From Biologic Perspectives:
Things to note:
TWO - The speaker mentions leaving out "error correction" early in the presentation. That error correction is the part of the so-called "junk DNA" that seeks to find and eliminate mutations. Not only are mutations NOT a creative force for organisms, they are in fact deleterious and there is a part of DNA that codes for error correction, much like a Quality Process System used, for example, on factory assembly lines, making sure that the products are uniform and within the prescribed limits. So Charles Darwin did recognize speciation (in part by reading the work of Creationist Edward Blyth), but Darwin had the process completely backwards. Organisms are devolving from the original kinds, the amount of information in speciated organisms is less than in the original baramin and, if distance and environmental factors cause it, some genetic information is permanently lost. Entire organisms can go extinct, such as the Dodo. Many organisms that were found in the fossil record and later mentioned in early human history post-Flood, such as dinosaurs, have gone extinct and often it has been mankind that sought and accomplished their extinction.
It is quite a dichotomy of the mind and yet the very folks who believe in Darwinism feel compelled to interfere with the process Darwinism describes (survival of the fittest) and decide what creatures should not go extinct. Most often it is not a basic organism but merely a variety thereof that will get radical eco-nuts up in arms. We must save this subspecies of fish at the expense of thousands of farmers and farm workers!!! Why? Don't you guys believe in evolution? Why are you fighting it if so? Darwinists and eco-nuts are far from either logical or rational where the environment is concerned.
Rewind, rewind! Back in 2008 I pointed this eco-nuttery out AND warned of $4.00 gas prices soon (and it will get much, much worse later if Barack Obama is re-elected). Amendments to the Constitution and in fact the entire document is being ignored as the President has begun ruling by fiat via Czars and Agencies while doing so without a budget and doubling the national debt. Kind of like an 8th grader with his parent's credit cards going on a buying spree? So his socialist and eco-nut buddies are killing off the economy while a few Obama cronies live large.
Meanwhile, unscientific and unproven science-y ideas that banned DDT have killed millions of people. No surprise as Darwinist philosophy has no regard for human life.
God made a fantastic Universe with both enormous and awe-inspiring grandeur on both the macro and micro level. We humans rebelled against God and brought in sin and death, so a fallen Universe is inexorably falling apart before our eyes. The Laws of Thermodynamics will not be frustrated, they will continue to operate no matter what Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or Phil Gingerich say or write. Yet even in a fallen Universe we see wonders that cause us to pause and wonder from glimpses within the cell to amazing pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope of objects millions of miles away in deep space.
From the Hubble Telescope
Big Lie #3 - Man-Made Global Warming is proven scientific fact and is therefore a pressing worldwide concern.
Thanks to Cox & Forkum, Mylene and the Scottthong website for the cool cartoons!
Al Gore to the contrary, man-made global warming has not been proven and, in fact, many scientists believe a cooling period is coming. I pointed out in that last post on the subject that Al Gore is actually making money by promoting the idea of man-made global warming, making anything he says on the issue entirely suspect. I also pointed out that the mandate to deal with the so-called crisis actually comes from the looniest environmental groups and goofs imaginable. Remember this quote?
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?” ---- Maurice F. Strong, one of the worlds leading environmentalists and senior advisor to various U.N. Secretaries-General
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
So, in fact, we may be heading into the kind of winters in which the Thames freezes over and we in the midwest are all "Over the river and through the woods to Grandmother's house we go" fighting through a foot of snow. I hope you review my last article, and now allow me to give Phil Brennan a soapbox:
by Phil Brennan, Lincoln Heritage Institute Trustee
and Editor, Wednesday on the Web
None of this is by accident. It is instead the direct result of the sinister activities of a small but politically powerful clique of a privileged and wealthy elite which hates humans and will not be satisfied until humanity has been driven from this planet.
I’m talking about the members of the radical environmentalist movement, and I’m laying the blame for the continuing success of their anti-mankind efforts on every single one of us who have stood by and allowed these monsters to impose their hatred inspired agenda on the world.
As a result of our inaction in the face of their assaults on mankind, we have allowed a million of our African brothers and sisters and their helpless infants to die of malaria when that scourge of mankind could have been completely eradicated by the use of a totally harmless chemical, DDT, which the radical environmentalist movement has stripped from our arsenal of disease fighting weapons.
Let it be said loud and clear: There is not a single shred of evidence that DDT poses the least kind of threat to the health of the planet’s people, yet on the flimsiest of grounds created by an alarmist book, Silent Spring by the late Rachel Carson (based on myth rather than science), this life-saving chemical is banned and whole populations die.
Think that’s an accident? Think again. As I quoted Michael Berliner, co-chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif., in last week’s column, the mankind hater’s goal is nothing less than the extinction of humanity.
He quoted philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’
“In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): ‘Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet.…Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.’ Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.”
Gasoline prices are soaring. Prices at the pump are pushing toward $4.00 a gallon and predictions are being heard that at least $10.00 is a probable pump price in the near future.
What we’re talking about here is economic chaos, the beggaring of what was not long ago the most prosperous economy on the face of the earth. In one fell swoop, the economy of the United States is being destroyed and widespread poverty is about to grip an America whose people cannot survive the deadly attack on their limited incomes that soaring gas prices constitute. Remember, just about everything we need for survival, food, clothing etc., comes to us by fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Incredible hikes in fuel prices can only lead to incredible hikes in the prices we pay for commodities. We are about to become a third world country.
Who’s to blame? Well, despite the claims of elitists who look down their noses at the rest of us, it’s not the fault of those millions of Americans who drive SUVs, consume electric power generated by the use of fossil fuels, or barbecue hamburgers on the backyard grill. The fault is directly traceable to those political powerful elites who will not allow us to use the virtually unlimited supply of petroleum that lies within the United States, in Alaska’s ANWR area and in the gulf where China and just about everybody else but is sucking up petroleum.
There’s enough oil in the continental U.S. alone to give us all we’ll ever need yet we are not allowed to go after it.
It’s recently been revealed that the Bakken Formation in the Great Plains holds an incredibly huge deposit of petroleum. Estimates of its potential range as high as the U.S. Geological Survey’s figure of more than 400 billion barrels. In contrast, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves, and the Russians just 60 billion.
As Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues, has written, “Until recently, Bakken was thought too expensive to drill. But oil is now at $100 per barrel. Even more important, new computer-controlled drills can go sideways for hundreds of feet to suck the petroleum out of oil-bearing shale strata, instead of just punching short vertical holes through shallow rock layers.
“At the higher end of its potential, Bakken could change the political economics of the world. One hundred billion barrels would be worth $9 trillion at today’s prices. Will America turn its back? Will we give up our autos, airplanes and air conditioners if the oil to power them is affordable and “home-grown.”
Ask Byron Dorgan and his liberal chums, who The Business Investor’s Daily explained are opposed to drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR’s frozen tundra, the so-called “pristine” Alaska area that resembles the surface of the moon when it’s not covered with snow.
Wrote the paper, “He and his fellow Democrats also oppose new oil production in the Outer Continental Shelf and off the Florida coast where China and Cuba are gleefully setting up rigs 50 miles from Key West.
Dorgan and is ilk are captives of big environmentalism. And we’re letting them get away with it. They want to kill us all, and we’re giving them the weapons to do it. In Pogo’s words, “We’ve met the enemy and it is us.”
Wrongful ban on DDT costs lives
July 14, 2004
The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it.
Ever since Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring,” environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted.
While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that “should not be banned.” According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.
In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.
In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 — Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, “Malaria and the DDT Story,” Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that “Malaria is a human tragedy,” adding, “Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick.”
The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said, “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”
Spraying a house with small amounts of DDT costs $1.44 per year; alternatives are five to 10 times more, making them unaffordable in poor countries. Rich countries that used DDT themselves threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.
One really wonders about religious groups, the Congressional Black Caucus, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world while at the same time accepting or promoting DDT bans and the needless suffering and death that follow. Mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well.
About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master’s degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. He teaches economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.