You see, Behe found delicate forms of life propelled by flagella made out of over 200 protein chains and noted that if even one of the protein chains was disturbed, the organisms couldn't move and would starve to death. Thus, he said, evolution may not always produce a winner, but it's producing life forms too complex to randomly evolve. Emboldened by his words, creationists rushed to proclaim that scientists have found irrefutable proof of design in life and that no one could explain how this complexity could come about without interference from on high.

Eh... not so fast doc. First and foremost, he was looking at a product of a billion years of evolution in microscopic life. As we all know, the genome of a single celled organism is tiny and just one change can have stunning consequences. They also live on the order of hours and days so just one day can be up to three or four generations for them and generations is how evolution is truly measured. What we now call evolution is the passing of the genes of a successful organism that lived into its sexual maturity and proved to be a good survivor, thus creating a new generation of well adapted organisms that are different from their ancestors.

Most life forms above cell level never make it to sexual maturity (with the exception of us), so the genetic legacy is really what drives changes in future organisms as those who thrive get to pass on the genes that gave them an edge in our cruel world. That's natural selection in a nutshell.

Given the fact that there are an estimated 70 billion trillion bacteria in the world at any given time, even a one in a trillion chance that over the millennia (millions of generations for the bacteria Behe studied), something so incredible would happen by mere chance alone is very probable. In fact, the odds are a 70 billion to one for. And there's one more thing.

Behe claimed that his studies prove that evolution is uncannily precise because the organisms he saw were alive and kicking. That argument implies that there's no way that countless bacteria died or starved to death from incomplete flagella or genetic disorders which we know happens all the time. In fact, Behe's argument is one part ignorance of statistics and one part ignoring the fact that what he says couldn't happen, happens all the time.

]]> http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/?p=365 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:11:47 +0000 airtightnoodle http://airtightnoodle.pt.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/creationists-strike-back-against-newly-proposed-teks/ As I've mentioned previously on this blog, the Texas science standards are currently under revision.  The proposed revisions came out a few weeks ago, and the majority of science experts in the state are pleased with these new TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills).  Yet according to this post from the Texas Freedom Network:

The Texas Freedom Network has learned that evolution opponents on the state board are trying to pack a formal curriculum review panel with supporters of teaching “intelligent design”/creationism. The panel was supposed to include science experts, yet three of the six appointed by the state board are strident evolution critics.

This is not surprising as we already know that there are several "creationism sympathizers", to say the least, on the State Board of Education, including chairman Don McLeroy.  What is disturbing, however, is the apparent conflict of interest that exists with two of the members on this newly appointed review panel.

Two of the members on this review panel are Stephen Meyer and Ralph Seelke--authors of the textbook "Explore Evolution", an anti-evolution textbook published by the Discovery Institute. 

Will Texas students get a quality science education?  Let's hope so.  Stay tuned, folks!

A new study done on the transitional fossil Tiktaalik has revealed more of the intermediate steps by which some marine vertebrates evolved into land animals.

One of the most intriguing findings, scientists said, was the reduction in size of a bony element that, in fish, links the braincase, palate and gills and is associated with underwater feeding and respiration. In more primitive fish, the bony part of what is called the hyomandibula is large and shaped like a boomerang. In this fossil species, the bone was greatly reduced, no bigger than a human thumb.

You can read more in the NY Times.

So here’s the gist of what I believe. Feel free to voice your opinion if you think I’m wrong… but please back up what your saying with something other than insults.

Abortion. I don’t believe in abortion. I am 100 percent completely against it (even in a case of rape or incest). If someone I knew was considering an abortion and asked my advice, I would vehemently advise against it. That being said, I have never been in a situation where an abortion would be an option and can’t really judge anyone who actually decides to do it. My biggest problem with overturning Roe v. Wade is that I don’t believe it will stop abortions. I think it will just create an underground abortion system that will do more harm than good. Kind of like what the war on drugs has created. And while I would most likely choose life, it’s not my right to say someone else shouldn’t.

Gay rights. I don’t care. If two dudes are in a loving, committed relationship, good for them. The big argument is that people don’t want to have to tell their kids it’s ok to be gay. Why not? If you are gay, you are gay. Talking to your kids about the fact that sometime men love other men and women love other women, isn’t going to make them want to try it. Either they lean that way or they don’t. And yeah, I get that some people believe in a god that is disgusted by the whole idea. And that’s fine. Honor your god and don’t engage in homosexual acts. Personally,  the god I believe in is more pissed off about the thousands of innocent lives lost in Iraq than gay marriage.

Evolution. I’m not insulted when you say I must be a monkey. Have you seen monkeys? If you can’t see the similarities, you are blind. And some of those little guys are cute, especially when they wear diapers and smoke cigars. But in all seriousness, I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were real people. I think they are representative of the point in time where homo sapiens moved from a hunter-gatherer society into an agricultural society. Adam eating from the tree of knowledge represents the moment that humans decided we knew more than God and started making their own moral judgments. This doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in God. This just means that I think that whoever wrote Genesis was giving us a nice parable and the fall of Adam really represents the fall of man.

Worldwide flood. Again, a nice parable. But to suggest that two of every species of animals from all continents somehow made it onto this ark is completely insane. I do believe there was a flood and I also believe it was limited geographically to the Middle East. At the time, the people of the region had no idea the size of the planet, so to their frame of reference, it was a worldwide flood. But in reality… honky please!

I’ve heard all kinds of theories on dinosaurs. One of them popular with my relatives is that dinosaurs didn’t actually roam the earth. They roamed other planets and when God made this planet, he used pieces of other planets and that’s how come we have dinosaur bones. I know my family aren’t the only people who buy into this theory (or one like it). I don’t even know what to say about it. I’m dumbfounded.

I guess what it all comes back to is that I don’t think human beings are the center of the universe. I don’t think the earth was created for us and I don’t think that we have more right to it than any other species. Humans are a selfish race. We want it all for us and we want things cut and dry and to fit into our idea of how things should be. I just don’t think it’s like that. I think we all need to exist together and we all need to be a little more accepting and kind to our fellow human beings and our fellow species who also happen to reside on this planet.

Maybe I’m up in the night. What do you think?

The results may be rather hard for all of us, and no one can forsee the true impact of the value shift. Only one possible version:

Today I found an intresting anecdote by one Russian men telling how he was trying to explain to his 8 year old daughter the modern macro-economy. "I give an example of a free cheese in the mousetrap. The girl thinks a bit and replies, reasoning:  But, Daddy, this rule will not work for the next mouse!"

Funnily enough, it works. And has been working since ages.

 It is the time to break out NOW and follow the simple child`s logic?

 LOVE, axinia

 The anecdote in Russian:

"Объясняю дочке некоторые тонкие ньюансы макроэкономики и иллюстрирую их
широко известным тезисом о бесплатном сыре в мышеловке.
Осмыслив эту непреложную истину юное создание (8 лет на минуточку) вдруг
резонно возражает:
"Папа, а ведь это правило для второй мышки уже не работает!"

Greg writes about a recent archaeological finding in Haifa, up north from here, in a neolithic site dated about 9,000 years old (I can't help but wondering what young-earthers make of findings like this). The important sciency stuff is all about "paleopathology" (yup), that is, the findings (of infant bones) seem to exhibit TB-like symptoms, which in effect suggests that TB is not only a much more ancient affliction than previously thought, but also that it might have evolved in humans first and not in cows, as was previously thought to be the case.

Yep, evolution, a theory in crisis!

Introducing my protagonist, Livia, and her partner, Kaj:

Pictured together because after all the story will mainly be about them. They look a tad bit different in my drawings now. This sketch was drawn early in the summer of '08, and in the meantime I have developed their characters a bit more. Now I will go into their looks, because that's what you see first as a reader of course, lol.

Perhaps I can talk about Livia first: she evolved from medium hairlength to long. The hair colour is blue (I'll explain why later). It's just an idea, but because I'll probably be drawing in black and white (I don't have the courage to colour it), it won't be visible.

This is how she looked at first, and I still want her to look a bit like this.

This is how she looked later on with long hair this time. The eyes are a bit weird here, but that's ok. lol

And this is how she looks when she goes to the ball.

Anyway, I want to keep the facial construction of the first drawing. For me it's hard, because for some reason I can never draw the same face again. :p It's really annoying, but I keep trying. Kaj's face is easier to draw, which is a huge surprise. I've always had more difficulty with drawing men. Anyway, you can see how his looks developed as well from the first picture to the next few:

This was the first time I was actually really happy with the way he looked. He is supposed to have jet black hair that looks as if he just came out of the shower (don't ask me why lmao). And he always has an angry look on his face, to match the personality.

This is the cleaner, inked version of the previous picture. Well not exactly, but you can clearly see the similarities. I was also really content with this, the face has a unique shape and yet it doesn't really look strange. That was what I was searching after.

Even though this is just a sketch, I really nailed the expression. Sometimes I have difficulty letting my character express some kind of contempt mixed with anger and arrogance. Woo! But this really is what he should look like, and it turned out to be much easier than expected.

That's it for tonight, folks. I hope I have stirred your curiosity. Thanks for reading!

- The Author

Rather than debunking a particular Creationist myth, I'd like to point out a common problem in Creationist methodology, an area that doesn't receive as much attention as it should. It's no secret that many (or even most) Creationists don't actually have a huge amount of scientific education, just as many Holocaust deniers know little about the actual history of the holocaust. Instead they have a stock of pre-packaged arguments against evolution, most of them taken directly from the major Creationist sources and parroted over and over again.

A lot of these arguments have been floating around for decades, but new stuff does crop up as well, and it's usually taken from bizarre interpretations of new developments in science. Unfortunately, Creationists tend to bypass the actual scientific literature (remember, a lot of them wouldn't understand it) and go for popular science sources instead. This is a mistake, for several reasons.

To illustrate why, I'll point to the September 2008 issue of NewScientist, which carries a story about how some of the more complex or unusual components of certain species may have actual evolved because natural selection stopped being a factor for that particular species. To your average reader, that sounds like a fundamental shift in how scientists think about evolution. The Discovery Institute articles practically write themselves: "Darwinists finally admit they were wrong!", "Natural selection 'no longer a factor in evolution', admits former Darwinist", "Start burning textbooks!".

What's the problem? Well, keep in mind that NewScientist is not a scientific journal, it's a popular magazine. As such, it's aimed at a 'lay' audience, one that is primarily not composed of proffesional scientists. Anything they write about will be relatively simplified, which means that it's easy to get the wrong idea about how groundbreaking these new developments really are. As well as that, they have a tendency to report on tentative or controversial ideas as if they were already widely accepted by the scientific community (newspapers are particularly bad about this), which probably explains some of the more hasty cries of victory from Creationists in the past.

Another excellent example of this effect is the now infamous 'Altenburg 16' meeting, in which sixteen scientists met to discuss whether or not evolutionary theory should be changed to accomodate new discoveries about genetics (among other things), similar to the way it was modified into the 'neo-Darwinian synthesis'. The Creationist media had a feild day with it, claiming that a cabal of scientists were secretly meeting behind locked doors in a desperate bid to protect evolutionary theory from its enemies. As one of the members of the actual meeting pointed out, this is complete nonsense.

For starters, these 'workshops' take place several times a year and are in response to new developments in science, not in response to whateve drivel the DI has been putting out. The proposed Extended Synthesis itself has also been twisted out of shape by Creationists, who claim that it's a reworking of fundamental aspects of evolution - presumably a move made necessary by their cogent and blistering attacks on the current model - rather than an addition to the theory based on new information. Scientific knowledge is not a static entity that never changes, and it's absurd for Creationists to suggest that the Altenburg meeting was anything more than the ordinary workings of the scientific community.

I am now making the offer of 100 gazillionmilliontrillion dollars and a steak to one single person or group to definitively prove the existence of a creator God or creation at all.

The ground:
- Must be physical proof that science will never be able to refute.
- Must be proof that logic cannot defy.
- Must have God itself present said proof.

By 8bithero on October 14, 2008 8:33 PM

At first glance, it seems like an innocent question. But this is like saying, "I will only believe in God if he exists on a playing field of my own definition. Here's the playing field: Referencing only physical proof, prove the supernatural exists." But the logic is skewed. The logic problem is clearly seen when using the same argument in the other direction: "Referencing only the supernatural, prove the physical universe exists." Essentially we've carefully padded our challenge against failure by insisting up front that all evidence to the contrary be considered invalid. The challenge boils down to: "Without reference to the supernatural, prove supernatural reality exists," and is akin to saying "Without reference to presently observable physical proof, prove physical reality exists."

For example, if a 1970-yr-old written eyewitness account of a miracle was presented as evidence of the supernatural, the miracle is excluded from consideration because it does not fall within the definition of scientific (currently observable, repeatable, and testable) physical proof. Suppose a 28-yr-old acquaintance comes up to you and gives you the following evidence for God: "God has changed my life. I felt him touch my inner being last week at church. Based on my own rules for living, I had thought my life was fine. But I've changed my mind now. I have stopped drinking because I now realize it was wrong, according to God's rules, for me to get drunk and beat my wife and kids." But since this evidence occurs off the playing field (it is not physical proof), it cannot be considered as evidence for God.

Defining the playing field in such a way is like insisting:

Without reference to the NASA space program, prove to me that man landed on the moon.

or

Without referencing any historical evidence related to Abraham Lincoln's life, prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was the man the historical evidence says he was.

or

Using only yellow and blue, prove to me that red exists.

or

Using only darkness, prove to me that light exists.

The challengers have determined who wins the game by the way they define the playing field. It is defining what is true prior to considering any evidence that might instruct us if our playing field is constructed too small. We are defining REALITY as only that which can fit in a controlled environment and be repeatedly and consistently observed. It is boldly asserting, "Since I am already 100% confident that the observable physical universe is the only reality, I am going to believe only those things which I can experience through physical means."

An eyewitness to Jesus' life recorded Jesus' response to this type of challenge. Jesus was asked, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." At first glance, it seems like an innocent question. But Jesus' response was very harsh, as he defused the argument by revealing its real motive. He said,

An evil, adulterous generation demands a miraculous sign; but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

No wonder people hated Jesus. He didn't give their fallacies any ground to stand on, and they hated him for it. They were close-minded from the beginning, never honestly being open to the possibility that Jesus could be right when he spoke to them as an eyewitness concerning the things of heaven.

There is actually a balance of viewpoints on the panel, there are 3 people who endorse some sort of alternative conclusion either creationism or ID and 3 people who support evolution only.

On the Evolutionist Side

1) Gerald Skoog, professor and dean emeritus of the College of Education at Texas Tech and co-director of the Center for Integration of Science Education and Research

2) Ronald K. Wetherington, professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence

3) David Hillis, professor of integrative biology and director of the Center of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics at the University of Texas at Austin

On the Creationist and Intelligent Design Side...

1) Stephen Meyer, has a Ph.D. in history and the philosophy of science. He was one of the co-founders are the intelligent design movement which started back in the mid 90s. Meyer is currently vice president and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

2) Ralph Seelke, a graduate of the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, where he obtained his Ph.D. in microbiology. He been a Professor at UW-Superior since 1989.

3) Charles Garner, a graduate University of Colorado where he obtained his Ph.D. in Chemistry. Staff Scientist, Procter & Gamble Miami Valley Laboratories, 1986-87 and currently is working at Baylor University.

"It’s simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists,” she said. “Are they coming here to help write good science standards or to drum up a market for their lousy textbook?” --Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller

No Kathy, they are not required to implement your slant for writing science standards. Texas education is in good hands, both sides are represented well, and most likely students there will actually learn more about evolution by being exposed to seeing the weak points of it, than being indoctrinate by it.

A classic example of being "indoctrinated" by evolution is when someone (evolutionist) is debating you that RNA can survive in water for long periods of time when in fact it dissolves in water because of the presence of oxygen.

This sort of bias should not be a science standard in public schools. By allowing other viewpoints to be heard will actually help science standards not treat natural science as though it were religious dogma but treating true science as representing a structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge.

Image by peasap via Flickr

These are some accounts of people who have reported seeing objects in the sky on 10-14-08 although these reports do not collaborate with what blossom goodchild reported I believe that even the best psychic or channel can misinterpret information or inadvertently take it out of context, ok so below are the reports:

This first report is of a member of my site,
I went down to the river near my house tonight after i was finished work*I was going to the place where i usually sit and meditate.On my way down to my spot.I was amazed to see not just one but 2 UFO's:)The fist one was as fast as a shooting star.But twice as big,and was gone in a blink.The 2nd was closer,and seemed to be the size of a plane in the sky,yet it moved unlike any plane iv ever seen(along with the fact it had a interesting tail of white light behind it).It did an almost loop around the moon and then disappeared* It was the most amazing sight *the emotions i felt are hard to describe, but it was almost as tho a family member was saying hello to me'.I had an overwhelming sense of begin home sick/sad followed by a feeling of being unconditionally loved*The whole experience left me wanting more.And i sat for another hour hoping my family would return

I have never seen a UFO before.and now that i have, im' excited to see what will happens next:)

It was everything i expected an more!

Positive Love and light to all*

This was a comment left on this blog earlier on another post
I seen at about 9:30pm last night on 10/14/08 some lights shining off to the west. I was waiting on a bus. I ran home and went out my back door because there is no lights back there. I seen with in an hour 10 objects flying. Some had 1 light some had no lights blinking at all. My boyfriend had come and also witnessed this. When he came out there were what looked to be 3 stars at three different angles shapping in a triangle form but no solid lines. after we kept watching the sky 2 more of these appeard. I kept watching and around 10:45 a craft of some sort flew through my area at a really low depth. It was lower than the sears towe it had to have been. I saw its lights but it had no solid structure you could actually see through it. If this was millitary, well done it not they are still here and we will be seeing more of them. I did not get pics because I am digitilly disadvantaged, LOL! But I think I might inves.

This is my account posted again here for research purposes
I apologize if this message seems to have a lot of typos and seems rushed it is only that I can not contain myself and must share this information with somebody tonight as I looked out my window I saw an enormous ball of light shoot from the sky further down in to our atmosphere I will try to explain it in detail as best as I can, this light was solid white the light was so beautiful I can barely contain my emotions and my eyes have already begun to well up.

My heart is racing I have never felt such joy and love, the best I can describe this light is that it looked like a very solid orb the type you see in paranormal photography but it was about the size of a blimp but made of pure white light and it was a solid mass, this light had no trail and made no sound, and it appeared out of nowhere it appeared right in the middle of the sky and descended diagonally and then disappeared just below the middle of the sky but before any buildings or trees etc and moved at an incredibly non man made speed but yet it was graceful and precise, no object or celestial body can appear out of nowhere and then proceed to disappear out of where.

I thanked them and the creator for allowing me to see this amazing event now I cant wait for full on revelation…I tell you in all sincerity that what we witnessed as a civilization is the most beautiful loving and peaceful beings known to man, this I felt when I saw this scout ship nothing but love, peace and light whip out the champagne and rejoice! at last First Contact.

And this is another account of another member of COS
I guess it means- we are all in the same boat together? It was a streak across the sky, it had a light blue tinge to it, and all I know is the joy I felt from it. So I take that as a good sign.

Other Reports

Maine

At approximately 1 AM, my mother and I (who had been watching the skies for any signs) saw what appeared to be a star, only much brighter. It was hanging low in the south and made no noticeable moves. With binoculars, we could see it distinctly blinking blue to red to yellow/white. By 4 AM it had moved higher and more to the east, and by 530 AM it was no longer visible.

Ontario

stargazing last night, i noticed what was surely the prettiest star. it twinkled a rainbow of hues very brightly. it was not the first time i have observed it in pretty much the same position, which was about forty degrees elevation, to the east south east, just above the neighbourhood treeline. last night though, through both binoculars and naked eye, the star was especially transfixing. i felt an enthrallment and felt unwilling to remove my gaze for several minutes. really a very soothing feeling, almost hypnotic, obviously very hard to describe; i was feeling quite a connection to this star! in my marvel i thought i saw the star wander to and fro, and even change altitude, but i couldnt be sure because these movements were slow, and i have no tripod setup of any sort. so still 'connected', i 'asked' for slightly more conclusive behaviour; i dont know what i was expecting, maybe a figure eight! there was no variation in activity for half a minute or so, but then the star brightened slightly before fading out to black over three seconds. i stayed out only for another five minutes or so, but i came out again about a half hour later to find the same light had returned, and now it was definitely wandering, with noticeable displacement. observed it off and on until about four am, when the the clouds rolled in. i am quite impressed, since until last night i had only suspected this object to be.. unidentifiable compelling. im certain i will see it again.

New York

I was driving home from work in a Westerly direction when I noticed a mysterious bright light in the morning sky that is not normally there when I drive home. I looked up and noticed the object was hovering back and forth across the road ahead of me. It seemed to go from the left to the right and then back to the left again. I continued to drive home and kept a close eye on the object. I started up the last hill on my way into the town I live and realized that the object was above this hill. I couldn't make out any detail except that it was a bright light, very much like a star. But the sun was out and no other objects where in the sky like that. As I was about to crest the hill and go almost directly under the object the light just disappeared and I could not find it again. I have no idea what the light was, if it was a planet, star, or ufo. It's just something that I cannot explain. I felt very paranoid after I lost sight of the object while I was descending the hill into the valley below. It was extremely foggy down in the valley which amplified my paranoid creepy feeling I had. My father has also seen objects(lights) that he can't explain in the sky and he has lived in this town his whole life. On a side note, I noticed a very similar light a few months before but over a different hill and from a much farther distance.

For Even More Sightings Which Apparently ALL came from the East Coast Of the USA Visit This Link:

http://www.ufostalker.com/?mufon=true

[polldaddy poll=998884]

Related articles by Zemanta

• UFOs Seen Flying Over San Francisco
• Weird Los Angeles: UFOs In Our Skies?
• British Government releases UFO files
• UFOs Spotted Over The U.K.?
• Are UFOs lighting up the skies over Australia's outback?
• UFO and Evolution: Is There a Connection?
• NASA to Anounce Big Discovery
• Amateur Astronomer Spots a 'Cosmic Ghost'

I stort så tycker jag att inlagan är lite rörig och jag förstår inte riktigt syftet. Men studier visar att kvinnliga chefer i högre grad blir utsatta för trakasserier och "mobbing" än män. Kvinnor verkar dessutom i högre grad "slita ont" av sitt ledarskap.

Jag skall inte skriva så långt om detta eftersom det är en i raden av alla dessa statistiska undersökningar som på ett väldigt förenklat sätt försöker läsa av det mänskliga samhällsbygget.

Det är egentligen bara en sak som får mig att reagera och det är tron på begreppet norm. Detta modeord som det gödslas med i alla möjliga situationer när det gäller en stor mängd mellanmänskliga förhållanden. Denna gigantiska fokusering och tro på att alla distraktioner mellan människor är skapade av kulturella normer.

Det som ständigt förträngs är det biologiska i den mänskliga egenskapen. Vi lever våra liv mitt i ett stort antal av olika selektionsarenor skapade för naturlig och sexuell selektion.

Ändå hänvisar man ständigt till denna förklaringsmodell. NORM.

Kvinnor som blir chefer över män ger sig in i ett biologiskt getingbo där både naturlig och sexuell selektion möts i ett flerdimensionellt komplex.
Män bygger manliga hierarkier med det evolutionära syftet att på en sexuell selektionsarena tydligt visa upp en graderad status inför det kvinnliga könet.
Även inom manliga hierarkier pågår en ständig maktkamp, men då gäller det mer renodlat sk naturlig selektion. Med kvinnliga chefer blir det en sammanblandning av två selektionstyper.
Vad händer när kvinnor blir chef för en manlig hierarki) .
Självklart uppkommer komplikationer och den manliga påfåglingsarenan förlorar värde. Män som är underlydande en kvinna förlorar sexuell status inför andra män och framförallt inför andra kvinnor.
Självklart blir de mest tävlingsinriktade och mest "otrygga/nerviga" männen på eller annat sätt desperata.

Man kan då som man välja tre olika strategier:

1) Lägga sig och därmed förlora status.
2) Kriga vilket kan innebära taskigt beteende mot den kvinnliga chefen. Man kämpar för sin status.
3) Säga upp sig och försöka hitta en mer funktionell selektionsarena. Starta eget eller börja på ett företag med ett traditionellt manligt hierarkisystem.

Män med mindre testostron och mer kvinnliga personligheter stannar kvar och trivs med den kvinnliga chefen. (selektionen är uppnådd)

Tävlingsmännen flyttar och startar nya tävlingsarenor (nya företag som konkurrerar med det gamla)
Vilka vinner på sikt? Därom vet vi inte.

Manlig norm var modeordet.

PS! Även på bloggen Newsmill pågår denna debatt om vad som är kulturella normer och/eller biologi eller om man vill vara något mer seriös kvoten K/B.
Här får den intellektuelle och fritt tänkande Nina Björk helt plötsligt stå i skamvrån, bara för att hon i
DN- Söndag sade att biologin ändå har en påverkan på våra liv. (åtminstone hennes liv!)

Kampen om Tabula Rasa - människan ett oskrivet blad eller nästan en ny match mellan Tro och Vetande.
DS!

Mappa interattiva sintetica del benchmarking

The Discovery Institute has given an "award" for "Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator In An Evolutionary Biology Course." Personally, I think that this post deserves an award for “stupidest pretend award.”  Since when is teaching reality indoctrination?  Seriously, an intelligent design proponent talking about indoctrination makes my head hurt.

Randy Crowther starts off the post with this outlandish statement:

It seems that dogmatic Darwinists will now applaud efforts to consistently suppress scientific criticism of modern evolutionary theory.

No. Evolutionists applaud efforts to suppress pseudoscientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, but real criticisms and unanswered questions are welcomed. Pretending that unanswered questions, logical fallacies, and willfully ignorant remarks are valid criticisms is preposterous.  Yet that is all that intelligent design proponents bring to the conversation

The Discovery Institute gave this “award” to Randy Moore, Ph.D.  Besides a quote from Dr. Moore, Crowther doesn’t really state why he is guilty of indoctrination.  Here is the quote:

"The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and comes from diverse disciplines, such as molecular biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, ethology, and biochemistry. There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution occurs, nor are there science-based alternative theories," states Dr. Moore. "Evolution is a unifying theme in biology; teaching it as such is the best way to show students what biology is about and how they can use evolution as a tool to understand our world. [Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science – it is a great gift to give to students," says Dr. Moore.

I wanted to include the quote because he made a couple of really important points.  The first is how so many different disciplines provide support for evolution.   Having evidence coming from so many different directions makes a strong theory.  Moore also brings up how there is no controversy among scientists.  Also good for a theory when so many people support it.  Finally, he talks about how using evolution to explain how certain aspects in biology arose leads to a deeper understanding of the world around us.

Obviously, the Discovery Institute disagrees:

First the evidence supporting evolution isn't as overwhelming or mountianous as Moore claims. Jonathan Wells proved this with Icons of Evolution which still causes conniption fits for Darwinists. More recently, the new supplementary biology text from Hill House Publishers, Explore Evolution,

Is he seriously going to say that two unscientific books (Icons of Evolution and Explore Evolution) can discredit the work of thousands of scientists?  There is a mountain of evidence for evolution, despite Crowther's willful ignorance.

Crowther continues:

Second, there's no knowing what Moore means when he says there's "no controversy … Obviously there is no controversy over microevolution, change over time. But there is huge controversy among scientists over evolution if you mean macroevolution. Witness the Dissent from Darwin list where hundreds of scientists proclaim their skepticism.

A fraction of scientists in unrelated fields saying they don’t believe in evolution is meaningless.  The vast majority of relevant scientists do believe in evolution (see Project Steve).  Does the fact that people literally believe in astrology, aliens living among us, or a hollow earth mean that there isn’t a consensus against those things?  Of course not and the same is true for evolution.

Besides, there is no real difference between micro- and macroevolution in evolutionary theory.  Small changes over short periods equals large changes over long periods.  It is an artificial distinction made for convenience similar to microeconomics vs. macroeconomics.  What happens at the micro scale effects what happens at the macro scale.

Crowther’s last point:

Third, Darwinian evolution is not a theory of everything. To claim it the unifying theory of all biology is laughable.

Moore did not say that it was a theory of everything.  He said “Evolution is a “unifying theme in biology.”  Just like supply and demand in economics, evolution can explain a good deal of the aspects of biology: included but not limited to antibiotic resistance, vestigial organs, gene homology, phylogenetic trees, and geographically isolated species.

Crowther concludes with:

It's pretty pathetic when a scientific theory like Darwinism has to be propped up through indoctrination. Worse, those who lie to their students will now be rewarded for doing so. Orwellian isn't it.

What is pathetic is that there is a group of people so desperate for evolution not to be true that they are willing to deny the most logical theory and the evidence that supports it while supporting a theory based on absolutely no evidence.  It is pathetic to call someone a liar for teaching the only theory with evidence to support it.

I personally don’t know Dr. Moore, but after seeing him get this award from the Discovery Institute, I would love to meet him and shake his hand.

En 1982, dos programadores cuarentones, John Warnock y Charles Geschke dejaron su trabajo en Xerox e iniciaron su propia compañía de software. La llamaron “Adobe”, por un arrolluelo que corría detrás de la casa de Warnock. Su primer objetivo fue crear PostScript, un lenguaje de programación usado en edición de escritorio.

Cuando Adobe era joven, Warnock y Geschke hicieron todo lo posible para ahorrar dinero. Así que pidieron ayuda a sus familiares y amigos. El padre octogenario de Geschke barnizó madera para hacer estantes, y la esposa de Warnock diseñó el primer logo de Adobe.

Apple Inc.

En 1976, Steve Wozniak y Steve Jobs ("los dos Steves") diseñaron y construyeron una computadora hecha en casa, la Apple I. Como en ese entonces Wozniak estaba trabajando en Hewlett Packard, se la ofrecieron primero a HP, pero no lograron despertar interés. Los dos Steves tuvieron que vender algunas de sus posesiones más preciadas. Por ejemplo, Wozniak vendió su querida calculadora programable HP y Jobs su viejo autobús Volkswagen para financiar la fabricación de las primeras motherboards para laApple I.

Más tarde en el mismo año, Wozniak creó la máquina de siguiente generación: el prototipo de la Apple II. Se la ofrecieron a Commodore, y de nuevo fueron rechazados. Pero las cosas pronto comenzaron a tener mejor cariz para Apple, porque la compañía comenzó a ganar algunos clientes para sus computadoras.

El primer logo de Apple era una compleja imagen de Isaac Newton sentado bajo un manzano. El logo decía: "Newton … A Mind Forever Voyaging Through Strange Seas of Thought … Alone." (“Newton... una mente siempre en viaje a través de extraños mares del pensamiento... solo”). Fue diseñado por Ronald Wayne quien, junto con Wozniak y Jobs, también había sido cofundador de Apple Computer. En 1976, habiendo trabajado sólo por dos semanas en Apple, Wayne renunció a sus acciones (10% de la compañía), por un pago único de 800 dólares, porque pensó que Apple era demasiado riesgosa. Luego se habrá querido matar, porque si hubiese conservado su parte ahora valdría millones.

Jobs pensó que el logo demasiado complejo tenía algo que ver con las escasas ventas de la Apple I, así que encargó a Rob Janoff, de la agencia Regis McKenna, diseñar uno nuevo. Janoff creó el logo con bandas de colores del arco iris que Apple usó desde 1976 hasta 1999.

Se dice que el mordisco en el logo de Apple era un guiño para Alan Turing, el padre de la moderna ciencia informática, quien se suicidó por medio de ingerir una manzana con cianuro. Janoff, sin embargo, dijo en una entrevista que aunque el conocía el juego de palabras en inglés "byte/bite" (byte, mordisco, que estaba en el viejo slogan "Byte into an Apple"), en realidad él diseñó el logo como lo hizo para que no pareciera un tomate cherry.

En 1998, supuestamente por insistencia de Jobs, que acababa de regresar a la compañía, Apple reemplazó el logo del arco iris por uno monocromo, de aspecto más moderno.

Canon

En 1930, Goro Yoshida y su cuñado Saburo Uchida crearon en Japón la firma Precision Optical Instruments Laboratory. Cuatro años después, lanzaron su primera cámara, llamada “Kwanon”. Este es el nombre de un sabio budista que representa la piedad. El logo incluía la imagen de Kwanon con 1000 brazos y llamas.

Pero la empresa registró una palabra ligeramente diferente como marca: “Canon” que, no sólo era similar a Kwanon, sino que connotaba precisión, una característica con la que la compañía quería ser asociada.

Google

En 1996, los estudiantes de computación de la Stanford University Larry Page y Sergey Brin desarrollaron un motor de búsqueda que luego sería Google. Al principio, se lo llamó “BackRub”, en referencia a su capacidad de analizar "back links" (enlaces inversos) para determinar la relevancia de un determinado sitio web. Más tarde, renombraron a su motor de búsqueda como “Google”, un juego de palabras con el término Googol, que significa 1 seguido de cien ceros.

Dos años más tarde, Larry y Sergey se dirigieron a diferentes portales de Internet que en ese entonces dominaban la Web, pero nadie se interesó en su tecnología. En 1998, fundaron Google, Inc. en el garage de un amigo, y el resto ya es historia.

El primer logo de Google fue creado por Sergey Brin, luego de haber aprendido a usar el software libre de edición gráfica GIMP. Más tarde, se añadió un signo de admiración similar al del logo de Yahoo!. En 1999, la profesora consulta de arte en Stanford Ruth Kedar diseño el logo de Google que la compañía utiliza hoy.

Pero para celebrar feriados, cumpleaños de famosos y días importantes, Google usa logos especialmente diseñados, conocidos como “Google Doodles”. El primero hacía referencia al Burning Man Festival de 1999. Larry y Sergey pusieron un pequeño cartucho de dinamita en la home page para hacer saber al público por qué nadie estaba en la oficina en caso de que el sitio colapsara. Actualmente, los Google Doodles suelen ser diseñados por Dennis Hwang.

IBM

En 1911, la International Time Recording Company (ITR, fundada en 1888) y la Computing Scale Company (CSC, fundada en 1891) se fusionaron para formar la Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). En 1924, la compañía adoptó el nombre de International Business Machines Corporation y un logo más moderno. Fabricaba sistemas para que los empleados ahorraran tiempo, escalas de pesaje, rebanadoras de carne y tabuladores de tarjetas perforadas.

A fines de los ‘40, IBM comenzó una difícil transición desde las tarjetas perforadas hacia las computadoras, liderada por su CEO, Thomas J. Watson. Para manifestar este radical cambio, en 1947, IBM cambió su logo por primera vez en dos décadas, y era una simple sigla tipeada.

En 1956, bajo el liderazgo del hijo de Watson, Paul Rand cambió el logo de IBM para darle una apariencia más sólida y balanceada. Al mismo tiempo, hizo el cambio lo suficientemente sutil como para comunicar que había una continuidad en el pasaje del mando del padre hacia el hijo.

El último gran cambio del logo de IBM, que en realidad no fue tan grande, fue en 1972, cuando Paul Rand reeplazó las letras sólidas por rayas horizontales que sugerían velocidad y dinamismo.

LG Electronics

LG comenzó su vida como dos compañías: Lucky (o Lak Hui) Chemical Industrial (fundada en 1947), que fabricaba cosméticos, y GoldStar (fundada en 1958), una fábrica de radios y, posteriormente, de todo tipo de electrodomésticos.

En 1995, Lucky Goldstar cambió su nombre a LG Electronics. Actualmente, LG es un conglomerado coreano, así que en realidad hay un amplio rango de compañías del grupo LG, con nombres ligeramente diferentes, como LG Chemicals, LT Telecom, e incluso un equipo de béisbol llamado LG Twins. Todas estas compañías adoptaron el slogan "Life is Good" que suele aparecer junto al logo. Actualmente, el conglomerado ya no responde al nombre Lucky Goldstar, sino que es simplemente “LG”.

Microsoft

En 1975, Paul Allen (que antes trabajaba en Honeywell) y su amigo Bill Gates (entonces un estudiante de segundo año en Harvard) vieron una nueva Altair 8800 de Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems, o MITS. Era la primera mini computadora personal disponible comercialmente.

Allen y Gates decidieron llevar el lenguaje de computación BASIC que, por cierto, desarrollaron en 24 horas, a dicha computadora. Así nació el primer lenguaje de programación escrito para una computadora personal. Se acercaron a MITS y lograron licenciar BASIC a esta compañía. Poco después, Allen y Gates nombraron su asociación como "Micro-soft". Al año, eliminaron el guión. En 1977, Microsoft se convirtió oficialmente en una empresa, con Allen y Gates compartiendo el título de socio general.

En 1982, Microsoft anunció un nuevo logo, que tenía una “O” muy distintiva.

En 1987, Scott Baker diseño el logo actual, que tiene una barra sobre la “O” que la hace lucir un poco como un muñeco Pac-Man. En 1994 Microsoft introdujo el slogan “¿Hasta dónde quiere llegar hoy?”, como parte de una campaña que costó 100 millones de dólares.

En 1996, quizá cansado de bromas del tipo “¿Qué clase de mensajes de error le gustaría recibir hoy?”, Microsoft retiró ese slogan. Más tarde, probó con otros como "Making It Easier", "Start Something", "People Ready" y "Open Up Your Digital Life", antes de decidirse por el actual: "Your potential. Our passion." (“Su potencial. Nuestra pasión”)

Motorola

Motorola, entonces Galvin Manufacturing Corporation, comenzó en 1928 de la mano de Paul Galvin. En los ‘30, Galvin comenzó a fabricar radios para autos, así que creó el nombre ‘Motorola’, como la simple combinación de la palabra “motor” y el popular sufijo “ola”. La compañía cambió su nombre en 1947 a Motorola Inc. En los ‘80, comenzó la fabricación comercial de teléfonos celulares.

La insigna "M" estilizada fue diseñada en 1955.

Mozilla Firefox

En 2002, Dave Hyatt y Blake Ross crearon un navegador de licencia libre que terminó llamándose Mozilla Firefox. Al principio, se llamó Phoenix, pero este nombre tuvo problemas legales así que se lo cambió a Firebird. De nuevo, este otro nombre tuvo problemas por ser similar al de un software preexistente, así que pasó a llamarse Mozilla Firefox.

En 2003, un diseñador profesional de interfases, Steven Garrity, declaró que el browser tenía una mala mercadotecnia. Poco después, John Hicks, de Hicksdesign, diseñó el ahora famoso logo de Firefox.

Nokia

En 1865, Knut Fredrik Idestam estableció un molino de pasta de madera en Tampere, al sudoeste de Finlandia. El nombre de Nokia viene de abreviar el del río Nokianvirta, que recorre dicha ciudad. Por cierto, en finlandés, la palabra "Nokia" designa a un peludo animal parecido a una comadreja.

La compañía moderna que conocemos como Nokia Corporation -y que se especializa en telecomunicaciones y teléfonos celulares- en realidad fue una fusión entre Finnish Rubber Works (que también tenía una marca Nokia), Nokia Wood Mill, y Finnish Cable Works, en 1967.

Nortel

En 1895, la Bell Telephone Company de Canada separó la parte de su negocio que fabricaba alarmas antifuego, y otros equipos no relacionados con la telefonía, en una nueva empresa llamada Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Esta empresa comenzó fabricando gramófonos.

In 1976, Northern Electric cambió su nombre a Northern Telecom Ltd. para reflejar mejor su nuevo foco hacia la tecnología digital. Diecinueve años más tarde, en 1995, se convirtió en Nortel Networks, para expresar su nueva virazón, esta vez hacia diversos productos y servicios relacionados con redes.

Palm

Palm Computing Inc. fue fundada en 1992 por Jeff Hawkins, quien también inventó la Palm Pilot PDA. La compañía pasó por varios tropiezos en su historia. Su primer PDA, llamado Zoomer, no funcionó comercialmente. Luego la empresa fue adquirida por U.S. Robotics quien, rápidamente, fue demandada por Xerox por supuesta violación de patentes en su tecnología de reconocimiento de escritura manual, Graffiti.

Luego U.S. Robotics fue comprada por 3Com y Hawkins, disgustado por la nueva política, se fue para formar su propia compañía, Handspring. Ironicamente, no mucho después de que se fue, 3Com escindió a Palm Inc como una empresa separada. Palm Inc, a su vez, se dividió en dos, PalmSource (el lado del sistema operativo) y palmOne (la parte del hardware). palmOne, entonces, se fusionó con Handspring y luego compró a PalmSource. Así, volvió a llamarse Palm, Inc.

Por supuesto, todo esto no implicó sólo cambios de nombre, sino también de logos.

Xerox

El linaje de Xerox Corporation puede rastrearse hasta 100 años atrás, cuando nació como Haloid Company en 1906 y fabricaba papel y equipamiento fotográfico.

En 1938, Chester Carlson inventó una técnica de fotocopiar llamada electrofotografía, que más tarde denominó xerografía. Como muchas otras invenciones, ésta no fue bien recibida al principio. Carlson gastó años tratando de convencer a General Electric, IBM, RCA y otras compañías de invertir en su invento, pero nadie estaba interesado.

Hasta que se dirigió a Haloid, quien lo ayudó a desarrollar la primera fotocopiadora del mundo, la Haloid Xerox 914. Esta copiadora fue tan exitosa que, en 1961, Xerox sacó de su nombre a Haloid.

En 2004, luego de un problema legal con la Securities and Exchange Commission, Xerox trató de reinventarse, lo cual por supuesto implicó un nuevo logo. Cuatro años más tarde, en 2008, trató de deshacerse de su imagen de empresa que sólo hacía copiadoras, y adoptó otro logo distinto. Al final, se decidió por el actual logo “Digital X”, que parece una pelota de playa. (Fuente: Neatorama)

Enjoy.

Via ITsitio

.
This article is for those who just want to know the truth no matter what it is...one of those 'red' pill deals.

Intelligence is the ability to organize memory to make decisions that benefit the thinking organism.

It's development was driven by the survival instinct originally but today it is a power tool in human culture, and a self-empowering tool in the emerging culture of the energetic being.

Of course the most beautiful aspect of intelligence is the ability of life to model and understand itself and it's eternal behavior/nature.

So seriously....
do not read this if your sense of security is delicate to the human condition and mythologies.

Enough said...let's go!

First we have to ask ourself...
what is 'existence'?

Can a hominid with the acquired ability to think in images create an image of
'The Big Picture'?

Can a hominid create a model of the WHOLE thing?
Many have tried.....from Diodorus Cronos to Albert Einstein.

What can I deduce about existence in the simplest way?

….1 Existence is all there is.
.Existence can’t come from anything else…there is nothing else.
By definition and concept....
non-existence doesn’t exist.

…2 Existence is ‘always present’
(always existing).

Since there is no place to create it or for it to go…it just ‘IS’. (see #1)
.
Existence is/was not derived from anything else. It never has/had a beginning and won’t have an ending…it is beyond our concept of ‘time’…(counting and comparing repetitive or predictable astronomical movements).IF it could end that means something besides existence is real and that’s impossible (see #1).

…3 The activity within existence creates temporal patterns, forms, objects, and beings and ultimately intelligence and personalities. The inherent activity or nature of existence creates temporary images in this continuous/eternal setting. Things which are not ‘always present’ appear in the ‘always present’.
How is this possible??

….4 The ability to become what we label ‘creation’ must be an partial aspect of existence’s unconscious cyclical behavior or nature…or else it could never happen.
Why?…existence is the only thing/non-thing that is real/exists; and any temporal thing or non-thing appearing in it must be a result of it’s congruent behavior (it’s nature/instinct)

Since existence is continuous this behavior of expression must be cyclical or part of a larger cycle…like a huge vibration that moves from a simple beat and expands to a complex series of vibrations and back to a primal beat and so on ‘always happening’..’always present’…’eternally’..’forever’. If we could draw an image of it…existence and it’s moving might look something like the image at the top of this page.

CONCLUSION:
Existence is the ‘always present’ presence.
(I call it/us ‘primary presence’)
Creation is a temporary configuration of it’s unconscious behavior.

Admittedly that's not a romantic view of things and hominids like to think images and personalities are 'large and in charge' but the truth is that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Yes as much as we hate to think that...some things are not possible because existence is always naturally here and itself and operating....before the first mind is formed or the first word is spoken or the first conscious being evolves and then dissolves.

THE TEMPORARY IS NEVER 'ALWAYS PRESENT'.
The 'not always present' can never BECOME 'always present'....
it either is or it is not.

There is a continuous supreme 'being' of sorts...the great 'IS'....'existence'
but forms and memories and minds and thoughts and personalities have to be developed....
all have a beginning point...
all are not 'always present'.

Existence, our primal presence, is always present, always vibrating but not always intelligent.

Our 'primary presence' has an innate instinctual 'knowing' or sense of it's existence which evolves into an intelligent knowing when evolving through a physical and objective reality.

Our innate 'subjective' awareness or consciousness evolves in and out of 'objective' consciousness during our cyclical journey and leads life to want to know itself better.

This brings us to the model of The Eternal Cycle.
What is the 'always present' nature or behavior of existence/life?   The Eternal Cycle

So my beautiful friends...let's totally enjoy the gift and privilege of intelligence.

It is rarer than physical matter, rarer than than the stars and galaxies, rarer than the finest jewels...it is indeed the rarest and most precious experience in existence to see and know creation as our self even if for but a brief moment!

For more articles by Lou Majors see
AWAKE:The Dreamers Awake To Primary Presence.

.

.

.
.
Copyright © 1999-2008 Lou Majors

“Most evolutionists give the impression that evolution is a settled fact of science, on the order of the Earth being round or revolving around the Sun. Evolution, we are assured, has been overwhelmingly confirmed. Only rubes and ignoramuses debate evolution. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse.”

“For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins accuses those who refuse to accept evolution with being “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” To this he recently added: “I don’t withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.”’

“Despite such bluster, evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked: “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus....” To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.”

Read the Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge by William A. Dembski