Saturday, August 01, 2015

Avoiding that pesky evolutionary thinking

The Left are deeply uncomfortable with evolutionary thinking.  It explains too much for their liking.  That men and women have evolved to have inborn differences that reflect their role vis a vis children flies in the face their feminist creed that there are no differences between men and women -- for instance.

So the blindness to evolution that we see below is no accident.  "New Scientist" has always been Left-leaning and their fervour for global warming shows that to be still undimmed.  The claim that the high mortality rate seen during the Black Death in the 14th century may have been the result of poor general health rather than the strength of the bacterium is plausible at first sight but neglects the obvious.  And the plausibilty fades fast when you look at ALL the evidence -- something Leftists chronically avoid.  See the last sentence in the article below.

So what is the obvious factor that the writer below is blind to?  That those who were infected in subsequent plagues were almost all the descendants of those who did  not die the first time around.  Those who did not die the first time around had some factor or factors in their makeup that made them resistant to yersinia pestis -- and it is they who survived to reproduce and pass on their resistance.  Pure natural selection at work.  Fewer people died the second and third times around because they had inherited resistance.  They survived because they were the descendants of survivors.  Obvious to anyone but a Leftist.  Leftist thinking rots your brain

The secret of plague’s death toll is out. The high mortality rate seen during the Black Death in the 14th century may have been the result of poor general health rather than the strength of the bacterium.

The Black Death killed about 60 per cent of Europe’s population. That’s surprising as recent plague outbreaks weren’t as devastating.

“There is a huge difference in mortality rates,” says Sharon DeWitte at the University of South Carolina, even though 14th century and 20th century plagues were caused by the same bacterium, Yersinia pestis, and its genetics were similar in both outbreaks.

DeWitte believes that the high mortality rate in the 14th century may have been the result of a general decline in health. She examined skeletons in London cemeteries from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries and found that more adults under the age of 35 were buried in the 13th century.

This suggests that people were dying younger before the Black Death arrived – probably because of famine and an increase in disease burden from other pathogens.

“Together with historical data, the picture that emerges is that the population was not doing well,” says DeWitte.

But Samuel Cohn, a historian from the University of Glasgow, UK, is not convinced.

“The wealthy were also dying in great numbers during the first outbreak of the Black Death [1347-51],” he says, noting that it is unlikely that they were in poor health.


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).


Doom said...

When you call them out on it, and lead them to it, if they aren't close enough to call out a group think answer, sometimes they will come around. However, the first thing they do when they get back in the groupthink environment is reassess, through the process, anything they have encountered. When next you see them, if the topic happens to come up, they will have a brand new wrong answer, one they aren't willing, often, to negotiate.

If you kill enough of their stupid, they really do stop discussing things. Some of them will have an odd respect for you, though I think many of them will become dangerous. If they can use the police, academia, politics, or something other general power against you, behind your back, they will.

Doom said...

Oh, as to the topic? I don't consider that evolution, so much as education. It might, after a thousand survival proofs, become strong enough to be noticed. It's sort of like muscle memory. A thousand times, they say, before your body just knows what to do. I use a thousand for the genetic learning, though who really knows. How about a thousand small proofs that lean toward something being more viable, or an half dozen extinction level examples?

I have seen many cases of what you discuss, no cases of even one species becoming another, then one of those two winning out. Also, I notice geneticists who started out saying one thing, sliding over to what we are discussing, while trying to dismiss that they ever suggested anything else. Each can slip away, as evidence for anything else fails to appear or further the evidence that exists eliminates their claims. One by one they are changing when called out and having no choice.


eXTReMe Tracker