Secret Sauce on Your Shirt

By Michael David Rawlings
Related Article

(See links to Labsci-Rawlings debate:  Labsci and I Discuss Evolution, The Debate Continues. . . .)

 

If it's about Labsci's point about the Creationist misuse of the terms "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution" ... your response seems to be little more than obsfuscation.

It is trivial to demonstrate that "microevolution", not "microspeciation" (with or without the hyphen), is the term used extensively in Creationist sites, in rebuttals to these Creationist sites, and in the scientific literature. "microspeciation" is almost nowhere to be found. —secretsauce (author's user name) 

The word is spelled o-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n, no s after the b, and my comment about terms merely went to the Creationist's perspective, and nothing more. You're arguing with phantoms.  I was merely alerting Labsci about the distinction between our perspectives and the subsequent difference in terms. From the theoretical perspective of Darwinism, I'm well aware of the fact that instances of microevolution are but the intermediate and accumulative steps within the larger dynamic of a continuously branching process of microevolutionary speciation. See. I even use your terms.
 

The Debate with Labsci Continues. . . .

By Michael David Rawlings



The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name.  —Labsci

Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory.  There’s really nothing “meshy” about it. Anyone of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.)  Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of “what survives, survives”. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some including the likes of Dawkins to the contrary are nonsense. And that’s problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.

Labsci and I Discuss Evolution

By Michael David Rawlings
Related Article

I appreciate the reasonableness of your tone. The typically sneering attitude that most evolutionists exhibit in the vicinity of those with whom they disagree is tiresome. I prefer the former, and I’m always happy to respond in kind. Moreover, I appreciate the subtle sarcasm of the following:

Sorry, but I agree with her. Except the 99.9%. It's probably just 99%. But I think you get the picture.  —Labsci

Followed by. . . .

Most creationist sites do, in fact, give false information about science, in particular evolution. Claims that micro evolution occurs but macro evolution does not just display[s] an ignorance, rather than dishonesty, about the fact that there is no difference between them apart from the time over which they occur. Many micro evolutionary steps equals macro evolution. Sometimes little physical change is evident, sometimes a lot of change. —Labsci

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is “micro-speciation”, not “micro-evolution”. And while millions of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them ever underwent macroevolution. They remained fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory.

And that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor. That’s all you’re really saying; i.e., you’re merely restating the theory’s fundamental assertion, one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism. It's absurd to call the rejection of these ideas an “error”; they go to the very essence of the dispute.

Some Random Thoughts on Classical Liberalism

By Michael David Rawlings

John Locke (limited government, self-determination, private property, natural law) and Montesquieu (separation of powers, checks and balances) are the preeminent influences on the Founders—especially Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton and John Jay. 

John Locke extrapolated his political theory from Judeo-Christianity's concept of free will.

Jefferson was a Deist who frequented Baptist services for some reason, not an atheist as some claim. 

The overwhelming majority of the Founders were Christians. Adams and Washington were Christians, for example, though Washington's Christianity was apparently influenced by Masonic philosophy.

It is true that most of the more prominent among them were Deists, something out of which dishonest or ignorant leftist ideologues think to make a lot of hay. But it's all nonsense. The sense in which America is a Christian nation goes to the fact that its founding sociopolitical philosophy is derived from the ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, with its unique conception of free will, entailing a negative liberty (individualism), rather than a positive liberty (collectivism, i.e., lefty's agenda).

Though the Founders bickered among themselves, sometimes bitterly, over the extent to which individual liberty should prevail, though some were Deists and some were Christians:  all of them rejected the democratic theory of classical republicanism in favor of constitutional republicanism precisely because the ethical system of the classical Deist of the Enlightenment Era and that of the Christian were one and same:  hence, the sociopolitical philosophy of the classical liberal are one and the same.

Among the Founders preeminent concerns was to protect the Republic against the instability of democratic collectivism's "majoritarianism" (i.e., "mob rule"):  hence, the rule of law, not the rule of men; the rule of the unbridgeable, inherent human rights of life, liberty and the security of private property against an overweening State driven by the mob. Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is merely an eloquent paraphrase of Locke's triadic construct.

The rights of man do not legitimately flow from the State, but are endowed by the Creator. Statism is idolatry, the tragic state of man when he gives himself and his God-given rights over to the collective will. These rights may not be legitimately abridged without creating a state of war with the God of nature and His natural law. Within nature—pre-society—men are free to believe and decide, to dispose of their property as they would within the moral constraints of free will. Men form societies and governing bodies "in order to secure those rights" against the fallen condition of man's beastly inclination to violate the moral constraints of free will.

The only legitimate form of government is that which is erected by the consent of the governed, wherein the fundamental rights of man are protected from those within the body politic who would violate the terms of the social contract (criminals or domestic enemies) and those from without who would destroy the infrastructure of the social contract (foreign invaders).

Hence, the purpose of limited government is to protect the fundamental rights of man, including the protection of private property, which is the foundation of liberty and the bulwark against tyranny. The fundamentals of the sociopolitical philosophy of America's founding are individual liberty, self-determination, the promotion of private enterprise, private religious decision and the free and open practice thereof; freedom of association, freedom of the press. . . .

Leftist academicians and the brainwashed among us (those churned out by an illegitimately collectivized public education system) will tell you that are nation's governing principles were derived from classical paganism. The only thing we take from the Greeks is the basic concept of democratic government, as opposed to monarchism or oligarchy, and the exposition of the three, distinct aspects of government—the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The rest is purely the natural law and the science of government constraint expounded by the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment Era for a stable and just democracy.

Do not be deceived by the statist collectivists of secular humanism. That is the road to tyranny.

Bogeymen

By Michael David Rawlings

 

 

The only things that prevent a world of plenty as they produce a world of hurt are bloated, corrupt governments and the thieves who run them.  —Michael David Rawlings

There's plenty of room and resources on earth to sustain current and future populations. It's not a scarcity of resources that threaten us, but a scarcity of human liberty. In other words, the real threat is the invariably incompetent interference of governments with the management of the production and distribution of resources.

The hysteria over climate change due to carbon emissions is politically driven—a hoax comprised of pseudoscientific blather hastened by government grants.

Of course the hoax is unraveling, increasingly seen for what it is, just like the other hysterias of recent decades came to be known for what they were: the population bomb of the '60s, the global cooling of the '70s (LOL!) and the impending nuclear winter of the '80s, that is to say, President Reagan's determination to end détente with that monstrous paper tiger and bury it with our economic and technological might.

(Leftists will never forgive Reagan for defeating the Soviet Union and demolishing their fabled "perpetual coexistence.")

But real science, commonsense, socioeconomic realities, the true nature of the human condition, the lessons of history and the real motives of those who agonize over the "chaos" of free markets: all these things are lost on the tree huggers, the earth worshipers, those who would reduce the human race (the divine spark) to a pack of beggars.  These are the "enlightened" ones who live in the fantasy world of the zero-sum-gain.  Their heads, full of the mush dispensed by leftist media and academia.

They're idiots.

The fact that the resource-multiplying advances of technology—the essence of food production, for example—are virtually unlimited is lost on them. They are the sheeple following the elites who would dismantle the intellectual and economic infrastructure of these advances.  They are the self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom in the midst of plenty.

Visionless, unimaginative slugs.

The most immediate threat to the West, other than the government policies behind the most immediate threat, is the failure of its indigenous peoples to adequately reproduce themselves, to resupply the human resource needed to sustain their culture, the world's epicenter of scientific, economic and political progress.

The real danger is underpopulation!

More Ice Or Less Doesn’t Matter, It’s All Causing Global Weather Disasters

Delusions and Duplicity

By Michael David Rawlings
 

While not sure, I gather you believe it impossible for the government to remain neutral in matters of religion. I see it differently. A government can refrain from promoting any religion, whether Christianity or any other, without thereby necessarily endorsing secular humanism or, as I've heard others assert, atheism. Though you voice support for the principle of separation of church and state, your argument appears to negate the possibility of separating church and state and suppose instead that we are doomed to a perpetual competition over which religion(s) will enjoy the government's favor. —Doug Indeap, commenting on "Revisions and Divisions"

I'm saying something that has apparently never occurred to you in all your life. Drop the rhetoric. Stop the rote regurgitation of formula.

Think.

Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

By Michael David Rawlings

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework
The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution
A Compendium of the History of Jus Sanguinis
The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories
Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?
A Critique of the Chin Argument
Wong Kim Ark meet Rogers
The Obama Controversy and the Soiler Factor
Citizenship and Nationality: List of Links

Related Works
Who are the Real Conspirators?
A House of Cards: The Case Against the Birther Movement
 

Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles is a series of related articles or chapters. It is strongly recommend that these articles be read in the order listed, as each builds upon the next.

Note:  for those who still do not rightly understand that constitutional, natural-born citizenship is that which is conferred at the moment of birth, observe and learn:  Senator Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, born abroad on Canadian soil of an American Citizen duly qualified to pass her citizenship on to her offspring at birth under the controlling statute at the time of his birth in 1970, i.e., The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 301(a) 7, and Senator Cruz duly retained his natural-born citizenship in accordance with the requirements of Section 301(b) of the same.  Despite any beliefs or insinuations to the contrary, neither the fact of Senator Cruz's Canadian birthright citizenship nor his renunciation of the same has any bearing whatsoever on the nature of his U.S. citizenship or the validity of any presidential aspirations he might have.  The renunciation of his Canadian citizenship relative to constitutional or statutory law is pure political theater.
 

Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework

By Michael David Rawlings

The entire legal structure of the Anglo-American tradition of citizenship and nationality rests on the philosophical construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance.  In accordance with the common-law rules of jus soli ("the law of the soil"), British citizenship was ultimately premised on the soil of the Realm; however, in 1350, the Crown instituted the Roman principle of jus sanguinis ("the law of the bloodline").  All persons sired by natural-born subjects—regardless of where they were born, on the soil of the Realm or abroad—owed their fealty to the Crown and were entitled to its protection from the moment of birth.

The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution

By Michael David Rawlings

The Fifth Clause of Section One, Article Two ("Natural-Born Citizen Clause") of the United States Constitution with its grandfather provision:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Of the two terms universally understood at the time of the drafting of the Constitution to be associated with the construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance, had the Framers intended a more restrictive definition of inherent citizenship, they would have used the term "native born", not "natural born", and the more expansive concept of natural-born citizenship goes back centuries: defined and established by Roman Law, passed down to English and American law.¹ Neither the Constitution nor statute defines the concept; the concept comes down to us defined and understood in legal tradition. Instead, the Constitution establishes the two fundamental classifications of citizenship in American law—natural-born citizenship and naturalized citizenship—by enunciating the fundamental characteristics that divide them—the moment of conferral and presidential eligibility—and statute stipulates the respective terms of acquisition that govern them.

A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis

Organized by Michael David Rawlings

Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II (pg. 103 - 104) of the Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.¹