The Bolshevik revolution: a brief history.

 The October Revolution, officially known as the Great October Socialist Revolution under the Soviet Union, also known as the Bolshevik Coup, the Bolshevik Revolution, the October Uprising, the October Coup or Red October, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It was the second revolutionary change of government in Russia in 1917. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg) on 7 November 1917 [O.S. 25 October]. The rise of the Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik factions was the precipitating event of the Russian Civil War.

The October Revolution followed and capitalized on the February Revolution earlier in the year. Contrary to popular belief, Lenin did not overthrow the Tsar. The February Revolution had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy, resulting in a provisional government. The provisional government had taken power after being proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, Tsar Nicholas II's younger brother, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. The provisional government remained widely unpopular, especially because it was continuing to fight in World War I, and had ruled with an iron fist throughout the summer (including killing hundreds of protesters in the July Days).

Events came to a head in the fall as the Directorate, led by the left-wing Socialist Revolutionary Party, controlled the government. The left-wing Bolsheviks were deeply unhappy with the government, and began spreading calls for a military uprising. On 10 October 1917 (O.S.; 23 October, N.S.), the Petrograd Soviet, led by Trotsky, voted to back a military uprising. On 24 October (O.S.; 6 November, N.S.) the government shut down numerous newspapers and closed the city of Petrograd in an attempt to forestall the revolution; minor armed skirmishes broke out. The next day a full scale uprising erupted, as a fleet of Bolshevik sailors entered the harbor and tens of thousands of soldiers rose up in support of the Bolsheviks. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military-Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 25 October (O.S.; 7 November, N.S.), 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia) was captured.

As the Revolution was not universally recognized, the country descended into civil war, which would last until 1923 and ultimately lead to the creation of the Soviet Union in late 1922. The historiography of the event has varied. The victorious Soviet Union viewed it as a validation of their ideology, and the triumph of the worker over capitalism. During Soviet times, revolution day was made a national holiday, marking its importance in the country's founding story. On the other hand, the Western Allies saw it as a violent coup, which used the democratic Soviet councils only until they were no longer useful. The event inspired many cultural works, and ignited communist movements across Europe and globally. Many Marxist–Leninist parties around the world still celebrate revolution day. Contemporary Russia now distances itself from its Soviet past by removing the October Revolution as a national holiday.

On Darwinists' pseudoscience re:pseudogenes.

 

Pseudogenes Aren’t Nonfunctional Relics that Refute Intelligent Design

Casey Luskin

We’ve been discussing a video in which Richard Dawkins claims that the evidence for common ancestry refutes intelligent design (see here, here, and here). We first saw that contrary to Dawkins, the genetic data does not yield “a perfect hierarchy” or “perfect family tree.” Then we saw that a treelike data structure does not necessarily refute intelligent design. But Dawkins isn’t done. At the end of his answer in the video, Dawkins raises the issue of “pseudogenes,” which he claims “don’t do anything but are vestigial relicts of genes that once did something.” Dawkins says elsewhere that pseudogenes “are never transcribed or translated. They might as well not exist, as far as the animal’s welfare is concerned.” These claims represent a classic but false “junk DNA” argument against intelligent design. 

Functions of Pseudogenes 

Pseudogenes can yield functional RNA transcripts, functional proteins, or perform a function without producing any transcript. A 2012 paper in Science Signaling noted that although “pseudogenes have long been dismissed as junk DNA,” recent advances have established that “the DNA of a pseudogene, the RNA transcribed from a pseudogene, or the protein translated from a pseudogene can have multiple, diverse functions and that these functions can affect not only their parental genes but also unrelated genes.” The paper concludes that “pseudogenes have emerged as a previously unappreciated class of sophisticated modulators of gene expression.” 

A 2011 paper in the journal RNA concurs:

Pseudogenes have long been labeled as ‘junk’ DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. 

Likewise, a 2012 paper in RNA Biology states that “pseudogenes were long considered as junk genomic DNA” but “pseudogene regulation is widespread in eukaryotes.” Because pseudogenes may only function in specific tissues and/or only during particular stages of development, their true functions may be difficult to detect. The RNA Biology paper concludes that “the study of functional pseudogenes is just at the beginning” and predicts “more and more functional pseudogenes will be discovered as novel biological technologies are developed in the future.” 

When we do carefully study pseudogenes, we often find function. One paper in Annual Review of Genetics observed: “pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles.” A 2020 paper in Nature Reviews Genetics cautioned that pseudogene function is “Prematurely Dismissed” due to “dogma.” The paper cautions that there are many instances where DNA that was dismissed as pseudogene junk was later found to be functional: “with a growing number of instances of pseudogene-annotated regions later found to exhibit biological function, there is an emerging risk that these regions of the genome are prematurely dismissed as pseudogenic and therefore regarded as void of function.” Indeed, the literature is full of papers reporting function in what have been wrongly labeled “pseudogenes.” 

Fingers in Ears?

At the end of the video, Dawkins says: “I find it extremely hard to imagine how any creationist who actually bothered to listen to that could possibly doubt the fact of evolution. But they don’t listen…they simply stick their fingers in their ear and say la la la.” It’s safe to say that Dawkins was wrong about many things in this video, but I’m not here to make any accusations about fingers and ears. I will say that the best resolution to these kinds of questions is to listen to the data, keep an open mind, and to think critically. When we’re wiling to do this, a lot of exciting new scientific possibilities open up — ones that don’t necessarily include traditional neo-Darwinian views of common ancestry or a “perfect hierarchy” in the tree of life, and ones that readily point toward intelligent design. 

Jarwarhlal Nehru: a brief history.

 Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian independence activist and, subsequently, the first Prime Minister of India. Considered as one of the greatest statesmen of India and of the twentieth century , he was a central figure in Indian politics both before and after independence. He emerged as an eminent leader of the Indian independence movement, serving India as Prime Minister from its establishment in 1947 as an independent nation, until his death in 1964. He was also known as Pandit Nehru due to his roots with the Kashmiri Pandit community, while Indian children knew him better as Chacha Nehru (Hindi: Uncle Nehru).

The son of Swarup Rani and Motilal Nehru, a prominent lawyer and nationalist statesman, Nehru was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple, where he trained to be a barrister. Upon his return to India, he enrolled at the Allahabad High Court and took an interest in national politics, which eventually replaced his legal practice. A committed nationalist since his teenage years, he became a rising figure in Indian politics during the upheavals of the 1910s. He became the prominent leader of the left-wing factions of the Indian National Congress during the 1920s, and eventually of the entire Congress, with the tacit approval of his mentor, Mahatma Gandhi. As Congress President in 1929, Nehru called for complete independence from the British Raj and instigated the Congress's decisive shift towards the left.

Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics during the 1930s as the country moved towards independence. His idea of a secular nation-state was seemingly validated when the Congress swept the 1937 provincial elections and formed the government in several provinces; on the other hand, the separatist Muslim League fared much poorer. However, these achievements were severely compromised in the aftermath of the Quit India Movement in 1942, which saw the British effectively crush the Congress as a political organisation. Nehru, who had reluctantly heeded Gandhi's call for immediate independence, for he had desired to support the Allied war effort during World War II, came out of a lengthy prison term to a much altered political landscape. The Muslim League under his old Congress colleague and now opponent, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had come to dominate Muslim politics in India. Negotiations between Congress and Muslim League for power sharing failed and gave way to the independence and bloody partition of India in 1947.

Nehru was elected by the Congress to assume office as independent India's first Prime Minister, although the question of leadership had been settled as far back as 1941, when Gandhi acknowledged Nehru as his political heir and successor. As Prime Minister, he set out to realise his vision of India. The Constitution of India was enacted in 1950, after which he embarked on an ambitious program of economic, social and political reforms. Chiefly, he oversaw India's transition from a colony to a republic, while nurturing a plural, multi-party system. In foreign policy, he took a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement while projecting India as a regional hegemon in South Asia.

Under Nehru's leadership, the Congress emerged as a catch-all party, dominating national and state-level politics and winning consecutive elections in 1951, 1957, and 1962. He remained popular with the people of India in spite of political troubles in his final years and failure of leadership during the 1962 Sino-Indian War. In India, his birthday is celebrated as Children's Day.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

  One thing that has become clear to me is that one cannot be an atheist and an optimist with regard to the future of our race and civilisation, at least an atheist would be completely unable to justify his optimism.The atheist universe is inherently amoral,how can a moral person possibly remain an optimist in a universe that does not acknowledge/reward virtue or condemn/punish vice as a matter of principle or for that matter a universe that had no objective basis for morality.

  The atheist universe will always be a place where ego-obsessed sociopaths get away with injustice until we all go extinct that's the best any atheist can realistically expect.There of course will always be people who strive for those virtues to which the moral instinct embedded in us all beckon,but without an objective justification for those virtues the temptation to adopt the logic of nihilism,hedonism,egoism and like pathologies will only get stronger and that minority committed to the pursuit of instinctive morality(with which our civilisation maintains a parasitic relationship) will keep getting smaller.

 So one can either be an atheist or be optimist about the future of our race and civilisation but not both at least not if one wishes to be intellectually consistent.

On John5:18.

  Depending on whom one asks this verse is supposed to be a defeater for Christians who accept the God and Father of Jesus Christ as the one true God:

Braggadocio or substance?Well let's have a look:John5:18NASB"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
The first thing you'll notice about those who misuse this verse to promote trinitarian or modalist notions is that they invariably focus on the second charge and not the first thus bringing their competence if not their sincerity into question.Manifestly both charges are from the same source and the fact that they are parallelled indicates that they are  both either equally improper or proper depending on ones argument.
 Usually our trinitarian or modalist friends would insists that charge no.2 is John's opinion if we accept this line of logic we are compelled to further conclude that charge number one is also John's opinion.So did the apostle John really opine that his master failed to practice what he preached in breaking the Sabbath see Matthew5:19 or that claiming Jehovah as Father was blasphemous,An opinion that would render John himself guilty of blasphemy 1John3:1,2 later on at John8:41 the Jews also claim Jehovah God as their father were they thus making themselves equal to God.
  Obviously it was the Jewish religious leaders in their zeal for legalism who falsely concluded that Jesus kindly healing of this son of Abraham on the most appropriate day for such charity amounted to a violation of the sabbath and it was the same group who with equally faulty reasoning concluded that Jesus acknowledgment of almighty God as the source of the power manifested through him and that God would not have made such power available to him if he was not favored by him as a Father would favor a son meant that he was trying to steal God's thunder so to speak.
  While we are on the subject of opinions what was Jesus' opinion on the matter,we need not speculate he makes it quite clear in the following verse "Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." Clearly Jesus was not of the opinion that his being God's son made him equal to God.