Part 3, Chapter 4, Section 4.
The Defilement of the Will in its Affections and Properties, or the sinful Adjuncts inseparably cleaving unto it.
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Romans 9:16).
Hitherto we have been declaring the native pollution of the noble faculty of the Will in the several operations thereof. But we have not (as yet) manifested the least of all that filthiness which adhereth to it. You have seen but a drop in respect of the Ocean. We proceed therefore to a further discovery of the original contagion thereof, and that in its Affections and Properties: The sinful Adjuncts inseparably cleaving to it, proclaim it to be a defiled subject.
This Scripture opened, vindicated and improved against the Doctrine of Free-will.
This truth cannot be superstructed better than upon this foundation in the Text, which is a noble ingredient into that famous portion of Scripture wherein the doctrine of those sublime mysteries about Election and Reprobation are professedly handled, and those objections which the presumption of human reason is ready to produce are fully answered. Whereas in other places that doctrine is only occasionally or incidentally handled, here the Apostle doth industriously treat of the nature of it. Thus it hath of old been interpreted, and of late by the Orthodox.
Only Arminius, following Suecanus in part, and the Remonstrants after Arminius, have excogitated a new analysis of this chapter, full of absurdity and impertinence. For they would not have the Apostle at all to treat of Election and Reprobation of persons, they turn themselves and the Scripture into all shapes and forms to evade that, but they interpret it of a two-fold purpose or decree of God. The one whereof they say is, That whosoever doth believe shall obtain Justification, Adoption, and Salvation. The other, That whosoever seek for righteousness by the works of the Law shall be rejected from all these. This (they say) is the scope of the Apostle. But who seeth not what forcing and wresting this is of Scripture? So that we may wonder how such an interpretation could come into their mind.
For the Apostle doth not speak of conditions, but of persons, his scope is not to shew that they are believers who are received, and workers who are rejected. The Apostle had abundantly confirmed this in the fourth chapter, but he intends to shew the dominion and sovereignty of God in the eternal disposing of men's persons, and that upon the occasion of God's rejecting the Jews, and calling in the Gentiles. Therefore he saith, To "whom he will," he sheweth mercy, and "whom he will he hardeneth" [Rom. 9:18]. He puts the discrimination upon God's will, not upon any internal qualification in the subject. Also he instanceth in Esau and Jacob before they had done good or evil, whereas if Jacob were considered as a believer, then God did look upon him as having good in him.
Further, he bringeth in Pharaoh for an example, how that God did reject him, and whether the word exegeirō (v. 17) be rendered, I have raised thee up, or I have kept thee alive in those judgments, and not destroyed thee, as the Remonstrants and others vehemently contend. Yea some Orthodox do yield, it will all come to the sense, that he was an object on whom God would demonstrate his power and justice, or kept by God for a while, as some Anatomists do a dead body before they bury it, to gather profitable observations for the good of others. Not that God infused any evil in Pharaoh's heart, though the Scripture useth three words concerning Pharaoh, the one is to confirm or corroborate his heart, and that is ascribed to God seven times. The other is to harden, and that is once, though we render the word to corroborate, to harden. The last is, To aggravate or make heavy, which is once likewise ascribed to God (which is also rendered by our Interpreters to harden), not (I say) that this expression denoteth, God did put any sinful frame into Pharaoh's heart. Nor yet on the other side is it to be understood of a mere bare permission of God, as if he did no more than suffer him by his patience to be hardened. But God as a just Judge did for Pharaoh's sin antecedent justly deny him any mollifying grace, leaving him to his lusts, which in such occasions as he had, did break out into a more violent flame. So that the whole blame lay upon Pharaoh himself, not on God. Hence it is, that he is so often said to harden his own heart.
Now this example of Pharaoh could not make at all to Paul's purpose, if his intent was to prove that God would reject all such who seek for righteousness by the works of the Law, for Pharaoh was an Heathen, he was ignorant of God's Law, and could not seek for Justification by the works thereof. Besides, if the Apostle did not intend to shew God's purpose absolutely and unconditionally (in a well explained sense) about persons, but only his decree about their qualifications, what occasion was there for Paul to make such an objection: "Is there unrighteousness with God?" [v. 14]. And then first to objurgate the objector, "Who art thou, O man, that disputest against God?" [v. 20]. And then returneth a full answer to the objection, from the less to the greater, from the Potter, who hath power over the same clay to make a vessel of honor or dishonor. These Objections and Answers could have no place in the Remonstrant analysis and interpretation. For who would argue it injustice in God to reject such who did not believe in Christ, but sought for Justification by the Law? If the Apostle did prove only two such decrees about the ways to salvation and damnation, here was no such mystery transcending human expectation.
This is certain, the Remonstrants commend their way of common Election, making the determinate event to be by man himself, in a most plausible and colourable manner, as being most agreeable to human reason and equity. There is no man who would dispute against God in this, whereas the other exposition strongly pursued by Augustine, and for the dreadfulness of it to flesh and blood, which is ready to call God to an account for his administrations was greatly disliked by many and a scandal to them. Even as at this day, it still meeteth with the same unkind entertainment from Lutherans, Socinians, and Arminians, who make an Universal Conditional Election, whereby (they say) God would have all to be saved, even the Calvinists themselves, as they are pleased to instance by derision. Well if this part of Scripture will not convince, I know not what light will, and they must needs be prepossessed who can let their judgments assent to such a remote and forced explication. Not to add that the decree which they make about God's rejection of such who seek for Justification by works is false. For did not many Jews following the righteousness of the Law at last believe in Christ? Was not Paul once zealous for the works of the Law? Yet afterward an affectionate admirer of the righteousness by faith. But we leave these bold Interpreters who do assume more to themselves in turning the sense of these words this way and that way, than do allow God in the disposing of mankind, as if the Text were like the Potter's clay, that they might make a sense of honor and a sense of dishonor.
Come we therefore more particularly to the words in hand, and as appeareth by the illation [deduction]. So then they are an inference from Paul's preceding discourse. As for those, though men of great antiquity who suppose these words spoken not by Paul himself, as in his own person, but in the person of some opponent, it is so weak that it is not worth the rebuttal. For the Apostle in the beginning of the chapter, useth great asseveration and attestation, even with a solemn oath concerning his great affection to the Jews and their salvation, to whom also he attributeth great Church privileges and spiritual prerogatives. And this he doth because he was to deliver most dreadful matter, which would be exceeding displeasing to that Nation, and which might seem to come from hatred to them. But this Preface is to mollify them.
And whereas it might be objected, If a greater part of the Jews, who were once God's people, and to whom the promises did belong, were rejected, how could God's Word be true? The Apostle distinguisheth of the Israelites, and sheweth, that the promise in regard of the spiritual efficacy did belong only to Abraham's seed after the promise, or who were the children of Abraham in a supernatural way, imitating him and walking in his steps. The other were Abraham's sons after the flesh, not but that they were children of the promise also in respect of the Covenant externally administered, they were circumcised as well as the other, and called "the children of the promise" [Rom. 9:8], and if this were not so, the Apostle should in the same breath almost have contradicted himself, for he said of the Nation in the general that to them did belong the covenants and the promises [v. 4]. Hence that whole Nation is sometimes called his son, yea his first born, and son of delights. But though Abraham's children thus after the flesh, and in some sense of the promise also, yet not in that sense, as the Apostle meaneth here, so as to be the blessed seed, and elected by God in Christ.
Hence Paul sheweth that the promises in respect of the efficacy and gracious benefits flowing from them did belong only to the elect. And this he proveth first from Ishmael and Isaac. And whereas it might be said, Ishmael for his actual impiety deriding of, and persecuting Isaac was rejected, and also that he was born of Hagar a bond-woman; then he further exemplifyeth in Esau and Jacob, born both of the same father and mother, and at the same time, and yet before they had done good or evil. The one, even the younger, was loved of God, and the elder to whom the birthright did belong was hated.
Whether these instances be propounded as types only (so that for all this both Ishmael and Esau might be elected, as some have charitably thought of Esau, that he repented of his cruel intentions to his brother, changing his mind to him, and so (as they think) dying a converted man), or whether they be propounded as Examples also as well as Types (as those persons whom God had excluded from grace, and therefore the Scripture giveth this Character of Esau that he was a profane man), is not much material. This is enough, that the discourse of Paul is carried on with great strength. And whereas it might be objected that God was unrighteous in making such a difference between those that were equal, the Apostle answereth from a Text of Scripture where Moses desiring to see the glory of God, God grants his request, giving this reason, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and merciful to whom I will be merciful" (Ex. 33:19). Thus even Moses hath that great glory put upon him, even to speak to God face to face, and that not for any worth or dignity in himself, but the mere gracious will of God. Therefore there is no unrighteousness in this act whereby God receiveth one and leaveth another, because this assumption is an act of grace and savor; and in things of favor and liberality, there is no injustice. If I meet two poor men equally indigent, and I relieve one passing by the other, there is no injustice in not relieving of him. Now from this expression of God to Moses, the Apostle maketh this inference in my Text, removing all causes and merits of the grace of God from man, and attributing it wholly to God.
In the negation we have a distribution, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" [Rom. 9:16]. Here is much dispute, what is meant by that? But the context maketh it evident that election is not, nor the blessed effects of Election, Conversion, Justification, and Salvation. Some also add, The act of volition, It is not of him that willeth to will. For God worketh in us to will [Phil 2:13]. All is to be given to God. For Voluntas bons, is one of God's good gifts to us, Nelentem pravenit ut velit, volentem subsequitur ne finstra velit: A good will cannot precede God's gifts, seeing that itself is one of God's gifts.
"Not of him that willeth…" Here we see plainly the will of man so impotent, yea so polluted by sin, that it cannot put itself forth to any good.
The will of man is so greatly defiled by sin that we cannot obtain any spiritual mercy by it. It's the grace of God, the compassion of God that maketh thee abhor thy sins, and close with that which is holy, thy will is naturally an enemy and an adversary to it. Should God let thee alone till thou come to meet him, thy condition would be hopeless. The will of a man naturally stands at a defiance against the things of God, else why is it that under such means of grace that many enjoy, why is it that when there are so many invitations and expostulations that the understanding and conscience is convinced, that cannot tell what to say, yet the will of a man is obstinate and refractory?
The Will is so fallen from its primitive honor, that it's not worthy to be called Will but Lust.
Let us take notice of the great depravation of the will.
Oh then think seriously of this, my will is become a lust, my virgin an whore, I cannot will anything but it is a lusting after it rather than a willing of it! It is not willing of riches, but lusting after them; not willing of honours, but lusting after them. We call it a lust not a will because it doth excessively (and beyond Scripture bounds) will a thing, neither doth it will with subordination and reference to God's glory. Thus a man's will is his lust.
The Will is wholly perverted about the Ultimate End.
Although the will of man be subject to more defilements than the body of a man is exposed to diseases, yet I shall briefly select some of the more remarkable instances.
First, Herein is the natural sinfulness of the will manifested, In that it is wholly perverted about the ultimate end, which is the proper and adequate object of it. God is the supreme and ultimate end of the will. Therefore were our souls endowed with this noble faculty, that the will might firmly and immovably adhere to him. That as the elements have their proper principles of motion, whereby they never rest till they come to their center, or ultimate term in which they wholly acquiesce. Thus also if we respect the primitive institution, the will was given us for such a principle which should carry us out constantly to the enjoying of God.
But oh the sad perversion and inordinacy that is now come upon this chief power of the soul, for now a man's self is put into God's room. So that whereas God was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of a man's will, now a man's self is made his god, he willeth himself, he loveth himself, all things are done in reference to himself as the utmost end. So that this self-seeking, this self-loving is the root of all other iniquities. When the Apostle was to reckon up a catalog of manifold notorious impieties, he reckons up men, "lovers of themselves" (2 Tim. 3:2), as the bitter root of all wormwood springing from it. You cannot reckon up any sin, whether spiritual or carnal, that doth not flow from this, because a man doth inordinately will, and love himself.
As Aristotle reporteth of one Antipheron, which through the weakness of his eyes, the very air was instead of a Looking glass, making a constant reflection so that he saw himself, beheld himself all the day long. Thus it is with the will. All the motions and actings of it are only to self-glory, self-pleasure, self-profit, etc. Whereas at first the will was created so subordinate to God, that it did will the glory, honor, and blessedness of God infinitely above its own self. If they could say to David, "Thou art worth ten thousand of us" [2 Sam. 18:3], how much more could Adam in the state of integrity say unto God, that his Name, his Glory and Majesty were to be esteemed and set up far above the good of all men and Angels. Augustine observeth truly that those two cities, Jerusalem and Babel, of God and the Devil, had these two contrary foundations: Babel had Amor sui usque, and Contemptum Dei, The love of a man's self, even to the contempt of God. And Jerusalem, The love of God, even to the contempt of a man's self.
Oh then look upon this as the Goliath-sin, as the Beelzebub-evil in thy will, that it cannot, it doth not anything but excessively will and love itself to the contempt of, and rebellion against God! The command of God is to love him with all our heart, soul, and might, and to love our neighbor also, but there is no injunction to love ourselves. Indeed that is supposed as a duty, when a man's self is made the rule and measure of love to our neighbor. Some think the reason why there is no express command to love ourselves is because that is required in loving of God, because he only loveth himself that loveth God, and in loving of God we love ourselves. Whereas when we love ourselves for ourselves sake, not subordinate to God, we do indeed hate ourselves, procuring our self damnation.
Let us then bewail this fall of the will by original sin from God into itself, whereby we will our own glory rather than God's. Our own interest than the great God's, who yet giveth us all we have. This is to break the order which the wise and holy will of God hath immutably ordained, namely the submission and subjection of the creature to the Creator.
The Privacy and Propriety of the Will.
Secondly, Another extensive and powerful defilement of the will is a consequent from the former, viz. The Privacy and Propriety of it. For whereas by the primitive Institution our will is to be commensurate and regulated by the will of God; now it naturally abhorreth and refuseth any such agreement, as if our will were to take place of God's will, as if the prayer were that our will (not God's will) might be done. In this is an Abyss of all evil, that our will naturally inclineth to be independent of God's will. We would have that a measure and rule even to God's will, that God should not will but what we would have. Oh horrible blasphemy and confusion! For the human will of the Lord Christ was not a rule and measure of things to be done, being the will of a creature, therefore he prayeth, "Not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 22:42). If then Christ's human will was to be regulated by that superior and uncreated will, how much more is the will of a sinful and corrupt man?
This then is that which maketh the whole soul like a Blackmoor. This is the essence (as it were) of all sin. A man's own will, not God's will is regarded. A man's own proper will is wholly followed, we would give Laws to God, and not God to us. Whensoever thy heart is carried out to lusts, to any wickedness, What is this but to exalt thy will, and to depress the will of God? Hath God said, Be not proud? thou wilt be proud: Hath God said, Swear not? thou wilt swear: Thus all sin is nothing but a man's own will lifted up against the will of God. No wonder then if one said, Cesset voluntas propria & non ardebit gehenna; Let there be no longer our own will, and there will be no longer any Hell. It's this proper private will of ours that was the cause of Hell. Adam and Eve preferred their will before God's will, and that brought in death and damnation.
Therefore regeneration is the writing of God's Law in our hearts, whereby we come to say, as Christ, I come to do thy will O God. And Paul immediately upon his conversion saith, Lord what wilt thou have me do, he giveth up his will as a blank on which God may write his will. O Lord there shall not be any longer my will to persecute, my will to oppose thy Church, I will break this will of mine, renounce this will of mine. Thus as a vessel melted in the fire may be put into any form or fashion the artificer pleaseth, so was it with Paul's will. This proper private will of thine likewise maketh all the trouble and misery thou meetest with. It is thy own will that maketh thee to walk so heavily and discontentedly. For were thy will resigned up into God's, were thou able to say in all things, the will of the Lord be done, I have no will, but what God would have me to exercise, this would keep thee in a quiet calm frame all the day long. Whereas now all the dispute and contention is whether thy will or God's will must give place to each other. Oh vain and wretched man! How long shall this self-will of thine be thy ruin? Is it not reason that the will of the creature should give place to the will of the Creator, as the stars do not appear, when the Sun beginneth to arise?
The Pride and Haughtiness of the Will.
Thirdly, The great and notable pollution of the Will is the pride and haughtiness of it, not only refusing subjection to the Will of God, and to be under that, (as hath been shewed) but in some remarkable particulars.
1. in attempting to make gods, and then to worship them. What pride and vanity is in man to take upon him to make what he intends to worship? So that what man pleaseth shall be a god, and what pleaseth him not shall be none, Deus non erit Deus nisi homini placuerit. Thus whereas God at first made man after his image, now man maketh God after his image. Besides the horrible blindness that is upon the mind in this thing, there is also pride and arrogance of the will. What is this but to assume superiority over their own gods, which yet they worship and adore?
2. This pride of the will is more conspicuously manifested in affecting to be like the true God, not to endure him to be a superior above us. While our first parents had not any internal pollution at all upon them, yet this sin did presently insinuate them, whereby they aspired after a Deity. Therefore the Devil tempted them with this suitable bait, "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." That sin of Adam hath still a more peculiar impression upon mankind: Whence came that abominable and blasphemous custom into the world of deifying men (which they called Daemons), but from that inbred pride of the will, desiring to be like God. Thus it was with that Prince of Tyrus, he lifted up himself and said, "I am a god, I sit in the seat of God" (Ezek. 28:2), thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God. What detestable and loathsome arrogance is here? Oh the patience of God that doth not immediately consume such a wretch, as he did Herod who sinned not so highly, for he did not proclaim he was God only the people by way of flattering cried out the voice of God, and not of man, which because he did not disclaim but secretly owned, therefore was such a remarkable punishment inflicted upon him [Acts 12:21-23]. We see from these instances what pride lurketh in man's will. There is the cockatrice egg which may quickly prove to be a flying Serpent.
This pride is thought also to be the sin of the Devil, whereby he was not contented with the station God had put him, but was ambitious of a divine nature, as if he with Christ might think it no robbery to be equal with God. This unspeakable arrogance did shew itself notoriously in some great Potentates of the world, Gaius Caesar especially, (for which cause Grotius though absurdly maketh him to be the Antichrist) that did exalt himself above all that is called God. This madness of pride was as visible in Alexander, who though sometimes through the consciousness of human imbecility (as when he was wounded and saw blood fall from him) would refuse such a thought, yet at other times he did industriously affect to be related among the number of the gods and to have divine worship performed to him. And as the son of Jupiter, Hammon, would be pictured with horns, and Jupiter's Priest meeting of him instead of that form did purposely mistake, saying, Hail thou son of Jupiter. Yea, he sends into Greece, that by a public Edict he might be acknowledged for a god, which the Lacedemonians in scoff did without scruple admit, saying, Qundoquidem Alexander vult esse Deus, Deus esto, Seeing Alexander will be god, let him be one. But the Athenians being more scrupulous, or at least of greater hatred against him, punished Demades the Orator for advising them to receive him as god. For he had said, Look (Ye Athenians) Nè dum coelum custodies terram amittatis, while ye keep heaven ye loose the earth. This carnal counsel is admired as infallible policy almost by all the Potentates of the world.
Thus you see what pride is latent in the will of a man, and how far it may rise by temptations. Though the experience of human imbecilities may quickly rebuke such mad insolence, yet some excuse or other they use to put it off. As when it thundered, one asked Alexander whether he could do so, he put it of and said he would not terrify his friends. If you say this corruption of the will is not in every man by nature, I grant it for the degree, but it is habitually and radically there. Let any man be put in such temptations as Herod and Alexander were, and left alone to this inbred pride and original pollution, it would break out into as great a flame. Original sin needeth time to conceive and bring forth its loathsome monsters.
3. This pride of the will is seen in the presumption and boldness of it to inquire into the counsels of his Majesty and to call God himself to account for his administrations. "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. 9:20). "O man" is spoken to humble and debase him. Wilt thou call God to an account? Shall God be thought unjust because thou canst not comprehend his depths? Certainly God hath more power over us than the Potter over his clay. For the Potter doth not make the materials of that, he only tempereth it, whereas God giveth us our very beings. And therefore it is intolerable impudence for us to ask God why he made us so. Yet how proud and presumptuous is man to dispute about God's preceding, whereas the great Governors of the world will not allow any subject to say, "why dost thou so" to them? The Psalmist complaineth of this pride in some men, "Our lips are our own, who is lord over us?" (Ps. 12:4). Thus Pharaoh said to Moses, who is the Lord that I should obey him? This pride in the will, whereby men will audaciously intrude into things they know not, hath made these heretics in judgments, the Pelagians and Socinians. Their will doth not captivate their understanding to God's Ipse dixit, for us the Schoolmen observe truly, in every act of faith, there is required pia affectio and inclinatio voluntatis [pious affection and an inclining will], and when that is refractory and unsubmitting, it causeth many damnable heresies in the judgment. For it is the pertinacy of the will that doth greatly promote the making of an heretic.
Lastly, This pride of the will is seen in raging and rebellious risings up against God in his proceedings against us. In this the pride of the will doth sadly discover itself. What rage, what fretting and discontent do we find in our hearts, when God's will is to chastise or afflict us? If we could bind the arms of the Omnipotent to prevent his blows, how ready is presumptuous man to do it? It is therefore a great work of regeneration to mollify and soften the will, to make it facile and ductile, so as to be in what form God would have us to be.
When David had such holy power over his will that in his miserable flight from Absalom he could say, "I have no delight in thee; behold, here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good unto him" (2 Sam. 15:26). He could abound and want, be rich and poor, a king and no king all in a day, this argued the great work of sanctification upon his will. This iron was now in the fire, and so could be molested as God would have it. Thus in the aforementioned instance of Paul, when he cried out, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Here was a tender humble resignation of the whole will to God, without any conditions or provisos. But oh the pride and unruliness of the will, if left to its natural pollution! When God shall any ways bring his judgments upon us, how impatiently do we rise against God, even as if we would be revenged of his Majesty?
As it is said of the Thracians, when it thundereth and lighteneth, they shoot against heaven, as if they would bring God to order. Xerxes scourged the sea, and sent a bill of defiance against the hill of Athos. Augustus being beaten with a tempest at sea, defied their god Neptune, and caused his image to be taken down from the place where the rest of their gods were. Yea Charron speaketh of a Christian King, who having received a blow from God, swore he would be revenged, and gave a commandment that for ten years no man should pray to him, or speak of him. I tremble to mention these dreadful instances, but they are useful to demonstrate what pride and unsubdued contumacy is in the will of man, even against God himself, when he crosseth us of our wills. Yea do not the godly themselves, though grace hath much mollified their will and made it in a great measure obsequious to God, yet do they not mourn, and pray, and groan under the pride of their will? Do they not complain, oh they cannot bring their will to God's will! They cannot be content and patient under God's dispensations. They fret, they mutter, they repine. Is not all this because the will is proud, the will doth not submit? Heavenly skill and art to order thy will, would make thee find rest in every estate.
The Contumacy and Refractoriness of the Will.
Another instance of the native pollution of the will is the contumacy and refractoriness of the will, it is obstinate and impenetrable. The Scripture useth the word heart for the mind, will, and conscience, not attending to philosophical distinctions, so that the stony heart, the uncircumcised heart, is the same with a stubborn and disobedient will. Thus the Scripture putteth the whole cause of a man's not conversion, of his not repenting upon the refractory will in a man especially. "If ye will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments" (Lev. 26:14), "If ye will not yet for all this hearken to me" (v. 18), "if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me" (v. 23). Observe how all is put upon the will, so that if their will had been pliable and ready, then the whole work of conversion and reformation had been accomplished. So the disobedient son returneth this answer to his father, "I will not" (Mat. 21:29).
This contumacy therefore of the will may be called the bad tree that is the cause of all thy bad fruit. A regenerated will, a sanctified will, would make thee prepared for every good work. It is for want of this that all preaching is in vain. All God's mercies and all judgments are in vain. Why should not the hammer of God's Word break it? Why should not the fire of it melt it? But because the stubbornness of the will is so great that it will not receive any impression 'tis called a stony heart, not an iron heart, for iron by the fire may be mollified and put into any shape, but a stone will never melt. It will sooner break into many pieces and fly in the face. Thus the will of a man hath naturally that horrible hardness and refractoriness, that instead of loving and embracing the holy things of God, it doth rather rage and hate with all abomination such things.
The Enmity and Contrariety of the Will to God's Will.
In the second place, That inbred sinful propriety of the will, which accompanyeth it as heat doth fire, is the enmity and contrariety of the will to God's will. There is not only a privative incapacity, but a positive contrariety, even as between fire and water. God's will is an holy will, thine is unholy. God's will is pure, thine is impure. God's will is carried out to will his own glory, honor, and greatness, thine is carried out to will the dishonor and reproach of God. Thus as God's will is infinitely good, and the cause of all good, so in some sense, thy will is infinitely evil, and the cause of all that evil thou art plunged into. Therefore when the Apostle saith that the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom. 8:7), phronēma comprehends the actings of the will and the affections, as well as of the mind. It is enmity in the very abstract, so that it is neither subject to God, nor can be.
Oh that God would set this truth more powerfully upon our hearts! For what tongue can express the misery of this, that thy will should naturally have such irreconcilable opposition and implacable enmity to the Law of God? That it should be diametrically opposite to God's will, which at first was made so amicable and compliant with God's will, that there was the Idem velle and Idem nolle [same willing and same unwilling]. Besides, many other considerations there are two especially that may break and exceedingly humble our souls herein.
1. God's will and his law, which is his will objectively taken, are absolutely in themselves very good, and therefore the proper object of thy will. So that if thy will be carried out to anything in the world, it should be carried out to God's Law above anything. This is to be willed above any created good whatsoever. How is it that thou canst will pleasures, profits, and such created good things, and art not more ravished and drawn out in thy desires after the chiefest good, but to be in a state of opposition to this chiefest good, to contradict and withstand it, this is the heinous aggravation? Could there be a Summum malum [chief evil], it would be in the will because of its direct opposition to the Summum bonum [chief good]? Herein man's will and the Devil's will do both agree, that they are with hatred and contrariety carried out against God's will. If therefore thou wert to live thousands of years upon the earth, and thou hadst no other work to do but to consider and meditate about the sinfulness and wretchedness of the will in this particular, thou wouldst even then take up but drops in respect of the Ocean, and little crumbs in respect of the sand upon the sea shore.
2. This contrariety of thy will is not only against that which absolutely in itself is the chiefest good, but relatively it would be so to thee, and therefore thy contrariety to it is the more unjustifiable. What to be carried out with unspeakable hatred, to that which would be thy blessedness and happiness, who can bewail this enough? To have a delight and a connaturality with those things that will be thy eternal damnation, with much readiness and joy to will them, and then to be horribly averse and repugnant to those things, which if willed and embraced would make thee happy to all eternity.
Oh miserable and wretched man, thy condition is far more lamentable than that of the beasts! For they have a natural instinct to preserve themselves, and to desire such things as are wholesome to them, but thou art naturally inclining to will and embrace all those things which will be thy eternal woe and misery! What is the cause that thy will cannot embrace the Law of God? Why art thou so contrary to it? Alas no just reason can be given, but original sin is like an occult quality in thy will, making an antipathy in it against the same; so that thou doest not love what is holy, neither art thou able to say why, only thou dost not love it. Yea, there is the greatest reason in the world, and all the Word of God requireth it likewise, that thy will should be subordinate and commensurate unto it. But there is no other cause of this evil will than the evil of it. It is evil, and therefore cannot abide that which is good.
The Rebellion of the Will against the light of the mind, and slavery of it to the sensitive part in a man.
Thirdly, The original pollution of the will is seen in the rebellion of it against the light of the mind, and the slavery of it to the sensitive part in a man, to the carnal and sinful affections therein. Both which do sadly proclaim how the will is by nature out of all holy order, and fallen from its primitive integrity. For in the former respect therefore did God give us reason, that by the light and guidance thereof the will should proceed to its operations. For the will to move itself before it hath direction from the mind is like the servant that would set upon business before his master commands him, like an unnatured dog that runneth before his master do set him on. To will a thing first, and afterwards to exercise the mind about it, is to set the Earth where Heaven should be. But oh the unspeakable desolation that is brought upon the soul in this very particular! The will stayeth for no guidance, expecteth no direction, but willeth because it will what is suitable and agreeable to the corrupt nature thereof, that it embraceth be it never so destructive and damning. God made the mind at first, that it could say like the Centurion, I bid the will go and it goeth; the affections move, and they move; but now the inferior soldier biddeth the Centurion go and he goeth.
This then is the great condemnation of the will, that though light come in upon it, yet it loveth not the light, but rebelleth against it. This sinfulness of the will is more palpably discovered under the means of grace, and the light of the Gospel, than under the light of nature merely, for such are said comparatively to sit in darkness, and to have no light. The more then the light of the Gospel doth appear, the more any beams of truth do gloriously shine into thy breast, and thou for all this gain-sayest them, livest against them, the more is thy will in a sin. This then doth greatly aggravate the polluted nature of the will, that it can contradict the powerful arguments of the soul when it was made subordinate to knowledge, then to become tyrannical and usurping over it. This argueth the will hath a peculiar infection in it, insomuch that if it had never so much light, yet it would be evil because it will be evil.
I know there are many learned men that say, The will cannot but follow the practical dictate of the understanding. There is (say they) a natural connection between them, so that if the will at any time offend, it is because the light and conviction of the mind is faint and inefficacious. But this opinion doth greatly retract from the nature of grace, and the nature of our original sin. From grace, as if that did sanctify the understanding and affections only; and from original sin, as if that were not seated in the will, but in the other parts only. Whereas the will of a man may be called the throne of wickedness, because from it properly all sins have their rise and being. Do we not see this plainly in the Devils, who are greatly knowing and understanding, yet no Devil is able to will what is good, but willeth to sin always, and cannot restrain it? How cometh this about? They do not lack knowledge, they are not capable of sins of ignorance, and yet with what irreconcilable enmity is the Devil set against that which is good, insomuch that he cannot all the day long, but will those things that are offensive to God. Although they know this is to their eternal torment. By which you see how depraved and poisoned without Christ the will is, though the understanding meet it like an Angel to stop this Balaam in wicked and unjust ways.
Never then plead ignorance, or plead passions, for it is the defect and wickedness of the will that makes thee so vile. But as the will in the upper region (as it were) is so much polluted, so in the lower region also. For if we consider it as bordering upon the affections, there we shall find as horrible a sin daily committed as when God's Law forbids a woman to fall down before a beast. For when the will, which is in itself a rational appetite, shall make itself like one of the vile affections and passions, what is this but a spiritual and unclean lust with a beast? Lay then this more to heart than thou dost. Think how horrid a sight it would be if thy body should become like a beast's, and thou go on the ground as that doth. What would then become of that so sublime? And is not this as bad when thy will is made a vassal to every inordinate affection? Thou willest what thy passions call for, yet thus it is with everyone till grace doth elevate the will, and set it in its proper throne.
The Mutability and Inconstancy of the Will.
Fourthly, The mutability and inconstancy of the will about what is holy is a great part of the original desolation upon it. It is true, Adam's will was mutable at the first Creation, though he had full power and perfection to stand, yet because his will was changeable, therefore he fell from his holy estate. And no wonder that Adam's will was mutable, for the will of the Angels so greatly transcending man in glory was also convertible and changeable, so that to have the will confirmed in what is good, that it cannot fall into the contrary condition, is a blessed and gracious privilege vouchsafed by God alone. Therefore there are no men, though never so much sanctified, but their wills would make them fall off from God, had God not outwardly support him. This natural mutability is in the will because it's the will of a creature. Only the will of God is immutable and unchangeable. And this is only a negative imperfection, it is not a sin, but the inconstancy and changeableness that I now mention is a sinful and corrupt one.
1. In some great fears or judgments of God upon a man, though he hath no more but nature, yet his will doth sometimes seem to yield and to melt before God. Thus Pharaoh's will, Ahab's will, did abate of their contumacy while the heavy rod of God was upon them. But how quickly did they lick up their vomit again? When the iron was taken out of the fire it grew as cold as ever. And is not this inconstant will the ruin of many? Oh that thou hadst such a will always as thou hadst in such straits, in such extremities, then how happy wouldst thou be!
2. This inconstancy of thy will appeareth to thy undoing when, in some Ordinance, the Word preached, the Sacrament administered, or reproof applied to thee, then thou beginnest to yield, then thou sayest, I will do it, I will be so no more, I will become new; but these April showers hold for a season, the winter will come when all will be frost and snow. Matthew 21:29, one of those sons who said to his father, I go, sir, seeming to be very willing (whereas on the other side said "I will not"), did quickly falsify his word. So that he who refused at first, proved better than he that seemed so forward. Thus truly it falleth out sometimes that the later end is far better of some, who for a long while say they will not, that are stubborn and rebellious, but God afterwards maketh them to will, than of such who give many fair promises, now they will, and then they will, in such sickness they will, in such a powerful motion they will, but afterwards they will not.
3. The sinful inconstancy of the will about holy things is when after a ready and willing profession of Christ, in times of temptation and great extremities then they fall off, and their fall is great. This is because the will was not resolved and fixed, that whatsoever should fall out, yet they would not treacherously depart from God. Acts 11:23, Barnabas exhorted the Disciples that with purpose of heart they should cleave to God, otherwise if the will be not steadfast and resolved, every temptation is able to drive it back.
Lastly, The lazy, sluggish, and half desires of the will about good things manifest the inconstancy of it. James 1, A double-minded man (and so a double-willed man), is inconstant in all his ways. When the will is divided between the creature and the Creator. Or when like the sluggard, he desireth meat, but will not put forth his hand out of his bosom, he willeth and willeth, but never doth effectually set himself upon working. This man is like a reed that is tossed up and down with every wind.
Many more sinful affections might be named, for they are like the motes in the air, or the sand upon the sea shore. But let this suffice, because more will then be discovered when we speak of the slavery of it to evil, having no freedom to will what is good. Only let this Truth be like a coal of fire fallen upon thy heart, let it kindle a divine flame in thy breast, consider this corrupt will is the root of all evil. If thy will were changed, if thy will were turned to God, this would bring the whole man with it. Oh pray to God, to master thy will, to conquer thy will! Say, O Lord, though it be too hard for me, yet it is not for thee. Remember Hell will be the breaking of thy corrupt will. Thou that wouldst not do God's will here shall not have thy will in anything when in Hell.


Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift. This change happens over a relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time compared to the changes termed 'macroevolution' which is where greater differences in the population occur.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution over time leads to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution. Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales.
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. Errors are introduced particularly often in the process of DNA replication, in the polymerization of the second strand. These errors can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.
During the process of DNA replication, errors occasionally occur in the polymerization of the second strand. These errors, called mutations, can affect the phenotype of an organism, especially if they occur within the protein coding sequence of a gene. Error rates are usually very low—1 error in every 10–100 million bases—due to the "proofreading" ability of DNA polymerases. (Without proofreading error rates are a thousandfold higher; because many viruses rely on DNA and RNA polymerases that lack proofreading ability, they experience higher mutation rates.) Processes that increase the rate of changes in DNA are called mutagenic: mutagenic chemicals promote errors in DNA replication, often by interfering with the structure of base-pairing, while UV radiation induces mutations by causing damage to the DNA structure. Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well, and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks in DNA—nevertheless, the repair sometimes fails to return the DNA to its original sequence.
In organisms that use chromosomal crossover to exchange DNA and recombine genes, errors in alignment during meiosis can also cause mutations. Errors in crossover are especially likely when similar sequences cause partner chromosomes to adopt a mistaken alignment making some regions in genomes more prone to mutating in this way. These errors create large structural changes in DNA sequence—duplications, inversions or deletions of entire regions, or the accidental exchanging of whole parts between different chromosomes (called translocation).
Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations. Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate, such as deleterious mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate, such as DNA repair enzymes. Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates, which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.
Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination. These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Most genes belong to larger families of genes of shared ancestry. Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.
Here, domains act as modules, each with a particular and independent function, that can be mixed together to produce genes encoding new proteins with novel properties. For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for color vision and one for night vision; all four arose from a single ancestral gene. Another advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an entire genome) is that this increases redundancy; this allows one gene in the pair to acquire a new function while the other copy performs the original function. Other types of mutation occasionally create new genes from previously noncoding DNA.
Selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.
It is sometimes valuable to distinguish between naturally occurring selection, natural selection, and selection that is a manifestation of choices made by humans, artificial selection. This distinction is rather diffuse. Natural selection is nevertheless the dominant part of selection.
The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms means that some individuals will survive more successfully than others in their current environment. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the speciation (the emergence of new species).
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book On the Origin of Species, in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of heredity; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution.
Ten simulations of random genetic drift of a single given allele with an initial frequency distribution 0.5 measured over the course of 50 generations, repeated in three reproductively synchronous populations of different sizes. In general, alleles drift to loss or fixation (frequency of 0.0 or 1.0) significantly faster in smaller populations.
Genetic drift is the change in the relative frequency in which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling. That is, the alleles in the offspring in the population are a random sample of those in the parents. And chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction or percentage of its gene copies compared to the total number of gene alleles that share a particular form.
Genetic drift is an evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success, the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.
The effect of genetic drift is larger in small populations, and smaller in large populations. Vigorous debates wage among scientists over the relative importance of genetic drift compared with natural selection. Ronald Fisher held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968 Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution which claims that most of the changes in the genetic material are caused by genetic drift. The predictions of neutral theory, based on genetic drift, do not fit recent data on whole genomes well: these data suggest that the frequencies of neutral alleles change primarily due to selection at linked sites, rather than due to genetic drift by means of sampling error.
Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations, which are usually of the same species. Examples of gene flow within a species include the migration and then breeding of organisms, or the exchange of pollen. Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer.
Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population. Immigration may add new genetic material to the established gene pool of a population. Conversely, emigration may remove genetic material. As barriers to reproduction between two diverging populations are required for the populations to become new species, gene flow may slow this process by spreading genetic differences between the populations. Gene flow is hindered by mountain ranges, oceans and deserts or even man-made structures such as the Great Wall of China, which has hindered the flow of plant genes.
Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules. Such hybrids are generally infertile, due to the two different sets of chromosomes being unable to pair up during meiosis. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype. The importance of hybridization in creating new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals, with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.
Hybridization is, however, an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals. Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis. Polyploid hybrids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.
Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria. In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species. Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis may also have occurred. An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which appear to have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi, and plants. Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains. Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and prokaryotes, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and mitochondria.
Gene flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another.
Migration into or out of a population may be responsible for a marked change in allele frequencies. Immigration may also result in the addition of new genetic variants to the established gene pool of a particular species or population.
For example, if a species of grass grows on both sides of a highway, pollen is likely to be transported from one side to the other and vice versa. If this pollen is able to fertilise the plant where it ends up and produce viable offspring, then the alleles in the pollen have effectively been able to move from the population on one side of the highway to the other.
The term microevolution was first used by botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette in 1909, addressing what he called the "mystery" of how formlessness gives rise to form.
However, Leavitt was using the term to describe what we would now call developmental biology; it was not until Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko used the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, Variabilität und Variation, that it attained its modern usage. The term was later brought into the English-speaking world by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937).
In young Earth creationism and baraminology a central tenet is that evolution can explain diversity in a limited number of created kinds which can interbreed (which they call "microevolution") while the formation of new "kinds" (which they call "macroevolution") is impossible. This acceptance of "microevolution" only within a "kind" is also typical of old Earth creationism.
Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science describe microevolution as small scale change within species, and macroevolution as the formation of new species, but otherwise not being different from microevolution. In macroevolution, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes leads to speciation. The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could.
Opponents to creationism argue that changes in the number of chromosomes can be accounted for by intermediate stages in which a single chromosome divides in generational stages, or multiple chromosomes fuse, and cite the chromosome difference between humans and the other great apes as an example. Creationists insist that since the actual divergence between the other great apes and humans was not observed, the evidence is circumstantial.
One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.
Contrary to the claims of some antievolution proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on numerous occasions. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. There is ambiguity in the ideas as to where to draw a line on "species", "created kinds", and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.
1 2 Microevolution: What is microevolution?
1 2 3 4 Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates.
↑ Reznick DN, Ricklefs RE (February 2009). "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution". Nature. 457 (7231): 837–42. Bibcode:2009Natur.457..837R. doi:10.1038/nature07894. PMID 19212402.
1 2 Bertram J (2000). "The molecular biology of cancer". Mol. Aspects Med. 21 (6): 167–223. doi:10.1016/S0098-2997(00)00007-8. PMID 11173079.
↑ Burrus V, Waldor M; Waldor (2004). "Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements". Res. Microbiol. 155 (5): 376–86. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2004.01.012. PMID 15207870.
↑ Griffiths, Anthony J. F.; Miller, Jeffrey H.; Suzuki, David T.; Lewontin, Richard C.; Gelbart, William M., eds. (2000). "Spontaneous mutations". An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-3520-5.
↑ Freisinger, E; Grollman, AP; Miller, H; Kisker, C (2004). "Lesion (in)tolerance reveals insights into DNA replication fidelity". The EMBO Journal. 23 (7): 1494–505. doi:10.1038/sj.emboj.7600158. PMC 391067. PMID 15057282.
↑ Griffiths, Anthony J. F.; Miller, Jeffrey H.; Suzuki, David T.; Lewontin, Richard C.; Gelbart, William M., eds. (2000). "Induced mutations". An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-3520-5.
↑ Griffiths, Anthony J. F.; Miller, Jeffrey H.; Suzuki, David T.; Lewontin, Richard C.; Gelbart, William M., eds. (2000). "Chromosome Mutation I: Changes in Chromosome Structure: Introduction". An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-3520-5.
↑ Drake JW, Holland JJ; Holland (1999). "Mutation rates among RNA viruses". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (24): 13910–3. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9613910D. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910. PMC 24164. PMID 10570172.
↑ Hastings, P J; Lupski, JR; Rosenberg, SM; Ira, G (2009). "Mechanisms of change in gene copy number". Nature Reviews Genetics. 10 (8): 551–564. doi:10.1038/nrg2593. PMC 2864001. PMID 19597530.
↑ Harrison P, Gerstein M; Gerstein (2002). "Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution". J Mol Biol. 318 (5): 1155–74. doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00109-2. PMID 12083509.
↑ Orengo CA, Thornton JM; Thornton (2005). "Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective". Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74: 867–900. doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133029. PMID 15954844.
↑ Wang M, Caetano-Anollés G; Caetano-Anollés (2009). "The evolutionary mechanics of domain organization in proteomes and the rise of modularity in the protein world". Structure. 17 (1): 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.str.2008.11.008. PMID 19141283.
↑ Gregory TR, Hebert PD; Hebert (1999). "The modulation of DNA content: proximate causes and ultimate consequences". Genome Res. 9 (4): 317–24. doi:10.1101/gr.9.4.317 (inactive 2018-09-22). PMID 10207154.
↑ Hurles M (July 2004). "Gene duplication: the genomic trade in spare parts". PLoS Biol. 2 (7): E206. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206. PMC 449868. PMID 15252449.
↑ Siepel A (October 2009). "Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA". Genome Res. 19 (10): 1693–5. doi:10.1101/gr.098376.109. PMC 2765273. PMID 19797681.
↑ Darwin C (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life John Murray, London; modern reprint Charles Darwin; Julian Huxley (2003). The Origin of Species. Signet Classics. ISBN 978-0-451-52906-0. Published online at The complete work of Charles Darwin online: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
↑ Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates. p. Glossary. ISBN 978-0-87893-189-7.
↑ Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates. p. 320. ISBN 978-0-87893-189-7.
↑ Hahn, M.W. (2008). "Toward a selection theory of molecular evolution". Evolution. 62 (2): 255–265. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00308.x. PMID 18302709.
↑ Morjan C, Rieseberg L; Rieseberg (2004). "How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles". Mol. Ecol. 13 (6): 1341–56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02164.x. PMC 2600545. PMID 15140081.
↑ Short RV (1975). "The contribution of the mule to scientific thought". J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. (23): 359–64. PMID 1107543.
↑ Gross B, Rieseberg L; Rieseberg (2005). "The ecological genetics of homoploid hybrid speciation". J. Hered. 96 (3): 241–52. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi026. PMC 2517139. PMID 15618301.
↑ Burke JM, Arnold ML; Arnold (2001). "Genetics and the fitness of hybrids". Annu. Rev. Genet. 35: 31–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.085719. PMID 11700276.
↑ Vrijenhoek RC (2006). "Polyploid hybrids: multiple origins of a treefrog species". Curr. Biol. 16 (7): R245–7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.005. PMID 16581499.
↑ Wendel J (2000). "Genome evolution in polyploids". Plant Mol. Biol. 42 (1): 225–49. doi:10.1023/A:1006392424384. PMID 10688139.
↑ Sémon M, Wolfe KH; Wolfe (2007). "Consequences of genome duplication". Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 17 (6): 505–12. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.007. PMID 18006297.
↑ Comai L (2005). "The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid". Nature Reviews Genetics. 6 (11): 836–46. doi:10.1038/nrg1711. PMID 16304599.
↑ Soltis P, Soltis D; Soltis (June 2000). "The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 (13): 7051–7. Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.7051S. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.13.7051. PMC 34383. PMID 10860970.
↑ Walsh T (2006). "Combinatorial genetic evolution of multiresistance". Current Opinion in Microbiology. 9 (5): 476–82. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2006.08.009. PMID 16942901.
↑ Sprague G (1991). "Genetic exchange between kingdoms". Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 1 (4): 530–3. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80203-5. PMID 1822285.
↑ Baldo A, McClure M; McClure (1 September 1999). "Evolution and horizontal transfer of dUTPase-encoding genes in viruses and their hosts". J. Virol. 73 (9): 7710–21. PMC 104298. PMID 10438861.
↑ Poole A, Penny D; Penny (2007). "Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes". BioEssays. 29 (1): 74–84. doi:10.1002/bies.20516. PMID 17187354.
↑ "Young Earth Creationism". National Center for Science Education. 17 October 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
↑ "Old Earth Creationism". National Center for Science Education. 17 October 2008. Retrieved 18 May 2012.
↑ Awbrey, Frank T. (1981). "Defining "Kinds" — Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?". National Center for Science Education.


The fourth annual Isle of Light festival will take place April 1, 2017 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
This year's lineup will feature headliners Crystal Castles, fresh off the release of brand new album Amnesty (I), an act that continues to set the standard for a visually arresting and utterly breathtaking live show.
Isle of Light 2017 will also host the triumphant comeback of Dominican artist Rita Indiana, her first show in nearly 7 years. Having moved on from previous project Rita Indiana y Los Misterios, the performance will be done under her new guise, simply 'Rita Indiana,' and is an indication of big things to come on the horizon from the prolific musician and esteemed writer/novelist.
The lineup further consists of international acts alongside local acts from Miami, the Dominican, and the Caribbean, rounding out the diverse lineup. Adding to the culturally immersive experience will be gourmet food and drink curation, on-site installations, and an unmatched environment set on the sparkling surroundings of the Caribbean shoreline.
The festival will also include IOL PLUS, an innovative networking and panel discussion event for music industry professionals. Taking place March 31, the event will feature a series of talks and workshops with national and international speakers providing insight on today's music industry climate. IOL PLUS is available as a free upgrade with an Early Bird ticket purchase.
Isle of Light is presented by creative collective Mishu. The Miami-based company promotes music events across the U.S. and abroad, notably House of Creatives Music Festival held in Miami, which featured headliners The Flaming Lips last fall. The company also runs a record label arm (Mishu Records) and an original content creation arm (The House of Creatives / HoC).
Touted by Urban Outfitters as a 'Top 10 Destination Festival,' Isle of Light has boasted performances by Run The Jewels, Neon Indian, Unknown Mortal Orchestra, Shamir, Twin Shadow, The Juan Maclean, Ezra Koenig (Vampire Weekend), Danielle Haim (HAIM), Chromeo, Warpaint, and Soul Clap, and has seen coverage from The Wall Street Journal, Billboard, NYLON, Consequence of Sound, Complex, Vice/Live Nation TV, etc.
Hosting over 3000 people, the fest extends over the gorgeous shoreline of Santo Domingo's "Old Colonial Zone" under the historic harbor light house. Attendees are immersed in a vibrant cultural exchange exposing local festival-goers to a diverse lineup of international artists while giving international attendees a chance to explore the plazas, restaurants, hotels, beaches, and natural beauty of the Dominican capital city.


text:
Q: Reduction of order method for second order linear ODE
Given the following differential equation
$$x^2 y'' + x(2x^2 + 1)y' + (2x^2 -1)y =0$$
solve it using the reduction of order method.  The given solution is $$y_1(x) = \frac 1x.$$

I have been able to use it up until the point where you define your 2nd set of variables such that the expression is in terms of derivatives only:
$$\frac{u'}{x^2} + \frac{u''}{x} + 2u' = 0$$
Let $w = u'$ and $w' = u''$. Now when I try to solve for $w$, I get the following:
$$w + w'x + 2wx^2 = 0$$
$$\frac{w'}{w} = \frac{1+2x^2}{x}$$
and after integrating both sides
$$w = A\frac{e^{-x^2}}{x}$$
Now I have to integrate again to get $u$ by itself, but I cannot solve the integral of $\frac{e^{-x^2}}{x}$ using substitution or integrating by parts. I have tried using websites like Wolfram Alpha to no success. Any help will be appreciated.

A: Make sure to double check your work! The last equation should be $w=xe^{x^2},$ which is easy to integrate.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The education studies of the Spanish universities are not alien to technological innovations, but their approach to them tends to be basically instrumental.
A digital divide continues to be reported across and within nations, first as an access issue and second as an issue of effective usage.
Despite a history of techno-idealistic rhetoric and reform efforts in the United States, technology integration in education has tended to reinforce an inequitable and unjust social status quo in our classrooms and more broadly.
Scholars have long been concerned about the effect that digital inequalities might have on marginalized populations.
Combining data from a sample survey, the 2013 Oxford Internet Survey, with the 2011 UK Census, we employ small area estimation to estimate Internet use in small geographies in Britain.
The concept of affordances has become a popular analytical tool in educational technology.
Recent studies have enhanced our understanding of digital divides by investigating outcomes of Internet use. We extend this research to analyse positive and negative outcomes of Internet use in the United Kingdom.
Universities are increasingly organized and managed through digital data.
L'article circonscrit trois grammaires de l'éducation critique aux médias qui structurent ce champ de recherche en continuité avec d'autres espaces sociaux.


text:
Wikileaks: Rockefeller Official Offered Clinton Campaign Manager 'an intro' to Publisher of InsideClimate News
David Sassoon, the notorious publisher of InsideClimate News (ICN), insists he and the work of his reporters are pure; they are isolated and insulated from their funders. Sassoon has insisted, furthermore, that ICN funders had nothing to do with the launch of the eco-left's #ExxonKnew campaign. He lied.
The truth came out in one of the Wikileaks emails: Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta got an offer from Rockefeller Brothers Fund program director Michael Northrop, who had been directing money to ICN's publisher since the #ExxonKnew campaign began: "Happy to make an intro to the publisher, David Sassoon." That's not a familiarity you'd expect between the isolated, insulated or pure.
We are indebted to Katie Brown of Energy in Depth for finding the story in the Wikileaks emails and connecting all the dots. She's a PhD, a former U.S. Senate staffer with the Environment and Public Works Committee and now a superb researcher and writer covering the energy beat. Brown says she's still probing the mass of hacked emails and will publish a follow-up if she finds something we need to know.
With her permission to re-post the whole thing, here's Katie Brown's report:
InsideClimate News (ICN) has insisted over and over that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) and the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), which have been bankrolling the entire #ExxonKnew campaign, have absolutely no editorial authority over the stories they publish, including the series they released last year proclaiming that Exxon "knew" about climate change in the 1970s before climate scientists even understood the data. This is something the media has largely swallowed without scrutiny.
But newly released emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign raise serious questions about the veracity of these claims. In one telling email, Michael Northrop of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund sends Clinton campaign chair John Podesta an article by #ExxonKnew activist Naomi Oreskes with the subject line "For the Debate next week." Here's what Northrop said:
InsideClimate News is the source of these stories. Hope you've been seeing them. Happy to make an intro to the publisher, David Sassoon.
ICN publisher David Sassoon, who just happens to be a former Rockefeller Brothers Fund consultant, has repeatedly brushed off the accusation that the anti-fossil fuel billionaires funding #ExxonKnew have had any hand in what ICN is doing. As Politico reported,
"InsideClimate News, which was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist last month for its Exxon stories, says it has received $25,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund, or about 2 percent of the company's budget. The idea that the funding is influencing its news coverage is 'an easy accusation, but it's completely baseless,' founder and publisher David Sassoon told POLITICO. 'Our funders have no access to our editorial and they never have.'" (emphasis added)
The Washington Times further reported,
"InsideClimate founder and publisher David Sassoon, a former Rockefeller consultant who has described himself as an advocate for the 'clean energy economy,' dismissed the newly launched site, calling the bias allegation 'laughable nonsense.'" (emphasis added)
According to a report by Bloomberg BNA,
"Since 2013, the separate Rockefeller Brothers Fund has provided InsideClimate with $200,000 a year; that fund had no say over what the website published, according to David Sassoon, InsideClimate's founder and publisher." (emphasis added)
And, as ICN says on its "About" page:
"Donors who support our award-winning environmental journalism do not have access to our editorial process or decision-making. Please be mindful of false reports that suggest otherwise, or that seek to discredit our news organization with misinformation and mischaracterization. Our hard-hitting watchdog reporting provokes retaliation and unfounded smears of many varieties. We do not respond to most of them. Our work speaks for itself." (emphasis added)
The Rockefellers have made similar pronouncements, of course. Lee Wasserman, the long-time director of the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), who actually spearheaded a January 2016 strategy meeting at the RFF headquarters to strategize ways to "delegitimize" Exxon, told the Huffington Post that RFF had no idea that ICN was going to produce its #ExxonKnew series:
"Wasserman said the grant to Inside Climate News was made without any knowledge that it would be used for the reporting project. The grant to Columbia Journalism School was directed at 'public interest research into what the fossil fuel industry understood about the science of climate change and how they acted given that understanding both internally and regarding the public,' but it did not target Exxon Mobil specifically, Wasserman said."
InsideClimate News produced a similar report quoting Wasserman as saying,
"We first learned about it when everybody else read about it," Wasserman said. "The information that was unearthed was stunning and struck us as beyond the pale of what a corporation interested in protecting the public interest would do. … As a matter of good governance, we felt it imperative to sever our tie with the corporation."
So Sassoon and the Rockefellers have gone overboard to swear they are not working together, but now we have an email from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, one of ICN's biggest funders, promising Hillary's campaign direct access to Sassoon.
Not all outlets have taken ICN and the Rockefellers at their word, however. Remember, the National Reviewpointed out that this relationship is a glaring conflict of interest:
"But its critics claim that InsideClimate News is essentially a mouthpiece run by a public-relations consultancy that gets its funding almost exclusively from groups with an environmental agenda…The little that is known about InsideClimate News raises questions about conflicts of interest as well as about the publication's ability, and proclivity, to report fairly and without bias."
Turns out the National Review's take was just the tip of the iceberg. This latest email shows, once again, that ICN is at the beck and call of the wealthy organizations that fund it, proving its claims of editorial independence are nothing but a bad joke.
Leftist Ideologues Use Big-Lie Technique to Slam School Choice
David Brock

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This website, and all content contained therein, is protected under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons is an alternative to copyright, which allows for open access and free use of the licensed material, but still gives credit to the creator. Intellectual property rights remain with the creator, and proper citation must be given to the author(s) when referencing this material in one's own work.
Should you have any questions with regards to this website content, licensing, or Creative Commons, please contact Susan Holloway.


text:
Top 10 Safest Neighborhoods In Phoenix (2023)
By America 0 Comments
The safest neighborhoods in Phoenix have very low instances of crime when compared with some other instances within the United States. That makes Phoenix among the first states to be considered by people who wish to move to a new area to put down roots and raise their kids because security and safety are among the top considerations for any family looking to buy a house.
Of course this results in a rise in property prices, but then some contend that even that is a good thing because high real estate prices seem to correlate with low crime statistics; unsavory characters usually live in squalid ghettos, as against high brow areas.
In this post the places with the highest crime rates are ranked lowest, while the safest places occupy the higher spots.
Safest Neighborhoods In Phoenix
1. Desert View
Violent Crimes Per 100k: 164
Property Crime Per 100k: 1,066
Desert View looks like a city in the middle of the desert; but a very beautiful city. Most of the houses in this neighborhood are big buildings, and they house wealthy families. The vast majority of the houses are owned by the families that inhabit them, while there are also apartment complexes within the neighborhood as well.
Desert View is the safest neighborhood in Phoenix, Arizona, and the following statistics also make it attractive across the country: the population is 50,657, and yet there were only 164 violent crimes recorded in a recent year under study. There were also 1,066 property crimes reported in the neighborhood.
2. Buckeye, AZ
Buckeye is a neighborhood located in the west of the Phoenix area. It is just a 30-minute drive from the Downtown Phoenix; and has been growing steadily in terms of population. There is an artificial lake been constructed in the area; more opportunities to cool off during the summer.
Only 49 violent crimes happen here annually, this is one place where people prefer because of the feeling of security it offers. There are only about 1,336 property crimes reported here annually.
3. North Gateway
North Gateway is a neighborhood in Phoenix, with much beauty to speak of. The neighborhood has plenty of greenery; and there is ample space for children to run around in this residential area. The neighborhood is made up of townhouses; most of which have lawns and trees enhancing their beauty.
This neighborhood has 17,200 people calling it home, and yet there were only 193 violent crimes committed in this neighborhood in the past year. There were also 1,227 property crimes recorded in the neighborhood as well.
4. Ahwatukee Foothills
Ahwatukee Foothills is a neighborhood in Phoenix with a sizable population; attractive to the more social types. A panoramic view of this neighborhood is simply breathtaking; it is set on the slopes of a hillside, and features luxurious houses arranged in a winding fashion. This is a wealthy neighborhood, and a large one at that.
Ahwatukee Foothills has a population of 79,838 people, and has a violent crime rate of 270, while there were also 1,443 property crimes in the neighborhood.
5. New Village
New Village is a neighborhood in Phoenix; located somewhat towards the east of the city. It is an urban area filled with beautiful, new buildings, some of which are lined with lawns and trees. This is a truly remarkable neighborhood in deed.
New Village has a population of around 5000 people; and it is one of the safest neighborhoods in Phoenix with just 194 violent crimes, and 1,815 property crimes recorded recently.
6. Paradise Valley
Paradise Valley is a true paradise; it is a small village built in a valley, against a backdrop of mountains. Due to its naturally stunning beauty, this is one of the most sought after neighborhoods for real estate. This is a enclave with big, intimidating buildings. It is also close to the Piestewa Peak Park and Phoenix Mountains Preserve.
Paradise Valley has a population of around 12,682, and very little crime is reported here. Mohammed Ali, Steve Nash, and Alice Cooper have all called this neighborhood home.
7. Deer Valley
Deer Valley is an urban village; one of the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. The neighborhood is located in the northwestern portion of the city; it is close to such areas as Glendale and Peoria. There are very many young people in the neighborhood; they mostly live in multifamily apartment blocks which line the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is considered safe, and pleasant. There are several top companies with a presence in the neighborhood, and they provide jobs to the people.
8. Laveen
Laveen is a community in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States. It is roughly in the Southwest of the city; near Estrella, South Mountain, and Ahwatukee Foothills. This is one of the traditionally agricultural communities that have been becoming increasingly urbanized with housing developments taking over the landscape.
Laveen has a population of 48,021, and the neighborhood has a very low rate of crime.
9. Estrella
Estrella is a neighborhood also in the south of the city of Phoenix; it is close Ahwatukee Foothills, Laveen, and South Mountain. Estrella's beauty is enhanced by the surrounding mountains, which make for a remarkable hiking experience. This neighborhood has much to offer in terms of socializing; there are shopping centers, cafes, and restaurants to make life pleasurable.
The neighborhood has a population of 97,464, and while the houses are spread quite sparsely, the neighborhood is adjudged to be quite secure.
10. Maryvale
Maryvale is an urban village in the southwest of Phoenix, Arizona. This is an urban area, although small in size. The neighborhood has apartment complexes of different sizes, as well as a bustling commercial area.
Maryvale has a population of 208,189, people, and although the neighborhood is quite calm and quiet, the residents quite recently complained of neglect by the city authorities as well as police.
Safest Neighborhoods In Portland
Safest Neighborhoods In Philadelphia
Worst Neighborhoods In Brooklyn
The best thing about the safest neighborhoods in Phoenix is that the housing market is considered undervalued when compared with similar cities across the country. This offers an opportunity to delve into a housing market that is projected to rise within the next few years.
Top 10 Worst Neighborhoods In Edmonton 2023
Top 10 Worst Neighborhoods In Calgary (2023)
Types Of Nurses And Salaries In Canada (2022)


The annual Internet Governance Forum was established to foster an open, inclusive dialogue among the parties that "govern" the Internet. IGF is a conference designed, somewhat counter-intuitively, to maintain a unified Internet by decentralizing control. This year's conference, held Sept. 2-5 in Istanbul, itself prompted spinoff events — the Internet Ungovernance Forum and the "Bye Bye Internet Freedom" press conference — that focused on government efforts to use the Internet to violate freedom of expression and rights to privacy, particularly in Turkey, the IGF host country.
The Turkish government's increasingly intense violations of freedom of expression and privacy rights were covered comprehensively at the "Bye Bye Internet Freedom" press conference organized by Reporters Without Borders. Representing the Turkish Association of Journalists, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International and Turkey's Alternative Informatics Association, the panelists itemized the government's laundry list of human rights violations, both on- and offline. These include increased censorship of media, massively expanding powers of the national intelligence agency (MIT), increased surveillance of citizens and other privacy violations.
Amnesty International's Andrew Gardner emphasized that Turkey's increased censorship of social media platforms such as Twitter and YouTube should not be viewed in isolation; they are merely the online manifestation of a government that is intolerant to dissent in any format. His point, reiterated throughout the conference, was that we can't talk about Internet freedom without talking about basic political freedoms and holding governments accountable for violating them. Cynthia Wong of Human Rights Watch warned that digital technologies leave citizens much more vulnerable to surveillance, as we leave digital trails that can be used as tools for greater government control. Turkey's current prosecution of 29 Twitter users for nonexistent incitements to violence nicely illustrates the points.
Many at the spinoff events criticized that main IGF as too exclusive, purportedly having rejected nearly all workshops proposed by Turkish activists to advocate for freedom of speech. One attendee with organizing experience explained the proposed workshops did not follow IGF protocols, which place priority on panels and sessions that represent people from multiple countries with diverse viewpoints.
Garnering publicity by being staged "in protest," the IUF and the press conference were more supplementary than incendiary in practice. They both provided more appropriate platforms to lodge pointed, critical attacks at government programs, notably in Turkey, that violate an open Internet and free expression.
Can a unified, global information network be maintained when we can't even have a unified discussion about it? Does the fragmentation of the IGF discussion portend dangerous fragmentation of the Internet, in which splintered groups have separate but unequal access to information? Is the freewheeling multi-stakeholder ecosystem crumbling before our eyes and becoming too fractured to function?
I would argue no. Steeped in comedy, irony and identity crises, the IGF remains a place for players in all areas of Internet governance to come together in a necessary dialogue. With no cost to participate, the vast majority are truly there to build and grow a free and open information network. If only the same could be said for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.


The Russian humor of the 21st century is quite different from the middle of the 20th Gone are the bread lines, the Communist party and one room dwellings in a communal house No one is sent to the Gulag for making a joke Even for jokes about Putin, even when they compare him to a Czar So the Russian people s humor adapts It has become philosophical on the one handThe Russian humor of the 21st century is quite different from the middle of the 20th Gone are the bread lines, the Communist party and one room dwellings in a communal house No one is sent to the Gulag for making a joke Even for jokes about Putin, even when they compare him to a Czar So the Russian people s humor adapts It has become philosophical on the one hand, or moved into the family and business arenas on the other The jokers can be rich, but are mostly poor They can be of an average intelligence, but are mostly wise They may have enemies, but rise above the hatred They are funnier than ever, but now their humor reflects the multinational character of Russian speakers who are spread all over the world Some of the jokes are one liners, some a bit longer, but none will tax the reader s attention span.
Recent Comments "A Mini-Micro Encyclopedia of Modern Russian Humor"
This is a great little book of quick humor. It's got a great micro fiction touch at getting to the heart of a short funny story. It's over all too quick, but has some great stuff.
This is a great way to be introduced to Russian humour if you are a stranger to it. The book starts off with a few jabs at Putin and then develops into the more traditional wisecracks and aphorisms - some funny, some deep and meaningful. Jokes are the hardest thing to translate (speaking from experience!) and Mark did an excellent job of it.


text:
Steve Harvey Daughter Karli Harvey's Bio; Her Mother, Siblings, Net Worth and Married Life
Karli Harvey is famous as Steve Harvey's daughter with his first wife, Marcia Harvey. But she also has her own identity, as a successful hairstylist, public speaker, and a businesswoman.
So, if you want to know Steve Harvey's daughter, Karli Harvey then you must also learn about her married life. What!?! You did know she has a husband and son, right? Well, now you will learn all the details and also her mother, siblings and the rest of the family.
Who Is Karli Harvey? Bio, Mother, Parents
READ ALSO: Gavy Friedson Biography; Net Worth, Age, Education, Profession And Wife
Karli Harvey Net worth
Karli Harvey Married Life, Husband, & Son
Quick Facts about Karli Harvey
Karli Harvey is an accomplished hairstylist, public speaker, and businesswoman. She was born in 1982 in the United States of America to her father, Steve Harvey, and mother, Marcia Harvey.
Businesswomen, Karli Harvey
Her father, Steve Harvey, is a super famous American TV personality, and her mother was sometimes a part of Steve's talk show as well.
Karli Harvey's parents divorced in 1994. Back then, Marcia accused Steve of having an extra affair, but they separated sighting irreconcilable differences.
Karli has an elder twin sister, Brandi Harvey, who is an executive director of Steve and Majorie Harvey Foundation. Similarly, Karli has a sibling brother, Brodoerick Harvey Jr., and has four other half-siblings; Lori, Jason, Morgan, and Wynton.
As of 2019, Steve Harvey's daughter Karli's net worth is reportedly around $10 million. Similarly, her father, Steve Harvey's net worth is at $120 million.
Karli, & her father' Steve Harvey
Karli also involves herself in an expo which deals with women's fitness through the program, Young, Fit, and Fly, along with her twin sister Brandi. The program is for those women seeking fitness and mental clarity.
As of present recording, Steve Harvey's daughter, Karli Harvey, is a blissful married woman. She tied her wedding knot with her longtime sweetheart, Benjamin Raymond, in September 2015.
Karli Harvey's husband, Benjamin Raymond, is a chairman and CEO of Raymond Enterprises. He was a former athlete.
The couple got married in a highly lavish wedding ceremony. Both Karli Harvey's father, Steve Harvey, and mother, Marcia Harvey, were present in the happiest day of Karli's life.
Karli Harvey with her husband and son
The duo now has a child son, Benjamin Troy Raymond II, who also has appeared alongside his grandfather, Steve Harvey, in a TV show.
Going on, Karli has been married for four years now and maintaining a harmonious marital relationship with her husband, Benjamin Raymond.
Full Name Karli Harvey
Birthdate 20 August 1982
Birthplace United States of America
Ethnicity Afro American
Profession Hairstylist, businesswoman, public speaker
Spouse Benjamin Raymond(m 2015)
Height 5 feet 7 inches/1.70 meters
Weight 68kg/149lbs
Martial status Married
Zodiac Leo
Social Media Instagram, Twitter
Video: How you can get money if you think your boyfriend is stingy – Nigerian lady tells women
Emmanuel Lewis Biography; Net Worth, Height, Wife Pics, Disease
Twitter announces its African Headquarters will open in Ghana, gives reasons why the West Africa nation was picked ahead of Nigeria and other countries
Is This How You Got Your Husband?' – Fan Drags Anita Joseph, She Replies
"Call me stubborn, but I will never promote any bleaching, slimming products" – BBNaija's Vee says
LaLiga: Ancelotti gives update on Hazard, Gareth Bale leaving Real Madrid
Related Topics:karli harveykarli harvey husbandkarli harvey motherkarli harvey net worthkarli harvey son
Edgar Hansen, Where Is He Now? Net worth, Wife, Wiki, Children, Family, Jail
Steve Harvey's Ex-wife Mary Lee Harvey's Net Worth and Bio; Where is She Now?


Christmas is over and the two weeks of holiday are gone. The first week of school is always hard especially when I had the realisation that as Year 13s we are nearing the end of our time here.
The week started with an inspiring assembly about the National Council of Young Women which sounds like a great initiative to be a part of as well as a motivational speech from Miss Limb that the early mornings do, in fact, get easier.
Our mock exams are in a week and no matter how many inspirational quotes I tried to find, I am still finding it so hard to revise. But with uni offers coming in, everyone now has something to work for and I know that it will be so worth it in the end.