Ecobank, UL, Sign Tripartite Loan Agreement

first_imgDr. Weeks and Ecobank MD Mensah-Asante exchanged loan agreement after the signing ceremony. Pan-African banking group Ecobank Liberia Limited and the University of Liberia have signed a tripartite loan agreement to extend loan facilities to its faculty association who are full-time employees of the university. The loan package, according to Ecobank Managing Director, George Mensah-Asante, comes at a concessionary interest rate, with a one-month moratorium.“As a bank, we continuously find innovative ways to promote our business and to also grow our customer base. We are therefore extending our full array of financial services to the membership of the University of Liberia Faculty Association,” Mensah-Asante said at the signing ceremony on Wednesday, March 20, 2019, in Monrovia. “This includes loans, a variety of digital products and services as well as other traditional banking facilities to ULFA members.”Under this agreement, he said, loan applicants can apply for personal, vehicle loan, and mortgage depending on the individual’s debt-service ratio.Explaining the qualification aspect, the Bank Managing Director said applicants must first be full-time employees of the university and have no other loan obligations with any other bank.Also commenting at the signing ceremony, President of ULFA Cllr. Viama J. Blama thanked Ecobank for the timely intervention, which seeks to elevate the lives of the association members.He said the loan has a 12 percent interest rate and is only open to full-time employees of the institution.Cllr. Blama disclosed that his administration lobbied with reputable banks for ULFA members to obtain a loan that will enable them to buy a car or build their own homes. He said, his administration has been able to lobby with the University of Liberia (UL) administration in forming a cordial partnership to address issues affecting the warfare of the association.“So, we are happy today to sign this agreement. This loan is a tripartite agreement and the case of dismissal or death, ULFA takes the responsibility,” Cllr. Blama added.For her part, UL President, Prof. Dr. Ophelia Inez Weeks, expressed gratitude to Ecobank for making available such financial services, especially the loan packages, to members of the Association.She pledged, on behalf of the members, that they will endeavor to fulfill all obligations, as customers of the bank and to repay all loans contracted timely.Meanwhile, the signing ceremony was attended by the management of Ecobank Liberia, management of UL as well as the leadership of ULFA.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Dems escalate fight over firings

first_imgSeveral lawmakers from both parties have said Gonzales’ conflicting accounts of the firings, along with concerns about how the Justice Department is fighting the War on Terrorism, have undermined their confidence in him. Democrats and some Republicans, such as Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire and possible GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, have called for Gonzales’ resignation. President George W. Bush, meanwhile, has stood by Gonzales, a longtime friend from Texas. “I think the Justice Department has been working very hard to be fully responsive to the request, as the president asked them to do,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Tuesday. Officials said the House request included the full text of all documents that had been partially or completely blacked out in the Justice Department’s initial release of more than 3,000 pages last month, including some U.S. attorney evaluations. Justice officials said the request included an unredacted list ranking the performance and standing of each of the 93 U.S. attorneys. Government officials have previously confirmed that Chicago-based prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the Justice Department’s premier U.S. attorneys, was ranked as “not distinguished.” In addition, the documents being sought include any correspondence with journalists about the firing. Democrats say statements by Gonzales and his lieutenants, three of whom have resigned in the aftermath of the dismissals, have raised questions over whether the ousters were politically motivated. The administration denies any wrongdoing. Gonzales’ former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, told Leahy’s committee last month that the firings were a “benign rather than sinister story.” Meanwhile, Gonzales on Tuesday named Kevin J. O’Connor, U.S. attorney for Connecticut, his new chief of staff to replace Sampson, who had orchestrated the firings for the department and resigned last month.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! WASHINGTON – Democrats subpoenaed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for more documents Tuesday, escalating their fight with the Bush administration over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The subpoena, issued a week before Gonzales was scheduled to testify before Congress about the dismissals, seeks hundreds of documents either withheld or heavily blacked out by his department. The subpoena sets a Monday deadline for Gonzales to produce the documents. “We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote Gonzales in a letter accompanying the subpoena. “Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs.” Conyers characterized the subpoena as a last resort after weeks of negotiations with Justice over documents and e-mails the committee wants in its pursuit of whether any of the firings were improper. Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse stopped short of saying the department would fight the subpoena. But he said legal concerns about violating privacy rights of people mentioned in the documents have kept Justice from releasing them. “Because there are individuals’ privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate that Congress would choose this option,” Roehrkasse said. “In light of these concerns, we will continue to work closely with congressional staff and we still hope and expect that we will be able to reach an accommodation with the Congress.” Conyers’ counterpart, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Gonzales in a letter for documents on the firings that have been retained by the Justice Department. Such letters are sometimes preludes to a subpoena, which Leahy’s committee is expected to authorize this week. Leahy’s committee also asked Gonzales for documents on a prosecution in Wisconsin that was overturned by a federal appeals court for lack of evidence. The defendant, state worker Georgia Thompson, had been accused of bid-rigging by favoring a company with ties to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. Leahy and five other Democratic senators said they were concerned whether politics played a role in the case. Together, the developments indicated that Democrats would make life for Gonzales and the Bush administration no easier in the week leading up to his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17. last_img read more

More Wet Weather On The Way This Weekend

first_imgFORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – According to Environment Canada, the local airport weather station is likely to record its second significant amount of May precipitation this weekend.It’s projecting a rainfall amount of 15 mm, which would easily lift the monthly total past the May average of 31.9 mm, putting it in the same category as the snowfall and precipitation totals, which blew past their norms last weekend.- Advertisement -However, even if we get it all before midnight, 15 mm will not come close to the May 27th record, which was set 37 years ago.On this day in 1979, the airport station posted the all-time one day May rainfall and precipitation records of 49.8 mm.That was the key to recording monthly totals in May of that year of 57.4 mm of rain and 61.2 mm of precipitation.A 15 mm post today would leave the current month-to-date rainfall total at 39.3 mm, well short of the 1979 amount.Advertisement However, it would also lift the current precipitation total to within 1.5 mm of matching the aforementioned 1979 total, and at 59.7 mm, it would also push the year-to-date total to 135.3 mm.So for the first time in 2016, we would then reach the end of a month, with a year-to-date total that exceeds the average amount for the period in question, in this case the five month norm of 126 mm.Provided what’s predicted to fall at the airport also gets to the wildfires north of the city, this will no doubt come as more good news for those fighting them.In addition, it could well result in more celebrations for local farmers and ranchers who have reason to believe, the arrival of moisture laden La Nina conditions to replace the drought fears of El Nino conditions, could lead to grain and forage crop stems.Advertisementlast_img read more

Mourinho has harsh words for underperforming Mkhitaryan

first_img0Shares0000Manchester United’s Henrikh Mkhitaryan (L), pictured in October 2017, is expected to start against Brighton on Saturday after being consigned to the bench by his disappointed coach © AFP/File / FRANCISCO LEONGMANCHESTER, United Kingdom, Nov 25 – Jose Mourinho has offered a scathing analysis of Henrikh Mkhitaryan’s drop in form as the Manchester United manager explained why the midfielder has been exiled from his squad recently.The Armenian is expected to be recalled to the matchday squad for Saturday’s Premier League game with Brighton after being out of contention altogether for the past two games. Mkhitaryan last started for United, and turned in a lacklustre display, in the defeat against Chelsea at the start of the month and, Mourinho explained, that was the final straw for the manager.“I was not happy with his last performances,” said Mourinho. “And I am not talking about one or two. I am talking about three, four or five. He started this season very well and after that, step by step, he was disappearing.“His performance level — in terms of goalscoring, assists, high pressing, receiving the ball high up the pitch, bringing the team with him as a number 10 — were decreasing step by step.“And there was a time that was enough. The others, they work to have a chance. Everybody works to have a chance so it’s as simple as that.”Mkhitaryan has endured a torrid time at Old Trafford since his arrival in a £26 million ($35 million, 29 million euros) deal from Borussia Dortmund in 2016.He found himself banished from Mourinho’s league line-up for well over two months early last season after a dismal display in their 2-1 derby defeat to City.But he appeared to have won over his biggest critic — Mourinho — with some impressive performances as United won the Europa League and clinched Champions League football.– Forwards left out –Mkhitaryan has not been the only creative or attacking player to come in for criticism from the United manager, with Juan Mata, Anthony Martial, Jesse Lingard and others left out at various times due to dips in form.And Mourinho believes that despite trailing only neighbours City in the Premier League goalscoring charts, his players are not scoring enough, with French international Martial singled out as an example of a player who has responded well to being left out.“The team that excites me is the team that, after five chances, is winning 4-0,” he said. “That’s the team that excites me.“I think we had an improvement with Martial, scoring more goals than last season, that is why he’s playing more minutes.”Ultimately, the United manager also believes that the healthy size of his squad, and the competition for places, is good news even if it means he will face questions about players being left out.“All positions are open,” he said. “The last couple of matches Mkhitaryan was out and other players had the opportunity to play that normally Mkhitaryan has.”“There are only 11 plus seven (substitutes),” he added. “When you have a chance and the performance is not what I expect, it’s normal. You have to perform.”0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)last_img read more

Mathews Park Frostival 2020

first_imgFORT ST. JOHN, B.C – Staff of the city of Fort St. John will be hosting the Annual Frostival at Mathews Park Skating Loop.Held at Mathews Park, residents can enjoy the winter season with a bonfire, hot chocolate and outdoor skating.City staff will be unveiling the new outdoor Zamboni to clean the outdoor rinks that has been sponsored by Shell Canada.- Advertisement -Mark your calendars for Saturday, January 25 from 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm.For more information you can call; 250.785.4592.last_img

Fortuna fends off Arcata, earns spot in H-DNL championship

first_imgWith a successful penalty shot by Sarah Killfoil seven minutes before the half, the Fortuna High girls soccer team regained its confidence, enabling a 3-1 victory over visiting Arcata in the second semifinal game of the Humboldt-Del Norte League tournament, Thursday night at Fortuna High School.The No. 2 seeded Huskies (13-2-1) will face the No. 1 Eureka Loggers (15-0) in the H-DNL championship match on Saturday at 11 a.m., at Albee Stadium. Arcata (9-5-1) will join St. Bernard’s in the wait …last_img read more

Neutral Theory of Evolution Debunked

first_imgElaborating on Michael Behe’s refutation of “neutral evolution”by Jerry Bergman, PhDIntroductionPublished March 1, 2019Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves is already number one in new releases on Amazon.[1] To adequately summarize it would take a small book, so I will look at one small section where he reviews the attempts to salvage Darwinism, which he shows always fail. I have also added a few references to support Behe’s conclusions.The main problem in evolution, as stated by the late Harvard Biology Professor William E. Castle, is the origin “of a new organism is one of the least understood of all natural phenomena. Even to the trained biologist it is an unexplained mystery.”[2] This statement is still true over a century later. One attempt to explain the origin of new organisms is the neutral theory of evolution. Neutral theory, along with genetic drift, natural selection and random mutation, is viewed by its supporters to be a basic mechanism of macroevolution.[3]The Neutral Theory of EvolutionA neutral mutation is one that does not adversely affect either an organism’s phenotype nor its fitness.[4] The neutral theory of evolution postulates the accumulation of neutral mutations, such as accidental duplication of a section of DNA that causes no harm. This occurs until a new combination produces a DNA set that, in the future, confers some specific survival advantage to the organism.[5]The theory accepts the view that about one percent of the human DNA codes for proteins, and significant portions of the rest is evidence of, or could be due to, neutral mutations.[6] Later,other lucky mutations could occur in the extra DNA to confer some helpful feature, perhaps a regulatory site. Repeat this scenario many times over, and small populations of bacteria could evolve larger and larger genomes with more and more sophisticated features.[7]The theory proposes that, when environmental conditions change, some of these neutral mutations may have produced a new gene, or a set of bases, that turns out to be beneficial in the new environment.[8] Neutral evolution theory has earned the qualified support of many leading evolutionary scientists, including Arizona State University Professor Michael Lynch, Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology, and the late Harvard Professor Steven Jay Gould.[9]University of Chicago evolutionist Jerry Coyne wrote, the two main neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms are natural selection and the genetic variety produced by genetic drift.[10] The theory is anti-neo-Darwinian as explained by one of the early leaders of the idea, Motoo Kimura, who wrote that insharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e., selectively equivalent) mutants under continued inputs of mutations.[11]DNA transcription (Illustra Media)Neo-Darwinism postulates that evolution works by fine-tuning genes that give a slight survival advantage to the population so that it gradually gives the organism a progressively greater survival advantage. Evolution is not the active agent in this scenario. It is a result, not an action. The neutral theory of evolution holds that most evolutionary changes are random, and most of the variation within, and between, species is ultimately not caused by natural selection, but by random genetic drift of neutral alleles originally produced by mutations. Kimura adds that neutral theoryalso asserts that most of the genetic variability within species at the molecular level (such as protein and DNA polymorphism) are selectively neutral or very nearly neutral and that they are maintained in the species by the balance between mutational input and random extinction.[12]He concludes that “since the origin of life on Earth, neutral evolutionary changes have predominated over Darwinian evolutionary changes” (1991, p. 367).Genetic DriftThe basis of neutral theory is genetic drift, which postulates that genomic DNA base pairs change primarily by random genetic mutations and other genetic events. Genetic drift (or allelic drift) is a change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population that does not confer an immediate selection advantage to the organism. If this event occurs in gametes, the end result is the creation of new genetic variety that may, in the future, be evolutionarily advantageous. Drift can also occur in selective alleles, and can also have a selective disadvantage.A major reason neutral theory was proposed is because “all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.”[13] The late geneticist Dr. Motoo Kimura proposed neutral theory in 1968 because many molecular research findings were “quite incompatible with the expectations of Neo-Darwinism.”[14] A major problem was that evolution from one gene family type to another different family type, has never been directly documented. Furthermore, intermediate gene forms between the old, less-functional or non-functional and new, more-functional, gene by random mutations as proposed by Darwinism, is seriously problematic.Thus, neutral theory “is in sharp contrast to the traditional neo-Darwinian (i.e., the synthetic) theory of evolution, which claims that the spreading of mutants within the species in the course of evolution can occur only with the help of positive natural selection.”[15] Neutral theory also, in contrast to Darwinism, postulates that, if selection occurs, the genes selected in the next generation are more likely to be those genes from a “lucky” few individuals, and not necessarily from those life-forms that are healthier or in some way “better.”Neutral theory supporters accept the conclusion that most mutations are slightly deleterious, but claim that, because these mutant genes are rapidly purged by natural selection, they do not make significant contributions to the variation within and between species at the molecular level. They claim that only neutral mutations, or those that are close-to-neutral, can achieve this.Sanford’s book examines the impact of mutations that are invisible to selection.In contrast to the neutral theory, much evidence now exists for the view that most mutations are not strictly neutral, but near-neutral, meaning not harmful as a single entity, but collectively accumulate, eventually causing disease or death. Aging is the most well-documented example of the accumulation of near-neutral mutations. As all animals age and die, so too does a species by the same mechanism, the accumulation of near-neutral mutations.The Junk and Duplicated DNA ProblemA major difficulty with neutral theory is the assumption that most or at least much DNA is selectively neutral based on the belief that most DNA is non-functional. As Kimura concluded, neutral theory “asserts that most intraspecific variability … is selectively neutral.”[16] Junk DNA was assumed to be a major source of raw, genetic material that can gradually be modified by genetic drift or mutations to change into a gene that eventually becomes functional. However, the ENCODE project has documented that over 80 percent of all so-called junk DNA is actually functional,[17] thus creating a major problem for neutral theory.Biology Professor Nathan Lents admits, even if only one mutation renders a gene broken, repair “is like a lightning strike… The odds of lightning striking the same place twice are so infinitesimally tiny as to be nonexistent…. it’s exceeding unlikely that a mutation will fix a broken gene because, following the initial damage, the gene will soon rack up additional mutations.”[18]  He adds, if over half of our genes are broken, how can we survive as a species?Credit: Illustra Media.His answer is “the majority of these pseudogenes are the result of accidental gene duplications [which] .. . explains why the disrupting mutations and subsequent death of the gene didn’t have any deleterious effects on the individual.”  This is the common explanation for why most mutations do not appear to adversely affect the genome, a view that was falsified by the ENCODE findings. If one specific base change is very unlikely, the probability of massive changes that result in a new gene that proves beneficial in the future is far less likely.Another hypothesized source of new genes is gene duplication, enabling one gene to continue to carry out the function that it was originally evolved to fulfill, and the other gene to evolve into a new gene that can serve another, new function in the genome.[19] The problems with this view have been well documented.[20] One problem with the duplication theory is that both genes are generally equally susceptible to new mutations, likely damaging both the original and the new gene.Credit: Illustra MediaAnother problem is, if one gene is duplicated and mutations occur in the original, or the copied gene, it will not be selected until, and unless, the new protein the gene produces is functional and confers some selective advantage to the organism. Until then, if it produces a protein, the protein will often be cut up and the parts recycled. The evolution from junk DNA theory faces the same problem. To solve these problems was one reason why the neutral theory was originally proposed.The major problem with the neutral theory is the fact that a non-functional gene is not just useless, but worse. If it does not serve some beneficial function in the organism it could adversely affect the organism. The high cost of duplicating and maintaining the gene is one reason why nonfunctional genes are costly for the cell.Amino acids (Illustra Media)Another problem is mutations are not always random. Most occur in hot spots and tend to degenerate into certain bases, such as thymine, and also into a code for certain amino acids, namely those produced by six different sets of bases such as Serine, which is coded for by TCT, TCC, TCA, TCG, ATG, AGC). Both Arginine, and Leucine are also coded for by six combinations of base pairs. The result is random combinations will code for these amino acids 9.4 percent of the time and those produced by one different base set, such as Tryptophan (coded for by TGG) and Methionine (coded for by ATG) will be produced by chance only 1.6 percent of the time.Gene RegulationTo be functional, a gene requires the proper transcription factors and other regulation and control systems. A gene that has evolved by neutral theory, even if it could produce a useful product, is useless until it has the proper regularity and control mechanisms, including the spliceosome system required to remove introns. Control of both up- and down-regulation of all genes is also critical for cell and organism survival.This is illustrated by the transposition of a gene somewhere else in the genome, such next to a gene that, as a result, is improperly regulated. An example is a housekeeping gene that is transposed to a gene which causes up-regulation of cell division.[21] Also, transposition of a gene next to a regulatory sequence that is constitutively expressed can also cause that gene to be over-expressed, resulting in cancer or other problems.[22]DNA RepairThe DNA repair systems also work against genetic drift. It is now well-documented that “DNA is an alarmingly fragile molecule…. vulnerable to UV light and mutagenic chemicals, as well as spontaneous decay. Life has survived through the ages because enzymes inside every cell ensure that DNA remains in proper working order.”[23] Critical to this survival are the dozen or so DNA repair mechanisms that resist genetic drift, thus working against neutral evolution theory.Gene transcription is tightly regulated by enzymes and repair mechanisms (Illustra Media)The mechanism that repairs DNA to ensure that the molecule is very stable repairs most genetic-drift changes in spite of the fact that without this repair system “under normal conditions, DNA quickly suffers enough damage to make life impossible.”[24]The DNA repair system is highly effective except in cells that have accumulated a large amount of DNA damage, such as cancer cells. Cancer is often due to mutations of key parts of the repair system, such as p53, the so-called “guardian of the genome.” Cells that can no longer effectively repair DNA damage enter one of three possible states: 1) an irreversible state of dormancy known as senescence, 2) cell suicide known as apoptosis or programmed cell death, or 3) unregulated cell division, which can lead to a cancerous tumor. None of these conditions permits the genetic drift that allows for neutral evolution.The Molecular Clock ProblemThe main factors that motivated the neutral theory proposal include two observations that created problems for Neo-Darwinism. One was the so-called evolutionary genetic clock that was based on base substitutions of amino acids that resulted from DNA changes.[25] Functioning of this clock requires a fairly consistent rate of change in most organisms.In large populations, if mutation rates are roughly the same for most genes, then simple, random models will predict a molecular clock.[26] Because both of these considerations are erroneous, the molecular clock is not consistent. The major problem is that the genetic clockmakes no sense in Darwin’s world, where molecules subject to strong selection should evolve faster than others, and where organisms exposed to different changes and challenges from the environment should vary their evolutionary rates accordingly.[27]Gould acknowledged that the “molecular clock is neither as consistent nor as regular as Kimura once hoped.”[28]The molecular clock hypothesis depends on a constant rate of change.The refutation of the molecular clock was only one of several major blows to neutral theory.[29] Kimura referred to the discovery that high levels of variation are maintained by many genes in the population. The problem for neutral theory was too much variation in genetic changesposes a problem for conventional Darwinism because a cost can be associated with the replacement of an ancestral gene by a new and more advantageous state of the same gene—namely, the differential death, by natural selection, of the new disfavored parental forms. This cost poses no problem if only a few old genes are being pushed out of a population at any time.[30]Furthermore, “if hundreds of genes are being eliminated” by natural selection because they are deleterious, then any one organism likely possesses many of the deleterious mutant genes, impairing its survival chances. Consequently,the data on copious variability seemed to indicate a caldron of evolutionary activity at far too many genetic sites—too many, that is, if selection governs the changes in each varying gene. Kimura, however, recognized a simple and elegant way out of this paradox. If most of the varying forms of a gene are neutral with respect to selection, then they are drifting in frequency by the luck of the draw, invisible to natural selection because they make no difference to the organism.[31]Today, the term neutral theory is often defined narrowly in terms of the result of sampling disparities, although this narrow definition is problematic.Neutral Theory Conflicts with DarwinismKimura’s  conception of neutral theory obviously posed serious problems for Darwinism. To avoid the problem of directly challenging Darwinism, which could produce enormous opposition to his theory, Kimura does not openly deny it, but rather views the Darwinian “processes as quantitatively insignificant to the total picture—a superficial and minor ripple upon the ocean of neutral molecular change, imposed every now and again when selection casts a stone upon the waters of evolution.”[32] Conversely, orthodox Darwinians, “tended to argue that neutral change occupied a tiny and insignificant corner of evolution—an odd process occasionally operating in small populations at the brink of extinction anyway.”[33]ConclusionsA major evolutionary problem that neutral theory attempts to address is, ever sinceDarwin proposed his theory of natural selection to explain evolution, most evolutionary theories have always been a matter of debate and controversy. The neutral theory was not an exception.[34]Genetics research has progressed well beyond that in Kimura’s day, refuting neutral theory. Furthermore, because “the neutral theory is quantitative, it is able to make testable predictions.”[35] As the late Cornell Professor William Provine and others have documented, the testable predictions for neutral theory, especially random drift, have largely failed.[36] The evidence against neutral theory is now overwhelming, and as a result the theory has been regulated to the  dustpan of history. As Alvarez-Valin noted, the predictions of neutral theory flatly do not agree with many of the scientific facts.[37]References[1] Behe, Michael. 2019. Darwin Devolves: New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution. New York, NY: HarperOne.[2]Castle, William E.. 1916. Genetics and Eugenics. A Textbook for Students of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 4.[3] Tomkins, Jeffrey and Jerry Bergman. 2017. Neutral model, genetic drift and the third way—A synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm. Journal of Creation. 31(3):94–102[4]Duret, Laurent. 2008. Neutral theory: The null hypothesis of molecular evolution. Nature Education. 1(1):218.[5] Alvarez-Valin, F. 2002. Neutral theory. Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 815–821; Behe, 2019, p. 99.[6] Behe, 2019, pp. 98-99.[7] Behe, 2019, p. 100.[8] Kimura, M. 1979. “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.” Scientific American. November, 241:98-129.[9] Behe, 2019, p. 104.[10] Coyne, Jerry. 2015. Faith vs Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. New York, NY: Viking, pp. 139–140..[11]Kimura, M. 1991. Recent development of the neutral theory viewed from the Wrightian tradition of theoretical population genetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 88:5969–5973, p. 367. Kimura, M. 1991. The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. Japanese Journal of Genetics. 6(4):367-386.[12] Kimura, 1991, p. 367.[13]Noble, D. 2013. Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Experimental Physiology. 98(8):1235–1243, p. 1235.[14]Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. New York, NY: Cambridge, p. 25.[15] Kimura, 1991, p. 5969.[16] Kimura, 1991, p. 5969.[17] Luskin, C. (2012, September 5) “Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds ’Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome’.” Evolution News. Retrieved June 7, 2018 from https://evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1/[18] Lents, Nathan. 2018. Human Errors. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. p. 72.[19] Behe, 2019, p. 99.[20] Bergman, Jerry. 2006. Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution? Journal of Creation. 20(1):99–104Not the first time evolutionists have blundered.[21]Prelich, G. 2012. Gene overexpression: Uses, mechanisms, and interpretation. Genetics. 190:841–854.  Retrieved June 7, 2018 from http://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/190/3/841.full.pdf.[22] http://www.genetics.org/content/190/3/841.full.pdf+html.[23]Stokstad, E. 2015. DNA’s repair tricks win chemistry’s top prize.[not a subtitle; only the website’s tease for the article] Science. 350(6258):266, p. 266.[24] Stokstad, 2015, p. 266.[25] Kimura, M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary clock and the neutral theory. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 26:24–33. Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature. 217:624–626.[26]Gould, S.J. 1989. Through a lens darkly. Natural History. September, pp. 16–24, p. 17.[27] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[28] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[29] Tomkins, Jeffrey and Jerry Bergman. 2015. Evolutionary molecular genetic clocks—A perpetual exercise in futility and failure. Journal of Creation. 29(2):26–35.[30] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[31] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[32] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[33] Gould, 1989, p. 17.[34] Alvarez-Valin. 2002, p. 821.[35] Alvarez-Valin. 2002, p. 821.[36] Provine, William B. 2014. The “Random Genetic Drift” Fallacy. Published by Author.[37] Alvarez-Valin, 2002, p. 821; Wolf, J.B., E.D. Brodie, III, and M.J. Wade, eds. 2000. Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.(Visited 1,037 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

AgSynergy introduces Genesis RAZER

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest AgSynergy has introduced the Genesis RAZER. This is the newest and most versatile row unit in their lineup. The Genesis RAZER is a single disk, high speed minimal disturbance opener for single or dual placement of anhydrous ammonia, liquid or dry fertilizer. The Genesis RAZER works in a wide range of conditions from no-till to conventional tillage at speeds from 5 to 10 mph.Many features incorporated into the Genesis RAZER allow it to meet the demands of farmers and commercial applicators in the fertilizer application marketplace. The Genesis RAZER includes 20” of independent row unit travel. This superior row unit travel is achieved by utilizing active hydraulic down pressure to each parallel linkage equipped row unit, resulting in consistent application depths of nutrients. The adjustable knife design minimizes plugging by allowing constant flow of residue and soil while maintaining close tolerance to the blade. Unlike competitive row units with angled blades, side wall compaction is minimized with the Genesis RAZER row unit due to the use of straight coulter blades, resulting in true vertical application. Additional features include independent closing coulters, an easy-to-adjust knife holder to keep the forward swept knife close to the blade and easy pin removal on the parallel linkage arms for row unit maintenance. Depths of 4, 5, and 6” are attainable with the unit’s simple pin adjustment. With zero grease zerks, maintenance on the Genesis RAZER row unit is dramatically reduced when compared to competitive designs.The Genesis RAZER is available on AgSynergy’s 400 Series Toolbar or can be purchased individually. For more information, call AgSynergy at (785) 336-6333. To see the row unit in action, please visit www.agsynergy.com.last_img read more

The Hustler’s Playbook: Hustlers Are Self Starters

first_imgI once had a conversation with a leader. I mentioned to him how much I admired the accomplishments of one of his people, and he said, “Not a self-starter.” He didn’t say anything else. What had once been his top performer had become one of his worst performers. This once top performer’s inability to motivate himself had caused him to sink like a stone to the very bottom of the ranking.Here is the crux of what a hustler is: the hustler is the consummate self-starter.You never have to motivate the hustler. They’re already motivated. They motivate themselves. The hustler wants results more than you could ever want those results for them.The non-hustler, lacking the burning desire for some result, wants, needs, and expects someone else to motivate them.You don’t have to badger or remind the hustler of what they need to be doing. They’re way ahead of you. They’ve started taking action long before you came along and prompted them.The non-hustler only does what is necessary when badgered or reminded. These non-hustlers are the reason so many people in leadership believe you have to inspect what you expect. But those same leaders know they never have to worry about their true hustlers.You never have to threaten the hustler to do anything either. They work without any external threat or motivation. The only thing that threatens a hustler is the fear that they aren’t doing enough and that they aren’t doing it fast enough.Many non-hustlers only work under duress. Until they feel some threat, they won’t take the actions necessary to producing results. Their inability to self-start, to catch themselves on fire, means that someone else has to persuade, influence, or coerce them into taking action, something that is never true of the hustler.QuestionsAre your goals you own?Are you taking action on the things that will deliver the results you need without any eternal motivation?Do you start yourself each and every day, or does someone have to remind you of what you should be doing?Is there someone (other than you) who measure your activity? Essential Reading! Get my first book: The Only Sale Guide You’ll Ever Need “The USA Today bestseller by the star sales speaker and author of The Sales Blog that reveals how all salespeople can attain huge sales success through strategies backed by extensive research and experience.” Buy Nowlast_img read more

ENGINEER 2 LAST

first_imgSources in CBI said they have got documents from Income Sources in CBI said they have got documents from Income Tax department and both the departments are coordinating on the issue. CBI is questioning Singh and his family members– wife Kusum Lata, son Sunny Yadav and daughter Garima Bhushan, all suspects named in the FIRs registered by the agency against him. The agency has registered two separate cases against the then Chief Engineer Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway and his family members for alleged corruption and amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. It is alleged that during searches by Income Tax department in November, 2014, several incriminating documents and Income Tax Returns were allegedly recovered from several premises of Singh. “The scrutiny of ITRs and other connecting records have allegedly revealed that during the period 2009-2014, the total likely savings of the family of then Chief Engineer was Rs 1.70 crore (approx) whereas they were in possession of immovable property worth Rs 3.60 crore (approx). “Besides, an amount of Rs 10 crore (approx) was allegedly recovered from one of his associates, which also reportedly belonged to then Chief Engineer,” CBI spokesperson had said. The official said cases have been registered on the direction of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which directed it to conduct an investigation into allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money. They allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy with unknown private persons firms and awarded various contracts without following the laid down procedures and thereby caused undue pecuniary gain to the tune of crores of rupees to private firms and to himself, the CBI FIR said. The high court had ordered a CBI probe on the petition of activist Nutan Thakur alleging Singh had enjoyed plum postings under the regimes of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati and incumbent Akhilesh Yadav, and the state government was not acting against him. He had executed projects worth around Rs 8,000 crore in Noida in the last 12 years, the Noida authority said in a report besides being involved in infrastructure projects such as Ganga water supply, sewage pipelines, drainage, hospitals, parks and the metro. PTI ABS ZMN IKAadvertisementlast_img read more