In such cases it would be wise to adapt a Si-based form, which has quite similar characteristics to C when placed at a higher temperature.
The properties may be similar but they are in general still not the properties needed for life. For instance, when carbon oxidizes it produces a gas, which is a useful characteristic for breathing. When silicon oxidizes it produces sand, which would prevent breathing.
One could imagine very different organic chemistries but these would might not have anything in common with carbon chemistry and thus silicon would not be relevant. For instance, nitrogen and phosphorous can form the long molecular chains needed for DNA-like structures.
Life should be quantified in terms of energy and entropy instead.
One of the key characteristics of life as we know it is chirality, which is the property of a the mirror image of an object like a molecule to be a different shape from the object. Carbon-based organic molecules have this property but phosphorus-nitrogen ones do not.
Chirality suggests that organic molecules might need to embody certain mathematical characteristics that are fundamental to life. What we would need, therefore, is a mathematical definition of life.
Certainly. An empire encompassing the Mediterranean, most of Europe, and some of Asia and Africa is impractical when it takes three months to get a message from one corner to the other, let alone a defense force.
The Roman Empire had many problems but communication was not one of them. Caesar once covered 800 miles in ten days on one of the Roman roads, and a courier on horseback could cover 360 miles in two and a half days. The farthest reaches of the Mediterranean could be reached by sea in 7 days or so.
The Romans built roads to every place they conquered that included relay stations that ensured regular communications.
Legions were stationed throughout the empire so movement over long distances was not normally an issue. When a rebellion was large or sustained, legions could be collected and concentrated from neighboring provinces. There were no successful rebellions in the Roman Empire.
By the second century AD the Romans had a sense that the Empire had reached its practical limits for administration and they began building walls and fortifications to delimit the boundaries.
The Empire failed because of corruption, civil wars and inflation plus the barbarian invasions. But the instability did not come simply from its size.
I believe the quote is the other way around: Camarades ! L'humanité ne sera heureuse que le jour où le dernier bureaucrate aura été pendu avec les tripes du dernier capitaliste.
I think the idea is that the Capitalists have no problem screwing their own kind.
Some do, some don't. The question is whether it is a feature of capitalism or people in general.
Capitalism has often been ill-served by some of its defenders who try to turn its obvious faults and excesses into virtues. These defenders think any admission of failure is an invitation to government regulation, which they think is, on balance, worse than occasional catastrophes like Enron.
capitalists' number one priority is profit and personal gain.
Profit and personal gain are not inherently bad things as long as they are not the number one priority. There's certainly a strong tendency in capitalism to make them Number One but capitalism can function perfectly well while serving the higher goals of society. In fact, no economic system has been found to serve those goals better.
I'll stick my neck out on another possible misquote.
It was Franklin and he most assuredly said it at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock, President of the Second Continental Congress, warned the delegates, "There must be no pulling different ways: we must all hang together."
Benjamin Franklin added, "We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
Franklin was, of course, the very model of an American entrepreneur who combined industry, innovation and high sense of public service.
I've always found this a curious quote for people to cite, given the fact that Marxist economics is widely discredited and most people think Lenin is wrong about everything. People who would never quote Lenin to prove anything else seem comfortable with this quote, which clearly they've only heard second hand.
Perhaps the sentiment contains a grain of truth but in general it's probably not very accurate about the cynicism of capitalists. Both in war and peace, the United States is extremely effective in adapting its industrial might to the requirements of defense.
In so far as capitalism has supplied rope, it has been to hang America's enemies.
Speaking as someone who's dubious about the merits of capitalism, I have to say that historically America's enemies have gotten more support from anti-capitalists.
Unfortunately, no source for these quotations has ever been found in Lenin's collected works.
It may have been fabricated originally by the John Birch Society 40 years ago as part of their anti-Communist propaganda.
Curiously, Lenin actually said some things the John Birch Society might agree with: "While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State."
There is always going to be a core of disatisfaction...
Would this core perhaps include the 38 million Americans, including over 8 million children, who don't have health insurance? Did Hilary Clinton invent those in 1992?
And may I call your attention to the 1976 Republican platform which dealt with the problem of uninsured Americans. It says, "We support extension of catastrophic illness protection to all who cannot obtain it" and shows that the issue preceded Clinton's appearance on the national scene by many years.
I wager the TV watchers have much more negative opinions about health care, even if you adjust for factors such as IQ and age.
I wager that 95% of Americans watch television. If you are going to exclude television-watchers from public opinion polls you're going to have a pretty skewed and irrelevant sample.
According to their Web site, they're nonpartisan: The Coalition brings together large and small businesses, labor unions, consumer groups, religious groups and primary care providers. Distinguished leaders from academia, business and government have also pledged their support of the Coalition's efforts. Its Honorary Co-Chairs are former Presidents George Bush, Gerald R. Ford, and Jimmy Carter and the Co-Chairmen are former Governor Robert D. Ray (R-IA) and former Congressman Paul G. Rogers (D-FL).
Your original point was: "Very few people complained about healthcare in the US until Hillary Clinton riled people up" and now you produce evidence that in 1978 21% of the people thought health care was worse in the U.S. Even taking this poll at face value, 21% is not "very few". Does not your own evidence refute your point?
Very few people complained about healthcare in the US until Hillary Clinton riled people up...
According to The National Coalition on Health Care,
79% of Americans agree with the statement "there is something seriously wrong with our health care system," 87% agree that "the quality of medical care for the average person needs to be improved," and only 15% have "complete confidence" in hospital care. Less than half of people (44%) say they have "confidence in the health care system to take care of me." 69% believe the federal government can play an important role in making health care better".
Four in ten Americans report having had a "bad" experience with treatment or care, don't have confidence in the system to take good care of them, or believe hospitals have cut corners to save money, thus endangering patients.
According to The Commonwealth Fund, 54% of American doctors are concerned that patients will not be able to afford the health care they need.
I don't want to give a bad image of Quebec, there ARE some good hospitals and excellent doctors, a friend of mine had cancer and got really well treated, and today he's still alive.
Then what's your point? There are innumerable cases of malpractice in the United States as well. There are law firms that specialize in it.
In the U.S. 14% of the population is without health insurance. That's nearly 39 million people including over 8 million children. People with a catastropic illness can have their health insurance cancelled and be bankrupted in a single month.
In Canada, no one is denied treatment because they can't pay.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns.
When you consider the statistics on teenage smoking, I'm dubious that education is the issue. Despite 20 years of health warnings, the teenage smoking rate is rising. 19% of teenage males and 27% of females smoke.
In any case, the unsafe use of fire arms is not the reason that guns are a problem. It's because they are used in crimes. You can see the limitations of the education approach if you were to say that every 4th grader should be taught not to commit a crime with a gun.
It's stupidity that leads to violence. Since this state is chock full of stupid people it might explain the high violent crime rate.
Georgia's not so bad. It ranks 18th in per capita spending on education (2000) and 5th in the growth of education spending (1980-2000).
In contrast, New Hampshire is near the bottom in per capita spending on education and also near the bottom for the rate of incarceration.
It's true that Minnesota has the highest per capita spending on education and the lowest rate of incarceration. However, there is only a rough correlation between education spending and the crime rate.
In any case, there are better reasons to spend money on education than to fight crime.
If an immigrant has no respect for our immigration laws, why would they respect any other laws?
This comment is peculiar considering Australia's history as a penal colony. Indeed, one of Australia's national heroes was an outlaw.
You'd think that Australia is a test case to prove that the wretched of the earth can form a free and prosperous society when they are no longer persecuted for being poor.
All of these things came about because corporations set aside the "Betterment of mankind" philosophy in favor of greed.
Perhaps such a philosophy of greed is inevitable. Corporations are primarily economic constructs and may be incapable of defining higher goals. Businesses are mostly consumed with competing with each other. It is probably unrealistic to expect them to come up with some common agreement on restraints on behavior that would otherwise make them more competitive.
As long as corporations can't or won't think very hard about their wider responsibilities, one cannot take their protests about government control seriously.
However Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money and are not in and of themselves moral entities.
No less an authority than Peter Drucker disputes this statement. He says: "...no financial man will ever understand business because financial people think a company makes money. A company makes shoes, and no financial man understands that. They think money is real. Shoes are real. Money is an end result. What is a business? The only function of a business is to create customer [value] and to innovate."
He considers profit "the test of the validity" of the business's activities. Earning a profit, it says here, is how one measures the firm's efficiency in fulfilling its fundamental purpose, namely, to create a customer.
Corporations have a role to play in society so the ultimate question is is not what the purpose of the corporation is, but what the purpose of society is. Corporations cannot achieve a profit and at the same time thwart the objectives of society in which they exist.
The idea that work and human endeavor have no higher purpose than making money is a pretty miserable philosophy of life and has never been a sufficient foundation for a society or a corporation.
Periodic bouts of unemployment are a feature of the modern lean and mean, just in time economy. It's inefficient, wasteful and demoralizing but it's not likely to change anytime soon either.
The trick is to prepare for it while you're working.
Save as much as you can while you'r working, obviously.
Have a small project on the side. It should be something that might have revenue potential or expands your skills. Ideally, it should be something that gives you additional contacts. Working with a professional association is an especially good idea.
Don't put in any free overtime (or not much, anyway). It won't help you keep your job and the time can be better spent on your auxillary project.
Develop a Web site on some topic that interests you. Nothing better demonstrates your skills and interests to a potential employer. It also neatly encapsulates the other tactics.
Turn the inevitable periods of unemployment into growth opportunities. Learn new skills or expand old ones. See if you can find a worthwhile volunteer job in your skill set. Read widely. Remember that having and keeping a job confers no moral superiority so your feeling of self-worth must come from somwhere else.
...the Nazis used those games as one big propaganda exercise and that, to it's shame, the world stood by and let it happen.
I suspect the Chinese will do the same thing at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the world will let it happen.
However, there's something subversive about all this display of individual excellence that undermines ideology. There a moving story of how Owens' German rival in the long jump congratulated Owens in full view of Hitler after Owens defeated the German for the gold medal. Owens said later, "You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-karat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace."
The future of the world must be in peaceful competition and the Olympics is a step in that direction.
Actually, the 1936 Olympics included one of the Olympic movement's finest hours, if not the finest. Jesse Ownes won 4 gold medals. He broke three world records and tied a fourth in 70 minutes.
At the same, time his performance disproved Hitler's Aryan philosophy and much other racist nonsense as well.
The examples of excellence in the Olympics tend to overcome every attempt to demean the events with politics and commercialism. If anything, the examples of excellence show up politics and commercialism for they shams they frequently are.
In 1941, they had lost the Battle of Britain, were losing the capability to launch an invasion of Britain, and were focussing a lot of effort on the Battle of the Atlantic...which they would have won until American long-range bombers(B29s) became available in large numbers.
The courage and acheivements of the British Royal and Merchant navies should not be forgotten, but it was the closing of the Iceland-UK gap by airpower that won the Battle of the Atlantic. Thankyou once again America.
Canada had 373 fighting ships and over 110,000 members, all volunteers, at the end of the war. By mid-1942, the RCN, with support from the RCAF, was providing nearly half the convoy escorts, and afterwards carried out the lion's share of escort duty.
Canadian aircraft and ships, alone or in consort with other ships or aircraft, sank 50 U-boats.
The Canadian navy lost 24 warships and 2210 sailors. The Canadian merchant marine lost 76 Canadian-owned or Canadian-flagged vessels and more than 1700 sailors. More than 900 members of aircrews from the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force were also killed.
Michael Denton's explains this all brilliantly in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Read it extremely carefully THREE TIMES and if you are lucky you will be jolted out of your ignorance
Two thorough refutations of Denton's facts and methods are here and here.
Denton's flawed and dishonest methodology is exposed in this discussion of proteins: At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
If Denton is the best that creationist can produce, statements like "I can assure you that you are completely wrong" need a firmer foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
In such cases it would be wise to adapt a Si-based form, which has quite similar characteristics to C when placed at a higher temperature.
The properties may be similar but they are in general still not the properties needed for life. For instance, when carbon oxidizes it produces a gas, which is a useful characteristic for breathing. When silicon oxidizes it produces sand, which would prevent breathing.
One could imagine very different organic chemistries but these would might not have anything in common with carbon chemistry and thus silicon would not be relevant. For instance, nitrogen and phosphorous can form the long molecular chains needed for DNA-like structures.
Life should be quantified in terms of energy and entropy instead.
One of the key characteristics of life as we know it is chirality, which is the property of a the mirror image of an object like a molecule to be a different shape from the object. Carbon-based organic molecules have this property but phosphorus-nitrogen ones do not.
Chirality suggests that organic molecules might need to embody certain mathematical characteristics that are fundamental to life. What we would need, therefore, is a mathematical definition of life.
The best manager is someone who understands people, who understands the business, and who understands what happens in the business.
Rubbish indeed.
1. "People" and "business" are too broad and complex for anyone to understand. Everyone has to act with imperfect knowledge.
2. Understanding does not automatically lead to acting and managers are fundamentally people who take action.
3. A manager typically has his resources, priorities and objectives set by others so that most of his job is beyond his control.
It's useless to look at managers in isolation from the organizations they are part of. There's no such thing as a good manager in a badly run company.
Certainly. An empire encompassing the Mediterranean, most of Europe, and some of Asia and Africa is impractical when it takes three months to get a message from one corner to the other, let alone a defense force.
The Roman Empire had many problems but communication was not one of them. Caesar once covered 800 miles in ten days on one of the Roman roads, and a courier on horseback could cover 360 miles in two and a half days. The farthest reaches of the Mediterranean could be reached by sea in 7 days or so.
The Romans built roads to every place they conquered that included relay stations that ensured regular communications.
Legions were stationed throughout the empire so movement over long distances was not normally an issue. When a rebellion was large or sustained, legions could be collected and concentrated from neighboring provinces. There were no successful rebellions in the Roman Empire.
By the second century AD the Romans had a sense that the Empire had reached its practical limits for administration and they began building walls and fortifications to delimit the boundaries.
The Empire failed because of corruption, civil wars and inflation plus the barbarian invasions. But the instability did not come simply from its size.
I believe the quote is the other way around: Camarades ! L'humanité ne sera heureuse que le jour où le dernier bureaucrate aura été pendu avec les tripes du dernier capitaliste.
And it's from curé Meslier, not Lenin, paraphrasing Voltaire.
I think the idea is that the Capitalists have no problem screwing their own kind.
Some do, some don't. The question is whether it is a feature of capitalism or people in general.
Capitalism has often been ill-served by some of its defenders who try to turn its obvious faults and excesses into virtues. These defenders think any admission of failure is an invitation to government regulation, which they think is, on balance, worse than occasional catastrophes like Enron.
capitalists' number one priority is profit and personal gain.
Profit and personal gain are not inherently bad things as long as they are not the number one priority. There's certainly a strong tendency in capitalism to make them Number One but capitalism can function perfectly well while serving the higher goals of society. In fact, no economic system has been found to serve those goals better.
I'll stick my neck out on another possible misquote.
It was Franklin and he most assuredly said it at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock, President of the Second Continental Congress, warned the delegates, "There must be no pulling different ways: we must all hang together." Benjamin Franklin added, "We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
Franklin was, of course, the very model of an American entrepreneur who combined industry, innovation and high sense of public service.
I've always found this a curious quote for people to cite, given the fact that Marxist economics is widely discredited and most people think Lenin is wrong about everything. People who would never quote Lenin to prove anything else seem comfortable with this quote, which clearly they've only heard second hand.
Perhaps the sentiment contains a grain of truth but in general it's probably not very accurate about the cynicism of capitalists. Both in war and peace, the United States is extremely effective in adapting its industrial might to the requirements of defense.
In so far as capitalism has supplied rope, it has been to hang America's enemies.
Speaking as someone who's dubious about the merits of capitalism, I have to say that historically America's enemies have gotten more support from anti-capitalists.
There are innumerable variations of this quote, which is attributed to Lenin.
Unfortunately, no source for these quotations has ever been found in Lenin's collected works.
It may have been fabricated originally by the John Birch Society 40 years ago as part of their anti-Communist propaganda.
Curiously, Lenin actually said some things the John Birch Society might agree with: "While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State."
There is always going to be a core of disatisfaction...
Would this core perhaps include the 38 million Americans, including over 8 million children, who don't have health insurance? Did Hilary Clinton invent those in 1992?
And may I call your attention to the 1976 Republican platform which dealt with the problem of uninsured Americans. It says, "We support extension of catastrophic illness protection to all who cannot obtain it" and shows that the issue preceded Clinton's appearance on the national scene by many years.
I wager the TV watchers have much more negative opinions about health care, even if you adjust for factors such as IQ and age.
I wager that 95% of Americans watch television. If you are going to exclude television-watchers from public opinion polls you're going to have a pretty skewed and irrelevant sample.
1. It's from an advocacy group
According to their Web site, they're nonpartisan: The Coalition brings together large and small businesses, labor unions, consumer groups, religious groups and primary care providers. Distinguished leaders from academia, business and government have also pledged their support of the Coalition's efforts. Its Honorary Co-Chairs are former Presidents George Bush, Gerald R. Ford, and Jimmy Carter and the Co-Chairmen are former Governor Robert D. Ray (R-IA) and former Congressman Paul G. Rogers (D-FL).
Your original point was: "Very few people complained about healthcare in the US until Hillary Clinton riled people up" and now you produce evidence that in 1978 21% of the people thought health care was worse in the U.S. Even taking this poll at face value, 21% is not "very few". Does not your own evidence refute your point?
Very few people complained about healthcare in the US until Hillary Clinton riled people up...
According to The National Coalition on Health Care, 79% of Americans agree with the statement "there is something seriously wrong with our health care system," 87% agree that "the quality of medical care for the average person needs to be improved," and only 15% have "complete confidence" in hospital care. Less than half of people (44%) say they have "confidence in the health care system to take care of me." 69% believe the federal government can play an important role in making health care better".
Four in ten Americans report having had a "bad" experience with treatment or care, don't have confidence in the system to take good care of them, or believe hospitals have cut corners to save money, thus endangering patients.
According to The Commonwealth Fund, 54% of American doctors are concerned that patients will not be able to afford the health care they need.
You should take a look at the Canadian system.
I don't want to give a bad image of Quebec, there ARE some good hospitals and excellent doctors, a friend of mine had cancer and got really well treated, and today he's still alive.
Then what's your point? There are innumerable cases of malpractice in the United States as well. There are law firms that specialize in it.
In the U.S. 14% of the population is without health insurance. That's nearly 39 million people including over 8 million children. People with a catastropic illness can have their health insurance cancelled and be bankrupted in a single month.
In Canada, no one is denied treatment because they can't pay.
I firmly believe that EVERY child when they get into 4th grade should be taught basic gun safety and should be taught to respect guns.
When you consider the statistics on teenage smoking, I'm dubious that education is the issue. Despite 20 years of health warnings, the teenage smoking rate is rising. 19% of teenage males and 27% of females smoke.
In any case, the unsafe use of fire arms is not the reason that guns are a problem. It's because they are used in crimes. You can see the limitations of the education approach if you were to say that every 4th grader should be taught not to commit a crime with a gun.
It's stupidity that leads to violence. Since this state is chock full of stupid people it might explain the high violent crime rate.
Georgia's not so bad. It ranks 18th in per capita spending on education (2000) and 5th in the growth of education spending (1980-2000).
In contrast, New Hampshire is near the bottom in per capita spending on education and also near the bottom for the rate of incarceration.
It's true that Minnesota has the highest per capita spending on education and the lowest rate of incarceration. However, there is only a rough correlation between education spending and the crime rate.
In any case, there are better reasons to spend money on education than to fight crime.
If an immigrant has no respect for our immigration laws, why would they respect any other laws?
This comment is peculiar considering Australia's history as a penal colony. Indeed, one of Australia's national heroes was an outlaw.
You'd think that Australia is a test case to prove that the wretched of the earth can form a free and prosperous society when they are no longer persecuted for being poor.
All of these things came about because corporations set aside the "Betterment of mankind" philosophy in favor of greed.
Perhaps such a philosophy of greed is inevitable. Corporations are primarily economic constructs and may be incapable of defining higher goals. Businesses are mostly consumed with competing with each other. It is probably unrealistic to expect them to come up with some common agreement on restraints on behavior that would otherwise make them more competitive.
As long as corporations can't or won't think very hard about their wider responsibilities, one cannot take their protests about government control seriously.
However Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money and are not in and of themselves moral entities.
No less an authority than Peter Drucker disputes this statement. He says: "...no financial man will ever understand business because financial people think a company makes money. A company makes shoes, and no financial man understands that. They think money is real. Shoes are real. Money is an end result. What is a business? The only function of a business is to create customer [value] and to innovate."
He considers profit "the test of the validity" of the business's activities. Earning a profit, it says here, is how one measures the firm's efficiency in fulfilling its fundamental purpose, namely, to create a customer.
Corporations have a role to play in society so the ultimate question is is not what the purpose of the corporation is, but what the purpose of society is. Corporations cannot achieve a profit and at the same time thwart the objectives of society in which they exist.
The idea that work and human endeavor have no higher purpose than making money is a pretty miserable philosophy of life and has never been a sufficient foundation for a society or a corporation.
Periodic bouts of unemployment are a feature of the modern lean and mean, just in time economy. It's inefficient, wasteful and demoralizing but it's not likely to change anytime soon either.
The trick is to prepare for it while you're working.
Turn the inevitable periods of unemployment into growth opportunities. Learn new skills or expand old ones. See if you can find a worthwhile volunteer job in your skill set. Read widely. Remember that having and keeping a job confers no moral superiority so your feeling of self-worth must come from somwhere else.
I suspect the Chinese will do the same thing at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the world will let it happen.
However, there's something subversive about all this display of individual excellence that undermines ideology. There a moving story of how Owens' German rival in the long jump congratulated Owens in full view of Hitler after Owens defeated the German for the gold medal. Owens said later, "You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-karat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace."
The future of the world must be in peaceful competition and the Olympics is a step in that direction.
Not exactly the Olympic movement's finest hour.
Actually, the 1936 Olympics included one of the Olympic movement's finest hours, if not the finest. Jesse Ownes won 4 gold medals. He broke three world records and tied a fourth in 70 minutes.
At the same, time his performance disproved Hitler's Aryan philosophy and much other racist nonsense as well.
The examples of excellence in the Olympics tend to overcome every attempt to demean the events with politics and commercialism. If anything, the examples of excellence show up politics and commercialism for they shams they frequently are.
In 1941, they had lost the Battle of Britain, were losing the capability to launch an invasion of Britain, and were focussing a lot of effort on the Battle of the Atlantic...which they would have won until American long-range bombers(B29s) became available in large numbers.
B-29s were never used in the European Theatre.
The courage and acheivements of the British Royal and Merchant navies should not be forgotten, but it was the closing of the Iceland-UK gap by airpower that won the Battle of the Atlantic. Thankyou once again America.
Don't forget Canada's contribution, either.
Canada had 373 fighting ships and over 110,000 members, all volunteers, at the end of the war. By mid-1942, the RCN, with support from the RCAF, was providing nearly half the convoy escorts, and afterwards carried out the lion's share of escort duty.
Canadian aircraft and ships, alone or in consort with other ships or aircraft, sank 50 U-boats.
The Canadian navy lost 24 warships and 2210 sailors. The Canadian merchant marine lost 76 Canadian-owned or Canadian-flagged vessels and more than 1700 sailors. More than 900 members of aircrews from the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force were also killed.
Michael Denton's explains this all brilliantly in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Read it extremely carefully THREE TIMES and if you are lucky you will be jolted out of your ignorance
Two thorough refutations of Denton's facts and methods are here and here.
Denton's flawed and dishonest methodology is exposed in this discussion of proteins:
At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
If Denton is the best that creationist can produce, statements like "I can assure you that you are completely wrong" need a firmer foundation.