Dung or corn stalk charcoal is a technological innovation ? "improve the lives of billions of people" ?
The charcoal briquettes you disregard have the potential to prevent millions of deaths caused annually by smoke-induced lung infections (one of the biggest killers worldwide), while providing local employment, reducing the felling of trees, and re-using a waste product that would have been burned or released copious amounts of methane anyway. Charcoal is not a new invention, but the manufacturing system in question is new, cheap and viable - and much better than burning regular timber charcoal or dung.
The TED speakers are not Victorian ladies. I have yet to see one video that advocates aid handouts. Many of the speakers are on the front lines, whether in science or education or some other field, and by showing their work and ideas on TED they can encourage those with influence and money to invest in projects that do make a difference - like telecommunications and other infrastructure that help countries to trade.
Don't worry about "farm subsidies" right now: worry about "quality standards", "sanitary regulations" etc
Many of the "inventions" on TED are for improved health standards, like small, cheap refrigeration units for transporting vaccines or cheap, robust, portable, recyclable water purifiers.
Excellent point. Given the information provided, the occurrence of a mutation such as this one does not prove that any new, functional information has been added to the DNA of the bacteria, but simply that there has been a change in the DNA. The whole creation vs evolution debate suffers from varying interpretations of "genetic evolution",specifically:
A. a change in DNA (possibly by the activation, deactivation or loss of existing genes), or
B. the random addition of new, beneficial DNA
If "A" is used, this finding doesn't prove anything that adds to the debate. Mutations of these kinds are common and readily observed.
If "B" is used, the finding still does not prove (B-type) evolution, as it does not exclude "A" as an explanation.
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
Such a sweeping generalization from a so-called scientist is disappointing, but not surprising. He appears to have assumed either that new information has been added, or that all creationists don't believe in A-type evolution, where many of the creationist arguments are only disputing B-type evolution.
I'm not arguing for or against creation or evolution. I just think if you're going to have an intelligent debate about something, first make sure both parties agree on their definitions.
Says who? The transcript of the original article and responses clearly shows that the game show host knew where the car was:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?
Creating jobs does not help the people who have already died from a preventable disease. Improving the efficiency of their health programs means a greater proportion of the population are healthy (read: employable), which is also good for the economy (sick people are expensive to care for, both in terms of time and money). A holistic approach is required.
Slashdot Mirror
The charcoal briquettes you disregard have the potential to prevent millions of deaths caused annually by smoke-induced lung infections (one of the biggest killers worldwide), while providing local employment, reducing the felling of trees, and re-using a waste product that would have been burned or released copious amounts of methane anyway. Charcoal is not a new invention, but the manufacturing system in question is new, cheap and viable - and much better than burning regular timber charcoal or dung.
The TED speakers are not Victorian ladies. I have yet to see one video that advocates aid handouts. Many of the speakers are on the front lines, whether in science or education or some other field, and by showing their work and ideas on TED they can encourage those with influence and money to invest in projects that do make a difference - like telecommunications and other infrastructure that help countries to trade.
Many of the "inventions" on TED are for improved health standards, like small, cheap refrigeration units for transporting vaccines or cheap, robust, portable, recyclable water purifiers.
Clearly the volcanoes are angry that we found them. Oh dear...
Hey, maybe an albatross is just what he needs...
Excellent point. Given the information provided, the occurrence of a mutation such as this one does not prove that any new, functional information has been added to the DNA of the bacteria, but simply that there has been a change in the DNA. The whole creation vs evolution debate suffers from varying interpretations of "genetic evolution",specifically:
A. a change in DNA (possibly by the activation, deactivation or loss of existing genes), or
B. the random addition of new, beneficial DNA
If "A" is used, this finding doesn't prove anything that adds to the debate. Mutations of these kinds are common and readily observed.
If "B" is used, the finding still does not prove (B-type) evolution, as it does not exclude "A" as an explanation.
Such a sweeping generalization from a so-called scientist is disappointing, but not surprising. He appears to have assumed either that new information has been added, or that all creationists don't believe in A-type evolution, where many of the creationist arguments are only disputing B-type evolution.
I'm not arguing for or against creation or evolution. I just think if you're going to have an intelligent debate about something, first make sure both parties agree on their definitions.
Here is a handy tool for checking how accessible your pages are while you develop them.
Creating jobs does not help the people who have already died from a preventable disease. Improving the efficiency of their health programs means a greater proportion of the population are healthy (read: employable), which is also good for the economy (sick people are expensive to care for, both in terms of time and money). A holistic approach is required.