I'm just guessing here, but did it come with either Norton or McAfee trial installed by default? If so, problem solved: uninstall it.
Whilst you're at it, go into Windows Defender, get it to show startup programs *for all users* (button at bottom), and untick everything. Everything. If any key functionality is lost, you can always retick it later. I regained 200MB of RAM from a new laptop that way recently; and the laptop is actually MORE fuctional now, not less (e.g. Vista's new wireless networking support is a lot better than the ones the manufacturers bundled Wireless Access Centre rubbish).
Thanks to everyone who mentioned zsh; I genuinely did not know it could do that -- I've only ever used bash, and even that not very much.
Does the start menu support URLs, remote file shares, and Google and Wikipedia searches? Yes to the URLs and remote file shares, I've just checked. For Google/wiki/etc. searches there's a neat little customisable add-on called start++ which gives you that capability (and, among other things, also lets you launch something with admin privs by prepending 'sudo', which is a bit cheeky -- I think you're right, it is turning into a command line, and a *nix one at that...)
What do you think induction is based on if not radio waves? An alternating magnetic field, which induces a current. This is NOT the same as electromagnetic radiation, of which radio waves are an example.
This isn't an april fools joke -- although I'm pretty sure it's a dupe nevertheless, and it's also not very interesting. It doesn't even use induction; it's just transmitting power by E-M waves -- here, radio waves; which certainly works -- crystal radios anyone? RFID chips? -- but is VERY inefficient (especially if you want to convert the radio waves back into electricity, rather than, say sound, as a crystal radio does), and can't be used to transmit more than tiny amounts of power. The only thing new here is a small increase in efficiency.
Micro-evolution is observable, but you cannot extrapolate micro-evolutionary processes out to say it becomes macro-evolution. I was about to direct you to my post here that I'd made to someone else a while ago regarding this distinction betweem micro- and macro-evolution you are making, when I realised that you are the same person I replied to back then. Instead of actually debating the points, you appear to be just posting the same old many-times-refuted arguments copied from a Bible propoganda site called "Answers in Genesis". Since it is clear you have no wish to actually debate evolution, or even understand what it is (your paragraph on information hints of the 'argument' that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, possibly one of the most ridiculous and easily-refuted arguments to ever be apparently seriously used in a debate), I see little point in trying -- especially since this arugment of yours:
Just because several people have been very verbose in their explaination of how evolution could work doesn't make it true. Well, no duh. the trick is actually reading the explanations, "verbose" as they are, because the explanations contain facts; rather than rejecting "explanations" and demanding "facts" instead -- possibly the most ridiculous debating tactic I have ever seen.
Finally, as to your argument that evolution is a bad explanation because it has gaps; I'll leave you with the thought that quantum gravity has gaps as well, but that does not mean that things do not fall downwards.
I need to see that next step down where the horse evolved from a different species altogether like a fish. There should easily be a fossil record showing the process - doesn't exist. You seem to be confused as to what a species is. The Wikipedia horse evolution page encompassed a good 12 different species changes over 60 million years. If you are challenging me to find proof that horses evolved from fish, then you're right, it doesn't exist. Possibly this could be because evolution is wrong. Possibly also it could be because horses didn't evolve directly from fish.
many unethical scientists have "created" their own facts... I find this almost unbelivable. You are are accusing the editors of several refereed, peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Nature, of publishing a large number of articles which "creating their own facts" -- on the basis of claims of a Minister with no scientific qualifications writing in a website called "Answers in Genesis"?! Much as I hate to bring out the Argument from Authority, fallacious though it is when used to support a claim, if this is going to come to a your-word-against-theirs with you accusing anyone who brings evidence in support of evolution of fabricating the evidence, I'm afraid I'll have to side with the refereed scientific journals, thanks.
They will then have created the perfect computer interface.
The command line. ...So you know of a command line shell with the capability that, upon a few letters being typed in, can instantaneously (as-you-type) display a list of all programs, documents, emails, folders, etc. which contain those letters in their filename; all sorted by category and openable?
I'm actually glad this was posted, it is a PERFECT example of how people are totally hiding their heads in the sand on this issue. Why don't you actually give a substantive reasonable answer to the problem of irreducible complexity? Umm, because you didn't ask for one? You wrote in your original post that you "do not believe that the evidence for evolution is well-supported", and from that I am supposed to extrapolate that it is irriducable complexity that you wish to debate? There are many, many different arguments that claim to disprove evolution, I am unsure if you were expecting posters to read your mind as to which one you wished to discuss (or just write out a preemptive refutation of every possible argument you could have had in mind)?
In this book and others there are several extremely detailed examples of molecular biological processes which could never have arisen by a gradual process. Why has no one come forward with a direct reasonable answer to this? Like what? What are these processes that are supposed to be irriducably complex? State them!
The only arguments I have heard before regarding irriducable complexity are the eye and the wing (neither of which are "molecular biological processes" so are presumably not what you are talking about), but since you haven't stated what processes you think are irriducably complex, I am left with little to debate; so I'll treat the wing, mainly because someone in another thread asked about it and so I can copy & paste my reply.
Lets take the jump from walking, swimming etc. to flying [which the parent I was replying to questioned could happen through small evolutionary changes].
There are many examples of creature that aren't birds, but nevertheless have some wing-like attibutes, and could be a 'jumping-point' from which flight could evolve through only small changes. For example:
The skin between legs on flying squirrels
The flattened body of the flying snake
The large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs
The fins on flying fish
The expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards
In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
In all of these, partial flying functions exist in creatures that aren't birds. The first 5 examples are of normally non-flightless animals that have developed some semi-flying features. The last one is a bird, but with 'wings' that are look, and function, like fins (and I would say, evolved from fins). If these were developed more, and more, through many millions of years of small changes, is it really inconceivable that a bird could evolve? (N.B. I've no idea which on this list birds evolved from -- probably none of them, the direct descendant of modern birds is probably extinct).
instead you have to visually re-parse the new folder name and its new parent and move the mouse as required to click on it. For simple folders on your local disk its usually no big deal, but if you are browsing a deeply nested UNC path and want to jump up 5 levels or so, it can be quite painful. Uh, what? The whole point of it is that you can click anywhere in the 'path' and jump to that folder. So jumping up 5 levels now requires just one click rather than 5. How is this "more painful"?
I never much liked the start menu:
Move the mouse pointer to the 'Start' button in the lower left corner, click,
find the 'Programs' item, click,
find the program you want, click.
The quick-launch bar was a major improvement [...] The new Windows start menu was, if anything worse than the old one. It had some nice features but it was badly organized. Just out of interest, what are your views on how they've changed the sequence in Vista? (In case you haven't seen Vista, summary: Press the windows key (or click the start button), type a few letters from the name of the program/document/folder/etc. you want to open, press enter. Screenshot.)
If evolution is so dominant, we should easily find a fossil record that clearly shows the process of evolution. This simply does not exist, not even close... you won't find it anywhere - this is the true test of evolution, the fossil record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_hors e
Quick googling brought up the above. It seems to fulfil all your criteria pretty well -- very complete fossile record, including full sequence of transitional fossils, etc.
Regarding punctuated equilibrium; if I may quote from Wikipedia:
The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability.
Major breakthroughs, whether utilized by their creators or not, have most certainly come out of private industry. Sure -- very specific, applied research, in their fields. But flip through a theoretical Physics journal. How many papers in there are from private companies? And Mathematics, even more so -- if you can same a single private company that's doing research into *pure* mathematics, I'll be very impressed. This is because it simple takes so long for new discoveries in pure mathemaics to filter down; to find applications in applied mathematics, then theoretical Physics, then actual applications. It always happens eventually, but the timescale is too long for companies to bother with it; not enough return on investment. Doesn't change its usefulness, nor the huge loss to society were funding for it to be withdrawn.
I do not dispute that some breakthroughs have resulted from "public" funding of research ventures I like your use of "some". Ask someone else to list the biggest Scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe. Things like the theory of Gravity, the laws of Thermodynamics, Relativity, etc. Count how many were made at universities and how many were made by private companies. No, I'm afraid Einstein's job at the patent office at the same time as he was studying at the University of Zurich doesn't count.
but the amount of dollars invested for results, both practical and theoretical, must be vastly increased over that of the civil sector for an equal number of breakthroughs. Breakthroughs in different fields. Industry is never going to invest in pure maths research. Few industries are willing to invest in blue sky research. Certainly private research is good, but it must come alongside independent, collaborative, blue-sky research at Universities, not instead of it. After all, it's not as if the research done by private companies will in any way be reduced if the government funds public research -- in fact, quite the opposite; research invigorates research, new understanding in theoretical maths/physics from Uni research will lead to more applications coming as a result of private research. They complement each other!
Just need one tidy fact where they have confirmed through scientific observation and unbroken chain of evidence where one species has evolved into another species - you won't find that fact anywhere on any google. Well, obviously. Evolution is comprised of many, many small changes, taking place over a very long time. The time it takes for enough changes to accumulate in order to reasonably call something a new species is of the order of millions of years; hardly something that takes plae in a lab.
Also, Natural selection is a continuous process, and the dividing line between different species if fairly arbitary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem). If an organism is, through natural selection, gradually changing, when do you decide it's a new species? If many small changes in an organism accumulate over millions of years, enough for it to be generally agreed to be a different species to what it was when it began, when do you pinpoint where it "became" a new species?
You will find large gaps of "insert imagination here" and micro evolution within a species I would question the way you're seperating microevolution and macroevolution, as if they were somehow different processes. Fairly obviously, lots of small changes (what you're calling microevolution), over a very, very long timescale, add up to big changes. Exactly what gaps of "insert imagination here" do you think are needed?
just give me one fact not another "it's everywhere if you can just imagine". I'm rather puzzled by your demand for "one fact". If you're looking for an explanation of evolution and a summary of the evidence for it I believe I already posted the Wikipedia link; otherwise, what sort of fact? More precisely: what part of evolution are you disputing?
Small changes do not get you from an organism that swims to an organism that breathes air. Or from a creature that walks, runs and jumps to one that flies. Why not?
Lets take the jump from walking, swimming etc. to flying.
There are many examples of creature that aren't birds, but nevertheless have some wing-like attibutes, and could be a 'jumping-point' from which flight could evolve through only small changes. For example:
The skin between legs on flying squirrels
The flattened body of the flying snake
The large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs
The fins on flying fish
The expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards
In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
Thanks Google for that list.
In all of these, partial flying functions exist in creatures that aren't birds. The first 5 examples are of normally non-flightless animals that have developed some semi-flying features. The last one is a bird, but with 'wings' that are look, and function, like fins (and I would say, evolved from fins). If these were developed more, and more, through many millions of years of small changes, is it really inconceivable that a bird could evolve? (N.B. I've no idea which on this list birds evolved from -- probably none of them, the direct descendant of modern birds is probably extinct).
The theorem states that a formal theory is inconsistent if and only if it says something about its own consistency. The axioms of mathematics do not do this Sorry, but you haven't proved that (and neither is it possible to). You seem to be saying that a set of axioms is inconsistent if and only if it actually explicitly proclaims its own consistency in the axioms themselves (!). This is obviously untrue; e.g., I could take the basic axioms of arithmetic and add on one which contradicts it (e.g. "2=3"). This will then say nothing explicitly about it's own consistency in the literal sense, but will be inconsistent nevertheless; and by Godel 2, it would be possible to *directly deduce* from that set of axioms that they are consistent -- and thus, prove that they are not consistent.
Quite obviously, the basic axioms of mathematics do not include an "Axiom X: These Axioms Are Consistent". But that doesn't mean that someone has proved that there is no possible way to deduce from the axioms that they are internally consistent. And, in fact, it is impossible to do so.
this is why Bertrand Russell famously tried to throw them out in the search for a provably complete and consistent theory of arithmetic. That makes no sense. Modern axiomatic set theory, on which the fundamental axioms of arithmetic etc. are based, was developed after Russell. Indeed, it was developed quite a lot in response to Russell (who pointed out some flawes in the old system).
I have read several Dawkins books, I have The Origin of Species, and I find Darwin's Black Box more compelling. Evolutionary biology has come a long way since Darwin. He provided the foundations, but he was certainly wrong on some counts, and we've progressed far further, amassed much more evidence, and considerably expanded the scope of evolution as a science since he first advanced his theory. A modern biology textbook (or wikipedia for that matter) would serve you far better than The Origin of Species or Dawkins pop.sci books.
Regarding Darwin's Black Box -- I have not read it, so please correct me if this is wrong, but a quick Google gives the impression that it doesn't so much give a reasoned criticism of modern evolutionary biology as it does evangelise biblical creationism under another name, mostly by trying to use irreducible complexity (!) as an argument against evolution (the other thing Google turned up is that the author for a time claimed that the book was peer reviewed in a refereed journal, which it wasn't).
Have you read Darwin's book?
Do you even know the full title of the book? (No using Google). How on earth is knowing the full title of Darwin's book relevent in any way whatsoever? Evolutionary biology has come a long way since Darwin. He provided the foundations, but he was wrong on some counts, and we've progressed far further, amassed much more evidence, and considerably expanded the scope of evolution as a science since he first advanced his theory. A modern biology textbook (or wikipedia for that matter) would serve you far better.
There are a few logical inconsistencies with what you wrote Apologies; italics tag missed a bracket. Corrected version here
if your axioms are consistent with each other (i.e. are self-consistent), then anything proven with those axioms is consistent with those axioms, and so is self-consisent. True.
Now, mathematics does not state it is consistent or inconsistent, therefore, it is not inconsistent. Because, I mean, from the first thing I said, the axioms of mathematics are consistent, and so mathematics, which is not self-referential, is not inconsistent. When Godel talks about a set of axioms "including a statement of it's own consistency", he's rferring to whether it is possible to deduce, using only those axioms, that the axioms themselves are consistent -- in which case, by the theorem, they are in fact inconsistent.
So, I think, the logical flaw in your argument is when you state "mathematics does not state it is consistent". This is something no-one has proved, and in fact, something that is impossible to prove, if I understand the theorem correctly. So it is impossible to prove that the axioms of mathematics are consistent, and so impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent.
Godel implies nothing about the group of theories that we call mathematics ...Why on earth not? The theorems can be applied to "any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths". The framework we understand as basic Mathematics (i.e. arithmetic) certainly seems to qualify.
The free-market, while imperfect, is a far better allocator of scarce resources among a cornucopia of options beyond the binary options of government administrations. I'd rather convince 10% of the population that my idea is correct and thereby gain funding through voluntary means than convince 51% of the population that my idea is correct, and then proceed to plunder the entirety of the productive citizenry for my own pleasure. Well, sure, if you're happy with a drastic cut in the amount of blue-sky research. The number of companies willing to fund such research are very few, since by nature it has a very low chance of producing much revenue for the comany in the near future, so is not good value to the shareholders. Sure, it may improve scientific understanding of the universe, possibly decades later, but what do companies care about that? The majority of blue-sky research is carried out by universities, which heavily rely on government grants and are, of course, non-profit organizations.
Cast your mind back and ponder exactly how many of the major breakthroughs in scientific understanding were made at universities with publically funded research grants, and how many were made at private companies. If after that you're happy with no research other than that which someone can convince a company will make a good profit for them, go right ahead.
Apologies, that was supposed to read "You're thinking of his first incompleteness theorem. That it is impossible to prove that 'Mathematics' (or even arithmetic) is self-consistent is a corollary of his second incompleteness theorem."
What Godel said was that it is impossible for a logical system (like Mathematics) to be both provably consistent and provably complete You're thinking of his incompleteness theorem. That it is impossible to prove that 'Mathematics' (or even arithmetic) is self-consistent is a corollary of his second incompleteness theorem.because mathematics is provably consistent (that's where the whole idea of a proof comes from...) Well, no. Mathematics is not provably consistent (see above). Mathematical proofs are by definition corollaries of the set of axioms you choose. Obviously, if the axoims are inconsistent then your proven theorem is rubbish, even though it may be "correct" given the axioms. If your axoims are consistent, then your proven theorem is correct if your axioms are "correct", which is a very bad way of saying that it is a corollary of the axioms (obviously, axioms don't need to be 'correct' in any meaningful sense as long as they're not inconsistent).
Unfortunately, none of us can claim to have witnessed the Earth 1 million years ago, so we have no empirical evidence of the state of the planet and its species at that time. And don't tell me that some species adapting to a different environment over the last hundred years (micro-evolution) is empirical proof of macro evolution. No one in the last hundred years has witnessed the spontaneous birth of a new species. I could argue that they have. Natural selection is a continuous process, and the dividing line between different species if fairly arbitary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem). If an organism is, through natural selection, gradually changing, when do you decide it's a new species? If many small changes in an organism accumulate over millions of years, enough for it to be generally agreed to be a different species to what it was when it began, when do you pinpoint where it "became" a new species?
I would also question the way you're seperating microevolution and macroevolution, as if they were somehow different processes. Fairly obviously, lots of small changes (what you're calling microevolution), over a very, very long timescale, add up to big changes (what you're calling macroevolution). (The only thing I can think of that would allow a distiniction is if you're arguing that God intervenes and prevents any further evolutionary changes at the point where an organism could start to be classified as a new species?).
People are not going to stop inventing, trading and banking simply because they disagree with someone else about a purely abstract idea. "Purely abstract"? I can see an argument for some pure mathematics to be described as "purely abstract"; but evolutionary biology "purely abstract"? Hardly!
Regarding your main point, we sadly live in a democracy, which means these people can vote; and more specifically, vote for the people who get to decide whether to fund scientific research or "faith-based" initiatives. Ah, Democracy -- The Worst System Of Government (apart from all the others).
If you really want to read up on the facts of evolution, and aren't just trolling, there are many resources available to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution comes to mind. Http://www.google.com does as well. I see little point in copying and pasting large swathes of evolutionary theory into a Slashdot post for you until you find something you want to argue with.
Slashdot Mirror
Aero requires a DirectX 9 capable graphics card. Not 10. 9.
I'm just guessing here, but did it come with either Norton or McAfee trial installed by default? If so, problem solved: uninstall it.
Whilst you're at it, go into Windows Defender, get it to show startup programs *for all users* (button at bottom), and untick everything. Everything. If any key functionality is lost, you can always retick it later. I regained 200MB of RAM from a new laptop that way recently; and the laptop is actually MORE fuctional now, not less (e.g. Vista's new wireless networking support is a lot better than the ones the manufacturers bundled Wireless Access Centre rubbish).
This isn't an april fools joke -- although I'm pretty sure it's a dupe nevertheless, and it's also not very interesting. It doesn't even use induction; it's just transmitting power by E-M waves -- here, radio waves; which certainly works -- crystal radios anyone? RFID chips? -- but is VERY inefficient (especially if you want to convert the radio waves back into electricity, rather than, say sound, as a crystal radio does), and can't be used to transmit more than tiny amounts of power. The only thing new here is a small increase in efficiency.
Finally, as to your argument that evolution is a bad explanation because it has gaps; I'll leave you with the thought that quantum gravity has gaps as well, but that does not mean that things do not fall downwards.
Good night!
The command line. ...So you know of a command line shell with the capability that, upon a few letters being typed in, can instantaneously (as-you-type) display a list of all programs, documents, emails, folders, etc. which contain those letters in their filename; all sorted by category and openable?
If not, I'll stick with the start menu, thanks.
In this book and others there are several extremely detailed examples of molecular biological processes which could never have arisen by a gradual process. Why has no one come forward with a direct reasonable answer to this? Like what? What are these processes that are supposed to be irriducably complex? State them!
The only arguments I have heard before regarding irriducable complexity are the eye and the wing (neither of which are "molecular biological processes" so are presumably not what you are talking about), but since you haven't stated what processes you think are irriducably complex, I am left with little to debate; so I'll treat the wing, mainly because someone in another thread asked about it and so I can copy & paste my reply.
Lets take the jump from walking, swimming etc. to flying [which the parent I was replying to questioned could happen through small evolutionary changes].
There are many examples of creature that aren't birds, but nevertheless have some wing-like attibutes, and could be a 'jumping-point' from which flight could evolve through only small changes. For example:
-
The skin between legs on flying squirrels
- The flattened body of the flying snake
- The large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs
- The fins on flying fish
- The expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards
- In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
In all of these, partial flying functions exist in creatures that aren't birds. The first 5 examples are of normally non-flightless animals that have developed some semi-flying features. The last one is a bird, but with 'wings' that are look, and function, like fins (and I would say, evolved from fins). If these were developed more, and more, through many millions of years of small changes, is it really inconceivable that a bird could evolve? (N.B. I've no idea which on this list birds evolved from -- probably none of them, the direct descendant of modern birds is probably extinct).Move the mouse pointer to the 'Start' button in the lower left corner, click,
find the 'Programs' item, click,
find the program you want, click.
The quick-launch bar was a major improvement [...] The new Windows start menu was, if anything worse than the old one. It had some nice features but it was badly organized. Just out of interest, what are your views on how they've changed the sequence in Vista? (In case you haven't seen Vista, summary: Press the windows key (or click the start button), type a few letters from the name of the program/document/folder/etc. you want to open, press enter. Screenshot.)
Quick googling brought up the above. It seems to fulfil all your criteria pretty well -- very complete fossile record, including full sequence of transitional fossils, etc. Regarding punctuated equilibrium; if I may quote from Wikipedia: The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability.
Also, Natural selection is a continuous process, and the dividing line between different species if fairly arbitary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem). If an organism is, through natural selection, gradually changing, when do you decide it's a new species? If many small changes in an organism accumulate over millions of years, enough for it to be generally agreed to be a different species to what it was when it began, when do you pinpoint where it "became" a new species? You will find large gaps of "insert imagination here" and micro evolution within a species I would question the way you're seperating microevolution and macroevolution, as if they were somehow different processes. Fairly obviously, lots of small changes (what you're calling microevolution), over a very, very long timescale, add up to big changes. Exactly what gaps of "insert imagination here" do you think are needed? just give me one fact not another "it's everywhere if you can just imagine". I'm rather puzzled by your demand for "one fact". If you're looking for an explanation of evolution and a summary of the evidence for it I believe I already posted the Wikipedia link; otherwise, what sort of fact? More precisely: what part of evolution are you disputing?
Lets take the jump from walking, swimming etc. to flying.
There are many examples of creature that aren't birds, but nevertheless have some wing-like attibutes, and could be a 'jumping-point' from which flight could evolve through only small changes. For example:
- The skin between legs on flying squirrels
- The flattened body of the flying snake
- The large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs
- The fins on flying fish
- The expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards
- In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
Thanks Google for that list.In all of these, partial flying functions exist in creatures that aren't birds. The first 5 examples are of normally non-flightless animals that have developed some semi-flying features. The last one is a bird, but with 'wings' that are look, and function, like fins (and I would say, evolved from fins). If these were developed more, and more, through many millions of years of small changes, is it really inconceivable that a bird could evolve? (N.B. I've no idea which on this list birds evolved from -- probably none of them, the direct descendant of modern birds is probably extinct).
Quite obviously, the basic axioms of mathematics do not include an "Axiom X: These Axioms Are Consistent". But that doesn't mean that someone has proved that there is no possible way to deduce from the axioms that they are internally consistent. And, in fact, it is impossible to do so. this is why Bertrand Russell famously tried to throw them out in the search for a provably complete and consistent theory of arithmetic. That makes no sense. Modern axiomatic set theory, on which the fundamental axioms of arithmetic etc. are based, was developed after Russell. Indeed, it was developed quite a lot in response to Russell (who pointed out some flawes in the old system).
Regarding Darwin's Black Box -- I have not read it, so please correct me if this is wrong, but a quick Google gives the impression that it doesn't so much give a reasoned criticism of modern evolutionary biology as it does evangelise biblical creationism under another name, mostly by trying to use irreducible complexity (!) as an argument against evolution (the other thing Google turned up is that the author for a time claimed that the book was peer reviewed in a refereed journal, which it wasn't).
So, I think, the logical flaw in your argument is when you state "mathematics does not state it is consistent". This is something no-one has proved, and in fact, something that is impossible to prove, if I understand the theorem correctly. So it is impossible to prove that the axioms of mathematics are consistent, and so impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent. Godel implies nothing about the group of theories that we call mathematics ...Why on earth not? The theorems can be applied to "any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths". The framework we understand as basic Mathematics (i.e. arithmetic) certainly seems to qualify.
Cast your mind back and ponder exactly how many of the major breakthroughs in scientific understanding were made at universities with publically funded research grants, and how many were made at private companies. If after that you're happy with no research other than that which someone can convince a company will make a good profit for them, go right ahead.
Apologies, that was supposed to read "You're thinking of his first incompleteness theorem. That it is impossible to prove that 'Mathematics' (or even arithmetic) is self-consistent is a corollary of his second incompleteness theorem."
I would also question the way you're seperating microevolution and macroevolution, as if they were somehow different processes. Fairly obviously, lots of small changes (what you're calling microevolution), over a very, very long timescale, add up to big changes (what you're calling macroevolution). (The only thing I can think of that would allow a distiniction is if you're arguing that God intervenes and prevents any further evolutionary changes at the point where an organism could start to be classified as a new species?).
Regarding your main point, we sadly live in a democracy, which means these people can vote; and more specifically, vote for the people who get to decide whether to fund scientific research or "faith-based" initiatives. Ah, Democracy -- The Worst System Of Government (apart from all the others).
If you really want to read up on the facts of evolution, and aren't just trolling, there are many resources available to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution comes to mind. Http://www.google.com does as well. I see little point in copying and pasting large swathes of evolutionary theory into a Slashdot post for you until you find something you want to argue with.