Category Archives: professors and intellectuals

Is Covid-19 man made and released from a Wuhan lab? Evidence of genome editing

I’ve been seeing a lot of the same story being told by various media outlets.  All  pushing the same  narrative, “scientists confirm Covid19 is not a manmade bioweapon”.  It’s only fair that I show the other side of the argument.

There is a scientist that says covid-19 is man made and was released from Wuhan lab.  The story was first published on March 2. 2020.

A Taiwanese scientist has claimed Chinese microbiologists probably created coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

Based on the virus unusual structure it is most likely “man made” and there is a theory coronavirus was somehow leaked or released from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan China, said Professor Fang Chi-tai from the National Taiwan University (NTU).

Professor Fang said China’s track record with safety standards and laboratory management has been questioned in the past.

The Professor claims it was very possible that the Wuhan Chinese scientists created the deadly virus by simply adding four amino acids to an existing bat virus, which therefore makes it much easier to transmit to people.

Professor Fang added, “The mutations found in the novel coronavirus are unusual in an academic sense.

“It is indeed possible that it is a man-made product.

“From an academic point of view, it is indeed possible that the amino acids were added to COVID-19 in the lab by humans.”

I should point out that Wuhan has the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It’s a level 4 laboratory that was used to store, handle and research samples of SARS, Ebola and other deadly infectious viruses. Fang mentioned the possibility of the virus being leaked from there due to gross mismanagement.  Fang also said,

Analyses of the Covid-19 virus have shown that it had a 96% genetic similarity with an RaTG13 bat virus also stored at the institute, and that the Covid-19 could be “manufactured” by modifying the RaTG13 virus.

French researchers had discovered four more amino acids in the gene sequence of Covid-19 than other known coronaviruses, which could be added artificially to make the viral transmission easier.

The following was also mentioned,

In February Chinese scientist announced the true cause of the spread of coronavirus, who broke cover and said the oubreak started in a science laboratory in Wuhan yards away from a wet market.

A scientist told how a sick bat attacked the researchers and bled on them and urinated on another, they were then forced to quarantine themselves for 14 days.

Biologists Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao published a pre-print entitled “The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.”

The report describes how “the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.

“We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 metres from the seafood market.

“We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory.

To read more click here  and click here.

Evidence for RNA editing in the transcriptome of 2019 Novel Coronavirus

For additional evidence of human influence in  the Coronavirus, I’ve provided a link to a PDF file titled  “Evidence for RNA editing in the transcriptome of 2019 Novel Coronavirus”.

It comes from bioRxiv.  You won’t hear anything about this in main stream news.  I’ve seen 1 article and it was an attempt to debunk the discovery by accusing the scientists of running a “shabby operation”.   Still, the critic never said the discovery was inaccurate.

The 2019-nCoV outbreak has become a global health risk. Editing by host deaminases is an innate
15 restriction process to counter viruses, and it is not yet known whether it operates against
coronaviruses. Here we analyze RNA sequences from bronchoalveolar lavage fluids derived from
two Wuhan patients. We identify nucleotide changes that may be signatures of RNA editing:
Adenosine-to-Inosine changes from ADAR deaminases and Cytosine-to-Uracil changes from
APOBEC ones. A mutational analysis of genomes from different strains of human-hosted
Coronaviridae reveals patterns similar to the RNA editing pattern observed in the 2019-nCoV
transcriptomes. Our results suggest that both APOBECs and ADARs are involved in Coronavirus
genome editing, a process that may shape the fate of both virus and patient.

The scientist behind this discovery are Salvatore Di Giorgio, Filippo Martignano, Maria Gabriella Torcia, Giorgio Mattiuz, Silvestro G. Conticello.

Affiliations:

Core Research Laboratory, ISPRO, Firenze, 50139, Italy.
Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, 53100, Italy.
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Firenze 50139, Italy
Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124, Pisa, Italy.

*  bioRxiv is a preprint server for Biology. . Articles are not peer-reviewed, edited, or typeset before being posted online. However, all articles undergo a basic screening process for offensive and/or non-scientific content and for material that might pose a health or biosecurity risk and are checked for plagiarism. No endorsement of an article’s methods, assumptions, conclusions, or scientific quality by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is implied by its appearance in bioRxiv. An article may be posted prior to, or concurrently with, submission to a journal but should not be posted if it has already been accepted for publication by a journal.

To read complete PDF click here.

Click on COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv to view 791 Articles (599 medRxiv, 192 bioRxiv) on Covid-19 and Sars Cov-2.

Anyone wanting to jump deeper into the rabbit hole can click the link below.  It’s a link to one of my personal research archives.  The document  is titled “Patents filed that mentions “coronavirus” before year 2000.  It contains links to  at least 200 patents where the coronavirus is mentioned.  Also included are patent owner, affiliations and all relevant information.  All filed before the year 2000. Too much to post here at FOTM. (It’s just an archive.  Any questions or comments related to the archive must be made here at FOTM). 

For access click here.  You will be asked to provide a password.  Enter “corona”.

Respectfully,

Deplorable Patriot

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

The 8chan/8kun QResearch Board Search

I wanted to share this with y’all in case you were not aware of it.

  QResearch.ch,  The 8chan/8kun QResearch Board Search.

Free to use.  No advertising. No tracking.  No porn. No worries.  Just 13,083,277 documents from 38 Qanon related data sources. No loaded  pages from other domains.  Research  with privacy.

If you are into Qanon or just want to see some of the information we have, this is the best place to look.  No login.  No joining.  No vetting.  Just click the link provided at the bottom and start searching.

It’s not like the 8 chan that got shut down.  It’s not like the new 8 Kun.  It’s very simple to use.  You will see the following links at the top of the page for a general search.

For a more detailed search,

  • – specific keywords or keyphrases
  • – specific URL’s
  • – specific dates (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY/MM/DD)
  • – specific 8chan/8kun post ID’s

What can you search through?

3,894 Q-Posts from #Qanon
9,738 Answers to Q-Posts from spreadsheet
7,635,941 Posts in 10840 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board
4,045 Posts in 6 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – AUSTRALIA
2,654 Posts in 4 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – CANADA
646 Posts in 1 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – FRANCE
30,265 Posts in 43 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – GERMANY
1,393 Posts in 2 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – NETHERLANDS
2,117 Posts in 3 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – NEW ZEALAND
6,854 Posts in 9 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – UK
7,311 Posts in 11 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic ALIEN UFO
6,674 Posts in 9 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic CLOCKWORK
2,895 Posts in 4 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch Board – Topic NWO
38,440 Posts in 53 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QRB Board
29,619 Posts in 41 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s QResearch2Gen Board
224,669 Posts in 312 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s CBTS Board
30,175 Posts in 43 Threads from 8chan/8kun’s TheStorm Board
37,974 Posts in 54 Threads from Endchan’s qanonresearch Board
5,339 Posts in 15 Threads from Endchan’s qrbunker Board
46,571 Tweets from @realDonaldTrump
12,272 Resignations (since Sep. 1, 2017) from resignation.info
106 Corona Infection Cases from “CoronaVirus Notable Cases”-Spreadsheet
372 Death Cases from deathcas.es
143 Helicopter Crashes from “Helicopter Crashes”-list
2,412 Human Trafficking Arrests (events – since Jan. 1, 2016) from “Notable Human Trafficking Arrests”-list
378,295 Unsealed Indictments from https://bad-boys.us/
2,327 Epstein BlackBook from “Epstein BlackBook”
4,275 Epstein Flight Logs from “Epstein Flight Logs”-list
110 Mass Shootings (events – since 1982) from “Mother Jones – Mass Shootings Database, 1982 – 2019”-list
967 Executive Orders (since 1994) from federalregister.gov
33,709 Hillary Clinton Emails from WikiLeaks
59,148 Podesta Emails from WikiLeaks
44,041 DNC Emails from WikiLeaks
138,185 Bahamas Leaks (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
168,758 Offshore Leaks (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
212,321 Panama Papers (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
171,376 Paradise Papers (Names and Companies) from ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
3,727,246 White House Visitors (2009-2014) from archives.gov
13,083,277 Total

Click here for main page

 

Credit and thanks to Qanon and all who helped make QResearch.ch available.

QResearch is administered by people that do it as a public service.  Just like everyone here at FOTM, there is no pay.  Just people that care.  Searching for the truth.  Because you deserve it.

WWG1WGA

Respectfully,

Deplorable patriot.

 

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Professor says gender is a “social category” hence her study result: Trans children sense their gender identities at young ages

A bunch of junk science in this selective study.

The lead author of this study, Selin Gulgoz, is an assistant professor whose research interests “lie at the intersection of social and cognitive development, with emphasis on children’s reasoning about the social world.”

You can see on her bio that she defines everything about gender in a “social” construct. Her bio states, “I’ve been studying children’s beliefs about the nature of social categories like gender, their understanding of status hierarchies and how they might correspond to differences between people of different genders, and how children’s essentialist beliefs about gender might relate to their attitudes and behaviors toward gender in-groups and out-groups.”

So you can imagine the predicted outcome of a study she recently led for the University of Washington.

Apparently transgender children may start to identify with toys and clothes typical of their gender identity from a very young age. The NBC story states that the confidence of “trans” children in their gender identity is generally as strong as that of cisgender children, whose identity matches their sex assigned at birth. Excerpts from the propaganda:

Trans kids are showing strong identities and preferences that are different from their assigned sex,” lead author Selin Gulgoz said in a press statement. “There is almost no difference between these trans- and cisgender kids of the same gender identity — both in how, and the extent to which, they identify with their gender or express that gender.”

For the study, researchers interviewed 317 transgender children, ages 3 to 12, and 189 of the children’s siblings. They also interview 316 cisgender kids.

Researchers asked the children how much they felt like a boy or girl or something else. They also asked about preferences for toys and clothes that are stereotypically associated with one gender.

The transgender kids showed strong preferences for toys and clothing typically associated with their gender identity, not their assigned sex, the study found. Their preferences didn’t appear to differ based on how long they had lived as their current gender.

The similarities among transgender and cisgender children were surprising, researchers said, because early in life, the transgender kids had been treated as a gender other than the one they currently identify as.

“These findings suggest that children might not be simply learning about gender based on what their parents tell them about their own gender or how they treat them early on (which would be about the gender associated with their assigned sex),” Gulgoz told Reuters Health by email.

“Instead, the findings suggest that children may be selectively attending to broader social messages regarding the gender they feel they are, from early ages,” said Gulgoz did the work at the University of Washington in Seattle and will start a new position this winter at Fordham University.

One limitation of the study is that all the transgender kids lived in families that affirmed their current gender identity, the study team notes. Their experiences might not reflect what would happen for transgender youth who lived in less supportive environments.

Researchers also only looked at children at one point in time. Gender expression or identity for some of them might shift in the future, or their level of support and affirmation might change.”

Read about the “study” here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Of course: Eating out at restaurants and having a large amount of sweets is bad news for your carbon footprint

At this point, I expect the “experts” to tell us that the only thing that isn’t bad for your carbon footprint is abortion and doctor-assisted suicide.

From Daily Mail: Families that often dine out and consume large quantities of sweets and alcohol are likely to have a higher carbon footprint than meat eaters, a study claims.

Researchers came to this conclusion after studying the food habits and carbon footprints of around 60,000 households across Japan.

They found that meat consumption typically only accounts for only 10 per cent of the different in environmental impact between low and high carbon households.

In contrast, households with high carbon footprints typically consumed around two to three times more sweets and alcohol than those with low footprints.

Based on their findings, the team are now advising people to cut down their intake on these products to help save the planet.

Nature and colleagues surveyed the food supply chain and consumption habits of around 60,000 households from across Japan’s 47 prefectures.

The researchers found that the levels of meat consumption were largely constant from household-to-households, but their carbon footprints varied considerably — with other foodstuffs appearing more responsible.

Eating out, for example, was found to contribute 175 per cent more carbon emissions for the average household than eating meats.

In fact, dining in restaurants was seen to contribute an annual average of 770 kilograms of greenhouse gases towards the environmental impact of those households with a high carbon footprint. In contrast, meat consumption cost just 280 kilograms.

In Japan, many households have turned vegan after learning that beef production emits 20 times the emissions per gram of protein as growing beans.

Professor Kanemoto and colleagues, however, have said that a one-size-fits-all policy is ill-advised. ‘If we think of a carbon tax, it might be wiser to target sweets and alcohol if we want a progressive system,’ said Professor Kanemoto.

Our findings suggest that high carbon footprints are not only a problem for a small number of meat lovers in Japan.’

‘If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprints, then our diets must change.’

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

MSM corrupt America by promoting polyamory

“[I]t is hard to imagine anything more social in its effects, and more determinative of what kind of a society we will have, than our customs and laws regarding sex, marriage, and the raising of children. For sex results in children. Have we forgotten this?…. Sexual morality is for the protection and promotion of the natural (biological) family, and of adoptive families that affirm the natural by exemplar. The family is both the cradle of society and one of the great ends for which we form societies in the first place. So it is nonsense to say that right and wrong as regards sex are ours to determine for ourselves. Those laws and customs form a language we all must use. We cannot have a private language.” –Anthony Esolen

If you still doubt that the mainstream media are anti-American and are actively working on corrupting our society, this post should remove all doubt.

Last May, Gallup conducted its annual Values and Beliefs poll on the American people’s views on the moral acceptability of 21 issues.

The poll found that despite our bitter partisan divisions, conservatives and liberals are broadly united in their belief that these five behaviors are morally wrong: suicide, cloning animals, cloning humans, polygamy, and extramarital affairs:

  • An overwhelming majority of Americans, 80%, believe polygamy to be morally wrong.
  • An even greater majority, 89%, believe “married men and women having an affair” is morally wrong.

But the major television networks are actively promoting sexual promiscuity and “polyamory” — which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as “the practice of having sexual or romantic relationships with two or more people at the same time.”

Peter Hasson reports for The Daily Caller, Oct. 29, 2019, that “major media outlets” are normalizing non-monogamous relationships.

The latest major media outlet to do so is CBSN, the digital streaming arm of CBS News, which aired an hourlong special, “Non-Monogamy,” last Sunday (Oct. 27) night.

The special portrayed non-monogamous relationships in a sympathetic light. CBS promoted the special in an Oct. 25 press release two days before the program’s airing:

For years, monogamy has dominated what society perceives as, and allows to be, ‘normal,’ but in the modern era, those parameters are softening….

The newest CBSN Originals documentary, “Non-Monogamy,” highlights individuals engaging in various forms of consensual non-monogamy including polyamory, a triad monogamous relationship, a polyfidelitous closed quad, and a committed couple dating outside of their marriage. As Dr. Elisabeth Sheff puts it, “I think of it almost like a menu, a relationship menu, and that serial monogamy is at the top of the menu, and probably the most popular dish that people order, but there’s all these other things that people can order now, and they are.”

Sheff calls herself (itself?) “one of a handful of global academic experts on polyamory”.

The CBS digital-streaming special included a 22-minute documentary of interviews with people in openly non-monogamous relationships. The documentary is followed by interviews with a pro-polyamory researcher and a pro-polyamory lawyer. The people in openly non-monogamous relationships who were interviewed include:

  • A man identified as Alex, in an “open marriage” with his wife Bridget of just one year, told CBSN: “The way our parents were brought up, monogamy felt like it was necessary. It was just the way culture accepted you, it is the way everybody accepted you. Now, things are different, things are opening up.” Alex and Bridget both have outside sexual partners.
  • Husband and wife C.J. and Brandi, who have a “triad monogamous relationship” with Brooke. “Triad monogamous” is an oxymoron because the very definition of “monogamy” precludes a threesome. Brandi said that “with three people it makes it a little bit easier to get those [sexual] needs fulfilled.” Brandi and Brooke don’t have sex with each other, which means that the purpose of the threesome is to “fulfill” the “sexual needs” of the man, C.J.
  • A man called Mahdi, in a “triad” with two women, said “I had to divorce my first partner because my second partner had immigration status issues” and that he is in a relationship with both of them. Mahdi complained that he lost his health insurance since he divorced his first wife.

According to The Daily Caller, “CBS is just the latest major media company to promote polyamory.”

Other major outlets promoting polyamory include:

  • The New York Times: In August, NYT published a feature piece titled “Polyamory Works for Them,” describing monogamy as “a curious stalwart” and that more and more young people are rejecting its “blandness.” In an Oct. 2 article on marriages involving members of polyamorous relationships, NYT said “People are becoming more curious about consensual non-monogamy.”
  • ABC News, in an Oct. 24 article, pronounced actor Nico Tortorella’s open marriage as “redefining what it means to be ‘husband and wife.’”
  • Not surprisingly, CNN appears to be the first major media outlet to promote polyamory. In an October 26, 2013 essay titled “Polyamory: When three isn’t a crowd,” reporter (((Emmanuela Grinberg))) highlighted an Atlanta, Georgia threesome — husband-wife Billy and Melissa Holder and “the couple’s partner” Jeremy Mullins — who were marching and passing out fliers promoting polyamory at the Atlanta Pride Parade. Marching with the threesome were 12 other “polyamorous” people.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Swedish professor says cannibalism is a way to combat climate change

This dude takse the climate-change hysteria to new levels.

Magnus Söderlund is a behavioral scientist at Stockholm School of Economics in Stockholm, Sweden. He describes himself in his profile on ResarchGate as “Professor of Marketing and Head of Center for Consumer Marketing at Stockholm School of Economics. Magnus does research in consumer behavior-related areas, often with experimental methods, and with an interest in how consumers are affected by various marketing activities.”

On September 3, 2019, at the Gastro Summit on food of the future in Stockholm, Söderlund conducted a powerpoint presentation titled “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?,” in which he said we must “awaken the idea” of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combatting the effects of climate change.

Sweden’s TV Channel 4 reports, September 3, 2019, that (via Google Translate):

The “Gastro Summit – about the future of food” is being held at the Stockholm Fair. There, behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund holds seminars that make most people raise their eyebrows. They are about the possibility of eating human flesh – to save the climate.

Swedish-American writer/reporter Celia Farber reports for The Epoch Times that Söderlund argued that since food sources will be scarce in the future, humans must break down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh, and be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting–among them, human flesh. He called the taboos against cannibalism “conservative” and people’s resistance to it as a problem that could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to eat worms and insects, then to tasting human flesh.

In his talk at the Gastro Summit, Söderlund asked the audience how many would be open to the idea of cannibalism. Not many hands went up; some in the audience groaned.  When interviewed after his talk, Söderlund reported brightly that 8% of conference participants said they would be open to trying human flesh. When asked if he himself would try it, he replied: “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it.”

Söderlund suggested that eating pets and insects would be easier sells before cannibalism.

Farber concludes:

What Söderlund does not mention, curiously, is the long documented science—the biological effect of cannibalism.

A tribe called the Fore lived isolated in Papua New Guinea until the 1930s. They believed in eating their dead rather than allowing them to be consumed by worms. This led to an epidemic of a disease called “kuru, or “the laughing death,” caused by ingestion of human meat. This disease was not caused by a pathogen, but rather, a “twisted protein,” (according to an NPR report) that tricks “other proteins in the brain to twist like it, damaging the brain’s cerebellum. Researchers compared it to Dr. Jekyll’s transformation. The last victim of kuru died in 2009.

Whoever is in charge of Sweden’s Public Relations is doing an abysmal job. Unless the new brand is that this small Northern country, obsessed with atheism and political correctness, is now cooler than ever for re-setting all previously known boundaries of “noir.” And madness.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Iowa college ‘accepts’ resignation of Antifa professor who wants to kill all Evangelical Christians & clock Trump with a bat

Amidst the wasteland of Left-infested colleges and universities, a small college in Iowa is standing tall — Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Last Thursday, August 22, 2019, reacting to complaints about an adjunct English professor at Kirkwood Community College, Jeff Klinzman, KCRG TV9 contacted Klinzman. Klinzman told KCRG, “I affirm that I am Antifa,” and said in an email he makes no apology for what he has posted online:

  • On the Facebook page for “Iowa Antifa”, Klinzman posted a litany of far-left statements and conversations, including a threat to “clock” President Trump “with a bat”.
  • On his Facebook page, in 2012 Klinzman stated his desire to “stop evangelical Christians,” including a poem that said, “Kill them all and bury them deep in the ground“. because of what “what evangelical Christians are doing to this county and its people fills me with rage, and a desire to exact revenge.”

The Secret Service told KCRG they are aware of Klinzman’s social media posts but would not confirm if they are investigating it as a threat to President Trump.

Klinzman has since scrubbed much of his Facebook page, including the post calling for killing all Evangelical Christians. But Klinzman still lists his “likes” for far-left organizations, including, “Antifa Nebraska,” “Heartland Antifascists,” “Antifascist USA,” “Iowa Antifa,” “Iowa City Democratic Socialists of America,” and “U.S. Democratic Socialists.”

Kirkwood Community College acted swiftly.

On August 23, a day after the KCRG report, Kirkwood Community College President Lori Sundberg released a statement saying that the college had accepted Jeff Klinzman’s resignation:

As you may be aware, it has come to light that Jeff Klinzman, an adjunct professor in our English Department, has received criticism for opinions he has expressed online and in the news media. Some of those opinions were expressed as far back as 2012, while another about the current President of the United States, was made more recently. The news of these opinions has drawn considerable attention from many inside and outside of the Kirkwood community just as we embark on a new school year.

Kirkwood Community College leadership has been assessing this matter in recent days, especially its potential impact on our learning environment.

With the safety of our students, faculty and staff as our top concern, we made the decision this morning to identify an instructor who will take over the one course that Mr. Klinzman was to have taught this semester. We have spoken with Mr. Klinzman this afternoon about this matter and have accepted his resignation.

I understand that our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom may be supported by some and criticized by others. I also understand that in today’s climate, some may use this decision to support broader arguments about free speech on college campuses. That’s why I want to be very clear with you the reasoning behind this decision.

It is Kirkwood leadership’s assessment that the attention this matter has garnered has the potential to create an environment that is disruptive to our mission. Our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom has nothing to do with the substance of his views or his right to express them. Rather, our decision is based solely on our commitment to fostering a safe learning environment for our students, faculty and staff.

I also want to be clear that Kirkwood Community College fully supports Mr. Klinzman’s right to articulate his views in whatever forum he chooses. This action does not in any way prevent him from continuing to engage in the expression of free speech. However, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy, or hampers our ability to deliver on our mission, we will always do what is necessary in service to our students’ pursuit of a higher education.

Campus Reform points out that in her statement, President Sundberg’s reference to “our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom” suggests Klinzman’s resignation was not voluntary. Indeed, The Iowa Standard reports that “According to a comment left on a post by Iowa Antifa, former Kirkwood Community College professor Jeff Klinzman said he resigned at Kirkwood’s request.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Yale U. professor: Darwinian theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of species

In a recent article published in the Spring 2019 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, David Gelernter, professor of computer science at Yale University, maintains that the Darwinian theory of evolution is not just accepted as “settled truth,” it is “the basis of a worldview” and a “replacement religion”.

The problem is this: Although called a “theory,” Darwinism is not a scientific theory because it neither predicts nor explains what it means to explain, which is the actual origin of species, because:

  1. Darwinian evolution is “gradual, step by step” as new life forms evolve gradually from old ones “in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life.” However, fossils of those predecessors of new life forms cannot be found. Instead, the fossil record shows the opposite: “In general, most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” During the Cambrian explosion of around half a billion years ago, for example, the fossil record shows that a striking variety of new organisms — including the first-ever animals — just “popped up suddenly”.
  2. At the molecular biology level, according to Darwinism, evolution is the consequence, over millions of years, of small good-for-survival (“natural selection”) mutations to genetic information within cells which are passed on to the next generation(s), thus changing the future of the species. Inventing a new gene by mutation requires inventing or creating a new protein. But it has been calculated that the mathematical odds of creating a new protein stable enough to be useful are zero, which means that the odds of producing “a single promising mutation in the whole history of life” is also zero. 

Gelernter concludes that “The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer.” That intelligent designer did not act just once, but “interferes repeatedly,” which suggests (what Thomas Aquinas called) “the first cause” must have a purpose — “some sense of the big picture of life on earth.”

David Gelernter

Below are excerpts from Gelernter’s essay, “Giving Up Darwinism“:

Darwinian evolution is . . . basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?

Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true….

Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection . . . conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years….

Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer…. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.) … [but]  never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way….

Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one….

Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.

Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated…. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.

But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting—and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.

The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla—the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others—take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up.

Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces…. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms…many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved—but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion.

This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified….

Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology. There was no such thing in his own time. We now see from inside what he could only see from outside….

Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp…variation occurs naturally among individuals of the same type—white or black sheep…. A sheep born with extra-warm wool will presumably do better at surviving a rough Scottish winter than his normal-wooled friends. Such a sheep would be more likely than normal sheep to live long enough to mate, and pass on its superior trait to the next generation. Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species….

[M]olecular biology…explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career….

But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it. Only if… Darwinian evolution is creative enough to do that is it capable of creating new life-forms and pushing evolution forward….

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene…. Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA….

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon…. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution….

Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge…. He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words…The odds bury you. It can’t be done…. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses….

You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?….

There are many other problems besides proteins. One of the most basic, and the last I’ll mention here, calls into question the whole idea of gene mutations driving macro-evolution—the emergence of new forms of organism, versus mere variation on existing forms.

To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young….

Meyer explains: “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.”….

Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal….

The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer…now that we understand so much cellular biology, and the impossibly long odds facing any attempt to design proteins by chance, or assemble the regulatory mechanisms that control the life cycle of a cell….

If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

NeoMcCarthyism: University of California has a new ‘diversity’ political test for faculty hires and promotion

In 1950, the California Legislature created a McCarthyite Committee on Un-American Activities and enacted the Levering Act, requiring all state employees to sign “loyalty oaths” but specifically aimed at the University of California’s faculty. 31 tenured professors were fired for refusing to sign it.

In 1967, California’s Supreme Court voted 6-1 declaring the Levering Act to be unconstitutional.

Fast forward 52 years.

Now it is the Left who are engaged in the same McCarthyism that they decry. The unconstitutional Levering Act has returned in a new University of California (UC) policy requiring new faculty hires as well as applicants for promotion to pass a political test of the Left.

Dan Walters writes in CalMatters.org, July 30, 2019, that although UC’s Board of Regents officially declares that “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee,” a new UC policy is doing exactly that.

As part of its “commitment to diversity and excellence,” UC’s administrators are telling recruiters for faculty positions to take “pro-active steps to seek out candidates committed to diversity, equity and inclusion.” Applicants for new faculty employment and promotions must submit “diversity statements” that will be scored “with rubrics provided by Academic Affairs”. Only applicants who achieve a scoring cutoff will be be considered.

To illustrate, the academic affairs department at UC-Davis says that diversity statements from tenure-track faculty applicants should have “an accomplished track record…of teaching, research or service activities addressing the needs of African-American, Latino, Chicano, Hispanic and Native American students or communities.” Their statements must “indicate awareness” of those communities and “the negative consequences of underutilization” and “provide a clearly articulated vision” of how their work at UC-Davis would advance diversity policies.

Jeffrey Flier, former director of the Harvard Medical School, is among the respected academics who see the inherent contradictions and perils in UC’s new political litmus test. Flier wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

As a supporter of the original goals of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, my skepticism toward this policy surprised a number of friends and colleagues. But it is entirely inappropriate to require diversity statements in the process of appointment and promotion. Such requirements risk introducing a political litmus test into faculty hiring and reviews.

It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that politically influenced attestations might begin to re-emerge in the current hyperpartisan political environment, either in response to politically driven demands for faculty to support populist or nationalist ideas, or from within the increasingly polarized academy itself. Since progressive/left identifications are dominant in the academy, especially in the humanities and social sciences (as well as in administration), politically influenced litmus tests could easily arise in that sphere.

Ironically, given its already overwhelmingly liberal faculty, University of California’s new “diversity” litmus test would only make the faculty even less ideologically diverse and more totalitarian.

H/t California Political Review

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Colorado State U. language guide: America, American, male, female among words to avoid

The Left’s language police is busy in taxpayer-funded Colorado State University, in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Ethan Cai reports for Campus Reform, July 17, 2019, that the Inclusive Communications Task Force of Colorado State University (CSU) compiled an  Inclusive Language Guide, listing a slew of words and phrases to avoid, and appropriate replacements. The ostensible purpose of the guide is to help “communicators practice inclusive language and [help] everyone on [its] campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.”

CSU denied that the Inclusive Language Guide is an official policy, required practice, political correctness, or grammar policing, but claims the Guide is merely “intended as a resource to help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community, particularly inclusion, respect, and social justice” and to help “everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.”

Below are some “non-inclusive” words to avoid:

  • “America” and “American”: The guide claims that since America is more than just the United States, referring to the U.S. as America “erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.” The CSU guide suggests using “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” instead of “American(s)”.
  • Gendered words and phrases to avoid include “male”, “female”, “ladies” and “gentlemen”, “Mr./Mrs./Ms.”.
  • “Straight”: According to the CSU language guide, the term “straight” when used to describe heterosexuals “implies that anyone LGBT is ‘crooked’ or not normal”.
  • The term “normal person” should be avoided because it “implies that ‘other’ people… are not whole or regular people.”
  • “Handicap parking” should also not be used because it offends disabled people by “minimizing personhood”. Instead of “handicap parking,” use the term “accessible parking”.
  • Other offensive words and phrases to avoid are “war”,  “cake walk”, “eenie meenie miney moe”, “Eskimo”, “freshman”, “hip hip hooray!”, “hold down the fort”, “starving” and “policeman”.

Aaron Allen, a third-year student at CSU, said: “What about the term ‘African-American’? Should I not use that term to describe myself?”

Azhar Majeed, spokesman for the free speech advocacy nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Campus Reform that while “it is possible that the speech of some students will be chilled if they are confused into thinking that the document represents official policy of the university . . . I think it would be unlikely that any student carefully reading the guide would be mistaken and led to believe they could face disciplinary action for their speech.”

If we go by precedents, despite Majeed’s assurance, CSU students have every reason to fear there would be “disciplinary” consequences if they refuse to abide by the Inclusive Language Guide. See:

Indeed, Nicole Neily, president of Speech First, points out that “even though these guidelines are suggested and not mandatory, they place students in the uncomfortable position of reciting politically correct talking points that they may not agree with. Words like ‘American,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ are used every day by billions of people around the world. When these students graduate, they’re in for a rude awakening!”

In a statement to Campus Reform, CSU spokesman Mike Hooker said:

The version that Campus Reform, the Collegian, and one of our employees have shared online was a preliminary draft that was still under construction/revision back in October when the student newspaper posted it, and the language in question was removed before the document was finalized and released in January by the people who wrote it. Attached is the final version of this guide which was created as a resource for members of the CSU staff who had specifically requested this guidance. The old (October) link from the Collegian which you have in your original story from Wednesday was the preliminary draft that was still under discussion among internal members of the involved group.  The preliminary draft was also posted by a CSU employee for discussion purposes back in the fall (not the final attached here that the people working on it eventually agreed on in January) and it never got taken down.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error131
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0