholic Church is a prime example of a corporate body accepting disproved or outdated “scientific” paradigms… take for example:

➤ What were Galileo Galilei’s conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo’s conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today. (http://tinyurl.com/zb4ezzk)

Here are some articles on the topic Dennis is discussing – above:

Here is the leftist-Catholic article he was referencing: New priests to learn about global warming as part of formation

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:

…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

[…]

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.

The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….

More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart“

  • There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
  • The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
  • Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
  • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
  • What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

Kimberley Strassel Discusses Trump’s “Federalist Revival”

Published by Papa Giorgio

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL discusses the fight for Federalism and how Scott Pruitt will help in this endeavor:

Donald Trump had barely finished announcing his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency before the left started listing its million reasons why Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was the worst nomination in the history of the planet: He’s an untrained anti-environmentalist. He’s a polluter. He’s a fossil-fuel fanatic, a lobbyist-lover, a climate crazy.

Mr. Pruitt is not any of those things. Here’s what he in fact is, and the real reason the left is frustrated: He’s a constitutional scholar, a federalist (and a lawyer). And for those reasons he is a sublime choice to knock down the biggest conceit of the Obama era—arrogant, overweening (and illegal) Washington rule.

We’ve lived so many years under the Obama reign that many Americans forget we are a federal republic, composed of 50 states. There isn’t a major statute on the books that doesn’t recognize this reality and acknowledge that the states are partners with—and often superior to—the federal government. That is absolutely the case with major environmental statues, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Congress specifically understood in crafting each of these laws that one-size-fits all solutions were detrimental to the environment. Federal bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency traditionally and properly existed to set minimum standards, provide technical support, and engage in occasional enforcement. States, with their unique knowledge of local problems, economies and concerns, were free to innovate their own solutions.

But President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response—and the enduring theme of his presidency—was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA’s way. Example: The EPA’s pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.

One revealing illustration from EPA world. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one—one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush,Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56.

Much of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not—tank the president’s agenda.

The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states’ constitutional and statutory rights—and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.

[….]

It doesn’t need a climate warrior, as Congress has never passed a climate law, and so the EPA has no mandate to meddle there. What it needs is a lawyer, one with the knowledge of how to cut the agency back to its proper role—restoring not just an appropriate legal partnership with the states, but also with other federal bodies. One who reminds agency staff that the EPA was not created to oppose growth and development.

If Mr. Pruitt does this successfully, and on the way crushes the current president’s legacy, Mr. Obama will have only himself to blame. His abuse of federal power helped elect a new generation of state attorneys general and Washington Republicans passionately devoted to a states’ rights agenda. They’ll be advising Mr. Trump not just on environmental policy, but on health care, labor policy, entitlement reform. Say hello to the federalist revival.

 

 

 

 

Historical Origins of “Political Correctness”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Just wanted to post this excerpt from INTELLECTUAL TAKEOUT’S dealing with Political Correctness:

The Historical Origin of ‘Political Correctness’
A professor at Boston University recently touched on origins of the term ‘politically correct.’ And it’s revealing…

…“The formula is straightforward: the world is not as it should be because society’s basic, ‘structural’ feature is ordered badly….For Marx and his followers that feature is conflict over the means of production in present-day society…. For Freudians it’s sexual maladjustment, for followers of Rousseau it’s social constraint, for positivists it is the insufficient application of scientific method, for others it is oppression of one race by another. Once control of society passes exclusively into the hands of the proper set of progressives, each sect’s contradictions must disappear as the basic structural problem is straightened out.”

The methods of the Communists and progressives differ, but the goal is one and the same: achieve “cultural hegemony,” a political phrase popularized by Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), an Italian Marxist and politician who became prominent in progressive circles decades after his death.

Progressives learned that achieving hegemony by criminal punishment is difficult. Intellectuals seeking to remake America—“born tainted by Western Civilization’s original sins: racism, sexism, greed, genocide”, etc.—found a more effective way.

There’s no longer “Good” or “Evil”,
Now it’s all just “right” or “wrong”…
And, of course, that’s always changing
As “correction” comes along.

Politics is now what’s reigning…
Power Principles of man.
There’s no Bottom Line to speak of,
No such thing as “God Commands”

It’s high time you learn this Lesson:
Man and Morals all “evolve”…
In this world of shifty-changers,
There’s no TRUE truth to resolve.

We’ve moved past that faulty “logic”…
What rules now is how we feel.
“Sin” we feel is now outdated.
Sin we feel just isn’t REAL.

HA!… “The Fall” has finally fallen…
Yes, indeed, we’re free at last!
Heaven’s wholly democratic…
GLORY!… Happy Votes we cast!

Son, Big Brother makes “The Call” now,
He decides what “truths” to pick.
He defines for us what’s kosher.
(AND He’s got the biggest stick.)

~ Tom Graffagnino ~

Political correctness, perpetuated by a small class of people ensconced at universities, bureaucracies, and major media, is the ideal tool for achieving cultural hegemony. It is “forceful seduction” in lieu of rape. It achieves “tacit collaboration by millions who bite their lip.”

As a political philosophy, political correctness might seem lifeless and aimless. But Codevilla noted the goal of Lenin and Stalin was not a state built on Marxist principles; it was always party control. The two philosophies are similarly empty.

“Like its European kin, all that American progressivism offers is obedience to the ruling class, enforced by political correctness….Nor is there any endpoint to what is politically correct, any more than there ever was to Communism. Here and now, as everywhere and always, it comes down to glorifying the party and humbling the rest.”

It’s not exactly light reading, but Codevilla’s article is a must-read for anyone serious about understanding the nature and origins of political correctness. I found it interesting that Codevilla made a point similar to one that Dr. Jordan Peterson made in an interview over the weekend. It’s the idea that political correctness is a movement 1) fundamentally political in nature; and 2) built on resentment.

Peterson said this is no accident. It comes right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

“The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward….There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.”

It’s a simple point, but a very important one. Stop and think about it for a moment. How much of our politics today is driven by resentment?

  • “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition….  If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity….  From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.

Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.

Antibiotic Resistance Evidence of “Devolution”

Published by Papa Giorgio

The issue involved in the above video is not evolution, but in fact, DEVOLUTION. In other words, “no newly evolved complex information has been demonstrated,” EVOLUTION NEWS AND VIEWS continues with a quote and then some commentarry [I am working on getting the graphic mentioned]:

A key aspect of bacterial survival is the ability to evolve while migrating across spatially varying environmental challenges. Laboratory experiments, however, often study evolution in well-mixed systems. Here, we introduce an experimental device, the microbial evolution and growth arena (MEGA)-plate, in which bacteria spread and evolved on a large antibiotic landscape (120 × 60 centimeters) that allowed visual observation of mutation and selection in a migrating bacterial front. While resistance increased consistently, multiple coexisting lineages diversified both phenotypically and genotypically. Analyzing mutants at and behind the propagating front, we found that evolution is not always led by the most resistant mutants; highly resistant mutants may be trapped behind more sensitive lineages. The MEGA-plate provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and directly visualizing evolutionary dynamics.

The key to understanding the paper is its Figure 3C. There it shows the genes that have undergone more than one mutation across tested bacteria. They break the mutations down into silent changes, changes of amino acids (point mutations), and insertion-deletion or nonsense mutations, which almost certainly are loss of function (LOF). Over half of genes contain such LOF mutations, along with some point mutations, which likely also degrade or destroy function. In other words, devolution….

In another post over at EVOLUTION NEWS AND VIEWS, it is mentioned that “Evolutionists often speak in generalities about beneficial mutations. They may be rare, we are assured, but they happen.” But is this the case? Continuing we read:

…when they do [happen], “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life” (Darwin, Origin of Species). All right, we have some data to look at. We can put a number to the frequency of beneficial mutations in a large sample. The number is zero.

Genome sequencing technology has progressed very rapidly in only the last few years. NATURE just published results of the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), the largest survey of human genes to date. (An “exome” is the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.) The exomes from 60,706 individuals from a variety of ethnic groups have been collected and analyzed. If we multiply 60,000 people by the 20,000 genes in the human genome (the lowest estimate), we get a minimum of 1.2 billion genes that have been examined by ExAC for variants. That sounds like a pretty good sample size for scrutinizing some of those beneficial variations that Darwin said his law of natural selection could add up and preserve.

Large-scale reference data sets of human genetic variation are critical for the medical and functional interpretation of DNAsequence changes. Here we describe the aggregation and analysis of high-quality exome (protein-coding region) DNA sequence data for 60,706 individuals of diverse ancestries generated as part of the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). This catalogue of human genetic diversity contains an average of one variant every eight bases of the exome, and provides direct evidence for the presence of widespread mutational recurrence. We have used this catalogue to calculate objective metrics of pathogenicity for sequence variants, and to identify genes subject to strong selection against various classes of mutation; identifying 3,230 genes with near-complete depletion of predicted protein-truncating variants, with 72% of these genes having no currently established human disease phenotype. Finally, we demonstrate that these data can be used for the efficient filtering of candidate disease-causing variants, and for the discovery of human ‘knockout’ variants in protein-coding genes. [Emphasis added.]

Out of this high ratio of variants (one in eight bases shows variation, they said), there should be some proportion, even if small, that improves fitness. But we search the paper in vain for any mention of beneficial mutations. There’s plenty of talk about disease. The authors only mention “neutral” variants twice. But there are no mentions of beneficial mutations. You can’t find one instance of any of these words: benefit, beneficial, fitness, advantage (in terms of mutation),improvement, innovation, invention, or positive selection.

They mention all kinds of harmful effects from most variants: missense and nonsense variants, frameshift mutations, proteins that get truncated on translation, and a multitude of insertions and deletions. Quite a few are known to cause diseases. There are probably many more mutations that never survive to birth. As for natural selection, the authors do speak of “negative selection” and “purifying selection” weeding out the harmful mutations, but nowhere do they mention anything worthwhile that positive selection appears to be preserving…

Yep. I note this “devolution” in a conversation with a biology graduate student in regards to evidences for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION (GTE).

▼ It has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their [the antibiotics] discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors’ intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin’s discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development. (Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, p. 1, 23.)

In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools and other institutions entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., wrote a book, Refuting Evolution, which is a topic by topic rebuttal to this Academy of Sciences publication. Under the evidence for evolution in the evolutionist text is the following quote:

▼ Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfain. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them – even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.

(Sarfati’s reply – any words in the [boxes] are mine):

▼ However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant [6 different antibiotics in fact, penicillin in modern doses – which is way beyond the strength of natural penicillin found in nature]. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information [or specificity], but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects “evolving” resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.

[Much like if we killed all dogs (including Canis Domesticus and Canis Lupus) except for Chihuahuas, we would permanently lose the information of the parent population. You could then breed Chihuahuas for a millennium and not get an Irish Wolfhound]

▼ …In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced.

[Thus, the bacteria found frozen in 1845 already had the mutation to overcome modern medical doses of penicillin. So the mutation wasn’t the result of the penicillin in modern doses, thus seemingly becoming resistant… it already had the resistant mutation – informational or specificity losing – in the population. In other words, no new information was added to the parent population!]

(See more in this entire chapter discussing the issue: “VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION VERSUS EVOLUTION“)

Updated info with a h-t to ‎TOMI AALTO’S site‎ and it comes by way of PHYS.ORG:

Excerpt: “Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors can combat it in the future.

In research published in Nature Communications today, the scientists examined one bacterium found 1,000 feet underground (called Paenibacillus) that demonstrated resistance to most antibiotics used today, including so-called ‘drugs of last resort’ such as daptomycin. These microorganisms have been isolated from the outside world for more than four million years within the cave.

The results show the bacterium is resistant to 18 different antibiotics and uses identical methods of defense as similar species found in soils.

Among the different ways that the bacteria could be resistant to antibiotics, the scientists identified five novel pathways that were of potential clinical concern. Finding these new pathways is particularly valuable, as it gives researchers time to develop new drugs to combat this type of resistance, potentially decades before it will become a problem for doctors and their patients.

“The diversity of antibiotic resistance and it’s its prevalence in microbes across the globe should be humbling to everyone who uses these lifesaving drugs,” said Gerry Wright, an author of the paper and scientific director of McMaster’s Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research.

“It reflects the fact that we must understand that antibiotic use and resistance go hand in hand.”

My [Tomi’s] comment: How could anyone talk about bacterium evolution after this finding? We can’t observe evolution, we can only observe reaction and adaptation. We can also see strong evolutionary stasis here. Bacteria have not experienced changes in assumed millions of years. They have not evolved the ability to rapidly adapt to modern medicines. Instead, they already have all necessary genomic information and capabilities for ecological adaptation. These features are built in by Intelligent source and the Creator. The evolutionary theory is a dangerous heresy.

Speech Codes As Thought Control/Forcing Morality

Published by Papa Giorgio

(H-T: DatNoFact) This survey has only been up on the OXFORD TIMES site for a few hours so far, but you can see most people are sane (remember, about 7% believe Elvis is still alive):

The DAILY MAIL notes the transition from “he” or “she” to “ze”

Oxford University is encouraging students to use the gender-neutral pronoun ‘ze’ instead of ‘she and ‘he’.

The students’ union wrote in a leaflet that the move was intended to reduce the risk of transgender students being offended.

 Students hope that the use of ‘ze’ will continue into university lectures and seminars, reported The Sunday Times.

According to Oxford University’s behaviour code, using the wrong pronoun to define a transgender person is an offence.  

[….]

Cambridge University made the indication that they also wanted to move in a similar direction….

The DAILY CALLER continues…

In a pamphlet from the students’ union, students are encouraged to used “ze” instead of “she” and “he,” reports The Huffington Post UK. Some students want seminars and classes to begin using the gender neutral pronoun “ze.”

Oxford University’s code of conduct warns against repeatedly using the wrong pronouns to address a transgender person.

A gay activist praised the suggestion, calling it a “thoughtful, considerate move.”

Yeh… so thoughtful to institute speech codes and thought codes… CONTINUING…

A guidebook, sent to various schools, warned teachers, school administrators, parents and students, against language that implies that only two genders exist. The terms “ladies” and “gents” were also criticized.

The book suggested various ways to describe gender and sexuality. Children who identify with the gender they were born as should be called “cisgender,” the book declared. The guidebook introduced terms such as “panromantic,” “intersex”and “genderqueer.”

“I think it is damaging to children to introduce uncertainty into their minds,” one critic said.