October 23, 2019

Making A New Dog? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

The Urban Dictionary deems the term “Glossification” as: “…when one has applied the appropriate amount of lip gloss to one’s lips to make them look presentable or more attractive.” Some have likened the event to putting lipstick on a pig.

In today’s world of outcome-based theorizing presented as a scientific study, the desire to appear intelligent and thus powerful drives the intellectual rubbish most accept as viable scholarship. This kind of glossification is known as scientism crafted by scientismists. It can be found almost anywhere.

About a year ago a group of scientismists published a supposition, presented as scientific scholarship, about how large predators, particularly the gray wolf, exposed to “anthropogenic food” (man-created food, i.e. livestock, agriculture, pets, garbage, etc.) may cause the evolution of a new species.

Part of the Abstract reads: “We identify five main ways that carnivores might be affected: changes to social structures, behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship across wild- to human-dominated environments, evolutionary divergence, and potential speciation.” (emboldening added)

I’m no smarter than most people and so I wanted to make sure I understood what “speciation” meant. According to the dictionary, it means: “the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.”

I suppose if you are a subscriber to the true sense of Darwinian Evolution, this is an acceptable fantasy – that is that because of the existence of man in this world we will force the evolution of species into “new” and “distinct” creatures. Of course, the simpleton’s question might be; if this is a reality, then how many other species have become “new and distinct” since man has walked on earth? (Note: Somewhere in this discussion it is necessary to establish an honest determination of what a species is and other subspecies of said species. Oh, the trouble this has put us into.)

Another question might be why hasn’t man become a “new and distinct” species due to the changes in diet and other influences from our surroundings over the past few millenniums?

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that if a wolf is forced into cohabitation with man that there would be social structure changes? Conditions in which all of us live, including animals, change constantly. We adjust. That’s how we survive. This adaptation results in “behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship.”

But then the authors of this piece of intellectual bankruptcy morph these observations into “evolutionary divergence” – that is the “…accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species…”

I suppose that we should expect that all “vegans” will, eventually, morph into a new species of humanoid? What shall we call them?

But let’s forget evolution for a moment and examine the other aspect of this entire illusionary contemplation. All assumptions discussed in this imitation scholarship are based on the fantasy that man should not be present in order that plants and animals will live in “healthy” ecosystems.

In today’s world of scientismic fantasy, most often presented in terms where man doesn’t exist to screw everything up, we hear two basic terms to describe needed efforts to make all things Disneyesque – healthy ecosystems and restoration of ecosystems. This approach epitomizes the definition of subjective – “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

Who gets to decide what is a healthy ecosystem? Whether you agree or not with what someone defines “healthy ecosystem,” when suppositions are made from the perspective of the absence of man as part of their ecosystem, what difference does any of it make? Who should care? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? So long as man walks this earth, all hypotheses in this context are meaningless and serve very little purpose. Who pays for this garbage?

Restoration of an ecosystem can only mean the extinction of man.

Most odd in this intellectual guesswork is that the authors appear as all subscribers to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Their evolution can only occur when something changes. Things cannot evolve unless there is a reason for them to evolve. Yet, in their haste to craft “healthy” ecosystems or to “restore” their ecosystems to fit their definitions of “healthy” and remain that way, they must be insisting on a non-changing environment. To admit otherwise is to destroy their own interpretation of what makes an ecosystem healthy. Isn’t this nothing but circular thinking?

It is one thing to discuss how it might be best to manage our environment, to find ways that man and large predators can share living and recreational landscapes, it is quite another to attempt to devise “healthy” ecosystems based on preconceived theories absent the presence of man and/or to “restore” ecosystems to what someone’s fantasy might be.

The real nonsense may just be that someone actually believes that a wolf that eats man-caused foods will one day become a new and distinct species of dog. What I can guarantee is that in a desire to make this fantasy come true, so long as we continue to protect and force wolves to live in man-settled landscapes, cross-breeding between wolves and other canines will take place. This act will result in yet one more breed of dog. Scientismists will be eager to jump to the conclusion of a “new” and “distinct” species. It will be what fits their narrative and saves them embarrassment.

When the vegans of this world have evolved into a new species of humanoid, we must ensure that both the new humanoid and the new species of dog can live in the same environments without either one of them being influenced by the other. Of course, this is biologically impossible unless perhaps we can evolve them into inanimate objects.

 

 

Share

The Convenient Evolution

Evolution is a convenience and evolution is a quick-fitting answer to things not liked. For the evolutionist, Evolution answers all convenient questions, the difficult ones get blamed on man, like global warming. Most evolutionists readily accept natural regulation but then, like we read below, “if you want to make the world a better place, you have a much better chance if you have a sophisticated knowledge of evolution.” By the guidelines of Evolution isn’t natural regulation the Nirvana the worshipers think they seek? And yet, using Evolution as the excuse, man, who is most often the cause, must be enlightened into a sophisticated world of evolutionary knowledge (scientism) in order to change the natural to something that an evolutionist will call “a better place,” i.e. the unnatural.

Most of us know that evolution within a normal scientific realm exists otherwise nothing would survive. Because all thing of “nature” are ever changing, it only makes sense that everything that lives within that existence of nature evolves and adapts. Evolution (capital “E”) is quite a different story. However, it is capable of placing unlimited amounts of money into the pockets of those bright enough to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses.

Evolution is a remarkable thing to those that require it to be so. And yet, it’s not so remarkable when it becomes convenient and profitable.

“We need evolution to understand ourselves and the policies that we form, and we need evolution to understand the natural world we are trying to manage in a sustainable fashion,” Wilson said. “If you want to make the world a better place, you have a much better chance if you have a sophisticated knowledge of evolution.”

Most people think that evolution is a very slow process, that it is basically standing still, Wilson said. But the speed at which creatures and cultures evolve is actually quite quick, he said.

“One of the things we’ve learned over the last few decades is that…evolution is a fast process, and it basically takes place on ecological time scales. So, your white-tailed deer today, your cod today, your lobster today, are not the same as their counterparts even five or ten years ago. That’s how fast evolution is taking place,” Wilson said. “So that means if you want to be an ecologist, you need to also think of evolution as an ongoing process.”<<<Read More>>>

FrostyAl

Share

Former President of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change to Shreds

*Editor’s Note* – It is this editor’s belief that Mr. Moore’s scientific explanation of carbon dioxide is correct as I have come to understand. It is also my belief that the political perpetuation and forcing of men to accept, under the threat of retaliation, a small group of profit and control seeking fascists is an example of government corruption and tyranny at its grandest.

I do, however, take exception to much of the reference to Evolution. While argument can be made as to the establishment and validity of the length of time the earth has existed, etc., one can assert that certain aspects of the science provided as support to the claim against man-caused carbon dioxide, can and is strongly supported in scientific circles.

As far as Evolution (in capitals), in my opinion, it is nothing more than a longer established form of “settled science” as is claimed with global warming. Because Evolution has, for political and anti-Biblical reasons, been continuously pushed and perpetuated, it has become a “universally accepted scientific theory,” not necessarily a theory that has readily been proven.

I would guess that if “Climate Change” is allowed to continue its similar political and anti-Biblical stronghold on this planet, by the same established power brokers, it too will become a “universally accepted scientific theory” even if never scientifically (real science) proven.

But isn’t that the goal?

The lecture given (linked to below) is important to read to gain a clearer understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in sustainable life on Earth. If for no other reason, I encourage all of you to read the carbon dioxide information and then begin asking questions.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.

But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees.

Source: Former President of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change to Shreds – Technocracy News

Share

Wolves Change Rivers and Self-Domesticate

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, the magical, mystery wolf now has another feat of marvel to add to it’s list of wonder works – the animal can domesticate itself.

The piece linked to may contain certain elements of truth – maybe! It is the way that it is presented that ticks me off. Of course, if the presented historical timeline is accurate, then common sense would tell us that as more and more humans occupied more and more space, wolves and humans encountered one another. The lifestyles of both species changed. To some people that is bad. To others it is a natural event. It was the efforts humans that are responsible for cross-breeding of wolves and the domestication over time of the creature. Wolves did not “self-domesticate.” The information is misleading.

In much the same way as others have claimed that wolves change the paths of rivers and stream and do all kinds of remarkable things, such claims are dishonest. There is no balance. Everything is in a constant state of change. What happened in nature yesterday, may not happen today or tomorrow.

Share

Erosion of Self-Preservation: Man Against Beast

Self-preservation, it is said, is a natural sense that organisms are born with. Threatened by something or someone, that in our perceptions, having learned from experience is dangerous, we naturally move to avoid it, to shy away and even erect barriers, physical and emotional, to protect ourselves. It’s a pretty powerful emotion and has served well throughout history in the preservation of man in many and varied degrees of existence.

Thinking in the negative on this, it would then be logical to conclude that in order to diminish self-preservation, attacks on any and all aspects of what makes it strong, will weaken the instinct. From my way of thinking, a desire by anyone to do this has to be rooted in evil and sinister thinking.

Pain and fear are motivating factors in self-preservation. When exposed to a potentially dangerous situation for the first time, perhaps our experience tells us to proceed with caution. It is not normal to want to experience pain and fear is learned. Part of that learned process may be to have a fearful respect of all things unknown to us.

Most of us adults have knowledge of this. Most adults do not have knowledge of the dangers that can result when people, through a vast array of circumstances of contrived and sinister methods, can have their natural instinct toward self-preservation eroded, weakened, dumbed-down, desensitized. The object of such actions is to achieve anything from death to political and personal agendas. Most of us are confronted with this on a daily basis and most of us don’t know it.

Is it not a natural sense of self-preservation to fear, even out of respect, many wild animals? i.e. bears, tigers, lions, hyenas, cougars, jaguars, wolves. We have learned, even perhaps from the very beginning, that tools can be implemented and strategy laid out to overpower these vicious animals when necessary. Have we then lost our instincts toward self-preservation? We shouldn’t have but perhaps our perceptions of how to deal with threatening situations changes.

What happens when humans attain some degree of animal worship, or perhaps better described as animal protection? Would you protect an animal that is threatening a home, a neighborhood, a village, and maybe that animal is killing people, because you, for whatever reasons, think that an animal, regardless of what it has done, must be protected? If so why?

When we consider the story of Little Red Riding Hood, in this modern era of predator protection, there are those who claim this story is an unfair depiction of the poor wolf. These people want people to fall in love with the wolf, that the wolf is misunderstood and that in the day when the story was often told, it was some kind of child abuse to unnecessarily instill fear in children. But, in reality, the story was an accurate depiction of a vicious predator that preyed on children and the story was created as a tool to strengthen the sense of self-preservation in the children.

I was reading an article in the February 2014 issue of Outdoor Life magazine. It was a scanned copy and so I cannot provide a link to the article. The article was about problems in Mozambique, in Africa, with marauding lions and the killing of people by these lions and other predators, such as hyenas. I think mostly the author attributes the problems here to what he refers to as “a vacuum of lawlessness.”

That probably is a contributing factor but there are other things to consider. For example, there are other reasons besides “a vacuum of lawlessness” that have caused lions to come in close proximity to humans, to the point that the lions are acquiring a taste for human flesh. The author writes:

“When the lions come hunting, they come into close proximity to people, and the cats develop a sense of familiarity that breeds lethal contempt.”

The author points out that attitudes among the people are a contributing factor toward how and why lions are attacking one specific village:

“There’s something unusual about the relationship between man and beast in this place,” says Derek Littleton, a resident professional hunter. “The folks here are generally docile, shy, self-effacing. Lions are generally wary of man, but here that’s not always the case. They almost lord themselves over the people in some places. Lions do not take the same liberties with the Maasai, for instance. They’ll attack them, too, but they’re a damn sight less brazen about it.”

This simple illustration shows that how wild animals act and react is related to the attitudes, the actions, of the people who come in contact with these beasts.

Due to circumstances in the surrounding area, it seems that there is great competition, perhaps a level greater than what might be considered normal. As such, the author says that a human meal has become the best form of nutrition for these wild cats. In addition, many of the believed “normal” habits of lions can not be trusted. In one example, a 4-year old lion was attributed with the killings of 40 people.

There is, however, even more to this problem than simply too many lions and other creatures competing for a limited amount of food in addition to villagers that don’t seem to care much for doing anything about the problem. The other problem is lion worship.

“Adding to the woes of those who seek to deal with the killers is the curious attitude of the locals, many of whom believe the lions are merely acting on behalf of aggrieved ancestral spirits seeking to purge the community of those possessed by evil.”

This belief is supported by the local “witch doctors” and often successful lobbying of politicians creates prohibitions on any attempt to kill problem predators.

The author ends his article this way:

“And so, the ancient contest between man and beast continues in the east-African wilderness, by turns enduring and resisting the vagaries of modernity. George Adamson, the author of Born Free, warned that nature would strike back at civilization that intruded too deeply into wild places. Perhaps the lions of northern Mozambique are in that vanguard.”

There are those who would readily accept the accounts given in this story as very much acceptable, considering it takes place in a foreign, third-world country, as though backwoods ignorance is the root cause of a certain degree of lack of self-preservation. And perhaps that is very much so. What we have been told here is not all that unusual, is it? We might like to think it is.

Lions are ravaging villages and killing people in Mozambique. The reasons offered include: Too many lions; too many of other species competing in many forms with the lions, causing them to seek alternative sources of prey; changing attitudes of locals; witch doctors demanding the protection of lions for cult/religious reasons; politics caving in to the demands of witch doctor lobbyists, etc.

Just how “third world” is this? Is any of this all that much different than what we find here in the United States? Due to predator protection, for various reasons, many places here, in a country that is looked upon as a leader in progressiveness, are seeing significant rises in the population of large predators, i.e. bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc.

It seems on a more frequent occasion, we are subjected to accounts of large predators attacking humans and livestock. Once again I am reminded of Dr. Valerius Geist’s, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?” Many of his seven steps can apply to other large predators as well; perhaps even lions in Mozambique.

Through emotionally laced propaganda, the attitudes of people toward potentially dangerous predators is being changed. Lies being perpetrated by predator protection groups for political and personal agendas, is resulting in that erosion of self-preservation I spoke of earlier.

And certainly, if no where else in the world, the United States of America is notorious for using vast sums of money, much of it dirty, in order to pay off crooked politicians (lobbying by witch doctors) to achieve predator protection goals, in addition to manipulating our entire out of doors.

People actually are being taught in this country that potentially dangerous animals are “misunderstood”, that these animals have feelings and can think and react as humans do. Is this all that different than thinking lions are fighting back against those who are possessed of evil spirits? Those eager to swallow this poisoned bait, can really be no different than the local villagers in small remote areas of northern Mozambique who allow for the protection of lions by the will of witch doctors.

When the author wrote that the battle continues to wage between man and beast, “by turns enduring and resisting the vagaries of modernity” I believe him to be accurate but I doubt that we both agree as to the reasons. The author invokes a statement by Born Free author, George Adamson, who claimed that, “nature would strike back at civilization that intruded too deeply into wild places.” To use the author’s own words, man and beast will continue their battle due to the “vagaries of modernity” but not so much in the sense of man’s intrusion too deeply into nature. That battle will drag on and become more bloodily engaged so long as propaganda used by evil and sinister people for political gain erodes the sense of self-presentation. I do not believe that the beasts of the field have turned on humans because humans are treading too deeply into wild places. Wild animals are turning on humans because they have learned that humans are losing their natural fear through bad information perpetuated by bad people.

Our actions create an atmosphere inviting confrontations between man and beast and then, as we have learned from George Adamson, we blame man’s intrusion into wild places as the cause. Surely, man is regressing.

I was sent a photograph once showing the evolution progression of people from ape to man and then back to ape. Are we regressing by design? Are there those who want people to have their sense of self-preservation eroded? Like many of the “ignorant” residents of third-world countries, maybe more and more of us are being viewed as “useless eaters” and one way to get rid of those are to remove their sense of self-preservation. Beware the beast!

evolution

Share

Evolution

This is how it works….right?

Evolution

Share

Life on Earth Good For Another 2 Billion Years

Really? But Al Gore says………but, but, but wait.

Simple cells first appeared on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. “We had insects 400 million years ago, dinosaurs 300 million years ago and flowering plants 130 million years ago,” lead researcher Andrew Rushby of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom said in a statement.” Anatomically modern humans have only been around for the last 200,000 years — so you can see it takes a really long time for intelligent life to develop.”

East Anglia? Isn’t that where they lied about climate data?

For those still retaining even the smallest ability to think for themselves, how can on the one hand people like Al Gore, still making millions off his global warming scam, proclaim the demise of earth because of man’s mere existence, and on the other, liars at East Anglia saying we’ll be around for another couple billion years?

And aren’t us nasty, rotten humans using up ALL the natural resources?

Is any of this making a lick of sense?

Share

Is Creating Scarcity by Over Protecting Wild Carnivores Ethical?

beareatspeta*Editor’s Note* – This information first appeared on Candid Conservatives.

Hosea 4:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

AND THIS HIPPIE IS HELPING FULFILL BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE WITH HIS SCIENTISM;

*Editor’s Comment* – Isn’t arguing that eating meat involves some sort of “sacrifice” ridiculous when honesty reveals that eating, nay, living on this planet requires many levels of sacrifice? Evolution promotes fear of lost resources while God promises to take care of those who love him. You choose.

Share

Evolution of a Hunter

Ok! I just got this email and decided I would go ahead and post it and see how readers respond. Personally, I’m not sure if this is at all serious or not. It looks and sounds more like a project of stereotyping with little good to say about hunting. But maybe I’m too sensitive. What do you think?

Evolution of a Hunter

Share