I'm a young earth creationist and have published a number of papers in main stream journals already:)
eg
“Practical Total Syntheses of Epiquinamide Enantiomers”
Organic Letters 2006, 8, 4541-4543.
“The marine lipopeptide somocystinamide A triggers apoptosis via caspase 8”
Proceedings of National Academy of Science 2008, 105, 2313-2318.
“Stereospecific Total Synthesis of Somocystinamide A”
Organic Letters 2008, 10, 4449-4452.
“Ichthyotoxic brominated diphenyl ethers from a mixed assemblage of a red alga and cyanobacterium: structure clarification and biological properties”
Toxicon 2010, 55, 204-210.
You could guess my name by looking at the authors
"Then God said, "Let there be a firmament (atmosphere) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."
(Gen 1:6-7)
Some creationists believe that this "firmament" or canopy of water (ice) was what made it possible for large dinosaurs and insects to exchange gases (O2 / CO2) adequately because it would have increased the atmospheric pressure. It is true that large dinosaurs like brachiosaurus, etc only had nostrils that are not bigger than those of modern horses. It would have been impossible for them survive in the current atmosphere. Even worse for large insects (eg 2.5 ft wide dragonfly, etc) because they don't have active transport of gases (respiratory system); they just use simple diffusion and the larger the volume, the worse the volume to surface area ratio gets.
I keep hearing this number 88,000 missing, but where is the actual source? Is it true? If so, that's far worse than some of the news outlets are reporting. BTW, my family lives in Tokyo and aside from a bunch of broken dishes and glass, they're ok. Thank God.
I very much appreciate your concern about having choices, which is one of the good things that I love about all things OSS. But my bigger concern has to do with OSS efforts being diluted by forks and people doing very similar things separately. I fear that if Unity and Gnome shell go separate ways without inter-compatibility, Gnome will lose out on public attention and contributions that they could get through being associated with a Linux OS giant like Ubuntu. Besides, all this move towards Unity and Shell seems to be largely in the category of "eye candy", which is cool, but that has not been Linux OS's strength or the main reason why so many people migrated to Linux. Apple OSs already have the upper hand in that department anyways, and so big players in the Linux OS community should be focusing on what made Linux great in the first place: stability, non-clunkiness (if that's a word), etc first. Then we could work on eye candy stuff. It wouldn't be too late.
Mod parent up!
Too bad that GNOME doesn't want Canonical's contribution - it will hurt them in the long run for sure...
I would like to see Canonical buy out GNOME and do those things that the AC above suggested
Yeah, it'll be completely a waste of screen real estate. Bummer. In the screenshots on Gnome3 page, it seems like there might be a panel at the bottom. What's the use of that?
I understand where you're coming from, but at least for the US, the guarantee of freedom speech in the constitution does not (and maybe should not) extend to a "right" to remain anonymous when making statements that could be controversial. Freedom speech is good and fair only because it regulates itself through having to be responsible for one's own speech. Thus we call them anonymous "cowards"
Good point. Also I just don't think that reverse compatibility is not necessary something that should always be celebrated. Although I hate Apple, I admire their courageous move with OSX when they broke compatibility to make something new. Furthermore, some people appear to be harsh on Linux because they broke binary compt. between the kernel vesions 1.X to 2.X, but that was a good move like OSX. Besides, it wouldn't be fair to compare the kernel versions with Win 1 thru 7, because that'd be like comparing MSDOS to WinX; we should compare, eg, Debian 1.0 to 6.0.
It is also nothing that you cannot find a pharmacy, that does not mean pharmacies are full of urine. Nothing is called urine until after it gets filtered by the kidneys. Which means blood is not full of urine, it is just full of stuff that may one day become part of urine.
I agree with you if you fix this part: "...full of stuff that one day become all of urine." there is nothing in urine that didn't come from the bloodstream. Get it?
Not to be picky (but then if we weren't picky there wouldn't be slashdot), but blood IS mostly urine. The kidney just filters out the solids like red blood cells and captures certain useful solutes.
It's more than just spell checking for sure. It depends on the journal (I can only speak for chemistry journals as I have only published in those), but society journals (eg J. Am. Chem. Soc., etc) tend to come with great reviewers who can give you a lot of constructive criticism. Even when our papers get accepted for publication, those reviews do make the paper better in the end. Also, just recently one paper where I was the second author got rejected for the content not being "urgent" enough for publication in a letter format journal (urgent communication journal as opposed to journals with in-depth articles).
In real academia, we rarely work on any project completely independently. We often have many collaborators from many different institutions. On one of the papers published with my name on it, there are a dozen other names on there. Especially when you're a PhD student, you tend mainly do what somebody else told you to do. Even then, you still have to solve nitty-gritty problems with the procedures on your own and those details usually do not get reflected in the published paper. So it may appear as though one professor had an army of slaves to do monkey work, but there's a lot more to it in reality. just my 2 cents... I'm an organic chemist at a university.
As far as I'm concerned, I've been talking about gradual evolution from the beginning of this thread.
So given that there is no good explanation (at least from you) for how a new feature/system/cascade/"irreducible complexicity"/or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it could be evolved gradually, what exactly so convinced you that you firmly believe in the evolutionary scenario of how the world (and you) came to be?
BTW, I no longer can see the AC's post either. Slashdot's weird indeed.
Thanks for blessing me.
Don't you find it odd that we can't find any example of (or even postulate a reasonable scenario for) gradual evolution of these systems we've mentioned here (even what the AC mentioned above). If gradual evolution did occur, there should be a lot of these examples since each step forward in evolution is supposed to be advantageous over the previous generations. Why don't more people become suspicious about this hoax? B/c the alternative is unthinkable!
That is why Mr. Keith would say something like this:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959)
Hey Anonymous Coward, thanks for making my point that even the best examples evolutionists can throw at me is a case in which promiscuity introduced by mutation was the cause for this seemingly "new" ability to modify PCP molecules. This is precisely my point that when a seemingly "new" ability shows up, it is because of the lost specificity of the enzyme through mutation. No new information introduced here.
Understood. I was referring more to terrorist-ish activities since that appeared to be your reference too. The difference b/w radioactive material (even saw dust from uranium ore rocks) and toxic substances that you listed is that the consequence is often not acute, but cumulative. Also detection would be delayed compared to those substances you listed if used in public (also as a result of the adverse effects being non-acute symptoms).
it's not making a nuclear bomb out of these materials that is a concern. It's radioactive material contaminating food source, water source, etc that could be an issue. Once ingested, a small amount can do some damage to the human body.
Anyway you see a system and think "since everything falls apart if I change one thing it could not possibly have evolved."
This is a common anti-evolution claim, and it is not ignored or hidden by “micro-evolutionist propaganda”. I have read articles tackling just this issue, i.e. how complex systems can evolve into a state where removing even a single piece makes it break.
anss123, you still haven't explained how even one of these systems can evolve gradually. you keep referring to some vague articles you've read in the past. Try to explain this or have someone explain this without referring to some evolutionists' imagination/fantasy scenarios. ie some explanation based on observed phenomenon not imagination.
The day I began to doubt my atheism was the day I realized that you can't explain this. Then I was humbled b/c I knew I was wrong. It was some time after that that I read a part of the Bible for the first time and I gave my heart to Jesus.
BTW, you didn't offend me, but thanks for your nice note. God bless you.
Well said.
This reminds me in a creepy way of the boycott debate about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany (featuring the Nazi regime) except that this time, the "bad" guys are the ones boycotting. Scary...
By macroevolution, here I mean "evolving" from one type of organism to another. For instance, in the "evolution" of apoptosis processes (I have worked with this class of medicinal targets to develop anti-cancer agents), even for a weak (not having a backup route of induction) apoptosis signaling cascade to evolve for the first time, there have to be at least 20+ proteins that work exactly in a particular way. We've known that changing one amino acid in the active sites of these proteins will completely render the system useless. So when an organism "evolves" this system, it has to "plan" on mutating 20+ genes simultaneously in an exact way or that mutation will be either useless or harmful, which means that mutation will not be retained for the next generation b/c it is not advantageous to its survival (natural selection).
I don't blame you for not being aware of this, because there are so much propaganda like "Thus saith the Scientist 'micro-evolution's mechanism is the same as macro-evolution" etc (argument from authority...)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a young earth creationist and have published a number of papers in main stream journals already :)
eg
“Practical Total Syntheses of Epiquinamide Enantiomers”
Organic Letters 2006, 8, 4541-4543.
“The marine lipopeptide somocystinamide A triggers apoptosis via caspase 8”
Proceedings of National Academy of Science 2008, 105, 2313-2318.
“Stereospecific Total Synthesis of Somocystinamide A”
Organic Letters 2008, 10, 4449-4452.
“Ichthyotoxic brominated diphenyl ethers from a mixed assemblage of a red alga and cyanobacterium: structure clarification and biological properties”
Toxicon 2010, 55, 204-210.
You could guess my name by looking at the authors
"Then God said, "Let there be a firmament (atmosphere) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so." (Gen 1:6-7) Some creationists believe that this "firmament" or canopy of water (ice) was what made it possible for large dinosaurs and insects to exchange gases (O2 / CO2) adequately because it would have increased the atmospheric pressure. It is true that large dinosaurs like brachiosaurus, etc only had nostrils that are not bigger than those of modern horses. It would have been impossible for them survive in the current atmosphere. Even worse for large insects (eg 2.5 ft wide dragonfly, etc) because they don't have active transport of gases (respiratory system); they just use simple diffusion and the larger the volume, the worse the volume to surface area ratio gets.
I keep hearing this number 88,000 missing, but where is the actual source? Is it true? If so, that's far worse than some of the news outlets are reporting. BTW, my family lives in Tokyo and aside from a bunch of broken dishes and glass, they're ok. Thank God.
I really meant buy out... It sounds terrible I know, but I'd like to see some combined efforts from those talented but egotistical devs
I very much appreciate your concern about having choices, which is one of the good things that I love about all things OSS. But my bigger concern has to do with OSS efforts being diluted by forks and people doing very similar things separately. I fear that if Unity and Gnome shell go separate ways without inter-compatibility, Gnome will lose out on public attention and contributions that they could get through being associated with a Linux OS giant like Ubuntu. Besides, all this move towards Unity and Shell seems to be largely in the category of "eye candy", which is cool, but that has not been Linux OS's strength or the main reason why so many people migrated to Linux. Apple OSs already have the upper hand in that department anyways, and so big players in the Linux OS community should be focusing on what made Linux great in the first place: stability, non-clunkiness (if that's a word), etc first. Then we could work on eye candy stuff. It wouldn't be too late.
Mod parent up! Too bad that GNOME doesn't want Canonical's contribution - it will hurt them in the long run for sure... I would like to see Canonical buy out GNOME and do those things that the AC above suggested
Yeah, it'll be completely a waste of screen real estate. Bummer. In the screenshots on Gnome3 page, it seems like there might be a panel at the bottom. What's the use of that?
I understand where you're coming from, but at least for the US, the guarantee of freedom speech in the constitution does not (and maybe should not) extend to a "right" to remain anonymous when making statements that could be controversial. Freedom speech is good and fair only because it regulates itself through having to be responsible for one's own speech. Thus we call them anonymous "cowards"
Good point. Also I just don't think that reverse compatibility is not necessary something that should always be celebrated. Although I hate Apple, I admire their courageous move with OSX when they broke compatibility to make something new. Furthermore, some people appear to be harsh on Linux because they broke binary compt. between the kernel vesions 1.X to 2.X, but that was a good move like OSX. Besides, it wouldn't be fair to compare the kernel versions with Win 1 thru 7, because that'd be like comparing MSDOS to WinX; we should compare, eg, Debian 1.0 to 6.0.
Would you have argued on this point if it wasn't for my sig? Just saying...
It is also nothing that you cannot find a pharmacy, that does not mean pharmacies are full of urine. Nothing is called urine until after it gets filtered by the kidneys. Which means blood is not full of urine, it is just full of stuff that may one day become part of urine.
I agree with you if you fix this part: "...full of stuff that one day become all of urine." there is nothing in urine that didn't come from the bloodstream. Get it?
The point you missed is that there is nothing in urine that wasn't present in the blood stream. Urine is blood minus the things I've mentioned above.
Not to be picky (but then if we weren't picky there wouldn't be slashdot), but blood IS mostly urine. The kidney just filters out the solids like red blood cells and captures certain useful solutes.
Good man
It's more than just spell checking for sure. It depends on the journal (I can only speak for chemistry journals as I have only published in those), but society journals (eg J. Am. Chem. Soc., etc) tend to come with great reviewers who can give you a lot of constructive criticism. Even when our papers get accepted for publication, those reviews do make the paper better in the end. Also, just recently one paper where I was the second author got rejected for the content not being "urgent" enough for publication in a letter format journal (urgent communication journal as opposed to journals with in-depth articles).
In real academia, we rarely work on any project completely independently. We often have many collaborators from many different institutions. On one of the papers published with my name on it, there are a dozen other names on there. Especially when you're a PhD student, you tend mainly do what somebody else told you to do. Even then, you still have to solve nitty-gritty problems with the procedures on your own and those details usually do not get reflected in the published paper. So it may appear as though one professor had an army of slaves to do monkey work, but there's a lot more to it in reality. just my 2 cents... I'm an organic chemist at a university.
First post! ...(from my neighbor's IP address; so mod him down, not me)
As far as I'm concerned, I've been talking about gradual evolution from the beginning of this thread. So given that there is no good explanation (at least from you) for how a new feature/system/cascade/"irreducible complexicity"/or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it could be evolved gradually, what exactly so convinced you that you firmly believe in the evolutionary scenario of how the world (and you) came to be? BTW, I no longer can see the AC's post either. Slashdot's weird indeed.
Thanks for blessing me.
Don't you find it odd that we can't find any example of (or even postulate a reasonable scenario for) gradual evolution of these systems we've mentioned here (even what the AC mentioned above). If gradual evolution did occur, there should be a lot of these examples since each step forward in evolution is supposed to be advantageous over the previous generations. Why don't more people become suspicious about this hoax? B/c the alternative is unthinkable!
That is why Mr. Keith would say something like this:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959)
Hey Anonymous Coward, thanks for making my point that even the best examples evolutionists can throw at me is a case in which promiscuity introduced by mutation was the cause for this seemingly "new" ability to modify PCP molecules. This is precisely my point that when a seemingly "new" ability shows up, it is because of the lost specificity of the enzyme through mutation. No new information introduced here.
Understood. I was referring more to terrorist-ish activities since that appeared to be your reference too. The difference b/w radioactive material (even saw dust from uranium ore rocks) and toxic substances that you listed is that the consequence is often not acute, but cumulative. Also detection would be delayed compared to those substances you listed if used in public (also as a result of the adverse effects being non-acute symptoms).
it's not making a nuclear bomb out of these materials that is a concern. It's radioactive material contaminating food source, water source, etc that could be an issue. Once ingested, a small amount can do some damage to the human body.
Anyway you see a system and think "since everything falls apart if I change one thing it could not possibly have evolved."
This is a common anti-evolution claim, and it is not ignored or hidden by “micro-evolutionist propaganda”. I have read articles tackling just this issue, i.e. how complex systems can evolve into a state where removing even a single piece makes it break.
anss123, you still haven't explained how even one of these systems can evolve gradually. you keep referring to some vague articles you've read in the past. Try to explain this or have someone explain this without referring to some evolutionists' imagination/fantasy scenarios. ie some explanation based on observed phenomenon not imagination.
The day I began to doubt my atheism was the day I realized that you can't explain this. Then I was humbled b/c I knew I was wrong. It was some time after that that I read a part of the Bible for the first time and I gave my heart to Jesus.
BTW, you didn't offend me, but thanks for your nice note. God bless you.
Well said. This reminds me in a creepy way of the boycott debate about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany (featuring the Nazi regime) except that this time, the "bad" guys are the ones boycotting. Scary...
By macroevolution, here I mean "evolving" from one type of organism to another. For instance, in the "evolution" of apoptosis processes (I have worked with this class of medicinal targets to develop anti-cancer agents), even for a weak (not having a backup route of induction) apoptosis signaling cascade to evolve for the first time, there have to be at least 20+ proteins that work exactly in a particular way. We've known that changing one amino acid in the active sites of these proteins will completely render the system useless. So when an organism "evolves" this system, it has to "plan" on mutating 20+ genes simultaneously in an exact way or that mutation will be either useless or harmful, which means that mutation will not be retained for the next generation b/c it is not advantageous to its survival (natural selection). I don't blame you for not being aware of this, because there are so much propaganda like "Thus saith the Scientist 'micro-evolution's mechanism is the same as macro-evolution" etc (argument from authority...)