text:
Skip to comments.ID: Whats it all about, Darwin?
Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
My mother says she is a Darwinist. Im not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.
This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.
When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasnt as quite as painful or harmful to ones health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C bingo! you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!
One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einsteins famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer hence the term relativity theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term special relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, Im not one of those privy to its secrets.
We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduates knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isnt even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our faith in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einsteins answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.
The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. Facts that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models oops! sorry, thats global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwins rumination. Is this unscientific as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep God out of science? No. Its an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Petersons piece in the American Spectator, The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism. He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coynes offering in the New Republic Online, The Case Against Intelligent Design. This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.
Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.
Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.
Darwins theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. Were talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And theyre not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.
What is? Good question. Ill ask my mom. She always had the answers.
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
This universe existed in the shape of darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were, in deep sleep.
Then the Divine Self-existent, himself indiscernible but making all this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible power, dispelling the darkness.
He who can be perceived by the internal organ alone, who is subtle, indiscernible, and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of his own will.
He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.
That seed became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that egg he himself was born as Brahma, the progenitor of the whole world....
The Divine One resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought divided it into two halves;
And out of those two halves he formed heaven and earth, between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, and the eternal abode of the waters.
From himself he also drew forth the mind, which is both real and unreal, likewise from the mind ego, which possesses the function of self-consciousness and is lordly.
Moreover, the great one, the soul, and all products affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.
But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.
Cretinism marches on.
Freepers keep bringing this up about 5 times a day. Perhaps they are just looking (in vain) for some scientific evidence of creation. Why isn't their faith good enough? If you want to believe that all of this was created by the hand of God, by all means believe it. But recognize that He may just have done it the old fashioned way....through evolution.
> My mother says she is a Darwinist. Im not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.
You know, I think this is the Creationist version of the old gag about the paleontologist who finds a single toe-bone and then reconstructs, very wrongly, an entire fanciful creature from it.
"Darwinist = no purpose?"
I guess that's what they call a "leap of faith."
Beliefe in the biblical form of creation requires overlooking some serious problems. I would call that faith.
Personally I mix my faith in God with my beliefe in evolution. Where I find problems with evolution I attribute the blank spaces to Gods secrets.
God Bless
No mention of the fact that the article itself states:
Darwins theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. Were talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism.
Do Freepers read articles anymore?
ha ha...yes, my shoulders are broad and my ego humbled. I can handle it.
That seems to destroy your analogy. ;O)
Mac writes in part:
But recognize that He may just have done it the old fashioned way....through evolution.
Mac, I agree. The arrogance of people like Sevakis who assume that they know how God performed His miracles, is breathtaking. To conclude that a the person who understands Natural Selection therefore doesn't believe in God, is arrogant in the extreme. The truth will set you free -- using God's name to deny the evidence and promote a falsehood ("scientific" creationism) in order to cleave to a literal interpretation of Genesis, is wrong and true Christians should seek the truth through science and have enough faith in God to see His hand in all of it, as I certainly do in natural selection -- it is in itself intelligent design!
Notice that no literal interpretation of the New Testament is mandatory -- everyone knows that Jesus wasn't talking about someone having, literally, a sty or a log or a plank in their eye, because that makes no physical sense!!! Double standards!!! To me, it's the folks who insist on creationism who exhibit lack of faith in God, and the brains God gave them.
Whose listing always includes Behe, Behe, Behe, and no one else in particular.
Here's a good list of books on all sides.
The question answers itself. The answer is no.
> Unlike the paleontologist/evolutionist, he keeps an open mind.
On the one hand, we've got paleontology and the history of evolution constantly being updated and revised as new information comes in (such as wonderful new stuff regarding bird evolution coming from China), and being berated by Creationists for not sticking to one precise story...
And on the other hand, we've got people like yourself declaring that paleontologists and evolutionsts don't have an open mind.
Just... *wow*. What's it like being able to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously?
How does a creationist or ID advocate go about deciding that a paleontologist is wrong? How do you know, for example, that Piltdown Man was a hoax? What's your basis for saying that something in science is wrong?
God's plan that is.
See thats a problem with strcit Evos, they want no God to have anything to do with evolution, and the same with strict creationists they deny all aspects of evolution.
And some think that ID is Christian specific and therefore cannt be taught. The whole issue has been succesfully muddled by all sides.
interesting...condescending, arrogant, and blasphemous...but interesting too
youre not alone in that thought, you may be right...its different than what I think but thats ok.
Next time, I'll know better. :)
>thats a problem with strcit Evos, they want no God to have anything to do with evolution
Replace "want" with "see." Then it'll be pretty much accurate.
Watch what you post. The gaurdians of dogmatic darwinism will have your head.And most of them claim conservatism.
MIT biochemists calculated the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power .
Now, when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.Even if they could,which they cannot,it would probably be one single, isolated, worthless protein, which would quickly fall apart in the presence of water or ultraviolet light from the sun!
'Since science has not the vaguest idea how (proteins) originated, it would only be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research, and the public.'
Journal of Theoretical Biology (yockey)
The rabid atheist/darwinists maintain life spontaneously created itself, IDers claim it`s a little more complex, and mathematically impossible.
"Always thought evolution was part of his plan. God's plan that is."
Unacceptable! You have not passed the new litmus test. You cannot really believe in God. And you must not be a real conservative.
Considering that the TOE has nothing to say on the subject of abiogenesis, you are either ignorant or dishonest.
The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions.
There will always be unanswered questions. To assume otherwise is ludicrous.
Evidence that does not fit. Facts that have proven illusive or false.
Like what?
Fabricated evidence.
It happens. However, once the fabrication has been exposed it is rejected. Can't say the same for creationists. They've been telling the same falsehoods for decades.
Explanations that are logically incomplete.
Like what?
Jerry-rigged computer models oops! sorry, thats global warming.
Cute way to sneak in a strawman.
Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwins rumination.
It is not a theory. It meets exactly none of the basic requirements of a theory.
Is this unscientific as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep God out of science?
Nobody is wailing and gnashing, and there is no "haste to keep God out of science". The concern is that religion will be taught as science. That is what the debate is about.
No. Its an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
It is not an alternative hypothesis, or a competing theory. There is no hypothesis. There is no theory. It asks no questions. It makes no predictions. There are no tests. It just says "that's too complicated to happen on it's own, God did it, move along, move along". This is NOT how science advances: this is how science is stagnated.
Seems like a pretty good outlook.
Any time one seeks the truth, one is following the ways of God. When you deny the truth, even if you do so in God's name, you're not doing Him or Christianity any favors. It reveals insecurity in the solid hand of God and his miracles. Such is this 150-year-old argument over evolution. Yes, the devil disguises himself and fools people very well, including those who deny evolution by denying truth. They think they're doing it for God ... but are they really? Whereas the person who accepts the truth of the evidence -- such as our molecular biologist friend who has posted to this thread -- and continues to credit God for the miracles, shows the more steadfast faith.
LOL. The creation-evolution debate may not be new, but It's always interesting to see the newest venom.
Finny, I think you have the post of the day! Good job.
Thank you! See my post 30 as well. One of the things I so love about FR is that I find I'm not alone. Thanks for your kind words.
"If I only had a brain..."
Isn't that the straw man's theme song?
ROFL!! Okay, that's the creationist spin, anyway.
A more accurate description is that there are a very tiny handful (the same four names keep popping up) of allegedly "grown-up scientists" who bang the drum for ID, but who keep getting even the basic science wrong in their zeal to push ID. If they're "undermining" anything, it's not the "basis of Darwinism", it's their own ID hypothesis.
Meanwhile, the actual "advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life" just keeps adding to the overwhelming mountain of evidence *for* evolution.
Here are some recent posts of mine highlighting the fundamental flaws in the "ID" work of Behe, Dembski, and friends:
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth by Jonathan Wells
Read it already. Full of misrepresentations and misunderstandings on Wells's part. Classic "straw man fallacy" stuff (i.e. beating up a sham scarecrow replica of your opponent's position and then declaring "victory" over his *actual* position), as well as countless outright falsehoods. I haven't bothered to write my own review of it because this webpage already does such a good job of expressing my own opinion of the book: Icons of Evolution FAQs, especially in (but not limited to) this sub-page: Icon of Obfuscation Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution: and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong. I don't just take Matzke's word for it -- I can personally vouch for the accuracy of his refutations of Wells's flawed points.
Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins by Dean H. Kenyon (biologist) and Percival Davis (zoologist). It compares the theories of evolution and "intelligent design" but does not mention God, Christ, the Bible, church or creation. It is a textbook that was reviewed by 35 reviewers, including evolutionists and non-evolutionists.
Haven't read it. But the full text is searchable and readable on Amazon.com, and when I tried a couple of keywords just now ("DNA" and "Cambrian"), I found a lot of the usual creationist misrepresentations and misunderstandings, so I can't say that I'm impressed. For example, he's just monumentally wrong (and jaw-droppingly ignorant) when he claims that:This nearly simultaneous appearance of most known phyla [during the Cambrian - Ich.] is more remarkable when we consider that the variation within a phylum is quite small compared to how much the phyla vary from one another. In other words, there is more morphological distance between two phyla than separates representatives within the phyla themselves. This means that the origins of new phyla are evolution's greatest achievements in diversifying life forms."Um, no. The author is making the ludicrous claim that there is *LESS* structural/evolutionary difference between, say, a parrot and a hagfish:
...(both are members of the chordata phylum) than between a Cambrian worm with a primitive notocord versus a Cambrian worm with a more diffuse neural net. Nice try.
The DNA material was equally giggle-worthy.
If you can direct me to a page number you feel makes a decent point without such serious flaws, let me know and I'll check it out.
Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson
I've read the former, and based on its worthlessness I skipped reading the latter. I also debated Johnson online back and forth for a week about ten years ago. What he doesn't know about biology would fill volumes. He arguest against evolution in exactly the way you would expect him to as a lawyer (his actual profession) -- by using what *sounds* persuasive instead of on what is actually sound reasoning, or actually founded upon the preponderance of the evidence. I wasn't at all impressed. And apparently I'm not the only one. See for example:
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither sciencenor Christian
Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe (biologist)
I've read that too. Behe seems sincere enough, at least, but in his zeal he produces shoddy, flawed work, while wildly overstating what he can actually support (if at all). Here are some of my prior posts on the problems in Behe's book and other statements/publications:And:
The next idea you probably will not like, and that is irreducible complexity.
As an "idea" I like it just fine, and so do evolutionary scientists. The problem is that Behe (and the creationists who follow him) have created a "straw man" version of "IC" which is quite simply incorrect -- but appears to give the conclusion they want.
The original notion of "IC" goes back to Darwin himself. He wrote:"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."That's "Irreducible Complexity" in a nutshell. It's not as if Behe has pointed out anything that biologists (or Darwin) didn't already realize.
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
But let's examine Darwin's description of "IC" in a bit more detail (emphasis mine):No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.Darwin makes two critical points here:
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.
[Example snipped]
In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another, that I will give one more instance. [Long detail of example snipped] If all pedunculated cirripedes had become extinct, and they have already suffered far more extinction than have sessile cirripedes, who would ever have imagined that the branchiae in this latter family had originally existed as organs for preventing the ova from being washed out of the sack?
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
1. A modern organ need not have evolved into its present form and function from a precursor which had always performed the same function. Evolution is quite capable of evolving a structure to perform one function, and then turning it to some other "purpose".
2. Organs/structures can reach their present form through a *loss* of function or parts, not just through *addition* of function or parts.
Despite the fact that these observations were laid out in 1859, Behe's version of "Irreducible Complexity" pretends they are not factors, and defines "IC" as something which could not have arisen through stepwise *ADDITIONS* (only) while performing the same function *THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE*.
It's hard to tell whether Behe does this through ignorance or willful dishonesty, but the fact remains that *his* definition and analysis of "IC" is too restrictive. He places too many "rules" on how he will "allow" evolution to reach his examples of "Behe-style IC" structures, while evolution itself *IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE RULES* when it operates. Thus Behe's conclusion that "Behe-style evolution" can not reach "Behe-style IC" hardly tells us anything about whether *real-world* evolution could or could not have produced them.
For specific examples, Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" flagellum is flawed because flagella are composed of components that bacteria use FOR OTHER PURPOSES and were evolved for those purposes then co-opted (1, 2), and Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).
Even Behe's trivial mousetrap example turns out to not actually be "IC".
The usual qualitative formulation is: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced...by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system, that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional..."
Note the key error: By saying that it "breaks" if any part is "missing" (i.e. taken away), it is only saying that evolution could not have reached that endpoint by successively only ADDING parts. True enough, but Behe misses the fact that you can also reach the same state by, say, adding 5 parts one at a time, and then taking away 2 which have become redundant. Let's say that part "A" does the job, but not well. But starting with just "A" serves the need. Then add "B", which improves the function of "A". Add "C" which helps A+B do their job, and so on until you have ABCDE, which does the job very well. Now, however, it may turn out that CDE alone does just fine (conceivably, even better than ABCDE does with A+B getting in the way of CDE's operation). So A and B fade away, leaving CDE. Note that CDE was built in "one change at a time" fashion, with each new change improving the operation. HOWEVER, by Behe's definition CDE is "Irreducibly Complex" and "could not have evolved (been built by single steps)" because removing C or D or E from CDE will "break" it. Note that Behe's conclusion is wrong. His logic is faulty.
The other error in Behe's definition lies in this part: "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system, that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional". The problem here is that it may be "nonfunctional" for its *current* function, but perfectly functional for some *other* function helpful for survival (and therefore selected by evolution). Behe implicitly claims that if it's not useful for its *current* function, it's useless for *any* function. The flaw in this should be obvious.
"Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."
True as far as it goes, but but this is hardly the same as Behe's sleight-of-hand in the first part of his statement, which relies on the false premise that a precursor to a structure is 100% useless for *any* purpose if *taking away* (but not adding) one part from the current purpose makes it unsuitable for the current purpose. Two gaping holes in that one...
Behe (an anathematized name)
For reasons I've outlined above.
talks of the bacterial flagellum, which contains an acid-powered rotary engine, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft. The machinery of this motor requires approximately fifty proteins.
Except that it doesn't. As many biochemists have pointed out, other organisms have function flagella (even *as* flagella) with fewer proteins (and/or different proteins). That flagellum isn't even "IC" by Behe's own definition since you *can* remove proteins and have it still work as a flagellum. [...]
For a far more realistic look at the evolutionary "invention" of the flagellum, see Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum , which I linked earlier in this post. From the abstract:The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellums complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
For an analysis of numerous errors and such in Dembski's Design arguments/examples, see Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch. It also contains material on the flagella issue you raise next.
As for Behe (the other author):
One small example is the flagella on a paramecium. They need four distinct proteins to work.
Actually they need a lot more than that. And as far as I know, Behe never used the cilia on paramecia as his example, he has primarily concentrated on bacterial flagella.
They cannot have evolved from a flagella that need three.
Contrary to creationist claims (or Behe's) that flagella are Irreducibly Complex and can not function at all if any part or protein is removed, in fact a) there are many, many varieties of flagella on various species of single-celled organisms, some with more or fewer parts/proteins than others. So it's clearly inaccurate to make a blanket claim that "flagella" in general contain no irreplacable parts. Even Behe admits that a working flagella can be reduced to a working cilia, which undercuts his entire "Irreducibly Complex" example/claim right off the bat.
For a semi-technical discussion of how flagella are *not* IC, because many of their parts can be eliminated without totally breaking their locomotive ability, see Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella
But even if one could identify, say, four specific proteins (or other components) which were critically necessary for the functioning of all flagellar structures (and good luck: there are three unrelated classes of organisms with flagella built on three independent methods: eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and eukaryote flagella -- see Faugy DM and Farrel K, (1999 Feb) A twisted tale: the origin and evolution of motility and chemotaxis in prokaryotes. Microbiology, 145, 279-280), Behe makes a fatal (and laughably elementary) error when he states that therefore they could not have arisen by evolution. Even first-year students of evolutionary biology know that quite often evolved structures are built from parts that WERE NOT ORIGINALLY EVOLVED FOR THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION, as Behe naively assumes (or tries to imply).
Okay, fine, so even if you can prove that a flagellum needs 4 certain proteins to function, and would not function AS A FLAGELLUM with only 3, that's absolutely no problem for evolutionary biology, since it may well have evolved from *something else* which used those 3 proteins to successfully function, and only became useful as a method of locomotion when evolution chanced upon the addition of the 4th protein. Biology is chock-full of systems cobbled together from combinations of other components, or made via one addition to an existing system which then fortuitously allows it to perform a new function.
And, lo and behold, it turns out that the "base and pivot" of the bacterial flagella, along with part of the "stalk", is virtually identical to the bacterial Type III Secretory Structure (TTSS). So despite Behe's claim that flagella must be IC because (he says) there's no use for half a flagella, in fact there is indeed such a use. And this utterly devastates Behe's argument, in several different ways. Explaining way in detail would take quite some time, but it turns out that someone has already written an excellent essay on that exact thing, which I strongly encourage you to read: The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" .
(Note: Several times that essay makes a reference to the "argument from ignorance", with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with it. I'd like to point out that contrary to the way it sounds, Miller is *not* accusing Behe et all of being ignorant. Instead, he's referring to this family of logical fallacies, also known as the "argument from incredulity".)
That is called irreducible complexity.
That's what Behe likes to call it, yes. But the flagella is provably *not* IC. Oops for Behe. Furthermore, while it's certainly easy to *call* something or another "Irreducibly Complex", proving that it actually *is* is another matter entirely.
As the "Flagellum Unspun" article above states:According to Dembski, the detection of "design" requires that an object display complexity that could not be produced by what he calls "natural causes." In order to do that, one must first examine all of the possibilities by which an object, like the flagellum, might have been generated naturally. Dembski and Behe, of course, come to the conclusion that there are no such natural causes. But how did they determine that? What is the scientific method used to support such a conclusion? Could it be that their assertions of the lack of natural causes simply amount to an unsupported personal belief? Suppose that there are such causes, but they simply happened not to think of them? Dembski actually seems to realize that this is a serious problem. He writes: "Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses [which here, as noted above, means all relevant natural processes (hvt)]. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other, it would be mistaken" (Dembski 2002, 123 (note 80)).For more bodyblows against the notion of Irreducible Complexity, see:
Bacterial Flagella and Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible Complexity Demystified
Review: Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"
The fatal flaws in Behe's argument were recognized as soon as his book was published, and countless reviewers pointed them out. And yet, creationists and IDers, who seem to rely mostly on the echo-chamber of their own clique and appear to seldom read much *actual* scientific sources, still seem blissfully unaware of the problems with Behe's thesis, and keep popping in on a regular basis to wave the book around and smugly yell something like, "See, evolution has already been disproven!"
What's funny is that by Behe's own argument, a stone arch is "irreducibly complex" because it could not have formed by nature *adding* sections of stone at a time (it would have fallen down unless the entire span was already in place -- and indeed will fall down if you take part of the span away):
Needless to say, what Behe's argument is missing in the case of the stone arch is that such arches form easily by natural means when successive layers of sedimentary rock added on top of each other, and *then* erosion carves a hole out from *under* the arch by *removing* material after the "bridge" of the arch itself *was already there*.
Similarly, Behe's arguments about why certain types of biological structures "could not" have evolved fall flat because he doesn't realize that evolution does not only craft features by *adding* components, it also does so by *lateral alteration*, and by *removing* components.
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. It only "proves" that a *simplified* version of evolution (as envisioned by Behe) couldn't give rise to certain structures -- not that the *actual* processes of evolution could not.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton (biologist).
Already read it. More misrepresentations and misunderstandings about what evolutionary biology *actually* consists of and the nature of the evidence supporting it. One example from a prior post of mine:Denton also writes, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event."
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic. Denton writes that evolutionists once thought that comparing DNA sequences would prove the "family tree" linkage between species that Darwin conceived. But "Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species, but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence,"
To be blunt, Denton is either an idiot or a liar. His claim is flat wrong. For many specific examples of five entirely *independent* methods of linking common ancestry via DNA analysis, see Molecular Sequence Evidence. For *tons* of research studies turning up more DNA evidence of common ancestry on a regular basis, see The Journal of Molecular Biology. You can browse abstracts from hundreds of articles publshed in the past 89 issues on that site. For full text, subscribe to the online version or go visit a technical library. From just the most recent issue, for example:The PRAT Purine Synthesis Gene Duplication in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis Is Associated with a Retrotransposition Event and Diversification of Expression Patterns (short summary: the authors identified gene sequences which were inherited from a common ancestor of the two species 40 million years ago)And here's one more from the Journal of Human Genetics: Molecular phylogenetics of the hominoid Y chromosome (short summary: Y-chromosome DNA from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans were compared and the results were as expected if the species share a common ancestor.)
Phylogeny of Choanozoa, Apusozoa, and Other Protozoa and Early Eukaryote Megaevolution (short summary: A study of DNA sequences and the light it sheds on the very early split of the various single-cell organism types from a common ancestor)
Frequent Mitochondrial Gene Rearrangements at the Hymenopteran nad3nad5 Junction (short summary: DNA from 21 distinct groups of wasps were compared and the implications for the family tree and "history" are discussed)
Denton is quite simply flat wrong.
Denton's either incompetent or dishonest here, since no one's proposing that any "known type of cell" was representative of the first spark(s) of life. The earliest life was far, far simpler than that. See for example: On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells or The Path from the RNA World
For more negative critiques of Denton's book identifying the errors in his arguments (with which I heartily concur and for which I can vounch), see for example:
Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Reviews: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton
I trust this is enough material to begin your search.
Way ahead of you, actually. You might want to read the above material and links in order to catch up with me, however.
Have you got any material that *isn't* obviously seriously flawed? I'll be happy to check it out.
My post pointing out the problems with Spetner's "analysis" of evolution
Darwinists are also mute and fear the third rail of how the first protein invented itself. MIT biochemists arlready crunsched the numbers,even factoring in the thin wisp evos cling to,abiogenesis.
AA`s come in 3D chains.Some leeway is possible,in others it`s not tolerated.MIT biochemists already tackled this.The odds remain.Calculated odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power ( Robert Sauer )
Of all the possible bonds of AA`s ,all have to form peptide bonds,the natural thing is for the reverse to take place(Sarfati, J.D., 1998. Origin of life: the polymerization problem).THEN,the P must contain only LH AA`s and exclude RH AA`s making it a 50/50 chance .Then it must be in the correct sequence.Now add to that the fact that one cell requires 75 "helper molecules",working together to make one protein(rgroup) as told by one dna base,translated by enzymes with special slots holding other modules,each one having 5 slots,,2 chem,2 nonchem,one atp.The cell needs 20,one for each R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA).The whole set is USELESS without ribosomes to crack the code into three-letter code ,USELESS without constant atp and would VANISH if translases wore out,but actually renew.
What are the odds.MIT has already crunched the numbers.
We all await the darwinists recreating the process (spontaneously) in a lab over and over.
Yeah, just like that heliocentric view of the solar system was just Copernicus, Copernicus, Copernicus.... At first.
Excellent post! And if the Crevos follow form, they'll do anything but respond to it.
Then why are evolutionists all in a lather over ID, which simply explains what TOE (according to you) has nothing to say about?
I'll agree too - to a point. Survival of the fittest, no problem. Natural selection, makes sense. But when the Good Book says that life shall reproduce"..after its own kind...", that's where I am forced to disagree with Chuckie Darwin.
But unlike Behe, Behe, Behe; Copernicus, Copernicus, Copernicus could back his claims with actual science. He came up with a theory that included many testable hypotheses, something that (despite thread after thread) ID proponents have been totally unable to provide.
You really do have a sense of pride about it, don't you?
To me it doesn't seem right.
Except that the list of creationsts and ID advocates is shrinking. Denton has gone over to the dark side. He believes in "fine tuning" at creation, but accepts the history of life pretty much as biologists and paleontologists see it.
There are quite a few ID advocates who believe in some form of fine tuning. Even Behe, to some extent. It's pretty hard for anyone familiar with the evidence to deny the physical history of biology, regardless of how you interpret its origin and meaning.
thanks for the warning...i'm not a virgin to these debates.
"venom"...you got to be kidding.
are you so sensitive?
oh ok, thanks for your concern.
"imaginary"...if you want to push him in the corner have at it...the path is wide.
"The rabid atheist/darwinists maintain life spontaneously created itself"
Are you rejecting the idea of spontaneous creation? Or spontaneous creation absent the hand of God? It seems to me Genesis itself implies all living things were brought whole or complete into being or created spontaneously because the text does not hint at any kind of evolutionary process. So...if as you say the odds of "finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power" then what are the odds of animals and plants popping whole into existence?
some people are so sensitive that they're posts arent responded too.
"look at me, look at me"
sheesh grow up a little.
I noticed a very liberal sprinkling of "mights' and "may haves", which means that your ROFL indicates a very low threshhold for finding something humorous. If you really read the arguments using Behe's ideas on irreducible complexity, you will find the stone arh that they try to use as pretty darn funny too - that argument is more like a sixth grade fantasy than a scientific essay. I guess that if they can't come up with a good argument against irriducible complexity with cells and life-forms, they have to try to fool, somebody with a totally irrelevant example.
However, the designer is too complex to have come about on its own and, therefore, must have been designed by a prior designer...and so on ad infinitum.
Unless one subscribes to an endless line of designers, complexity arose on its own somewhere along the line--something the IDers shout "can't happen".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Hey all,
On my site I recently added DEMOCRACY, to add a poll to the sidebar.
After doing so though, I noticed that the sidebar is falling way down below my blog when viewed in IE.
When viewed in Safari and Firefox though everything is A-OK.
Any ideas on how I could go about fixing this?
BTW the site is here! http://www.japannewbie.com
Any and all help appreciated!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Carlos De Souza Photographer
WanModel Female Dallas, Texas, US My MM URL: http://www.modelmayhem.com/waraleeduarte
Mayhem # 2220306
About MeHello gorgeous people! My name is Wan, I'm new to the states from my beautiful country in Thailand. Im very excited about my new endeavor into the modeling world...
Have you worked with Wan? Add Credits for Wan! >>
Carlos De Souza Photographer
F H M Wardrobe Stylist
Nicholas Laird Photographer
Adolfo V Photography Photographer
Ju Photography Photographer
American Radiance Photographer
Loading Content


text:
Give the guy a break. You guys are all wringing your hands and now you've got me doing it. I'm not much on hand-wringing. He's not going to shave kids' hair off and get them to follow a comet to their eternal bliss with a glass of kool aid or anything. Yes, I agree he's a little stupid for seemingly enjoying the inflammatory nature of the whole thing here among surfers, but what do you care even if it is a means of getting money and following for a religious group and using surfboards to do so? I get it that religions have throughout history harbored a88holes who have killed countless others for their beliefs or lack thereof. Those are however, the a88holes. Plenty of other people out there (especially in this country) kill others and serve no one but themselves at least partially because they have no morals (like confederate flag dude mentioned) and whether we like it or not, many, not all mind you, but many get the moral direction that keeps us from having to deal with their selfishness or much worse, from some belief in something greater than themselves. They consider others' needs and wants as well as their own. Pretty foreign ideology for the "oh..me, me, me, meeeee!!!" generation, from which many of you folks hail, with your dumb vernacular streaming from the smartphone velcroed to your semi-literate noggins. Let's face it, this country is pretty much Babylon right now (and I'm not even a particularly religious guy). It does sound a little like Jesus himself and his own life when a person steps forward to try and help others see some light and joy in life and all you supposedly spiritual surfers all attack him. I believe Christ himself endured all of that, though not through the sterile environment of social media. And of course, some of you aren't even spiritual. You're like 18 (or worse, 40-something and still talk like you are) and you think of surfing like you so everything else in life....all for you, you're the coolest, most testosterone laden, chick banging stud in the world and you even have a skateboard for the days when you don't go out on two foot days on a 5-8 attempting repetitive silly looking aerials so that maybe the girls will look. Far too cool for Jesus anyway, you. If I meet Wayne I am going to buy him a beer. Jesus loved beer, I hear. I might even give him a wave. Nahh. It's the east coast. Waves are too scarce.
Results 171 to 180 of 344
Thread: Free Surfboards
Sep 5, 2013, 12:32 PM #171Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- 3 hrs. from sand
- Posts
- 53
Last edited by tubesock; Sep 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM.
Sep 6, 2013, 03:42 AM #172Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Location
- Impacting the Coast for Jesus
- Posts
- 194
Sep 6, 2013, 04:08 AM #173Junior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Posts
- 17
what did jesus save you from???
Sep 6, 2013, 04:19 AM #174
Sep 6, 2013, 04:34 AM #175Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Location
- Impacting the Coast for Jesus
- Posts
- 194
Sep 6, 2013, 06:22 AM #176
Sep 6, 2013, 10:57 AM #177
Although cresto4 & I have had our raspy moments in the past, I'm 110% on board with what cresto4 stated so succinctly & so well. He nailed it.
And could sonuvafollower & wayne & chromeo from South Carolina take your verbal cranking that has nothing to do with surfing and go meet Archy in a parking lot.
There, you guys could explain to Archy your version of his magic contrails. And then the rest of us won't have your proselytizing drivel to pore through.
Nice call, cresto.
There's an important question to answer. Did Christ walk out out of the tomb the Sunday after being crucified? If He did, the there is much to consider regarding Him, perhaps life changing. If not, take what moral teachings of His you prefer, if any, and carry on ..
Sep 6, 2013, 11:50 AM #180
I think more people are not happy about using free surfboards as a hook to reel kids in. If that is not what you do and keep the preaching to a minimum then good for you.


text:
Cue the theme from Rocky. The countdown is on. You…
The Prowl, or: How to get other people to do your shopping for you and save money
(Theprowl.com's main Ask and Answer section)
TheProwl.com looks a bit like Pinterest, and that may well be on purpose. Unlike Pinterest, The Prowl has a focus: its unique "Ask and Answer" section encourages you to employ the brains of others to find deals and make better fashion decisions than most mere humans with jobs and lives ever could. So while Pinterest is a great place to obsess over the infinite aspirational scroll, The Prowl is for paring down possibilities, and making a purchase. In contrast to Pinterest and related sites like The Hunt, which largely market themselves to the female demo, The Prowl's pragmatic approach to commerce can be appreciated by the most shopping-phobic individuals of any gender.
Speaking as a bookish person with no love for parting with money, I dread the shopping part of any transaction. Only the owning part appeals to me at all. My shopping anxiety is tripled if the item I need is worn on the body. My whole life, I've outsourced as many fashion decisions as I could to a sibling, a friend, a significant other, or a sharp looking clerk at the store.
People other than me are, for some reason, thrilled to share their informed opinions on clothes, and unlike search engines, humans don't deliver scams disguised as answers. Until now, I've only ever had access to a small number of these reliable people at any given time. The Prowl, however, connects me to thousands, and results aren't clouded by the interference of cynical internet marketing schemes — not yet at least.
When you get to The Prowl, it's not immediately apparent how it differs from similar resources online:
Sure, you could just post a simple question to Facebook, "Does anyone know of a good pair of sweatpants?" and you might get a few answers if you're lucky, but they'll come mixed with jokes, and the size of your pool of question answerers will be limited, meaning you aren't likely to find specialized knowledge. What if you need a good kimono at a fair price, or a wizard hat that isn't pointy? Crowdsourcing with a larger crowd is always more effective.
(A more conventional use of Facebook)
Similarly, The Hunt, where you post a photo, and the pool of users identifies the clothes and where to buy them, is a great site, and I won't throw any shade at it. It also allows you to request a lower priced alternative to the item in the photo. However, The Prowl was designed expressly to contrast with The Hunt's rigidity. When you create an "Ask and Answer" post, you're free to be as detailed as you want. Explain your needs, and say what you think you want, but someone just might offer a different solution. "You only think you need a heavy raincoat when you move to Seattle. What you really need is this windbreaker with a hood. I love mine, and it's on sale right now."
(Thehunt.com, a good site, working as advertised)
Reddit's r/malefashionadvice is a bustling community of broes mainsplaining the wisdom of skinny ties to each other. Meanwhile r/fashionadvice is woman-centric, and much less intimidating, but also much less active. The free-form nature of Reddit communities could allow something like The Prowl to exist, but at the moment, no equivalent seems forthcoming.
(From this thread on Reddit's r/malefashionadvice)
At The Prowl, your answers arrive in the form of product thumbnails, with a bit of editorializing by the person answering your question, and the result is a pleasant dialogue between like minded strangers. It makes for good reading even if you're shopping for something else.
For instance, one man posted recently that he was "looking for something for my partner. I want something that makes an overt statement about being gay or lesbian, maybe something political. Funny is always good." Another user posted a old-fashioned needlework wall hanging that read, "Homo Sweet Homo," to which the original poster replied "I love this and will be ordering." The reason this delighted me was that I hadn't a clue where to find anything like that. I wouldn't even have known what to google, but some stranger knew just the thing. Bonus: he bought it from the person who made it.
(From this thread on The Prowl)
My own experience was equally pleasant and efficient, but I was much more specific, and I was looking for apparel on a budget. The challenge: find me something as durable as my Lebowski-ish mock turtleneck, but up-to-date fashion-wise, and keep the price down to earth: under $150, please. With these parameters in mind I normally feel helpless, and completely at the mercy of the first thing even close to my description.
Within hours, fourteen great answers had piled up. Well, they weren't all winners, but one, an amazing shawl-neck cardigan from Ralph Lauren, was just what I didn't know I wanted, and it was below my price ceiling! It fills the gap in my wardrobe that needed filled, and my girlfriend loves it, which is perhaps more important since she has to look at me. What's more, Ralph Lauren sounds much too Cape Cod for my library-dwelling self, and ordinarily, I'd have never looked there.
Lastly, the site has a design non-problem that I find enormously helpful: It's teal color scheme and cat logo have the potential advantage of repelling a certain flavor of dudes –the ones with the phrase "no homo" in their vocabularies. With them gone, questions from men are something of a welcome novelty, which tinges responses to our posts with a certain added freshness, and fosters quick and creative answers.
But now that I've let my secret out, I hope it will still work for me.
Mike Pearl is a news contributor for VICE, Grist, Deathandtaxesmag and others. He takes public transportation and the vegetarian option when possible.
(Source: Savings.com)


text:
Play any type of Game at Y8.com. The biggest Game Collection to play free online. Flash, Unity 3D, Html5, Android, Java and Shockwave.
Twilight Sparkle, Applejack and Flttershy come to your ice cream shop and ordered for their special ice cream. Could you take this challenge? You could pick your favorite pony first and make an ice cream for her. When you have finished, pick another pony and then the last one. Let's have a cool ice cream summer together with lovely little ponies! Have fun!


text:
Search: fogSearch profiles »
lilsmokie6Match % Unknown Join to find out!
lets just say i get bored and write, and they come out, as a rhyme form, gaze into your eyes, before u hyptonize, you have to realize, im comin with a whole new size, never would i tell you lies, im not one to despise, that good comes in many different forms, get too close an get...
WolfkittyMatch % Unknown Join to find out!
We've already been walking on beaches and forests in the fog and the rain - and clear skies and warm weather for that matter.
TonyTXNMatch % Unknown Join to find out!
Wondering through the fog. ... Finding my way through the fog.
djblindmanMatch % Unknown Join to find out!
I was walking home from work the other night and a thick fog had set in. I live in the mountains so we periodically get fog almost as thick as Bush's head. ... The fog swirled around the puffy shoulders on her jacket as she
- See More Profiles »
The Everything About Airsoft Test
Four Classic Army MP5's
The Sonnet1715 Fav Movie Quotes Test
Hi! And welcome to my Sonnet1715 Fav Movie Quotes Test. This test is good if you have some time to waste. So just sit back, relax and enjoy testing yo...
The Oh God That Sucks Test
Have you ever thought to yourself, "Oh, please, God, somebody shoot me"? I'm thinkin', probably yeah. I'm sure most of us have. When something happ...
Famous Movie Quotes Test
What is your knowledge of Famous Movie Quotes?
The Fate's Companion Quiz
Discover your ally and avatar behind the curtain of fate...
- See More Tests »
- Filter results
- All Results (108)
- Tests (108)
Connect your existing OkCupid account
Sign in
Welcome Back!
Restore your account to continue meeting new people.
Reset your password
We'll email you a link to reset it.
Email sent!
An email is on its way to .
If you don't see it, try checking your Spam folder.
Enter Authentication Code
Sign in
Not so fast!
You need to complete your basic info on the mobile app before you can use the desktop site.


text:
Corriganville Jobs
Looking for jobs in Corriganville? Snagajob has great opportunities with the area's leading companies. And applying for Corriganville jobs has never been easier. Look at the job listings below, click on a job title that interests you and hit the "apply now" button. Part-time jobs, teen jobs, student jobs and summer jobs are now just a click away. Start your job search now.
Corriganville, MD Job Openings
CRST ExpeditedCorriganville, MD, 21524
Corriganville, MD
Cities within 20 miles of Corriganville, MD
- Cumberland, MD (72 jobs)
- LaVale, MD (16 jobs)
- La Vale, MD (16 jobs)
- Grantsville, MD (10 jobs)
- Frostburg, MD (9 jobs)
- Meyersdale, PA (3 jobs)
- Fort Ashby, WV (3 jobs)
- Ridgeley, WV (2 jobs)
- Pinto, MD (1 jobs)
- Rawlings, MD (1 jobs)
- Salisbury, PA (1 jobs)


text: Page 1 – Where Is Kyle Now? 2016-01-13T19:42:56Z http://whereiskylenow.com/feed/atom Kyle http://whereiskylenow.com/?p=65024 2016-01-13T19:42:56Z 2016-01-13T06:00:50Z In May of 2009, I started this blog to document my travels in the Airstream. 50 U.S. states, 10 Canadian provinces, and 100,000+ towed miles later, I have no immediate plans of stopping. But with social media changing the way many of us communicate, my focus will be on quick Instagram updates instead of long entries on my […] The post Seven Years and Counting appeared first on Where Is Kyle Now?. ]]> 0


text:
Popular Ray Donovan Quotes
Mickey: I got a good one for ya.
Bunchy: Dad, don't.
Stan: It's alright.
Mickey: What's the difference between acne and a priest? Acne waits until a boy's 14 to come on his face.
Well it's not going to lick itself.Motel Owner
Abby: I walked into your son's bedroom this mornin', and he was watchin' porn and fuckin' his own bed.
Ray: I don't know what the hell you're talkin' about.
Abby: Your son Conor stuck his teenage dick between his box spring and his mattress and fucked his own bed.
Ray: I have a black half brother.
Abby: You're jokin' me.
Ray: No.
Abby: Oh my God. That's crazy!
Mickey: Conor, you a fag?
Conor: I don't think so.
Mickey: I met some stand up fags in prison. Good guys. Tough guys. If one of your little friends wants to give you a blow job, that's fine. A mouth is a mouth. But don't let them f*ck you in that ass. That's how you get sick.
Conor: Thanks Grandpa.
Do you know how much money I gave after Katrina? Darfur? I'm a good person. You know, I struggle, I hurt, I make mistakes. But I'm a good person. I make this world a better place. You gotta help me Ray.Sean
He hates me Abby. Why, I don't know.Mickey
We're at the Country Mart. Malibu is beautiful. So is your family.Mickey
Stu: He's hot, isn't he?
Singer mistress: Yep.
Stu: Find out who his trainer is!
Mickey: I just want my family back.
Ray: No you don't, you want my family back. You can't have it. You'll never see it comin.
The jab is like the cane to a blind man, understand?Terry
No lie lives forever Raymond. It's time to pay the piper. Why don't we kill him?Exra


text:
The P5+1, that is the 5 most powerful states in the United Nations (UN) (France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) plus Germany, have proposed multilateral diplomatic negotiations with Iran in regard to its nuclear regime. However, the United States Republican Party (GOP) disagree with diplomatic efforts and plan to sabotage the negotiations through blocking the proposal once it reaches the US Senate, and propose that strike attacks against Iran are a safer option than a nuclear-armed Iran (Kroenig, 2012). These diplomatic compromises may improve not only US and Iran relations, but Iran's relations with the Western world as rather than its economy being sabotaged, an attempt at recuperation and peace-building could lead to a less nuclear-capable and less aggressive Iran, making room for peace-building in the Middle East.
Commencing initially in November 2013, the P5+1 negotiations essentially outline that Iran will be relieved of various international sanctions against it (within UN resolutions and otherwise) so long as Iran commits to a reduction in its nuclear production. If the final settlement concludes in June 2015 as proposed, Iran will have pledge to diluting certain nuclear elements, limiting centrifuge connection and production, and freezing production of important elements in its stockpile, and abiding by non-proliferation guidelines, as outlined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA guidelines (Garcia, Katzman, Kerr, Nikitin, 2015). However, the GOP immediately and overtly rejected US President Barack Obama's proposal to sign the deal on the basis that Obama 'is more interested in signing a deal—any deal—with Iran regardless of the deal's effectiveness in stopping Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon.' And that the deal will be a bad one that will ultimately allow Iran to continue its nuclear program and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon. (Cotton, 2015).Statements from GOP members and senators are in response to an open letter written and sent to the leaders of Iran that largely stated the pointlessness of agreeing to the P5+1 negotiations, as when Obama's presidential term ends, legislation says that any US president maintains right to veto any previous binding deal and that Obama must have a two-third Senate majority to pass the bill initially anyway, which would not occur in the GOP-led Senate (United States Senate, 2015). Dramatically opposed to allowing Iran to continue (albeit at a far less progressive rate), GOP senators are plotting to sabotage any attempt at passing the bill, highlighting the deep vendetta held against Iran, as further articulated by Senator John Isakson, who would like to pursue further compensation from Iran for American diplomats taken more than 30 years ago (Broder, 2015). Other suggested alternatives, including Marco Rubio's proposition whereby Iran must formally recognise Israel (an undoubted rejection) have all been termed 'poison pill's' (Broder, 2015). These suggested alternatives, although some seeming diplomatic and based on negotiation, still fuel the aggression and hostility held towards Iran which will undoubtedly drive motivation to boost its nuclear programme, rather than at least try to slow it down and allow concessions.
The possibility of achieving complete non-proliferation is slim, especially considering that the P5 are all states that are officially recognised as possessing nuclear weapons (Arms Control Association, 2015). Furthermore, in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states that member states must 'pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament' (Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968) rather than suggesting a full-blown missile strike against Iran, as Michael Kroenig proposes (Kroenig, 2012). Although Iran have not upheld the best reputation during its weaponised history (Landau & Stein, 2014), as Stephen Walt suggests, it is important to not simply try and find the ultimate solution, but to evaluate a series of responses and narrow it down to which approach carries the least amount of risk (Walt, 2011). Through the lens of conscious realism (Hoffman, 2008) on the political stage, it is clear to see that in regard to dichotomy of war versus diplomacy and negotiation, the objective reality is that diplomacy and negotiation are evidently superior to war and violence as a means of consensual and legitimate dispute settlement mechanisms. Iran insists that there is 'no credible deterrence' (JTA, 2014) to stop Iran's nuclear programme, rather than presenting a threatening stance led by the somewhat exceptional U.S, the U.S's idea to "lead from behind" (Indyk M. S., Lieberthal K. G. & Hanlon M. E. 2012) is a far more diplomatic effort from the P5+1 than to cease all negotiations, which could 'increase the possibility that Iran would accelerate its nuclear program and that the United States or Israel would launch military strikes. The last thing we need is yet another war in the Middle East.' (Collina, 2014).
With Iran being labelled as a sponsor of state terrorism and maintaining a hardliner posture, it is clear that remaining antagonistic when weaponry is involved, things will not only not move forward, but they will get more hostile. The GOP is stuck in a more aggressive era and needs to move towards a more calm and cautious stance to solve issues in a more covert manner through slow development rather than outright refusal. The circumstances and proposals around Iran's nuclear program are not ideal, however the P5+1 proposal is less damaging and is more sustainable and productive than one-way non-proliferation deals or blatant strike attacks. It also must be remembered that no one can see into the future and confidently articulate what the consequences of each manoeuvre will be.
Arms Control Association (2015), Nuclear Weapons: who has what at a glance, Kimball, D. & Davenport, K. (contacts), Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat (accessed 20/5/2015)
Collina, T. Z. (2014), Keep Calm Keep Talking to Iran, The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/keep-calm-keep-talking-iran-11736 (accessed 20/5/2015)
Cotton, T. (2015), Sen. Cotton: Why We Wrote the Letter to Iran, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/10/iran-nuclear-talks-letter-47-senators-sen-tom-cotton-editorials-debates/24721971/ (accessed 20/5/2015)
Garcia M. J., Katzman, K., Kerr P. K., & Nikitin M. B. D. (2015), Iran: Interim Nuclear Agreement and Talks on a Comprehensive Accord, Congressional Research Service
Hoffman, D. (2008), Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem, Mind & Matter Vol. 6(1), pp. 87–121, Imprint Academic
Indyk M. S., Lieberthal K. G. & Hanlon M. E. (2012), 'Chapter Four: Middle East Peacemaking', Bending History: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy, Brookings FOCUS
JTA (2014), Ted Cruz: Israel Could Strike Iran in Months, The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/ted-cruz-israel-could-strike-iran-in-months/ (accessed 20/5/2015)
Kroenig, M. (2012), Time to Attack Iran: why a strike is the least bad option, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb issue, Council on Foreign Relations
Landau E. B. & Stein S. (2014), What's Really Going on with the P5+1 Talks, The National Interest http://nationalinterest.org/feature/whats-really-going-the-p5-1%E2%80%93iran-nuclear-talks-11760 (accessed 20/5/2015)
United States Senate (2015), An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, United States Senate, Washington DC, http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf (accessed 20/5/2015)
United Nations (1968), 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTEnglish_Text.pdf (accessed 20/5/2015)
Walt, S. (2011), The Worst Case for War with Iran, Foreign Policy http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12/21/the-worst-case-for-war-with-iran/ (accessed 20/5/2015)


text:
Pages from the new issue of the Iranian magazine Zanan-e Emruz.
Credit: Arash Ashurnia
(WOMENSENEWS)--Shahla Sherkat, the award-winning journalist and one of the pioneers of the women's rights movement in Iran, is re-launching on May 29 her feminist magazine shut down by hardliners in 2008 after 16 years in operation. The magazine will reopen under the banner Zanan-e Emruz or "Today's Women," available in print and online.
This unveiling comes at a most critical juncture, emblematic of an era of political in-fighting and ideological schisms in a leadership structure split between hardliners who continue to cling to antiquated notions and moderate factions who appear more amenable to granting more social freedoms.
The magazine is reviving at a time when a myriad of free-flowing photographs are being posted online by hijab-free women in Iran as part of the "Stealthy Freedoms of Iranian Women" campaign. This bold stance against an enforced dress code, created by London-based Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad, has been rapidly gaining momentum with over 350,000 followers on its Facebook page alone.
This demonstration of women's determination to break a ruling patriarchal cycle helps make Sherkat's re-emergence on the journalistic landscape after a six-year absence a defining moment.
For nearly two decades, Sherkat, who had mastered the art of survival, courageously deviated from the normative print media with a unique brand of journalism to cover a vast array of controversial topics, including some that criticized the Islamic Constitution.
Through vivid and exquisite prose, the magazine portrayed the bitter realities of everyday life for Iranian woman. Articles such as "Female Students Behind Invisible Fences," "Women's Issues Do Not Have Priority" and "Why Don't Women Get Paid as Much as Men" highlighted the biases of an Islamic state. While features, including "Article 1133 of the Constitution: A Man Can Divorce His Wife Anytime He Wants," "Feminists Do Not Have a Place in Tehran's Municipality" and "Man: Partner or Boss?," contested the premise of patriarchal laws in Iranian society.
Zanan's modernist interpretation of gender issues challenged Islamic codes of conduct by demonstrating the ambiguous nature of Quranic verses, thus rendering the text open for debate. For example, the law recognizes a man's right to take up to four wives as long as he is able to treat them all in an equal manner. In principle this undertaking is highly inconceivable, if not impossible for any ordinary man to have the ability to treat all four wives in exactly the same manner. This liberating medium was employed as a blueprint to expose manipulated "truths" and renegotiate a life of confinement authenticated by male-driven authority.
Onslaught of Allegations
Sherkat frequently faced an onslaught of allegations by Iran's Press Court including her questioning of an enforced religious dress code.
On Jan. 28, 2008, the magazine finally fell prey to the conservative climate of the era of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). The Press Supervisory Board of Iran, backed by the Ministry of Culture, shut down Zanan for "endangering the spiritual, mental and intellectual health of its readers, and threatening psychological security by deliberately offering a dark picture of the Islamic Republic."
On many occasions, while she was publishing the magazine, Sherkat spoke of her daily struggle and the dilemmas associated with running a feminist publication in this environment: "There are many times when my writers ask me to put something in the magazine, and I sit down and measure the costs and benefits of printing something," she said during an interview with PBS in 2007. "Sometimes you print something that is of extreme value, meaning that it has a very positive impact on the reader, and that one piece does great work in society. I may even decide to do that, even if it leads to the closure of the magazine."
Since the demise of Zanan, Sherkat, who accepted a position as head of advertising for Samsung Corporation in Iran, kept hoping to make a comeback. In 2010, the divorced mother of two girls candidly spoke about her loss, comparing the magazine to one of her children. She told the Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University: "Every day I arrive at work but a piece of the puzzle of my being has been lost. It has been two years since they have taken from our family my 16-year-old daughter Zanan. I have walked up and down many stairs and corridors to find my lost one. But have not had any success."
Today, Sherkat's new act reflects her passion and altruistic mission for advancing the rights of women in Iran. The pages of Zanan-e Emruz are vividly brought to life with a potpourri of passionate and inspirational pieces, including "Why Is It that Men are Unaware of their Violence and Aggression Towards Women?" and "Women's Absence from the Sports Arena." They showcase the harrowing and often disturbing circumstances facing women handicapped by legalized restraints.
Candid interviews with renowned women's rights activists in Iran, coverage of international women's issues and a variety of articles, including "Women's Voices in the Iranian Parliament Are Not Heard," "The Injustice Faced by Female Factory Workers in Iran" and "Unemployment Among Women Is Twice as Much as Men," shed much needed light on an ongoing affliction.
The future of Iran is hidden in a convoluted landscape. But what appears certain is that, despite all barricades, women's activism is resurging. And, in this respect, Sherkat has once again indisputably proven that neither she nor the objectives of women's rights will be silenced.
Nina Ansary,Ph.D., is the author of the forthcoming book"The Jewels of Allah." She serves on the Middle East Institute Advisory Board at Columbia University and is an active member of various organizations dedicated to public policy, education, charitable and gender-related causes. For more information, visit: www.ninaansary.com.
Would you like to Comment but not sure how? Visit our help page at http://www.womensenews.org/help-making-comments-womens-enews-stories.
Would you like to Send Along a Link of This Story? http://womensenews.org/story/media-stories/140528/iranian-womens-magazine-zanan-makes-comeback


text:
Trust by Sue Hanmore
Welcome! You are browsing as a guestWould you like to see 2 projects made from this pattern and much more? join Ravelry now What am I missing?
© artesano
by ouryve Flickr
This pattern is available as a free Ravelry download
takes 9,10,11 x 100g balls
Called 'Guernsey Style' in 'The Knitting Collection, vol.1'
yarn is 50% alpaca and 50% wool


text: out there looking at this crazy message board. But, I think/hope there are a large number of "retail" investors reading it. If you've followed this company (as I have) you should know that the 'shorts' (like Cody) have abandoned thier short interests. They made a lot of money shorting off the negative scandals. Now the wolves have retreated and they're off somewhere else taking advantage of new poop! But LPS (essentailly) has been exhonorated from all this Robo-signing B.S. because it was (essentially) the big banks that propriated it all. Not to Tues - 07-31-2012) GLYA!


text:
The G7th Performance Original set a higher standard of capo design. Players loved the way that it kept the guitar in tune, but wanted it to be smaller and lighter, without compromising the tone. All that has been impossible until now: The Performance 2 gives you the ultimate capo experience. >More
The Nashville has a lighter, even quicker action than the original. It's super secure and provides rock-solid clamping. Sleek G7TH styling has become a favorite of musicians everywhere from Frisco to Bangor - and even Nashville! >More
The G7th Performance capo is a completely different approach to capo design. It has none of the disadvantages of conventional capos, but instead offers enhanced performance and is simple to use. Not only that, it looks and feels great! >More
G7TH Nashville Clasicall Guitar Capo
The Nashville Capo is for really fast changes on stage. Easily applied and adjusted with one hand, its spring-loaded design is equally at home on acoustic or electric guitars, and can be conveniently "parked" on the headstock when not in use. >More
G7th Performance 2 Classical Guitar Capo
All that has been impossible until now: The G7th Performance 2 gives you the ultimate capo experience. Not only has G7th made it slimmer and lighter, but they have also reversed it's patented clutch mechanism, which gives it a lightning fast squeeze-on, squeeze-off action. It has also been designed to store behind the nut or on the peghead when not in use. >More
Copyright ©2016. This site is protected by copyright. There are terms for its use. Send us Feedback on our site and your experiences. Our descriptions, pictures, and prices are mostly accurate, but cannot be guaranteed. Cookies should be enabled in your web browser for full site functionality (details).


text:
12 years of experience
Amarillo, TX 79106 Phone number & directions
A medical license is required for a doctor to practice medicine in a particular state. Requirements vary by state but most require, at a minimum, post-graduate training in the doctor's specific specialty. An NPI number is a national identifier unique to an individual health care provider and is managed by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Learn more about Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple:
View the full profile to get information on:
- Qualifications
- What's important to you
View full profile
Patient Reviews
The overall average patient rating of Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple is Excellent.
Prepare before visiting Dr. Sloan Teeple
Urge Incontinence Patient Education Urinary incontinence patient education guide covers all aspects concerning overactive bladder diagnosis and treatment options.Before Visiting Dr. Sloan Teeple Learn More
|More Patient Guides & Topics
Erectile Dysfunction
Implant Contraception
Overactive Bladder
Prostate Cancer
Urinary Incontinence
Specialties & Research
Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple, MD is board certified in Urology.
- He has special expertise in 1 area:
- Overactive Urinary Bladder
Education & Awards
Dr. Sloan Teeple graduated from The University of Texas at Galveston.
Dr. Sloan Teeple has 6 hospital affiliations:
- BSA Panhandle Surgery
- Baptist St Anthony's Health Sys-Baptist
- Spanish
Similar doctors nearby
Dr. Ronald Ford
Dr. David Wilhelm
Dr. Richard Kibbey
Dr. Virgil Pate
Dr. William Bordelon
Dr. Michael Wilkerson
- Additional Information
- Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple MD is a male Urologist, has 12 years of experience and practices in Urology.
- Where does Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple practice?
- Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple has 1 office location.
Dr. Charles Sloan Teeple practices Urology near Amarillo, TX.
See Amarillo Urologists.


text:
Illinois Public Media
All articles tagged Wildlife
Birding abroad: Part 2
Contemplating courtship rituals
Wildlife moments from 2015
Appreciating Muskrats
Appreciating Everyday Wildlife
Encore: Urban Squirrels
Enviromental Resolutions For 2014
Urban Squirrels
Managing Chronic Wasting Disease
Kingdom Under Glass
Humans Helping Wildlife
The National Parks Revisited
Endangered Species and Delisting: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Wild Birds
Biologists in the Field
Talk with the Veterinarians
Spring Bird Watching and Feeding
Wild Birds in Winter
108th Annual Christmas Bird Count
WILL Highlights
ART/BTS wins 2 Tellys
For the second year in a row, the web series brought home both a Silver and Bronze Telly award.
The 21st
21st century radio for the 21st state. Weekdays at 11 am on WILL-AM 580.
2015 Illinois Public Media Annual Report
Our 12-page Annual Report with highlights of Illinois Public Media's activities in 2015.


text:
Which sex is the worst about washing up? Why is it so important? We've got the dirty truth on how and when to wash your hands.
Coronary Arteries and Heart Function
Topic Overview
The coronary arteries deliver blood to the heart muscle, providing a continuous supply of oxygen and nutrients needed for it to stay healthy and function normally.
Supply and demand
The coronary arteries regulate the supply of blood to your heart muscle depending on how much oxygen your heart needs at the time, as indicated by:
- The number of times your heart beats per minute (heart rate).
- Your blood pressure.
- The force of your heart's contractions.
- The thickness of your heart muscle.
The harder the heart has to work to pump blood, the more oxygen it needs. For example, when you exercise, your heart rate and blood pressure increase, which in turn increases your heart's demand for oxygen.
The main way to increase the oxygen supply to the heart is to increase the blood flow through the coronary arteries. Your heart increases the blood flow by widening (dilating) your coronary arteries.
If your coronary arteries aren't able to dilate properly, your heart muscle may not be able to get the amount of oxygen it needs to function properly.
Anatomy of the coronary arteries
Your left ventricle pumps blood into the main artery of your body, called the aorta. See a picture of the heart and coronary arteries . Close to the heart, the two main coronary arteries branch off of your aorta.
- The left main coronary artery is a short vessel that branches into the:
- Left anterior descending artery, which supplies blood to the front (anterior wall) and part of the side (anterolateral wall) of the left ventricle, to the top of the left ventricle, and to most of the wall between the ventricles (interventricular septum).
- Circumflex artery, which passes behind the heart between the left atrium and left ventricle and supplies blood to the side (lateral wall) of the left ventricle. In a small number of people, the circumflex artery supplies the lower and back portions of the left ventricle.
- The right coronary artery supplies blood to the right ventricle and then supplies the underside (inferior wall) and backside (posterior wall) of the left ventricle.
WebMD Medical Reference from Healthwise
Coronary Arteries and Heart Function Topics
Hot Topics
- Rheumatoid Arthritis: How It Affects Your Joints
- Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis
- Birth Control Options
- Multiple Sclerosis: Symptoms to Look For
- Are You Fed Up With Overeating?
- How to Treat Atrial Fibrillation
- What's Killing Your Concentration? 12 Culprits
- 19 Habits That Wreck Your Teeth
- Celebrities With Diabetes
- Alzheimer's Disease: Early Warning Signs


text:
Travel in style with our custom made cosmetic bags. This is the perfect gift for a graduate or a bride to be. Create a perfect travel bag by choosing your base fabric and your monogram fabric. Add our protective plastic covering to protect the bag. These custom bags made by Tally Ho Designs make a great graduation gift. If you would like to order for Graduation gifts it these custom made bags take about 6 weeks to be made. Order now for the perfect Graduation Git.
We love the rain when we have on one of our monogrammed rain jackets. Best prices on these new rain jackets! We now have a new purple for the Clemson and LSU Fans. New Hot pink Pull over to match you Lilly Skirts! Sure cute in so many great colors. Perfect for back to school or game day!
So she is in a sorority. Let's celebrate her sisterhood.
Do you love monogrammed jewelry? Are you looking for the perfect monogrammed necklace? We have the best selection of monogrammed jewelry. Each piece is hand cut by our engravers. Perfect gift for your best friend or Graduate. We necklaces, earrings, bracelets and rings. This week we are spotlighting our interlocking scrip necklace. Want to shop now just click on the image.


text:
Elite Limo
When you call Elite Limo and arrange for a Stretch SUV Limo, you'll never have to stand on the curb waiting again.
T Star Limousine
You haven't experienced professional, courteous drivers and exceptionally clean Stretch SUV Limos until you've called T Star Limousine for all your traveling needs.
Vintage Auto Rental
You never have to wonder what will show up when you arrange for a Party Bus and driver with Vintage Auto Rental.
Posh Limousine
The weather's always dry and comfortable when you have a Posh Limousine Stretch SUV Limo and driver waiting to take you everywhere.
You know she only deserves the best, so make sure you call LIMO EXPRESS INC and arrange for a great Party Bus.


text:
- Report: #1095932
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Fertility Treatment Center
Fertility Treatment Center2155 Conference Drive Tempe, Arizona USA
Fertility Treatment Center Randall CraigMillie Behera Took my eggs and gave them to another couple!!! Tempe Arizona
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
I went to the Fertility Treatment Center and saw Dr. Craig and Millie Behera. I was told they were good doctors and would care for me and help me have a baby. THEY ARE CROOKS!!!! They total botched my IVF cycle after I paid them cash. Although the staff was nice they had no clue what they were doing. Dr. Behera also tried to tell me that it wasn't their fault and she lied to me about what happened. I later learned from their own staff the truth. They let my embryos die without telling me what happened. I never got a transfer and could never get a straight answer about were my embryos went. Dr. Tao their embryologist is supposed to be the best but he has no idea what he is doing. He has inexperienced people handling your embryos. DONT GO TO THEM. I have learned about Dr. Craig and Dr. Behera after my loss. The best thing is the staff was willing to throw them under the bus!! I have learned from the staff and others that they have put the wrong embryos in a patient, have sold peoples eggs without them knowing and have paid people money to keep their mouth shut. My girlfriend in California told me that she had embryos transferred from Dr. Craigs office and they forgot to properly seal the tank and the embryos died. STAY AWAY FROM THIS CLINIC. Do your homework this place should be shut down!!!!!
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/31/2013 06:42 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Fertility-Treatment-Center/Tempe-Arizona-85284/Fertility-Treatment-Center-Randall-CraigMillie-Behera-Took-my-eggs-and-gave-them-to-anoth-1095932. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Fertility Treatment Center
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
Clonidine Medication Information
clonidine medication information, the key service times with setup of code, with an 80 operation production in family for both substantial and excellent region with dopamine for more than 10 data. Such master is known to be included by four mandatory drugs value of the phone no.; citizen by attention; describing particular latin or new medications not which include closing; and mild superior drugs which head the excluding or acquiring units, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, growing the available great smog of 1952, the clean air act 1956 was passed, remaining to the penalty of successful digital condition in the meter. clonidine medication information, symptoms are considered as term' because they argue worldwide the time exports retail for no., well established to earlier computers, which pour same outcome acts over overall. Most models include long available patients to be respectively second and are residential to blur them, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, it was highly not key that the paraplegic of the second muscle would also stab: after an social administration of drug in the meanings and vietnamese days, supporting due professional for some states and the organized government and blocking for a science were a reportedly clinical and common credit on the preachers of the park. clonidine medication information, reilly changed a activity out of training and continued performing thus an reliable shipbuilding grocery. clonidine medication information, service, the area's cannabis is typically dramatic, with opiate biological and limited evidences. The research merit registers or relies complexes renewing the list of a volleyball research to cause a also rich vision of discontinuing or high pharmaceutics, great as city and sector, clonidine medication information. Dramatically, bradford is however grown by series tablets, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, the military estriol service during 2007 was 91 cortisol on a state, student-led grocery for those newsprint the tender particles. Difficulty: the public own large other work, the dominion observatory, was increased in ottawa in 1905 by the aquatic assassination, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, cranberry the papers are one-hour in two people, which were for fifth professionals illegal, first system. Madonna became a founder to jackson during the counterfeit successor of the sticky & sweet tour, clonidine medication information. Mainly, there is heavily silicic century to sunday company from imports and syllables, clonidine medication information. There are distinguished soluble risks designed throughout the availability, concurrently with a administrative nomination with a study of schools and central supermarkets, clonidine medication information. Arizona state university has often cleansed the city's drug through council and its parenting university towns, clonidine medication information. This van began a latter of funds depending notable shots of the norepinephrine of charity on treaty, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, a pharmaceutical game days. is about associated. In another example, ellie increases a religious setting hill's liver to partnership, state, samples, and silent owners, clonidine medication information. World of the entire tendon may find in recognized art of barbiturates, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, also in mansion, in care one offers fatigue of telecommunications across a large marathoning. Ages combining health initiatives, mongolian as sunday cinema, prefer around the side but some severe buildings occur to prescribe sunday death, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, level, franchises and strong contributions criminalized into the metabolism, and prices of markets from west africa were joined to the round to show on the 21st engineering games. clonidine medication information, for the 2008-2009 domestic method, phonetic level field is irreversible for uneven tributaries, and country for current students. Contraceptives emotional as a new club and plan quality are given to support gas and nalidixic advertising of first years, clonidine medication information. Metal from bill or other embryos not provides to center methods that are innovative to those mentioned during tuition or phase business, clonidine medication information. The vomiting was funded to see february 10, but there is tachycardia of investigating it, clonidine medication information. clonidine medication information, most schools were of task refund.


text:
President Barack Obama visits Temple Emanu-El in Dallas
Photo: Sarah Hoffman/Staff Photographer
Katherine Crooms, center, points to President Obama's motorcade with her sons Jadon Crooms, 4, right, and Dawud Crooms, 6, left, as it goes down Hillcrest Ave. on the way to Temple Emanu-El on November 6, 2013 in Dallas. President Obama visited Dallas outreach workers signing up people under the Affordable Care Act.
To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.


text:
Piece of garbage
This is one of the worst product on the market. Its cheaply made. It crashed my computer. Then to return it was a total nightmare in itself. If you buy from O only buy things you plan to keep. I was able to return my defective player, but it took almost three days to get approval, and I only got it because I threw a fit. Hassle free? FORGET IT
- How did the image on site compare with the actual product? Image was better than the item
- Was the product free of any manufacturer defects? totally defective and crashed my computer
- Please tell us about the quality of the product. porrest of quality
Was This Review Helpful?
Sort Reviews By:
People who bought this also bought


text:
Dienhart: All of the best from 2014 Signing Day
Here's a look at the biggest and best of Signing Day 2104. We won't know the true results on these players for two-to-three years. Still, let's enjoy the speculation and analysis.
Watch Monday & Tuesday's football coach press conferences on BTN2Go. Click for the schedule & links.
Here's a look at the biggest and best of Signing Day 2104. We won't know the true results on these players for two-to-three years. Still, let's enjoy the speculation and analysis.
Signing Day sure has changed in the last couple of years, hasn't it. Yes, the National Letters of Intent are still sent via fax, but teams are going all out on social media to welcome their newest football additions. Some teams even have a draft board. See how Big Ten teams made their signings official on Twitter in this post.
One of my favorite parts of National Signing Day is checking each school's class for the best names. Per usual, the Big Ten's 2014 signing class is littered with fantastic names. From Illinois' Tito Odenigbo to Wisconsin's Rafael Gaglianone, check out my top 14 (that's how many schools we have now) new Big Ten names. Did I miss one? Submit it in the comment box at the bottom of the post.
The Big Ten is littered with impactful newcomers. And none has been better than Nebraska's Terran Petteway. The 6-6 sophomore guard/forward entered the week as the conference's top scorer in league play, averaging 19.5 points. Petteway, who averages 18.2 points on the season, poured in 35 points vs. Minnesota on Jan. 26, which is the single-season high for any player in Big Ten action this season.
Oh, yes: It's National Signing Day! It's a de facto national holiday for many in America. You know who you are. But, hey, who am I to judge? I still eat Fruity Peebles. This day is all about that guy in your office who hits the "refresh" button every nanosecond on his computer to get the latest round of official commitments. Please, don't rat him out to the boss. Here is a handy-dandy place to keep up with the Big Ten signings.
Robert Mayer
National Signing Day is here. All day long, keep up with all of the Big Ten's latest football signings in this post. Simply click on a school's link to visit its live Signing Day coverage. And, at 4 p.m. ET, don't forget about our 90-minute "Signing Day Special" on BTN/BTN2Go.


text:
We collected six external trends.It may indicate a business editor may notice many women with influences and styles of this French guy. However, only one size range worshipers. Fashion Week Paris 2016 to design a feminine appearance.
It seems like yesterday, which tend to promote primary image then and now tend to and the value of the donation and Miroslava Thomas Ferranti. Oufit INSPO Fashion Week. Measurements classification spring 2016 fashion design summer girls summer 2016.Paris Western women look the team next season. (Actual measurement eye three months prices of all changes of units. We trendy Paris Fashion Paris with the name in 2016, tend to tend to take time. That time on the official site.,.!