Raving Conservative


Saturday, April 29, 2006

I'm Baaaack

I apologize for my temporary absence. My CPU was fried and I needed to replace it. I was unable to access the internet, save anything, and a myriad of othe essential tasks until the CPU was replaced. Iwill begin my normal blogging schedule again on Wednesday with the next installment of Dismembering Evolution.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Dismembering Evolution 5: Let’s Talk Species

At first, I was inclined to write this article much in the same vein as the chapter on Darwin’s Finches in Icons of Evolution. Then I realized that I could have so much more fun if I broadened the spectrum.

Let us start with the basic definition of a species. A species is comprised of any population of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Okay. Good to know.

Now let us look ever so briefly at Darwin’s Finches. There are 14 different species of Darwin’s Finches listed in taxonomy, however, due the interbreedability of many of these species, if we were to apply the definition of a species we are actually left with only 6 species of finches. At best, 8 of them are merely subspecies with a particular genetic trait within the species more dominant in the local population. Interbreeding produces finches that primarily demonstrate whatever the genetically dominant trait within the species is. With the usual variation between extremes according to predictable percentages over generation. If this well mixed population were transplanted to a new area with unique condition, whatever traits that are already found within the species are best suited to the local environment will become dominant in the local population, however, it is not a genetic change that results in a new species, or could realistically be expected to produce a new species, and since the genetic material was already there it is not even a mutation, only a shift of dominance of a preexisting trait.

So, is this evolution in action? Does this qualify this population of birds as a new species?

Let us examine the second question first. I say no. Not only do I say no, I say it is sloppy science by bad scientists who are overeager to have their names attached to the discovery of a new species.

Why do I say this?

Let us look at humans. There are several races of humans all determined by dominant traits in localized populations that were largely cut off from each other for at least a few thousand years. We have Caucasians, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and Arabs to name a majority. Since beak structure is used to determine different species among Darwin’s Finches I think it is important to examine the beak structure of humans and see if we can a\call all of these different races different species. The Caucasian nose is generally narrow and of moderate length. The Black nose is generally wide and short. The Arab nose is generally wide and long. The Asian nose is generally short and of moderate width. The Latino nose is generally in the middle of the road in all aspects, but bears a strong resemblance to the Caucasian nose. The nasal structure was selected by the heat and moisture conditions of a particular geographic location over thousands of years. So if we apply the same logic to humanity as we have to Darwin’s Finches we are forced to conclude that every one of these ethnic groups of Homo Sapiens is actually a separate species and should have separate species names. At this point we just have to decide which species are the true humans so that species can feel free to subjugate the other hominid species as les than human. I’m sure the racists will love this.

We can justify the argument that every race of human is actually a different species by noting variations in color, skin thickness, eye shape, brow shape, mouth shape, and other less obvious traits that are more dominant in one race over another. If it works for finches it works for humans, right?

No serious scientist is going to suggest that every race of humanity is actually a separate species. He would get laughed right out of his field. Given this, why is the same discipline not applied when classifying other animals?

The definition of a species presents us with a very interesting case in the canine family. Wolves, Canis Lupus, dogs, Canis Domesticus, and coyotes, Canus Latrans are accepted as different species. However, it has been shown that each of the different species is capable of breeding and producing a fertile hybrid. That means that by a strict application f the rule of species, the rule that says any population of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring is the species, wolves, dogs, and coyotes are actually the same species, only with certain traits more exaggerated than others in each population.

How can this be? Just look at all the variation in dogs. Through selective breeding, mankind has been able to produce a wide variety of breeds in a very short time. Had these different breeds been selected for by nature rather than man, and then been isolated long enough to create enough social distance between the breeds to cause them to be disinclined to interbreed, they would be instantly declared to be entirely different species. Even if they were not disinclined to interbreed, and they hybridized readily, the behavior of scientists in regards to Darwin’s Finches would likely have these same scientists declaring every bred of dog to be a distinct species.

So, what happens if you simply take some of every breed of dog in the world and let them interbreed for a few generations? Given enough generations of total interbreeding I would hazard to say we would get a dog that is extremely similar to a wolf, not exact mind you as some wolf traits have almost certainly been bred out of dogs in their entirety, but VERY similar.

So, what was the point of all this? The point is simply to demonstrate that scientists, in their over eagerness to try to show evolution in action are jumping ahead of the actual evidence. We have yet to see any of what could be far more appropriately be called sub-speciation result in anything that is truly a new species according to the definition of a species. We do see a great deal of change followed by a complete reversal back to the way things were in natural populations on a regular basis tough. Going back to Darwin’s finches we have studies that showed that changes in food availability result in rapid changes in the dominant beak structure in a local population, and that it reverts to the old dominant beak structure just as fast when the food availability returns to what it once was. This is not evolution despite the fact that Darwinists are saying that evolution goes both ways nowadays. When the net change over time equals zero that means there is no evolution. Going one step further, if the number of actual new species created by this cycle is zero then there is no evolution.

The quickest way to try to show speciation in by forcing “natural” selection on bacterial cultures under controlled conditions. So far all that has been shown is that some minor alteration is gene dominance are created, only to have everything revert to normal almost as soon as the original conditions are restored. This is not the creation of a new species through natural selection, nor is it the creation through altering the dominance of alleles in a population. It is not evolution in any way because it fails to produce a new species. It can be theorized that given enough time it might possibly produce a new species, but this flies in the face of current explanations regarding the Cambrian Explosion and what has been called “Instant Evolution” in some circles, or more commonly, the theory that states that evolution need not be gradual, but can make sudden massive leaps without transition. This unfounded theory is nothing more than an attempt to cover the lack of transitional species in the fossil record, and it is readily accepted by many Darwinists. More on this to come in a future article.

The point of this article is simply to point out some of the scientifically bad decisions that have been made regarding the search for evidence in favor of evolution, and some of the simple contradictions science has caused for itself by this correctable mistake that is being left uncorrected. It is ridiculous just as ridiculous to say that there are 14 different species of Darwin’s Finches as it is to say that every race of human is actually a different species. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes might be more appropriately called the same species but different subspecies (this bit of taxonomy predates evolution and has nothing to do with the Darwinists). In truth, either the definition of a species must be drastically changed, or our entire taxonomic classification system needs to be reworked. No matter which it is that finally occurs, it will not change the fact that we have yet to see any net change in existing species under any natural circumstances, and we have not been able to produce any net change in the lab that survives a return to natural condition or has resulted in any new species. Darwinists point to this evidence and see evolution. I look at it and see no net change, and therefore, no evidence for evolution.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Good News!

I have just one thing to say right now.

My wife is pregnant.

It took 5 years, 3 rounds of invitro, and $30,000, but we are finally going to have children of our own. Yes, you heard right, children. Early tests indicate that she is carrying twins or more.

I couldn't happier.

We have it rough on the child front. first finding out that we could not have children naturally. Then a failed round of invitro, then a miraculous pregnancy that turned out to be ectopic anyway, then a round of invitro that suceeded at first, but not really. It was just a chemical pregnancy and we lost the baby. Now, finally, a confirmed pregnancy with 2 or more babies. we transferred 3 embryos, and one looked like it might twin, so we have 2-4 coming. We are going from childless to a full house in 9 months! It's gonna be great!

Yes, I know it will also be expensive and sleepless, but it will be worth it.

Thursday, April 13, 2006


It turns out I must wait until the next election to run for governor of Alaska. The Division of Election sdid not catch this, but a review of the Alaska State Constitution reveled that any resident must be a resident for at least 7 years before being eligible to serve as Governore. I have been in Alaska half that time.

I have folded my campaign, not too big a chore since it was only just getting started, and filed my contacts for next time. I'm not sure which position I shall run for next. In the next three years there is a Congressional seat, Senate seat, Mayoral elction, and another Governor's election. All positions I have mention are state, not national seats. Which one I go for is to be determined enitirely by who is erving where at the time. At this time I am inclined to go for Mayor, but everything else is still an option.

The supporters I had already drummed up were dissappointed, maybe even more dissappointed than I am. There is so much to do, so mych good to do for the state. I will try again later.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Dismembering Evolution 4: Embryonic Proof

The time has come to leave the realm of theory and speculation for awhile and dig into the so-called “proof” that evolution is true. I have asserted all along that much of the “proof” of evolution is simply wrong for one reason or another. I shall start pointing them out.

Perhaps the most familiar proof of evolution lies in the realm of embryology. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, embryology is the study of embryos. Evolution does, and has always maintained that proof of common ancestry in all vertebrates is found in the very earliest stages of development. The original claim, and the claim that is still most commonly found in school textbooks is that if you compare any two vertebrate embryos at the earliest stages of development they will be very similar and grow steadily less similar as they develop. This sounds fine and well, but is it true?

To look at the drawings we are all familiar with, a drawn picture known a Haeckel’s Embryos, this assertion seem to be true. But is it?

No. Haeckel’s Embryos are pure scientific fraud.

Allow me explain.

First and foremost it must be noted that the so-called first stage of development as it is presented in this drawing is, in fact, NOT the first stage of development for any of the creatures represented in the drawing. The first stage, obviously, is the fertilized egg, which typically bears a relatively strong resemblance among all species since it is merely a different sized egg combined with a single sperm. However, once the fertilized eggs begin to develop they immediately diverge in appearance. The first phase is called cleavage. Comparing the five classes of vertebrates that Haeckel used (There are seven classes of vertebrates, but the last two, jawless fish and cartilaginous fish were so divergent in embryonic development that he did not include them in his drawings.) there is almost no resemblance between them at this stage. The same is true at the end of cleavage when the appearance of the embryos is even more divergent, and also at the stage Gastrulation when even an amateur embryologist can see that the embryos are not from similar species at all. Only after all of this do we get to what Haeckel called “the first stage of development”.

But surely, they embryos must resemble each other at this stage, right? Wrong!

Haeckel faked his drawings. He exaggerated similarities and minimized differences between the embryos to create “proof” that embryology supported Darwin’s theory of evolution when, in fact, the opposite is true. A comparison of Haeckel’s drawings to photographs taken of these creatures at this stage of development shows that while there are some minor similarities, there a re enormous differences as well that cause none of the embryos to resemble each other very strongly at all. Consider the ribbed tadpole appearance presented in the famous drawings that supposedly represents every animal depicted. Now picture the following: A fish at this stage of development looks like an earthworm wrapped around a giant egg yolk. A frog at this stage looks like a butterfly pupae. A reptile actually does resemble a tadpole if you stretch your imagination enough. A bird most closely resembles . . . well, for lack of a good comparison in real life I am forced to resort to Hollywood, it looks like the embryonic form of the creature in the movie “Alien” more than anything else I can think of. A human embryo at this stage looks like . . . well, I really can’t think of any good comparisons. To see a fine comparison of these differences reference figures 5-1 p 83, 5-2 p93, and 5-3 p 95 of Icons of evolution.

This brings up another point. We have actual photographs of embryonic development, nice new ones in full color or grayscale, whatever floats your boat. Why are we using 130 year-old drawings in the first place? Oh yeah, because the photos will not match the text of any textbook claiming that embryos of the different classes of vertebrates bear a strong resemblance to each other.

Surely this is not right. Surely this is just an oversight on the part of the textbook writers, right? Wrong again!

While some textbook writers really are unaware of the developments in embryology, after all, nobody can be expected to know EVERYTHING in any given field of study, there is just too much information, others have willfully, have knowingly misrepresented the facts. Take renowned biologist and renowned Darwinist/evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould for example, the man who is famous for his bulldoggish defense of evolution in the face of theological ignorance. (Sarcasm here folks) He knew since at least 1977 that “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases – in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent - simply copied the same figure over and over again.” Natural History Magazine, March 2000. Well, that is refreshing honesty from someone in the academic community. Furthermore, he has acknowledged that the scientific community has known about this fraud for over 100 years, and has allowed it to continue, himself among them.

Yes, you read that right. Scientists have known about this fraud from the very beginning. Haeckel was a known huckster in the scientific community, and accusations of fraud plagued his career, not just in embryology, but many other aspects of biology as well. Yet, for some reason this shyster’s drawings are still used to “prove” evolutionary theory to this day.

100 years folks. Not quite the amount of time Ptolemy’s calculations and drawings of the geocentric universe were accepted as the truth, but long enough to be corrected if conscientious scientists cared to conduct honest science and advance real research. This is especially true when you consider that we have made more scientific advances in the last 100 years than in the previous 10,000 combined. Indeed, this massive scientific cover-up has set the field of embryology back almost 100 years. And people say evolution is a necessary foundational theory of science. In embryology, at least, it has been a setback, not a benefit.

Thre IS good news for Darwinists. The array of species on this planet is so vast that if you cherry pick enough you can produce a set of 5 embryos, one from each of the vertebrate classes represented in the original drawings Haeckel conjured up, that do bear a strong enough resemblance to each other that you can use them to try to prove that embryology supports evolution. All you have to do is ignore every other species on the face of the planet and the first four stages of development on you will be golden.

I have been harping a bit on the subject of EARLIEST stages of development in this article, and there is a reason for it. A part of Darwin’s theory of evolution that has not seen much if any change is the following: He claimed that all vertebrate embryos resemble each other most closely at the earliest stages of development. The fact is that they are wildly divergent at the earliest stages of development, grow to some slight, though not very good resemblance, and then diverge again. Once again, the theory of evolution is just plain wrong.

Monday, April 10, 2006

The Racist in Congress

The time has come to write about Cynthia McKinney.

I have been holding off on blogging about her for one reason. I wanted to see just how far she and her allies would go in this fiasco before I said anything about it. Put simply, I wanted to see just how badly she would hang herself. She did not disappoint me.

There are several overriding factors in this woman’s behavior. First and foremost is an unhealthy amount of pride and arrogance. Second is her own apparent racism. Third is the apparent racism of the staffers she chooses to surround herself with.

The proof of pride and arrogance starts with the incident itself. She refused to obey the rules of her own workplace and wear the proper identification. By her own words she expected, nay, demanded that all of the capitol cops who guarded her building recognize her by face. When one cop who did not recognize her by face asked her to stop and show her ID she ignored him. Then, when he did his job and stopped her she turned around and slugged him.

I will elaborate more on this momentarily. Point two is so inextricably linked to point one they must both be addressed at once

Her apparent racism is made obvious in her own comments after the incident. She instinctively brought up charges of racism against a cop who was just doing his job, the job of ensuring that people like her can go to work every day without fear of getting blown up, shot, or stabbed. She utterly ignored the fact that she had violated safety rules that she may well have had a part in making, and that she had no problem with as long they only applied to people other than herself.

Even her so-called apology was empty. She took no responsibility for punching a cop for no good reason. She only stated that she regretted the incident ever happened. Oh, I’m sure she does. It has exposed her as unfit to serve in the Congress. It is unlikely that she will be elected ever again.

Okay, let’s examine this, shall we?

Cynthia McKinney is a product of the civil rights movement, but it seems that she has ignored the good lessons and adopted every possible error one could derive from it. She still believes that white on black racism is rampant throughout America. Not true at all. It is still rampant in some specific communities, usually the occasional small town where the KKK still holds influence, but it is not a national epidemic. Her demand that she be known and admitted to the capitol by face recognition is an obvious indicator of insecurity, ego, and racist fears. It shows that she still believes that white people think all black people look alike, and she desperately wants to be the special one that mean ol’ whitey knows by her looks. Her own racism is apparent in the simple fact that she instinctively brought up racist charges against a cop who was just doing his job. I know I said this once already, but it bears repeating. It bears repeating because Cynthia McKinney is not the only person in the black community to do this.

Let’s examine her allies and staff now shall we? Al Sharpton, one of the biggest racists in America, a man whose words betray a deep hatred for white people immediately jumped on the Cynthia McKinney bandwagon when she leveled charges of racism against this cop. This man is every sensible people don’t want to be. He is a racist demagogue who has made a large fortune by feeding and playing off of the fears of the black community, constantly telling them that whitey is out to get them. He works hard to develop a mindset in black people of being entitled to special pay and privileges from the government for the sins of slavery that over 600,000 Americans died to stop.

Her staff is an interesting crew as well. I listened to a story on national radio about a man who called Cynthia McKinney’s office to try to persuade her to stop misbehaving towards this cop. The woman who answered the phone was quite rude, she kept cutting him off with snide remarks, the most telling of which was the following exchange: Caller – You can’t honestly expect every cop there to recognize every person in Congress by the way they look. Staffer – Oh, so we all look alike, is that it? And then she hung up on him. This arrogant, racist Congresswoman has surrounded herself with equally arrogant, racist toadies who most certainly feed her racism and arrogance. The man who told the story did not have any accent in particular, and he spoke normal English, so there was no way to tell his race over the phone. This staffer just assumed that he must be white and accused him of racism for trying to talk some sense into this whole mess. One is left to assume that if sounded black to this staffer she would not have been so rude, or maybe she would have simply accused him of being an Uncle Tom instead. That’s a common tactic black racists use against other black people who do not agree with them.

If this were an isolated incident it would be more amusing than disturbing. The silly Congresswoman who is entirely too full of herself and has managed to doom her own political prospects. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I have spoken to several businessmen in several states who have expressed concerns about hiring Black people for the following reason: they are afraid that if a black employee violates company policy/mistreats a customer/is a slacker/etc that they will be unable to fire this person without getting sued and accused of firing the employee for racial rather than performance reasons. Every one f these businessmen has a story to tell about someone they know who had exactly that happen to them, and they talk about how expensive it is to fight such a frivolous lawsuit while the fired employee has a pro-bono civil rights attorney working for him.

Other situations are like the following story about a Colorado school district.

There is a woman working in the district administrative office who is lazy, does her job poorly when she bothers to do it at all, and who intimidates the other employees. By all rights this woman should have been fired long ago, but she has been retained. Why you ask? Whenever a supervisor or manager speaks to her about these problems she immediately accuses them of picking on her because she is black, gets extremely upset, and makes veiled threats about legal action being taken against the school. The end result is that all of the other staffers are working in a hostile environment created by this woman, many of them are afraid to even talk to her, and that other people must do her job for her while she spends her day malingering and drawing a paycheck.

Interestingly enough, it is not white people who are the victims of this attitude, this behavior so much as it is black people who are the victims. This utter lunacy intimidates employers from the outset and is costing black people jobs. This loss of employability caused by this behavior serves to keep the entire black community down.

It didn’t used to be this way. It used to be that Black people were among the most industrious, desirable employees one could hope for. The only thing stopping black people from moving up in the world was racial hatred. Now, thanks to the people like Cynthia McKinney who have a warped sense of entitlement and racial outrage thanks to people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan who are creating a new stereotype of the angry black racist Black employability has dropped somewhat. These people are doing a massive disservice to the vast majority of sane, hard working folks in the black community. Their constant loud outrage, their rhetoric about how black people are being persecuted, their admonitions to sue if they get fired or sometimes just plain not hired are serving to create a national environment of intimidation that does nobody any good.

The good news is the large number of black people who reject this whole situation entirely and are simply living out their everyday lives the way everyone else does. No sense of unearned entitlement. No racial outrage simmering just under the surface at all times. No desire to sue people for their own errors. None of the bad things demonstrated by Cynthia McKinney and her ilk. This is a growing majority, and it will be a great day in America when the Cynthia McKinneys of the world are silenced by a black majority that demands better of its people.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

A Fascinating Development on the Campaign Front

This is important, so the next Chapter of The Journey will be put up Saturday instead of Friday.

Something happened today that I never dreamed would happen in a million years, and it has to do with the very first person who volunteered to work on my campaign for Governor of Alaska. This is going to shock the heck out of my regular readers.

I had a man volunteer to act my campaign treasurer. I will withhold his name in this post because I do not know if he would want it plastered on the internet for all to see. It’s not the fact that he volunteered that is so fascinating, it his background and who he is that is truly ironic for me.

He is a 24 year survivor of aids who is a homosexual and a Jehovah’s Witness.

When we were talking about his desire to volunteer and he revealed this I thought it was vital to inform him that I did not approve of the homosexual lifestyle and asked if that would be a problem for him. His answer amazed me.

He said, and this is condensed paraphrase, “I believe that people can be born gay, but the Bible says we should not act on it. I have not lived like a gay man since I caught AIDS. My Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are very critical of Homosexuality, so your disapproval doesn’t bother me.” He went on to explain that he caught AIDS as a result of an accidental needle stick back in the mid-80’s when he was working as an EMT, told about his volunteerism in the local AIDS support center, and so-on.

Now, some of my regular readers are certainly expecting to hear that I turned his offer to volunteer down outright. I did not. I accepted his offer.

How can I do this after I have been so critical of homosexuality you ask? Simple; and it is something I have been saying all along. Believing that an action is wrong does not equate to hatred or devaluing of persons. He has some bookkeeping background. He wants to work for me as a volunteer. He knows where I stand on Homosexuality and it has not deterred him. Why would I not accept his offer?

The best part is that this is my first chance to learn about the AIDS epidemic from someone who has been affected by it. Most of us never meet someone we know for a fact has AIDS. This man is able to give me information from the inside about the problems and concerns facing the portion of the population that is suffering from AIDS. As someone who wants to be President one day this understanding is vital to helping shape a policy that may one day help to wipe AIDS off the face of the planet.

All of this is a bit mind-blowing to me. But in all honesty, I am kind of glad that I have the opportunity to work with somebody like this man. I can learn so much. On top of that, this situation was an in my face test of my character. When faced with such a man as this would I behave the way I have been saying people would behave, or would I turn as harsh towards the man as I am to the action.

By the grace of God I have done the right thing, and I am pleased.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006


This week's edition of Dismembering Evolution has been pushed back to next week due to me spreading myself too thin this week to have time to finish writing it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Burn Baby Burn!

Zacharias Moussaui is eligible to receive the only worldly justice that fits his crimes. The jury has decided he is eligible for the death penalty.

Considering that his actions enabled the worst mass murder in American history to be carried out I have decided to propose some alternative means of executing him that are more suited to man of his distinction than mere lethal injection. I also suggest that all of the following be televised live on pay-per-view.

Be aware that this is not a serious post, and that everything I am going to suggest violates our Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

1: Burn him at the stake. (Hey, how many people were burned to death in the twin towers?)

2: Lock him a sealed room filled with 1,000 starving rats.

3: Saw his head off with a butter knife.

4: Seal off a minefield and force him to traverse it until he finally blows himself up. Take bets on how long he lasts.

5: Toss him a pool filled with hungry piranha.

6: Cut him to pieces on body part at a time, starting with the removal of body parts that won’t kill him, like the eyes, nose, ears, fingers, and toes. Be sure to cauterize them with a red hot iron to keep him from bleeding to death.

8: Have him drawn and quartered.

9: Put him in a pit and let everyone who lost a loved a loved one on 9/11 to throw a rock at him.

10: Tie him to the spokes of a large wheel. Sink the lower 1/3 of that wheel in water. Spin it until he gets so worn out he drowns.

11: Tie him to the bumper of a car and drag him.

12: Keelhaul him . . . twice.

13: Tie him up and give him lashes with a bullwhip until he dies.

14: Skin him alive.

14: Back on whips, we could flay him to death with a cat o nine tails.
15: Force him to drink Draino.

16: Sew his eyes open, tie him to a rack, and lay him out in the Arizona sun until he is dead. Leave him there. Do not bury him. The animals will dispose of his corpse.

17: Give him a full blood transfusion using pig’s blood. (Pig blood contamination is supposed to prevent a Muslim from entering paradise.)

18: Come to think of it, inject him with pig’s blood no matter how we kill him.

19: Also, when he is dead, cremate his body. This is another Muslim taboo that supposedly messes with eternity.

20: This does not matter for Mousaui, but we could take so much of the fight out of the insurgents in Iraq if we just started coating our bullets with pig’s blood. It would steal the will to fight from the martyr wannabes because getting shot with one of those bullets would, according to their beliefs, stop them from entering paradise and getting their 72 virgins.

Well, that felt good.

Listed on BlogShares