o-x.fr is back

this is about previous post
it was temporarily down, but yesterday it was back again (maybe a day before that, but I did not look)

Was a French URL shortener blocked or destroyed because of linking here?

• a) there used to be an url shortener called http://o-x.fr ;
  
• b) it used to link to two messages here http://o-x.fr/lsf being English index and http://o-x.fr/q2oe being French index concerning messages on another blog, whereas http://o-x.fr/foo linked to a denunciation of transhumanism as evolutionary project (on a previous blogger profile that was disconnected without me doing so);
  
• c) there was also a lot of porn and medication links being shortened on http://o-x.fr but any link going to a bad site that had recently been clicked or shortened could be signalled to webmaster, so it was not a problem of daunting proportions;
  
• d) I had written - among other things - creationist stuff on an MSN Group called Antimodernism too: it was disconnected with all other ones in February 2009: we got a warning and I managed to save some to this blogger profile in time. Unfortunately a man whom I had asked to help me in the saving of messages turned out to be a free mason. When I found out, I unfriended him at LinkedIn. But the damage was done: I had had insufficient access to internet during the interval to save all, he had been trusted and ... done nothing to save a single message as far as I could tell. Parts of my written production is gone. MSN's excuse was that they had found a better technology: I had a minor MSN Group which I tried to transfer, and it worked out miserably.


• e) Now http://o-x.fr has been "not found on this server" since a cache 15 december. No news has been sent to anyone or anything in the media about the disappearance of a major internet utility like this URL shortener. Any one see some kind of pattern?
  HGL

Are Creationist Ministries condemned Protestant Bible Societies? (and are they still condemned?)

Here is what Pope Bl. Pius IX had to say about the latter:

14. The crafty enemies of the Church and human society attempt to seduce the people in many ways. One of their chief methods is the misuse of the new technique of book-production. They are wholly absorbed in the ceaseless daily publication and proliferation of impious pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets which are full of lies, calumnies and seduction. Furthermore, under the protection of the Bible Societies which have long since been condemned by this Holy See,[7] they distribute to the faithful under the pretext of religion, the holy bible in vernacular translations. Since these infringe the Church's rules,[8] they are consequently subverted and most daringly twisted to yield a vile meaning. So you realize very well what vigilant and careful efforts you must make to inspire in your faithful people an utter horror of reading these pestilential books. Remind them explicitly with regard to divine scripture that no man, relying on his own wisdom, is able to claim the privilege of rashly twisting the scriptures to his own meaning in opposition to the meaning which holy mother Church holds and has held. It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of the faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the divine pronouncements.[9]

source

Or would a non-Protestant creationism arguer even be able to find support like Catholic priests approving his writings:

15. In order to check the contagion of bad books, it would be useful if your clerics who are renowned for sound doctrine likewise publish short works, to build up the faith to instruct the people. You would, of course, have to approve these before publication. Distribute these works and other useful and doctrinally sound authors among the faithful.

It hangs on what is doctrinally sound and on what is a daringly twisted vile meaning. I happen to have heard that one standard of creationist arguers, that strata as well may stem from the flood of Noa as from millions of years of calmer sedimentation was put forward by a Catholic scientist. And that Pope Pius IX made him knight of the order of st Gregory, or something.

Anyone know about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
15/XII/2010, Octave of
Immaculate Conception
(Encyclical cited from feast day itself)

Are Bible Societies still condemned? Maybe not all of them, look at this agreement: GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE
THE NEW REVISED EDITION ROME 1987
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html

I had a dream one night ...

... yes, it does happen that I get some REM sleep (if remembering a dream when waking is a sure sign of having had such) and no, it was a dream in the sleep, not a day dream (political or otherwise) like MLK's famous "I have a dream" speech.

It happens that I remember no dreaming, only notice myself getting thoughts and sense impressions clearer when waking. It happens that I remember I had a dram involving such and such an oddity, and then forgetting all about it, because I do not want to or cannot reconstruct the dream. But this time I did collect the thoughts to get a somewhat clear sketch of what had gone on before I woke up.

• A furry animal is designed - whether by speaker voice or by subtitles or simply by thought - as having been born with a trisomy. It survives. It grows up. And ...
  
• ...actually mates another animal with a trisomy in precisely the same chromosome pair: which gives rise to:
  
  
  • 1/4 normally diploid, i e in that chromosome disomic animals
    
  • 1/2 animals with trisomy in that chromosome (getting the extra somy from either father or mother) and
    
  • 1/4 tetrasomic in that chromosome animals.
  
  
• The tetrasomic animals mate. Not with normal animals, not with trisomic animals, but between themselves, and ...
  
• ... one day loses contact with the chromosomally normal population. Now they can only mate with other tetrasomic animals, and ...
  
• ... a few generations later the four somata of the chromosome pair diversify into two pairs. An animal population now has one chromosome pair more than its ancestors but not by splitting, so the newly twain pairs, replacing a one pair, have a normal chromosomal centricity, not telocentric, not necessarily very acrocentric either. Unless the original pair was so.

That's about when I woke up, or what I came to when remembering what I dreamt before waking up.

And how kind it is of someone to pray to God (or even to the demons, as far as int-ention towards me is concerned) that I get some kind of revelation of how evolution is a scientific possibility, now that there are so many Church men claiming Genesis must be reinterpreted or even ones who replace Apocalypse with "point Omega": if I came to believe in evolution, my harmony with them would be restored, they would not think themselves obliged to consider me as a fool, they would be so happy to welcome me back into full communion!

Now, what wild animals spontaneously do with misfits havingheart problems is not usually keep them alive three generations on a row. I may think Darwinism wrong about why one individual remains alive and another survives, I amy think chance or providence has more to do with it than any life force driving to perfection of species by survival of the fittest, but the scenario I dreamt of involves typically survival of the unfittest.

I do not ask you to take my word for it, do check out trisomy on wikipedia*, will you. There are more pairs than pair 21 that can be trisomic. ALL autosomic trisomies that do not involve spontaneous abortion involve heart troubles in men. ALL non-mozaïque forms of autosomous trisomy in bigger chromosomes gives rise to spontaneous abortion, as does also ALL non-mozaïque forms of triploidy. I do not see any reason why other mammals should have different placentas or hearts.

I am not sure the last step would fix the heart trouble about the formerly tetrasomic new karyotype, but I am sure the heart troubles involved in previous generations leading up to that would make success in competition for mating (and yes, mammals are typically competitive in that respect) rather unlikely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
G. Pompidou/Beauborg
Paris IV
13/XI/2010

*Trisomy, Wikipedia - if you check links on that article, the diverse trisomies available in human genetic pathology do indicate on article after article heart deficiencies among symptoms. A man once told me his mother had adopted a lot of trisomy 21 lads, because their short life expectancy and immaturity for sin made them his intercessors in Heaven. Whether he lied about that or not (I have heard a lot of lies to test my credulity, and I am slow and polite) is immaterial: the observation about heart trouble is accurate.

PS: if I had been the son of such a mother, I would have been wise to treat my trisomic stepbrothers kindly. If they go to Heaven remembering ones kindness, they might intercede, otherwise their prayers might be like the saints who pray for the humiliation of the enemies of the Holy Church (Apocalypse ch. 11).

PPS: about "chromosome splits", I have already answered in Karyogrammata, modifying in comment that a result of two strictly telomeric chromosomes or one normal and one telomeric from one normal splitting would be possible: but two non-telomeric chromsomes would not be a possible result from such a split.

Both indexes have been updated, followers and readers!

Another update on each - encore une mise à jour sur chaque index.

A good quote (from pakalert)

My favorite propaganda trend in the mainstream media today is one directed at researchers like myself who expose the darker side of our economic and political environment. The term “Apocalypse Porn”, or “Doomer Porn”, is rising as the preferred Ad hominem attack on Liberty Movement writers, in place of “conspiracy theorist” which doesn’t seem to be working for them anymore. The MSM apparently spends more time trying to develop ‘memes’ like this than they do actually researching the so called news they propagate. The insinuation is that we either embellish data to make it seem more frightening than it actually is, or, that by reporting on valid but terrible news, we are a “danger” to society, because we perpetuate fear. Basically, it is the beginnings of an argument for suppression of 1st Amendment rights.

The reason the information we report on is disturbing is not because it is “bad”, but because it is TRUE. There are children who could make the distinction, but some full grown men and women seem to have difficulty with the concept. When the establishment says that we as researchers and alternative media do not have a right to spread facts that might upset you, what they are also saying is that you as an American cannot be trusted to act responsibly and constructively with the facts you are given. They are saying that they need to protect you from yourself. Who ever gave them permission to take on that job?

The Doomer Porn argument rings hollow because what I state here in these articles is entirely subject to your verification. If I embellish, or lie, I will be caught, and thus, my writing becomes meaningless. If I tell the truth, the hard truth, it is not up to me or the MSM or anyone else accept yourself to decide what you will do with it.

That guy* was talking about bad economics. I am talking - here - about bad science. Either way, listen carefully to what they say, when and if they warn you not to read me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
8/IX/2010, Nativity of
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Bibl. Mouffetard, Paris V

*Source: Pakalert: Dangerous Economic Misconceptions

Am I foolish to say "Evolution of widely differring (mammal) species from each other is proven wrong"?

I have basically said so on the blogpost Karyogrammata. Is that foolish? Should I not have shut up and waited till some real scientists tell me so?

Well, I think I would be stupid or even foolish to wait till "real scientists" tell me they are no longer evolutionist. Why?

Because they do not want to lose their jobs.

I was asking today in the automatic laundry for coins for washing. "Get a job" I was told. Some people seem to think having a paycheck makes you an honest man. That is not always so.

Thank you, O'Keefe, for reminding me!

HGL