“All the signs point to a fundamentally reconfigured world, in which what we now think of as the English-speaking world will eventually lose its effective control of the English language.”Exactly.
The introduction
Taken together, these results imply that the gradualist view of evolution is incorrect; rather, the bulk of adaptation in mutation-limited populations is likely to be achieved by the first few mutational steps.The authors also found significant differences in genetic variation of the 800 generations evolved lineages, and from this they conclude that
although we do not know in detail the identity of the molecular changes responsible for fitness increases, we can be confident that they were achieved through a variety of genetic routes.One pleasant surprise is that the different lineages clearly did not evolve the same way. We could have expected that they would all re-evolve sensitivity to the fungicide, thereby increasing their fitness. Rather, from figure 2 we can see that fitness was increased in many different ways, and with differing results. What this indicates is that the fitness landscape in the neighborhood of the ancestral genotype is very rugged (also called epistatic), because many different fitness peaks were climbed. If they hadn't climbed different peaks, we would expect the fitness measurements to be very similar. Instead, there are many different ways to increase fitness, and further, only some include re-evolving fungicide sensitivity (only five lineages re-evolved sensitivity).
»Vi kan se, at når andre højerestående dyr bliver truet på livet, løber de enten skrigende bort, forvirrer fjenden eller går til modangreb. Men menneskets høje intelligens gør det muligt for os at abstrahere. Det er der mange fordele ved, men det betyder også, at vi overser det nødvendige, fundamentale overlevelsestræk. Vi intellektualiserer os ud af det og ender med komplicerede forklaringer og bortforklaringer i stedet for at handle her og nu«.That translates into:
»We can see that when other higher animals are threatened on their lives, either they flee, confuse the enemy, or attack. But the high human intelligence makes it possible for us to think theoretically. That has many advatanges, but it also means that we overlook the necessary, fundamental way to survive. We intellectualize the situation and end giving complicated explanations instead of acting on the spot.«No it doesn't. We are not overlooking anything essential to survive, which is eating, staying healthy, and fighting off the enemy. Dealing with global climate change is something that's only possible with this high human intelligence.
»Det forekommer os i hvert fald ikke længere naturligt, at arten skal overleve. Det ligger af en eller anden grund ikke lige for. Hvis det gjorde, ville vi have gjort hvad som helst i Bella Center for at komme ud af de problemer, vi står over for«.It has never before occurred to any living organisms that any species should survive. It is not how natural selection works, and it is only recently that any living organisms have cared for other species, including their own. Animals care for other individuals, but does not have a concept of species at all to care for. This philosopher has a profound lack of understanding of evolution given that he is a professor talking about it.
»It doesn't seem natural to us any more, that the species must survive. It is, for some reason, not aparent. If it was, we would have done anything at Bella Center [i.e. COP15] to get rid of the problems we face«.
Ville en flok aber have kunnet lave en mere ambitiøs klimaaftale?Come on! What utter nonsense. I simply cannot believe anyone educated would say anything as daft as this. If we thought more like apes we would have seen the global climate trends and been able to do something about it? Jeesh, this is dumb. No, other species would never know they were headed towards a cliff, and would still only care about the very next move. Humans, on the other hand, have the capacity to foresee these events and do something about it. It is our very urge to care only for ourselves in the present that makes it hard to do something collectively, not our ability to think theoretically - to think ahead.
»Det ville i hvert fald have været nemmere, hvis mennesket havde haft abernes flokintelligens, hvor alle er intelligente på samme måde. Alle andre arter plejer at gøre noget, når de er på vej ud over en afgrund, men menneskets intelligens styrer os direkte mod den«.
Would a flock of apes have been able to make a more ambitious climate agreement?
»At least it would have been easier if humans had the flock-intelligence of apes, who are all intelligent in the same way. All other species usually do something when they are headed over the cliff, but human intelligence are steering us directly towards it«.
Normalt betragter vi det som upassende at rette os efter vores dyriske instinkter. Slår du her til lyd for det modsatte?Eh? Presently we aren't worried about our own survival? But many people and statesmen are worried right now, and this worry is the reason why we had COP15 in the first place.
»Nej, men det kan ikke nytte noget at have et højintellekt, hvis man er på vej ud over kanten med det. Min pointe er, at vi må kombinere urinstinktet med vores høje begavelse og begynde at bekymre os om vores egen overlevelse«.
Usually we consider it unsuitable to do as our animalistic instincts suggest. Are you here suggesting the opposite?
»No, but it is no use to have a high-intellect, if you are headed over the cliff with it. My point is that we much combine our instincts with our higher intelligence, and begin to concern ourselves with our own survival«.
Thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed... Will he reserve his anger forever?Major chuckle. A call to get real? I gather Phelps isn't trying to be sarcastic, but I feel certain that Gaga couldn't have come up with a better advertisement for her concerts herself.
(...)
Does the simple slut truly think she can change God's standards by seducing a generation of rebels into joining her in fist-raised, stiff-necked, hard-hearted rebellion against Him? Get real!
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.You can just see how the Chinese delegation planned this... "Imagine the frustration everybody else will feel when we sit at the hotel watching Baywatch while on the intercom. Hahaha!"
(...)
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.Perhaps someone could tell me why China had to be in the room at all? If the other countries knew China would bust their balls over the numbers to this extent, then why not just make a deal around China? So China wouldn't sign, but at least everyone else would (save for Sudan, and maybe India). Are the US and EU really so dependent on Chinese plastic toys? (Okay, I am fully aware that I am opening a can of worms that I know next to nothing about already, but I would also advocate more than a couple of steps backwards away from all the consumerist considerations that I do know the whole show is so deeply entrenched in.)
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".The thing is, surely someone among the EU and US delegations knew about China's agenda, no? I mean, I could have cooked up such a theory over two Tsingtao no problem, and yet Merkel was (apparently) truly frustrated? But maybe that's just how the game is played when in the room - everyone know the agenda of everyone else, but you have to keep playing your part.
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
According to reports, BL occurs in any type of weather, not just storms; it can be any color; it can be motionless or moving at any speed, often against the wind; it can disappear violently or silently; it may follow wires or edges or travel independently; it may be outside or inside; its life time varies from a fraction of a second to several minutes; its shape can be spherical or pear-shaped; it is either silent or noisy; etc.Besides, apparently there are many other explanations for this supposed phenomenon, such as
Until the early 1970s, a photograph taken in 1961 at Castleford (Yorkshire, England) had been interpreted as showing the path of BL. Even New Scientist magazine described it as the ‘Path of a Thunderbolt’. But a decade later it was claimed that it showed the pulsed trace from a street lamp (Davies and Standler) and a decade after that it was demonstrated that this was correct (Campbell 1981b): the photographer incautiously moved the camera while the shutter was still open. A Russian photograph taken in 1957 had the same explanation, but not before a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences endorsed the picture on the basis of similar pictures he had seen in a 1939 US journal (Campbell 1987). He did not know that the pictures were all produced by lamps, presumably as hoaxes.This is all very disappointing to me. Yet another childhood dream gone the way of Santa*, vampires, and ether.
Christmas is a Christian holiday -- if you're not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don't mess with the Messiah.Well, I do celebrate Yule, as he says, but it's the same thing! The direct translation of Christmas (indeed, the only one) - with all the Christian components - is 'jul' in Danish (weihnachten in German, jól in Icelandic). It is a celebration with roots that aren't Christian in origin, which the Christians then hijacked as a celebration of the birth of the son of himself. If Garrison wants non-Christians to stay clear of celebrating it, then could I ask that he in return stays clear of the parts that are pagan, like the tree? Seems fair to me. His club messed with our celebration first, goddammit, so fuck off Garrison.
Christmas does not need any improvements. It is a common ordinary experience that resists brilliant innovation. Just make some gingerbread persons and light three candles and sing softly in dim light about the poor man gathering winter fu-u-el and the radiant beams and the holly and the ivy, and you've got it. Too many people work too hard to make Christmas perfect, find the perfect gifts, get a turkey that reaches 100 percent of potential. Perfection is a goal of brilliant people and it is unnecessary where Christmas is concerned.Yeah well, IMO Scandinavia didn't need any improvement a thousand years ago, and, while most of the pre-Christianity traditions have been lost (because they became Christian), I am quite certain that people didn't go around thinking that their Winter Solstice celebration needed divine improvement.
Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that's their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite "Silent Night." If you don't believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn "Silent Night" and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism and we Christians have stood for it long enough.Does anyone feel the burn of the irony? (Here I stop to note that Garrison is an English-major, and very fond of the English language. It is therefore with exquisite delight that I mangle the English language, and I can only hope that he ever stops by and sputters his eggnog all over his keyboard.) On top of that I wonder if this is about a five-year old hoax that Bill O'Reilly fell for, fighting the war against the war on Christmas?
Johnson and his colleagues argue that the pattern arises because insurgent wars lack a coherent command network and operate more as a "soup of groups", in which cells form and disband when they sense danger, then reform in different sizes and composition. The timing of attacks, the authors say, is driven by competition between insurgent groups for media attention.So the fact that they are media-whores makes them predictable? The study is not free from criticisms, but still it makes you wonder if insurgents read Nature. If they want to remain elusive, perhaps they should.
All of these are theories posed by evolutionists. What I see in Qur'an is concrete proof. We in time are trying to understand what God already has created. Sometimes we prove our theories. Sometimes we disprove our theories.Would you believe the above is a statement by someone with a Ph.D. in biochemistry working as a scientist?
As a Muslim, the Qur'an gives me clear science. I read it with 100 percent belief in it. I don't look at it critically. It is God's scripture.
By freedom, I mean the freedom within our education system to allow other schools to compete with public schools, freedom of parents to control the education of their children, freedom of teachers to do their job without burdensome restrictions, and freedom of both students and teachers to express their belief in God and moral standards.
As governor, I will fight to allow parents greater freedom to choose the proper education for their child, whether public school, private school, Christian school, or home school.Muslim school, Jewish school, Scientology school, FSM school.
Finally, we must remember that God is the true source of wisdom and understanding. As governor, I will protect the freedom of teachers and students to recognize God in prayer and our Pledge of Allegiance.I wonder if he'll protect the freedom of teachers and students to recite Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist prayers in school.
The theme of the 2010 Summer School is the phenomenon of strong (or extreme) sequence conservation, which will be explored from a quantitative and multidisciplinary perspective, and connections forged with parts of biology outside of genomics.Students can apply to have all travel and accommodation costs covered. Application deadline is February 15.
creationist leaders share Darwin’s belief that species routinely change (and even originate) through mutation and natural selection.Weird, right? But wonderful, that they believe in evolution after all. Or not?
Indeed, according to Answers In Genesis’ (AiG) current web feature “Top 10 Myths About Creation,” it’s a straw-man to suppose creationists think otherwise:A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.Oh, what scientists call evolution they do not. But they do allow (again, I think that's the right word) changes within families - which would then allow for speciation. But not change at taxonomic levels higher than that.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution—they remind us that God put enough information in the genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed world.
The conference will begin on Friday evening January 29th with a panel discussion featuring representatives from the colleges and the Claremont community working on issues of sustainability.I'll probably drop by on Saturday 30th.
On Saturday there will be four speakers from a variety of disciplines posing problems of interest to mathematicians and scientists:
Harry Atwater (California Institute of Technology) Light-Matter Interactions for Solar Energy Conversion
Ken Golden (University of Utah) Climate Change and the Mathematics of Transport in Sea Ice
Julie Lundquist (University of Colorado at Boulder) Harnessing the Power of the Wind
Ron Lloyd (Fat Spaniel Technologies) Modeling Problems in the Green Economy.
We invite students and faculty to submit posters. There is travel funding available for students. Please see website for more details.
http://www.math.hmc.edu/conferences/2010
The title of Richard Bateman's upcoming lecture is "Gradualism: Darwin's big mistake?".Kevin Padian has pounded this myth before, too.
I may be jumping the gun, the question mark hints at a lecture debunking this myth (though the abstract suggests something else), but I can't help but express some frustration over the habit of evolutionary biologists of enhancing their research programs (or presidential lectures) by claiming to address mistakes or solve difficulties in the Origin of Species.
Darwin had no problem with rapid evolution.
Page 148: ".... a new and improved variety might be quickly formed on any one spot, ...."
Page 310: "I may here recall a remark formerly made, namely that it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance to fly through the air; but when this had been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would be able to spread rapidly and widely throughout the world."
Page 318: "There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: ...."
And then there's the first chapter, Variation under domestication. It sets up the whole argument and it is a discussion about variation between different sheep herds and about dog breeds. Darwin remarks (page 93) that "King Charles's spaniel has been unconsciously modified to a large extent since the time of that monarch".
Let's give the man a little rope. The common view in 1859, according to Darwin, was the immutability of species. That gradualism was emphasized shouldn't be surprising in this context.
For these reasons, and based on carbon isotope data, it is all but certain that the present, unprecedented rise in CO2 is due mainly to human output. But one cannot rule out with complete certainty other factors, for example, global warming itself, that could also be significantly contributing to the atmospheric CO2 increase.
CO2 (and methane) in the atmosphere are nearly transparent to UV and visible radiation, but absorb in the infrared, creating a "greenhouse." If it were not for this, the surface of the Earth would be much colder. This leads to the inference that increasing CO2 will lead to increasing warmth. Also, high CO2 concentration in the air leads to ocean acidification, which is probably bad for coral and perhaps also for plankton that make their shells from calcium carbonate (soluble in acid) and form the base of the ocean food chain.
An East-West clash over a Swiss referendum last week banning the construction of mosque minarets heated up today as Iran's foreign minister warned of unspecified "consequences" if the ban were enforced.I was going to write that they are hypocrites, but apparently Iran actually allows Christians to build churches.
Iran's population is 90% Shiite Muslim. But it permits construction of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, though some Sunni Muslims have complained they have a tough time building houses of worship in some parts of the country.And yet, they are bloody hypocrites, because they dare talk lecture the Swiss government on human rights:
But Mottaki had harsh words for Switzerland, saying enforcement of the ban on new minarets was “against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights" and would "damage Switzerland’s image as a pioneer of respecting human rights among Muslims' public opinion," according to a report by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA.All true, perhaps, that the choice made the the Swiss voters will damage Switzerland's image among Muslims. But seriously, clean up your own house because you threaten other with unspecified consequences and urge them to care about human rights. This was easy to find:
The problem, of course, is that evolutionary theory primarily deals with how life changes, not how it originated in the first place. No matter, because in the entire 25 minutes allotted for Meyer and Sternberg, they never once even mentioned the origin of life, and instead attacked “neo-Darwinism,” population genetics, rates of mutation, etc., none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of life. By contrast, Don devoted his 15 minutes to instructing the audience on where the science of life’s origins is today, basically covering his 15-week college course in one minute per week’s worth of material.Robert Crowther has a reply to Shermer, which contains this jewel:
(...)
Unbelievably, Meyer opened by accusing us of dodging the debate question!
In our uniform and repeated experience, information only comes from minds (read: intelligence). So why should we attribute the information in DNA to a mindless process like natural selection? Meyer doesnt' think we should. Obviously, ID is an inference from the evidence, not from religious scriptures or practices.Bad, bad, bad inference.
Second, it is clear that Darwinists are unable to demonstrate that the mechanism they champion, natural selection acting on random mutation (the subject of the debate), is capable of accounting for the complexity and diversity of life. On the contrary, it is clear that it is incapable, a point made repeatedly during the debate by Sternberg and Meyer.How is it clear? By what evidence? That Meyer et al. repeat that it is so does not make it so.
It was all shaping up to be a serious heavyweight bout. And then Meyer and Sternberg simply KO'd the competition in the opening round. If I were being generous I might say that Prothero tripped over his own arrogance and impaled himself on his condescension, but let's be honest; he was completely knocked out by Sternberg. I think Sternberg earned a third degree tonight, one in evolutionary bulldozing.I read this first, and though to myself that surely he is exaggerating, but perhaps Prothero did somehow trip and make a fool of himself, perhaps misspeaking on some factual issue.
To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "creationists" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river.Wow, right? Even if we expect the "winners" to exaggerate somewhat more than slightly, this is as far as I can tell an account of rare kind of resounding victory in a creationism/ID vs. evolution battle.
This guy is to be taken seriously? I had to remind myself not to laugh every so often during his presentation — it was so pathetic and ill-informed. Basically, Shermer and Prothero blathered on about supernaturalism, and Meyer ceded his time to Sternberg, who made an interesting presentation about whale evolution
(...)
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point.
My subjective summary of it is that our side did very well: I caught them off-guard with new arguments they had no answer for;Wait, what? I had to double-check that there weren't two different debates, but no.
we both pushed them hard on the fact that neither of them ever addressed the topic of the debate, “Origins of Life.” I could tell that they were rattled a number of times, and I definitely shook up Meyer and got under his skin with my answers.I mean, can these two accounts, supposedly of the same event, really be more at odds? I don't know who the heck Crowther is, but I do know Prothero. I read his book, I heard him talk, we've emailed, and he commented here. This gives me some feeling that he knows what he is talking about, that he isn't some kind of lunatic paleontologist, and that his words carry some weight. (I also know Shermer quite well, and can say the same things about him and his area of expertise.) But Crowther? I have no clue. I hesitate to Google him before I have written this... may I'll do it later. Stephen Meyer is a philosopher. Perhaps you see what I am getting at...?
(...)
We both chastised them on ignoring the debate topic entirely, but to their minds, the debate was about Neo-Darwinian gradual selection.
(...)
At another point, I tried to get in a complete rebuttal to Sternberg’s weird whale argument, highlighting his invalid assumptions about population size, reproductive rates, and the constancy of point mutations, and arguing that a lot of people are looking at evo/devo to explain the suite of soft-tissue modifications that whales show. Somewhere in there, Meyer used the “condescending” sympathy line but their rebuttal to evo/devo was so garbled that they ended up arguing with each other about those hypothetical reconstructions of 12-winged dragonflies and completely missed the point of evo/devo. (I never got a chance to set that one straight). I knew they were desperate when they suddenly pulled out their “junk DNA” kit of lies, and I slammed them with endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, and the onion argument — and then Sternberg got all tangled up admitting these were real but trying to dismiss their importance. Even though the moderator let them get away with more time and interruptions, I feel like we held our own, and most of their garbage got a least a partial challenge and rebuttal from our side.
We then each took a few questions from the audience and moderator, and most were a piece of cake to answer.
(...)
We must have done something right to rattle Meyer as we did, getting under his skin so that he tried to question my qualifications to talk about molecular biology (and then I cut in with “I have a degree in biology”), pull out his “condescension” sympathy line, and now the DI flacks are now busy trying to spin and lie their way out of the debacle.
(...)
Several of the fence-sitters in the audience said I’d convinced them and beat the creationists soundly.
Imam Zaid Shakir will be presenting a talk to the Claremont College community to address the Fort Hood tragedy: the events asssociated with it as well as those ensuing from it. He will also explain how and why the crime perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan can not and should not be attributed to Islam.Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Job Title: Associate Computational Biologist - Infectious Disease InitiativeI'd love to work in a face paced environment. I'd also love to try a fast paste environment.
General abilities required: multi-task, work independently, collaborative skills, adapt to changing priorities, work in face paced environment, analytical skills, verbal communications skills, written communication skills, presentation skills
[Emphasis added.]
The “ADE651 device” costs around £35,000 ($60k). It appears to be a telescopic car aerial attached to a black box. Inside there is a plastic card that is supposed to be ready programmed with an electromagnetic ‘resonance’ of what needs to be detected. It is claimed to be based on the principles of nuclear quadrupole resonance but from what I understand that would require generating a magnetic field and sending out a strong pulse – something that seems to be absent in the ADE651 – its powered by body energy! Even if it does use NQR then it seems highly implausible that it can work from an airplane 3 miles up as claimed in the product details. Still, they have already sold an unbelievable £51 million’s worth to Iraq.The really interesting news here is that Bruce lives close by the company that manufactures the ADE651, and he is in the process of arranging a visit to see the device for himself, together with a physicists friend.
when a guard and a driver for The New York Times investigating this story, both licensed to carry firearms, drove through nine police checkpoints that were using the device, none of the checkpoint guards detected the two AK-47 rifles and ammunition inside the vehicle. Later, it even failed to detect a grenade and pistol in plain view on the table of the General in charge of the checkpoint, who replied that the operators needed more training.Do check back with Bruce later on. I'll keep you posted here as well.
More than 800 Ph.D.-level scientists around the world are seriously considering ID to explain the origin of life, but you'd never know it. Most do so clandestinely for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even forced out of their academic positions.Yeah, 800 Ph.D.s in dentistry, engineering, physics, and other fields with no expertise in biology (and, yes, a handful of biologists). Compare that to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Ph.D.s all over the world that either understand that ID isn't science or at least realize that they shouldn't let their religious views cloud their scientific ones. 800 Ph.D.s is like 20σ.
When former Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe computed the chances that the four amino acids that form DNA could self-arrange themselves into just one functional protein, he found it was 1:10164 -- or less than the odds of finding one marked subatomic particle in the entire observable universe.But but but, no one thinks that the proteins around today were the functional ones that first appeared. The function was vastly different, so the comparison doesn't hold. As usual, probability exercises like this one rests on straw-man arguments about how biologists and chemists think the first self-replicating molecules appeared.
Ironically, attempts to discredit ID have turned it into forbidden fruit on college campuses. Many recruits are grad students who understand the complex nanotechnology of the cell and the dead ends in Darwinian evolution much better than their professors. "It looks like engineering," Meyer says. "Replication. Digital code. We own the metaphors. They know the future is with us."Forbidden fruits? Look, the professors likely know that ID is fruitless. A professor will do right by kindly explaining why ID isn't science, and that the very few predictions Id has made has been invalidated. "We own the metaphors" !?! *chortle* In which class do we learn that science progrersses by the use of metaphors? Biometaphors 101? Biology for poets? If the future is with the IDers, then why is all this an issue? Why don't they show us the science, something we can test that isn't immediately refuted? [Answer: because they don't have anything.]
"The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection -- which is to say, minor changes within existing species," writes Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, who has two Ph.D.s from the University of California at Berkeley in molecular and cell biology. "Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false."The fossil record supports evolution. Vertebrate embryos confirm that vertebrates share a common ancestor. There is plenty of DNA that is non-functional, despite the discovery (by real scientists) that some of it serves a function. ("Non-coding DNA" is how we refer to the DNA that doesn't code for proteins, but control gene expression, i.e. when the coding regions are transcribed and translate into proteins - which is a very important function.) Natural selection - without the influence of humans - has been shown time and again to occur in nature (e.g. my all-time favorite paper on Croatian lizards evolving to use a new dietary resource in 30 years - not minor changes). Two Ph.D.s, eh? Why? I'll tell you why, so he can say that he is smart. Don't believe me? Look it up. Wells was told by his Moonie leader to go get a Ph.D. to refute Darwinism.
Amen to that.Again, if your religious views take precedence in your interpretation of data, then you'll be doing science that can't be used for anything. Try it. Do ID science and let's compare notes. I promise I won't ridicule you before the, say, 5th time you come back with the same claim, having ignored all the evidence that refutes it.
Please use the submission form to add more of your and other people's posts (remember that we are looking for original poems, art, cartoons and comics, as well as essays). Realize that nobody knows your archives as well as you do - there is nothing wrong about submitting your own (about half of the entries, each year, are submitted by authors, and that is just fine).My favorite cartoon is PartiallyClips.
"The sheer terrain of Afghanistan is much more challenging: the mountains, the altitudes, severity of weather, the distances. That wears on an army," says Maj. Joseph Matthews, a battalion operations officer in the 10th Mountain Division. "You can flood Baghdad with soldiers but if you want to flood the mountains you are going to need huge numbers and logistics."In late January next year, British PM Brown will host a conference on an Afghanistan exit strategy. The plan is to require (intensely corrupt) Afghan President Karzai to provide 50,000 troops for training in the next year, as well as improving the police force, and then pull out NATO troops. 50k troops?! I want to say that I suspect that will prove difficult, but I don't really know. Does anyone think this is going to be possible?
(...)
In Afghanistan, troops routinely cross passes 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) and higher, descending into valleys where they say villagers "hibernate like bears" for up to five winter months, cut off from the outside world by the snows.
This almost medieval isolation makes it far more difficult for the Afghan government and coalition forces to spread the aid and information needed to counter the Taliban push while the villagers — mostly illiterate and with little access to radios, never mind television — rely on religious leaders at Friday mosque prayers, or the insurgents, to shape their world view.
"In Afghanistan, success stories are difficult to find," said Lex Kassenberg, CARE's top official in the country. The delicate, painstaking work of bringing a community school to life offers clear rewards such as education, an end to violence and a way to contain the Taliban, he believes. The cost so far: $25 million over five years for CARE. Compare that to the $200 billion-plus spent by the United States over eight years in a stumbling, inconclusive conflict.But what's to stop the Taleban from closing schools if the troops leave? The answer would be the local communities themselves... and hopefully that would work.
1. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A COUNTRY, IT'S A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISEMakes me wanna puke, really.
Afghanistan produces 93% of the world's opium, and this drug kills a 100,000 users a year. Like Burma, Afghanistan is basically a criminal enterprise.
2. HOW WE FUND THE DRUGLORDS AND THE TALIBAN
This is the situation in Afghanistan. No government. A fight between gangster-warlords and the Taliban for control of the opium, and us in the middle, backing the losers.
3. TWO OR THREE REASONS WE'RE IN AFGHANISTAN
There is a third reason we continue fighting in Afghanistan, the most important reason, and that is simply this: we're fighting there because we've been fighting there. It's much easier to start a war than to end a war. We're in Afghanistan because we're in Afghanistan -- the law of inertia.
4. THE WAR SERVES OUR POLITICS, NOT OUR INTERESTS
Here is the point: there is less justification for our war in Afghanistan now than there were ever was for our war in Iraq. The Afghanistan war is as necessary to our security as an indoor flush toilet is necessary to an elephant. There is nothing for us to win there, even if we achieve the impossible and put the gangster-warlords back in charge of Afghanistan, instead of the religious nuts.
5. OUR REAL ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AREN'T THE TALIBAN OR IRAN, BUT ISRAEL AND SAUDI-ARABIA
But hey, we're dumbfucks, so we regard the two countries who screw us the most in the Middle East as our friends. Our foreign policy works AGAINST our interests. We MUST be a nation of consummate dumbfuckeronskis if we can't even get basic things like that right.
6. FROM MESSIAH TO WAR CRIMINAL IN LESS THAN A YEAR
Obama has already made one big mistake in his first year -- coddling Wall Street, because he is being advised by two economic war criminals, Summers and Geithner. Now, if he lets himself be swayed by the actual war criminals among his advisers, he will be nothing but a war criminal himself.
7. WE COULD WIN SOMETHING WITH MORE SCHOOLS INSTEAD OF MORE TROOPS
That would be money well spent -- educating the country's kids instead of killing their parents. But no, Obama is not thinking about building more schools there, but debating with his advisers and himself about whether he should send more troops there. A debate of dumbfucks by dumbfucks for dumbfucks.
8. THE ANNOYING ENDURANCE OF OUR DUMBFUCKERY
Imagine the irony if Barack goes and collects his Nobel Peace Prize after having sent more troops to their deaths in Afghanistan. From hopeful Messiah to war criminal in less than a year.
[Formatted to fit this screen, to run in the time allotted, and edited for content.]
1. faitheistPerhaps it is true that even saying that [the bigger battle can be won eventually by focusing on showing the evidence for the science that is in conflict with creationism] will turn some people off evolution and science, and yet I am not proposing not to do so anyway, because I believe in saying what I think, telling it like it is, and because I believe that many religious people will respond to the message that science have for them.
An atheist who is "soft" on religious belief, and tolerant of even the worst intellectual and moral excesses of religion: atheist accommodationist.
A lot of leftist faitheists say, "I'm not religious, but we shouldn't criticize the Muslim oppression of women because it's a sincere religious belief.
Darwin, of course, did not say man came from monkeys. He said the two share a common ancestor. But to discuss Darwin anywhere is not just to explore the origin of man. It is inevitably to engage in a debate between religion and science. That is why, 150 years after Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” the British Council, the cultural arm of the British government, decided to hold an international conference on Darwin in this conservative, Sunni Muslim nation.Apparently, Egyptian students aren't taught about evolution.
It was a first.
Education here is based on rote memorization, with virtually no emphasis on creative thinking. Few schools here even teach the theory of evolution.The testimonies from students at the conference is what makes me think that this is going to be a long and painful process, but that we will eventually prevail.
“I am not against the idea of evolution completely,” said Amr Zeydah, 23, a zoology major at Alexandria University. “I accept the idea partially.”As always, understanding is not accepting - I don't have to accept religious beliefs in order to understand how they influence a person's way of thinking about science. And without understanding I don't think we will get anywhere. Dialogue is crucial, so let's accept that advancement will come in tiny increments, such as in the case of Mr. Zeydah who now at least got to learn anything at all about evolution, like all zoology majors should, even though it lead him to bend over backwards father than a contortionist to accommodate his religious beliefs.
Despite his major, Mr. Zeydah has never studied Darwin, and before the conference knew little about the theory of evolution. He accepted the Islamic account of creation, that God formed Adam from dirt and infused him with a soul.
But after taking in the discussion, he said he had worked out a way to reconcile the two: that God created life, which then evolved to suit its environment. “God created Adam at 15 meters tall,” he said, quoting what he said was a Hadith, or saying, of the Prophet Muhammad. “So evolution comes in because we are obviously not that height now.”
While some people may chuckle at the notion that man was once of enormous height, the point, some of the speakers here said, was that local sensitivities and beliefs must be understood, too, not dismissed out of hand, if dialogue is to work.