Preying on bank customers…sting operation to tackle increased robberies – RamjattanA decision has been made to set up a sting operation to deal with the recent spate of robberies committed on persons who have been targeted after conducting financial transactions at commercial banks.This announcement was made by Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan, who suggested that a sting operation could help to curb the issue before it becomes uncontrollable, and would help to address the situation from a collectiveCrime Chief Paul Williamsstandpoint.The minister did not reject popular opinion suggesting suspicion of involvement of bank employees and relatives of persons who have been robbed in the past.He described the situation as worrying, and said he wants the problem to be addressed soon.He revealed that certain banks have started conducting their own internal investigations into the phenomenon to determine the truth, and explained that most commercial banks have reported that their tellers would not be able to retain their phones while on duty. Other internal mechanisms are being looked into, he also said.Staff, CCTV monitoringThe roll Crime Chief Paul Williams has to play requires that he address the numerous incidents of persons being robbed shortly after conducting transactions at various commercial banks.“I’m appealing to the banks for them to carry out some amount of analysis within their daily operations. There are so many things the banks can do from an analysis that (would) really help us to see if there is any inside dealing or inside information,” Williams told the Department of Public Information (DPI) on Monday.The Crime Chief has said that while Policemen in plain clothes have been stationed outside of some commercial banks and traffic ranks are ensuring that unauthorized drivers are not taking up space at these banks, a collective approach involving other stakeholders is still required in order to get to the core of the issue.“The bank needs to carry out a review of the CCTV within the bank itself. See how many persons frequent the bank; whether they are doing transactions, or sitting idly. Follow this daily; see how many persons are being robbed. Check to see if they would’ve dealt with a specific teller, you know. There is so much analysis that can be done in order for us to deal with this situation,” he told DPI.Just last week, the Guyana Association of Bankers (GAB) expressed similar concerns over these escalating incidents of persons being targeted after conducting transactions with commercial banks.The GBA, in a statement to the media, said, “We strongly condemn these incidents, and wish to assure our customers and the public at large that, as an industry, we are working with the relevant authorities and internally with all member banks with a view to arresting this trend.”The GBA told the media that the safety of customers and staff remains paramount among its priorities. It has also pledged to continue co-operation with law enforcement entities to address any factors that compromise this position.“In the interest of safety, we take this opportunity to encourage customers and members of the public to, as far as possible, refrain from conducting large cash transactions, and instead utilize other secure methods of payment, such as Manager’s Cheques or direct payments.”The GBA said local security escort services should also be considered for persons operating businesses which may require transportation of significant sums of cash.After a bank transaction two weeks ago, a 30-year-old businessman and his 35-year-old salesman were ambushed by three men –two of whom were armed — and relieved of over $2 million in cash and other valuables while they were in the vicinity of Drysdale Street, Charlestown, Georgetown.Besides this incident, there have been multiple other cases in which customers of various banking institutions were traced to their homes or business places and robbed by bandits at gunpoint.Just last year, a bandit was killed and another was captured unhurt during an exchange of gunfire at an attempted robbery at Republic Bank (Guyana), Water Street, Georgetown.The bandit was shot in his chest, and succumbed to his injuries. One of the suspects was shot in both legs. He was a bank employee who is said to have been the mastermind behind the bank robbery.
If evolution is true, the number of species coming and going should track the number of rock layers in which they are fossilized, at least roughly. The more sediments per unit time, the more new genera should arise within them. Shanan E. Peters (U of Michigan) decided to test this “novel” approach with marine fossils (the most abundant in the fossil record) over most of the geologic column, from Cambrian to Pliocene, and did indeed find a correlation. He wrote his conclusions in PNAS.1 Peters compared two databases: one that counted genera of marine organisms in the worldwide geologic column, and one that counted rock sections in the geologic column in the USA. (A section is a record of continuous sedimentation bounded by gaps, or unconformities.) First, he graphed genus richness against rock quantity; these measurements correlated well until the Cretaceous, when they diverged sharply. The divergence, he explained, could have been a statistical artifact of sampling called the “pull of the recent”; i.e., the tendency for recent epochs to be better represented than ancient ones. That’s OK, he explained; one would expect the correlations to be seen better at macro rather than micro scales. Second, he graphed first and last appearances of genera against the bottoms and tops of rock sections. These correlated fairly well for extinctions (r=0.75), but not as well for originations of genera (r=0.54 or less). “This finding means,” he tells us, “that the average longevity of a genus in the fossil record is comparable with the average duration of a sedimentary section. In fact, the entire frequency distribution of genus longevities is remarkably similar to that of section durations.” Third, he compared genus turnover with section turnover and also found similar positive correlation, though with some data points as prominent outliers. In his concluding discussion, he tried to explain what these correlations mean.These results demonstrate that the temporal distribution of genus first and last occurrences in the marine animal fossil record is intimately related to the temporal continuity and quantity of sedimentary rock. Determining why this result is the case is more challenging than demonstrating that it is so. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Since the two databases (genus counts and section counts) were presumed “as independent as two data sets that share the same timescale could possibly be,” he felt the correlations, rough as they were, indicated something significant. Either the results were artifacts of preservation bias (the luck of the fossilization process), or had a common-cause relationship. The former, he argued, seems unlikely: “Thus, if stratigraphic correlation and the shared timescale are the only reasons for statistical similarity, then virtually all temporal patterns derived from the geologic record must be little more than methodological artifacts of binning and correlation. This possibility seems extremely unlikely (although quantifying the magnitudes of the statistical contributions of these factors is very important).” That being agreed, which explanation – selection bias or common cause – best explains the data?Assuming that macroevolutionary patterns derived from genus first and last occurrences have the potential to be meaningful in a biological sense, the task then becomes to explain why patterns in the genus fossil record are closely duplicated by analogous patterns in the sedimentary rock record. As discussed above, there are two possibilities, (i) preservation bias and (ii) shared forcing mechanisms (common cause).He showed that the latter possibility makes better predictions, but does admit one caveat: “because only unconformity and rock quantity biases are being measured here, it is possible that facies biases and/or asymmetries in environmental preservation within sedimentary sequences are causing the stronger section-genus extinction correlation”; i.e., the beginning and end of the story don’t always reveal what happened in the middle. Nevertheless, he felt confident that taxonomists and geologists had not conspired to bias the conclusions: “it seems unlikely that the work of hundreds of taxonomists has been so nonrandom as to render the survivorship patterns of >32,000 genera from across the tree of life little more than a quantification of the structure of the sedimentary rock record.” Why, however, would the genus extinction count correlate with the end of the rock section better than the origination count correlate with the beginning? Aha, the common-cause hypothesis predicted it would. The answer is in the way evolution works:Under the common-cause hypothesis, however, genera are expected to originate early in a sedimentary basin’s history as new habitats and environments expand and to go extinct abruptly when environmental changes eliminate the basin environments altogether. Thus, similar average durations for sections and genera as well as corresponding peaks and troughs in rates of origination and extinction are expected. Interestingly, the common-cause hypothesis also predicts that the genus-section extinction correlation should be stronger than the genus-section origination correlation because genus extinction can match the timing of rapid environmental shifts that result in section truncation, whereas genus origination may not be capable of responding instantly to the macroevolutionary opportunities afforded by basin expansion. This possibility is sensitive to choice of timescale, but it is supported by analyses that find less empirical support for pulsed genus origination [i.e., punctuated equilibria] than for pulsed genus extinction at the same level of temporal resolution in the Phanerozoic.The remainder of Peters’ discussion delved into the meaning of these correlations for theories of environmental forcing of macroevolution and timing of mass extinctions. He favored gradualism over saltation for origination of species, and discounted the need for major catastrophes to explain extinction rates. He defended the challenging concept that “much of the macroevolutionary history of marine animals is driven by processes related to the formation and destruction of sedimentary basins.” If some evolutionists believe that extinctions and explosions of biological diversity can be forced by a meteorite impact, for instance, why not consider the possibility that macroevolutionary change can also be forced by slower geological changes? Thus, “it would seem prudent to revisit some of the classic unifying hypotheses that are grounded in the effects of continually operating processes and to reevaluate seriously the extent to which unusual or episodic events are required to explain the macroevolutionary history of marine animals.” In conclusion, he admitted that more work will need to be done to rule out taxonomic biases. These “remain a potential obfuscator of macroevolutionary patterns in all global taxonomic databases,” he says; though he has shown some correlation, he is not trying to push his point too far. “Further quantifying the relationships between the large-scale temporal and spatial structure of the geologic record and the distribution of fossil occurrences within this structure will be important,” he ended, “in overcoming persistent sampling biases and in testing the extent to which common-cause mechanisms have dominated the macroevolutionary history of marine animals.”1Shanan E. Peters, “Geological constraints on the macroevolutionary history of marine animals, “ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, August 30, 2005, vol. 102, no. 35, 12326-12331, published online before print August 16, 2005, 10.1073/pnas.0502616102.This lengthy entry is exhibited here to show how evolutionists can fool themselves into thinking the observations support Charlie’s tall tale. In the first place, he used evolutionary assumptions to calibrate evolutionary assumptions: the “common timescale” of both databases is the geologic column, a theoretical arrangement of global sediments built on the assumption of evolution and millions of years. This is reminiscent of the joke about the church bell ringer who set his watch by the clock tower on the parliament building, only to find out that the clock tower maintenance man set his clock by the church bell. Second, the correlations are only marginally significant. His charts show severe outliers. Sometimes the anomalous data points have an important story to tell. Third, his use of gap-bound rock sections only concentrates on the beginning and ending of continuously-deposited sediments. In the old Dr. Seuss book The Cat in the Hat, the first and last pages of the book, showing the children contentedly at ease in a clean living room, belies all the chaos and commotion that occurred in the middle. Last, Peters trusted in the “if you build it, they will come” theory of evolution. He didn’t explain how new genera of marine organisms would “emerge” when the sea level rose or fell; he just assumed that whenever organisms are given a safe haven, presto! macroevolution happens. In short, the evolutionary story rigged, controlled, operated and guaranteed the outcome of the entire analysis. Evolution is a self-fulfilling prophecy. For a side dish, consider what EurekAlert recently reported: most scientific papers are wrong. Whether from financial interest, prejudice, unseen biases, conflict of interest, peer pressure or the desire to prove relationships that don’t exist (false positives), “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.” Iain Murray, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute, reflected on what this means – much authoritative-sounding science talk is inconclusive and, frankly, politically or selfishly motivated. The paper by Peters, reviewed here, fits the description. For all its graphs and jargon, it is trying to prove something that isn’t necessarily true, built on a bias for a certain brand of Darwinian evolution. Even if there were a correlation between sediment counts and genus counts, could there be a non-evolutionary explanation? Naturally. In a flood scenario, for instance, more genera are likely to be buried in sediments corresponding to the volume of the material. The first appearance of a genus would either represent the chance placement in the layers or a mechanical artifact of the burial process, such as liquefaction or hydrodynamic sorting. Extinction would occur, but not origination by evolution. No great time periods need transpire. Since Peters’ radar screen was not tuned to this possibility, he missed it.(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Datia district health officials are on high alert after the death of a 52-year-old man due to persistent fever, and increase in fever cases in both government and private hospitals.According to an official, Imat Singh, a patient with high fever for the last five days, was admitted at the Datia District hospital on Monday morning. “On his arrival, the patient was administered an injection to bring his fever under control. In the evening, another injection was given to him. However, this time the patient collapsed,” Pradeep Upadhyay, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Datia district told The Hindu over telephone.The news of death of Imat Singh, a cousin of district Congress vice-president Sarnam Singh Rajput, spread like wildfire, said an official.In the meantime, the family members of the deceased alleged that he died due to administration of wrong injection. A few other patients undergoing treatment with symptoms of high fever and headache in the hospital panicked and fled, said Dr. Upadhyay.He said the condition of nine other patients with similar symptoms is under control. The CMHO has also dismissed allegations of wrong treatment. Dr. Upadhyay also denied media reports suggesting use of a single syringe to treat 25 patients by the hospital staff.