6pm West Coast and 9pm in the East
 |  |  |  |  |
- Bush aid faces theft charges, resigned after
arrest but before charges filed, White House kept
it a secret from the press
- Milosovic dies in cell, Hitler finally has bridge
partner that can compete with duo of Stalin and
Pol Pot
- Iran starting to wimp out?
- Iran has an 18 year old nuclear program?!?!
- Norton resigns amidst Abramoff controversy
- People die in Iraq
- House Dems move to impeach
- Porn Start to have dinner, meeting with president
Bush
- Dean wants to move primaries to states that
won't select losers like Gore and Kerry
- 15 creationist questions shot down (good read)
- World Baseball Classic is just kicking ass!
- Car bomb in Kabul... Some blame Pakistan,
former president injured
on Friday? Ho-ly-crap. I don't know how I am going to make it for the
next 7 months without seeing what happens. I am a child of the 1980's
television generation and yet I have never been addicted to TV show
until now. Greatest form of entertainment of all time. It is a crime this
show doesn't get teh recognition it deserves by sweeping the Emmies.
link there and I guarantee that it will be the most
pleasurable experience watching any show in your
entire life. Start from the beginning and get addicted.
The only reason this show doesn't clean up at the
Emmies is because it's on Sci-Fi. If it were on HBO or
network TV Desperate Housewives, the Sopranos, the
Shield... They would all be toast.
Get the greatest thing to ever please your senses and
support this site at the same time by attacking the
above links. Remember, I am a poor-ass college
student and need all the help I can get to keep this
up. Thank you.
charges were filed and the public was never made aware the whole
time (also, the Bush administration tried nominating him to a seat in a
federal court!)
Excerpt:
Claude A. Allen has said his mother warned him that as a black man he risked ruining his life, or
at least his career, by becoming a Republican. As it turned out, nothing could have been farther
from the truth.
HA HA!
Allen rose steadily through the Republican political ranks. From congressional campaign aide,
to Senate staffer, state Cabinet secretary, federal appeals court nominee and the upper
reaches of the Bush administration -- all by age 45.
Claude A. Allen, left, as top domestic adviser walked the White House lawn with President Bush
and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on July 14, 2005. (By Ron Edmonds -- Associated Press)
But Allen's once-soaring career has taken a bizarre turn with his arrest Thursday on theft
charges for allegedly ripping off two department stores in a phony refund scheme.
The arrest of Allen, who suddenly resigned last month as President Bush's top domestic policy
adviser, startled those in his big-ticket Gaithersburg neighborhood and at the White House
who knew him as a soft-spoken and collegial aide who was loyal to his young family and
devoted to his church.
Why would a man who can afford a $1 million house risk it all for a $5,000 crime? I think a lot of people
that are "devoted to their church" are big time criminals covering their tracks, don't you?
Why was the public not made aware of Allen's arrest the first time around back in January? This is asinine
that a top level aid in the White House, a man that wrote much of Bush's policies, gets arrested for a
felonious act and we don't hear about it until he has had the chance to resign and fade from view for a
whole month so that when he is finally charged there is only a loose connection between him and the
president.
February
resignation. Allen left the White House on February 17.
The secrets, lies and crimes have got to stop. This administration and the Republican party have no moral
authority. Family values my ass.
opens the door to move the highly dysfunctional Saddam Hussein trial a real court that is not laden with
assassinations and civil war.
Russia's deal but when the IAEA sends the issue to the UN Security
Council they reconsider
Excerpt:
Iran has rejected a Russian proposal to enrich uranium on its behalf, closing the door on an
option that offered a possible diplomatic solution to international concerns over its nuclear
program.
"The Russian proposal is not on our agenda any more," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza
Asefi told reporters on the sidelines of a Tehran conference on energy and security Sunday.
The announcement came after the International Atomic Energy Agency last week proceeded with
its decision to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council, which has the power to impose
sanctions. The IAEA board of governors voted last month to report Iran, but delayed the formal
action for 30 days to allow the Russian option a final chance.
Several hours later, Asefi hedged his remarks, telling state television the Russian proposal could
still be the basis for an agreement if it allows Iran to conduct nuclear research on its own soil.
But the earlier dismissal was reinforced by Iran's original negative reaction to the Russian bid
when it was first proposed last year. Diplomats said Tehran appeared to entertain the proposal
chiefly to delay punitive action.
There is no way that Europe or Israel are going to let Iran get The Bomb. It is just not an option for them and
Iran is beginning to realize this. Plus, Russia is really pissed about the whole thing too.
connections to corrupt, convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff
Excerpt:
Norton's departure comes amid a haze of suspicion that the Interior Department played
favorites in regulating Indian casinos. One or more of its officials appeared to have been
influenced by Jack Abramoff, a once-powerful lobbyist who has since confessed to felony
charges of buying influence with Congress and bilking Indian tribes of millions of dollars.
It seems that Abramoff is bringing everyone down with him. He is not G. Gordon Liddy type to take the fall
and keep his mouth shut. Man, if I were one of those Republicans who directly took money from Abramoff I
would just be sweating bullets, especially if both houses pass over to the Democrats in the Fall.
Remember, not one Democrat took money directly from Abramoff himself.
even raise an eyebrow because we are weak and stupid.
Excerpt:
The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the
tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the
White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.
A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have
already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten
GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.
The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.
"If I had a choice and Bush were running today against (Democratic President) Bill Clinton, I'd
vote for Bill Clinton," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration Treasury Department
official whose book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the
Reagan Legacy," is making the rounds of conservative think tanks and talk shows. "He was
clearly a much better president in a great many ways that matter to me."
Wow. Just, wow. The Democrats left their testicles somewhere back in 1974 and have to rely on the
conscience of the Republican party to do their job for them. Opposition party my ass.
Why? Oh, because it would add $5 billion in taxes to oil companies,
that's why.
Excerpt:
The U.S. Senate on Friday voted to extend $60 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses
but added a $5 billion tax on big oil companies, drawing a veto threat from the White House.
The tax package passed on a 64-33 vote only after the Senate dropped provisions that would
have kept in place tax-rate reductions for capital gains and dividends beyond their expiration
in 2008. Democrats and some moderate Republicans put up solid opposition to those investor
provisions backed by the White House.
So Bush's first veto of his 5+ years as president would come from his opposition to $5 billion in taxes on an
industry making over $100 billion in profit every year? I wish I could make $100 billion and only pay 5% in
taxes.
Excerpt:
Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Tehran as they
prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear program, London's Sunday
Telegraph reported yesterday.
The complex in the north of the capital was designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters
for the country's rulers as military tensions mount, the newspaper said.
The report claimed the complex was part of the regime's plan to move more of its operations
beneath the ground.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard has developed underground sites across the country for research
and development on nuclear and rocket programs.
The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran learnt about the complex from its
contacts within the regime, the paper said. The same network revealed in 2002 that Iran had
been operating a secret nuclear program for 18 years.
Uh oh. If Iran has been operating a secret nuclear program for 18 years they could very well have the
bomb now. Christ, I'm an undergrad and I could build someone a couple hundred nukes in the span of 18
years if they could give me the materials. It took India and Pakistan just a couple of years to research and
develop the technology to produce a stockpile of arms. Nuclear bombs are not a complicated design.
Uranium is very easy to come-by in a terrain like Iran's and it is very easy to separate U-235 from U-238 in
a centrifuge, make plutonium with a neutron gun and bingo, you're 90% of the way there. This stuff was
pioneered 70 years ago. Every physicist on Earth knows how to do this stuff now.
Excerpt:
The feared resumption of mass sectarian violence erupted Sunday in a Baghdad Shiite slum
when bombers blew apart two markets shortly before sundown, killing at least 44 people and
wounding about 200.
The bloody assaults on Sadr City came only minutes after Iraqi political leaders said the new
parliament will convene Thursday, three days earlier than planned, as the U.S. ambassador
pushed to break a stalemate over naming a unity government.
If I go to Baghdad I am bringing my own food. You won't find me doing any shopping.
Republicans he offended in a couple of days
Excerpt:
"We can't want peace in Iraq more than the Iraqis want it," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the
Press." "We can't want it more than they want it. And if they don't step up to the ball, we're
going to be gone."
Biden said if knew what he knows now when Congress voted on the Iraq war resolution, he
would have opposed it. "This has been a debacle," he said.
I knew this was a mistake 3 years ago and that Bush was lying, I even wrote about it, but you, Senator
Biden, just acted like Bush's little bitch and rolled over for him whenever you felt like you inconvenienced
him, you pathetic loser. I hope you get your ass kicked in the primaries in '08.
Excerpt:
30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which
would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s
impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of
grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for
its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for
Atlanta Progressive News.
The House Democrats always seem to have more balls than Senate Democrats? Why is this? Members
of the House are always up for election while senators have 6 years between campaigns and can actually
do what is right without fear of losing their job.
I wonder how often it really shows up?.... 18,800 times.
Excerpt:
The DOD is investigating whether a Halliburton subsidiary has overcharged the Navy for
hurricane reconstruction.
A review of KBR's bills to the Navy by the Department of Defense's inspector general for work
last year restoring Navy facilities in Pensacola, Fl, damaged by Hurricane Ivan suggest KBR may
be charging the Navy too much in labor.
Like its contract in Iraq, KBR's Navy construction contract is a cost-plus award arrangement.
That means the company earns more in profit if its costs are higher, because its profit is figured
as a percentage of the contract's cost.
"The rates paid to some KBR subcontractors for labor were significantly higher than the
prevailing Bureau of Labor Statistics rates for the area impacted by the hurricane," the March 3
inspector general report states.
"The underlying documentation for the invoice that KBR submitted in January 2005 for the
Hurricane Ivan recovery effort causes us concern about the ability of the Navy to obtain a fair
and reasonable price for the labor and material needed to accomplish the tasks associated with
natural disaster recovery efforts.... We plan to evaluate the costs paid on task orders issued in
response to natural disasters in a follow-on audit," it says.
*sigh*
Excerpt:
A giant freshwater lobster measuring almost one metre in length has been found in north-west
Tasmania.
The species is listed as endangered and is only found in streams and lakes in northern and
north-western Tasmania
Giant freshwater lobster researcher Todd Walsh found the animal in an undisclosed location.
Mr Walsh says the male is probably about 35-years-old.
Dang. That thing is awesome.
inlay
riots like it did last time
Excerpt:
The Nigerian government, anxious to avoid a repeat of riots that marked a solar eclipse in 2001,
warned citizens they may suffer "psychological discomfort" during a new eclipse this month but
urged them not to panic.
Information Minister Frank Nweke said an eclipse five years ago caused riots in northern Borno
state because people did not know why it happened.
This is why science education is important, people.
Iowa, about freaking time
Here.
Excerpt:
The chairman of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday he supports having racially
diverse states vote early in the presidential selection process, although there was "wiggle
room" in the details.
"It's certainly a good idea to have more geographic diversity and more ethnic diversity in the
Democratic nominating process," said Howard Dean. "We are committed to leaving Iowa first as
the first caucus in the country and New Hampshire as the first primary in the country."
On Saturday, the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee agreed to move one or two
state caucuses ahead of New Hampshire, a decision that could cause a confrontation with that
state, traditionally the site of the nation's first presidential primary.
I think New York, Washington, Minnesota, Georgia and Illinois should be the first states to vote in the
primaries. Best demographics in the nation for the democratic party.
reject people willing to enlist.
Excerpt:
Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're
a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato — or some combination of the above.
As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for
rejection, too.
With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force
from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces.
But recruiting is still a two-way street — and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this
prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.
I thought that the purpose of boot camp was to get fatties into shape?
advisers this month; on the agenda: family values
Excerpt:
Mary Carey is scheduled to attend the United to Victory dinner with President George W. Bush
in Washington D.C on March 15th - 16th.
Carey, who was also a Republican candidate for governor of California, is going to Washington
at the invitation of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). She will meet
and interact with key Congressional leaders and Administration officials to discuss advancing
powerful pro-business, pro-family agendas and meeting positive legislative goals.
She will join Karl Rove, senior advisor to the President, for lunch on Wednesday the 15th, and
President Bush for dinner on Thursday the 16th.
Now wait a minute.
Mary Carey star of “R” rated ‘Sapphire Girls’ (2003): whose production company Mary Carey
Productions in 2004 produced the X rated ‘Run Mary Run’ in which she played the lead role.
“Run” described by leading movie database web site Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB.com) as
“Hardcore Sex” is going to meet the President of the United States, George W. Bush?
The porn lobby likes Bush. I thought the trend was for shaved, personally
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of
certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested
hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization
about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of
relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of
the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and
for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that
organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect
evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for
instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud
chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those
who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical
description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species
as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given
circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of
large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may
control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to
the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton
University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and
Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better
adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about
events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over
time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how
taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record
and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the
laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving
beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal
changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct
observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as
evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical
evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution
implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the
appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of
hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the
fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata
from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more
refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might
have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or
even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet
produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with
philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the
narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly
scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological
journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as
a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s
George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary
literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands
of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest
of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have
been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the
editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted.
Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely
attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary
problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the
scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science
supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of
evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a
species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other
branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is
nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context
to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen
Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model,
Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium
explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within
geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists
delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had
doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize
overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on
seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake
is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common
ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are
there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of
organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to
remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic
acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into
self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical
analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in
comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that
prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain
the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens
introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by
countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living
cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but
evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite:
natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by
preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as
the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce
sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million
monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the
2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer
program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that
happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the
program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could
reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over
time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular
life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and
snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously
from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter
leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but
it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as
other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex
because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear
fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by
consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They
cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise
positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also
have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In
fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should
grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can
produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point
mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes
can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA,
and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from
a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over
millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new
species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species.
For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population
of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected
to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes
became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock,
then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other
possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for
causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the
energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus,
science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those
forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose
existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new
species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to
define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a
species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do
not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to
organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists
therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects
and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of
selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found
that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R.
Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis
demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred
those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very
different environment.
Houston's note: A perfect example of species evolution is the goatsbeard flowers of Eastern
Washington.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half
bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various
taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers
and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil
species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution
of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and
creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That
Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of
various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill
the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link
between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to
produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a
creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing
other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum
and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms
share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products
diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the
"molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various
organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular
levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent
conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the
oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most
reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy,
Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention.
Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection,
acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure
that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its
parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the
eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even
"incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive
for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive
eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary
history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes
have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments
and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not
account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by
an unidentified intelligence.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity
that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black
Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe
chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose
pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of
the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard
motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal
joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate
array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks
intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular
systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler
than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum
to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as
described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is
extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins
into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their
role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final
evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that
initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification
and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F.
Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of
intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design
arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free
Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random
processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200
years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists
only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular
automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes
can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore
emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying
that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
USA pounds South Africa 17-0. Griffey went 4 for 4 with two home runs and 7 RBI. Dang.
The Dominicans handle Australia 6-4, The DR moves on Australia heads home.
Puerto Rico pounds Cuba 12-2, Cuba is a strong team but young. PR is surprising me.
The Dutch blank Panama 10-0 in a losers match. They both go home
USA eeked one out against Japan 4-3 when Alex Rodriguez laced one up the middle to win it in the ninth.
Puerto Rico is becoming the team to beat by man handling The Dominican Republic 7-1. PR's team
ERA is at 1.08 and they are still undefeated!
Cuba beat an older, more experience Venezuela 7-2. Well, whaddya know?
Korea beat Mexico 2-1 in a fantastically pitched game to remain undefeated with a team ERA an even
1.00.
The Dominican Republic/Cuba, both coming off tough loses and trying to stay alive in the tournament.
Loser out.
Venezuela/Puerto Rico, PR has defined itself as the Latin team-to-beat. My money is on PR.
This is the best baseball I have ever seen. The games are fantastic. Every player is absolutely pumped
and I bet the players that opted out of this are just kicking themselves. These games just have the feeling
of being bigger than the World Series.
that will probably take their title this year, Temple. Both teams face a huge amounts of suspensions.
Wow, the fires that burn when you are battling for the basement.
Pakistan (specifically Musharraf) blamed
Here.
Excerpt:
A rare suicide car bombing yesterday in Afghanistan's capital, which killed two civilians and left
former president Sibghatullah Mujaddedi with burn injuries, could set back government
reconciliation efforts with Taliban members and aggravate a growing war of words with
neighboring Pakistan over terrorist violence.
Mujaddedi, 80, who heads both the upper house of parliament and a commission that works to
return Taliban members to civic life, publicly accused Pakistan's intelligence agency of
engineering the attack. At a news conference in Kabul hours after the blast, he gestured
angrily with both heavily bandaged hands.
"What is my fault? My fault is that I am working for the peace and prosperity of Afghanistan," the
turbaned, white-bearded politician said, according to the Associated Press. He alleged that
Pakistani agents had "launched a plot" to kill him and that Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's
president, did not want Afghanistan to be "safe and secure."
Even if Pakistan did it you don't want to be pissing them off by saying that they did it because if it wasn't for
Pakistan central Asia would be in even worse shape. A war between a free Afghanistan, Pakistan and the
Taliban would not be smart.
I understand that it was the heat of the moment and emotions were running high. Just take a deep breath
and wait before you make a statement that could doom the 30% of the country that isn't still controlled by
the Taliban.