"The Origin of Varieties"?

DARWIN'S BOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN TITLED "THE ORIGIN OF VARIETIES".

Concerning Charles Darwin's great work called "The Origin of Species", it is naturally very important to know exactly what a species is. There is a rule by which "species" is defined so as better to understand what Darwin meant by this very important concept. It is this:

A species is a "fundamental category of taxonomic classification ... and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding".

Thus, the horse is a species, but the donkey is a different species. They are different species because they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, the way dogs can for example. Thus, the offspring of these members of different species are not complete individuals and so they fail to pass the test of being what constitutes a species.Thus, being able to interbreed is the sole criterion for determining whether two animals are of the same species or not. It's as simple as that. If they can't interbreed, then the two animals are of different species. Period.

So the best the horse and the donkey can do is produce sterile offspring, or hybrids. It is probably true that some mules have produced offspring in the past, but it is so rare as to be considered impossible, resulting in one occurrence in many millions of matings, hardly enough to survive as a different breed. And as if to close the matter, those rare offspring of two Mules (60 or so in the last several hundred years) cannot themselves breed at all, thus sealing off even the most remote possibility that the Mule could ever qualify as a new species.

Now, the mule and the hinny are hybrids.

This is a mule:













And this is a hinny:











As an aside, the most interesting thing about hybrids is that it makes a big difference just how the parents are arranged. In this case, if a stallion breeds with a jenny-ass, then a mule is produced but if a jackass breeds with a mare, something different is produced. It is called a hinny. Now these offspring are not alike. The mule is much bigger, stronger and more robust than either parent, while the hinny is the reverse. That explains why you never see any hinnys around. See this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny

Although widely studied, most people are unaware that other closely related species can also produce sterile offspring too, like my own favorites, the Tiglon and the Liger (the Tiglon having a tiger for a father, while the Liger has a lion for a father). When I was a small boy, I actually saw a Liger at the Bronx Zoo. Being hybrids like the mule and the hinny, the Liger is always much larger, more robust and stronger than either parent, while the Tiglon is small and weaker. In fact, the Liger is by far the largest cat in the world, sometimes weighing in at 1000 pounds, which is twice as big as any lion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Notice how enormous these Ligers are:




















But back to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", loads of evidence is used in an attempt to prove his theory. But the evidence is entirely made up of examples of subtle changes taking place within a species, and these are called varieties, such as the beaks of the finches that Darwin himself studied on his famous voyage. Evidence for the appearance of new species is entirely lacking. It simply doesn't exist. Nothing even comes close.

That's not surprising either, since all we have to do is to look at our pets to see how many varieties can be seen within a particular species without creating a new one. Clearly, variation within a species not only doesn't prove nor even support the main point of "The Origin of Species", but variation within a species has nothing to do with Darwin's point at all. Not at all.

What is surprising to me is how many people never question that common assertion, accepted as fact by most people, that new varieties within species prove Darwin's theory that new species arise from old ones. The facts are very different because new varieties are not new species at all. That is because varieties can interbreed which means that they fail the test which would qualify them as a separate species, being the inability to interbreed.

Darwinism would be of no importance to people today if it wasn't widely used to support the claim that the appearance of new species is an inevitable consequence of variability within a species, given enough time. But there isn't a shred of evidence to support this, not even a little bit, so many ignorant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I use the word "ignorant" because learning the meaning of the word "species" is a very easy matter, yet so few take the time to do so.

Moreover, the unquestioning and total acceptance of the claim that new species do arise in this way is so intense in our culture, that it can only be categorized as religious in nature. And like all religions, contrary beliefs are held to be heresy, which is another tip-off that Darwinism is truly a religion. And as almost always among the religious, to stamp out heresy is seen as a duty.

Only this explains why there is enough intense feeling in our culture to have created a climate which supports the ability of the state to have enacted laws forcing, under threat of penalty, the teaching of Darwinian evolution as being the only view taught in our public schools to explain how the human race came to be.

Now Darwin himself was a serious scientist and a very religious Christian. And it is said that he would be appalled if he could see how his work has been so misused today. Well, while he was a good scientist all right, it must be strongly stated that he greatly overreached himself when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species". The only thing his book proved, and what he therefore should have entitled it is, "The Origin of Varieties".

We all love to joke about the French, but they are in fact, a truly evil people. Consider one of the many atrocities which is the specialty of the French, and that is, killing their own defenseless citizens.

In fact, on a personal level, the French were even worse than the Nazis when it came to the murder of non-combatants. Not in raw numbers, of course, but while individual Nazis were obeying state policy and therefore their personal feelings didn't matter, the French murderers eagerly embraced the idea, and they did so because they liked it. Another reason why the French liked killing their own innocent civilians was they could commit any atrocity that they wanted to, knowing they would always be protected by their German occupiers.

France opened concentration camps even before the Nazis invaded. For example, there were camps at Gurs, Noe and Recebidou, and that's where the French imprisoned anti-fascist refugees from the Spanish Civil war, who had fled to Paris for sanctuary. Guarded by the Paris metropolitan police force, they were given over to the Nazis in order to gain favor. Naturally, all were quickly sent to Nazi death camps.

At least the Nazis did their dirty work in the East, purposefully isolating their crimes from their own people. But all the atrocities perpetrated by the French took place either right inside the city of Paris itself, or very nearby, and all the murderers were members of the metropolitan police force, in other words, the local Paris cops.


Drancy was France's biggest concentration camp. It was created and run by the French local police. In the only case in the West like this, the Nazis didn't have to bother rounding up their victims. The French were eager to do it for them. Proof exists that more than 3000 prisoners died in the French camps from lack of medical care or starvation.

In what is without doubt, the single most dishonorable act ever committed by the French people, occurred in 1942 in Paris. The Velodrome d'Hiver was a stadium in Paris designed for bike races. Asked by the Nazi administration to arrest all Jews older than 16, the French went even further and all on their own, they arrested all the children too. So closely did the French identify with their own operation that they even gave it their own code name, "Vent printanier" (Spring Wind).

All together, more than 12,800 French Jews (3031 men, 5802 women and 4051 children aged between 2 and 12) were transferred to the Velodrome d'Hiver. Locked inside in the sweltering July heat, the children were kept in there for 5 miserable days without any food or medical care and then they were transferred to Drancy, Beaune-la-Rolande or Pithiviers. The children were separated from their parents by the French police immediately after their arrival in Drancy. The parents were transported to Auschwitz and gassed. The children stayed sometimes weeks in Drancy, without care or adequate food. Babies and many very young children died in Drancy due to the lack of care and the ever present brutality of the French guards. Finally, they were all transported to Auschwitz and gassed upon their arrival. As for the rest of France, 6,000 Jewish children from all the other regions of France were arrested by the French themselves, brought to Paris, and then given over to the Nazis, to be transported to their deaths in 1942. Interestingly, and typically, there was no protest on the part of the French public over any of this.

For decades, the French Government steadfastly refused to admit the responsibility of their action and that of the French police, in the deportation of the French Jews to the death camps. But in 1995, President Chirac finally admitted the responsibility of the French people in these atrocities.

Forget about your ideas of French heroism in the face of Nazis tyranny. Forget about romantic movies like "Casablanca", making heroes out of the French. The French Resistance was tiny and powerless until just less than a year before the end of the war, when it was certain that their beloved Nazis would lose. Also, remember all those stories about the help that French farmers gave downed allied airmen? Well, all that help had to be bought with gold. That's why our pilots were equipped accordingly. Consider that thousands of allies were killed by the French military, in North Africa, when they were too afraid to kill Nazis. Here are but two selections from the more than a million citations on this subject, in Google, about how the French kill their own defensless people, but turn tail and run if faced by people with guns who fight back:

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/DranEngl.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/cclist.html


 

Why Are Jews So Smart?

"Common Sense: Why Jews are So Smart"

by Pete Metzger

Why are Jews so smart? There are many explanations, some of which strain common sense. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. It can all be explained quite clearly:

Through millenia of widsread illiteracy, Jewish culture valued the twin cultural ethics of learning and literacy above all else. This was true since Jesus' day, and long before. Pressures to become the most learned in the Jewish community were around forever. Many of the men were rabbis of some sort, and every one dreamed of becoming the chief rabbi. The competition for that job was stiff, and was entirely based upon mental abilities. It was not even important what was studied. Even if it had been the game of chess, it would still have produced the same result, just as long as the challenge was a hard mental contest.

Early on then, the smartest Jews rose to the highest level of their society. Moreover, the field of competition was among all men thanks to universal male literacy, and not just among a much smaller group, as it was elsewhere. So a very strong merit system was in place from the beginning, and for a very long time. This cultural accident alone can answer the question.

But there was another and even stronger pressure. As if to insure the result, the smartest men reproduced themselves moreso than ordinary males. That was because the most highly placed rabbis were freed from having to make a living. They were supported by the community so that they could study all day long. Even more significantly, the head rabbi went through wives like popcorn, a younger one each time. Culturally, it was a great honor for an ordinary father, not blessed with great intelligence but only the ability to become rich, to give up his young daughter to the Rabbis bed, once the rabbis previous wife died having her 20th child. There is even hard evidence for this gleaned from the detailed family records that Jews are well known for, even going back to Bible days. So the most intelligent men were selected not only for intelligence, but for their ability to reproduce a lot, too. This is an even surer recipe for the selection of smart genes, but the realtive smartness of the Jews was helped along from another, and most unexpected direction.

Consider how the culture of non-Jews effected their own special outcome. In the culture of Christendom, the best minds, indeed the cream of the crop, were recruited, prized, and sent into the priesthood. Thus, in a single stroke, the genes for the best minds were collected from the entire male population, every generation, and then simply sent off into the celibate priesthood, thus removing them from the gene pool forever. So while Christendom impoverished its own gene pool of intelligence, the Jews enriched theirs, thereby making the relative difference between the two populations even larger.

I can't emphasize enough the role of male universal literacy among the Jews. Not only did the Jews invent a system that produced smart men (without realizing it), but they forced their entire male population through it. That took care of all the unsung geniuses from poor families who were so often overlooked by every other system, even in lands very far away from Christendom. Indeed, who among the gentiles could read at all? Only a small part of the population, the clergy and the aristocrats. And as we all know, from the example of the colonization of South America, selecting managers solely from the aristocracy is a very bad idea.

=========================================================

Post Script: The arguments above can also be used to explain negative outcomes, of course, such as the higher than average rates of certain inherited diseases among Jews. Also, when the arguments above are applied to other groups and races, many heretofore complex and thorny issues suddenly become clear and easily understood by all.
======================================================

Another great killer of the Chinese people

Here's another great killer of the Chinese people: The Great Wall of China

From the web: "During the Qin Dynasty--when the first Great Wall was built--workers toiled for ten years to build the wall, at a rate of about 25 miles per month".

25 miles per month? Wow! That's a mile a day. Do you believe it? In the first place, I suspect that such a feat is impossible. In the second place, since that "fact" is from the records, and the main source of the information in those records was the supervisors of construction themselves, they are the very people whose interests exaggeration serves. it's probably fake. But still, the work must have gone on at a death dealing pace.

Today the Chinese government uses their great wall as an example of their cultural superiority . Now there lies a great and popular paradox, not confined to the Chinese. Most cultures whose roots go back to antiquity, also have a long record of disrespect for, and destruction of, their own cultural treasures. Once having made a total wreck of their own relics, they are today utterly fanatic about protecting them, invariably claiming the high moral ground, and citing how foreigners don't respect their stuff enough and how outsiders are responsible for all the spoilage. Examples abound. Egypt has closed the Great Pyramid, blaming the damage caused to its inner walls, on the sweat produced foreigners. I did not make this up. This is after those very people stole the entire limestone skin off the pyramids, not to mention the golden capstones. Hey, how about the fact that every single royal grave in Egypt was already plundered in antiquity, including that of King Tut. I mean can you believe it? The history of those people is a history of vandalism, and yet they piously claim that it's all our fault. And China, having massively destroyed its own Great Wall, is today punishing people who seek to do one billionth as much.

From the web: "The Chinese government also hopes to protect the national treasure. Officials in Beijing are considering legislation that, if passed, would convict anyone caught littering or defacing the Great Wall to a jail term of up to seven years."

Ha ha wotta joke. Can you imagine the ruthless and fearsome world power Chinese communist government prosecuting someone for littering?

Now all this is happening even to this very day. I am reminded that during the recent occupation of Afghanistan by the Taliban, those Muslims completely destroyed a huge statue of Buddha that was the single most important ancient monument left in that benighted country. And they did so for religious reasons too. And they got clean away with it too. Imagine the holy uproar that would have taken place if a single American soldier so much as put a scratch on the place.

How Many Chinamen did this kill?

The largest obelisk in ancient Egypt weighed in at 500 tons. Sheer muscle and friction built them all. Masons rubbed wooden blocks against the quarry stone while a slurry of sand and water was poured over the work surface. Slowly, very slowly, the rock was worn through. Only seldom, did these people attempt to make obelisks out of granite, which was normally far too hard. See this hyperlink:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/bigwave.html

Interestingly, any larger obelisks, like those weighing more than 1000 tons, were left behind, unfinished and abandoned in the quarries. They are still there. Egypt, and then even Rome, once they learned their lesson, just gave up on trying to move them. It turned out that these larger projects cost far too many human lives. They can still be seen there today, unintentionally serving as the tombstone for the uncounted stone workers who died on those doomed projects.

http://www.atlantisquest.com/Baalbek.html

But the Chinese, were different. They had a secret weapon. Then as now, China had no regard for human life. That was, and still is, China's secret weapon. Around 1400 AD, China tried to build a granite tombstone for Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming dynasty. It lays there near Nanjing today, in the Yangshan quarry, unmovable then as now. Its weight is estimated to be 34,000 tons. Long before the work was attempted, Chinese engineers had to know that they could never have moved the thing an inch. After all, this rock is 34 times larger that the largest blocks that the best efforts of the Egyptians and Romans couldn't move either. The cost in human life is unknown, naturally, but as large as it was, it must have paled before the Chinese experience only a few decades just before, in the 14th century, when epidemics and famine killed 35 million people. Here is how that enormous unmovable rock looks today:

If you want to read how China was in those days, at least its navy, and see where I got this picture, read the very latest National Geographic magazine for July, 2005.