Flat Stanley Unit: Fill & Download for Free

BEIJING: I believe the forecast is accurate. 10 years is a long time and by 2030 I would be surprised if the Chinese yuan does not rank in the top three of the world’s currencies.Morgan Stanley is one of the world’s largest banks based in Wall Street - New York City the financial capital of the world. They have a successful financial advisory subsidiary with a team of top-notch analysts to write reports on geo-political events and business trends.Morgan Stanley has a good track record with geopolitical forecasts and their inference the Chinese yuan will grow stronger and more widely exchanged sounds reasonable. The International Monetary Funds (IMF) basket of major currencies are composed of the US dollar, Japanese yen, euro, British pound and Chinese yuan.If I was asked what will be top three traded currencies by 2030, I would say: dollar, euro and yuan. I don’t see any valid reasons for the pound or yen to be stronger than yuan down the road. China has emerged as the world’s second-largest economy and the most populous nation.The US economy is expected to maintain its top ranking as a global leader a decade later and the euro is the currency of member states in the European Union. The Japanese economy has flat-lined for the past two decades and the slow economic growth will likely continue for the next 10 years.The United Kingdom has pursued a Brexit strategy from the EU and that could impact the strength of the British pound. More Chinese are traveling overseas, although international flights have dropped significantly in 2020 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.2020 is a fluke year for the travel sector so ignore. In 2021, we should expect boom times for international passengers’ flights. After the prolonged shutdowns, people will be more eager to travel and visit overseas destinations. The Chinese will re-open its borders to resume normal flows of cross-border travel.Consequently, we should anticipate hundreds of millions of Chinese flying to international airports and when landing abroad they will be exchanging their currencies.Additionally, Chinese companies have plans to expand operations on a global scale. They will be pouring money into foreign countries and later on the revenues streams and profits will flow back into China. The investments require currency exchanges, both back and forth.The increase of cross-border trade and investments with Chinese citizens and companies with the rest of the world will boost the Chinese yuan as an international currency.Beijing is also stepping up efforts to create a new bank-wire system, known as CIPS, to make it easier for Chinese banks to wire funds outside China. We can learn more about it from 央视网_世界就在眼前. The link is here:http://english.cctv.com/2017/10/19/ARTIXz5AbEqSewRu8jDIFRKO171019.shtmlAs reported by 央视网_世界就在眼前:“The first phase of the China international payments system (CIPS) was launched in Shanghai on October 8, 2015. And hence forward, businesses operating in Asia and Europe can wire RMB funds, such as remittances, to bank accounts in China, via CIPS.Formerly, such transactions were conducted by off-shore bank accounts, primarily in London and Hong Kong, routed through SWIFT (society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication), a network that enables global financial institutions to send and receive information about transactions.”China’s rise seems inevitable and as a result the Chinese yuan is becoming much more prominent as an international currency.WeChat: 86 13439758718

He has managed to unite the opposition, maybe more than ever before. Consider the following from this past February:North Carolina’s Long Moral March and Its Lessons for the Trump ResistanceThis march had at least 80,000 attendees, maybe as many as 100,000.It was not held in a large city in a blue state. Not New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Seattle. It was in Raleigh.The capital of North Carolina, a red state with a legislature that is so conservative it flat-out embraces gerrymandering openly as serving the “greater good”.I can’t remember when 80,000 people gathered in Raleigh for anything else. Not the NC State men’s basketball championship in ‘83, not the Carolina Hurricane’s Stanley Cup victory in ‘06, not for any New Year’s Eve (“First Night”), not for any Christmas Parade.And I’m sure everyone who marched left knowing that they had a voice. And that they are planning to use theirs.

The question presupposes that we decide between theories by piling up stacks of “evidence for”, and the higher stack “wins”.That’s not how science works. It’s not how a search for truth works. What we can do, via deductive reasoning, is decisively falsify a theory. We can show it wrong.In contrast, you can find “evidence for” any theory, no matter how wrong. For instance, you can find evidence for the theory that the earth is flat. People did so. There is a resurgence of flat earthers and they will tell you the “evidence for” a flat earth. Does that make the earth flat? NO! Because what counts is the evidence that simply cannot exist if the earth were actually flat. IOW, the evidence that falsifies flat earth.So what really counts is the evidence against a theory — the evidence that shows it to be wrong.Creationists like to play the “evidence for” evolution and creationism.But what really counts is the evidence that falsifies creationism.Yes, there is evidence that falsifies creationism. You can find a lot of it in Origin of Species. One piece that Darwin used was comparing the plants and animals of the Cape St. Verde and Galapagos Islands. They have nearly identical geography and climate. Yet the plants and animals are not the same. If creationism were true and species were placed on the planet, then they should be the same. Instead, the plants and animals on each set of islands resembles the plants and animals on the nearby continent.Creationism says that, at least, different “kinds” are separate creations and that there are boundaries between “kinds” and that “kinds” cannot turn into other kinds.What determines the species/kinds is, of course, the sequence of bases in the DNA. One conclusion from creationism, and something we should find if creationism is true, is that sequences of DNA from different “kinds” (however you want to define “kind”) should be independent observations. After all, the DNA sequences cannot turn into those of another kinds through any process like, say, “descent with modification” (evolution).Scientists have been comparing the base sequences of DNA for 30 years or more now. They compare sequences from quite different “kinds”: worms, corn, elephants, humans, oak trees, yeast, bees, fish, lobster, bacteria, etc. What have they found?"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.Creationism falsified. (and evolution supported, since this is the type of observation we should see if evolution is true)Transitional sequences of individual fossils also falsify creationism. Transitional individual fossils are individuals that link species to species. Here is an example:These are 4 individuals out of 15,000 that link the species of snail on the left with the one on the right.It turns out there are sequences in the fossil record that link species to species to species to a new genus, and then from new genera to a new Family, and then from new families to a new Order, and then from new orders to a new Class in the taxonomic system. Just to give you an example, cats and dogs are in different Families in the Order Carnivora. Monkeys are in a different Order — Primates. Cats, dogs, and monkeys are all mammals — Class Mammalia. Lizards, of course, are in a different Class — Reptilia.A genera, family, or order certainly qualifies as a “kind”. So does a Class. So, if creationism is correct, fossil sequences connecting to any of these new taxonomic groups cannot exist.Yet those fossil sequences do exist. Below is an incomplete list of such species (I am a biochemist, so am not intimately familiar with the paleontology literature)Transitional seriesTransitional individuals from one class to another1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.Transitional individuals from one order to another1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 19642. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.Transitionals across genera1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera1. Introduction to the Foraminifera2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm3. A Smooth Fossil Transition: ForamsAnd yes, I have made trips to university libraries and I have photocopies of all the articles. The data exists.Creationism falsified again. (also evolution supported, since such fossil sequences should exist if evolution is true).There are many other falsifications of creationism. I suggest the book Finding Darwin’s God for more.Or, you could go to Google Scholar and start reading the massive amounts of “hard evidence” that evolution has happened and is happening. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=biological+evolution&oq=biological+Each article contains evidence. That’s what scientific papers are: evidence.Bottom line: no matter how much “evidence for” creationism someone says they have, it is the “evidence against” that counts.Creationism is a falsified scientific theory.