Thursday, January 31, 2008

Biodiversity and "Evolution"

When discussing "biodiversity" science writers cannot help but call it "evolution"! The very opposite of evolution - the LOSS of information - is a problem in the lucrative dairy business in Africa. Notice the mixing of the concepts of selective breeding ("assisted selection" as a opposed to "natural selection"!) with the concept of evolution (that is, "change"):

From "A Dying Breed" by Andrew Rice

"Every cow in the world is the product of some human agency. The extinct feral ancestor of all cattle, the auroch, was a fearsome horned creature that could grow to be six feet tall. There are two theories about the taming of wild aurochs. The traditional view holds that it happened around 6000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent. But recent archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that domestication may have first occurred in Africa 2,000 years earlier, in the then-lush plains of the eastern Sahara. . . .

"For millennia, changing a breed’s genetics through husbandry required a long trial-and-error process. But today it can happen in an evolutionary eye blink. . . .

"To see the evolution in Ugandan dairy cattle, I visited a farmer named Jackson Sezibwa, who lives down a reddish dirt path outside the central Ugandan town of Mukono. A weather-beaten man of 46, Sezibwa greeted me in a torn, muddy shirt. He showed me to the metal-roofed stall where he keeps his Holstein, Kevina. . . .

"If the Ankole cattle are able to mount a comeback, it will be because circumstances have endowed them with a unique set of defenses, both evolutionary and political. Members of President Museveni’s ethnic group populate the upper ranks of Uganda’s government. . . ."

The author, Andrew Rice, seems to equate the term "evolution" with "selection." There is a continued LOSS of genetic information from the original "extinct" aurock (the oxen that came off the ark!). This is, it seems a detriment to the species - which is FAR from extinct. The worry is that there may be a pandemic in the ever warmer climate of the world bringing an actual extinction to the noble bovine race. Far fetched, of course, but possible.

The point is, true "evolution" is not at play here. The oxen - seven of which went on the ark (three pair and one to sacrifice) - were more diverse than other species because they were "clean." Therefore, it should not be of any concern to the world's guardians of "biodivesity" if the noble ankole breed disappears.

In fact, "evolution" of species is impossible! The only reason scientists continue this fable is because it takes the Creator out of the picture. The very evidence that humanist scientists use to "prove" evolution draw only from a diverse gene pool that has been diluted over time. No addition of information has ever been shown. Older species were just more diverse.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Bacteria are not bigots

The New York Times felt that it was noteworthy to to tell the world that certain bacteria are "striking gay men." That implies that the microscopic pests know the difference and are picking on this population of San Franciscans (and Bostonians). This is downright foolish!

It is unmistakably the patently unhealthy lifestyle that spreads this "flesh eating" bacteria (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA for short). The article should have an "R" rating for mentioning the activity and body parts being affected. If anyone reading this is interested, I would suggest you "google" the MRSA and "gay" men. I will not provide a link to such vile stuff!

The alarm is that such a plague may spread not just among the homosexual community, but beyond. Like HIV, such infections are the result of unsafe practices that if held in check would leave the "straight" community practically untouched.

Bacteria are not bigots. They do not discriminate. Anyone that does the "crime" pays the price! My advice to those in danger of infection: "Clean up your 'act'."

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Of One Blood: The myth of "race"

I am a staunch conservative, but I have to admire Senator Barack Obama! The man refuses to make "race" an issue. In a New York Times article, he is accurately (as far as using "race" to describe human variation can be) called "biracial." He is just as "white" as he is "black," though his skin pigmentation is definitely from his natural father, Barack Obama, Sr, whom he never really knew. The Senior Obama was an exchange student from Kenya who separated from his very white mother, the late Shirley Ann Dunham, when the child was two.

From a comparison of MY records (incomplete) and a search via rootsweb (I am descended from the Dunhams), I am about a 10th cousin to the Senator!

His mother then remarried another student - this time Indonesian - and moved him to Indonesia for some of his earliest education. He basically "grew up white." However, he has consistently taken on the cause of Americans of African descent. But he refuses to call the cause "racial." And so do I. From the Genesis record we know that ALL mankind is descended from one couple. This is confirmed in the New Testament:

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

And so, let us take some advice from the Junior Senator from Illinois. Let us admit that we need to look for solutions to HUMAN problems, not "racial" ones.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Is the polar bear "endangered"?

Sara Palin lives there, so she should know. But environmentalist groups are lobbying to put the big whites on the "Endangered Species" list based on the flimsy excuse that their "habitat" is disappearing. Not so fast, the Alaskan governor declares.

It seems that there are more polar bears now than there were forty years ago. The laws meant to protect them are working. By using "global warming" arguments, which project short term trends to a logical conclusion, environmentalists claim that as goes the ice, so goes the bear. That is discounting the vast plain of permafrost which supports much more life than do icebergs! The bears may even have a BETTER time at finding land-based prey.

Besides, how biologically diverse is a polar bear from its cousins? Perhaps it would just adapt to changing conditions. Do you think a study has been done from THAT angle? Probably not, given the present evolutionary bias in the sciences. As a matter of fact, studies are not needed. History and science are replete with examples of "hybrids" among bears. Both the grizzly and the brown bear have been known to interbreed with the polar bear -- with fertile offspring! Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the "species" is not in danger at all! As you get away from the frozen north, bears of other varieties are numerous. It would be sad, I suppose, if a particular "breed" of bear were to disappear. But "endangered" is not a term that need be used.