Slashdot Mirror

Wow. That link took an interesting scientific report and then added a stupendous amount of stupidity. Here's the original source: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/172510699 v1
Here's why scientists believe two ape chromosome pairs fused into one human chromosome pair (which your link claims is ridiculous without any explanation): http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

"The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres."

Read the rest of the document to see how these two predictions made by the theory of common ancestry turned out to be correct.

"evolution theory is extrapolated from one observation: the variation of species"

Um no, start here...

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

and try here...

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

better yet, allow me to assist...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolution+evi dence

Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Hall BG, Zuzel T, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Abstract: "Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose..." (Obviously, in a lactose-rich environment, this makes E. coli more fit.)

Now that I pointed you to the paper will you give up your unfounded belief?

I'd also suggest reading this to start and maybe this to learn a bit more about evolution.

"testable, observable, or provable."

Have you ever taken a biology class? Evolution is both testable and observable, and hence as "provable" as anything can be.

Let me give you a few examples of "testing" and "observing" evolution:

Take a culture of bacteria (of course you're going to actually take a bunch of them, for. Apply low-grade antibiotics to it. You'll observe only a small portion of the bacteria survive. Culture this bacteria again until you've got a relatively full sample. Now apply low-grade antibiotics again. This time, probably only 10% of your culture will die. You've just tested and observed evolution. When presented with a stimulus, the organism "evolved" to withstand it.

Did any of your bactera actually say "oh crap, antibiotics! I'm gonna change my jeans!"? No way. It just happens that due to genetic diversity, some of the genes were resistant to antibiotics to begin with, and once the pressure was applied, they were the only ones left to reproduce.

All evolution takes is this very simple concept, and the fact that genetic diversity is created through reproduction (through genetic crossover primarily).

To continue observing evolution, look at any of the thousands of hypotheses based on evolution that have turned out to be correct. That's testing, observing, and "proving".

No one has claimed that evolution can't be tested or observed. That's a straw-man argument you completely made up.

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/E Vcontents.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

I'm sure you know how to use google, if you're genuinely interested in FACT, rather than whatever rhetoric you were shovel-fed at church.

How is the Bible evidence?

Oh, by the way:
http://www.leyada.jlm.k12.il/proj/black/evidence.h tm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Its not the count, its the content. Chromosomes are just the packaging for genes, and gene duplication or deletion can happen without reproductive failure. Science sees that happening today. Chromosomes' breaking or merging can happen, and as long as the genes are still there it doesn't automatically mean reproductive failure.

Anyways, on your chromosome question: humans have one less chromosome, but all the same genes, because 2 'chimp' genes simply fused together. Human chromosome 2 is chimp chromosomes 2P and 2Q fused together- it even still has all the broken bits of telomeres at the fusion point. Its just like someone combined 2 chapters together in a Word document by only removing the 'chapter break' mark, but forgot to remove all the end and start chapter formatting.

If you compare us with chimps, you see something like:

• Modern Chimps: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End" "Start gene4A gene5A gene6C End"
• Modern Human: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A En"Starf gene4A gene5A gene6B End" thus the evidence points to...
• Last Common Ancestor: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End" "Start gene4A gene5A gene6A End"
• Earliest Human Group: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End"Start gene4A gene5A gene6A End"

Take a group of "last common ancestors" that's moved away from others (is reproductively isolated). if one of them gets the 2 genes fused, they would have no problem reproducing within the group- the genes still line up. If the group never rejoins other lca hominids, then the fused gene trait gets fixed in the now-speciating group. Note that they're speciating not because they can't interbreed but because they don't interbreed. Later on some ancestral chimp (post lca split) has a change on 'gene6,' as do the humans (but a different mutation) so that we get the 98% similarity instead of identical genes.

You can compare them yourself: check out what it looks like if you line up human and chimp genes next to each other. Not at all different by the plagarism standard. In fact, you can do a letter by letter comparison nowadays: here is the human genome, and here is the chimp genome.

And to cover a few well-refuted but always repeated creationist / ID claims made in slashdot threads, as I summarized elsewhere:

• A transitional species- a missing link- will always itself be a species Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species. This is because evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species. Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.
• There are excellent examples of transitional species Check out Ape to Modern Man. Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (Note how you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tin

It turns out that variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. For example, Przewalski's Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes, but domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes, yet they can breed to produce fertile offspring.

The is good evidence based on structural analysis of human chromosome 2 that it is the fused version of two chromosomes found in modern apes.

The genetics of "Post-zygotic Isolating Mechanisms" of speciation is under much study now. Here is a great review of speciation mechanisms.

Generally the strong force on post-zygotic speciation is "epistasis", negatively interacting genetic loci. So different and negatively interacting genes are more important in speciation than slight differences in chromosomal configuration. There are some speciation events driven mainly by chromosomal configuration, though most are not.

such fusions happen relatively often, and usually result in individuals that can live perfectly normal lives, although they're somewhat less fertile than their conspecifics. the very rare thing is for such a mutation to become fixed in a genome and spread widely; in vertebrate animals, that sort of thing is genetically tricky. (though obviously not impossible, considering humans exist.)

see also: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. And what happened is that two of the chromosomes fused into one chromosome. Our chromosome two is essentially two of the chimp chromosomes (2p and 2q) stuck together. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html has a pretty good picture of the chromosome two and its ape versions.

Slippery slope, that species boundary. Is it certain humans and chimps couldn't have fertile offspring? They have a different number of chromosomes, but apparently that doesn't always preclude baby makin'. But I'd never say humans and chimps were the same species, even if they did have fertile, very ugly, humpanzee babies.

My point was that the evolutionist agenda is based on the belief in no god , and so is just a religious as the creationist point of view.

The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero

Wrong: Evidence

Some people have better genes than others in various ways. Your 'evidence' call this varation a mutation, which it was not. It's just variance within the human species. Mutation involves change outside the scope of what the ancestors had in the past. Couldn't there have been an ancestor with the beneficial traits discussed in the paper?

Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events

Evidence?

Well, you got me there. I didn't have evidence. I did a quick Google and the first result reads:

It ultimately proves that the origin of all complex life goes back much further than previously imagined. (abc.net.au)

They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?

They assume neither and both. The evidence (age, traits etc.etc.) determines one or the other based on previous evidence/conclusions.

I think they have a mountain of previous evidence that is based on prior assumptions of previous evidence concluded from assumptions that .. well, you know where I'm going with this.

Evolutionists have an agenda Based on testable theories. Creationists have no testable theories.

How can they be testable theories? How do you test these theories without going back in time? Evidence?

Mutations are rare and usually sterile...

This is too simplistic a statement. Mutations as seen in the general population are rare. Other types of mutation (point mutation, indels etc.) are relatively frequent but there are mechanisms to mitigate these mutations. In fact it is estimated that approx. that every new human cell contains some 120 new mutations. But these mutations have little effect because of repeated DNA sections, junk DNA etc.etc.
Not all are sterile, of course. In fact, in just a short time, beneficial mutations can be seen.

The chance of a beneficial genetic mutation is close to zero
Wrong: Evidence

Evolutionists keep expanding the time frame of events
Evidence?

They dig up fossils of several creatures and decide that there was some sort of evolutionary relationship between them. Why can't there just have existed distinct creatures that may or may not have similar traits, but no ancestorial relationships?
They assume neither and both. The evidence (age, traits etc.etc.) determines one or the other based on previous evidence/conclusions.

Evolutionists have an agenda
Based on testable theories. Creationists have no testable theories.

If you want a supporting argument for Genesis, it is easy enough to asser that the events in the time preceeding Adam were described to him by the almighty, recorded either orally or in writing, and finally made their way into the current text.

So you expect me to take on faith that Adam existed, spoke to god, and wrote it down and that this is the truth, but you won't except evolution because you can't see it happening. Sorry, doesn't fly. Claims are not evidence. Claiming to speak to god is not evidence that he did. And you can't hold my argument to a higher standard than you hold your own.

But the discussion is not one about creationism, rather it is one about what ideas should journalists present.

It was until you claimed creationism had valid scientific evidence to support it and failed to present any. But, you want to present both sides in a scientific discussion? Fine. Have some evidence. Mistating evolutionary theory is not evidence. Claims that it is possible is not evidence. "Ancient documents" whose very origin is dubious is not evidence. You've got no evidence, so that's what we'll present.

If you want a rational discussion, put some facts on the table.

I see little point since you can't even decide what constitutes valid scientific evidence. Anything that's possible is not probable. Just being possible is not evidence of it acutally happening. But, here's some light reading:

"Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin - the father of modern evolutionary theory. Explains in detail the concept of natural selection among others.

Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild - a scientific study on the effects of natural selction in the wild.

Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry - in fact, quite a bit at this site is useful.

And I highly recommend:
Evolution and the Fossil Record - published by the American Geology Institute. Not only is it informative but highly accessible to non-scientists.

Every model of the world devised to date has eventually been discredited,

This is a flat out lie. The earth is still round and still orbits the sun, for starters. Both ideas are older than Christ. Again, misrepresenting the facts to support your argument.

I never said I was a creationist.

Yet you are so willing to take "ancient documents" on faith but discredit evolution because you can't see it happening.

And my arguments are quite rational if one looks only at the facts.

Calling the most wild-ass ideas with no evidence to support them reasonable is not rational. Requiring faith to support your argument and having none to discredit mine is not rational. Believing that anything that is possible is just as likely to be true is not rational. And even if they were, rational is not evidence. I'd love to look at the facts, but you haven't supplied any.

Perhaps we should have a neutral party review the discussion.

First, good luck finding one. Second, I don't care anymore. The main problem here, which oddly enough goes back to the original discussion, is you have no idea what constitutes valid scientific evidence. Until you can resolve that, there is no point in discussing this any further. Feel free to write the whole episode off as my unwillingness to consider what goes against the status quo. You're going to anyway, regardless of what arguments I make because it's what you want to believe, so I don't see why I should bother.

I don't know if you're trolling, but I'll assume you're not.

But the theory of evolution says that, given enough time, ants evolve into birds. (Not exactly, but you get the idea.) We've never seen anything like that. We've never seen a species evolve into another species through natural selection.

Give that this takes tens of thousands or even millions of years to happen, and human beings have only been around at most for 200.000 years (with only a few thousand years of recorded history) this isn't so surprising.

You should look as closely at the argument of evolutionary scientists as you do at those of creationists. Most creationist arguments I've seen attack older, no longer held, views of evolutionary scientists, and therefore are very bogus, even though they sound very convincing.

Take for example, the comparison between this account of fossil horse records and this criticism of fossil horse records. Note how the criticism only attacks the earliest held views, and handily dismisses any advances in knowledge made since then. I know, I know, anecdotal, like always, but I find this is an often reoccurring phenomenon among creationist arguments.

We're never going to have a perfect fossil record. Therefore we're never going to be able to prove evolution from the origins of life to human beings. This is a fact. However, it's just too big of a leap for a sane person to claim all the species we DO have in the fossil record not only share no evolutionary history, but all were created by God (even though they all appear in defined periods, and no species is available throughout the entire fossil record history) and most just died off due to natural selection.

Anyway, do a google search on "evidence evolution" 3.6 million results. Have fun reading. This seems a good resource.

So, true. If people were swayed by facts, things like Haldane's Dilemna and irreducible complexity wouldn't be swept under the rug.

Haldane's Dilemma and irreducable complexity aren't so much swept under the rug as they are put back on the toy shelf next to geocentrism and the flat earth.

The genome is very much like a technical manual written in Word, if Word has all the versioning and autosave features turned on. You can look at either the functional part- the readable manual- or the raw data. If you read the raw data you have blocks of the current and readable manual interspersed within blocks of outdated but readable text, blocks of barely readable fragments, and blocks of Word code / framing data. Similarly, you can look at individual genes alone or at the raw genetic data: in the raw data you have blocks of current and readable instructions for genes (i.e. exons) surrounded by everything else, some almost readable, some not at all (introns).

If you wanted to compare two documents for a common source some types of comparisons such as overall size or number of chapters aren't that useful: whole paragraphs or pages could be duplicated, or chapters split or concatenated. Ditto for genetic comparisons: humans have 23 chromosomes, other apes have 24: this might seem like a big difference. But human chromosome 2 looks like chimp chromosomes 2P and 2Q fused / concatenated- not much of a difference at all. The analogy holds one more level: if you concatenated two chapters you might expect bits of remnant chapter heading code to sit where the two were joined: human C.2 has nonfunctional telomere code right at the spot where you'd expect if you fused chimp 2P and 2Q. Article with references for this Here.

"Comparing only functional genes is like comparing only the current, readable parts of the Word document's raw data. Here they found over 99% similarity"

"Comparing only functional genes is like comparing only the curent, readable parts of the Word document's raw data. Here they found over 99% similarity"

The two previous paragraphs are 99% similar: if you saw both in two postings you'd suspect copying. If chapter after chapter in two manuals contained this level of similarity the suspicion would be corroborated. This similarity holds even if the compared chapters' instructions give different end results.

I think a little refutation(flame)is in order....

First Mistake:Appeal to reverence/authority

There are scientists who are creationists,but this is not reasonable basis for assuming that Creationism is valid.If it were, then it must be noted that there are many scientists who are atheists,and necesarily not Creationists. In 1997, a random poll of American scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science determined that 60% did not believe in a personal god--45% were atheists, 15% agnostics, the other 40% believers. But when the same study was made of more distinguished scientists, those who had achieved the prestigious membership of the National Academy of Sciences, the number of unbelievers was 93%, and of atheists specifically it was 85%, and the numbers were greater among physicists than others. For sources and analysis, see Michael Shermer's How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, 2000, pp. 72-4. What is evident is that scientists are more likely than non-scientists to disavow a personal god (among all Americans generally, 96% believe in god--65% even believe the devil is real, cf. ibid. p. 21). And physicists are the most likely of all to be unbelievers--so if we are to appeal to what scientists conclude about god, then we must disavow the existence of a personal creator. But the absurdity of such a method of deciding what to believe should be apparent.

Next Mistake:Straw Man
"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe..."
-the first line of actual text from Do While Jone's "excellent" site.

I have to doubt the credibility of any source that does not even understand the theory they are attacking,
or would stoop to using such base tactics as straw-manning.The theory of evolution states: ( 1)All life forms (species) have developed from other species.( 2.) All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors). (3.) All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms. (4.) The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

"Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring."
-from the same source

That's funny.I guess they never heard about these.In fact, they must not be very aware of modern medical and bilogical sciences in general.

Next Mistake:A revisiting of the first fallacious statement by citing John Ashton's book, In Six Days.

see above
50 "scientists" might believe it but that doesn't necesarily make it so.

"....The most telling argument for me in rejecting evolution, however, is the meaningless and lack of value it signifies. If evolution occurred, then my existence is not a special event in the Creator's plan. Yet, the Bible says I am special; I was created for a purpose."-a cute exert from the book that speaks volumes

It would be nice to believe that we are special,but then,it would be nice if money grew on trees.

Next Mistake:Behe of all people?Is this a reference or a joke?

"Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution."

Odd that Behe has never published a single technical paper for peer review....and as far as his book goes, well, Behe offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.For a more thorough trashing of Mr. Behe,look here.

Next:This is too obvious...

"I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. "

In my experience, they know no more about evolution than "a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company."(Douglas Adams always puts things so nicely..: ) )My experience,and yours, might not be indicative of the whole though.What's your point with this?

All in all, this post did not address the original question,which was (to paraphrase) Why is it that,when discussing anything even vaguely related to evolution,Creationists feel the need to spout their psuedo-science?

II. MOZILLA CAPUT XXVII

While I agree that the present primacy of NSI over .com, .org and .edu raises several problems, it is important to note from where NSI obtains its authority, and seat the blame appropriately. This solution may work itself out in time, once there is a non-NSI infrastructure capable of picking up the registry slack. Outfits like register.com are proof that sound competition is possible.

Now the trademark issues do not derive from NSI itself (although certainly some of them do), but from the tradmark laws, really stupid special-purpose legislation (the cybersquatting bill) and from limitations of the technology itself. Eliminating NSI from the mix would change none of these things.

The fact of the matter is that it is unlawful to use a mark in violation of trademark laws. Mere registration is not, by itself, an infringement, subsequent use of that registration will be. It doesn't matter who is registrar for the domain names -- the lawsuits will ensue. The anticybersquatter act further ensures this.

The problem is not with the law, either. Trademark law has developed reasonably over the centuries, and can readily cater to plural persons being able to use the identical mark. (ABC for a TV network, an unrelated pizza chain, an unrelated chain of liquor stores and countless garages and other small businesses; AAA for everything, and Acme for everything).

The difficulty derives from the fact that unlike a telephone listing, a domain name is unique. This doesn't have to be, although it is very convenient to have it be so, and technology could evolve, and maybe should evolve to permit plural acme.com's. See, e.g., an old white paper I wrote about five years ago on possible alternatives.

But the bottom line is this: NSI overreaches regularly, only because they can. They can only because NSF lets them, which it does because no one else was ready to step up to bat last time it was time to renew a contract. This is changing as we speak. And competitive registrars will probably intervene to protect their territory and prevent further overreaching, at least to some extent.

I see no reason to believe that another registrar, however well-meaning, will be better or worse than the status quo, absent a uniform set of black-and-white rules enforced by a meaningful authority.

Anarchy will make the problem worse, much worse, and not any better. Further, fear of the consequences of such anarchy will preclude the necessary critical mass to build to make the new top level domains possible.

I think we should rely on, and exploit, existing processes to hold NSI in check. This requires some patience, and perhaps the creation of some new technologies, but it can work. Other solutions proposed thus far seem only to introduce new problems, and probably no real new benefits.

There ya go

Humor is an effective weapon - possibly the best use thereof has been the alt.religion.scientology wars.

Here are a couple of representative USENET posts:
Post 1
Post 2

The effectiveness of humor against the $cieno meme complex has been demonstrated pretty effectively. Of course, it's hard not to laugh at someone who spends $300K to find out that the source of his personal problems involves volcanoes, H-Bombs, and an evil Galactic Overlord named Xenu, particularly when cult doctrine considers "joking and degrading" a high crime. (Solution obvious: Make everything a degrading joke about the cult - then stand back and watch cult members go apeshit, labelling everyone but themselves criminals, much to the amusement of anyone watching. Give a cult enough rope and it'll hang itself.)

And while we're on the subject of the Co$ and censorware, as a followup to my "Censorship is for suckers" thread -- is it any wonder that the very same Cult of $cientology ordered all its members to use it's own custom-branded version of Cybersitter on their home PCs?

For reference:
Co$ Censors Net Access for Members, and The Scientology Net Censor.

Now - if you're a God-fearing Christian, why on earth would you rely on a solution advocated by a satanic cult that believes that the whole Jesus story was merely an "R6 implant" - a false memory artificially-implanted into our collective unconsciousness by evil alien overlords? I'm sure glad my library is following the lead of the Cult of $cientology and using censorware!

This leads to another propagable meme: The only "major" "religious" organization to mandate its members' use of censorware is the Cult of $cientology. Why are we following the lead of a god-denying UFO cult? Do you want to trust your children's safety to a group of software companies, when at least one of them has already demonstrated a willingness to develop a custom version of their product to a nut cult that believes Jesus Himself was merely an fake memory implanted in us by aliens? Do the censorware merchants have no shame? How stupid do the censorware peddlers think we are?

A copy of the House Bill is available on-line.

Electronic signatures are almost certainly "valid" (that is, legally enforceable as signatures) under the common law of every state (except perhaps, Georgia, which has some renegade case law regarding facsimile transmissions), just as signatures using other non-pen-to-paper technologies have been for centuries. The Statute of Frauds has not, for example, excluded, typewritten or telex printing of names, shaved initials on the hide of a cow, impressions of a footprint cast in sand, and so forth. This legislation is not necessary, but it is helpful for a conservative lawyer to be able to rely on statutory law rather than inviting their client to be the first one to litigate these new fact patterns.

In short, the law does not require more than a physical fixation of an intent to authenticate -- a ceremony if you will. A signature does not need to be non-repudiable to be valid -- I could mark "Micky Mouse" or "X" at the end of a document and be bound, if it can be shown that I intended to authenticate the document when I made the markings.

On the other, hand, good commercial sense ordinarily precludes the use of or the accepting of such "alternative" signatures, even if they are legal, for the simple reasons that they create tremendous difficulties in proving authentication when push comes to shove.

The decision to accept an "X" from a literate contractor when closing a deal involving zillions of dollars would be foolish, and we would ordinarily ask them, politely, to sign the document by writing their name. When a shaved cow is offered, in anticipation of the difficulties of getting the critter into the courthouse -- we smile, thank them, and offer them our pen instead.

Its all about choice. The question is, who shall make the choice whether we use ink, pen-on-paper, crypto or typewritters: the individuals using the signatures, or the government?

Two distinct views are prevalent in state electronic signature legislation: a minimalist statute that simply says that electronic writings are writings and manifestations of authentication of the writings are signed writings, leaving it to the market to decide (such as Florida's Electronic Signature Act); and more protective bills, which only validate signatures using certain technologies, such as assymetric encryption (Utah).

The bill passed by Congress is a minimalist bill, like Florida's (apparently patterned after the present draft of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act). It is neither good nor evil, IMHO, but can be very helfpul for encouraging certain types of transactions.

TRUE, it makes an e-mail of the form:

Bob, I agree to buy 100 widgets at $500/widget, FOB TAMPA -- ship immediately. /S/ Alice

a valid memorandum for statute of frauds purposes (the statute of frauds requires signed writings memorializing certain kinds of contracts as a precondition to their enforceability). But so what? That is almost certainly already the law anyway!

Whether Bob or Alice would agree to do business in that manner should be up to Bob and Alice. Of course Bob should be concerned that Alice might later repudiate the transmission, and must be concerned about how he can "prove up" (should it be necessary) the signature in court. On the other hand, who should make the choice as to what technology, if any, Bob should accept, Bob or the government?

• A reputable doctor won't aim for 20/20 in someone pushing forty because they're going to naturally become a bit farsighted in the next few years, so I should hit 20/20 in a few years.

You are describing presbyopia.

Joe

Oh, it works quite OK and is at the moment the only Linux available for older PMacs, which are excellent for Linux. MkLinux is a bit weird since it's based on the Mach microkernel, thus per definition isn't really Linux, just almost. MkLinux is hardly going anywhere with Apple, since they've got both MaxOS X and the APSL-OS now, but supposedly something is going on at Al Guerra Enterprises, Inc.