text:
The Herman M. Biggs Memorial Lecture.
—Dr. James S. McLester, Professor of Medicine at the University of Alabama, Chairman of the Council on Foods and Nutrition of the American Medical Association and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Medical Nutrition of the National Research Council, delivered the Herman M. Biggs Memorial Lecture on Thursday, April 2, at Hosack Hall, the New York Academy of Medicine, under the auspices of the Committee on Public Health Relations.His subject was "Nutrition and the Nation at War."
American Heart Association.
—The eighteenth scientific meeting of the American Heart Association will be held June 5 and 6, 1942, at Chalfonte-Haddon Hall, Atlantic City, N. J.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers' bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Need assistance?
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.


text:
|EcommerceBytes-NewsFlash, Number 1845 - August 01, 2008 - ISSN 1539-5065 1 of 4
Amazon.com has reached an agreement to acquire AbeBooks. AbeBooks is an online marketplace for books, with over 110 million primarily used, rare and out-of-print books listed for sale by thousands of independent booksellers from around the world. It also owns complementary book-selling and book-shopping properties.
AbeBooks will continue to function as a stand-alone operation based in Victoria, British Columbia and will maintain all of its websites, which include Abebooks.com, Abebooks.ca, Abebooks.co.uk, Abebooks.de, Abebooks.fr, Abebooks.it and Iberlibro.com. The acquisition is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, and is expected to close before the end of the fourth quarter of 2008.
According to the AbeBooks website, it acquired BookFinder.com - a leading price comparison shopping service dedicated to books - in November 2005. In February 2006, it acquired FillZ, a book inventory and order management company that helps booksellers offer books through online marketplaces. In May 2006, AbeBooks took a 40% stake in Librarything.com, a book cataloguing and social networking site for bibliophiles. In February 2008, AbeBooks launched Gojaba.com, a new no-frills, low-cost online marketplace for used, rare and out of print books in emerging markets.
In April 2008, AbeBooks acquired Chrislands.com - a service that builds, hosts and maintains online bookstores. Interestingly, Chrislands allows its sellers to accept PayPal and Google Checkout. Amazon.com just launched its own competing checkout and payment service this week.
Amazon.com vice president of books Russell Grandinetti said in a press release announcing the news, "As a leader in rare and hard-to-find books, AbeBooks brings added breadth and expanded selection to our customers worldwide. AbeBooks provides a wide range of services to both sellers and customers, and we look forward to working with them to further grow their business. We're excited to present all of our customers with the widest selection of books available any place on Earth."
About the author:
Ina Steiner is co-founder and Editor of EcommerceBytes and has been reporting on ecommerce since 1999. She's a widely cited authority on marketplace selling and is author of "Turn eBay Data Into Dollars" (McGraw-Hill 2006). Her blog was featured in the book, "Blogging Heroes" (Wiley 2008). Follow her on Twitter at @ecommercebytes and send news tips to firstname.lastname@example.com.
You may quote up to 50 words of any article on the condition that you attribute the article to
EcommerceBytes.com and either link to the original article or to www.EcommerceBytes.com.
All other use is prohibited.
Email this story to a friend.
1 of 4
Amazon.com to Webcast Investor Conference Presentation - December 09, 2008
Amazon Alerts Merchants of In-Demand Out-of-Stock Items - December 05, 2008
Amazon.com Completes Acquisition of AbeBooks - December 02, 2008
Amazon Sellers Report Glitch Limiting Listing Visibility - November 19, 2008

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"How the Drag Queen Stole Christmas" has a new home for its seventh annual edition.
The twisted holiday tale moves to the Calvin Center for a two-weekend run by the Rust Belt Theater Company.
Rust Belt founder Robert Dennick Joki continues to tweak the holiday show he created, and this year's production features several new songs co-written with Josh Taylor.
Article Photos
Special to the Tribune Chronicle
Robert Dennick Joki is back as Starrlet O'Hara in "How the Drag Queen Stole Christmas."
"The show now opens with a song called 'Good Morning, Youngstown,' which is a take off on 'Good Morning, Baltimore' from 'Hairspray,"' Joki said. "If people don't laugh at that, there's something wrong with them. It's really funny."
Other new tunes include "Apocalypse," "Dragzilla," "I'm Gonna Get Some Sleep If It Kills Me" and a brand-new finale called "Drag It Out for the Holidays." And past showgoers can expect an all new musical number chronicling the celebrities who died in 2012.
"This year was horrible for celebrity deaths," he said. "Usually I have to pick some more obscure celebrities to round out the song. This year, they were all A-list. Try coming up with something that rhymes with (Marvin) Hamlisch."
Fact Box
WHAT: Rust Belt Theater Company - "How the Drag Queen Stole Christmas"
WHEN: 8 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Dec. 8 and 8 p.m. and midnight Dec. 9
WHERE: Calvin Center, 755 Mahoning Ave., Youngstown
HOW MUCH: $15 adults and $10 for students and senior citizens. For reservations or more information, call 330-507-2358.
The songs old and new are woven around a story about Starrlet O'Hara (Joki), a bitter Christmas-hating drag queen who fires the other drag performers at her club on Christmas Eve. In a haze fueled by absinthe, Vicodin and laced brownies, she's visited by the ghost of her once-conjoined twin (Suzanne Shorrab) and the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future as a wakeup call to change her ways.
Suffice to say, this is not a traditional Christmas tale, and it's recommended for adult audiences. And the final performance, a midnight show on Dec. 8, is billed as a more risque event than the regular show.
This year's cast features Nicole Zayas, Marisa Zamary, Kelsie Moon, Celena Pollock Coven, Andrew Labedz, David Cirelli, Rachel Lynn Clifford, Vincent Sylvester, Jo Ellen Jacob, Beth Farrow, Lynn Sabeh, Kage Coven, Crystal Beiersdorfer, Tyler Norris, Murad Shorrab, Brooke Shorrab and Harrison Shorrab.
Murad Shorrab is the only performer besides Joki who has been involved with the show since the beginning.
"Murad and Brooke (Slanina) Shorrab met doing this show, and now they're married and have a child of their own," Joki said.
A new sound system and microphones purchased with money raised during October's production of "Living Dead: The Musical" allows Joki to move the show into the gymnasium at the Calvin Center, which gives him a larger stage to work with than he had at the Oakland Center for the Arts.
"There's a lot more dancing, a lot more choreography," he said. "I always wanted to have a couple little 'Nutcracker' spoofs, a couple little jokes about dance-y Christmas shows, but I didn't have the room before."
And, for now, Youngstown is the only place where this "Queen" will be dragged out. Joki said he got requests by groups in Columbus and Cleveland to stage the show, but he turned them down.
"I'm still not comfortable with packaging it," he said. "So much of the show has local flavor, I don't know if people in Columbus would find it as funny. And because it changes every year, I'd have to put together a generic version to go to other cities, and I just haven't done that yet."


text:
DTV trading on NYSE, future lies in brand product
Reflecting its core focus on satellite TV, News Corp. has changed the name of recently acquired Hughes Electronics Corp. to the DirecTV Group.
The El Segundo, Calif.-based satellite company and parent company of DBS operator DirecTV will trade under the ticker symbol DTV on the New York Stock Exchange as of today.
Prexy and CEO Chase Carey said the name change reflects the fact "the future of this company is centered on DirecTV… which will drive both our strategy and shareholder value going forward."
Satcaster claims just over 12.2 million subscribers in the U.S.
"The DirecTV name and brand resonates with consumers and this name change reaffirms and reinforces that our future lies with this business," Carey said.
Company is weighing offers for PanAmSat, Hughes' satellite operating group, and is rationalizing its Latin American businesses.
News Corp. took control of the company when it bought 34% of Hughes' common stock in December.


text:
Wednesday, July 3
Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club - NRA Alaska State High-Power, 300-Yard Prone Championship: Meet at 5 p.m. at Hank Harmon Rifle Range off Montana Creek Road for 5:45 p.m. event start. Course includes 20 shots with service rifle, 20 shots with iron sights and 40 shots with any sights. Enter one or all events. The best combined score is Alaska State Champion. Info: Mal Menzies, 789-9025, or Steve Bennett, 789-1717.
Douglas Fourth of July - Capital City Fire/Rescue Softball Game: Game time is 7 p.m. at Savikko Park Field No. 4. Hosted by Juneau Fire District.
Thursday, July 4
Douglas Fourth of July - Douglas Two-Mile Fun Run: Meet at 1:30 p.m. at Douglas side of Douglas Bridge for 2:30 p.m. race start. Finish line is near the Douglas Library. Info: Mary Ann Gosling, 789-9111, or by e-mail at email@example.com.
Douglas Fourth of July - Douglas Island Field Events: Kids' events (plus kids-parents sack races) start at 2 p.m. at Savikko Park Field No. 2.
Friday-Sunday, July 5-7
Juneau Alpine Club - Mount Wrather climb: This three-day trek requires an ice ax, crampons and camping gear. Info: Trip leader Dave Lefebvre, 789-4099.
Saturday, July 6
Southeast Road Runners Club - JRC/The Alaska Club Governor's Cup 5K and Kids' Half- and One-Mile Runs: Meet at 8:30 a.m. at the downtown court house (4th and Main) for 9 a.m. race start for 5K runners. Race finishes at Hospice and Home Care near Bartlett Memorial Hospital. Kids' runs start at 10 a.m. at the finish line of the 5K race. Info: Caro Rosier-Polley or Heather Johnson-Smith, 789-2181, or by e-mail at email@example.com.
Gathering of the Tribes Pow Wow - Tlingit war canoe races: Racing starts at 10 a.m. at Twin Lakes. Info: Juneau Pow Wow Club, Dianne Fleegal, 790-2964, or Garfield Katasse, by e-mail at email@example.com.
Saturday-Sunday, July 6-7
Juneau Yacht Club Sailing Squadron - Rum Cup Challenge races, Round 2: Two-day event features at 19-mile run from Auke Bay to Admiralty Cove on Saturday with return race on Sunday. Racing starts at 10 a.m. each day and is open to any single-hulled sailboat at least 21 feet long. A handicapping system is used so liveaboards can compete with racing sailboats. Sailboats must complete at least four of the eight legs of the series in order to be ranked in the final point standings. Info: Chris Miller, 789-3546, or on the Web at http://www.juneauyachtclub.org (then click Sailing Squadron link).
Juneau Department of Parks and Recreation - Beginning springboard diving class: Class meets from 6:15-7:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays from July 1-31 at the Augustus G. Brown Swimming Pool. Call the pool for class costs. Class size limited to seven people. Course teaches basic stretching and strengthening exercises and basic competitive diving skills with front and back approaches. Students should be comfortable diving off the low diving board. Info: Augustus G. Brown Swimming Pool, 586-5325.
Juneau Youth Football League - The JYFL seeks someone to fill the vacant cheerleading chair on its board of directors. The chair oversees all cheerleading actvities in the JYFL prgram. No cheerleading experience is required, just a desire to work with a valuable youth program. Info: JYFL president Karen Lawfer, 364-3642.
Juneau 4-H spring running program - The club is for runners in grades 1-5 (no kindergarten students this year) and is led by local runners John and Jamie Bursell. Parents are encouraged to run with their children. The season will end with the Douglas Fourth of July two-mile race on July 4 and the Governor's Cup one-mile race on Saturday, July 6. A $6 fee to join 4-H will be charged and updated schedules are available. Info: John or Jamie Bursell, 789-5997, or the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service, 465-8756.
Youth open gym - Meet from 8-11 p.m. on Saturdays (July 6, 13, 20 and 27; and Aug. 3, 10, 17 and 24) at Dzantik'i Heeni Middle School gym. Friday youth open gyms at Floyd Dryden Middle School are on hiatus until the school year starts again in the fall. Youth open gyms are free for students in grades 5-12. Info: Community schools director Joyce Kitka, 463-1700, Ext. 327.
Juneau Freewheelers Bicycle Club - Weekly women's training rides take place on Wednesdays, with alternating weeks riding from downtown and the Valley. Meet at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays at either the downtown or Valley locations of the Juneau Racquet Club. Info: Betsy Fischer, 586-6780 work, or 789-2033 home, or email@example.com.
Capital City Soccer League - Adult competitive soccer scrimmages: Meet from 5-7 p.m. on Sundays at Adair-Kennedy Memorial Park, or meet from 5:30-7:30 p.m. on Tuesdays at Dimond Park through the summer. Info: Kurt West of the CCSL, 364-2503.
Sports in Juneau is a service provided by the Juneau Empire to provide information on upcoming sports and outdoors events in Juneau. It runs when space is available and event notices should arrive at least one week before they are scheduled to take place. To submit an item to Sports in Juneau, please fax the info to 1-907-586-3028 or e-mail it to firstname.lastname@example.com.
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
Start my FREE digital subscription to Competitor!
Get ready to receive America's #1 running resource delivered directly to your inbox. By subscribing, you will receive a monthly e-mail to access the most recent issue of Competitor magazine and be able to:
Easily read each gorgeous issue on any mobile device.
Stay up to date on the latest shoe and gear reviews.
View exclusive training plans to kick off your training for any distance.
…And as always, it is absolutely free!
You will receive two years (24 issues) of Competitor digital with your free subscription. You can unsubscribe at any time. Print subscriptions are not available. Please use the store locator to find free copies of Competitor.View privacy policy


text:
Honda Vehicles Near Oregon City, OR
Sponsored vehicleNew 2015 Honda Accord Suggested Starting Price: $22,105 MSRP Excluding Freight & OptionsFind Your New Accord Build Your Accord
Search Honda by Style
Honda Reviews & News
Auto Show
2017 Honda Civic Type R: Paris Auto Show - Video
The 2017 Honda Civic Type R turned heads at the Paris Auto Show despite scant details on performance and equipment.
Auto Show
Honda Civic Type R: Paris Auto Show
The Honda Civic Type R is back, and this time it's coming to America.
2016 Honda Pilot: Road Trip to New Orleans
Does the new 2016 Honda Pilot measure up as a great road-trip vehicle? Let's see if it has what it takes.
2017 Honda Accord Hybrid: New Car Review
Offering the best fuel economy and horsepower in its segment, the 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid returns to showrooms.
Lower Gas Prices Lead to Record Number of Drivers in 2016
Cheap gas prices have Americans hitting the road in record numbers.
Do Automakers Care About Depreciation?
It's time for Ask Doug, where Doug answers all of your most important automotive-industry questions.


text:
For quite a while now, probably a long while, I won't be able to connect my Xbox to Xbox Live, but I want to download some DLC. My question is, would it be possible to download it to my thumbstick online and then use that thumbstick to play the DLC on my console?
Unfortunately not. DLC must be downloaded directly to the console. This prevents piracy and also allows for console licenses (which allow all users on the original downloading console to utilize the DLC).
Oh well, thanks anyway.
Yes you can download to your USB drive and use the DLC from there, as the license would still belong to your console.
Putting the drive in another console wouldn't work if you were thinking of piracy because they'd still the purchasing gamertag to use it and need that tag to be connected to Live.
I know this because I got as new console for my birthday last week and had to use a spare USB drive to download some content to because the internal storage was not enough for all I wanted. My Resident Evil 5 DLC if you are interested in what was downloaded to the USB stick.
Sorry jawest you are usually spot on with your advice but in this case you're dead wrong.
Mass Effect 3 - MEHEM and Extended Anderson Conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmofIH7rN9U.
Ah no I am a muppet and must be beaten, jawest was perfectly correct. It seems the OP wants to download on a PC and transfer the content to a USB stick, which absolutely will not work I am very sorry jawest.
Yeah, I knew you could keep the DLC on a USB stick if you downloaded it through the 360 but alas, seems I'm to be without DLC for a while unless I can figure out a creative way to do this...
The only solution for you is the hope that the games will release DLC on disc. Some games such as Fallout 3 and Borderlands have done.
Unfortunately there is no way to download DLC on your PC and have it work with your console though.
The only other possible solution I can think of is to bring your entire XBox to a location with an Internet connection and download DLC to your console (flash drive or hard drive only will not work). That way, when you bring your console back home, you will have the license linked to your account/console and will be able to use the DLC offline.
@voteDC: No worries. We're all just trying to help.
That's certainly a good idea jawest, but I just came up with a creative answer to this problem. Thanks all you guys anyway because you definitely answered my question. This was my first question and I didn't expect people here to be so nice and helpful. Again, thanks for all the ideas but luckily I came up with what I think is an easier one.
Might I ask what your creative answer was?...im having the same issue with the DLC content for Arkham Origins...I reaaalllly wanna play the Death Stroke campain. It came with the game but I dont have internet at my apartment to do so. :(


text:
To the Editor: Dr Formenti and colleagues1 demonstrated that prone positioning (vs supine positioning) significantly decreased the volume of heart and lung tissue exposed to radiation in women being treated for breast cancer. However, an important component of radiation-induced cardiac toxicity, in addition to the volume of irradiated myocardium, is the extent of coronary artery irradiation.2- 4
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Need assistance?
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.


text:
Seems glitzy dance costumes have long been a part of Kendra Wilkinson's life.
The Dancing with the Stars contestant posted a photo of her younger, blue Spandex-sporting self on her Web site Monday, writing that she "stumbled upon these old school pics from when i took dance when i was little."
She adds: "How funny are they?!?? I guess i have more experience than i thought i did lolol."
Does her childhood style stand the test of time? Sort of, says Wilkinson, 25.
"The outfit kinda reminds me of the blue dress i wore on my first night of Dancing with the Stars!!!" she writes. "Ahhhh looking at these makes me even more excited/nervous for tonight!"
Wilkinson is tied for last place on the show and is vulnerable in Monday night's vote. DWTS airs Monday at on ABC (8 p.m. ET).
Kendra Wilkinson Shares Her Tiny Dancer Photos
Courtesy Buzz Media; Bob D'Amico/ABC


text:
Skip to comments.A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]
Posted on 03/05/2002 12:52:58 PM PST by Southack
There is a recurring claim among a certain group which goes along the lines of "software programs can self-form on their own if you leave enough computers on long enough" or "DNA will self-form given enough time" or even that a million monkeys typing randomly on a million keyboards for a million years will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare.
This mathematical proof goes a short distance toward showing in math what Nobel Prize winner Illya Prigogine first said in 1987 (see Order Out of Chaos), that the maximum possible "order" self-forming randomly in any system is the most improbable.
This particular math proof deals with the organized data in only the very first sentence of Hamlet self-forming. After one examines this proof, it should be readily apparent that even more complex forms of order, such as a short story, computer program, or DNA for a fox, are vastly more improbable.
So without further adue, here's the math:
But we are talking about neutral mutations.
You're missing the key issue. While it's true that some individuals have more offspring because they have beneficial alleles and those alleles give a reproductive boost (by definition) to the individual, there's another possibility. That possibility is that even when individuals are on "equal footing" fitness-wise, SOME WILL PRODUCE MORE/LESS OFFSPRING SIMPLY BY PURE CHANCE. For a trivial example, one may have the bad fortune to be struck by lighting.
It should be trivially obvious that not all individuals end up having the same number of children, and that this differential is not entirely dependent upon genetic fitness. Luck, chance, other factors, call it what you will, plays a large part. Sometimes the big strong specimen gets hit by a car while the runt survives to reproduce.
This is what drives genetic drift.
An allele can reproduce faster than the general population only when it has a non-neutral effect (meaning that it has selective advantage). You look it up.
I *have* looked it up, which is why I can tell you that you're wrong. I told *you* to look it up in my previous post, you should have taken my advice.
If you had, you might have "looked up" such things as:
"If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.505 to 0.510 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous."Or:
(Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704)
"In other words, as long as the allele provides its bearer with no selective advantages or disadvantages whatsoever, its fate in the gene pool is totally indeterminate. It may disappear as soon as it arises (elimination) or it may proceed toward q = 1 (fixation) in a seemingly haphazard pattern that is aptly described as a random walk: the course taken by the allele depends entirely on how the gamete pool happens to be sampled from one generation to the next."For more technical treatment, see: Kimura 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217: 624-628., or Kimura, M. 1983 The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Cambridge University Press, or S. Karlin. "A first course in stochastic processes". New York, London, Academic Press. 1968.
(Goodenough, Ursula in Genetics, 2nd ed. Harvard University 1978, p. 798-800)
If you want to look at the math, check out: Mathematical Methods of Population Genetics
(Sidebar: Why is it whenever anti-evolutionists challenge me to "look something up" it always supports *my* side when I do? Looks like *I'm* not the one who needs to be hitting the books harder.)
I already mentioned that it is a statistical percentage and that indeed you can get two or zero. This causes a problem for your theory because of the chance of it being none it shows that the mutation can indeed tend to dissappear in a fairly short number of generations.
That's no "problem" at all. Sure, a lot of mutations happen and then get lost in the shuffle. No one ever said they didn't. But what's important is that some *don't*, and these are the ones which become a part of the species' gene pool, available for further modification and recombination.
Just because a million people crap out on the lottery each week, that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of lucky millionaires out there.
Therefore, again, Neutral mutations will not spread. The statistics which you keep claiming prove it show the exact opposite.
Simply repeating that doesn't make it true.
Yes, many neutral mutations occur and then are "shuffled out". But many survive and *do* spread, just on pure blind luck, in a "random walk" through the population. The ones that matter aren't the ones that die out, it's the ones which do manage to persist which provide raw material for further evolution.
I earlier urged you to run any of the simulations which are available on the net. You clearly chose not to do so, which was a mistake. If you had, you would have seen ample evidence of how neutral alleles *can* indeed spread through a population. For example:
This represent 8 "trials" of a low-frequency neutral mutation across 250 generations. Note that although 3 do quickly go to extinction (lower left), one (the grey line) drifts quite a bit up and down in frequency until it finally dies off about 200 generations later, two (turquoise and yellow lines) are still present in the population 250 generations later, and, most notably, two (the green and blue lines) have not only managed to spread through the population, they have entirely *supplanted* all competing alleles -- there is now nothing *but* the new mutation in the population.
Furthermore, note that the turquoise line came *very* close to "topping out" before it fell in frequency.
The statistical chances are the same and will even out over several generations that is why neutral drift is false.
If you say so... Feel free to "look it up" and provide me with a citation for that amazing claim. And I mean a reputable biology text or research paper, not a creationist screed, they tend to get their facts and quotes wrong a lot.
Let's remember that you only have one mutation, one single individual able to spread it.
To start with, sure -- but they have a chance to have children, maybe a bunch of them.
Let's also remember that the laws of statistics show that allele frequency will not change except with selective advantage.
There you go again...
No, the "laws of statistics" most certainly do *not* "show" this. Neutral mutations follow the "laws of statistics" in the same way as a ball bearing on a flat, level, vibrating floor -- they can go *anywhere*.
Again, you might want to "look that up" and get back to us.
Therefore in a large population, which is what you need for the many chances required for gradual evolution, the laws of statistics show that the percentage of the mutation will continue to be infinitely small and no larger than the proportion of the one individual in the original population.
Not exactly ("infinitely small" is notably incorrect), but I'll give you the obvious fact that a given mutation has a harder time "winning out" in a large population than a smaller one.
What you're forgetting, however, is that since the population *is* larger, there are more individuals who can *have* mutations.
Example: If the error rate is 0.1 per individual, then in a population of 100 there will be 10 mutations per generation (spread out across different individuals).
But in a population of 1,000,000, there will be 100,000 mutations per generation.
So yeah, while it's true that in the larger population any *given* mutation has a much smaller chance of becoming widespread, the fact remains that because there are many more *total* mutations, *one* of them still has a good chance of prospering. Again, like playing the lottery, the odds of winning suck, but enough people play that there is a frequent stream of winners.
In fact, interestingly enough, the smaller chance of a given mutation prospering in a larger population is *exactly* balanced by the fact that larger populations produce more total mutations. In other words, large populations have the same rate of "successful mutation" addition to the population as do small populations (where "successful" means "a mutation which has managed to spread through the most or all of population).
From the Introduction to Biology FAQ:
If mutations are neutral with respect to fitness, the rate of substitution (k) is equal to the rate of mutation(v). This does not mean every new mutant eventually reaches fixation. Alleles are added to the gene pool by mutation at the same rate they are lost to drift. For neutral alleles that do fix, it takes an average of 4N generations to do so. However, at equilibrium there are multiple alleles segregating in the population. In small populations, few mutations appear each generation. The ones that fix do so quickly relative to large populations. In large populations, more mutants appear over the generations. But, the ones that fix take much longer to do so. Thus, the rate of neutral evolution (in substitutions per generation) is independent of population size.
(Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby)
Because of the complexity of genes and the need to change more than one base (indeed in my view you need completely new genes for new functions) this makes evolution totally impossible since a single base mutation will remain neutral until the complete series of mutations required to make a significantly more useful function has arisen and by the laws of genetics this is absolutely impossible.
You have made a number of invalid presumptions here, including:
1. You haven't taken into account the fact that many mutations are beneficial, not *all* evolutionary steppingstones are neutral.
2. This is especially true for changes that "build upon" an existing function.
3. "Completely new functions" most certainly do *not* require "completely new genes", the literature abounds with examples of a gene serving some prior purpose mutating and gaining a whole new purpose.
4. Being "significantly more useful" is not necessary, even being "slightly more useful" is more than enough of difference for selection to do its work.
5. You (vaguely) argue that something is improbable, then make an unsupported leap to "absolutely impossible". There's a vast difference between the two.
You must be very proud...
Oh, did you get your Nobel Prize yet?!
So what, over several generations it will average out. Also it means that many mutations will dissappear. The laws of statistics are very strict, and we know they work. They built the casinos in Las Vegas.
If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error.
Sampling error is way too small for it to have any effect on the matter at hand. The most you might get is that in a population of one million the sampling error will end up providing you a proportion of the allele of 1/500,000 instead of 1/1,000,000 this is not taking over the population. It also means that many mutations will die also due to 'sampling error'. As I keep saying, genetic drift is total bunk. You are starting with ONE (1) mutation you cannot get it to take over the whole population except by a miracle. Such miracles do not happen every day as evolution would require. You can postulate one or two miracles, but to postulate that not only will they happen once but numerous times to build and change one gene in one species a little bit is ludicrous. To postulate that such miracles happen all the time in all species all the time just shows that evolution is totally false.
BTW - the reason these folk have to write so much nonsense is that they are trying to obscure the truth. The truth is usually very simple, you do not need reams of nonsense to show it.
"Random" simply means unaided by any intelligent bias.--Post 81
From www.dictionary.com:
Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
There are natural occurances that are non-random. Chemical reactions are non random, for example.
Is it? Math is just a tool. Math by itself is not scientific. It's only as good as the assumptions used to plug in the initial conditions, and the answers are the same.
"Feedback" implies intelligent intervention into the process. Is that how you want to say that the first DNA came into being?
From dictionary.com:
The process by which a system, often biological or ecological, is modulated, controlled, or changed by the product, output, or response it produces.
Sounds like you can have natural feedback to me!
A good analogy is the climate in a given place. The climate for the following summer is affected by the climate of the previous summers. It gets feedback from the previous system in terms of the amount of water it recieved in the previous years, which affects growing and the amount of vegetation. Consecutive summers without liquid, and the feedback provided by previous years, will affect future years of vegetative development..
This leads into my next comment(post 444):
Just to be clear, a "fitness test" implies intelligent intervention.
Actually, you can have natural fitness tests. How do you get organic long chain molecules to form in the centers of giant molecular clouds in the sky? Well, first you have to succeed in getting two smaller chain molecules to bump together and molecularly bond, but the important physical test is to not have a photon of light add energy to the system to cause the molecule to disassociate. That's an good example of a netural fitness test that a molecule has to pass on its road to perpetual non-interestingness or to become something scientifically interesting. Chemically, there are other, more complex "fitness tests" that a molecule has to go through, but they probably would be too complex to go through here. One thing's for certain, the math would be a good deal more complex than that here.
I'm extremely interested in what the DNA of the bacteria that live under the earth's surface will reveal. It's not virgin DNA from the early Earth (that's all gone, I think), but it represents a completely independent evolutionary tree. It may provide links to what the early forms of DNA took, and that is important.
The author doesn't address the probability of combinations, or the fact that DNA creation isn't just a sequential process, why can't you have words form simultaneously in separate locations, and then combine? I'm afraid he doesn't explain that, either.
Hardly. He's not addressing the real world, just a straw man that he can knock down in place of the real world. Perhaps a compilation of all of his mistaken assumptions (both spoken and nonspoken) will be in order for a later post.
but his specific math is not speculation.
Has anyone on this thread ever questioned his math? I don't think so. You've been harping on this for the entire thread, and yet I haven't seen more than one person question has math (and I don't think you actually addressed that person). When we say "errors", we do not mean strictly mathematical errors, we can mean argumentative errors, errors in assumption, etc, as well. Of course, I don't have to mention to you (for a third time) that math is just a tool, and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is a big factor in any scientific analysis(also for the third time in this thread).
So does this mean that I can get on your case in an hour, provided you don't respond in that time? Some of us actually have a life, you know.
Are you sure about the independent tree. That would be news to me.
Lemme rephrase. Independent since at least the time it was buried. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I don't know if anyone has estimated a time of divergence, but having something that's been isolated for even several tens of millions of years is of scientific interest, I think.
The assumptions are stated. You may not agree with them(you obviously don't, but then no one has come close to forming a complex molecule from scratch even using intelligent methods) but they are valid for reactions showing no preference for configurations of the constituent units.
You speak of the real world. Well, in the real world, there are no "undesigned" chemical reactions outside of life that have produced the molecules being discussed. As for your speculation about the formation of the complex molecules by accidental conjugation of parts in interstellar clouds, do you realize what a vacuum is?
I'm also certain that the numbers come out the same when parts are randomly assembled. IOW, it does not matter whether one person flips a coin 100 times or 100 people flip a coin once, the probability that all of the tosses result in heads is the same.
First, given an assumption of a naturalistic origin of life, there has to be a chemical reaction that created life. Life exists, after all. Just because we haven't found that sequence doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Secondly, the formation of complex molecules (including some complex peptides) in the interstellar medium is a known quantity. Deep within the heart of Giant molecular clouds, molecular lines indicating significant quantities of organic molecules of a variety of types (including one with a significant amount of Ethanol). In 2002, the smallest amino acid, Glycine was discovered in Sagittarius B2 (18 Jul 2002 edition of New Scientist). It appears that a vacuum is not a problem in this matter.
To merge the two comments, I refer you to this paper by David Woon, "Pathways to Glycine and Other Amino Acids in Ultraviolet-irradiated Astrophysical Ices Determined via Quantum Chemical Modeling", Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2002, 571, pg L177-L180
The abstract can be read here, Abstract
That is known as begging the question, "proving" what you have assumed. Secondly, I know that there is evidence of the formation of "complex" chemicals in gaseous clouds, but your "known quantity" of complex peptides, I do not believe. Glycine is an amino acid --- here is its structure
Let me see, 2 carbon, 2 Oxygen, 1 nitrogen, and 5 hydrogen, looks like a complex peptide to me.
I didn't prove that, though. I have stated nothing about "proving" anything. I simply state my assumptions. Brett Watson is not clear about his assumptions. There is much hidden behind the scenes that he doesn't mention.
"known quantity" of complex peptides..
Perhaps my wording was confusing. How about this: We know that complex peptides can be formed in detectable quantities in gaseous clouds. Molecular rotational and vibration spectral lines indicating these molecules have been detected in giant molecular clouds...
A polypeptide of length 100.... ~0.0
Well, might and could are simply might and could. Please provide the evidence that someone believable is willing to state as unequivocal evidence of the hypothetical complex peptide.
Never say never. I'm still looking up the detection strength of the Glycine lines, and the density estimates. It's quite possible that there is more out there, we just can't detect it because there isn't enough of them to firmly detect.
Well, we can't detect bridge trolls so they must be hard to find.
Now the density of gaseous clouds is estimated to be 10,000 atoms(molecules)/cm3. Interstellar space is 0.1-1 atom/cm3.
On the contrary, the author's math does take into account "groupings" from other locations recombining, simply because the mathematical odds of obtaining a given sequence are identical whether you are talking about groups of size 1 character after another combining or groups of 50 after another combining (presuming that all such groups themselves are formed without intelligent intervention or intelligent feedback, and further presuming that no intelligence is injected into which groups are "kept" for recombining with other groups).
To wit: the monkeys don't "know" when they have a valid English word, so they wouldn't know to share such valid words with each other to make a longer sentence of valid words. They are just mindlessly banging on their keyboards (which might actually resemble some of the behavior by a few posters on this thread, grin).
"Actually, you can have natural fitness tests." - ThinkPlease
Yes, you are correct that natural feedback is quite possible.
However, you are incorrect to assume that what small snippet of conversation that you quoted above from me was somehow meant to imply otherwise.
That comment was directed at another poster, not at you, and it was covering a different angle of this debate.
Specificly, it goes all of the way back to Post #12, where the poster in question wanted the monkeys to be forced to use an English Dictionary so that they would "know" when they had managed to bang out a valid word.
And yes, injecting feedback from an English dictionary does indeed add intelligence to the proposed math process for this thread, and that would imply intelligent intervention.
Moreover, as I've already explained at least twice on this very thread, feeling the "need" to add "intelligent feedback" into the process is PRECISELY the intellectual trap that the author wishes Evolutionists to fall for.
It seems to be a rather effective (if somewhat obvious) trap, too.
So why don't you question it? Why do you reject it without evidence against it? Why do you attempt a snow job when you do not know of anything wrong with what the author of the article says? Clearly your beliefs are not based on science but on your emotional predilections.
No one here, on either side, has denied that there is life on earth. The discussion, in case you came in late, is about how it arose, whether by intelligent design or by some totally materialistic occurrence which no one can even imagine.
However, intuition alone can often be a risky thing. Many things in math and science work in counterintuitive ways -- subtle effects can have larger consequences than seems obvious at first look, or can combine in completely unexpected ways, which can only be discerned if you take a much closer look and work through full rigorous proofs, or carefully simulate thousands of trials on a computer, or run experiments to check how things really work instead of the way you'd presume they work.
Intuition can take you far, but it's absolutely no substitute for actually checking your presumptions against reality.
This is especially the case when your intuition takes you to a conclusion which seems to prove a point you'd like to support... The temptation is very strong to declare victory and examine it no further, rather than truly dig as deep as possible to make certain that you haven't overlooked something which makes the case not as simple as you'd first presumed.
And now, back to the discussion.
So what, over several generations it will average out.
No, actually, it doesn't. Random walks aren't like running tallies of coin flips. Because each new step picks up where the last one left off, any deviation from the "average" at any step permanently offsets the "baseline" and becomes the new "center". Any initial (or subsequent) deviation permanently biases all future results, making it impossible even in theory for an "average" position to be maintained or returned to or "averaged out". Once a random walk wanders "off" its initial position, which it generally does very soon, it has no more "incentive" to wander back to its original position than it does to wander off in the other direction entirely. This is *not* a process that "evens out over time". You can get a good feel for this property of random walks by playing with this Java applet.
This leads to very counterintuitive results, but a careful examination of actual random walk behavior (either by rigorously derived math, or by carefully conducted computer simulations) reveals that while the results are hardly "obvious", they are nonetheless true.
For example, let's consider the simplest possible type of random walk. Mark a spot on the ground and call it "zero". Stand on the spot. Now flip a coin. If you get heads, take one step to the right. If you get tails, take one step to the left. Now that you're at your new spot, flip the coin again and repeat. Then keep repeating, following where the coin leads you.
Now let's examine the actual properties of such a walk.
1. At the end of, say, 1000 flips/steps, what do you think your *single* most likely position is? Intuition says, "on point zero", which happens to be correct. But that's about the *only* intuitive answer that is correct for random walks.
2. After 1000 random steps, what's your most likely *distance* from point zero? Intuition says the most likely distance is zero, or close to it. Actual analysis shows that your most likely distance is actually square-root(1000), or 32 feet away. Quite counterintuitive.
3. As you perform more and more random steps, are you more and more likely to end up near point zero, or not? Intuition says you should more likely "average out" to someplace near point zero. Actual analysis shows that your position becomes more and more likely to be farther and farther from point zero. The longer you do the random walk, the farther afield you are likely to end up. The reason is that the distribution curve, although centered on point zero, becomes flatter and flatter and wider and wider -- after a large number of random steps, the vast middle of the distribution curve becomes so flat that you're just about as likely to end up anywhere at all as opposed to point zero itself. Although point zero itself always has a somewhat greater probability than any other single spot, the odds of actually being *at* point zero (or even close to it) continue to shrink the more random steps you take. A really nice "look-see" Java demonstration of this can be found here.
4. How many times are you likely to cross over point zero? That is, how often will you randomly wander from the left of point zero to the right of it, or vice versa? Intuition says that you'll cross over it many, many times if you do the random walk a long time. Actual analysis shows that the most likely number of crossings is *zero*, the next most likely number of crossings is one, then two, and so on.
Don't try to rely on intuition alone when doing analysis on random processes, it too often leads to seemingly reasonable, but wrong, results.
For good introductions to random walks, see:
Random Walks - 1-dimensional
Random Walks - 2-dimensional
The One-Dimensional Random Walk
Chemistry 531 The One-dimensional Random Walk
Also it means that many mutations will dissappear.
Yes, of course they will. But it matters not how many vanish, it matters how many manage to persist. There's no harm in "losing" mutations if enough do survive to drive evolution.
As I previously showed, small populations retain a larger percentage of mutations but produce fewer to work with, while large populations retain fewer mutations (as a percentage) but produce more overall. The net effect is that although many mutations are lost in either case, the population as a whole will acquire mutations at a rate equal to the mutation rate in a single individual.
Note that this is for neutral mutations -- beneficial mutations are accumulated in the population at large at a faster rate.
Also, interesting things happen when a large population is split up into separate breeding subpopulations, called "demes".
The laws of statistics are very strict, and we know they work. They built the casinos in Las Vegas.
Certainly, but you must take care to apply them properly. Many people have gone broke in Vegas through their misapplication of statistics to a given game. Check out the book "Scarne on Gambling" for a long list of gambler's fallacies and "betting systems".
Sampling error is way too small for it to have any effect on the matter at hand. The most you might get is that in a population of one million the sampling error will end up providing you a proportion of the allele of 1/500,000 instead of 1/1,000,000 this is not taking over the population.
Intuitively, yes, that makes sense and seems reasonable. In actual practice, it doesn't work that way.
It also means that many mutations will die also due to 'sampling error'.
Yes it does. But this is of no consequence as long as enough mutations persist to drive evolution. And studies of how many mutations have actually entered the gene pool for various populations indicates that the real-world mutation acquisition rate is indeed sufficiently high to account for evolution.
Intuition is a fine thing, but eventually it needs to reality-checked.
As I keep saying, genetic drift is total bunk.
As Galilleo replied when faced with similar obstinance, "and yet it still moves".
You can declare it bunk as much as you like, but countless different sorts of studies (mathematical analysis, simulation, examinations of real-world genetics, etc.) show that no matter how much you may disbelieve it, it still works.
You need to pause and actually test your intuition from time to time.
You are starting with ONE (1) mutation you cannot get it to take over the whole population except by a miracle.
Intuition says that. Intuition is wrong in this case. The actual dynamics are more interesting than intuition would lead you to believe.
Such miracles do not happen every day as evolution would require.
This misstates the issue. Evolution does not require it to happen "every day". Nor is the introduction of new mutations into the population a "miracle".
Actual measurements of non-fatal mutation rates are on the order of 1 per 1000 alleles per generation, or 4 per each human birth (1.6 deleterious). This means that each human generation introduces *fourteen billion* new neutral-or-beneficial mutations into the population. True, most of the neutral ones will sputter out, but surely you can see that there are so bloody many that *some* will hit the mutation lottery and become established. And the beneficial ones will (statistically) grow in frequency through selection.
That makes for a *lot* of raw material for evolution to sift and select and build on.
Let's do some quick estimates. Let's be conservative and say that all of the non-deleterious mutations are merely neutral, and not beneficial. Using the statistics from our last post, we find that 2.4 neutral mutations per generation will become "fixed" in the human gene pool eventually. It has been roughly 5 million years since we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. For most of human history, a generation has been no more than 15 years or so long. That means we've had 333,000 generations since our kinship with the chimps, and at 2.4 "successful" mutations per generation (out of billions lost through chance) we've accumulated 800,000 mutations to separate us from the chimps (and the chimps have accumulated about the same number in *another* direction).
Is it reasonable to presume that 1.6 million acquired mutations would be enough to turn a man into a chimp or vice versa? I think it is. More likely, we're separated by far *fewer* genetic differences. In fact, actual comparison between human DNA and chimp DNA turns up less than 0.5% differences, or 150,000 allele base pairs. So the *actual*, *measured* neutral mutation acquisition rate is *ten times* greater than that necessary to split humans and chimps from their presumed common ancestor.
You were saying?
You can postulate one or two miracles, but to postulate that not only will they happen once but numerous times to build and change one gene in one species a little bit is ludicrous.
So says intuition. But see above.
To postulate that such miracles happen all the time in all species all the time just shows that evolution is totally false.
Again, you're working way too much on intuition here. You jump from "rare and unlikely per single event" to "impossible" or "totally false", which is not a valid transition. Unlikely things still do happen, and over enough time or a large enough population, they happen at a pretty steady rate.
Again, please do a reality-check every once in a while.
BTW - the reason these folk have to write so much nonsense is that they are trying to obscure the truth. The truth is usually very simple, you do not need reams of nonsense to show it.
Now this is just beneath you. I have more respect for your intelligence than that.
It's just intellectually dishonest to try to dismiss reams of evidence and study as being merely attempts to "obscure the truth".
That's just an excuse to avoid having to examine it, and deal with what it reveals.
As for the "truth is usually very simple", I think you know better than that. Things only seem simple to simple minds. The more we actually examine something, especially things in nature, the more wondrous and intricate we discover them to be.
No one here, on either side, has denied that there is life on earth. The discussion, in case you came in late, is about how it arose, whether by intelligent design or by some totally materialistic occurrence which no one can even imagine.
Poor Gore. Like his namesake, he misses the point of my post early, and often. Please come back when you've figured it out. I'll give you a hint. Read that line in context to the rest of the post, and it might avail you a clue.
A random walk is no good as a simulation of what happens in genetics. This is the problem - you never lose. In the case of a single mutation for example with a 50% chance of getting it passed on and the individual having two children the possible outcomes are both, one or none. When you get none, the walk is finished. Your simulation does not account for the walk ever ending, therefore it gives false results.
This leads to very counterintuitive results
It gives counterintuitive results because it does not reflect reality. If you are betting on outcomes and you have one quarter to play with and keep playing indefinitely with that quarter, you may get ahead for a while but eventually you will lose your quarter and that is what happens with mutations. In fact, statistical analysis shows that the mutation will be lost in less than 10 generations.
Yes, of course they will. But it matters not how many vanish, it matters how many manage to persist.
It does matter that many will be lost. This is the basis of Haldane's dilemma. Evolutionists talk as if there is an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of tries. However, both are finite and it is not a matter of some 4 billion years either. Taking evolutionary assumptions for example for the evolution of all mammals you have just about some 100 million years and the generations of mammals are fairly long (not like those of bacteria and insects) so you have quite a limited number of chances. You also need quite a few mutations to occur when you consider the number of species involved and the fact that to achieve the differences you need different mutations in each.
As I previously showed, small populations retain a larger percentage of mutations but produce fewer to work with, while large populations retain fewer mutations (as a percentage) but produce more overall. The net effect is that although many mutations are lost in either case, the population as a whole will acquire mutations at a rate equal to the mutation rate in a single individual.
Mutations will spread more easily in small populations because there is a greater chance of their being 'fixed'. This happens because individuals in small populations procreate with closer relatives than those in large populations. In short they are more inbred. The scientific facts show that inbreeding is bad and in fact 'inbred' is often use as an insult because of the deleterious effects it has.
That neutral mutations may persist in a population does not help evolution, because mutations are not additive amongst individuals as genetics shows. Because as I have shown a particular mutation will likely remain in only a single individual, additions to that mutation, which are required for neutral drift to accomplish any sort of evolutionary change, must rely on that single individual currently carrying the mutation to have another favorable mutation to add to it. Here is why that has an infinitely small chance of happening - the amount of unfavorable mutations far exceeds the possible neutral or favorable mutations possible and the original mutation will die due to the overwhelming chances of unfavorable mutations.
Actual measurements of non-fatal mutation rates are on the order of 1 per 1000 alleles per generation, or 4 per each human birth (1.6 deleterious).
The above is totally false. To determine that you would require the sequencing of the entire genome of both parents and the child for a large sample of the human population. No such sequencing has been done. This is an example of evolutionists just totally making up evidence for their theory.
It's just intellectually dishonest to try to dismiss reams of evidence and study as being merely attempts to "obscure the truth".
I am not dismissing reams of evidence, on the contrary. It is evolutionists who are trying to dismiss reams of evidence, in this case the certified fact that mutations are harmful to an organism, the certified fact that genetics tells us that a new allele will not spread in a population. As I showed above the random walk is a fraudulent model for what happens in genetics. It is not intuition alone that tells us that a single mutation will not spread through a population, it is verified facts. It is like saying that a person can go into a casino with one dollar and end up owning the casino. Yes it can happen - ONCE. However evolution requires that it happen all the time. Unlike gambling casinos though, where the odds are usually not too bad, with mutations there is a big joker in the deck working against the gambling mutation. That joker is called bad mutations which are even by the phony statistics of evolutionists, overwhelmingly against even a neutral mutation (you gave the phony chance of 1.6 against a neutral mutation just above). So you are not working with even odds but with massively unfavorable odds against both a mutation surviving and a mutation ever spreading. This is why evolutionists who talk about neutral drift never mention that mutations will dissappear due to unfavorable mutations intervening and destroying the 'line' which carries them.
That this occurs with mutations is not to be doubted. The facts of inbreeding show quite well that it is the non-inbreed individuals that are more successful. The facts of inbreeding show that severely inbred populations are subject to much more genetic disease than non-inbred populations. The facts of inbreeding show that inbred populations are less viable than non-inbred ones. These facts show the falsity of both neutral drift and Gould's punk-eek.
Very true. The amount of unfavorable random data mutations which occur while downloading programs over the internet will greatly outnumber the quantity of data mutations that yield new, favorable programming functionality from noisy downloads.
Likewise, most genetic programming mutations are unfavorable.
I'd bet money on that. It's about 99.999999999995% sure that they would fail to produce the sentence."
17 billion galaxies x 17 billion habitable planets x 17 billion monkeys at one line per second x 17 billion years (or 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60) = 2.6357223096 x 10^48.
If the failure rate is 99.999999999995%, then the success rate is 0.000000000005%.
In those 17 billion years, the line will be created (2.6357223096 x 10^48)(0.000000000005) = 1.3178611548 x 10^37 times = 13,178,611,548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times = umpteen gazillion times.
I think that either I or the author of this thread has made a mistake, because I do not understand how the laws of probability would allow that many successful lines of text, if "... they have still only produced 1/18,718,157,355,362 of the possible..." lines of text.
You are confusing correlations. The concern here is about an individual cell's entropy. The individual code information per cell, or per codon, does not increaseit can only decrease as the plant or baby ages.
Hi everybody,
This thread is fascinating. There is so much in it. But there is at least one thing missing or at the very least not discussed enough. Why there is no more evidence of the evolution? Before I start, I want to say that I would want to be an evolutionist because it seems so logical! But the theory of evolution have to stand on his own legs. Even if there is no other good scientific solutions doesn't make it valid by default!
So my point is that there is not enough intermediate species in the fossil records that we've found so far. My main argument is that I suppose that for every species that did appear in our fossil records we should have at the very least one intermediate specie or more. In some case it should be a lot more than one! Just take the example of the whale, the elephant, the giraffe or the man. In each case it could be argued that a lot of iteration had been needed to arrive at what we have today. Some of these iterations will have produced new species. Even in the case where those iteration will not have produced new species, a lot of variability will have been seen. Take the neck's giraffe, how many intermediate "mutant" would have been needed to arrive at this point. The elephant trunk is an other example of a large number of intermediate "mutant" to arrive at this very complex organ. The blue whale is an other example of an extreme number of intermediate "mutant" to arrive at such an extraordinary animal. I write mutant because I don't want to define all of those intermediate creature as new species as I don't really know if it is the case or not. An other example is there is no link between Eohippus (a small dog-like animal that existed 50 million years ago) and its descendent Mesohippus (a sheep-sized animal that lived 30 million years ago).
The fossil records is mostly constituted of species that are not intermediate, or precursor for other species. Of course, it could be argued that we don't know that yet. I agree with that. Where I diverge is if we do believe in evolution, we should found a greater diversity of fossil that we have found up to now. In fact, we should find mostly intermediate species, or at the very least a lot more diversity in what we've found. It seems based on articles that I've read that they are at least 5 millions species and maybe up to 100 millions species on our planet today. If for every specie that we have we have at least one intermediate or more, where are they?
Most of the time, specialist argue of the relative rarity of fossils. The special conditions needed to have fossils are few and far between, so that explain the relative dearth of fossils and especially the absence of missing links between them. I propose the exact opposite, if we need an intermediate specie or more for each one that we have today. It should be easier to find intermediate species. A corollary finding could be why today we do not observe more of these intermediate species. In fact, it could be argued that every living creature are intermediate species. But if it is so, the fossils records are not there to prove it and our day to day observation are short of concrete examples. So how can you prove evolution, when you can't prove it based on fossil records or actual observation. I don't like math that much, but lets say that 10 millions species exist today, and let's say that the earth had 3.5 billions years to produce them. It means that we should produce a new specie every 350 years. Of course if we have 50 millions species it means a new species every 70 years. But since we need at least one intermediate specie to produce a new specie, because an intermediate specie will maybe have no practical use of the new mutation (an half trunk for an elephant or an half neck for a giraffe) we need an intermediate form or a new specie every 35 to 175 years. Of course, since very few of the mutation are beneficial. Maybe less than 1 in 1000 are beneficial if you believe what the the article below says
It means that we should observe a lot more mutation that we observe today. Since those mutation would produce some exterior change, as the trunk of the elephant, we should observe mutation every 12 to 60 days or so. Of course, it will be very difficult to observe those because there is just too much data. But for the casual observer the fact seem to contradict the observation. I have read a lot on this subject and so far I have see no proof of an actual new specie under the sun. More to the point we have a lot of extinct species in the fossil records that would prove that we need more new species from evolution than less. An other way of saying that is we should observe more variation in mutation and more creation of new species as we have seen up to date.
An other strange fact is some species does not seem to evolute at all. The Coelacanth did not change a lot for 410 millions years (Wikipedia). Shark are an other example of a species that did not evolute for a great period of time. So it is putting a greater pressure on the rest of the biosphere to produce more new species and thus mutate more rapidly. This problem of actual observation of evolution is not new. Even Darwin admitted it in 1859, when On the Origin of Species was first published, he described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". Some have tried to explain this with some new theories about evolution to explain this absence of observable fact. They call it punctuated equilibrium and even some preeminent evolutionist are critical of it
That theory have been created in part to explain the absence of transitional form of life in the fossil records. But it my opinion, it does not matter if new species are formed rapidly or not as they're should be always more transitional form of life as definite one. And for those of you who don't like my English, forgive me as I am french .
17 Billion galaxies, each with 17 Billion planets, each with 17 Billion monkeys typing a line a second for 17 Billion years and still the odds are basically impossible that such a result would occur. And that is a very simple result when compared to even the most basic organism. Not to mention the fact that he threw in the monkeys, typewriter, planets and paper... It is pretty conclusive that the complexity required for our system to exist rules out the possibility of it occurring randomly.
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:
Bill Baptist/NBAE/Getty Images
The Beard comes back to Oklahoma City tonight. Just one month exactly after he left. As one person texted me, it definitely has that ex-boyfriend-is-coming-back-over-to-get-their-things vibe to it.
How should Thunder fans react to his return? And more importantly, with a month in the rearview mirror, how has this whole thing worked out?
1. Should Thunder fans boo James Harden tonight?
Royce Young, Daily Thunder: Don't boo. But outside of pregame introductions, don't cheer either. I'm definitely on record saying that I'm not a fan of the way Harden handled things publicly, but at the same time, the guy deserved his money. He earned that max deal and the fact was, the Thunder weren't willing to give it to him. They could've, but they didn't. That's not Harden's fault. At the same time, there were some hurt feelings because of the way Harden talked about sacrificing and brotherhood and all that crap. Booing just makes Thunder fans look petty, but the fact is, he's on the other team now. He's not one of us anymore. He gave us great memories and moments. But that stuff is just history now.
Patrick James, Daily Thunder: Sure, if he does something worth booing. But not just for showing up. My prediction for what will happen is the same I've heard most everywhere else: He'll be cheered when he's introduced and then mostly ignored. Maybe some light boos when he hits a 3-pointer and does his celebration. And that's about it. He made a choice that most people are over, even if they were mad about it at the time. Most people are thankful he was in town for three years. And they'll react accordingly.
Eddie Maisonet, Sports Fan Journal/SB Nation: If they did I'd be thoroughly disappointed in them. Its easy to say what you would do if someone offered you $54-80 million to play basketball, but no one's knocking on your door to do such a thing. The Fear The Beard movement started in OKC, and we'll continue to cherish the 2009-12 Thunder era many moons from now.
2. Through 15 games, would this season look any different with Harden on the roster?
Young: The only game I think the Thunder win that they lost if they had Harden is the opening night game against the Spurs. OKC got a dose of Bad Russell that night on top of trying to sort out a major roster change just two days before. Other than that, the season's gone mostly according to plan. It's not like the Thunder would be 15-0 with Harden, but there were some fears of what the Thunder would do without him. Which is what makes their 11-4 record look pretty solid right now. With Harden on the roster, people would probably be searching less for flaws and a little more comfortable with the team though.
James: Probably not. The way this season feels would be different, but not the way it looks. The Thunder would be right on pace to be a top seed in the West. The teams that are pretty good would still be pretty good. Only the uncertainty of how all this will look in key moments in May is what makes it feel a little different, and getting used to the changes in style of play necessitated by replacing Harden with Kevin Martin. But the Thunder resemble a contender. Once people get used to the way the team plays, and the Thunder have a few statement wins under their belt, the remaining uncertainty will start to melt away.
Maisonet: Oklahoma City probably wins 1-2 more games with Harden versus Kevin Martin, but 12-3 (with a 7-game winning streak) versus 11-4 (with a shuffled roster days before the regular season starts) with a 3-game lead in the division after 15 games? That's plenty acceptable either way you look at it.
3. With a month to reflect on, did Sam Presti make the right move?
Young: I didn't like the move much when it happened. Part of that was because I was completely stunned, part of it was because I simply didn't like it. But I definitely understand why the move was made and in terms of it being right, I think it was. It kept the Thunder very competitive in the West in the short-term while still keeping the long-term bright. It sucks that we'll never know what a Westbrook-Durant-Ibaka-Harden core could've done over the next four or five seasons, but that's just it. We might not ever know if it was the "right" move, since we can't know if with Harden OKC would've won a title. If they win one with Martin or the future assets that came with it, then it's absolutely validated.
James: The only thing you can really tell after a month, if you can tell anything, is whether or not a trade is immediately apparent as a disaster. And that certainly isn't the case. And what would have been a disaster anyway, Martin shooting 30 percent and Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook feuding? The former would be something that would correct itself a bit over time, and the latter shows no sign of ever happening except for the momentary battles any set of teammates will share over the course of a long season and long career. You can't really give a definitive answer to this until after the playoffs and after Martin signs his next contract. But it's truly impossible to already say it's the wrong move — and as long as that's the case, the faith in Presti is justified.
Maisonet: It's still too early to tell. While I think the trade itself was great for the future, the trade told me that OKC never really intended to pay Harden anyway. Thusly, the Thunder were going to move in a different direction. What will be more interesting is the next couple of moves that are sitting on Presti's desk. Do they move Kendrick Perkins? Do they re-package Martin + picks for another stud wing? Do they re-sign Martin and move forward towards a title run? Presti's always been perceived as playing chess with checkers players, and time will tell if he's truly the Bobby Fischer of general managers or not.


text:
|Welcome to the MANGA Forum.
|You will have to register before you can post: log in or sign up at the top of the page to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Hulu.com has the Anime You Need Including the hits like Bleach,blue gender,Mr. Stain or Naruto Shippuden (English Audio Coming Soon.) your gonna love it.
Cool thanks."If you can fool your friends,you can fool your enemies".I am back! Kinda. =]
you can also watch anime legally on funimation and vizanime.com


text:
Top Definition
-Kled-hog- (n) - A name you call someone who is a complete moron, or someone who is very clumsy.
Guy 1: "This idiot tripped on air and spilled his coffee all over my new shirt!"
Guy 2: "Wow, what a Kledhog..."
Guy 2: "Wow, what a Kledhog..."
Jato Unleashedによって 2009年11月23日(月)
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?


text:
The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video.
Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!
Cute little otters aren't acting so cute in Boca Raton, Fla. Local wildlife officials say otters have been recently attacking people.
William Gibbons has the unhappy distinction of being the third Boca Raton resident attacked by an otter in the last two weeks. But he was the first to capture the incident on video.
"Yeah, it definitely rushed toward me," Gibbons recalled. "It circled me and then it made that noise, and I took off after that."
"I can't describe it. It was like devil noise," he added.
Four years ago, Leanne Vanna had to respond to a similar attack when an otter charged up a bank, grabbed her dog by the nose, and dragged it deep into the water.
"I punched it hard, which made me feel terrible because otters are cute," she said. "But this one was definitely out to kill."
Authorities speculate the attacks could be the result of residents feeding the usually non-aggressive otters, making them lose their fear of people.
"If you don't have a fish, he's not going to be a happy otter," said Capt. David Walesky of the Palm Beach County Animal Control. "It's not likely he's going to attack you, but anything is possible."
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Are you seeking answers in life? Are you hurting? Are you facing a difficult situation?
Find peace with God, discover more about God or send us your prayer request.
Call The 700 Club Prayer Center at 1 (800) 823-6053, 24 hours a day.
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.
CBN News is a national/international, nonprofit news organization that provides programming by cable, satellite, and the Internet, 24-hours a day. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.