Neanderthals (Again) And "HumanLike"

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous post I made I May Have Met A Neanderthal Or Two I wrote some points about a BBC article regarding an article claiming our (homo sapien) similarities with Neanderthals. Well, the BBC came out with a follow up (complete with charts and everything) and it turns out the French (of which I am 100% French Canadian ancestry) are among the most closely related to the Neanderthals. So, if they are right, I most often met a Neanderthal when I looked in the mirror. AMAZing! My ex was right?

Life On Other Planets

Posted on by
Reply

I believe Stephen Hawking to be a brilliant man. It was quite a while ago I read his book “A Brief History Of Time” and was totally enthralled by both the subject matter and the authors brilliance in presenting it. He took something that is beyond complex (i.e space and time) and made it so lay people could begin to understand.

He recently came out with a remark that goes beyond science, however, but is still brilliant. He said “”We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.” How true, How true! One does not need to be a “rocket scientist” to figure that out. That remark, to me, speaks to morals and mans’ beliefs, religion, and faith. Mr Hawking presented the same view the Bible presents about mankind.

But he also goes into another area declaring “Aliens almost certainly exist but humans should make every attempt to avoid them, Stephen Hawking has warned.

I want to address the part that says “Aliens almost certainly exists”. I’ll have to assume that he is stating that based on the vastness of the Universe and statistics and probability. But if I may challenge one of the most briliant minds to defend that claim, may I ask if mankind, with all its scientific knowledge, has been able to create even the simplest life form from non-living materials? According to this article from MIT science has failed to do so. The simplestlife forms have yet to be created in a laboratory. How then can he extrapolate  “Aliens almost certainly exist” from a total vaccuum of evidence?And I do mean “total”.

The more logical conclusion is that life was designed by a much, much more highly intelliegent force and mankind (despite its own accalades of its brilliance)  fars far short from being able to build the SIMPLEST of life forms, never mind the more complex ones.

But what we all fail to realize about the question of whether “intelligent” life exist on other planets is that there is a much more important, crucial actually, question that would need to be asked.

IF there were aliens and intelligent life did their species SIN? And, if so, did the Almighty Creator send them a Savior to pay the price for THEIR sin? That, folks, is the question that needs to be asked.

Yuan vs Dollar AGAIN?

Posted on by
Reply

The headline reads … “Chinese President Hu Jintao has resisted pressure from President Obama to raise the value of the Chinese yuan.”

Do the morons clamoring for the Chinese to do that not realize that they (the Chinese) cannot raise the value of the Yuan without the move also lowering the value of the dollar? And the call for this at a time when the dollar is already at dangerously low levels seems to be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

A sudden move down in the value of the dollar could cause massive, wordwide dumping of the dollar to avoid its impending loss of value. I liken this scenario to be something like a mirror image of a bank run. In a typical, depression era bank run people raced to the bank trying to get their dollars OUT. In this game the Obama administration seems to be playing the players wouldn’t want to take their dollars OUT but would want to get RID OF THEM before they lose value.

What would the effect of this massive, worldwide dumping of the dollar be?

1) massive inflation as the sudden release of all those new dollars in circulation (because dollars in Central Banks are not “in circulation chasing products) get absorbed while competing for a finite number of goods and services.

2) a quick and sudden stop of foreign purchases of US debt since the future inflation all but guarantees a financial loss for them doing so OR

2a) a sudden skyrocketing of interest rates as the US government scrambles to meet its commitments and can’t borrow anymore at artificially low rates

3) a combination of both rising interest rates (further dampening the economy)  AND higher prices which, together, is called “stagflation”. The really scary part is that there is such a HUGE number of dollars that those idiots in the world’s central banks have squirreled away (if they had only gotten rid of them when they first got them then none of this would have happened) this will not be no small dose of stagflation.

Nope, it will be mega-stagflation


Evolution – What Is "Human Like"?

Posted on by
Reply

The headlines read “A Human-Like” Fossil discovered and, of course, caught my attention. Briefly, the article makes it sound like the discovery of the proverbially “missing link” but does not come out that pointedly and say that.

While there is a huge diffence between what the general public believes Evolutionary theory is as compared to what the scientific community believes it is, there is a general belief in the idea that there is A (singular) missing link that will be found and will tie it all together.

The article states

A. sediba has a fascinating mix of features – some archaic, some modern.
…
Its small teeth, projecting nose, very advanced pelvis, and long legs throw forward to more modern forms. And yet its very long arms and small brain case might echo the much older Australopithecine group to which Professor Berger and colleagues have assigned it.

There is a principle commonly understood among animal breeders that the larger the number of traits that one selects for, the more difficult and slower the progress towards success in all of them. In other words, if I create a “wish list” that I want a cow that makes 50% more milk, but has excellent feet, excellent udder health, and has small calves I’ve created four criteria and unless a creature excels in ALL of them they may actually hurt in the area that they don’t excel in. So while it is much easier to make progress in one trait it is far more difficult to make progress in all areas.

We can look at the effect of human selection of such things as horses, dogs, swine, poultry etc. There have been tremendous changes affected by INTELLIGENT selection (but not random selection) and breeders have been able to often overcome the challenge of making progress in multiple traits simultaneously.

The problem with the report about the fossil discovery is the relatively large list of differences that the fossil has and that the physical differences (not genetic) become the basis for determining its species. While there are long armed, big toothed, small brained humans they don’t constitute a different species on account of those traits .

Another aspect of the equation is to consider how much potential change can one reasonably expect per generation. While nature certainly throws the occasional mutation the chances of that being the cause of five improvements (as we see it) are slim. Things that affect the probability of anything like that happening are dependent upon the generation interval, how long the time period where the changes have been observed, and the population or gene pool (related to the number of generations).

A farmer with a small herd has fewer opportunities for genetic improvement than a farmer with a larger herd. A farmer slecting for certain traits for a longer period of time could be expected to have made more progress in a certain direction than a farmer doing it for a shorter period of time.

While the discovery of a “human-like” creature may seem like a step towards a “missing link” it can also work the opposite. For example, as stated, to make those genetic changes one would expect large numbers of fossils (many generations) rather than few. Also, placing a date on the new find affects the time left remaining (in the time line graph of Evolution) that is available for the rest of the genetic changes to occur.

As to what is human like we can see that elephants have ears, and humans have ears. I guess it can be said it is up to us, then, to decide if that makes them human like.

75 Minutes In Bejing – Geithner

Posted on by
Reply

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner flew half way around the world for a whopping 75 minutes with China’s Vice-Premier Wang Qishan.

I have written a few posts about this issue and the reports coming out of the BBC still seem to obscure the real problem. The article states as follows:

But it is understood to be part of a long-running dispute over the value of the Chinese yuan, which the US says has been kept artificially low.

The US is trying to persuade China to allow its currency to trade more freely on foreign exchange markets, and there are signs that this will happen.

I would like to ask the BBC this very pointed question and to defend that statement by explaining how, exactly, does China prevent a market like the FOREX currency exchange from dealing or trading the Yuan? I may be a totally clueless, ignorant amateur in world finance so, please, do explain how they could and do manage such a feat?

China is a sovereign power over its own affairs and territory. That territory does not include one of the world’s largest free markets (i.e. the FOREX). The insinuation that China has somehow prevented the FOREX from trading Yuan is, to me, absolutely ungrounded in any truth or reality so on what does the BBC base their claim?

My hunch is they can’t, because it is a baseless assertion. The truth, the real story is that China simply matches the US production of imaginary, Monopoly, out-of-thin air, phoney Federal Reserve Notes and debases its own currency at a pace equal to the US (and the rest of the Western world).

The sad part is that if my hunch is correct then the BBC isn’t performing journalism but is dispensing propaganda and that would be truly disturbing considering the long history and fine reputation of the BBC institution..

China Yuan vs US Dollar

Posted on by
Reply

This BBC article reports how the US Treasury is delaying a report on China’s alleged “manipulation” of the Yuan until after some upcoming high level meetings are held. I’m curious if the delay will put the report before or after our audit of the Federal Reserve is completed?

I guess it is quite easy to defend US monetary policy when the vast amount of that policy is veiled and in the secrecy of the Federal Reserve which even Congressman say is “more secretive than the CIA”. After all, anyone accusing the US of manipulating its currency would need proof which is pretty difficult to get if all the policy decisions are done behind closed doors. But isn’t monetary “policy” and monetary “manipulation” the same thing?

So I say the BBC missed the mark on their reporting. The real story isn’t the Treasury delaying the report as the article tries to make us believe. No, the real story is how can the US manipulate its currency and cry “foul” when another country does the same thing?

The “foul” that the Chinese are accused of is pegging their Yuan to the US dollar. What that basically means is that when we (err the Fed) prints up huge sums of Federal Reserve Notes and debases the value of the dollar the Chines follow suit and print up an equivalent amount to debase the value of it by an equal amount.

So while they still “loan” us those cheaper dollars back when they buy our Treasuries they won’t let us just print money out of thin air to buy their stuff. Any attempts we do along those lines provides them the reason to print up more of their Yuan.

About -What Is A "Christian"

Posted on by
Reply

There was recently a “sting” where the FBI swooped down on militia groups that are reported as being “Christian” and I wanted to make a few points. I want to address the use of the label more than addressing the law enforcement aspects so this has little to do with addressing militias or anything like that.

You can read in the new Testament (in the book of Acts of the Apostles I believe) where it is reported the first use of the label “Christians”. It was a label put on followers of the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus in Greek) by the pagan culture and not they, upon themselves.

Now they didn’t have trademark legislation then so those called “Christians” by the pagans couldn’t have said something like “Hey, that’s a catchy name! Let’s trademark it, brand it and make it our own!”. No, it was not possible so ever since then it has been an “open source” label that anyone could pick up and use and there was no power or authority that would come and say “Hey, that is OUR label and you cannot use it! You must cease and desist.”. No one, unless you look at the pre-reformation Catholic Church in Europe. But there are actually a couple of passages in the New Testament that took place while Yeshua was here in the flesh where the disciples wanted to stop others from mimicking their movement but Yeshua stopped the disciples, not the mimickers.

Now that I pointed out the militia group or anyone else can pick up the label all on their own how is one outside “Christiandom” to view them and/or their use of the label? Are they, indeed, “Christian”? Well, it seems to me that the term implies a certain level of commitment to the teachings of “the teacher” Yeshua. If HE was any kind of “teacher” at all His teachings would be fairly easy to understand wouldn’t they? Otherwise how could He be called “teacher” if no one ever learned? Thus, if one is on the outside of the group they can pick up a New Testament, read what Yeshua taught and did, and then compare it to the group claiming to be a follower of the teacher. My hunch is that the vast majority of those who did the reading and the comparison would be overwhelmingly in agreement that that militia group did NOT follow the teachings of Yeshua nor modelled His life in any way.

That point addresses the use of the term “Christian” by the militia group but how about those who want to use the usurpation of the title to then launch a prejudice against anyone else associated with the label or in their reporting? Well, as stated, I can’t stop anyone from using the label so how can anyone else be prejudicial to me or attach wrongful acts on the label if it is an open-source label?

In fact, there would be a better case to be prejudicial against Republicans and their mental capacity because the Republican Party, who DOES have authority over who uses their label, put a moron in office for 8 years named George Bush. They could have stopped George Bush from claiming to be Republican (or at least a Republican from their party).

As for myself, I prefer to avoid the label as much as possible. If someone doesn’t know Yeshua’s teachings the label has such widespread and varied interpretations there is no telling what meaning it conveys in their mind.

And if you are curious as to why I refer to “Jesus” as Yeshua it is because that is His name. He is 100% Hebrew and received a Hebrew name by His parents. “Jesus” is the Greek version of the name. Translating a name between languages is treated differently than translating words, however, and of all the possibilities to do so, the one that makes the LEAST sense is the one to translate His name to Greek.

Yeshua, translated into English, would be “Joshua”. Since we are an English speaking people referring to Him as Joshua, the Messiah would make sense to me. But we do not translate the foreign names into their English version in most situations. A person named “Jose” or “Juan” continues with those even while in an English speaking culture so I do the same with Yeshua.

Makes sense to me!

About – "What Is Money?"

Posted on by
Reply

There is sometimes a position taken about unbacked, fiat currencies that basically claims that anything can be money (i.e. wampum, tulips, yada yada, etc). It came to mind while I was reading this article about the huge Chinese demand for gold in the next ten years.. If, as they say, ANYTHING can be used as money then WHY seek and demand gold to use as money as China seems to be doing?

And that is when I realized that they were, indeed, right and anything really can be used as money BUT, like a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for. Someone could start a “money” system with plastic tokens, acorns of a rare color, underwear waste bands… in other words anything that their mind can conjure up … and then begin a process to sway public opinion that the item is, indeed, very rare and valuable.

And that is, my friends, exactly what has been done, with green paper. Yupp, someone, somewhere in the past, was able to pull off the sales pitch that green paper is valuable. How did they do that?

Well, at first the green paper was a promise that whoever had possession of the green paper could redeem it for something else. The paper itself was worthless (everyone then new that) but it was the promise that the paper represented that gave it value (and that depended on what was being promised for it of course). In our current Federal Reserve Note era that green paper promised to pay gold and/or silver. It could have promised to pay olive oil for all intent and purposes as I just mentioned.

But what about China? Why are they rejecting the green paper that everyone has grown to love in favor of just some shiny metal out of the ground?

I think it is this … people around the world are realizing (in huge numbers) that WEALTH cannot really be created out of thin air. The value of something, ANYTHING, is truly in the eyes of the beholder. So, while green paper may be ok to accept to take to the next unsuspecting or naive person down the road who is willing to accept it, but, if one wants to put their wealth into a longer term storage (that is called “savings” by the way) then what China is saying is that gold looks better, to them, than green paper for the long term. They believe people will, in the long term, perceive the wealth stored in gold more easily than that stored in green paper.

I guess time will tell (it usually does).

Evolution Of A 2 Party Economic System

Posted on by
Reply

When I look at the history of “our” Federal Reserve fiat money system I have to conclude that, while the origin motives for its formation were more than likely grounded in pure greed, the current situation where the Federal Reserve “note’ no longer promises to pay anything was arrived at as the consequence of previous behavior rather than a plan.

What I mean is that the formers of the Federal Reserve System, which later was incorporated into the Brenton Woods Accord after WWII, had no clue at the time that the entire western world could be convinced to accept paper currency backed up by absolutely nothing as the world’s reserve currency.

But the world has been convinced that governments can create money out of thin air but the point I want to start from is that the current situation evolved gradually and did not occur overnight.

Now, here in the U.S. we had a two party political system during that entire time. If I had to pick and choose which of the two tended to be more fiscally responsible, live within its means, and basically refrain as much as possible from the temptation to print money out of thin air I would say the Republican Party traditionally wins out.

But what I just thought of is how both parties now have basically become “fiat money” parties and are willing to run the printing presses at full bore. There is no fiscally conservative party in Washington so the logical conclusion then is that the any fiat money “dam” that has previously kept the flow restrained is about to give way and it would take little in the form of an world event to trigger massive printing (and the eventual collapse) of this current fiat money system.

While the whole nation seemed to prosper for the last forty years while tons of fiat money flooded the planet how long will the rest of the world remain so foolish as to covet the paper in their vaults?