Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
The cult of Warming. Or changing. 'Scientists' and others corrupted by money and power, have declaimed since at least 1890, that 'humans' affect climate. There is little science to this claim. Pollution is not climate. Neither is particulate emission. Co2 is not a toxin and is a mere 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gas by weight. Co2 has been much denser in times past when temperatures were both hotter and colder than today; and must as a logical consequence of a climate convection system; fall out of, the main hydrological process, thus trailing 'climate'.
The mythical greenhouse system, is simply a ruse to fear monger the hoi-polloi. Any such greenhouse effect is mitigated within the convection system by positive as well as negative feedback loops. Co2 for example is a cooling, not a warming agent. Climate models vastly exaggerate the 'positive', or accelerating loops within their philosophy of doom and Co2 gloom. Models are not reality, and the climate models are largely a joke, with pre-determined answers informing the coding.
Consider Greenland, a poster girl of the Eco-mmunist movement.
Greenland was ice-free in the past.
“Evolutionary scientists [might be an oxymoron...] have recently discovered evidence that southern Greenland was much warmer and ice-free during an interglacial between one of their dozens of glacial periods.1,2 According to the uniformitarian ice age paradigm, Greenland first developed an ice sheet around 2.5 Ma (million years) ago; at the same time the ice sheets supposedly developed on North America and Scandinavia. However, opinion on the timing of the Greenland Ice Sheet is changing. Some scientists believe the Greenland Ice Sheet developed 7 Ma ago,3 while even more recent research claims it was 30–38 Ma ago,4 or even as old as 44 Ma ago!5 These new results are based on the finding of what are believed to be ice-rafted debris in deep-sea cores in the northern North Atlantic.”
Recent discoveries of various temperate and even tropical species within Greenland make it clear that this current ice-bound island, was much warmer than it is today, thereby destroying the man-made Co2 equals warming myth:
“....DNA from alder, spruce, pine and yew, and DNA from yarrow, birch, chickweed, fescue, rush, plantain, saxifrage, snowberry and aspen, which could not be independently identified by different laboratories. They also collected DNA from beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths.”
If the above collected by Darwin's cult is true, than this means that the average summer temperature must have been higher than 10 C and winter temps could not have fallen much past -10C or the trees mentioned above, would not have survived.7 8
In relation to the corrupt elite's fascination with warm-mongering, the researchers discuss the cult of warm and the implications of their work. Andrew Curry states:
‘If southern Greenland remained ice-covered during the last interglacial period, it could mean global warming would have to get much worse before it completely melts away the Greenland ice sheet.’
Considering that the world has either cooled, or not warmed much if at all, since 1890, there is little to fear from a trace chemical rising from 4/100 of 1 % of atmospheric gas by weight by say 25 % to 5/100 of 1 % of atmospheric gas by weight......
Co2 has no effect on climate. A fact that someone who passed grade 9 science, would know.
=====
Curry, A., Ancient DNA’s intrepid explorer, Science 317(5834):36–37, 2007 | PMID: 17615317.
Larsen, H.C., Saunders, AD, Clift, P.D., Beget, J., Wei, W., Spezzaferri, S. and OPD Leg 152 Scientific Party, Seven million years of glaciation in Greenland, Science264(5161):952–955, 1994 | PMID: 17830083.
Eldrett, J.S., Harding, I.C., Wilson, P.A., Butler, E. and Roberts, A.P., Continental ice in Greenland during the Eocene and Oligocene, Nature 446(7132):176–179, 2007 | doi:10.1038/nature05591.
Tripati, A.K. et al., Evidence for glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere back to 44 Ma from ice-rafted debris in the Greenland Sea, Earth and Planetary Science Letters265(1-2):112–122, 2008 | doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.09.045.
Dansgaard, W., Clausen, H.B., Gundestrup, N., Hammer, C.U., Johnsen, S.F., Kristinsdottir, P.M. and Reeh, N., A new Greenland deep ice core, Science218(4579):1273–1277, 1982 | doi: 10.1126/science.218.4579.1273.
Willerslev et al., ref. 1, p. 113.
Oard, M.J., The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, p. 10, 2005.
Oard, M.J., Astronomical troubles for the astronomical hypothesis of ice ages, J. Creation 21(3):19–23, 2007; creation.com/ice-age-troubles.
2015 Nobel Chemistry prize was given to 2 Americans and a Swede, for uncovering, or at least cogitating upon, how and why DNA repairs itself. According to Darwin's cult, chaos leads to order, which leads of course to maintenance. One should expect a car to self-repair and indeed self-reproduce, according to the illogicality of Evolution. How can such a complex of software and information communication, around repair and maintenance of living systems have arose from mutations which kill; or random chance ? It is inane.
“DNA repair mechanisms keep us alive, and understanding them undergirds a fuller comprehension of how cells work and fend off the disastrous consequences of too many mutations. The research of these three men implies that cells have always used DNA repair mechanisms, thus uncovering evolutionary mysteries that have not yet found sensible solutions.
Their pioneering work, mostly conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, opened a door to what has become a large research field. Investigators around the world continue to uncover new enzymes and communication networks, including feedback protocols and cellular subroutines, all aimed at protecting DNA. Good thing this happens in every cell on the planet, because otherwise DNA would lose vital information.”
Without self-repair or autopoeisis, the human species would become extinct quite quickly. Mutations destroy, they don't add value, which is the opposite of what Darwin's cult maintains, and which is of course another example of Evolution's anti-science. Humans in-toto, do not fully understand DNA, nor how a fully functioning, all-or-nothing, single cell developed. There certainly is no proof that chance, warm ponds, electrical charges, deep sea heat vents, pond-scum 'striving' to 'select', or any of the other Darwinian fairy tales; scientifically satisfies in explaining this mystery.
“These DNA repair studies generate another evolutionary mystery. How could the first DNA repair systems have evolved in cells that did not yet have them but did have constantly degrading DNA? These decades-old questions remain unanswered.
Being essential to cellular life, DNA repair systems integrate with larger all-or-nothing cellular processes like an energy production and delivery system, an enzyme factory, and of course the DNA information itself that specifies all of the above. Since it had to be in place all at once, naturalistic evolutionary processes could never have assembled them one at a time. Instead, DNA repair systems must have been designed fully functional on purpose in the very first cell.”
Darwin's cult has never provided bio-chemical scientific proof that single cells, or any of its complex sub-processes, which are all interdependent, arose by chance. Evolution is bio-chemically impossible.
Autopoiesis is a biological fact. Organisms must repair themselves or they die and the species becomes extinct [general law of entropy]. There are at least 148 known genes dedicated to DNA repair, using at least 14 known different methods, carrying out up to a million repair events per cell per day. Your car, your chair, your coffee cup do not self-repair; do not regenerate cells [the brain replaces billions each day]; nor do they manage their internal software code. Mutations or bugs, destroy software. Ask an IT engineer. Most the time spent with software code is spent in repairing, managing and maintaining – not coding.
Not only does the system complexity of humans allow for maintenance, it also provides redundancy and failover. A good IT engineer will know these concepts. They are mandatory for system development and to perform load balancing and ensure availability. Organisms have the same capability – built directly into their software code. For example, every production pathway for every molecular component in a cell has a corresponding degradation pathway so that redundant, used and/or damaged molecules can be broken down and the parts recycled. This feat of engineering is impossible to construct with random chance.
The human body is so well engineered that there are even programmed cell death mechanisms to remove unwanted cells from a developmental pathway (apoptosis) and to cleanly dispose of malfunctioning or injured cells (necrosis). Damage to these degradation pathways often leads to disease and death because cells and tissues become clogged with molecular rubbish.
Again we see the law of entropy at work – all systems, closed, hybrid, or open in any manner will simply degrade and die. The only way to keep a system alive is to maintain it, and clear out the mutations, which the cult of Darwin ignorantly believes causes advancement, in spite of the physical and observational fact that it generates a loss of information and system capability.
It is all or nothing, no 'evolution' of a cell is even remotely possible
The universality of autopoiesis highlights the fact of all or nothing within the software code of life. You need all of a cell's singular complexity. Pieces of it are useless in isolation. This also a fact of biology beyond dispute.
“In Kirschner and Gerhart’s book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, in which they announce the first ever theory—called facilitated variation—of how life works at the molecular level, they identify two basic components:
-conserved core processes of cellular architecture, metabolic function and body plan organization; and
-modular regulatory mechanisms that are built in special ways that allow them to be easily rearranged into new combinations to generate new and variable phenotypes.
Concerning the conserved core processes, they say,
“Core processes may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite … The most obscure origination of a core process is the creation of the first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled” (pp. 253–256).
The central message of Kirschner and Gerhart’s theory is that not genes but the cell, with its highly conserved architecture, machinery and regulatory circuitry, is the centrepiece of life and heredity. When these ideas are combined—that the cell as a whole is the functional entity, that cell structure and function is highly conserved, that its origination as a whole entity has no naturalistic explanation, and that the “suite of core processes” is universal—this clearly supports the universality of autopoiesis.”
Autopoiesis and cell complexity make a mockery of the cult of Darwin.
Why and how would water form by random chance ? Why would hydrogen and oxygen combine, during 'natural selection', to form the miracle and basis of life, we call water ? How would random chaos cover the earth in both salt and fresh water ? Where did the vast quantities of this liquid come from? How would 'nature know', that salt water is indispensable as a part of the climate convection system ? Is it sensible to suppose that the supernatural qualities of water, are somehow related to 'competitive advantage' 'luck', 'blind chance', or 'natural selection'? What do these buzzwords even mean ?
A Dr. Richard Gunderman, from Purdue University, wrote a paper entitled, “The Universe's Most Miraculous Molecule.” Gunderman correctly labels water a miracle – one that 'evolution' and Darwinian theology can never explain.
“It’s the second most abundant substance in the universe. It dissolves more materials than any other solvent. It stores incredible amounts of energy. Life as we know it would not be possible without it. And although it covers more than 70% of the Earth’s surface, many parts of the world are in dire straits for lack of it. What is it?
The answer, of course, is water. In some ways, water is one of the substances we know best, in part because it makes up 75% of our bodies. Every day we drink it, bathe in it, clean with it and use it to dispose of our wastes. Yet scientists are still striving to understand many of water’s remarkable properties, and the 21st century will force us to think about water like we never have before.”
Aspects of water than cannot be explained by chaos and random chance, identified by Grundman:
Hydrogen bonds cause water molecules to have high attraction to one another.
Water’s high specific heat means it takes a lot of energy to warm it. This helps humans remove heat by perspiration.
Water’s high boiling point compared to similar liquids keeps it in the range for life’s liquid requirements.
Capillarity, due to the molecules’ attraction, allows water to rise in the vessels of trees with a pulling action.
Surface tension allows some animals like water striders to walk on water.
Water’s polarity makes it almost a universal solvent.
“Even more remarkably, water is practically the only substance known to man that, as it cools from its liquid to solid state, actually expands.” Because ice is 9% less dense than water, ice floats, and, consequently, Earth does not freeze solid.
Water is dynamic on Earth, continually evaporating, traveling over land, condensing, and flowing back to the seas.
Water is dynamic in life, too, cycling between photosynthesis and respiration.
There are many other facts about water that one could list. For example it is odorless, tasteless, perfect in every way to ingest and sustain. This means that every human can use water; unique senses and physiology are unaffected.
So Darwinians, how did this miracle molecule arise from a 'big bang' of chaos, and come to dominate the Earth's climatic cycles ? Big rocks hit the earth ? Aliens dumped it ? Nature created it in her very own Gaia-lab ? Or rhetoric and hyperbole mixed in with chaos ?
Phd, renowned scientist and the inventor of the gene gun, now widely used in agribusiness, Sanford does not believe [gasp], that monkeys became men. Nor does he believe that chimps fell out of trees on a bright, sunny African afternoon some 3 million years ago, and started to walk, with Lucy the mother chimp of us all, firmly out front during the stroll holding her immaculate conception. Imagine that. Surely this man is a cretin, a creationist, a fundamentalist, a lunatic, and obviously he is a science denier. If we are not careful these crazies are going to challenge pond scum to people theology, panspermia, pregnant black holes and multiverses, not to mention abiogenesis, and nothing created everything.
Or maybe Sanford is just a real scientist. The mathematical probability of meta-evolution being true is less than zero. Complexity does not happen out of chaos. Randomness leads to disorder not structure. And there is not enough time in the Darwinian fable for a monkey to become man. Not even close. Mutations kill, they don't add value. 2nd law of Thermodynamics which evolution offends is that all systems, open, closed, hybrid, will fail. There is no evidence that mutations will take the fruit fly and turn it into the fruit bat.
From Sanford's book we can learn:
-The net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function. After decades of research, if even one mutation out of a million really unambiguously created new information (apart from fine-tuning), we would all have heard about it by now (p. 17). There is no evidence that mutations add value. Absolutely none.
-When there are changes in say bacteria, this is the case of turning software or DNA code on (p. 19). In other words the functionality is already there. The changes typically involve modification of one or two nucleotides, (p. 19).
-If mutations are so beneficial why don't people enter x-ray machines every day and bombard their genes with radiation ? Surely Hiroshima should have produced super men ? On the contrary, as Sanford writes, health policies are in place aimed at reducing or minimizing mutations (p. 15).
2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
-Sanford provides a devastating scientific fact, fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but opposed to Evolution. It is now accepted that mutations in human reproductive cells are in the range of at least 100–300 per individual each generation (p. 34). In other words all systems of all types eventually implode.
-Other kinds of mutations, such as deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite mutations and all mitochondrial mutations worsen the above situation. In general per person, per generation we have about 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation (p. 37).
-Even if we use the lowest possible mutation number of 100 mutations per generation, and assume wrongly and utterly incorrectly, that 97% of the genome is not being used; Sanford estimates that at least 3 new mutations are being produced per individual in each generation. The number of course is significantly higher. (p. 34) Most geneticists who study the issue believe that we have 30 mutation per person, per generation. 99% of mutations are deleterious or neutral.
-Human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79). In other words, we are not becoming better or more beautiful or smarter. The entire human genome package is in fact worsening. You can't simply add 'good mutations' which rarely exist anyways [<.01 % of the total].
-Therefore, within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All of the individual 100,000–200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.
The obvious conclusion based on science and math is this:
Over a period of some tens of thousands of years the human species would simply mutate out of existence given that 3-30 mutations exist in each person, in each generation.
To bring down a software system – and that is what the human body is – you only need to infect about 3-10% of it. You don't need to erase all of the programs within the software structure. Just a small percentage, as in the case of cancer, will do it. Cancer might affect less than 1% of a certain regions cellular makeup. But that is enough to kill the human.
Sanford:
“The literature is full of statements and abstruse computer programs claiming natural selection can perform near miracles. But after 25 years of searching, I have yet to find an analogy or computer model backing up this claim which has any biological relevance.” (p. 50)
The virgin births and miracles of Darwin's cult. Never backed up by science.
Computer models are largely fraudulent. I can give you whatever answer you desire by programming into the logic, the desired outcomes. It is not that hard to do. Biology and real life are different. There is no random chance algorithm, leading to ever more beautiful structures and change. There is no market place of code I can download, to allow for natural selection and meta-mutation, where for example a reptile wanders off to the market and selects to become a bird, replacing his entire software system in some wondrous Star Trekesque download sequence. This is nonsense and fiction not science. And that about sums up Evolution.