The Left Doesn't Understand Economics

 Don't remember who burt someone I heard recently quoted Milton Friedman, popular economist a few decades agao, on the subject of inflation saying that it is caused by only one thing and nothing else, which is government spending and the printing of money to cover it.  Period.  of course Democrats don't like friedman and prefer their own economic opinions which of course are going to bury the country 

in their inflationary excesses.

and then Kamala blames big corporations like the big food chains for price goucghing and promises to bring that to an end.  But they aren't price gouging, they are barely keeping afloat on this tidal wave of inflation that her own administration has let loose on the country.   If they have to bring their prices down any more they could go out of business and many no doubt will.

Friendman also criticized the minimum age as hurting young black people just entering the work force because businesses can't afford to pay high wages and cut back on their employees when forced to pay them, and are not going to hire anyone for the menial staring positions at such high wages that they would otherwise offer young people just starting out.    Liberals are just irrational about economics but very aggressive oabout it at the same time.

Tjeu a;sp tjoml tje wea;tjoest [ep[;e are mpt [auonmg tjeor faor   they also think that the welathiest people ar enot paying their fair share as they say ofver and over and over again, but the highest income bracket pays forty percent, which sounds pretty outrageous as a percentage of income to pay in taes to eme.  They earned their wealth so why aren't they allowed to do with it as they please?   Decomracts don't like tletting them have such control over their own money.  

but when ty do have control over it, such as wehn their tazxes are reduced they contribute a ctgreat deal to the welath of the nation as a whole, explanding business, hiring more employees, raising wages among other things and this increases the tax revenue overall , sometimes even doubling it as I understand was the case under Reagan.  

But liberals have no clue.

I keep forgetting the numbers but the upper incoeme brackets contribute more than half of the taxes already, and the lowest income bracket pays no taxes at all but even gets money backfrom the government.  I'd say the rich are paying their fair share at leas, and anyway if you tax them more they are just going to leave the country and we'll get no tax money from them at all.

Rapture and Other End Times Questions I have

 This will be pretty cryptic I'm afraid, because I don't feel I understande these things well enough despite years of trying, to make any kind of flat statement about it.  I know I don't agree with teh pre trib people about the erevelation of the Antichrist and the timing of the great falling away since I believe the Protestant Reofrmers definitively identified both and they are both in the past.  But as for the Rapture and other elements of the end times scenario I just don't have any truly clear idea bout any of it.  But the pre trib people do have a very very definite idea which they will lay out quite glibly whenever asked.  

Among other things  I just want to say that they are extremely definite about two things I don't think warrant such certainty:  The Blessed Hope and the Wrath to Come.  I think both of these concepts are open to other interpretations than their.  

And that's all I'm going to say.

Well, just the one thing that I'm not a preterist overall, nor a n amillennialist at all, and I do fvor the pre trib view  generlally I just have alot of qustions about it that never seem to get answered.  

Just Like today's Politicians, on the Left Anyway, Evolutionists Just Make up Stuff to suit their opinion or ideology and call it fact or truth.

Sometimes I can capture a URL and sometimes I can't.  I hope what I've posted at the bottom of this post is the one I want to write about, which is a presentation of chromosomes.  The main reason I want to talk about it is that the narratore says that the DNA is made up of mutationsa because as I've been saying in other present posts can't possibly be true.  

The eason I want to talk about this presentation is thta it's one of the place where DNA is described as having originated from mutations, which I've been saying in recent posts is impossible.  

And it' a typical example of myh claim that theyh don't supply evidence for such statements, they just assert them as if they are fct and even call them fact after they've admitted they can't really be evidenced as fact.

I h  It has to have been brought about my mutations becaue their theory of evoludion requires it, period, not because there is a shred of evidence that it's true.

All the supposed evidence for evolutionary theory is of this sort, assumptions anhd speculations and at best bare plausibilities declared to be facts, and often on the bais that the whole shebang is so clearly factual that this part mut be as well, despite the fact that the whole shebang has been turned into tfacts by the same sort of alchemy.

Dawkin in is talk that I managed to link to in the last bpost  says the usual stuff about how junk DNA as well as vestigial organs are proof of evolution that creationists or intelligent design proponents can't answer.  But as I say elsewhere he's qutie wrong and I've answered both many times in the past, at EvC forum and on ly blogs and even recently.  IF evolution were true then junk DNA might be  the genes of former species on the path to the current species, but that depends on evolution being true which it is now.  Junk DNA fits far better with the fact that this is a fallen world in which disease and death reign and mutations are  one of its intstruments, killin off strengths once possessed by the orgnism before the Fall.  Mutation being a death dealing weapon.s

Vestigianl organs are likewise  most probably remnants of formerly functioning organis  from before the Fall, in the original Creation.

Their bigest mistake, however, is in appropriating the ubuilt in variations of the species genome as evidence of evolutioh though there is no way they could ever  even be able to get a clue about how it could change to do something other than what the genome is obviously designed to do, built that particular creature and only that particular creature and through its system of genes composed of two alleles or variations on its traits, such as red or pink flowers a la Mendel, the creature may be found in many wonderful variations that are never anything but variations on that creature as shown by a million observations.

 ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IePMXxQ-KWY

NOTE:  I really do have "gremlines" here a it were.  This time I very very carefully tuped "vestigial with an L L L L L not an n, but the gremlin wrong n.  

The gremlin also just now wrote wrote wrote "rwrong" where I had very careful;ly written "wrote.

They Have No Idea

 They are voting for the descruction of America though they may not even notice for a while.  Eventually it should hit even them pretty hard and I suppose they'll be too confused to attribute it to the right caue because they've been laboring under lies for so long now.  Half the country is voting for lies and will bring us the destruction of the Great Experiment that was once America and replace it with totalitarianism in which a few at the top rule a nation of beggards.   They have no idea becaue they really do believe the lies, about Trump, about America, about conservativves.  We're going down under an avanlanche of lies.  I think that is how it is going to play out.  Sad to say I really think this.  Oh I'll vote for the good tuyes and for the truth and I know my half of the country will do the same.  But I don't think we are going to win.  Every work d out of Kama's mouth is a lie.  It's really amazing.  I haven't heard one word of trueth from her yet.  it's all pretending to be something she isn't, to hold views she doesn't hold, and to smear her opponent with lies that are really truths about her own ideological fellows.   

O dpm

t tjoml a,eroca wo;; cpmtomie om tjat cpmdotopm fpr veru ;pmg at ;east becaise tjat lomd pf destrictopm jera;ds tje veru ;ast daus amd tjat

s gpt tp be wjat

s mext pm tje agemda/  

Mutation, Schmutation

OK, now I've found many sources of this wacky idea that all variations are caued by mutations.  I'd heard it many times at EvC forum but it's so ludicrous I guess I just let myself forget it as I went on to work out my own fviews.  

This is again one of those weird situations where science thinks it's talkinga bout something scientific or factual when it's nothing but a totally made up imaginative contstruct without a shred of fact behind it.  There is no way that mutations created the DNA, created genes, bring about new variations such as I just saw claimed in differences in beak type.  It's impossible because of the nature of mtuations which surelyh they know perfectly well.  The percentage of what they think of as geneficial muatations is something like point oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh one.  We have thousands of genetic diseases and most observed utations are neutral, that is, they produce no change in the protein the gene codes for, or its resutltant trait in the phenotype.  

But theycli it anyway, in fact they speaqk of it as if it's a known fact.  Reminds me of some political stuff we're seeing all the time these days.  You like the idea therefore it's true, and you really don't knnneed any actual evidence for anyof it.  

I guess Ian't prove alleles are not produced by mtuations, all I can do is point out that the allele is simply there and the cause of it is assumed, never actually seen, unless it's a genetic diseae causing mutation or a nyeutral one.    

So all I can do is make my own counter claim which is that each gene is made up of two alleles and this is chte cause of all the variation we see in cretures.  

Of courseey need mjutation because hey need an explanation for how DNA got here in the first place whereas I see the DNA as created intact from the beginning, and the variations based on the fact that each gene has two variant forms or alleles.   That's the way it was made in the first place.  All mutations do is destroy, create junk DNA for instance, or make the kind of change that produces disease in the organism.  

Guess I can't prove it, can I?  Oh well.

Dawkins Unsettles Me Momentarily but I Recover

 Thanks to this talk by Dawkins that I just wrote about below I've now been disabused of my silly idea that I could ever convince anyone of anything against evolution.  I now see what aso astonishes me as actually what they bvbelieve.  they really do think that what is nothing but variation that is built into the genome of a species is evolution.  this is insane but that's what they believe.  it is hard to believe, maybe just because I've become so used to my own thinking about all this and forgot twhat they think for so long it now hits me as a brand new absurdity.   

They also think that utations are needed to bring about the changes that occur.  Sure you'd need something like mutations to get from one Species to another but they arenot needed to get all the variation that is possible within the genome already.  quite dramatic variations are possible from the genome in some cases anyway, certainly the dog genome.  The genome alone without mutations codes for every kind of dog there is, from the smalledst to the biggest, the baldest to the fluffiest, with every kind of tempaerament too.  I really do think this ought to be obvious but I guess it isn't.  if Coyne can actually say that the diference between the wolf and the chihuahua proves evolution all I can do is take Tylenol for my headache and try not to get too upset about it.

Well, waita minute here.  Let's not give up too soon.  it's still true that you run aup against the barriers I've been talking about to further variation after a point, that point being the edge of the genome as it were, or the point when there had s been so much inbreeding in solation that the degree of homozygosity in particular and perhaps other genomic changes has cut the new population off permanently from the old as far as reproduction agoes.  Although thte cheetach is neve regarded as having simply evolved to its condition but been catapulgted by a natural bottleneck soewhere in its history, the fact of its genetic situation is that it can't interbreed with any other cat because of the nibmer of fixed or homozygous genes in its genome.  It is stuck at the point I call a barrier where no further "evolution" which is not evolution but merely variation, is possible.   Normal processes of variation, meaning slower ones, if they persist through many reductions of population numbers, will end up at the same place genetically, unable to interbreed with the former populations.  

This istuation is considered to be the point of specieation but that is utterly ridiculous.  It's merely the point where the creature has become a "purebred as it were.  Unfortunately in this fallen world that condition is also fragile, likely to include genetic diseases of various sorts or weaknesses such as the hip problems that some highly bred dogs have.    You could have helathy strong purebreds in the original creation but not in this fallen world which is full of death and disease in inuury of all kinds.

So I guess I can still make my case, challenging the whole shebang all at once as it were.  

And the strata are still not time periods no matter what.

To sum up:  All they are ever talking bout is variation that is coded for by the genes in the genome of a given species and there is no way there could ever be the kind of change within the genome that coulde turn int into the genome of another species.  I defy them to try to shows how that is possible.  As long as they continue to talk about things that are known becaue they happen within the genome they never have to prove their asusmption thta these porcesses coudl actually produce soething different from twhat the genome codes for.  

And again, there are no time periods, there is a stack of enormous thick sedimentary layers that cover whole continents that could never ever ever have been produced by any normal processes in any time frame on this planet EXCEPT in the one trime frame of maybe about a year when they were all laid down sequentially in a humongous Flood.

M

it's the genome that has to change for a the creture to become a different species and ath is simply not possible.  that's what I keep trying to say. All the variations they micscall evolution work smoothly likie clockwork because they are built into the species genome for the purpose of varying that species and only that species.  Mutation is not needed and when it does occur it doesn't improve things, it iether doesn't change anything or it produces a disease.  I 

dAWKINS' nEW bOOK, tHE gENETIC bOOK OF THE dEAD

 vERY CLEVER TITLE i MUST SAY.  i HAVEN'T HEARD HIS TALK YET BUT i GATHER HIS BOOK IS ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT JUNK dna REPRESENTS THE FORMER LIVES OF AN EVOLVED CREATURE.   aS i'VE ARGUED HERE MANY TIMES i BELIEVE JUNK dna REPRESENTS GENES THAT FUNCTIONED WELL IN THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD AND NO DOUBT GAVE THE CREATURE ENORMOUS STRENGTHS OF AMNY KINDS WE CAN HARDLY IMAGINE NOW SINCE WE LACK NINETY FIVE OR MORE PERCENT OF THOSE GENES.  

aNYHWAY i'LL LISTEN TO dAWKINS AND SEE IF HE EXPLAINS HIS BOOK.

lATER.  hERE WE GO.  dAWKINS JUST SAID IN THIS TALK i'M LISTENING TO THAT EVOLUTION IS CHANGE INGENE FREQUENCIES.  aND NATURAL SELECTION IS BIASED CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES, BIASED TOWARD IMPROVELENT.  

wOSW.  he has also been using the term mutation as if it's needed to explain variation, which I don't get either.  What are these people thinking?  None of this makes any sense.  All you need for variation, even some pretty dramatic variations, is isolation of a small portion of a population iwth its new gene frequencies and reproduction emong that group in isolation over enough generations to spread the new gene frequencies through the population, the fewer the founding individuals the shorter the numbe o generations needed to accomplish this change in the character of the population as a whole.

Mutations are n needed and would only contribute a new variation anyway which would be treated as any other allele in the mix.

As for gene frequencies this is all going on in the genome of a given species, this is not evolution that wcould ever become a new species.  if you isolate twenty of any species from the rest of the population so that they inbreed fover some numnber of generations you will bget a new look to the new population of that species.  it's built into the genome for this to happen.  this is not evolution.  This is obvious.

We got all the human races by simple isolation of portions of the human population as they spread out over the earth in times past carraying with them a set of gene frequencies shared among the population as a whole.  You got the blue eyed blonds of the nordics that way, and the Asian features in the far east and the black skin of the Africans and so on and so forther.  There is nothing needed for this to happen other than the isolation of a portion of the whole species over some nuember of generations.  it's guilt into the genome, no mutations are needed and ther is nothing in this process that could lead to a different species.l

I guess I'm native.  It really doesn't seem possible to me that Dawkins or Coyne could actually think that any of this is evolution.  I was shocked when Coyne said that the difference between the wolf and the chihuahua shows evolution.  What are they thinking?  This is nuts.

Well, if you keep calling mere variation "evolution" we're all going to be hopelessly confused, and that's what I think is the case, THEY are hopelessly confused and I'm not going to be able to make a dent in any of that.  Sigh.  He acrtually gives an example of how a guppy is brightly colored when not subjected to a predator but loseds its color and becomes drab when there is a predator that eats them.  And the fact that when drab guggies are isolated from predators they become color ful aagain over many generations he calls evolution.  Yikes.  This is cheer craziness.

So ther idea ofevolidence for evolution is really just evidence for uilt in genetic variation, plus the other bogus kind of evidence which is the so called fossil record which is nothing but an imaginative construct without a shred of actual empirical justification.  Sigh.

Not to bother mentioning for the umpteenth time that the sedimentary rocks in which they are fossilized could not possibly ever have been part of a time period of tens of millions of years.  Yes why bother.  

Why Is Darwin’s Idea So Revolutionary? Richard Dawkins Lecture on Natural Selection and More (youtube.com)