Can the pump get damaged when it's starved for fuel?
Those pumps had a 200k mile warranty due to factory issues.
This is what I use, Bio Kleen. I dump it right in the storage tank when the coop tanker fills it.Good find on your part though. The only thing I have found that tackles that diesel algae/bacteria goop is acetone.
You have clearly not done the math, nor the research, that would free you from the web of lies atheists have spun in order to put forward a godless origin theory.it is not "accidental randomness" and each positive trait which are often tiny changes to an existing one, is reinforced by adding to survival of the individuals with that trait.
don't think of 'suddenley a big tooth appears' - consider millions of small incrimental changes, some beneficial, and some not, the beneficial ones carry into the next generation - reinforced, - while the negative ones are less likely to carry forward. It makes perfect sense. And continues today. The famous case of grey moths in London during the early industrial revolution, which deposited black coal soot on local trees, making them dark and the moths stood out being grey. Those moths adapted to become the colour of the soot. All on their own. Adaptations are underway at all times in all environments.
Those "pepper moths" you speak of....the photographs used to support that theory were fabricated, with moths being glued to tree trunks for the picture.
There is a complete break down todayCitation please. Even the specific mutation has been discovered:
![]()
The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element - Nature
The mutation responsible for the black carbonaria morph of the peppered moth is identified as a transposable element within the cortex gene.www.nature.com
The rest of your text clearly shows a misunderstanding of the mechanisms behind evolution.
/a godless atheist
I don't have the book anymore. It was in my high-school biology textbook which I studied decades ago. I did a search just now and found the following points made by some scientists on this subject, courtesy of Wikipedia (which of course, in typical Darwinian style, provides more in favor of the peppered-moth theory than against it--but at least they did have this bit):Citation please.
Phillip E. Johnson, a co-founder of the creationist intelligent design movement, said that the moths "do not sit on tree trunks", that "moths had to be glued to the trunks" for pictures, and that the experiments were "fraudulent" and a "scam." The intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in the 24 May 1999 issue of The Scientist, claiming that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments". Wells further wrote in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution that "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged." However, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks on occasion, and Nick Matzke states that there is little difference between the 'staged' photos and 'unstaged' ones.
I learned this fact from a biology textbook, before Facebook was even thought of. If it matters, I have never to this day had a FaceBook account, nor Twitter, nor other social media--not even LinkedIn. I rarely run across anything from FB, and when I do, it's the result of an online search, such as something advertised for sale. I never socialize in such places. My interest and knowledge of science is firsthand, with no need to rely on a friends network. I do, however, find internet sources of information convenient when asked by others to provide evidence for something.There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.
Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information
It was in my high-school biology textbook which I studied decades ago.
From 2001 to 2007, Majerus carried out experiments in Cambridge to resolve the various criticisms of Kettlewell's experiment. During his experiment, he noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths. Of the 135 moths examined, over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch; 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side; and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs. Following correspondence with Hooper, he added an experiment to find if bats, not birds, could be the main predators. He observed a number of species of bird actually preying on the moths, and found that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-swedentalk-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> He described his results as a complete vindication of the natural selection theory of peppered moth evolution, and said "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-indy-54"><span>[</span>53<span>]</span></a>
Majerus died before he could complete the writing up of his experiments, so the work was carried on by Cook, Grant, Saccheri, and James Mallet, and published on 8 February 2012 as "Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-pandas_080212-55"><span>[</span>54<span>]</span></a> The experiment became the largest ever in the study of industrial melanism, involving 4,864 individuals in a six-year investigation, and it confirmed that melanism in moths is a genuine example of natural selection involving camouflage and predation. Their concluding remark runs: "These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-Cook2012-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a>
Coyne said he was "delighted to agree with this conclusion [of Majerus's experiment], which answers my previous criticisms about the Biston story."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-Coyne_1202012-56"><span>[</span>55<span>]</span></a>
The last sentence you included of the Wiki quote shows plainly that the researchers who published the newer "findings" were prejudiced to begin with. They were looking for a particular result, and they found it. That is not surprising. What would be surprising is to look for something and NOT find it. The latter case would be an indicator of true objectivity--a very rare commodity in today's world of scientists.This is why you should keep up to date on research, and not just accept things in an old book you read decades ago, never to revisit. Science progresses, refines, and discards what is not true and either confirms criticism correct, or false - even if it can take time to get there because things are complex. The next section in the Wiki:
The mistake we make is that we counter what is obvious (to us) nonsense with facts, rather than try to understand the concerns people may have and address those. Personally I stopped caring a long time ago about the believes of people who assert that the earth is flat, people who believe the earth was created for the benefit of humans some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, people who believe the covid vaccine will kill those who took it (by 2023), people who believe, that global warming is a hoax (or that it will destroy the world), people who oppose the Genetic manipulation. The list goes on and on.There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.
Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information
People are disconnected from the truth
Don’t believe what they read or see.
They rely on what their friends tell them and believe now
No idea how you can fix that
The last sentence you included of the Wiki quote shows plainly that the researchers who published the newer "findings" were prejudiced to begin with.
The sentence was:The last sentence was from one of the people that was skeptical about the first results.
It says nothing of being happy to have dispelled prior misunderstandings. It says nothing about being delighted to disagree with some priorly held belief. The wording implies, at least to my mind, that he had already postulated in agreement with the foregoing conclusions, and was happy to find support for it.
Thank you for that.And this is where you read that wrong. Most scientists are happy when their previous skepticism has been removed because of the evidence presented.
He specifically wrote on the Biston research: "Reviewing the book, Jerry Coyne noted these points, and concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom."
I often am reminded of the Novel 1984The mistake we make is that we counter what is obvious (to us) nonsense with facts,
No, that hot girl really wants to hook up with me. Amazing, that with a few billion men across the world she chose me!There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.
Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information
People are disconnected from the truth
Don’t believe what they read or see.
They rely on what their friends tell them and believe now
No idea how you can fix that
It sounds like he had some reason to believe the prior studies were not defensible. He was a committed evolutionist, so he was unsatisfied with leaving it at that, and went to conduct his own study that would provide a more credible defense in favor of the conclusion he preferred. The "for the time being" remark is telling. It is easy to see from his comments what his desired outcome would be--and thus it is no surprise that he is afterward "delighted" to establish it.
He was a committed evolutionist
I would adjust that a little, though. "If you are thought to be wrong...." The counterintuitive truth is that the majority is often wrong (not always, but often enough). One might prefer to think there is always safety in numbers. But it simply isn't so.If you are wrong, a million people will let you know with details and examples of why and how you are wrong.
I agree that the evidence is "overwhelming." However, you might be surprised to hear that the very evidence by which you establish your naturalistic evolutionary views is evidence for me of God's creation. We look at the same evidences. We reach widely different conclusions.Most are, because the evidence is overwhelming.
Scientists today have learned of the importance of every one of those, and we no longer have any "vestigial" organs.
It was not until the late 1990's, if I recall correctly, that scientists finally cracked the mystery surrounding the bumblebee's flight--up to that point considered impossible.
Evidence is not proof. It is not a conclusion. It is just evidence.
The conclusions only come after making a faith choice.
What still surprises me, though, is how so many could really believe the theory of naturalistic evolution: it seems hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason.
Incorrect. I do not believe in things. I use the preponderance of evidence to accept something up until further evidence cause me to stop accepting it. Evolution is a messy thing and is only acceptable as more likely than a human story about supernatural beings. There is real evidence for evolution that is not reliant on faith. There is no physical evidence that deities exist outside the imagination....
The conclusions only come after making a faith choice. Like it or not, everyone must do so. Naturalistic evolution requires faith to believe it, just as creation does.
...
That page is pure nonsense! They include so many things that weren't even considered in the biology textbooks when I was in school. Here's a sample:Not so, even in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Goose bumps
Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.
The formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex; a possible function in the distant evolutionary ancestors of humanity was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators. Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. Due to the diminished amount of hair in humans, the reflex formation of goose bumps when cold is also vestigial.
I used the "to me" out of respect toward those of a different view, such as yourself. Rather than speaking in a matter-of-fact tone of voice (as I would feel quite comfortable doing in support of my views), I am deliberately attempting to be polite in this discussion. Do not take my politeness as an indication of weakness nor of insecurity in my views. It is not.That's the thing. It's not thin at all. It's one of the most founded theories we have developed, with evidence at every step of the way. If it were easy to disprove because it would be untenable with a thin thread of credibility, you would be famous in no time: just publish the paper refuting it and you might even win a Nobel.
The issue is that it is "hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason" - Key words 'to me' - in your mind because of preconceptions and not understanding why the evidence is so irrefutable.
You will learn in the study of psychology that what you presently assume requires no faith is, in actual fact, based on faith. Everyone's reality is built around a faith choice. Why? Because it is only by faith that we can break the vicious cycle, the logical loop, between metaphysics (beliefs about what is real) and epistemology (beliefs about what is true). It is the faith choice that gives us a starting point, because what one believes to be true affects what one perceives to be real and vice versa. Following a faith choice, which then brings one's reality into clarity, one's axiology is formed, i.e. his or her value system.Incorrect. I do not believe in things. I use the preponderance of evidence to accept something up until further evidence cause me to stop accepting it. Evolution is a messy thing and is only acceptable as more likely than a human story about supernatural beings. There is real evidence for evolution that is not reliant on faith. There is no physical evidence that deities exist outside the imagination.