Watch the press conference to announce Groves’ clash with Johnson

first_imgHammersmith’s unbeaten super-middleweight George Groves, his manager and trainer Adam Booth, and promoter Frank Warren, announce a fight against former world champion Glen Johnson at ExCel London on 15 December.Video courtesy of iFilm London.See also:Groves to face former champion JohnsonGroves believes he can stop JohnsonFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img

Hairy Science: Do Beards Evolve?

first_imgNoting shifting fashions in men’s facial hair, some evolutionists are trying to link them to Darwinism.It’s not controversial that beards go in and out of style; they’re hip now, but may be on the way out.  What should make men twirl their mustaches is the notion that their morning soliloquy, “To shave or not to shave,” is an evolutionary force acting on them, making them pawns of unguided natural processes.No less than Science Magazine bought into this idea, along with the BBC News (“Beard Trend Is Guided by Evolution“) and Medical Xpress.  According to some evolutionary biologists who did some attractiveness surveys with a limited number of participants in Australia, beards are seen as more sexy and attractive when they are the exception, not the rule, and vice versa for the clean-shaven.  To put this in Darwinspeak, Science Magazine said,This mechanism, called negative frequency-dependent selection, is one explanation for how diversity is maintained in populations despite natural selection constantly filtering for the fittest set of traits.Facial hair is a trickier trait to explain than wings or fins, because rather than being determined early in life by genes, it is determined by behavior. In the case of beards, it is the decision to shave or not to shave. But the same logic can apply if the behavior has an influence on the choice of potential mates.In other words, the behavior is not an intelligent choice by men, but a mindless matter of selection and population genetics.  Apparently, Zinnia Janif, an evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales who led the survey, did not check to see if the attractive ones actually had more offspring.If “the same logic can apply” to beard-choice behavior, the same Darwinian logic (pardon the oxymoron) can apply to evolutionary storytelling.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  Let’s ask Zinnia if she wrote her paper to try to get a guy and pass on her genes.Todd Friel had a laugh at this Wretched idea.  “Who pays these people?” he asks.This is a classic example of the shallow logic of evolutionary biologists who try to legitimize their existence by inserting their insipid notions into everything in life.  For one thing, there are beards, and there are beards.  Some look awesome (movie stars, ball players) and some broadcast negligence (street bums).  The diversity of beardliness (stubble to knee-length, mustache, ham chops, sideburns, love patch) can have vastly different influences on viewer preferences, depending on who is being surveyed.  There are also ethnic differences and cultural traditions.  You can’t take 37 men from Australia and generalize reactions of a limited number of survey participants to the world.  Besides, doesn’t every trend work this way?  Something becomes popular till it is commonplace, then trendsetters branch out for something new.  This happens by design when mindful people exercise choice.  It is not evolution.Ms Zinnia forgets that many men grow facial hair for their own satisfaction, not to attract mates.  Not a few start them well after marriage, so it often has nothing to do with courting women.  Even if it does in some cases, that has no necessary relationship to number of viable offspring; families of all sizes will continue to pass on beard genes to their sons long after beards cycle in and out of fashion several times.  Darwinism explains nothing about this.  And why stop at beards?  Fingernails grow on men and women; some women grow them long (and some men, like in India).  Eyelashes, toenails, women’s head hair, body fat, musculature, body hair, breasts, ear lobes, you name it – any human trait can be subjected to the Darwinist storytelling game.Darwinism is like communism.  Communists interpreted every observation, including opposite outcomes, in terms of class struggle and economic determinism.  Scientifically, such paradigm-driven opinions are worthless because they are self-refuting; why not accuse Marx of writing his theory not because he thought it was true, but because class struggle and economic determinism forced him to?  Like communism, Darwinism pretends to explain opposite outcomes with the same forces.  Evolutionary biologists explain, with equal ease, why beards are popular and unpopular.  Have they explained anything?  Not only is their sample size pitifully small, their conclusions are mindless and illogical.  Darwinists pretend to offer insight that is as insubstantial as shaving cream.Adult males (including Charlie D who grew his Moses-like beard long after writing The Origin and fathering his children) choose to do with their natural endowments what they wish, by intelligent design.  They should turn on the storytellers, and proclaim, “If you think my facial hair choice is a result of mindless unguided processes, then I assert that your Darwinian storytelling is no less.”If you are a religious man, you can be sure that God put those genes in you for a reason.  He must have designed them to give the mature man a distinctive look.  AIG’s Creation Museum rightly portrays the first man, Adam, as bearded.  Why scrape that manly attribute off?  It not only distinguishes men from women, but separates the men from the boys.  Save five minutes a day and sleep in; let those little hairs out; they need air!  Of course, factors like what is permitted at work, and your spouse’s preference, must be taken into account before you go for the Duck Dynasty look.  Whatever your choice, we need to unclutter our minds of Darwinian notions, whether man or woman, or young or old, and strive to “glorify God in your body” (I Corinthians 6:19-20).  (Item: Jesus wore a beard.)(Visited 74 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Genomics Shows Evolutionary Theory Is Baseless

first_imgHumpty Darwin sits on a wall of foam bricks held together by decayed mortar. Cartoon by Brett Miller commissioned for CEH. All rights reserved.(Visited 747 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 New Study Reveals Evolution Does Not Have a Weak Foundation: It Has NO Jerry Bergman, PhDA new review article by Vivian Callier in Quanta Magazine reveals that evolution does not have a weak foundation: It has no foundation.[1] The subtitle summarizes the dilemma evolutionists are in: “For 50 years, evolutionary theory has emphasized the importance of neutral mutations over adaptive ones in DNA. Real genomic data challenge that assumption.” Classical Darwinian or “Adaptationist” EvolutionismIn a nutshell, evolution theory has historically postulated that the source of genetic variety is created by genetic mutations which in turn are selected by natural selection. Improvements in a life-form that enable it to out-compete other life forms are more likely to survive and out-produce its competitors, thus maintaining or improving its position in its ecological niche. Those life-forms that are less able to compete are more apt to go extinct. This is the source of the expression, ‘survival of the fittest.’ As explained by Darwin, whosecore insight was that organisms with disadvantageous traits would slowly be weeded out through negative (or purifying) selection, while those with advantageous features would reproduce more often and pass those features on to the next generation (positive selection). Selection would help to spread and refine those valuable traits. For most of the first half of the 20th century, population geneticists largely attributed genetic differences between populations and species to adaptation through positive selection.[2]Then, as more research was completed, it was realized this straightforward core of evolution was contradicted by much contrary evidence. One problem has always been the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, or nearly neutral. Mildly-deleterious or near-neutral mutations individually cause only minor or no problems, but they add up, in time producing genetic meltdown, causing death and eventually extinction.[3]Neutral Theory to the RescueOne major proposed solution was neutral mutation theory. This proposed that evolution is caused by mutations that are not deleterious, nor are they near neutral, but fully neutral, meaning they have no effect on the organism. When enough mutations have occurred to provide a beneficial effect, then and only then are they selected.[4] The idea was first proposed by the eminent Japanese population geneticist Motoo Kimura in 1968. He concluded that most mutations were “neutral in effect rather than beneficial or harmful, and that shifts in the frequency of these neutral mutations dominated evolutionary change at the genomic level…. [and] an ‘appreciable fraction’ of the genetic variation within and between species is the result of genetic drift — that is, the effects of randomness in a finite population — rather than natural selection, and that most of these differences have no functional consequences for survival and reproduction.”[5] This four-fold conclusion was based on the assumption that most DNA was useless junk as was widely believed then.a more comprehensive theory of molecular evolution must be sought.Genetic drift, according to the Kimura model, is the change in the frequency of an existing gene variant (an allele) in a population due to random factors. In a diagram comparing the competing models of evolution, genetic drift is described as being caused by the mutation number which “rises or falls in frequency through chance alone.”[6] The result is that genetic drift may cause some gene variants to disappear completely, reducing genetic variation, or genetic drift can also cause rare alleles to become much more common, even fixed, in the genome.[7] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a major role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces.Neutral Theory vs GenomicsA review of the literature illustrates some of the many problems with this idea. The most obvious is how importantly the theory relies on chance in the evolutionary process. Classical evolution theory at least appears plausible because it is not evolution by chance, but if a genetic change improves survivability—even if only slightly—it will improve the likelihood that the organism can better compete in the natural world. In short, as described in Darwinian terms, fitness increases by natural selection. The problems with genetic drift are the natural-world factors of order, design, and constraints. Deviation from these constraints, even slightly, causes disease or problems. Randomness plays a part in Darwinism, but a very small part.[8] As Callier notedWhen Charles Darwin articulated his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species in 1859, he focused on adaptations — the changes that enable organisms to survive in new or changing environments. Selection for favorable adaptations, he suggested, allowed ancient ancestral forms to gradually diversify into countless species.[9]Callier adds the adaptation concept was so powerful that it was easy to concludeevolution is all about adaptation. So …  for half a century, a prevailing view in scholarly circles has been that it’s not…. [how] most evolutionary changes appear at the level of the genome and are essentially random and neutral. Adaptive changes groomed by natural selection might indeed sculpt a fin into a primitive foot, they said, but those changes make only a small contribution to the evolutionary process, in which the composition of DNA varies most often without any real consequences.[10]They were judged as essentially neutral because many of an organism’s traits are not critical for survival, but are part of the enormous variety existing in the natural world which do not appear to confer a clear survival advantage to the organism, such the enormous coloration variety and intricate detail of many insects.Problems with Genetic DriftThe many major problems with neutral theory and random drift soon became very obvious. These include (1) chance is centrally based on a non-negotiable belief in evolution, and (2) the theory is unconstrained by solid evidence but rather is the result of an attempt to reason out how life could possibly have evolved based on a few firmly established facts such as the enormous amount of variety existing in life. Another problem (3) was, we now know that most all of the genes in humans, and other life-forms as well, had some function, often regulation, as indicated by the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Project. This project determined that more than 80 percent of this non-coding component of the genome, which was once considered “junk DNA,” actually has important roles in regulating the activity of particular genes. Therefore, many, if not most, mutations are not neutral, but at the least slightly deleterious.[11]Callier explains that some evolutionists recognize the serious problem of giving chance a central role in neutral theory, noting thatgenomes show much more evidence of evolved adaptation than the theory would dictate. This debate is important because it affects our understanding of the mechanisms that generate biodiversity, our inferences about how the sizes of natural populations have changed over time and our ability to reconstruct the evolutionary history of species (including our own). What lies in the future might be a new era that draws from the best of neutral theory while also recognizing the real, empirically supported influence of selection.[12]Professor Rebekah Rogers, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, explained the situation among evolutionists this way: “Any time you have limited data, the arguments get really fierce.”[13] Until recently, no way existed to broadly prove or disprove neutral theory and genetic drift except on theoretical grounds. Now that sequencing technology and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have become widely available, gene sequence data has overflowed from our genetic labs. The result of inexpensive genome sequencing is the “explanatory power of the neutral theory looks even worse.”[14] Because of its simplistic explanation, researchers used the neutral model as a convenient default explanation for the patterns of genetic variation that they observed in the natural world, but it can only explain trivial details like eye color, but not the evolution of body organs. It is inconceivable that a heart or lung, each requiring scores of complex genes, could ever evolve by genetic drift.As a result of the problems with genetic drift, many evolutionists are returning to adaptationist theory they had rejected for good reasons. Problems with adaptationism had motivated the development and acceptance of neutral theory becauseaffordable genomic sequencing and sophisticated statistical methods are allowing evolutionary theorists to make headway on quantifying the contribution of adaptive variation and neutral evolution to species differences. In species like humans and fruit flies, the data have revealed extensive selection and adaptation, which has led to strong pushback against Kimura’s original idea.As Kern and Hahn wrote in their recent article “The ubiquity of adaptive variation both within and between species means that a more comprehensive theory of molecular evolution must be sought.”[15] In short, Darwinists don’t have a foundational theory of evolution.One fruitful area of mutational study is cancer. Cancer cells are rife with mutations, and although only a small subset of those mutations are important in causing cancer, they do help us to understand mutations, and especially the commonality of patterns such as hot spots and trends, such as the conversion of the genetic base G to T is a far more common mutation than T to G.[16] This information will, the evidence so far indicates, destroy both neutral theory as well as evolution based on mutations according to the fact that mutations as a whole tend to degrade the genome and not improve it.[17]References[1] Viviane Callier, 2019. Quanta Magazine. Theorists Debate How ‘Neutral’ Evolution Really Is.[2] Callier, 2019.[3] John Sanford, 2014. Genetic Entropy, 4th Edition. New York, NY: FMS Publications.[4] Jerry Bergman, 2019. Neutral Theory of Evolution Debunked. Elaborating on Michael Behe’s refutation of “neutral evolution,” March 2.[5] Callier, 2019.[6] Callier, 2019. Chart by Lucy Reading, titled Competing Models of Molecular Evolution.[7] B. Star and H. Spencer, 2013. “Effects of genetic drift and gene flow on the selective maintenance of genetic variation.” Genetics, 194 (1): 235–244, May.[8] Jeffrey  P. Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, 2017. Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—A Synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm. Journal of Creation, 31(3):94-102.[9] Callier, 2019.[10] Callier, 2019.[11] E. A. Feingold, et al., 2004. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project. Science, 306(5696): 636-640. October 22.[12] Callier, 2019.[13] The Evolutionary Importance of Neutral vs. Adaptive Genes.[14] Callier, 2019.[15] Heather Rowe and Sudhir Kumar (Editors), 2018. Celebrating 50 years of the Neutral Theory. Molecular Biology and Evolution.[16] Vincent L. Cannataro, Stephen G. Gaffney, and Jeffrey P. Townsend, 2018. Effect Sizes of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(11): 1171–1177, November.[17] John Sanford, 2014.Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.last_img read more

Nebraska wind farms sue to enforce contract and keep utility from flying off into the sunset

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, Ohio State University Extension Agricultural & Resource Law ProgramThree Nebraska windfarms in a power supply contract with the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) have filed suit to prevent the utility from backing out of the contract.  The wind farms filed a complaint in federal court in Nebraska on Jan. 30, alleging that NPPD expressed its intention to terminate a power purchase agreement, and that doing so would be wrongful.The complaint explains NPPD’s position that the wind farms materially violated the contract by investing in other businesses and operations.  The plaintiffs disagree that there was a breach, but say that even if there was, NPPD cannot terminate the contract because it knew of the transactions.  The plaintiffs also note that NPPD has eminent domain power.They argue that by terminating the contract, NPPD knows that the wind farms will likely enter default with creditors.  This could allow NPPD to acquire the rights of the wind farms through a foreclosure sale or eminent domain.  To prevent NPPD from terminating the contract, the parties requested, and were granted, a temporary restraining order until March 1st that requires NPPD to honor the contract.  The case is cited as Laredo Ridge Wind, LLC v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., No. 8:19-cv-45 (D. Neb.).last_img read more