There is almost no funding for this drug study due to it being un-patentable despite quite encouraging results, and reasonably acceptable and reversible side-effects.
Universities do all kinds of unpatentable research. Whereas a company looks to patent a product to make money, universities look to release research in order to earn prestige, which means more money.
(As a side note, companies can make quite a profit off of prestige as well. Prestige buys a company trust of a brand name. Brand name recognition goes a long way towards profit for a company)
I had a "smart phone" (T-Mobile Sidekick) when owning one only meant a $20 add-on cost to your existing plan to get unlimited data. These days they cap you for that price, and with evolutionary higher data rates you hit that cap much faster.
I still get unlimited data and it only costs me $10 a month. I'm on Sprint. See, the reason T-Mobile is able to charge you $20/mo for capped data is because morons like you continue to pay it. Surely your contract has expired at least once since you used a Sidekick. Why on earth did you not leave them?
Please don't take offense to be called a moron. You are in good company. I've done some really stupid things in my time to make me a bigger moron that paying $20/month for capped data. But still, staying with a company and paying more while someone else offers the same thing or better for less is pretty stupid.
Makes me wonder... What if we had spent the THREE TRILLION (and counting) dollars on renewable power? Would it have reduced demand enough that it would have driving down the price of oil?
Where are you getting three trillion? Cost of War has it listed at a less that a forth of that, and I'm certain that number is inflated.
Which makes me wonder... If you can't get your facts straight about the cost of the Iraq war, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?
Also, most of our current sources of renewable power produce electricity. We don't get our electricity from the Saudis. We have plenty of nuclear, natural gas, wind, tides, and yes, even coal. The problem is, very few cars run on electricity and no commercial airliners do. This is where our oil goes. The only replacement we have for our imported oil involves vegetable oils and ethanol, neither of which is efficient enough to make a difference. Ethanol, for example takes over a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. That's going the wrong way. It literally costs more to make that it's worth.
Never mind. It wouldn't make any difference, because some people refuse to believe the US is guilty of human rights violations (including extermination camps during the 1940s). No point wasting my breath.
Wow! Just wow! They were called Internment Camps, not Extermination Camps. And while it was bad that we forced Japanese Americans into these camps, please do not try to compare them to what Nazi Germany was doing during that same time period. These families were given homes, allowed to move about freely within the camp, they were fed well, their kids went to school, they had activities and entertainment, and were released when it was all said and done.
Again, I'm not saying it was a good thing, but let's not get carried away and call them Extermination camps.
Seriously? With 32,600 (http://www.observer.com/2008/wasted-new-york-citys-giant-garbage-problem) tons of garbage being generated per day, even if we assume 8 pounds of garbage sorted each man hour, that makes it 8.15 million man hours *per day*. That means with 1 million people you might be able to get to those drives in what, a couple of years? Maybe?
Simple, we get a big-ass magnet, like one of those they use to pick up cars, spread the garbage out and run the magnet over it. The drives will be picked up by the magnet (along with other metal objects) where they should be much easier to pick out. As a bonus, we can recycle the extra metals.
(Yes, this is a joke. Please don't bother replying telling me the giant hole in my plan)
That would be so fantastic! I would never need to buy a notebook again!
How many years did it take Apple to release a mouse that allowed "Right-Click"? Jobs though multiple buttons on the mouse would be too confusing. CMD-Click is so much simpler.
My post was not meant to imply any opinion of the Shah. I doubt the lives of your common Iranian is any better now than it was before the Islamic Revolution. The only difference is that the leaders now in charge of Iran call the US "The Great Satan", do everything they can to hurt America abroad, and are trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Seems to me that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has nothing but replace one "jack booted thug" who was friendly towards America with a forum of "jack booted thugs" that hate America.
We were better off with the devil we knew. As for the Iranian people, at best it was a wash.
Throwing Mubarek under the bus and openly supporting a revolution would have been disastrous for US relations with the middle east. It would have been perceived as yet another example of the US overthrowing an uncooperative government because that government was no longer convenient for us.
What the fuck? Are you even reading the news?
We have given Mubarak and his jackbooted murderers 60 billion dollars over 30 years. We are one of the main reasons he's stayed in power. Helping to throw him out would have finally signaled that the United States gave a damn about democracy in the middle east, but it's the same old story that it's been for a hundred years: we don't want Arabs to be able to vote, because they might prefer using their resources for their own benefit instead of ours.
That's not meddling in the Middle East. It's stopping meddling in the Middle East.
That worked so well with Iran and the overthrow of the Shah. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
Personally, I believe in evolution. My problem is the way it is taught. It's not entirely the fault of those who set the credentials either. Because so many "theists" feel it is a threat to their beliefs, they insist on teaching "God did it" in the classroom. That's wrong. However, the problem comes in where people want to limit the teacher's ability to point out some of the shortcomings of evolution. And even in mentioning that evolution could possibly have shortcomings, there are people who would respond (had this been posted in a "live" thread) that there are no holes in evolution. They act the exact same way towards people threatening evolution as theists act when questioning their faith.
So you have two groups, both acting the exact same way on opposite sides of the issue. Then you have moderates in the middle getting labeled by both sides. If you believe in a god and evolution, you are labeled a heretic by your religious piers. At the same time, if you point out that evolution is not complete, you are labeled a religious nut job who wants to replace a science textbook by those who don't "believe".
I believe in God AND evolution which puts me in the middle, getting attacked from both sides. To me, God simply saying "let it be" and it was is a bit too simplistic for me. I want to know how God did it. God is a mathematician and a scientist. I have no problems studying His disciplines and teaching them as math and science. There is no need to bring God into it. I also have no problems with a teacher explaining that science does not negate religion. I have enormous problems with someone saying "No God Required" as another posted did earlier.
The other group is those scientists, who may or may not believe in a deity but know that their religious beliefs don't matter. They keep the two basically separated because they don't feel that one is any kind of threat to the other. THERE IS NO CONFLICT in their minds. They either marvel at the universe as created by God or they marvel at the universe created by chance. But, just like the other group, if they are to point out that there are questions that our current understanding of evolution does not answer, they are ridiculed by their piers.
And as for the spaghetti monster, pasta was not invented until the past 2000 years or so. Since there was no spaghetti before then, it would be impossible for there to be a spaghetti monster to have created the universe before that time.
No, that's not what he said. The animal started with an "adequate" organ A. Acquired organ B which in combination with A worked better. Then acquired (doesn't have to be an intrinsic mutation, could just as well be a virus) organ C which worked in conjunction with A and B, and finally lost A which didn't have much purpose anymore.
OK, an example please. Should be easy to find. Every system of our body is dependent on other systems. There should be no problem finding an organ B developing, a system where organ A works fine on its own, but organ B makes it better, or an example of organ A in the stages of evolution needed to become organ C while organ B takes over the job of organ A.
I don't mean to be a pest, but I keep hearing all these theories that, if true, would be obvious all around us. Evolution is supposed to be a gradual, but constant improvement of life as a whole, but if you take the very first men to walk the earth, you will find them exactly like us. We have not evolved since our very first fossils have been discovered. Nor have we had any "off shoots" or other things that evolutionary theory says we should have. And it's not just us. We have seen NO creature evolve into a new species. We've seen them take on new traits, but nowhere can we say that this creature C evolved from this creature B (creature B may be living or dead). If evolution is accurate, we should have this happening all over the place. The first mammals appeared 65 million years ago. In 65 million years, we have seen every creature, from a field mouse to an elephant to a hump back whale form during that time, but nowhere in that line of fossils and living creatures, can we point to any creature and say that it was the forefather of this other creature.
\ Why would you bring God into this. I never mentioned God. It's no wonder why religious people get offended when an evolutionary discussion is brought up. Assholes like you try to use evolution to disprove their religion, even though many people, scientists included believe in both God and evolution. It is possible to support two points of view.
Lets say a scientist looks at a modern organism and sees that the organism has a complex organ or chemical system, or whatever, made of two parts, B and C. Neither B, nor C will work individually. How did this evolve?
The explanation is that the organism originally had a much simpler organ, or chemical, or whatever. Call it 'A'. At some point, a variant evolved that had an enhancement added to A, call it B. Now, B doesn't work by itself, but A does. Together, A & B are better than A alone. At some later point, A gets a mutation, and becomes 'C', which doesn't work by itself, but works together with B. So now you have B & C, neither of which work together, yet it was possible for evolution to take "baby steps" to get to that point.
Great! Now if you could just provide an example of an creature who has an organ necessary for the creature to survive, that is obviously adequate or the creature would have gone extinct, evolving two more organs independently of eachother, neither of which form any function on their own, hanging on to these two separate, worthless organs, they both combine to perform the already adequate function of another organ, AND, the original organ slowly being evolved out of existance.
Wow! What a mouthful. Seeing as how nearly all of the systems in any organism's body are depending on eachother, a single example should be fairly easy to find.
Just like you said. Animal has organ A that is adequate. Animal evolves organs B and C, which are worthless without eachother, and B and C combine out of random chance to perform the job of organ A, better than A, and the animal loses organ A.
. Add a chamber to a three chamber heart and it fails.
While I doubt that is a viable argument, it's worth noting that if one starts with a two chamber heart and then double each chamber (the same DNA is probably responsible for growth of each chamber), you go from two to four directly.
makes sense. How do you end up with a three chamber heart? Reptiles have a three chamber heart and it is assumed that small mammals evolved from small reptiles.
Fish have a two chambered heart. While I'm not a PHD Biologist, I don't think that mammals evolved directly from fish at the exact moment their two chamber heart split.
Behe's claims were utterly demolished during the Dover Trial. He seemed tragically unaware that IC was in fact predicted decades ago, and does in fact have a perfectly naturalistic explanation. Behe may be a biochemist, but the only reason he even has a job is in large part due to tenure, and in no small part because you won't find a single actual publication in a journal by him expounding on his ID theories.
No, one or a few of Behe's claims may have been demolished, but I know many physicists, engineers and biologists that can not "demolish" the idea of IC, even in their own minds.
Yes, it is obvious that there is an increasing complexity in organisms throughout history. Yes, creatures evolve. Yes, the strong survive while the weak die off. Yes, the evidence STRONGLY supports Darwin and evolution.
But not completely. How does evolution explain a four chambered heart? Take away one chamber and the whole thing doesn't work. Add a chamber to a three chamber heart and it fails. Nowhere is there any type of record, fossil or otherwise that explains how a four chambered mammalian heard evolved from a three chambered reptilian heart.Whole organs systems can not be formed by random mutation, and they don't work without the entire system. Evolution explains how a white rabbit may survive better in a cold climate, thus giving rise to more white rabbits, but it does not explain how human beings can evolve to understand auditory speech without the vocal cords, mouth, tongue, lips that are flexible enough to form words? Why would we form all the necessary components to be able to form words without the brain power necessary to process speech? And, yes, I fully understand that there is an evolution in speech as well from chirps to clicks to whines to grunts to speech... but my point is that the basic chirp is ample to find food and survive.
And then take a step further and consider the ability to convert spoken word to text... What possible evolutionary advantage has writing given man? We are the only creature ever on the planet to be able to read and write, so it obviously has never had an evolutionary advantage... why are we able to do it. What is the evolutionary point.
My point is that Behe's theories on the flagellum may have been challenged in court, but I have never heard an adequate explanation as to how complex systems can evolve. Evolution can explain one step at a time changes, but some changes have to come in sets or they never work. Evolution will never explain that.
And the fact that we are talking about it here proves that it truly is a controversial subject. Maybe not to you, but then again, gay marriage is not controversial to gay man. Illegal immigration is not controversial to an illegal alien. Lawsuits against P2P grandmas without computers is not controversial to a RIAA lawyer. Just because it's not a controversy to you doesn't mean it's not controversial to some very bright and stupid people, alike.
That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
Strange. And here you are, lying, trying to say that FoxNews won a court case that it is OK to lie. Let me explain.
First, the report that was at the heart of the case was on a Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. However, Fox lawyers are also FoxNews lawyers, so you could possibly spin it to say FoxNews lawyers argued successfully...
Next, the case was not about lying at all. It was about a Fox affiliate (affiliate, the same group that shows "The Simpsons", not the channel that shows "The Factor with Bill OReilly") who fired a reporter who refused to air an edited story. The reporter thought the edits made the story false, so she refused to air it and was fired. Note who said the story was false. Not Fox, not the judge, but the person who was suing after losing her job.
Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to "lie" in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel's detractors. There's only one problem - the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.
There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
So it wasn't that the court found that it's OK to lie. The court found AGAINST the claims that the edits made the story false.
But, hey! Let's not the the truth get in the way of your rant about FoxNews lying. It justifies your hatred beautifully. It would be a shame if you were to have to make up some other reason to hate FoxNews for presenting opinions that are not yours.
And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].
I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.
As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.
And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?
The charge on News Corp’s digital media group came after MySpace cut half its staff and marred otherwise strong results in which rising cable and broadcast television profits more than offset declines in film and digital media.
Net income for the fiscal second quarter more than doubled to $642m, or 24 cents per share, from $254m, or 10 cents, a year earlier, when results included a $500m litigation settlement. Excluding one-offs, adjusted earnings per share rose 16 per cent from 25 cents to 29 cents.
Although I think the rest of your comment is spot on.
rupert murdoch is basically the heart and soul of everything that's wrong with things online for the past 10 years, so I don't find i wrong to put a focus on things he owns as being the problem.
go google rupert murdoch failures and the list is amazing. a rich man who does nothing right, is too old for his times, and thinks making artificial scarcity is the way to run a business.
Is that the same Rupert Murdoch that donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign?
Bullshit. I didn't read anything beyond this because you've already lost all credibility.
Oh wait... Are you making a joke?
Do you seriously believe that Ed Shultz (the guy who publicly wished for Cheney's death), Keith Olbermann (their prime time guy for years, told Bush to "Shut the Hell up!" and runs a "Worst Person in the World" which was nothing more than a "who's who" of conservative America), Rachel Maddow (from Air America... remember that "centrist" outfit?), Chris "Tingle up my leg" Matthews and the rest of them are centrist? These guys are to the left of Marx for Pete's sake!
You are either making a joke or you are a fucking moron. So, which is it?
Please, when you make an outrageous claim such as implying that FoxNews lies as much as MSNBC, try to back it up with some data from a reputable site. Not one that sports the video "Food Secrets Revealed" with a picture of "NWO Food and Pharmacy". I guess neither Alex Jones nor George Noory had an article to your liking or are they just corporate shills being controlled by government satellites and contrails?
All they have to do is look at what has happened in the last 10 years to figure out that it doesn't pay at all the invade other countries. You lose friends and lots of money in the process and people hate you and get absolutely nothing in return.
Whether true or not, history would disagree. Nearly every time a country becomes an economic and military force to be reckoned with, they start getting visions of world domination. I would say the US is an exception. Granted, we use our military pretty freely, but not to take ownership of foreign lands. Well, at least not since we expanded to the Pacific coast anyway, but that was well before our post WWII rise to become a world power.
Slashdot Mirror
There is almost no funding for this drug study due to it being un-patentable despite quite encouraging results, and reasonably acceptable and reversible side-effects.
Universities do all kinds of unpatentable research. Whereas a company looks to patent a product to make money, universities look to release research in order to earn prestige, which means more money.
(As a side note, companies can make quite a profit off of prestige as well. Prestige buys a company trust of a brand name. Brand name recognition goes a long way towards profit for a company)
So, in conclusion, your theory is full of shit.
I had a "smart phone" (T-Mobile Sidekick) when owning one only meant a $20 add-on cost to your existing plan to get unlimited data. These days they cap you for that price, and with evolutionary higher data rates you hit that cap much faster.
I still get unlimited data and it only costs me $10 a month. I'm on Sprint. See, the reason T-Mobile is able to charge you $20/mo for capped data is because morons like you continue to pay it. Surely your contract has expired at least once since you used a Sidekick. Why on earth did you not leave them?
Please don't take offense to be called a moron. You are in good company. I've done some really stupid things in my time to make me a bigger moron that paying $20/month for capped data. But still, staying with a company and paying more while someone else offers the same thing or better for less is pretty stupid.
Duke Nukem wears Jack Bauer pajamas.
Actually, Duke just gets the top. Jack gets to wear the bottoms.
Makes me wonder...
What if we had spent the THREE TRILLION (and counting) dollars on renewable power? Would it have reduced demand enough that it would have driving down the price of oil?
Where are you getting three trillion? Cost of War has it listed at a less that a forth of that, and I'm certain that number is inflated.
Which makes me wonder...
If you can't get your facts straight about the cost of the Iraq war, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?
Also, most of our current sources of renewable power produce electricity. We don't get our electricity from the Saudis. We have plenty of nuclear, natural gas, wind, tides, and yes, even coal. The problem is, very few cars run on electricity and no commercial airliners do. This is where our oil goes. The only replacement we have for our imported oil involves vegetable oils and ethanol, neither of which is efficient enough to make a difference. Ethanol, for example takes over a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. That's going the wrong way. It literally costs more to make that it's worth.
Never mind. It wouldn't make any difference, because some people refuse to believe the US is guilty of human rights violations (including extermination camps during the 1940s). No point wasting my breath.
Wow! Just wow! They were called Internment Camps, not Extermination Camps. And while it was bad that we forced Japanese Americans into these camps, please do not try to compare them to what Nazi Germany was doing during that same time period. These families were given homes, allowed to move about freely within the camp, they were fed well, their kids went to school, they had activities and entertainment, and were released when it was all said and done.
Again, I'm not saying it was a good thing, but let's not get carried away and call them Extermination camps.
Wow!
Seriously? With 32,600 (http://www.observer.com/2008/wasted-new-york-citys-giant-garbage-problem) tons of garbage being generated per day, even if we assume 8 pounds of garbage sorted each man hour, that makes it 8.15 million man hours *per day*. That means with 1 million people you might be able to get to those drives in what, a couple of years? Maybe?
Simple, we get a big-ass magnet, like one of those they use to pick up cars, spread the garbage out and run the magnet over it. The drives will be picked up by the magnet (along with other metal objects) where they should be much easier to pick out. As a bonus, we can recycle the extra metals.
(Yes, this is a joke. Please don't bother replying telling me the giant hole in my plan)
That would be so fantastic! I would never need to buy a notebook again!
How many years did it take Apple to release a mouse that allowed "Right-Click"? Jobs though multiple buttons on the mouse would be too confusing. CMD-Click is so much simpler.
The iPad will never have a stylus.
My post was not meant to imply any opinion of the Shah. I doubt the lives of your common Iranian is any better now than it was before the Islamic Revolution. The only difference is that the leaders now in charge of Iran call the US "The Great Satan", do everything they can to hurt America abroad, and are trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Seems to me that the Islamic Revolution in Iran has nothing but replace one "jack booted thug" who was friendly towards America with a forum of "jack booted thugs" that hate America.
We were better off with the devil we knew. As for the Iranian people, at best it was a wash.
Throwing Mubarek under the bus and openly supporting a revolution would have been disastrous for US relations with the middle east. It would have been perceived as yet another example of the US overthrowing an uncooperative government because that government was no longer convenient for us.
What the fuck? Are you even reading the news?
We have given Mubarak and his jackbooted murderers 60 billion dollars over 30 years. We are one of the main reasons he's stayed in power. Helping to throw him out would have finally signaled that the United States gave a damn about democracy in the middle east, but it's the same old story that it's been for a hundred years: we don't want Arabs to be able to vote, because they might prefer using their resources for their own benefit instead of ours.
That's not meddling in the Middle East. It's stopping meddling in the Middle East.
That worked so well with Iran and the overthrow of the Shah. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
Personally, I believe in evolution. My problem is the way it is taught. It's not entirely the fault of those who set the credentials either. Because so many "theists" feel it is a threat to their beliefs, they insist on teaching "God did it" in the classroom. That's wrong. However, the problem comes in where people want to limit the teacher's ability to point out some of the shortcomings of evolution. And even in mentioning that evolution could possibly have shortcomings, there are people who would respond (had this been posted in a "live" thread) that there are no holes in evolution. They act the exact same way towards people threatening evolution as theists act when questioning their faith.
So you have two groups, both acting the exact same way on opposite sides of the issue. Then you have moderates in the middle getting labeled by both sides. If you believe in a god and evolution, you are labeled a heretic by your religious piers. At the same time, if you point out that evolution is not complete, you are labeled a religious nut job who wants to replace a science textbook by those who don't "believe".
I believe in God AND evolution which puts me in the middle, getting attacked from both sides. To me, God simply saying "let it be" and it was is a bit too simplistic for me. I want to know how God did it. God is a mathematician and a scientist. I have no problems studying His disciplines and teaching them as math and science. There is no need to bring God into it. I also have no problems with a teacher explaining that science does not negate religion. I have enormous problems with someone saying "No God Required" as another posted did earlier.
The other group is those scientists, who may or may not believe in a deity but know that their religious beliefs don't matter. They keep the two basically separated because they don't feel that one is any kind of threat to the other. THERE IS NO CONFLICT in their minds. They either marvel at the universe as created by God or they marvel at the universe created by chance. But, just like the other group, if they are to point out that there are questions that our current understanding of evolution does not answer, they are ridiculed by their piers.
And as for the spaghetti monster, pasta was not invented until the past 2000 years or so. Since there was no spaghetti before then, it would be impossible for there to be a spaghetti monster to have created the universe before that time.
No, that's not what he said. The animal started with an "adequate" organ A. Acquired organ B which in combination with A worked better. Then acquired (doesn't have to be an intrinsic mutation, could just as well be a virus) organ C which worked in conjunction with A and B, and finally lost A which didn't have much purpose anymore.
OK, an example please. Should be easy to find. Every system of our body is dependent on other systems. There should be no problem finding an organ B developing, a system where organ A works fine on its own, but organ B makes it better, or an example of organ A in the stages of evolution needed to become organ C while organ B takes over the job of organ A.
I don't mean to be a pest, but I keep hearing all these theories that, if true, would be obvious all around us. Evolution is supposed to be a gradual, but constant improvement of life as a whole, but if you take the very first men to walk the earth, you will find them exactly like us. We have not evolved since our very first fossils have been discovered. Nor have we had any "off shoots" or other things that evolutionary theory says we should have. And it's not just us. We have seen NO creature evolve into a new species. We've seen them take on new traits, but nowhere can we say that this creature C evolved from this creature B (creature B may be living or dead). If evolution is accurate, we should have this happening all over the place. The first mammals appeared 65 million years ago. In 65 million years, we have seen every creature, from a field mouse to an elephant to a hump back whale form during that time, but nowhere in that line of fossils and living creatures, can we point to any creature and say that it was the forefather of this other creature.
No God required.
\
Why would you bring God into this. I never mentioned God. It's no wonder why religious people get offended when an evolutionary discussion is brought up. Assholes like you try to use evolution to disprove their religion, even though many people, scientists included believe in both God and evolution. It is possible to support two points of view.
Lets say a scientist looks at a modern organism and sees that the organism has a complex organ or chemical system, or whatever, made of two parts, B and C. Neither B, nor C will work individually. How did this evolve?
The explanation is that the organism originally had a much simpler organ, or chemical, or whatever. Call it 'A'. At some point, a variant evolved that had an enhancement added to A, call it B. Now, B doesn't work by itself, but A does. Together, A & B are better than A alone. At some later point, A gets a mutation, and becomes 'C', which doesn't work by itself, but works together with B. So now you have B & C, neither of which work together, yet it was possible for evolution to take "baby steps" to get to that point.
Great! Now if you could just provide an example of an creature who has an organ necessary for the creature to survive, that is obviously adequate or the creature would have gone extinct, evolving two more organs independently of eachother, neither of which form any function on their own, hanging on to these two separate, worthless organs, they both combine to perform the already adequate function of another organ, AND, the original organ slowly being evolved out of existance.
Wow! What a mouthful. Seeing as how nearly all of the systems in any organism's body are depending on eachother, a single example should be fairly easy to find.
Just like you said. Animal has organ A that is adequate. Animal evolves organs B and C, which are worthless without eachother, and B and C combine out of random chance to perform the job of organ A, better than A, and the animal loses organ A.
One example.
And, no. You may not ask God for help again.
I had read alligators, but sure, same deal. However, I don't know if a four chambered heart is advantageous for a reptile.
. Add a chamber to a three chamber heart and it fails.
While I doubt that is a viable argument, it's worth noting that if one starts with a two chamber heart and then double each chamber (the same DNA is probably responsible for growth of each chamber), you go from two to four directly.
makes sense. How do you end up with a three chamber heart? Reptiles have a three chamber heart and it is assumed that small mammals evolved from small reptiles.
Fish have a two chambered heart. While I'm not a PHD Biologist, I don't think that mammals evolved directly from fish at the exact moment their two chamber heart split.
Good theory though.
Behe's claims were utterly demolished during the Dover Trial. He seemed tragically unaware that IC was in fact predicted decades ago, and does in fact have a perfectly naturalistic explanation. Behe may be a biochemist, but the only reason he even has a job is in large part due to tenure, and in no small part because you won't find a single actual publication in a journal by him expounding on his ID theories.
No, one or a few of Behe's claims may have been demolished, but I know many physicists, engineers and biologists that can not "demolish" the idea of IC, even in their own minds.
Yes, it is obvious that there is an increasing complexity in organisms throughout history. Yes, creatures evolve. Yes, the strong survive while the weak die off. Yes, the evidence STRONGLY supports Darwin and evolution.
But not completely. How does evolution explain a four chambered heart? Take away one chamber and the whole thing doesn't work. Add a chamber to a three chamber heart and it fails. Nowhere is there any type of record, fossil or otherwise that explains how a four chambered mammalian heard evolved from a three chambered reptilian heart.Whole organs systems can not be formed by random mutation, and they don't work without the entire system. Evolution explains how a white rabbit may survive better in a cold climate, thus giving rise to more white rabbits, but it does not explain how human beings can evolve to understand auditory speech without the vocal cords, mouth, tongue, lips that are flexible enough to form words? Why would we form all the necessary components to be able to form words without the brain power necessary to process speech? And, yes, I fully understand that there is an evolution in speech as well from chirps to clicks to whines to grunts to speech... but my point is that the basic chirp is ample to find food and survive.
And then take a step further and consider the ability to convert spoken word to text... What possible evolutionary advantage has writing given man? We are the only creature ever on the planet to be able to read and write, so it obviously has never had an evolutionary advantage... why are we able to do it. What is the evolutionary point.
My point is that Behe's theories on the flagellum may have been challenged in court, but I have never heard an adequate explanation as to how complex systems can evolve. Evolution can explain one step at a time changes, but some changes have to come in sets or they never work. Evolution will never explain that.
And the fact that we are talking about it here proves that it truly is a controversial subject. Maybe not to you, but then again, gay marriage is not controversial to gay man. Illegal immigration is not controversial to an illegal alien. Lawsuits against P2P grandmas without computers is not controversial to a RIAA lawyer. Just because it's not a controversy to you doesn't mean it's not controversial to some very bright and stupid people, alike.
That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
Strange. And here you are, lying, trying to say that FoxNews won a court case that it is OK to lie. Let me explain.
First, the report that was at the heart of the case was on a Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. However, Fox lawyers are also FoxNews lawyers, so you could possibly spin it to say FoxNews lawyers argued successfully...
Next, the case was not about lying at all. It was about a Fox affiliate (affiliate, the same group that shows "The Simpsons", not the channel that shows "The Factor with Bill OReilly") who fired a reporter who refused to air an edited story. The reporter thought the edits made the story false, so she refused to air it and was fired. Note who said the story was false. Not Fox, not the judge, but the person who was suing after losing her job.
From here:
Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to "lie" in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel's detractors. There's only one problem - the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.
There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
So it wasn't that the court found that it's OK to lie. The court found AGAINST the claims that the edits made the story false.
But, hey! Let's not the the truth get in the way of your rant about FoxNews lying. It justifies your hatred beautifully. It would be a shame if you were to have to make up some other reason to hate FoxNews for presenting opinions that are not yours.
Yes, those targets were so non-violent. Oops, I mean surveyor's marks.
You are an idiot. Kill yourself now, neo-con scum. Take those radical lefties with you.
Says the guy who is hating Sarah Palin because her "targeted" map might influence a violent act.
And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].
I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.
As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.
And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?
News Corp has a quarterly revenue of around 8 billion dollars [google.com] but their net income has been steadily declining (duh).
Has it?
From the article titled "News Corp profit doubles despite MySpace charge"
The charge on News Corp’s digital media group came after MySpace cut half its staff and marred otherwise strong results in which rising cable and broadcast television profits more than offset declines in film and digital media.
Net income for the fiscal second quarter more than doubled to $642m, or 24 cents per share, from $254m, or 10 cents, a year earlier, when results included a $500m litigation settlement. Excluding one-offs, adjusted earnings per share rose 16 per cent from 25 cents to 29 cents.
Although I think the rest of your comment is spot on.
rupert murdoch is basically the heart and soul of everything that's wrong with things online for the past 10 years, so I don't find i wrong to put a focus on things he owns as being the problem.
go google rupert murdoch failures and the list is amazing. a rich man who does nothing right, is too old for his times, and thinks making artificial scarcity is the way to run a business.
Is that the same Rupert Murdoch that donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign?
No, MSNBC has a centrist pro-corporate bias
Bullshit. I didn't read anything beyond this because you've already lost all credibility.
Oh wait... Are you making a joke?
Do you seriously believe that Ed Shultz (the guy who publicly wished for Cheney's death), Keith Olbermann (their prime time guy for years, told Bush to "Shut the Hell up!" and runs a "Worst Person in the World" which was nothing more than a "who's who" of conservative America), Rachel Maddow (from Air America... remember that "centrist" outfit?), Chris "Tingle up my leg" Matthews and the rest of them are centrist? These guys are to the left of Marx for Pete's sake!
You are either making a joke or you are a fucking moron. So, which is it?
Please, when you make an outrageous claim such as implying that FoxNews lies as much as MSNBC, try to back it up with some data from a reputable site. Not one that sports the video "Food Secrets Revealed" with a picture of "NWO Food and Pharmacy". I guess neither Alex Jones nor George Noory had an article to your liking or are they just corporate shills being controlled by government satellites and contrails?
Vacume tubes
Still being manufactured, still in use - especially in the music industry.
True. I believe the military also has use for vacuum tubes as they are not susceptible to EMI.
All they have to do is look at what has happened in the last 10 years to figure out that it doesn't pay at all the invade other countries. You lose friends and lots of money in the process and people hate you and get absolutely nothing in return.
Whether true or not, history would disagree. Nearly every time a country becomes an economic and military force to be reckoned with, they start getting visions of world domination. I would say the US is an exception. Granted, we use our military pretty freely, but not to take ownership of foreign lands. Well, at least not since we expanded to the Pacific coast anyway, but that was well before our post WWII rise to become a world power.