The Gay Gene Conundrum

READER NOTE: Be sure to visit our newest outlet at SteemIt and the Twitter replacement at GAB as we make a stab to protect free speech and thought and stop supporting those who would squash them.

The more the Progressive agenda tries to assert itself, the more they tie themselves into logical knots.

Evolutionary theory states that Humans are the product of billions of years of natural selection. Certain genetic features and mutations became advantageous for survival of the species, and so allowed our kind to flourish and prosper.

Progressives argue that certain behavior, in this case homosexuality, are genetic and those who display these characteristics have no choice in the matter. They are born that way and no amount of environmental factors affect the expression of the behavior.

Homosexuality has no survival purpose. A sexual union of two (or more) members of the same sex cannot EVER produce offspring, nor does homosexual behavior impart any benefit to the survival of the species. In fact, just the opposite is true. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and a great many of our social and religious institutions call for shunning and/or killing homosexuals. Hardy a survival strategy, methinks.

As a social libertarian, I don't give a rat's ass what you do, as long as it doesn't take food out of my family's mouths. You are free to dress and act however you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to do the same, provided neither of us harms each other or destroy each other's property. In fact, this formula seems to me to be a reasonable strategy for survival and properity, and therefore fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.

Over the past couple of decades, the LGBTQ-XYZ "community" has insisted that their proclivities are genetic. They have no choice in the matter and it is not aberrant behavior, since they are genetically bound to follow this path.

Let us forget for a moment that they also want to argue that gender (not sex) identity and associated pronouns are choices, which I happen to agree with. You can ask to be called by any pronoun you choose, but I am not bound to make that choice, because to bind me would not be a choice on either of our parts. Argument settled.

Let's also keep in mind that SEX (male or female) is genetic, and that it is clearly indicated by the presence of an X or Y chromosome in an individual's DNA. Of this, there is no question nor argument. One can observe the fact with most high school biology lab equipment in a high-tax district.

Along comes this article today.  Note how the sub-heading introduces the logical fallacy from the very start.  Scientists claim to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation in men, but it's not genetic.  Huh?!

The whole purpose of the Human Genome Project (HGP) has been to map human DNA and, where possible, identify what traits each gene or group of genes control(s). Assuming, as evolution would have us do, that every gene in our DNA is the product of aeons of hit-or-miss development, where those with favorable traits survive and those without are removed from the gene pool, it makes exactly zero sense that a "gay gene" would exist, since it doesn't serve the purpose of procreation, nor any other valid survival trait, other than possibly the creation of a class of entertainers, although that assumes that the entertainer gene is passed on, which it cannot be with homosexual relationships.

This leaves us in a quandary. On the one hand, "science" declares that evolution is what has shaped humanity, but on the other, they are searching for a genetic trait that defies evolution. Either evolution is fatally flawed as a theory, or homosexuality IS a choice (environmental factors), or something completely different is happening. Think Intelligent Design, although that introduces a whole raft of new logical and rhetorical problems that fit some facts, but not all.

The problem with the Gay Gene Theory is that it destroys a whole lot of deeply entrenched ideologies - for better or worse. It sets up a philosophical conundrum: either there is a Gay Gene and both God and Evolutionists are wrong, undermining centuries if not millennia of human development, or there is no Gay Gene and those who embrace the No-Choice doctrine are completely bereft of social cache, undermining a popular social ideology.

The problem with allowing ideology to influence Science is that everyone loses in the end. The Big Bang Theory was developed to conform "science" with the religious dogma of "creatio ex nihilo." Because of the severe damage implied by falsifying the Big Bang, "scientists" are forced to deny and/or ignore all the copious discoveries that undermine the Big Bang Theory, which is NOT Science. If the Universe is infinite and stable, then there is no apparent moment of Creation, and both religious and scientific dogma are destroyed. Thus, self-evident facts must be denied to maintain the status quo, or a whole lot of work must be swept into the dust bin of history.

You can claim we live in a holographic Universe and build elaborate arguments to prove it, but standing in front of an on-coming train will quickly prove you wrong with catastrophic results.

Progressivism, which informs the dominant Western culture at this time, states that behavior such as homosexuality is a genetic imperative and that we must all accept it because these folks have no choice in the matter. However, to do so undermines the dominant scientific theory of human origins, which the Progressives also espouse as a means to dispense with religious prohibitions, even though evolution was formulated to conform science and religion.

One major problem is that evolution was also developed in order to give God a "scientific" method of creating humans without an obvious miracle being performed (though there are plenty inherent in the argument).

We are, in fact, at a significant philosophical cross-roads. There is a major clash forming between ideologies and real Science (observation and testing of facts). The dominant "scientific" theories are increasingly being exposed as based entirely on socio-political agendas and/or religious dogmas that must ignore inconvenient facts in order to survive. No matter which way we, as a civilization, turn on these arguments, it will destroy precious, long-held dogmas - perhaps all of them - in one fell swoop.

The only way out of this conundrum is to take a cold, hard look at our assumptions and observations. If our assumptions do not fit the facts, they must be deleted, no matter how painful that may be. Entire weltanschauungs are at risk. In fact, all of the extant worldviews may ultimately be destroyed in favor of something new. No matter how you slice it, the clash is coming. It cannot be avoided.

Contemporary "science" is founded on religious dogma, yet it denies this fact. Marxist/Progressivist dogma stands in stark contrast to "science" and religion. Real Science stands in opposition to all of it. There is no possible way to rectify this situation without destroying some basic assumptions within our society.

Every effort to patch up existing scientific and religious dogmas to fit the prevailing political sentiment simply kicks the can down the road so we don't have to be the "bad guys" that brought the whole system of assumptions crashing down.

We can dearly wish for something to be true because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but it does not and will never make it true. It simply places us in the position of denying reality until reality bites us in the butt.

If history is a guide, this corrective process will take a century or more to sort out, but it must and will be sorted out. The fact remains that we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Hogwash And Fodder

Oh boy, here we go again.

Yes!  For the second time ever, a bunch of amorphous "scientists" have discovered something that doesn't exist, caused by something else that doesn't exist.  And the information is presented as a fait accompli, there can be no question.

According to the article, this "discovery" is confirmed, without having published a single paper, passed peer review, or even having confirmed the underlying assumptions that gave birth to the idea.  Even worse, older articles crow that this "discovery" proves Einstein's Theory of Relativity, even though Einstein never explained gravity, didn't like the idea of gravitational waves and rejected the whole thing as "spooky."

Here's the problem: no one has ever seen a black hole; they only exist in mathematical constructs.  Furthermore, no one has a clue how or why gravity works, much less that it is a function of some mysterious substance called "space-time."  Thus, without proof of the existence of black holes and without understanding even the most basic aspects of gravity, we can "discover" waves in "space-time" created by imaginary objects merging with each other.  And the articles even come with nifty animations, as if someone has actually seen these things.

If you are a product on 20th century education, as I am, you were taught that space is swarming with black holes.  Movies like Interstellar, The Black Hole and Event Horizon feed this myth, to the point that nearly all of us believe these things exist, because when was the last time you read the theories and proofs for black holes?  That's what I thought.

There are four theories concerning the creation and existence of black holes.  All four of them state that the Universe contains only one mass - the black hole.  In other words, a black hole universe can only contain one black hole and nothing else.  Yes, that's right, if a black hole exists, then all four theories state that nothing else - including us - exists.

Since we obviously exist, then black holes cannot.  Simple reasoning.

Now, if black holes do not exist, then gravity waves propagated by two of them colliding cannot exist.  First, there cannot be two black holes, according to theory.  Second, they cannot collide.  Third, gravity waves cannot propagate from them colliding.

We haven't even gotten to the part about gravity.  Thing is, no one understands gravity.  You know the picture of a ball sitting on a rubber sheet?  That is a circular argument, because it needs gravity to pull the ball down to make a dent in the rubber sheet.  Gravity creates gravity.  HUH?

Go watch this video and see if you can make sense out of gravitational theory when you are done.  Hell, even Newton couldn't do it, or wouldn't, take your pick.

So, now we've shot some big holes in black holes and gravity.  How about these gravity waves?

The devices used to "detect" these waves are called LIGO.  There is one in Washington State and one in Louisiana.  That's roughly 2,000 miles apart (x1.6...you do the math for kilometers).  Now these waves supposedly travel at the "speed of light" (another BS thing).  However, the waves arrived at the two LIGO machines a couple of microseconds apart.  So, waves travelling a billion light years (and spreading out the whole way) and travelling at the "speed of light" arrive at Washington and Louisiana at different times?  Sorry, that blows the whole argument right there.

Go watch this video to destroy the whole argument.

There are some heavy hitters on the side of skepticism, and these guys have names, unlike the "scientists" who report the "discovery."  This is not a bunch of cranks (like me) pointing out that this is all bullshit to justify the ungodly sums of money being spent on these massive toys, like LIGO.

So, no black holes, no gravity waves, no "space-time" medium, and something that no one understand (gravity).  Does it sound to you like gravity waves have been "discovered?"

These toys may have found something, but it is not what is being reported, and in fact, I suspect no one really understands what was found, if anything.

What is certain is that these reports of definitive "discoveries" are open to wildly different interpretations and that the assumptions underlying the conclusions are completely vacuous.  Not only is the quality of science reporting a load of manure, but the whole underpinnings of modern physics are based on mathematical constructs being presented as facts with no supporting proof.

That's right, folks, it's time to go back to the chalk board.

Whispers Of An Ancient God

I have a little problem with religion and science - insofar as it is practiced.  They both require that I take the word of an authority figure, no matter how nonsensical their pronouncements are.

What brings this up is the rather amusing way Indonesians meet new people.  There are three main questions posed to someone at introduction: 1) What is your name?, 2) Where are you from?, and 3) What is your religion?  To a Westerner, the last question may evoke anything from mild amusement to outright hostility.  I'm in the amusement category.

My typical answer to the question of my religion is that I don't believe in it.  To most Indonesians, and probably most folk in general, the assumption is that I am an atheist.  Now, atheist means "without a god," which I am most certainly not.

I have come to the conclusion that the Universe is a living entity, and because it encompasses all that is and can be perceived, it therefore qualifies under the definition of 'god.'  The Universe is infinitely moral and just because everything about it that we observe requires balance.  There is never all evil or all good, nor all dark or all light, or all empty or all full.  At some point, everything must balance out.  Seems to me that this fulfills the requirement of a god to embody justice.

The reason I don't need faith is because I have conclusive proof that there is a Supreme Being; however, I distinguish the Supreme Being from Universe and god.  It appears to me that there is, or at least was, some entity with superior abilities who manipulated our collective history, if not the entire Solar System.

The proof is right before our eyes, nearly every night, and has baffled great minds from Newton to Einstein.  It defies all rules and efforts to categorize it.  Encoded in its various measurements are clear signs of intelligent manipulation.  The chances of this proof occuring at random are infinitesimal.  Whoever or whatever put it there did so with intention and forethought, but I can only speculate as to the identity of the source.

I am, of course, talking about our Moon.

First and foremost, no one can figure out how the Moon got where it is.  There are several popular theories - Capture Model, Collision Model - but computer simulations cannot recreate the precise conditions that would put the Moon in a near-circular orbit.

The Capture Model, under any set of circumstances, would leave the Moon in a highly elliptical and probably unstable orbit.  It also fails to explain a number of other problems that we will discuss below.

The Collision Model - that a Mars-sized object hit the Earth 4,5 billion years ago - says that a ring of debris coalesced into the Moon a few million years later.  This too has many problems, not the least of which the amount of time needed for the Moon to coalesce exceeds our current date.  There's also the matter of rocks brought back by the Moon landings that are older than the oldest rocks found on Earth.

Almost nothing about the Moon can be explained by natural forces, despite all that you hear in school and from the various "experts."  The list of anomalous facts about the Moon is quite long and some have postulated that information is coded into the various measurements if we can only find a way to decode it.

Some examples: other than Pluto, the Earth-Moon ratio is the smallest of any of the known planets, meaning the Moon is extraordinarily large in relation to its planet; the Moon is quite large, as well, being nearly the size of the planet Mercury; the barycenter of the Moon's orbit is very close to the Earth's surface, making ours nearly a dual-planet system; the Moon is precisely the right size, distance and inclination to the ecliptic to create total eclipses of the Sun, something that does not happen anywhere else in the Solar System; the composition of the Moon is similar to Earth's crust, but has isotope ratios of certain elements that suggest it formed elsewhere; none of the Moon's craters appear to be deeper than 3km, suggesting a barrier of some kind; the Moon rings like a bell when struck; the Moon's gravity changes based on location, with some areas (mascons) being much higher than others.

Just the fact that the Moon is 1/400th the diameter of the Sun and is located 1/400th of the distance from the Earth to the Sun, making the Moon and Sun appear the same size in the sky defies logic.  The chances of this happening randomly are, well...astronomical.  By any honest reckoning, the Moon should not exist.

The more you learn about the Moon, the more you come to realize that, at least at this time, the Moon must be artificial in some way.  Whether the Moon was built, or placed, or modified in some way makes little difference to the proposition that it is not natural.  Even Newton claimed that his theory of gravitation could explain all the celestial motions, except the Moon.

For these and many more reasons, I have decided that the Moon is one of the strongest proofs of a Supreme Being, or Beings for that matter.  I do not claim that this Supreme Being is god, since one can imagine sufficient technology to achieve the same results.  I can only speculate on the divinity of the Moon Maker.  Despite 400 years of observations and attempts at explanations, though, no one has yet delivered a conclusive model for the Moon being natural, in spite of all claims to the contrary.

One wonders if any of this has something to do with NASA's unwillingness to go back to the Moon, the failure of the Russians to continue their efforts, and the vast media campaign to keep everyone's eyes on Mars to distract from the Moon.  It seems plausible that the "experts" would attempt slight-of-hand to prevent us looking at the true mystery in our backyard, than to be forced to admit that they have no explanation for our nearest celestial neighbor.

While many folks jump up and down about potential ruins on the Moon, or alien bases and the like, for the time being, these are all speculation.  However, the various measurements related to the Earth-Moon-Sun system are not in dispute.  When one studies the problem, one is led to the inexorable conclusion that the Moon, in some part or another, is artificial.  There is no other way to explain it.

Since we are, at this point, incapable of recreating the Moon, we must assume that those who did are superior to us in technology - thus a Supreme Being.  This Being is also likely benign, since the Moon performs a number of services that promote and direct human development.  We must also ask ourselves what happened to this Being and might it return?  Finally, we must formulate a series of tests that would provide more evidence for the idea of artificiality, which begs the question of whether it has already been done and the results hidden for fear of undermining the authority of the "experts."

In the end, and without conclusive proof to the contrary, I conclude that there is a Supreme Being and that it left its signature with the Moon.  This Being is not a god, but may be the basis for much of humanity's obsession with gods.

And no, I am not an atheist.

Let's Get Physical

When you think about it, there are no such things as dimensions, and we do not live in three, four and any number of dimensions.  There are only measurements and coordinates.

There is nothing that exists that is not three dimensional.  Whether it is a cell, a molecule, an atom, an electron, a quark, lepton, gluon, muon, tauon, boson, whatever, they all have height, length and width.  There is no such thing as a one or two dimensional object.  Nothing can exist without a measurement in all three directions, even if the measurement is Planck's Length.  According to theory, nothing smaller than Planck's Length can be measured, therefore nothing can exist beyond it.

If nothing can exist without all three dimensions, then to label the measurements as dimensions is meaningless, since they cannot be extracted from one another.  Mathematical abstractions don't count.  To use an hypothetical one-dimensional 'point' in space may be useful in theoretical calculations, but in the real Universe, there is no such thing.  If you remove all but one dimension from an object, it ceaases to exist.  Mind games, such as Flatland are fun to explore as mental calisthenics, but in our reality, these are only abstractions.

When we come to time, we are in far greater trouble to call this a dimension.  With the first three, we can point in the direction of their vectors.  We can measure them with objective instruments.  We can move freely among them.  But with time, none of these properties exist.

Time is nothing more than our arbitrary means of separating past, present and future.  A clock is not an objective measuring device.  No matter how accurate it is, the settings and readings are arbitrarily set by someone at some random starting point.  Time has no vector.  You cannot point in the direction of time.  And if time is relative, then it most certainly is not a real thing in our real Universe.

A day is not an objective measure.  It is a measure of Earth's position/coordinates in space from when the Sun is overhead to when it is overhead again.  A year is nothing more than measuring Earth's coordinates in space from an arbitrary point until the Earth returns to that point again.  The numbers we assign to those concepts can and do vary all the time, and they are not the same elsewhere in the Universe.  A Martian day is nearly an hour longer than on Earth, and a Venusian day is longer than its year.  A year on Pluto has not passed since the American Revolution.

Conversely, kilometer on Earth would be the same on Mars, or anywhere else in the Universe, but time is subjective.  As Father Einstein himself observed, when you go to the carnival with a beautiful girl, and hour seems like a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove, a minute seems like an hour.  You cannot go in the direction of the future, then change your mind and go back to the past.  The concept of time is truly meaningless, while space is full of fixed points.

When it comes down to it, time is nothing more than measurements of distances traveled: the rotations and orbits of masses in space.  If you could completely stop an object's motion, time would cease to exist for it, since there would be no way to measure it passing except with subjective and arbitrary devices like clocks.  The only way time could exist for the stopped object is to measure changing distances to some other object.  Therefore, time is nothing more than movement along one of the spacial axes/dimensions.

At this point, we have dismissed time as a dimension.  That is a meaningless concept.  When it comes to spacial dimensions, one cannot be separated from the other; no coordinate can ever be zero because for something to exist, it must have coordinates in three dimensions.  As for higher spacial dimensions, they may exist, but if you read Flatland (link above) you will realize that we can never experience them, much less point in their directions.  They are meaningless in a real world.

To further beat home the point, modern physics has speculated endlessly on something called "space-time" for the past century, as if there is proof that this imaginary fabric of the Universe actually exists.  It doesn't.  It is a fabrication of Relativity Theory in order to visualize something being warped by gravity.  In this concept, gravity is not a force but a result of objects falling into rubber sheets.

In fact, there is no "space-time."  The Universe is a vast collection of coordinates filled with a 'foam' of neutrinos, akin to stem cells of reality, which are the being the building blocks of all we perceive.  Gravity is nothing more than a complex form of static electricity, pushing and pulling on objects like magnetic poles - like repel, opposites attract.

The Universe is really quite simple and comprehensible if you strip away all the mythical and mystical mumbo-jumbo that has formed a scum on the pond of clear thinking these past 100 years.  You can experience the Universal fundamentals by strumming a guitar, watch waves at the beach, playing with magnets, or sticking you finger in a light socket.  Everything else is little more than an attempt to mystify us mortals, thus requiring a priesthood of scientists to interpret Life's Great Secrets for us.  In other words, nothing more than a new religion.

When we strip away all the magical incantations and mystical mathematics that the Einseinian priesthood has foisted on us, we find the the Universe is conceptually and functionally simple and pure.  Vibrations, electricity and magnetism explain all we can experience, and all of it can be measured objectively in all parts of the Universe.

It's time taxpayers demand an end to the "grant money trough."  It's not that I oppose scientific inquiry, or supporting real science, but the system currently in place is nothing more than a means of political control over science to maintain the accepted mythology at the expense of real understanding.  Taxpayers have shouldered the burden of massive boondoggles, such as LHC and other billion-dollar scams to find things that don't exist.  If experiments cannot be translated into technology that improves humanity's lot, then stop throwing huge bales of tax money at them.  A Higgs boson or a Gravity Wave (neither of which exist) will not result in any usable information that can transform our daily lives.

It's time we stop worshipping "authority."  Neil DeGrsse Tyson has no more idea what he is talking about than you do.  We must realize that each of us has the sense and ability to understand the Universe.  It's just a matter of opening our minds.