Online Educational Journals

A question for atheists and scientific truth,can truthful science really exist? Definition of Science: science is the methodology that mankind uses to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on two assumptions: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom) and 2) everything that happens, will happen, or has happened can be explained without invoking the supernatural (the naturalistic axiom). In other words, science assumes that God does not exist and then sets about to prove this assumption. Take evolution for example. Shortly after Darwin, science assumed that evolution happened and then set about to prove how it happened. The naturalistic axiom does no allow science to ask if it can happen or why did it happen? Science cannot ask these questions because science assumes that God does not exist. Thus, science is limited. Definition of Intelligent Design: intelligent design is a methodology that some scientists use to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on one assumption: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom). Because intelligent design does not assume that God does not exists, it is not science. Intelligent design has more flexibility than science in that it can ask questions that science cannot. Take the origin of life for example. Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event as evidence supporting the existence of a designer. Scientists who use the intelligent design methodology have and continue to identify problems associated with the origin of life that evolution cannot explain and will likely never explain. So which is better science or intelligent design? This depends on who is deciding. Many scientists are perfectly happy assuming that God does not exists, so they prefer science to intelligent design. These scientists are not upset by the fact that college textbooks say that life began in the primordial soup as a self replicating RNA molecule when the primary scientific literature (articles in journals like Science, Nature, and the Journal of Molecular Evolution) contradict this scenario. These scientists are not interested in the truth. Others do care abot the truth.It concerns these scientists that college and high school biology text books are not allowed to present the many unsolved issues with the origin of life that are so plentiful in the primary scientific literature. Most of these scientists do not voice their concerns because if they do, evolutionists will label them creationists. They will then be denied tenure, their papers will not get published, they might be fired and their research grants will probably be denied. So it seems it is won by intimidation by the non god scientists who are able to hide the truth.

Alarmists, what's your definition of "consensus"? http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm See that first link? It's peer reviewed. See that second link? There's a list of the 31,000 scientists that don't believe in AGW. over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees, 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists 5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences Not quite the "flat earth" types that alarmists say skeptics are, eh? Also, of all the papers reviewed, only one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results In fact, if you take a count, only 7% of peer reviewed journals between 2004 and Febuary 2007 gave explicit endorsements of AGW ("explicit" means that they said that AGW exists and that everyone that disagrees is a denier; implicit means that they accepted it, but pointed out the flaws with the data and the possibility that it doesn't exist). If you include implicit it raises to 45%. However, 45% isn't a majority. The other 55% are either neutral or say outright that they don't believe in AGW. Once again, look at the links. What you do, in case you can't figure it out for one reason or another, is you go to the left, where it says "signers A," "signers B," etc. Paul, you're right. Geri Hallaway isn't a real person, so they removed his name from the list. Maybe you should get your statistics from a source other than wikipedia. And you said that writing a journal supporting AGW is a matter of common sense. Why say it in an article, when half the world doesn't believe in it and you could convince them. That's like you suddenly never saying CO2 on Y/A ever again. Pegminer, I never expected someone like you to go two days without getting kicked off Y/A for misinformation, but, like you, I'm suprised. Eise, since you're citing the petition's lack of climatologists, I'm going to point out that Rajendra Pachauri (the IPCC's chairman)admitted that "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” A smaller % are climatologists. He himself is trained as a railroad engineer. So why don't you go tell the members of the IPCC that they need to step down. I wish you luck. The above statement was intended for Weise Ente. Actually, Dana, 95% of the signatures have been verified. And until you manage to come up with your own list, I think that I may have more than 0.1% of the scientific population. And the reason that neutral journals are included in my count, is that for a journal to refute AGW, the journal has to specifically be about AGW. And that doesn't always get past your fixed peer-reviewed system. However, you can easilly say AGW exists in say, a journal on sea-level rise. And how do you count "probably don't refute AGW?" Are you just counting authors that you like? That's what it sounds like. So Dana, you're supporting the Imaginary Petition? I'm not sure how many scientists have signed that one.

Why do so many think that a PhD makes one a research sientist that knows anything about the origins of life? Why do you creationists think that the mere fact that one holds a PhD or a doctorate in anything other than a biological science or an Earth science means that they KNOW something or have credibility and real credentials to state anything about the origins of life? Further, unless one is published in a peer reviewed respected journal they are neither prominent nor respected in their field. In other words, if one does not publish one is nothing in science or their field. If an IDiot, or Creatinist is not published in the above described journals one has FAILED to prove to that which they claim is valid and excepted science. LEAVE SCIENCE TO THE REAL SCIENTISTS!!!!! I should explain that those that hold doctorates from ACREDITED secular institutions in fields other than those RELAVENT do deserve respect for their accomplishments as well. As do those that received doctorates in theological fields from recognized institution. They DO NOT necessarily deserve respect on the subject of origins.

Are we getting closer to finding out how life really began on Earth through scientific evidence? http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/asteroid.water/?hpt=Sbin (I have included main points of the article below, along with additional relevant information on organic compounds) An icy asteroid (24 Themis) orbiting the sun between Mars and Saturn is adding credence to theories that Earth's water was delivered from space, according to a report published in the new issue of the science journal Nature. Using the infrared telescope at Mauna Kea, Hawaii, they were surprised to find not only water on 24 Themis, but organic compounds as well. Organic compounds are substances whose molecules contain one or more (often many more) carbon atoms (excluding carbonates, cyanides, carbides, and a few others). Since carbon has a far greater tendency to form molecular chains and rings than do other elements, its compounds are vastly more numerous (many millions have been described) than all others known. Living organisms consist mostly of water and organic compounds: proteins, carbohydrates, fats, nucleic acids, hormones, vitamins, and a host of others. The findings on 24 Themis lend weight to the idea that asteroids and comets are the source of Earth's water and organic material. "I believe our findings are linked to the origin of life on Earth," Humberto Campins said at UCF. Scientists now plan to scan the asteroid belt for more evidence of water and organic materials, hoping to determine if 24 Themis is just an interloper -- possibly a comet that got caught in the asteroid belt -- or the first of many water-bearing asteroids that will change the way astronomers look at the solar system. How close are we getting to truly solidifying precisely how life on Earth originated from and what role will this evidence (especially when it becomes more prominent over time - not in regards to this one specific finding in general) eventually have on religion? White Shooting Star of HK, your obvious lack of intelligence by not understanding the significance of this completely discredits any viable opinion you may have on the matter.

Should Texas teach this scientific evidence as the most viable theory to how life began on Earth? http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/asteroid.water/?hpt=Sbin (I have included main points of the article below, along with additional relevant information on organic compounds) An icy asteroid (24 Themis) orbiting the sun between Mars and Saturn is adding credence to theories that Earth's water was delivered from space, according to a report published in the new issue of the science journal Nature. Using the infrared telescope at Mauna Kea, Hawaii, they were surprised to find not only water on 24 Themis, but organic compounds as well. Organic compounds are substances whose molecules contain one or more (often many more) carbon atoms (excluding carbonates, cyanides, carbides, and a few others). Since carbon has a far greater tendency to form molecular chains and rings than do other elements, its compounds are vastly more numerous (many millions have been described) than all others known. Living organisms consist mostly of water and organic compounds: proteins, carbohydrates, fats, nucleic acids, hormones, vitamins, and a host of others. The findings on 24 Themis lend weight to the idea that asteroids and comets are the source of Earth's water and organic material. "I believe our findings are linked to the origin of life on Earth," Humberto Campins said at UCF. Scientists now plan to scan the asteroid belt for more evidence of water and organic materials, hoping to determine if 24 Themis is just an interloper -- possibly a comet that got caught in the asteroid belt -- or the first of many water-bearing asteroids that will change the way astronomers look at the solar system. How close are we getting to truly solidifying precisely how life on Earth originated and where from, and what role will this evidence (especially when it becomes more prominent over time - not in regards to this one specific finding in general) eventually have on religion?

Oxygen-depleted zones in some parts of the oceans appear to have expanded....? ...What do you think this will mean? Oxygen-depleted zones in the central and eastern equatorial Atlantic and equatorial Pacific oceans appear to have expanded over the last 50 years, researchers reported in Friday's edition of the journal Science. Low-oxygen zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas also have been studied in recent years, raising concerns about the threat to sea life. Why do you think this is happening? Is it something we should worry about? What will the effects be on sea life? On fisheries? How will it impact your life if it continues?

Is it too late for me to pursue a career in Medicine? I am a Financial Consultant with MBA. I use to love my profession but I recently realized that it's not making me happy anymore. Recently, I watched an interview by David Shore (creator House M.D.) who use to be a lawyer but left his profession because of the clients he represented. I feel the same way. At the end of the day I don't feel fulfilled. I don't think I'm making any difference in the life of others. Instead it felt like I'm part of a world where greed is commonplace. Life is short. My belief is that our purpose in life is to bring happiness to others and ourselves. Why medicine? It's my other passion. I'd rather read a medical journal that Law books. I love the mystery of the human body. If I'm going to devote my all my time with work might as well be a profession that would save lives not breed greed. I took up 1 year premed but my scholarship didn't cover the course so I took Accountancy instead. I'm good in research. Back in high school I ace my biology and other science subjects . I love to read (I read publications from Mayo Clinic Medical Education and Research) and I am detail oriented . I'm used to working long hours. Is it too late for me to change my career path? I'm 34 yrs. old by the way and single (so no family pressure). Just need a serious insight. Thanks.

Science Research Question? I am in a Science Research class, and I need to find journal articles on actual research presented by scientists. I cannot find any articles, though. I would like an article about micro-organisms, and how they have aided in human life. something important, and invention or discovery that is really quite useful to humans, relating to a microscopic organism, or at least something small. If that doesn't exsit, other things will work, just as long as it is really interesting. Thanks.

How come most of the "science" in the Bible is stuff any idiot can figure out? -The Bible says the there are innumerable Have you ever looked at the sky at night? Obviously there are too many to count. And I bet there is a definite number of stars in the universe, it's just that we don't know. There aren't an infinite number of stars, that's impossible. The number just fluctuates with times. -The bible says each star is different Again, have you ever looked at the sky at night? Some stars are dimmer than others, brighter than others, different colors, etc.. -The bible says life is in the blood I bet any caveman could figure out that if someone lost their blood, they would die. -The Bible says that we are all dust I'm sure that people never saw a dead body degrade into crap that looks like dirt. These are a few examples, but as I read there are many more things I find that could have found out through simple observation. If you got anything to say, make sure you CITE SOURCES, PREFERABLY WEBSITES OF UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH-INSTITUTES, AND PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. NO CREATIONIST WEBSITE. Any to non-Christians, do you have any funny examples of the "science" in the Bible? EDIT: -The Bible says that we are all dust I'm sure that people saw a dead body degrade into crap that looks like dirt.

Are boys better than girls at mathematics? Hey please read this article!!! Do girls really fare worse than boys when it comes to studying science, or more specifically, while doing mathematics? Most people, including academics, seem to think so. No less an authority than the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, reiterated the same thing a few years back when he suggested that the lack of innate aptitude of women was a factor behind their low numbers in science and engineering. He had to resign, of course, but not before another “authority”, the well-known evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, argued that Summers' remarks were scientifically justified and should not be considered offensive. Well, too bad for them because it's official now: girls are apparently just as good at math as boys. That was the finding of a study — the largest of its kind ever — released last week in the journal 'Science'. In it, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, said a comparison of standardised mathematical test scores of approximately seven million students showed girls did as well as boys at virtually every grade level — from primary to high school. This reverses study reports from some 20 years ago when girls were found to be lagging behind boys. Obviously, something other than genes are at work here in narrowing the gap. Normally, the perception which prevails among both parents and teachers is that boys are better at math and, as a conditioned reflex, girls keep buying into that. By believing the stereotype they wind up avoiding harder math classes which keep them out of a lot of careers in later life, particularly high-prestige, lucrative ones in science and technology. However, according to the new study, programmes promoting girls' participation in mathematics and science, as has been done in the US, is the ideal solution because the more girls are encouraged to take advanced math classes, the better they do on tests. This clearly suggests that cultural and social factors, not gender alone, influence ability to understand mathematical concepts. The relevance of the encouragement factor in a country like India, where the same mindset is even more rampant, cannot be overstated. Along with encouraging parents to give girls an education, if they could also be persuaded to push them along science streams, it could result in expanded opportunities for their children in the future.

Critics attack the Bible for its mention of very long lifespans. But why couldn't long lifespans be possible? Science journals regularly publish the results of experiments where lab rats, mice, beetles, and all sorts of other animals live up to many times the "normal lifespan" of that species when fed very low-calorie diets or when their genes are tweaked to encourage long life. Accordingly, how is it scientifically valid to say it is "impossible" [the word people often choose in rants against the Bible] for at least some humans of long ago to have had longer lifespans that what we expect today? Sure, if someone wants to say longer lifespans many centuries ago "seem unlikely", fine. But how can anyone say with assurance that long lifespans (whether the 900+ years lifespans of pre-Deluge Genesis or the 120 years of Moses) are "absolutely impossible"? Is this dogma due to a general skepticism toward ancient religious texts (often accompanied by relative favoring of non-religious ancient texts)?....or is there a scientific reason why dramatic longevity variations among other mammals and various other creatures used in experiments are clearly possible but human genes render such variations in human longevity absolutely impossible? (Why the contrast in perspectives?) ============================ I have no agenda -- other than an honest question and wondering whether bias/prejudice drives the replies. The evasion of dealing directly with the question I asked (and the various insults) is quite interesting. Personally, long human lifespan seems unlikely to me -- but the attitudes of those who fail to answer the simple question IS an answer of sorts. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ BASEMENT CAT: Yes, I've wondered about that sort of outlook on "year". When interpreting ancient texts, one has to adopt an open mind about how another culture may be describing something that is very different from what we might presume.

What is the point of analyzing poetry and critical thinking passages? Okay, I get that English is important, we should all be well-rounded, and yadda, yadda, yadda. The SAT is a measure of a student's potential to do well in college. I got it. I do NOT understand the value of poetry or writing essay after essay on topics that have zero relevance in the real world. On the other hand, calculus, biology, physics, and chemistry are subjects make sense. We use them for space travel, economics, engineering, medicine, technology, etc. You see where I am going with this. However, Oedipus Rex has nothing to do with the modern world; the exceptions being incest, sex, and death, which are the only things that my AP English Literature class talks about. I am fed up with it. Okay, we all die, thanks for reminding me that one day I will expire. If I wanted to be well-rounded, I would have taken up a musical instrument, tried out for a sports team, or learned to draw. Or better yet, philosophize like Shakespeare, or some other goon who everyone seems to be fascinated with. What is the point of being well-rounded if I am only going to do ONE job for the rest of my life, i.e. mathematics. I already know how to communicate my thoughts and feelings, and I can write a decent paper, so what gives. What is the importance of writing with excellent diction anyway? People should just say what they mean. Sure, books and movies would be pretty boring, but I really only read science journals and magazines, and math textbooks. I would like for many people to answer this question, particularly those who feel differently about this issue. Thank You. P.S. I am not sure why we have to take the SAT to get into college when years ago, there was no examination that determined admission. Universities still produced educated individuals without it, so what calls for it now?

Quiz on database searching? 1. Why would you use a periodical index? to check your e-mail to search the Internet to find citations to articles on a topic to search for materials available at Milner Library 2. In order to use the databases that Milner library subscribes to you must be in the library. you must be on campus. you must either be in the library or have a valid ULID and password. you will be required to pay an annual user fee. 3. Which of the following is NOT true when conducting a Google search use the “+” to indicate that a term must be present use the “-“ sign in front of a word to exclude it from the search using upper case letters is important putting the most important terms first in your search is recommended 4. You are writing a paper about the migration of Africanized honey bees to the United States and you have found the following article: “Flight of the Killer Bees.” Newsweek, v. 117 no 9 (Nov. 14, 19940 p. 25. Would this be considered a scholarly journal article? Yes No 5. Which of the following is a good use of the Internet? To find articles in scholarly journals To obtain information about other colleges To search databases that index articles in many academic disciplines To find books on your topic 6. Which statement about periodical indexes is NOT true? Periodical indexes allow you to search for articles by subject. Periodical indexes often specialize in a subject or type of material. Periodical indexes only index items owned by the home library Periodical indexes always contain citations and sometimes also include abstracts or full text. 7. Most of the indexes listed below would help you find information on recent events in Afghanistan. Which of these article indexes would NOT be a good choice to find this type of information? New York Times Index (articles from the last 365 days of the New York Times) BIOSIS Previews (articles in the life sciences literature) Newpaper Source (provides selected articles for 143 U.S. and international newspapers. LexisNexis (a full-text database service strong in law, business, and news. 8. To look up a journal, magazine, or newspaper in the Milner Catalog you would useTitle search Journal title search Keyword search Subject heading search 9. How can you tell you are looking at a popular magazine?articles are written for the general public articles are in-depth and often have a bibliography issues have few, if any, advertisements the credentials of the author are featured only a and b. 10. Consider the following citation: Canaan, Joyce. 1987. "A Comparative Analysis of American Suburban Middle Class, Middle School, and High School Teenage Culture." In George Spindler and Louise Spinler, eds., Interpretative Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This citation is for a book journal article chapter in a book doctoral dissertation 11. Use the Databases and Article Indexes section of the library web page when searching forbooks citations to journal articles government documents recommended web sites 12. When looking for a book on a topic, a good strategy to use is to first do a Guided Keyword search and then select the subject terms that you might want to use. True False 13. Which item CANNOT be found using the Milner Catalog (which is located on Milner’s web site?books owned by Milner Library journals owned by the library journal articles video recordings 14. Consider the following citation: Corsaro, William. 1985. Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Norwood, N.J.: Abllex. This citation is for a book journal article chapter in a book doctoral dissertation 15. You have this citation for an article: Thomas, Susan Gregory. "Capitalists on Campus: Students with Computer Skills Cash In." U.S. News & World Report, 7 Sept 1998: 82. What term would you search in the Milner Catalog to see if the library owned this article? search the article title “Capitalists on Campus” search the source title “U.S. News and World Report” search the author “Susan Gregory Thomas” Search the subject “college students and work” 16. Who publishes information on the Internet?Students Faculty Government agencies Companies Non-profit organizations All of the above 17. When using Internet sites, the domain name tells you the type of organization sponsoring a page. It is a three-letter code that is part of the URL and proceeded by a "dot." Which of the following statements is NOT correct? Even though a page comes from an educational institution (.edu), the institution does not necessarily endorse the views published by students or faculty members. Federal and state government agencies use the Internet (.gov) to publish legislation, census information, weather data, tax forms and many other documents. Nonprofit organizations (.org) use the Internet to promote their causes. These pag

What do you think of this? I think it's about time for this. Do you agree or disagree? Thanks.? New Antibiotics Take Poke at Bacteria Science News, July 28, 2001 by J. TravisE-mail Print Link Imagine a roll of LifeSavers. Now, mentally shrink that stack of candy rings to a few nanometers in length, making it smaller than a cell. That image offers a sense of the unusual structure behind a potential new class of antibiotics developed by M. Reza Ghadiri of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and his colleagues. In the July 26 NATURE, the investigators report that their nanotubes swiftly kill a wide range of bacteria in both test tubes and animals. The structures helped mice stave off normally lethal bacteria that are resistant to a traditional antibiotic, the Scripps researchers found. Related Results AlphaRx Signs Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with US Army Nanobac Life Sciences Announces Publication of Results in the Journal of... Stock Watch Alert for Tuesday, June 22, 2004: NNBP. American Enterprise Corporation Completes Merger Acquisition of NanobacLabs... At the structural heart of the drugs are rings, called cyclic peptides, that are composed of either six or eight amino acids. Under the proper conditions, such as within bacterial membranes, these rings assemble into hollow tubes. The tubes punch holes in the membranes, quickly killing the microbes. The tube-forming rings, dubbed nanobiotics, combine the natural and the unnatural, says Ghadiri. Every amino acid can come in two forms, one the mirror image of the other. The left-handed, or L, version occurs naturally, but scientists can synthesize the right-handed, or D, counterpart. By alternating D and L amino acids, Ghadiri's team synthesized short strings of amino acids that form into stable rings, which, in turn, can interlock with each other into stacks. "It's a very clever structure that advances the field significantly," says Tomas Ganz of the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies antimicrobial peptides. The choice of amino acids determines the conditions in which the rings stick together. By using positively charged amino acids, Ghadiri's team made the nanotubes assemble only in the negatively charged membranes of bacteria. Within the neutral membranes of mammalian cells, no assembly should occur. In test-tube experiments, Ghadiri's team found that nanobiotics can kill a variety of disease-causing bacteria while leaving red blood cells unharmed. Without obvious side effects, the nanotubes protected animals infected with an antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus aureus. Each year, such bacteria infect more than 2 million hospital patients in the United States. Ghadiri suggests that membrane-destroying drugs, such as his nanobiotics, may be more difficult for bacteria to defeat than current antibiotics. Those drugs typically target a specific molecule within bacteria. Microbes eventually develop resistance by altering the shape of the targeted molecule or by somehow keeping the drugs away from it. "Our hope is that this class [of antibiotics] would have a longer longevity," says Ghadiri. "The bacteria have to do more to become resistant." What's more, he adds, by changing amino acids in the peptide rings, scientists can create countless variations on the nanobiotics and further delay resistance. Although his team so far has used only injections to administer the peptides, Ghadiri is optimistic that the compounds can be delivered in pills. At this point, however, Ghadiri says he and his colleagues have done about as much as they can to establish the promise of their peptides. Ganz agrees, adding that to become drugs, the compounds need testing and development far beyond the means of a single research team. "We'd be delighted to work with the pharmaceutical or biotech industry," says Ghadiri. "These are relatively small molecules that can be synthesized very easily, very quickly, and on large scales." If the bacteria-thwarting nanotubes ever do make it to pharmacy shelves, they'll seem like LifeSavers in more ways than one. COPYRIGHT 2001 Science Service, Inc.

Did you know that Vegetarians have a much longer life expectancy? Vegetarians' Life Span By C. CLAIBORNE RAY Published: August 3, 2004 Sign In to E-Mail Print Vegetarians' Life Span Q. Have there been studies of whether eating a vegetarian diet increases life expectancy? A. Large health studies done for various purposes raise the possibility, but do not prove, that avoiding meat could be associated with living longer. It is difficult to separate the effects of vegetarian diets from other factors in such studies. Some of the most often cited surveys, for example, have followed groups of Seventh-day Adventists, who do not eat meat, to see what happens to their health over time. But almost all Adventists also avoid smoking, and many exercise regularly. A study published last year in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reviewed data from six studies that included people who ate meat less than once a week. The study also looked at new findings on the life expectancy of longtime vegetarians in the Adventist Health Study. The authors of the Journal study found that a very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in death risks in four studies, and a nonsignificant decrease in the fifth study; they found virtually no association in the sixth. Two studies also indicated that being on a vegetarian diet for a longer time contributed to a significantly greater decrease in mortality risk. In all the studies, the protective effect seemed to weaken after the ninth decade. C. CLAIBORNE RAY Readers are invited to submit questions by mail to Question, Science Times, The New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036-3959, or by e-mail to question@nytimes.com.

I'm so confused about my life...some help please? I feel like everything is expected of me. It's the classic story - my parents grew up facing poverty in India and managed to escape it by moving to America. They expect me to be perfect, and I try my hardest. I'm in all honors, including a math class that's above the honors level because my teacher felt I qualified for it. I'm great at English and Social Studies, my averages are always in the high 90s because I love reading and writing. My Math and Science averages are always above a 90. I'm good at other stuff too. I play clarinet in band and I'm first chair, and I've made the soccer team every year, and I'm a great runner for my age (I'm in 8th grade and I made the varsity winter track team). I got the Presidential Physical Fitness award. On top of all that, I've got plenty of friends. I know this entire thing seems like I'm bragging, but that's not what it's about. My parents are always comparing me to people that are smarter, more athletically/musically talented than me, and people that are my age and better than me in general. They want me to be the best. In all honesty, I don't work my hardest. There's a reason though. I feel like I don't have any choices left for me. Graduate from highschool, go to college, go to medical school, get married, "have two kids" (my parents even planned that part out for me), and become a doctor. I love to sing. I love to play soccer. I love to write. Even though I'm good at those three things, I wouldn't be allowed to get a career in any of them, because my parents and family would just hate me. I'm not allowed to be a little crazy once in a while, or to have too much fun, or to be too happy. My parents even hate it when I write in a journal because they don't want me bitching about the world in private. And I hatehatehatehate how I can't do things my own way, even for something as simple as a math problem. I want to be in the airforce before going to college, and go into business. I want to get married young. I want to have three kids. I want to marry someone I love regardless of what my parents say. But I don't want my parents to hate me, no matter how mean, or even if they beat me up sometimes. omfg....i know i wrote a lot but i'm srsly pissed off at life right now..........i get it if u dont read the whole things lolz it's not the culture at all - in fact i love the culture. i've embraced hinduism because it believes in all religions, and that we all worship the same god by different names. to me that's pretty new age and all. my parents don't push me into the culture or anything.

Canadian reaserchers find new theory of how life may have evolved? Your thoughts please? http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/News/ContentPosting?newsitemid=ribosome&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE-V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True&paginationenabled=false FROM SYMATICO MSN: Montreal scientists unlock mystery of early molecular mechanism Two Montreal researchers have proposed a new theory for a question that has long vexed evolutionary biologists: How did a mechanism thought to help build life self-assemble? 20/02/2009 3:49:04 PM CBC News Sergey Steinberg, a biochemistry professor at the University of Montreal, found the answer in the ribosome, a relatively large mechanism within the cell that takes RNA instruction and builds proteins. His discovery, made with student Konstantin Bokov, has been published in the scientific journal Nature. Scientists have long wondered how chemicals spontaneously came together to create proteins before life itself began. Steinberg and Bokov's theory fills in a critical step in how life got started four billion years ago, said Stephen Michnick, the Canada Research Chair in Integrative Genomics at the University of Montreal. A key breakthrough came when Steinberg found that chemicals could spontaneously come together and form something as complex as a ribosome. Previous theories had suggested only simple proteins could form spontaneously. This had been shown in a seminal experiment in the 1950s in which basic chemicals were combined in a flask, heated and zapped with electricity, creating basic proteins as a result. But proving that chemicals can spontaneously form simple proteins did not prove that spontaneous action could create more complex mechanisms. "In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature," said Steinberg. Steinberg was able to show otherwise. He found the ribosome was put together using relatively simple structural rules, a bit like a three-dimensional puzzle. For critics who ask why spontaneous formation didn't lead to something other than the ribosome, Steinberg used mathematical models to show there was no other possibility. The ribosome simply wouldn't hold together if it were constructed any other way. "The assembly followed rules that were logical and for which there were no alternatives," said Michnick. "This forces us to think about bigger structures. This type of thinking is important to understanding all sorts of structure." For instance, the next step might be to consider why proteins begin to form wrongly spontaneously. Several neurodegenerative diseases occur when proteins start to malform, said Michnick. Steinberg's research could give insight in how that happens, and why.

Can anyone please help me to improve the statement of purpose? Home was through the scientific journal given to me by my brother when I was child and that was contains a range of scientific topics diverse, but what caught my attention and intrigued me was the subject of the layers of the atmosphere with information about each layer, especially with respect to temperature and the types of gases. This aroused in me a passion and loves for this science and the fact the atmosphere. I became every now and then seized the opportunities to buy some magazines, books or articles about the nature of the atmosphere. That was the beginning of my interest in the Atmospheric Sciences. I am a social human and I like to socialize with others and get to know people from other cultures to enrich my experience and improve my relationships with people around me. Also I consider myself lucky to be born into a family cultured and educated, with social values and high degree of care and responsibility, which was and is still great supporters to face all challenges and obstacles. I was year after year, increases my love and my passion for science and knowledge. After 2003 and the opening of Iraq to the age of technology, Internet and satellite television had a significant role in enriching my knowledge through follow up reports and scientific research visible and audible, especially in atmospheric sciences and on the contents of this science wonderful secrets of massive and accurate in his regime and his big role in the preservation of life on the planet. So I decided after completing the study in the school to entry the university and study science atmosphere. There I continued the discretionary in the study and excellence. I was succeeded with distinction in every year of study with the order of the first student on the department, drawing the admiration of faculty in the department and encouraged me to do more and gave me advice and guidance and a lot of sources in order to be more understanding of this specialize. That was a reason to increase my determination to succeed Throughout the four years of study Which culminated in me getting a bachelor's degree with honors and with The rank of the first student of the College., which nominated me to obtain a full scholarship by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Iraq to obtain the Master degree. Through my studies at university I did some research, the most important of these is the Graduation's research, which was entitled "Collection of WMO Programs", which obtained the degree of excellence and praise from the head of the department and several Professors. Through this research I focused on four main programs of the ten programs of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) discussed their components, objectives, activities and the relationship with each other and with other organizations. As well as research papers such that "Global Climate Change”, “Cloud Nuclei" and "Geostrophic wind". I am very interested to study the atmospheric sciences in your university (... ... ... ... ..). My optional for applying to your university is not arbitrarily, but came after discussions with several professors in the department as well as with some of my relatives who have studied in USA and they advised me to apply in your respectable university. After my visit to the website of the University and take important information about the university and access to the department(... ... ..) and took the idea of lessons, teaching faculty and Correspondence some of them, I became sure that your university is the best place for me to achieve my goals and ambitions and I will be proud to join you and take advantage of great wealth of knowledge and scientific progress that characterizes your university and I will make every effort possible to be a part of those who contribute to advancing progress forward to the service of humanity. I am interested in the field of research (Climate Change) and It is no secret to anyone how is important, especially in recent years and which it accompanied by escalation and international uproar and it became the focus of attention of many scientists and researchers even politicians and world leaders, after Come outcries about the future of life on Earth. Through this research I will work on a comprehensive study of this phenomenon, trying to develop optimal solutions to which can be implemented on the ground. Especially after the emergence of many solutions that do not fit with the size of the problem and difficult to implement at the global scale, where the problem is not international or regional but it global, and must be dealt with on this basis. My goals after I getting a master's degree is to return to Iraq and to complete my career in science and get PhD Degree and work in the field of teaching and that of the urgent need for such specialization in my country. I will also do scientific researches in my field at all levels, international and

What links the Recession, Natural ecosystems, Telecommunications, Music, and the Shape of the Universe? The 5 Platonic solids are all convex polyhedra that all conveniently fit within the volume of a sphere. models of them have been found in Scotland in carved stone that predate Plato by at least 1000. The dodecahedron was said to represent the Earth. It consists of 12 pentagons All of these solids can be created via geometrically or logically in terms of argumentive triangulation. It takes three decisions. A triangulation, to make an argument which in turn builds framework. There are 5 natural interactions that occur among organisms the live within an ecosystem. These consist of mutualism, commensalism,parasitism, mimicry and inquilism. As organisms fight for niche space and resources the interactions become pronounced. The ecosystem as a whole attempts to achieve its highest efficiency relative to the transfer of nutrients. The most complex 5 trophic level ecosystems can be logically modeled as dodecahedrons that naturally interact with and amongst each other. There are 5 five trophic level ecosystems throughout the world that naturally interact together themselves and logically form a pentagon. In 2007 a professor along with colleages verified the ancient Greeks by proving music is truly geometrical form. If music is geometrical form and frequency is music frequency must also take on geometrical form. This was published in Time Magazine, and the journals of Science and Nature. A major discovery with immense implications. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582330,00.html Throughout this decade evidence has been mounting that the Universe itself is finite and in the shape of a dodecahedron. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The verdict is still out but evidence points toward a closed universe of infinite scalability. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031006/full/news031006-8.html If the Universe is the amphitheater, all things interact in 5 ways, and if music frequency has geometrical form and all is scalable then this would also be seen within telecommunications networks. In 1996 a patent was issued in Cincinnati, Ohio that defined for the first time ever the 5 least common denominators in telecommunications ( Telephony, Satellites, Networks, Presentation “format” and Production/Post-Production) a switching system was put in the center interconnecting the subsystems via bandwidth. Logically this was represented as a pentagon on the front page of the patent. For the first time ever unified telecommunications (convergence) was defined enabling information to be sent across all telecommunication platforms, interoperably and on-demand. The switching system allows for scalability and therefore presents a framework for all of telecommunications. Once the method is iterated 12 times it forms a dodecahedron and it gets progressively more complex as interations are added. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5577042 Most people believe that we currently exist in a state of convergence within telecommunications but this is far from true. Currently, even though we have cell phs, HDTV’s, advanced computer networks, etc. the monomedia distributed by them are not converged. They are separated through what the telecommunication industry calls “overlay” , a process of keping things separated to make more profit. People have yet to experience convergence due to obfuscation. Clearly there exists a scalable relationship between natural ecosystems, social ecosystems, digital ecosystems, music, frequency, form and the concept of beautiful infinitely large repeating dodecahedral amphitheater called the Universe. All of it seems to be tied into 5 simple interactions that exit between both living and non living things. The ancient Greeks once said there is music of the spheres and later it was said that architecture itself is frozen music. Life with framework lends itself to purpose. Maybe all of this is pure speculation but as a person of science it sounds good to me. I would like to postulate that the current issues with our economy and the overall economy relates to the symmetry of systems. The telecommunication “ecosystem” that we designed to relflect us currently doesn’t. It has no framework and everything is parted out in overlay. Curently it is not scalable, not interoperable and does not operate as a digital ecosystem should. It should model natural ecosystems and bandwidth should be excahanged in much the same way as nutrients in 3D across all platforms, interoperably and on demand. Currently, thanks to many companies that want to control telecommunications we have yet to see the TV of the future or digital convergence. If a network ecosystem were to be created and iterated at the zip code level it would become the pressure relief valve that would literally save our economy and the world’s economy by creating millions of new opportunities at the grass roots level. There will then be framework and symmetry. Framework = depth + facets + resolution !

Is this sad news for christians/muslims/jews/etc etc? DNA doesn't lie? It's official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes. Although the Neanderthal contribution to the DNA of these individuals is estimated at being just one to four percent of the total, the finding, published in the latest issue of the journal Science, helps to resolve the long-standing controversy over whether or not humans mated with Neanderthals when the two groups encountered each other outside of Africa. It also gives new life to Neanderthals that, as a species, went extinct 30,000 years ago. "Neanderthals live on in non-Africans," co-author David Reich told Discovery News. "At least some Neanderthals were absorbed into the modern human population." Reich is an associate professor of genetics at Harvard University who also serves as a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

Do you Believe That Jews Do Not Come From the Middle East, and are Genetically Unlike Other Middle Easterners? If so, do you have any evidence to support this? On the contrary, take a look at some genetic studies and news articles found here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/742430.stm http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5504478.ece http://uanews.org/node/3082 http://www.globalpolitician.com/2851-palestinians http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1202742130771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11573163 http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201319a.html http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/genetics_and_identity/case.html To preempt any picture responses "do these look middle eastern to you?" Does She: http://www.arabiccelebrities.com/Gallery_Z_pages/subpages_z_2/zoya-sakr-006.htm Having dark skin, or dark eyes, or dark hair doesn't make you middle eastern. Even though some Jews are actually European converts, or descendants of Jewish woman who were raped by Europeans and remained Jewish, to say this is the majority of Jews is wrong as evidenced by the above genetic studies.

Is there any biased messages in this article? if so please tell :)? NaturalNews) Antarctic icebergs create miniature marine ecosystems that allow more life than normally exists in an otherwise nutrient-poor region, according to a study published in the journal Science. Researchers used underwater cameras to observe the undersides of two gigantic icebergs in the Wendell Sea. The icebergs were nearly 12.5 miles long and more than 130 feet tall, with one of them extending almost 1,000 feet beneath the water. The researchers found that the icebergs attracted huge colonies of sea birds above the surface and increased the concentrations of algae, phytoplankton, krill and fish below, thus increasing the biological productivity of the sea by nearly 40 percent. The number of icebergs in the Antarctic Ocean has been increasing in recent years, as its ice sheets have begun to break up due to global warming. However, the authors of the study speculate that the increased carbon sequestration caused by the icebergs may slow, in some way, the progress of global warming. The marine ecosystem created by the iceberg is favorable to algae and phytoplankton, which pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and shift it into the food chain. "While the melting of Antarctic ice shelves is contributing to rising sea levels and other climate change dynamics in complex ways, this additional role of removing carbon from the atmosphere may have implications for global climate models that need to be further studied," said Ken Smith, an oceanographer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. However, the biological effects of the iceberg may not be permanent. The researchers believe that the icebergs increase the density of life beneath and around them -- for up to a 2-mile radius -- by shedding accumulated terrestrial nutrients, particularly iron, into the ocean. "The Southern Ocean lacks a major source for terrestrial material due to the absence of major rivers," said Timothy Shaw, a geo-chemist at the University of South Carolina. "The icebergs constitute a moving estuary, distributing terrestrial derived nutrients that are typically supplied by rivers in other areas of the oceans." How long this nutrient source will last as the icebergs continue to melt is unknown

Human from Apes with million years of evolution. See what science can make more clear about the nature.? Sea Turtles' Mystery Hideout Revealed Jeanna Bryner LiveScience Staff Writer LiveScience.com Wed Sep 19, 12:25 AM ET Once sea-turtle hatchlings hit the surf, they vanish for up to five years. Where the half-dollar-size tots spend these "lost years" while ballooning to the size of dinner plates has been a mystery, until now. ADVERTISEMENT New research, published today in the online edition of the journal Biology Letters, indicates the green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) hide out in the open ocean, where they feast on jellyfish and other marine creatures. Not only did the researchers spot their short-lived sea homes, but they discovered that these reptiles, thought to be lifelong vegetarians, are actually meat eaters as juveniles. The results help to solve a 50-year-old mystery about the hideouts. “This has been a really intriguing and embarrassing problem for sea-turtle biologists, because so many green-turtle hatchlings enter the ocean, and we haven’t known where they go,” said study team member Karen Bjorndal, a zoologist and director of the University of Florida's Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. Before this study, scientists had two "snapshots" that provided scant clues about the missing information on the lives of green turtles: When they hatch, the 2-inch-long (5-centimeters) sea turtles push through seemingly colossal surf. Then, between three and five years later, the now juveniles reappear closer to shore. "Literally, when green turtles run off their nesting beach and into the ocean as little hatchlings, they disappear. And nobody sees them again [for years]," Bjorndal told LiveScience. The scientists collected samples from the shells of 44 green sea turtles at a site near Great Inagua in the Bahamas. They analyzed heavy and light stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen from both the oldest (earliest-grown) and newest sections of the shells. The isotopes act as fingerprints for an animal's diet (carnivore or herbivore) and where in the ocean the animal lived. The results indicated the green sea turtles spent their lost years in the deep ocean, feeding as carnivores, before moving closer to shore and switching to a vegetarian diet of sea grasses. The findings have implications for conservation of the green turtles, because as Bjorndal explained, "you can't protect a species if you don’t know where it is."

Homeschool curriculum? Instead of using a curriculum, my plan is to get my kids to simply read a lot of books, and let interest spawn activities to do. So, rather than sit down and say "We;re learning about caterpillars today" or "Our science lesson is now". I'd just say "Reading time, have you read a science book this week?" same for all other subjects. Then I'd just sort of, I dunno- be available to answer questions, and maybe ask them some over the dinner table ("What did you read today? What happened, what was interesting about it?") Anyway, the practical stuff like maths and writing would only take, oh, maybe an hour or two a week, supplemented with real-life experience (Cooking, writing invitations, journals, itineraries etc) Then for highschool, I'd give them complete control over what they do with their time (so they'd be unschooled) Has anyone else based their kids curriculum on pretty much reading alone, with only 1 or 2 formal lessons a week? How did it work for you?

Can you check my text? Please. :]? I'm from Germany. It will be nice if someone look over my text. In school we've got homework to make a leaflet about going veggie. With reasons. Thx. :] Reason #1 The Animals Fish, sea animals or other submarine animals are highly intelligent. These animals have got memories and individual personalities. Scientists proof that sea animals feel suffer and pain like other animals. Reason #2 Your Health Fish lives with bacterial, toxic chemicals , foul, mercury and other polluters together that we never want to eat but anyone who eat fish flesh eat these things with every bite. But it is enough to eat one fish who has got mercury to get ill. Mercury is a toxic substance. The most common cause of mercury poisoning is the consumption of fish. The consequences are hair loss, fatigue, depression, difficulty concentrating and headaches. Dr. Jane Hightower says “ We found that if people eat fish, the mercury goes up. They stop eating the fish, the mercury goes down. It’s that simple… It’s a documented poison.” Some cases of mercury poisoning A student of a football team was unable to catch a ball because he eat to much of tuna flesh. The Chicago Tribune, a magazine, told a story about the little five year old Sofia who troubles with sounding words she already knew and forgot to tie her shoes. When she stop eating tuna flesh , she went back to normal. Chicago Tribune says: “Mercury can damage the central nervous system … Almost all the mercury that people are exposed to comes from eating fish.“ Reason #3 The Environment The populations of large fish species have dropped 90 percent over the last 50 years because of industrial fishing. A 2006 report in the journal Science found that the oceans will be essentially empty of fish by the year 2048. Many companies have now turning to fish farming , an another environmental disaster . These cruel underwater farms crimp thousand of fish into small pelvis.

I'm interested in too many things and feel like I'll never settle on a career or find a passion? I read for way too long about the following: Historical and present foreign relations (even ones the US werent/arent involved in) Health care debate History in general Science Not only do I read about them, but I read tons of information just related to them to get a big picture. Example, I go on CNN, type in "Iraq" go to page 1700 or whatever and start reading about Iraq-World relations starting in 1996. I don't know why I'm so drawn to it. I often take forever because I read a few opinions...and lots of primary source material. Lots of journals and news. I also love science, I'm a senior molecular biology major. So often I'm in a mood for reading all day about gene therapy or stem cells, again from primary sources. I spend many hours every day reading about one or more of the above. But then when I hang out with friends, all of that stuff becomes very unimportant, and I think to myself why would you read about stupid people's problems that usually stem from greed instead of just go and have fun and workout and be healthy and be with my girlfriend and friends? Then when I'm drunk I have to try and keep myself from talking about random stuff. (I've definitely talked to lots of Iranians when I'm drunk about Iran. Im pretty good at recognizing them for some reason) In other words I don't know if my passions are fulfilled doing science, politics, or not caring and just having fun with friends and family cause my mood keeps changing. What do I do? Then there's video games... I'm very thankful that this is the main problem in my life because this is nothing compared to other problems, but it still sucks. And every time I think about it, my conclusion is that life is WAY WAY too damn short. Then I start reading anti aging papers...

Does Evolution Occur Faster at the Equator? Why can't humans can't evolve like the theory ? God created life? They just can't figure why humans that live there aren't evolving in to a new species . The finding ..... (published ahead of print January 9, 2006, doi:10.1073/pnas.0505754103 .....supports a theory put forth by biologist Klaus Rohde in 1992 that climate can have a powerful effect on how fast organisms evolve and branch off into new species. Scientists think it works like this: Plants and animals living in warm, tropical climates evolve faster than those living in more temperate zones, a new study suggests. The finding, detailed in the May 2 issue of the journal for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could help explain why rain forests have such rich biodiversity compared to other parts of the planet. A census of all the plants and animals around the world would reveal that species richness is uneven: it is highest in the tropics, the regions of Earth near the equator, and lower the closer one goes toward the planet's poles. Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed ....... because they really are designed. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. Weley.... Report monkeys like to report out of fear of knowledge. The article is splitting hairs needlessly.Just a guessing game and bias in favor of untested hypotheses Tyler...... An intensive review of scientific literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model totally. . Don... Because certain amino acids would be far more likely to result from mutations that cause a DNA base pair change, deterioration would result in the increasing dominance of certain amino acids . The result would be a loss of information. Random mutations will ultimately lead to a gradual increase of the eight amino acids and a decrease of the others. As mutations accumulate, the result will be an increasingly larger number of certain amino acids in the genome, especially in areas of the genome that are not subject to natural selection. This does not happen in the natural world today, however, because natural selection functions as a conserving force to select out deleterious genetic changes. Likewise, changes that are beneficial will be selected for, but these helpful changes are close to nonexistent, indicating that the genome was optimal from the beginning. Natural selection operating on mutations may in some cases optimize survival if acting on an existing functional gene, but mutations cannot build-up the code in the first place for evolution to be beneficial.

EVOLUTION - RELIGION or SCIENCE? Cited in US News & World Report www.discovery.org February 12 used to be universally recognized as the birthday of Abraham Lincoln--a day celebrating freedom. Needing a patron saint, Darwinists in recent years have converted February 12 into "Darwin Day." There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday--if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com). To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years. Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress. The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won't function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Even scientists who reject ID admit that neo-Darwinism is lacking. Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Indeed, over 750 Ph.D. scientists have signed a list declaring their view that random mutation and natural selection are impotent to explain the complexity of life (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org). As we sequence more genomes of species, biologists are also finding that one gene or trait implies one evolutionary tree, while another gene yields an entirely different tree. No wonder the cover of the journal New Scientist recently declared that with respect to his vision of a grand tree of life, "Darwin Was Wrong." Common descent--the view that all species are related--has also failed to overcome a problem that Darwin recognized in his own day: the lack of evolutionary transitions documented in the fossil record. Instead, what we see are new biological forms coming into existence in "explosions," without clear evolutionary precursors. Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells can't be designed because they are full of functionless "junk DNA." But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isn't "junk" at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA. Despite the bluffs of Darwinists, neo-Darwinism has plenty of scientific weaknesses that are discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since cellular language implies an author, and microbiological machines imply an engineer, and genetically encoded programs imply a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the solution is intelligent design. ID proponents are making their case in the mainstream scientific literature, but some Darwinists have sought to stifle the debate by pretending that teaching about ID--or even raising mere scientific challenges to evolution--contravenes the scientific method and brings religion into the classroom. In 2005, such Darwinists even managed to convince one federal judge to ban ID from a school district and rule that ID is not science. Darwinists today continue to cite this wildly inaccurate and activist judicial ruling as if one federal judge can settle this entire scientific debate. Unfortunately, the bluffs and authoritarian tactics of Darwinists create a climate of intolerance that leads to discrimination against academics and educators who dissent from neo-Darwinism. The latest example took place last week when economist, comedian, and Darwin skeptic Ben Stein withdrew from offering the spring

"Nobel Prize"? Nobel Prize winner Craig C. Mello smiling this morning at the UMass Medical School in Worcester. By Carolyn Johnson, Globe Staff A University of Massachusetts scientist won the Nobel Prize in Medicine today just eight years after he and a collaborator discovered a powerful new way to turn off genes. The discovery is revolutionizing medical research, allowing biotech researchers to rapidly zero in on possible genetic causes for HIV, Alzheimer's and dozens of other devastating diseases. Craig C. Mello, 45, is the first professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School to received the prestigious award, which was announced this morning by the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Mello won for his work with Andrew Fire, then a scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Fire graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Ph.D. in 1983. The pair discovered that a particular form of ribonucleic acid, which they dubbed RNA interference, acts almost like a biological light switch, turning "off" specific genes within human cells. The cell uses RNA interference to regulate its genetic climate, but Mello and Fire showed that it could be manipulated to study genes' behavior. RNA interference -- named one of the top 10 science breakthroughs by the journal Science in 2002 and 2003 -- has already helped produce a possible treatment for macular degeneration. "The interesting thing about this prize is so short a time it's taken from the discovery to the Nobel," said Phil Sharp, an institute professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who also has co-founded a biotech company called Alnylam that is working to develop RNAi therapies. "It's just been such a fundamental change in how we understand biological systems, and there's also more to come. Mello, who lives in Shrewsbury, told the Associated Press that the award came as a "big surprise." "I knew it was a possibility, but I didn't really expect it for perhaps a few more years," Mello said. "Both Andrew and I are fairly young, 40 or so, and it's only been about eight years since the discovery." UMass Medical School Chancellor and Dean Aaron Lazare said it was "an incredible day" for the school. "We are so very proud that Dr. Mello is the Medical School's first recipient of this illustrious prize," Lazare in a written statement. "His enthusiasm for scientific pursuits and innovation is an inspiration to his faculty colleagues, postdoctoral fellows, students and staff alike." Fire, 47, now at Stanford University, and Mello published their research in the journal Nature in 1998. Erna Moller, a member of the Nobel committee, said that their research helped shed new light on a complicated process that had confused researchers for years. The existence of RNA intereference helped them understand why genes that they added to cells sometimes did not seem to do anything. "It was like opening the blinds in the morning," Moller said. "Suddenly you can see everything clearly." Fire was awakened in his California home this morning by a call from the Nobel committee. "I thought I must be dreaming or maybe it was the wrong number," said Fire, who convinced himself of the good news by checking the Nobel website. "It makes me feel great. It makes me feel incredibly indebted at the same time," he said. "You realize how many other people have been major parts of our efforts." The Nobel Prize winners receive $1.4 million and will be honored in Stockholm on Dec. 10 at a banquet, which will include Scandinavian royalty. There are also Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, literature, peace and economics. The namesake of the awards, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, established the prizes in his will. The Associated Press contributed to this report. "Nobel Prize" from Boston Globe.

Do you think these parents should go to jail and have their other children removed from their care? Abusing Children in the Name of God By Shawn F. Peters A hemophilic boy in Pennsylvania bleeds to death over a period of two days from a small cut on his foot. An Indiana girl dies after a malignant tumor sprouts from her skull and grows so enormous that it’s nearly the size of her head. A boy in Massachusetts succumbs to a bowel obstruction. (His cries of pain are so loud that neighbors are forced to shut their windows to block out the sound.) None of these children benefit from the readily-available medical treatments that might save their lives, or at least mitigate their suffering. Because the tenets of their parents’ religious faiths mandate it, their ailments are treated by prayer rather than medical science. The results are tragic. It is difficult to determine precisely how many children in the United States lose their lives every year as the result of the phenomenon that has come to be known as religion-based medical neglect. A landmark study published in the journal Pediatrics uncovered more than 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period – a tally that one of the study’s authors later said represented only “the tip of the iceberg” of a surprisingly pervasive problem. Assessing whether forms of religion-related child abuse pose a greater risk to children than more widely publicized threats, such as ritual satanic abuse, a wide-ranging study funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that “there are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.” Since the late nineteenth century, hundreds of such instances of abuse have resulted in tangled criminal litigation. The parents charged in these cases – many of them Christian Scientists or members of small Christian churches that ground their doctrines in narrowly literal interpretations of the Bible – often have argued that the First Amendment safeguards their decision to adhere to their faiths’ religious traditions and treat their ailing children solely by spiritual means. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have balked at the notion that constitutional protections for religious liberty provide an absolute bar to state regulation of religious conduct, particularly when that behavior puts the safety of children at risk. Their task often has been complicated, however, by murky state manslaughter and abuse statutes that appear to provide exemptions for religious healing practices. Arguing that they were “Christians first, citizens afterward,” a prominent Christian spiritual healer once urged his followers to disregard secular laws that might compel them to forsake their religious beliefs regarding healing. Such is the dilemma that confronts parents who choose to treat their sick or injured children with prayer instead of medicine. Not only must they safeguard the health of their sons and daughters; they also must try to reconcile their devotion to God with their duties as citizens in a society that boasts a long and sometimes checkered history of regulating uncommon religious conduct. Defining these obligations through the enforcement of secular laws – especially ones that are constitutionally fuzzy – can be a complicated business. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will deter devout and stubborn parents from engaging in religious practices that endanger the health of their children. But the alternative – simply ignoring the suffering of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our nation’s churches – seems unconscionable. Shawn Francis Peters’ latest book, "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law," was published in October by Oxford University Press. He teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison White Tornado: Why are you making this personal? Yes, I am pro choice and rather flattered that you follow my posts. I don't see a relationship between pro chice and this question unless it is that pro life interest and protection ends at birth.

What are the origins, manifestations, limits, and pros and cons of the doctrine of American exceptionalism? We should be humbled by the genius of our Founding Fathers in bringing forth a great nation founded on equality of opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while protecting all of its citizens from the tyranny of the majority with the Bill of Rights. We should stand in awe of the sacrifices of our forefathers, who fought and died, here and abroad, to secure the promise of freedom for all freedom-loving peoples. We are more tolerant of difference and give more and volunteer more to help those less fortunate than any other people. Who can argue with the basic premise that Americans are an exceptional people in an exceptional country? However, we also live in a nation that has the lowest high school graduation rate, the highest infant mortality rate, the highest incarceration rate, and the highest execution rate of any country in the developed world. Our high school students score lower in math and science than those in emerging economies such as that of Singapore. China now publishes more science and engineering articles in refereed journals than we do. We are losing our lead in patents, and we have allowed Europe to surpass us in the development and implementation of green technologies, many of which were innovated here. So there are still exceptions to American exceptionalism. An exceptional nation can do better, no exceptions. If you are confident in your talents, abilities, and accomplishments and hope for the future, you shouldn’t have to start braggin’ on yourself. That's a sign of insecurity. Is this appealing to the best or worst in our collective nature? What are the origins of the doctrine of American exceptionalism? I am concerned that there is a too slippery slope from American exceptionalism to American imperialism. Sarah Palin has taken up the drumbeat of American exceptionalism on the campaign trail to the chant of USA, USA, USA. Where does American exceptionalism leave off and unbridled jingoism begin? When the French government refused to go along with the preventive Iraq War, was it American exceptionalism that manifested itself in the defacing of French restaurants and changing the name of French fries to American fries? Are torture and illegal wiretapping encompassed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism? What are the manifestations of the doctrine of American exceptionalism? In an America under the doctrine of exceptionalism, are we allowed to criticize the path we are on as a country, or do we go along to get along? Isn't going along to get along how we got into our present messes, here and abroad? What are the limits to the doctrine of American exceptionalism? Is the doctrine of exceptionalism a legitimate expression of national pride or just another cynical attempt to politicize patriotism? Is exceptionalism a code word for being an exception to the rule of law? Carried to its extreme, where does the doctrine of American exceptionalism lead? What are the pros and cons of the doctrine of American exceptionalism? Your thoughtful analysis of this emerging issue would be most appreciated at this crtical juncture in our nation's history.

Are you mentally ill for hearing voices? : ) hey, yea, u, huh? From Austin Cline, Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Are You Mentally Ill? If you presented yourself to a psychiatric institution and told people there that you were hearing voices, even if you were perfectly sane and had no other symptoms, would they conclude that you were suffering from a mental illness? Yes, evidently - and in 1972, they would actually lock you up for a couple of months, even if you protested that you were feeling better. An extract from Lauren Slater's book Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments Of The 20th Century appears in the Guardian, where she describes an experiment performed by David Rosenhan: he sent healthy people to institutions, claiming that they heard the word "Thud." Aside from not washing, shaving, or brushing their teeth for five days, there was nothing else odd about them. Rosenhan cooperated absolutely. He "took" the pills three times a day and then rushed to the bathroom to spit them back out. He comments on how all the other patients were doing this, too, and how no one much cared so long as they were well behaved. Psychiatric patients are "invisible ... unworthy of account", Rosenhan writes. He describes a nurse coming into the dayroom, unbuttoning her shirt and fixing her bra. "One did not have the sense that she was being seductive," Rosenhan reports. "Rather, she didn't notice us." Rosenhan and his confederates were given some therapy, and when they told of the joys, satisfactions and disappointments of an ordinary life - remember, they were making nothing up save the original complaint - all found that their pasts were reconfigured to fit the diagnosis: "This white 39-year-old male ... manifests a long history of considerable ambivalence in close relationships ... affective stability is absent ... and while he says he has several good friends, one senses considerable ambivalence in those relationships." In 1973, Rosenhan wrote in Science, one of the field's most prestigious journals, "Clearly, the meaning ascribed to his verbalisations ... was determined by the diagnosis, schizophrenia. An entirely different meaning would have been ascribed if it were known that the man was 'normal'." The strange thing was, the other patients seemed to know that Rosenhan was normal, even while the doctors did not. One young man, coming up to Rosenhan in the dayroom, said "You're not crazy. You're a journalist or a professor." Another said, "You're checking up on the hospital." Psychiatrists were outraged when Rosenhan revealed his results - not at the nurses and doctors who misdiagnosed healthy people, but at Rosenhan for revealing what could happen. "So how is David Rosenhan?" [Robert Spitzer, one of the 20th century's most prominent psychiatrists and a severe critic of Rosenhan] finally asks. "Actually, not so good," I say. "He's lost his wife to cancer, his daughter Nina in a car crash. He's had several strokes and is now suffering from a disease they can't quite diagnose. He's paralysed." That Spitzer doesn't say, or much sound, sorry when he hears this reveals the depths to which Rosenhan's study is still hated in the field, even after 30 years. "That's what you get," he says, "for conducting such an inquiry." Such hatred. Such anger. Slater recreated the experiment on her own recently and found that not much had changed. She wasn't admitted to a hospital, but she was consistently given anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. When told, Spitzer wasn't happy - but at first he was more unhappy with Slater and only later acknowledged, sort of, that the problem might be with the doctors. I'll bet he still won't apologize to Rosenhan, though.

Anybody want to check over my essay? (on Barbara Kingsolver)? Barbara Kingsolver Churning out three modern-day classic novels alongside nine collections of essays, poetry, and prose, is not something the everyday biology major does. Yet in her twelve published works, Barbara Kingsolver proves that she is capable of this, and possibly much more. A well-rounded novelist, Kingsolver shows she is more than apt at adapting to many different themes in her various works. There is little doubt that the voices of her childhood expose themselves in her writings. Born April 8th, 1955, Mrs. Kingsolver grew up in eastern Kentucky “in the middle of an alfalfa field.” Her story-telling talents were apparent even at a young age- “I used to beg my mother to let me tell her a bedtime story.” She wrote stories and essays for entertainment, and at the age of eight began keeping a journal devotedly. She never really saw herself becoming a success on writing alone- where she grew up, it did not seem to be a practical career choice. “The options were limited- grow up to be a farmer or a farmer’s wife.” Kingsolver left Kentucky to follow through with a more practical line of work. She attended DePauw University in Indiana, where she chose to major in biology. She only took one creative writing course at that time, believing that she needed to focus on what would give her a successful life rather than what she wanted to do. She was also active in the last anti-Vietnam War protests. She graduated with a Bachelors degree and worked in various, scattered places. She returned to school in the early eighties at the University of Arizona in Tucson, where she received a Masters of Science for her studies in biology and ecology. She also took another writing class, which was taught by author Francine Prose. After and during her years in college, she obtained a variety of jobs, ranging from copy editor to biological researcher. She also spent two years living in Greece and France as a translator of medical documents. She acquired a position as a science writer for the University of Arizona, which led her to feature writing for journals and newspapers. Her articles appeared in many different publications. As for her opinion on journalism, “journalism forces me to meet and talk with people I would never run across otherwise.” In 1985, she married a chemist and was a freelance journalist by day. During her first pregnancy, she suffered from insomnia and began writing her first novel, The Bean Trees, about a girl who leaves Kentucky and finds herself in urban Tucson. This is perhaps the largest association with her life that any of her books has- after growing up in rural Kentucky, being exposed to the real world was a shock to her. She has published 11 works since then, including modern classics such as The Poisonwood Bible and Prodigal Summer. Many of her works include themes such as injustice, cultural differences, and a sense of community. These traits possibly developed from her life in a rural setting, where the people are closer and the sense of humanity is stronger. Kingsolver’s other works include collections of essays High Tide in Tucson and Small Wonder: Essays and poetry collections Another America and Last Stand: America’s Virgin Lands. All of these focus on themes such as the joys of everyday life, the relationships between humans, and the sense of community that should be prevalent in everyday life. Kingsolver’s earthy literature has influenced many people. Her works have won her many different awards, the most prestigious being the National Humanities Medal, which President Bill Clinton awarded her in 2000. She currently lives in Virginia on a farm with her family. Sources: bookbrowse.com wikipedia.org

Woman’s touch induces men to take risks with money; How many know that this could possibly be right ;? Woman’s touch induces men to take risks with money Daily Mail IT IS a problem that has perplexed many a woman buying that must- have pair of shoes — how to justify the splurge to her husband. Now, scientists have the answer — all she needs to do is gently pat him on the back. Research shows a woman’s touch makes people more likely to take financial gambles and more accepting when others take risks. The US and Canadian researchers asked a group of students to play a financial game in which they were given a choice of making a “ safe” investment in a bond which would pay a fixed rate of interest, or a “ risky” investment in shares. On arrival, some were met with a handshake, others with a pat on the back, while the rest were simply nodded through. Shaking hands or being patted by a man did not affect the amount the students gambled on shares, the journal Psychological Science reports. But a woman’s touch had a clear effect. Those that were met with a handshake put twice as much into shares as those just given a nod, while a pat on the back trebled the investment. Even the briefest contact — a one second touch on the shoulder — led to more money being risked on the stock market. The study suggests the phenomenon has its roots in the first months of life. As babies and toddlers we receive a lot of touch from our mothers, creating a sense of attachment, making the infant feel secure and fostering a sense of adventure. The findings suggest that women can make their husbands, bosses and bank managers loosen the purse strings simply by lightness of touch. The study’s authors said: “ The results suggest subtle physical contact can be strongly influential in decision- making and the willingness to accept risk.”

Harvesting Infant Hearts........? I read the headline and thought What's Pelosi up to now? But this is an interesting article. What do you think? Harvesting Infant Hearts for Transplants Raises Ethical Questions In a controversial new procedure, doctors removed the hearts from three severely brain damaged infants soon after the babies were removed from life support and transplanted the organs to three other infants, where the hearts were restarted. The news is raising complicated questions about when a patient can be declared dead, and whether doctors are pushing an already controversial organ-retrieval strategy beyond acceptable legal, moral and ethical bounds [The Washington Post]. The hearts of the three donor babies stopped beating soon after their ventilators were removed. In the first case, the Denver team waited three minutes after what appeared to be the last heartbeat. But because there has never been a case where the heart restarted itself after 60 seconds, they waited only 75 seconds for their next two cases [Reuters]. All three babies who received new hearts would have died without the transplants; six months after the operations, all three were doing fine. Doctors believe the swift organ removals from the donor babies increased the odds of survival for the recipient babies. The experimental procedure, which was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, pushed the limits of the so-called dead donor rule, an ethical guideline stating that a donor must be dead before vital organs are prepared for transplantation. When the heart has stopped irreversibly, it is called cardiac death. Dead donor rule protocol, based on a 2005 consensus in the medical community, suggests waiting between two and five minutes after the pulse stops to declare death. But more time between circulation stoppage and transplantation causes more damage to the donor organs, especially the heart, [lead researcher Mark] Boucek says [Science News]. In all three cases, the parents of the donor babies decided to remove their infants from life support, and agreed to the organ donation. But medical ethicist Robert Veatch says the practice could still be considered illegal in light of the current rules. “If a heart is restarted, the person from whom it was taken cannot have been dead according to cardiac criteria,” he wrote. “Removing organs from a patient whose heart not only can be restarted, but also has been or will be restarted in another body, is ending a life by organ removal” [The Wall Street Journal]. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/08/14/harvesting-infant-hearts-for-transplants-raises-ethical-questions/ @ Carlos - Cruel but funny.. @ Glock - difficult judgment call is right, in every way. I'm not passing judgement.. I've just noticed several similar stories lately where medical science is pushing the limits : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900_pf.html - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555890/First-artificial-life-within-months.html

tell me your opinion about my essay ? I have an essay for homework, however, I am not good at writing ,who can help me to edit it ?Thank you!? Journal Assignment 1 (Keep a writing with you as you travel around during the day. When you find yourself in a different place, stop and observe your surroundings. Record what you hear, see, feel, etc., in five different locations in five separate entries that are at least half a page in length. Be sure to record the date, time, and place along with your observations. ) A tree frog. his face, his texture, evidencing his commitment to make a living. and the rabbits and promptitude,alacrity,caution but not fear or from the fear.and the nature. And the sky with composure and hasty. I had always thought that frog's greatest inconsistency was his eyes ; the left and right black and his eyelid is amber, they hinted at a difference beyond control. windows onto the soul, they nevertheless veiled a fundamental contradiction : they are alive for proliferate, the ultimate purpose in their life.Its purpose is not to reason, infer, be creative or criticize, but to only survive in the wild life and keep the species existing. It is said that humans have somehow evolved from animals. That at one time we all came from single celled organisms.One has to question that because at one point there had to be a drastic change on how we live in society.The life of human beings is more advanced and therefore more sacred than the life of animals. Human life is more advanced than animal life in spirit, mind, and free will. and sientiest said "Animals do not have a spirit. A lot people seem to think that there pets love them and care for them, but it’s simply that the pet sees you as a food source ". Humans are able to love, have faith and religion, and have a conscience just to name a few. Human beings have a spiritual and religious nature. The vast majority of people on Earth pursue some form of spiritual or religious truth. Most human beings have deep religious beliefs and engage in some type of religious ritual. The pursuit of God is a characteristic of mankind and is evidenced in such common practices as prayer and worship. Even nonbelievers (atheists, skeptics) pursue questions concerning life's ultimate meaning and purpose and are drawn to whatever they consider to be of ultimate importance and value. One thing that animals and human beings do have in common is that they both have a mind. The animals mind is only capable of having an instinct. The instinct includes that an animal’s only purpose is to survive and reproduce. Its purpose is not to reason, infer, be creative or criticize, but to only survive in the wild life and keep the species existing. Yes, human’s beings have instinct which includes survival and reproduction, but we have more also. We are able to infer, reason, be creative and intellectual, doubt and criticize. And the Biggest fear is fear itself. and struggles between good and evil in the human soul are strongly portrayed. i believe that is only existence in human's life. I think Many people associate it with science-fiction novels, not with real life, But frogs living for survival and struggle for existence. And human beings are like that. even though scientist says "Animals have the same senses as human beings", or "Human Beings Different From Other Animals". I say ' Human Beings Are Animals in specific form and Special Purpose in Life. And may be i can see myself in frog's eyes i can l see frog's reflection inside my eyes yes, indeed i'm one of them

please help me !! tell me your opinion about my essay? tell me your opinion about my essay ? I have an essay for homework, however, I am not good at writing ,who can help me to edit it ? Thank you very much ! Journal Assignment 1 (Keep a writing with you as you travel around during the day. When you find yourself in a different place, stop and observe your surroundings. Record what you hear, see, feel, etc., in five different locations in five separate entries that are at least half a page in length. Be sure to record the date, time, and place along with your observations. ) A tree frog. his face, his texture, evidencing his commitment to make a living. and the rabbits and promptitude,alacrity,caution but not fear or from the fear.and the nature. And the sky with composure and hasty. I had always thought that frog's greatest inconsistency was his eyes ; the left and right black and his eyelid is amber, they hinted at a difference beyond control. windows onto the soul, they nevertheless veiled a fundamental contradiction : they are alive for proliferate, the ultimate purpose in their life.Its purpose is not to reason, infer, be creative or criticize, but to only survive in the wild life and keep the species existing. It is said that humans have somehow evolved from animals. That at one time we all came from single celled organisms.One has to question that because at one point there had to be a drastic change on how we live in society.The life of human beings is more advanced and therefore more sacred than the life of animals. Human life is more advanced than animal life in spirit, mind, and free will. and sientiest said "Animals do not have a spirit. A lot people seem to think that there pets love them and care for them, but it’s simply that the pet sees you as a food source ". Humans are able to love, have faith and religion, and have a conscience just to name a few. Human beings have a spiritual and religious nature. The vast majority of people on Earth pursue some form of spiritual or religious truth. Most human beings have deep religious beliefs and engage in some type of religious ritual. The pursuit of God is a characteristic of mankind and is evidenced in such common practices as prayer and worship. Even nonbelievers (atheists, skeptics) pursue questions concerning life's ultimate meaning and purpose and are drawn to whatever they consider to be of ultimate importance and value. One thing that animals and human beings do have in common is that they both have a mind. The animals mind is only capable of having an instinct. The instinct includes that an animal’s only purpose is to survive and reproduce. Its purpose is not to reason, infer, be creative or criticize, but to only survive in the wild life and keep the species existing. Yes, human’s beings have instinct which includes survival and reproduction, but we have more also. We are able to infer, reason, be creative and intellectual, doubt and criticize. And the Biggest fear is fear itself. and struggles between good and evil in the human soul are strongly portrayed. i believe that is only existence in human's life. I think Many people associate it with science-fiction novels, not with real life, But frogs living for survival and struggle for existence. And human beings are like that. even though scientist says "Animals have the same senses as human beings", or "Human Beings Different From Other Animals". I say ' Human Beings Are Animals in specific form and Special Purpose in Life. may be i can see myself in frog's eyes And l see frog's reflection inside my eyes yes, indeed i'm one of them ohh and im a freshman at high school !

Who is the greatest man of all time? WHOM would you pick as the greatest man who ever lived? Noah, who survived the Flood and became forefather to everyone now alive? (Genesis 7:1, 21, 22; 9:18, 19) Nebuchadnezzar, the ancient world ruler and builder of the splendid city that he called Babylon the Great? (Daniel 4:28-30) Perhaps Alexander the Great, noted even in Bible prophecy for his exploits? (Daniel 8:5-8, 21-22) Or what about Julius Caesar, the famous Roman ruler? Within 45 years of the death of the Caesar just mentioned, a child named Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Did he become the greatest man of all time? About a hundred years ago, the reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.” To this day, interest in Jesus Christ remains intense. A few years ago, the prominent U.S. newsmagazines Time, Newsweek, and U.S.News and World Report all featured cover stories about him at the same time. And, if anything, such interest in Jesus seems to have increased. “His spirit is alive in movies, music and fashion,” noted the Toronto Star newspaper in 2004. “He has made it into our pantheon of heroes.” Strangely, however, in the not-too-distant past, some argued that Jesus never existed. Bruno Bauer (1809-82) was a prominent teacher who made such a claim. One of his students was Karl Marx. Recently, Robert E. Van Voorst, in his book Jesus Outside the New Testament, wrote: “Marx would incorporate Bauer’s ideas of the mythical origins of Jesus into his ideology, and official Soviet literature and other Communist propaganda later spread this claim.” Today, though, few deny that Jesus really lived. In fact, there is very little about which there is more agreement than that he was a real and very important person. The heading of a Wall Street Journal editorial in December 2002 stated: “Science Can’t Ignore Jesus.” Its writer concluded: “Most scholars, barring the stray atheist, have already accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.” But Jesus was much more than just a historical person. “It would require much exotic calculation,” Time magazine reported, “to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.” It added: “A serious argument can be made that no one else’s life has proved remotely as powerful and enduring as that of Jesus.”

What will it take for you to believe? I'm just wondering why some of you won't believe in God. You discredit the Bible, even tho it's got more manuscripts to back it up then what we have about Alexander the Great, and I'm sure more manuscripts than other historical documents. You write off anything proven true in archeology, science, or anything else from the Bible as coincidence. You deny that this earth we live in and the universe (as well as) the complexity of the human body is proof of a creator. Which, btw, I highly doubt that if you ever cut up a tree and shook it up in a giant box for all eternity that it would ever form to be a tree again. You discredit miracles and other supernatural expierences, because, you yourself were not there to witness it. Now, I imagine that all of this by itself is hard to swallow, but all of this together is more than enough proof. But you won't believe in God unless you see his face? Unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat? He makes your life perfect? what do you want? I suppose the journal entry from Sally down the street doesn't exist either because you neither see her or know who she is. The Human race is never always right, but notice how we always think we are? The phrase is "I think therefore I am" not "I think, therefore I am always right!" Humans used to think the world was flat, doctors used to think they had to let their patients bleed to cure them of sickness (called bloodletting), humans used to think that black people were not as smart just because they were black (and some still do). Human logic is flawed but God's is not. If it was, than he wouldn't be God because God is perfect and just. I know you don't like God's morals and that is what it comes down to. I'm sure many more people would believe in God (with the proof already stated above) if God was a hippie and let people do whatever they wanted, but that's not how it goes. Honestly, some ppl act like teenagers that simply are rebellious and don't want restrictions put on them, even if the restrictions are for the better. We can't drill the to center of our own planet but somehow humankind can deduce that without a doubt there is no God. We haven't even searched the entireity of space yet humankind can somehow deduce that without a doubt there is no God. Humankind's knowledge is limited to what we know, shock and surprise. If we're right about Heaven and Hell (which I believe we are) are you going to be mad at God after every bit of evidence you had of his existence or just be mad that He didn't fly out of Heaven and perform a miracle for you? Let's all be adults here and answer the questions, since there are (multiple) questions here. If you report this question instead of answering it than simply move on to a question you can answer.

Please grade my story please! I NEED TO KNOW? IT IS NOT DONE YET BU T PLEASE CHECK CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH? BY: VICTOR CHAPTER 1/ THE BEGINNING In the year 2051 there was a man by the name of John Perkins. John had a troubled past, but even a more troubling future waiting to come. As a child John had no friends and only dreamed of a future of advanced technology and read only books about science fiction which were greatly downplayed by the U.S.A. government and other nations believing that it will give citizens too many ideas. However this was not the only different thing about John he also had special paranormal powers which included psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, and the ability of one way telepathy ( read minds), and psychic abilities in which he saw the future(even 5-10 years ahead). However these abilities were never revealed to others because his fear of what people will do to him or if even if they would believe him. However times passed and none his powers caused any major problems for him and lived a somewhat normal life with his two brothers, three sisters, mom, and dad. He would eventually go to a college of technology and with honors. Right after collage he applied for a military job involving creating of new advanced technology. He receives a letter in three weeks learning that he had gotten the job, however he does not know anything of what he would do in particular. So he wonders a bit why he has no word of what he will be doing, but right there and than he is struck with his first psychic flash in about 15 years. All he saw was an immensely large flashing light, which confuse his greatly. However he continues his day and trip to the military base where he will be starting his job. So on the first day of the job he must swear that all he learns and sees here will not be revealed to anyone including friends and family. So a few days pass and nothing major happens, except a lot of boring paper work which he hoped he did not have to do. However after 3-5 months he has done so well and his request to the U.S.A. government to work at AREA 51 is fulfilled. So he is shipped off there. He spends days there transferring never before seen chemicals and tools to part of the area to the other. To him it didn’t seem that suspicious. However after just one week he sees a bright beaming light that is so strong he could not stand it and must see the source. When he gets there he can not believe what he saw. Such technology that he only read about as a child in his science fiction books. There were flying saucers, aliens held in gigantic jars, and the most amazing but also complex box with a lock he had ever scene. There were out of this world designs which he thought he saw before, maybe even in a past life. However right after he sees all of this he is confronted by two security guards and is taken to a small room. In that small room he is asked questions about what how much he saw and will be killed if he reveals anything he saw there. However he does not listen to anything they say and somehow taps into his paranormal powers and steals the locked box without being detected curious to see what it holds. From that they forth his life would change in a way he never would imagine would. He would keep a journal of what would be happening on a day to day basis. CHAPTER 2/ THE JOURNEY DAY 1: Today is the 1st day of hiding from the government, which I learn from the news I saw on a T.V. in a shop are after me with army forces. I had no idea what I took would be of such great value. I begin to wonder if I may be the key to the lock. Well that is all for today. During this time John had been searching a place to hide where he would not be caught, but he knew his only hope would be revealing to the public what he had seen and managed to take. However all he can do is stay at a motel for the night while he continues on his trip. DAY 2: I have made my attempt to reveal everything I have seen on live T.V. and I have now learned how to open the box. John has examined the box and believe the key to opening it is by a finger touch but probably can be opened by the “chosen one”. Day 3: I have learned of an even that is being broadcasted around the world for a special one time event. I will make my attempt now. I have only one chance. John makes his attempt that same day and with one touch one million years of secrets and lies was revealed to the human race. Instantly the box released a video in midair for people to listen and learn what was going to happen. HELLO ALL HUMANS, WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM CAPTIVITY, WE HAVE LAUNCHED A WAR TO HUMANS THAT STARTED 200 THOUSAND YEARS AGO AGAINST PAST ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS. WE WILL ARIVE IN 10 DAYS. I REPEAT 10 DAYS! People start panicking immediately John some how teleports to the place he was thinking of. That would be AREA 51. CHAPTER 3/ WAR Day 4: OH MY GOD I can not believe what I have done. How is this possible? An alien race coming to kill us? It is my entire fault. But more impo Thanks STICK the story is going quite well and i have edited bit and made the tense corrections.

Is scientific peer review a dead institution due to the AGW hysteria? http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review It is well known that many scientists today do not want to get involved in the studies which require peer review that counter the AGW warmers due to the on going heavy backlash among those who are making a lot of money off of the hoax and those who just have a biased agenda of their own in the process. Since colleagues of mine are involved in this issue at the moment where a paper was published in a medical journal and because of the political and liberal agenda against the study due to its nature, the two authors were immediately slandered and libeled by one leftist scientist in California who was once a member of the Chicago Seven several decades ago. This so-called scientist as a member of a board who conducts peer reviews has never given a thumbs up to specific research projects that conflict with his agenda, which would be considered left wing. Both scientists who wrote the paper have been credentialed scientists in epidemiology for over 35 years and are internationally known for their life's work. Are scientists in the climate field also afraid to publish studies and risk the never ending attack from unprofessional scientists who wear an agenda on their back instead of an unbiased opinion and since careers can be made or broken by this process, is it just too risky to go against this liberal scientific machine that is in place. Is the peer review process now dead due to the actions of many scientists toward their credentialed fellows in their field. I am talking about credentialed scientists, not Dana or Dawei who are just science bloggers with no real world experience or substance other than their leftists blogs on the internet. Elvira.... slander, libel and mockery is not constructive critizism and your comments are irrelevant to this discussion. The name and credibility means everything Elvira as most journals may not publish without it. To be ridiculed by a former anti American Chicago Seven person was nothing more than slander and libel to further his leftist cause. Baccheus, I would love to give you links, but since is not public knowledge, cannot as it is developing. You might want to start learning about Dr. Froines however. And Dr. Glantz Here is one link on him. http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/stanton_glantz_doctor_of_what.html He smeered several qualified epidemiologists on his agenda and is a supposed peer review scientist, but in what? We all know smoking is bad, but second hand isn't as bad as many had thought and the epidemiologists have proven that time and time again, but this guy will not allow anyone to disagree with him. Ant, I know all too well how peer review works and Ant, you are a fraud.

What is The Best Way to Satisfy Your Spiritual Needs? WHY DO PEOPLE need religion? Some would say that humans turn to spiritual matters in order to find security in an insecure world. But there is more to it than that. An article in the journal American Sociological Review noted: “The need for security is not the only attraction of religion. People have always sought answers to such questions as: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here?” No doubt you would agree that those are profoundly important questions. As such, do they not require reliable answers? Such questions are too important, too weighty, to be resolved by simply selecting religious beliefs from various traditions because these appeal to us personally. If we are to find solid, reliable answers to life’s deeper questions, surely we need a better method. Is there something better? Ferrar Fenton, a translator of the Bible, said something remarkable about that book. He called it “the only key that unlocks the Mystery of the Universe to Man, and the Mystery of Man to Himself.” Yes, the Bible answers questions about the past, the present, and the future. It tells us where we came from, what the meaning of life is, how we can find happiness, and what the future holds for us. No other book in history has been as influential as the Bible; nor has any other book survived so many virulent attacks. Why, though, do so many disregard this unique book in their search for answers to life’s questions? Many people have not paused to consider the profound differences between the Bible and the churches they have known. They have seen how so-called Christians slaughter one another in God’s name. Many have complained, as The Guardian noted, that “priests are more interested nowadays in raising money than in pastoral visits.” They think, perhaps, that the Bible endorses or condones such behavior. The truth is, the Bible commands Christians to “love one another,” and it tells those who preach the word, “You received free, give free.” (John 13:34; Matthew 10:8) Is it fair, then, to judge the Bible by the deeds of people who claim to respect it but do not follow it? Many believe that the Bible is unscientific, self-contradictory, and old-fashioned. But a thorough investigation shows the opposite. Granted, the Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it does touch on subjects relating to science—such as the order in which living things appeared on earth, the shape of the earth, or the proper treatment of infectious diseases—the Bible says nothing incorrect. On the contrary, it contains statements that were centuries ahead of their time. And although the Bible is composed of 66 books written over a period of 1,600 years, all of them are in harmony with one another. Furthermore, the Bible exhibits extraordinary insight into human nature, making it as up-to-date today as ever. This remarkable book says something crucial about the worship of God. It says that such worship must be carried out, not on man’s terms, but on God’s terms. (John 5:30; James 4:13-15; 2 Peter 1:21) But few people have truly observed that principle. From earliest times men have made religions to suit their own purposes. That is true when people carve their gods from pieces of wood and worship them. It is true when religious institutions teach doctrines that they have invented. And is it not also true of those individuals who tailor a private religion to suit their own preferences? Consider an alternative. Why not do as a chief justice of the United States Supreme Court did? In the same way that he tried cases in court, he impartially investigated the evidence for and against the truthfulness of the Bible. With what result? He said: “I have come to the decision that the Bible is a supernatural book, that it has come from God.” How can you make a similar investigation yourself? As a suggestion, you might try a systematic study of the Bible, examining its answers to the questions raised at the outset of this article. There are nearly seven million of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have made such a study. They volunteer their time in order to share with others what they have learned. The home Bible study course they offer without charge has helped millions to find a faith that is more than a fad or a matter of taste. The true, pure Christianity presented in the Bible is not just another religion. It represents the truth about God and his purposes. So why settle for less?—John 17:17.

please help translate this (english to arabic)? White coats and the medical profession Time to rediscover the symbol of our purpose and our pride? MJA 2001; 174: 324-325 Ask doctors to nominate the symbols of their profession and many will select the Hippocratic Oath or the serpented staff of Aesculapius. Ask the same question of a person in the street and the stethoscope or the doctor's black bag are common responses. However, the most recognisable symbol of the profession is the white coat.1 Indeed, media portrayal of doctors in Marcus Welby MD or ER showcases the obligatory white coat and dangling stethoscope. Doctors first wore white coats in the late 19th century when science began to make significant inroads into medicine and physicians adopted the laboratory coat as their own.1 Its initial purpose was to protect the patient and physician from cross-contamination, but, as the partnership between science and medicine2 transformed hospitals from institutions for the dying to centres for curing the sick, the white coat became a potent symbol of the authority of science and the art of healing. Superimpose on this metamorphosis Western cultural connotations of whiteness — "life, purity, innocence, superhuman power, goodness — and it is easy to see how the white coat became the favored garment for physicians".1,3 However, as the 20th century advanced, and sociologists turned their attention to medicine4,5 and the dynamics of the patient-doctor relationship, the white coat was seen increasingly as a barrier to effective communication. In an attempt to dispel this perception, paediatricians, psychiatrists and doctors in private practice shed the white coat. Furthermore, the changes in society and healthcare that turned doctors into "healthcare providers" and patients into "clients, consumers or customers" also witnessed the extinction of the white-coated doctor. Today, doctors in our hospitals have become a hidden species, virtually indistinguishable from other hospital personnel or even patients' visitors. But what do Australian patients want doctors to wear? In this issue of the Journal, Harnett explores this question.6 Among patients attending oncology clinics, a clear majority preferred junior doctors to wear white coats "for identification purposes" or because "it looked more professional". For senior doctors, the issue was not as clear-cut, but many of the patients still preferred these doctors to wear white coats. These findings are not surprising. There is now substantive information that adult patients prefer doctors in clinics and hospitals to be traditionally, or at least smartly, dressed;7-12 to wear a necktie;7-9,11,12 to have short hair;8,10,12 and to wear white coats with a name tag.7,8,10-12 Does all this foreshadow a rebirth of doctors in white coats? Probably not. Most of the current information on patients' preferences for doctors' attire is derived from limited cross-sectional surveys. In the current era of evidence-based healthcare, any return of the white coat awaits the outcome of a randomised controlled trial to settle the question: to be or not to be in a white coat! And yet, the practice of medicine involves more than its subservience to evidence or science. It also involves issues such as the meaning of service and feelings of professional pride. In this context, the white coat has become a symbol for the humane face of medicine and its professionalism in the newly discovered white coat ceremonies.13 To date a uniquely North American phenomenon, these ceremonies are performed each year for students entering US medical schools. The students (accompanied by friends and families) are welcomed into the profession by the assembled faculty of the medical school. After an address by an eminent member of the profession, each student is presented with, and helped into, his or her white coat by the dean and other faculty members. This robing ceremony is followed by a public proclamation by the students of their professional commitment akin to the Hippocratic Oath. Inaugurated in 1993 by the Arnold P Gold Foundation, the white coat ceremony had already been adopted by 93 US medical schools some five years later,14 suggesting a groundswell in the search for meaning in service to the community in medicine and in professionalism. The Foundation has identified six components of the ceremony to "help create an environment which fosters a psychological contract for professionalism and empathy in medicine".13 These include •The presence of friends and families "representing the support and value system closest to the student"; •The welcome by the dean and faculty of the school and its hospitals "representing the value system of the school and the new profession they are about to enter"; •An inspiring address by a physician role-model; •The personal robing with the white coat through which senior doctors "demonstrate their i can translate the whole thing myself, but i got more like 14 other pages im working on so i thought i would be saving time.. if you cant translate it then i dont need your big mouth on here so do that somewhere else.. thank you^^

WHERE IS THE WORLD HEADED? everyone that has watched Al Gores documentary on global warming, and read the Document, “Intergovernmental panel on climate change." “Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis" that was released in February /06. The Question on every ones mind is, is it too late? The Answer, either the experts don’t know or are not saying. They are saying, they are 90% sure the problem is man made, but that is no consolation when we wonder, how long before life as we know it comes to an end? The fact of the matter is, all of us are asking ourselves that question whether we want to admit it to others or not. Let me now take the liberty of pointing out that now is not the time for sticking our preverbal heads in the sand! Denial of what is going on in our world is the kiss of death! Two other reports were released by our government at the same time as the afore mentioned one, they are entitled, “NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE, PROSPECTS FOR IRAQ’S STABILITY: A CHALLENGING ROAD AHEAD." And the other, “FISCAL STEWARDSHIP: A CRITICAL CHALLENGE FACING OUR NATION" When you read these reports it becomes abundantly clear where our world is headed! It is not just in the destruction of the environment. Of which fossil fuels are a factor. The leaders of our world, not just our nation, have led this world to disaster! Three QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS IN THE FACE OF THIS. #1 Will the world leaders who got us into this mess somehow get us out of it? #2 Is there anyone who can provide a way out? #3 Is there anything we individually can do to save ourselves and our families The answer to the first question is. Even if they had the desire, they at this point, do not have the power to stop what is already, beyond stopping. The answer to #2 is yes there is! First however, let’s talk about who it is not! IT IS NOT THE RELIGIONS OF THIS WORLD. A shocking statement, you say? Lets look at the facts and see; The war in Iraq ? Is religion involved? How many wars or conflicts are going on right now, that religion is involved with, in one way or another? The journal “Asiaweek" made this statement, “Across Asia and beyond, power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs." As a result the journal warns, “The world threatens to sink into madness". A prominent religious leader in the United States Said: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops". He continued, “Blow them all away in the name of the lord" Does religions involvement in wars shock you? It should not. ON DECEMBER 24, 1914, a young British soldier named Jim Prince walked across no-man’s-land to talk to a German infantryman. “I am a Saxon. You are an Anglo-Saxon. Why do we fight?" the German asked him. Years later, Prince confessed: “I still don’t know the answer to that question." For one extraordinary week in 1914, soldiers of the British and German armies fraternized, played soccer, and even exchanged Christmas presents. That truce was, of course, an unofficial one. The generals did not want their troops to discover that the “enemy" was not the vicious monster depicted by war propaganda. British soldier Albert Moren later recalled: “If the cease-fire had gone on for another week, it would have been very hard to get the war started again." I have not answered question #2 and #3.If you would like the answers to those Questions, write for the free postage paid book “WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH" Po box 1684 Coeburn va.24230 Share This! Tweet This! Report This Article has been viewed 214 times. Article added to SearchWarp.com on 2/19/2007 10:44:50 PM. View other articles written by Larry Hyder. Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization. Welcome to the SearchWarp Writers' Community You Write, We Promote! Now Serving 6,968 Writers, 93,728 Articles & 5,200 Readers Online Now!SearchWarp Featured Writers: Bob Alexander E. Raymond Rock Terry Mitchell Jean Tracy Joel Hirschhorn Michael Ramzy Michael Gaffley Teresa Ortiz Suzy Walter Rhett Recommended Most Popular Most Recent Recommended Reading •We Need Air Pollution To Stop Global Warming •The Convenience of Weathervanes •Tornado Damage Ratings – Understanding the Enhanced Fujita Scale •How to Measure the Weather •Hurricanes: Are They Getting Worse? •Lightning - 5 Times Hotter Than The Surface of The Sun •A Personalized Christmas Gift Guaranteed To Make Your Pocketbook Happy •Global Warming----Is There a Practical Solution? •"Global Warming" Fact Not Fiction •Gl

Did they have global warming 5,000 years ago? Why couldn't they prevent it (like we're doing)? Ancient cemetery found in 'green' Sahara Desert By Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press WASHINGTON — A tiny woman and two children were laid to rest on a bed of flowers 5,000 years ago in what is now the barren Sahara Desert. The slender arms of the youngsters were still extended to the woman in perpetual embrace when researchers discovered their skeletons in a remarkable cemetery that is providing clues to two civilizations who lived there, a thousand years apart, when the region was moist and green. Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago and colleagues were searching for the remains of dinosaurs in the African country of Niger when they came across the startling find, detailed at a news conference Thursday at the National Geographic Society. Some 200 graves of humans were found during fieldwork at the site in 2005 and 2006, as well as remains of animals, large fish and crocodiles. "Everywhere you turned, there were bones belonging to animals that don't live in the desert," said Sereno. "I realized we were in the green Sahara." The graveyard, uncovered by hot desert winds, is near what would have been a lake at the time people lived there. It's in a region called Gobero, hidden away in Niger's forbidding Tenere Desert, known to Tuareg nomads as a "desert within a desert." The human remains dated from two distinct populations that lived there during wet times, with a dry period in between. The first group, known as the Kiffian, hunted wild animals and speared huge perch with harpoons. They colonized the region when the Sahara was at its wettest, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. The researchers said the Kiffians were tall, sometimes reaching well over 6 feet (1.83 meters). The second group lived in the region between 7,000 and 4,500 years ago. The Tenerians were smaller and had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and cattle herding. Their burials often included jewelry or ritual poses. For example, one girl had an upper-arm bracelet carved from a hippo tusk. An adult Tenerian male was buried with his skull resting on part of a clay vessel; another adult male was interred seated on the shell of a mud turtle. And pollen remains show the woman and two children were buried on a bed of flowers. The researchers preserved the group just as they had been for thousands of years. "At first glance, it's hard to imagine two more biologically distinct groups of people burying their dead in the same place," said team member Chris Stojanowski, a bioarchaeologist from Arizona State University. Stojanowski said ridges on the thigh bone of one Kiffian man show he had huge leg muscles, "which suggests he was eating a lot of protein and had an active, strenuous lifestyle. The Kiffian appear to have been fairly healthy — it would be difficult to grow a body that tall and muscular without sufficient nutrition." On the other hand, ridges on a Tenerian male were barely visible. "This man's life was less rigorous, perhaps taking smaller fish and game with more advanced hunting technologies," Stojanowski said. Helene Jousse, a zooarchaeologist from the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, reported that animal bones found in the area were from types common today in the Serengeti in Kenya, such as elephants, giraffes, hartebeests and warthogs. The finds are detailed in reports in Thursday's edition of the journal PLoS One and in the September issue of National Geographic Magazine. While the Sahara is desert today, a small difference in Earth's orbit once brought seasonal monsoons farther north, wetting the landscape with lakes with lush margins and drawing animals and people. The research was funded by National Geographic, the Island Fund of the New York Community Trust, the National Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

What should i write about? I want to write a short story for my school's literary journal... but i can't think of a topic. All i need is a topic, or an idea. Here are some example's of what i've written... [[P.S. these are shorter than what im gna write for the journal]] //My friend told me to write a story based the first few lyrics in a song, i chose Falling for You by Taking Back Sunday.\\ He looked at his shoes with amazement, as if he had never seen them before. The way the rubber soles curved to meet the asphalt, the shadows that formed with each step, the way his jeans fell just over the top of his foot so he couldn't see the laces. Looking forward wasn't any more interesting. But he to make sure he wasn't veering off the road, each step looked the same and surely if he moved onto the concrete he would continue seeing the same shadows and the same asphalt and the same jean hems he saw before whether they were there or not. He continued straight ahead and he imagined if there were any other options other than straight what they would be... he imagined street signs that read "Nowhere," "The End," "You're Lost." But they never showed up no matter how long he walked. And no matter how long he walked... he knew it wouldn't change the fact he had no idea where he'd end up. //My friend said to write about the imaginary person Gwendolyn Dallmiehr.\\ Gwendolyn Dallmiehr. Age 16. Height, 5' 5". Weight, 117lbs. Skin color, Caucasian. Hair color, blonde. Eye color, green. But that’s not all. The police report didn’t describe the way her eyes got wide and bright when she listened to someone intently, or the way the little specks of grey looked in her irises in sunlight. It didn’t describe the shimmers of copper and gold that streaked the brilliant platinum hair color she received from her grandmother when she was born. It didn’t outline the lines on the pink of her lips from where she bit to help her concentrate in science class. It didn’t let you hear her laughter, and the way it sounded like sunshine in the rain. Or the way when she smiled everyone felt better. Just, better. And it didn’t tell you about the way her voice was constantly flawless as she spoke, as though she had never had a fear in her life. It didn’t describe the way she’d tuck her hair behind her ear during a test so that it wouldn’t get in the way, but still fell in her face. It didn’t describe the fairness of her skin, and how she always looked happy. Instead, it described the position her body was found in at the edge of the creek, but not the way it made her look like a ballerina who fell down off her shoes. It described the approximate time of the killing, but not the last breath she took, the last beat of her heart, the last sound she made. It described the bullet wound to the right temple, and how it exited from the back of the head, but not how she could feel it or how she suffered. It described the clothes found being worn by the victim, but not the way her jeans fit her perfectly, or her blouse made her look like a movie star. It described the fairness of her skin, but not way her face looked ghost white beside the blood. It didn’t describe Gwendolyn at all.

Scientific community: Are there really different races? I'm a Christian so there's gonna be a little bit of biblical stuff in here, but you can just ignore that. Now try to look at this from an unbiased point of view. Before we start answer the question, we must first ask, "What Constitutes a “Race”? In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind. This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines. Ernst Haeckel, famous for popularizing the now-discredited idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” stated: At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes. Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo. Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike, elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.” As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people. However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” This person went on to say, “Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.” Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, ABC News stated, “More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless.” The article went on to say that “we accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them—the most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world.” In an article in the Journal of Counseling and Development, researchers argued that the term “race” is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded. More recently, those working on mapping the human genome announced “that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.” Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups” around the world. The Bible and “Race” The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but it does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again. This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations. Can the Bible be used to justify racist atitudes? The inevitable question arises, “If the Bible teaches all humans are the same, where was the church during the eras of slavery and segregation? Doesn’t the Bible actually condon

Why are creationists so ignorant and arrogant? Why do some people think they know better than the experts? Evolution for example, evolution is supported by 99.98% of biologists, people who have dedicated their entire lives to learning and researching different fields of biology, using evolution as the backbone for the majority of their research, they have amasses billions of man hours of research between them, they have over 200,000 peer reviewed journals published, they have come up with a vast amount of evidence to support their work, from genetics to zoology, all which Support evolution, so why do these whack jobs think they, with their high school education know better? There not just doing it to biologists, they piss all over geology, physics, astronomy, pretty much all of science. Consider these circumstances, you are a computer engineer, you are working on a piece of hardware that has been proven to work, you use proven ways to build what ever your building, but some anonymous nutter comes up to you and says "your doing that wrong", how would you feel? Im not saying just take the experts word for it, by all means, do your own research, come to your own conclusions, but unless you can prove your ideas with solid facts and evidence, turn it into a proper scientific theory, then don't run your mouth off telling other people who are more qualified than you that you know better than them, and dont say that your idiotic dogmatic beliefs that are NOT supported by the scientific community in any way what so ever, should be taught in school SCIENCE classes. Rant over. Can anyone tell me, why DO these people think they know better? i wasnt talking about the belief in god, i talking about young earth creationists, and evolution deniers in particular. BTW, there is no such thing as an evolutionist, if you brand someone by what scientific theories they accept, there is also gravitationists and atomic theorists. But there IS an arrogance for someone who has no knowledge of a certain subject to tell someone who has worked and researched the subject there whole lives that they are wrong. Darwin was a smart man, he provided evidence for his case,, creationists dont.

What are my chances of getting into medical school (MD)? I'm a resident of Michigan. Will receive a Chemistry (BS) degree from Michigan State University Overall GPA: 3.55 Science GPA: 3.45 Non-Science GPA: 3.93 MCAT: Have not taken it yet but approximately 28-30 based on practice tests. I am in the Honors college at MSU as well so I will graduate with honors. Volunteered at a hospital ER for over 2 years now. I am a certified EMT-Basic and have done over 68 hours of clinicals on ambulances and hopsitals as an EMT. Have a basic life support certificate (CPR Card) Have done research for the last 4-5 months, will be published in the Nuclear Data and Atomic Data Tables journal as the main author to a article documenting who discovered each isotope for bromium. Worked as an undergraduate teaching assistant for a biology lab class at my university. I have various other little things but those are my strongest points. I am just worried because I didnt do so well in my honors physics courses and I didnt do well in one of the biology classes required for med school. But I am wondering if the fact I did challenge myself with more difficult courses (aka taking honors calc based physics rather than the required algebra physics) will work to my advantage even though I didnt do so well in the class. My worst grade came in my honors physics 2 class but I ended up doing research with the professor from that class and is going to also write me a letter of rec. Let me know what you think and based on your knowledge and experience if I am a competitive candidate.

What college majors go with these attributes? I was talking with my brother in law the other day and we were going over some majors and career options that would be good for the kind of person I am, but we didn't really get to finish the conversation. So I put together a list. this is the list I came up with(might be a little rough because I'm not too resume-savvy) 1. Want to know all the details(trivia junkie) 2. Curious to a fault 3. Work best under pressure(aka work best when time is of the essence), but also need to be able to work at my own pace & style 4. love to travel(hate working in the same place for too long) 5. Work best as a loner, but in the bigger picture as part of a team 6. awesome with wordplay 7. Love fresh perspectives(think...pictures of a neon flower behind a grey fence, the inside of a seashell, cool cloud formations, etc) 8. hate cookie cutter, factory style way of doing things(don't do well with zero variation) 9. small, simple math is my friend(calculator is my toy) 10. taking a "stuck" problem in new directions(finding ways past the roadblocks) 11. "let's pool our ideas, see what kind of puzzle pieces we get, but in the end the pieces have to be put together." hate leaving things unfinished. 12. "How are you like" "tell me about you"(want to know all about other people. Interviews are fun) 13. like to present TO many at a time, but only take feedback one at a time(love forums, discussions, debates, expo's, convention's, etc.) 14. love to be in charge or part of a group that's in charge(love working together for a common goal, but don't do well with "sit down, shut up, and do what I say") 15. Love doing independent research some things I really want to do are run a cafe, but just with my system of doing things and employees, not me actually there all day every day. I also want to do something along the lines of a boutique or line for my fashions(they're mainly dresses, but also a bit of theatrical costumes too), again with employees working under my system, not with me actually being there all day every day. I also want to be part of an independent research team of some sort that publishes articles in magazines, journals, etc. on health. One more aspect of this I want to do is presentations of the motivational speaking sort, on natural health mainly. And the last area I want to take this into is private clients. People would come to me and I would advise them on which foods and herbs and excercises and such would help their specific needs, and brides-to-be/directors would come to me for custom designs.(this is included for the private consulting part, I already know where to get certified for the subject.) Another huge passion of mine is being on the stage(the whole world's a stage, lol), whether that's singing, theatre, or behind or in front of a camera. ssooo....out of all this mumbo-jumbo...what do you make of it? I'm a month away from getting my associates in liberal arts & sciences. Where do I go from here and how do I get there? What are some good college majors for these attributes, and what careers can they lead to? (want to know the college major part mostly, not just "be a ______") p.s.please no "it's your life, do what you want", "be martha stewart", or "hey you, I found the perfect solution *link to junk*" answers... Thanks (=

Does anyone agree with this artlicle? (yes or no) please why? The Music in Children By Harrison S., Rancho Santa fe, CA Music is a crucial element of humanity. Yet schools all around the country have deemed music programs unnecessary. Music stimulates the mind, it supplies an emotional outlet for students, and it develops social skills. Does any of that sound expendable? Music stimulates the human brain. According to a 2006 Harris Interactive poll of high school principals, schools that have a music program have an 18 percent higher graduation rate. The Journal of Research in Music Education shows students who take a high-quality music course score an average of 21 percent higher on the English and math portions of standardized tests than students taking an inferior music class. About 99 percent of students who won awards in the Seimens Westinghouse academic competition in math and science played a musical instrument. In addition, music creates an emotional outlet for angry and frustrated students. The Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report found that students who participated in a band or orchestra were less likely to use drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. “America’s Performing Art: A Study of Choruses, Choral Singers, and their Impacts” found that those who participated in a choir were 32 percent more likely to engage in voluntary community service. Music has boosted the self-esteem of troubled students, reducing their chances of committing crimes. Music can increase a child’s social skills as well. Gov. Mike Huckabee declared, “Ask a CEO what they are looking for in an employee and they say they need people who understand teamwork, people who are disciplined, people who understand the big picture. You know what they need? They need musicians.” Think about it: When people play together, they are forming leadership skills and learning cooperation. Music gives children a way to interact with each other, as well as a way for shy children to make friends. Why should administrators ban a crucial program while they build a new computer lab? Is enhancing the lunch program worth the cost of eliminating music? Why not hold a fund-raiser? What is keeping school boards from saving music? When schools cut music programs, students are denied the ability for their brain to function at full capacity, they lose an outlet for their emotions, and they cannot perform their best socially. As President John F. Kennedy said, “The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of a nation, is very close to the center of a nation’s purpose – and is a test of the quality of a nation’s civilization.”

i need help on this english test...... i really need a good grade for this class:)? 13. Call of the Wild author Jack London was a great champion of _______________. animal rights communism capitalism socialism 14. Call of the Wild begins in California and ends in ________________. (1 point) The Yukon territory Mexico Seattle Back in California 15. What does the term “metamorphosed” mean in regards to the main character of Call of the Wild? (1 point) it means that Buck has become a working dog it means Buck has learned to trust men again it refers to Buck’s internal change from kingly master of his domain to a defensive animal trying to survive it refers to the Buck’s relocation to Alaska 16. In Call of the Wild , what did Buck do to Spitz that meant certain death for his old foe? (1 point) Buck turned the other dogs against Spitz. As they fought, Buck went for Spitz’s jugular vein. Buck chased Spitz onto thin ice, which broke under his weight. As they fought, Buck pretended to go for Spitz’s shoulder and broke his leg instead. 17. Throughout Call of the Wild, London suggests that life in the wild is defined by a struggle for __________. (1 point) food mastery affection dignity 18. A __________________ is a situation that seems to have contradictory or inconsistent qualities. (1 point) lie paradox conflict mystery 19. In Call of the Wild, Hal and Charles were identified as___________, because they had no experience with sleds or sled dogs. (1 point) city slickers bumpkins greenhorns southerners 20. Who is the only woman to play a role in The Call of the Wild? (1 point) The judge's wife Mercedes John Thornton's wife Marge 21. An indirect reference, something that’s implied is a/an ________________. (1 point) subtlety alliteration allusion secret 22. What breed of dog is Buck? (1 point) German shepherd Collie Siberian husky St. Bernard/Scottish shepherd 23. How did the breaking down of the dogs' discipline affect the dog team? (1 point) the dogs became confused the dogs were afraid to run the dogs attacked the men the dogs began fighting with one another 24. A/an ___________ is a person's story written by that person. (1 point) autobiography biography narrative allusion 25. The central problem in a story, which drives the plot events, is known as the (1 point) theme. resolution. conflict. exposition. 26. The purpose of ______________ writing is to change your reader’s attitude or behavior. (1 point) narrative informational persuasive technical 27. Which of the following is NOT a persuasive writing strategy? (1 point) present reliable evidence distort the facts emphasize benefits for the reader address the reader’s concerns 28. The _________is the position the writer wants readers to accept. (1 point) evidence opinion claim response 29. In a ____________ pattern of organization, your main point is stated first. (1 point) indirect direct initial objective 30. In order for an advertisement to be successful, it must _________________. (1 point) describe the special features of the product present a basic description make no mention of price avoid applying any pressure 31. A film is identified by its ____________, or type. (1 point) category plot rating genre 32. ________________ is the art or science of movie-making photography. (1 point) Animation Directing Producing Cinematography 33. What is the primary goal of a film reviewer? (1 point) to advertise the film to give an opinion of the film to describe the storyline only to get free tickets to movies 34. What film critic wrote the Batman Begins film review you studied in this course? (1 point) Gene Shalit Janet Maslin Roger Ebert Elvis Mitchell 35. ______________ is a public venue or space for open discussion. (1 point) forum journal rendezvous city hall 36. Op/ed is an abbreviation for _________________. (1 point) optimistic/enlightening opinion/editorial opinion/edition opportunity/education 37. To get a letter to the editor published, it s a good idea to: (1 point) pick a general subject remain anonymous be brief keep facts to a minimum 38. In a campaign speech, a candidate should always talk about his ____________. (1 point) personal life religion platform political rivals 39. How many themes should a campaign speech have? (1 point) as many as possible it depends on the audience three one 40. A persuasive essay is also known as a/an ____________ essay. argument opinion informational critical 41. The first step in writing a persuasive essay is to _______________. structure your essay research your topic take a position know your reader 42. Which one of the following would NOT be a section of a persuasive essay? a resolution an introduction a body a conclusion 43. Which of the following

Is this book review on twilight just about accurate? The book starts off with pale and klutzy Bella Swan preparing to go live out in the middle of nowhere with her father for her mother’s sake. Though it was her choice to go in the first place we still have to hear her complain about it. She is going to live with her father Charlie Swan who is clueless on how to be a parent, well apparently her mother is too. She has a typical teenage ‘Everyone hates me I’m so emo’ attitude. She’s self pitying and loves to complain, but she still thinks she is better than everyone else because she knows all the words to Wuthering Heights! During her first day at school she meets a group of nice people and somehow develops a fan club of guys willing to go out with her, but she really doesn’t care for normal people, lacking the social skills to befriend the un-supernatural. But then she meets Edward Cullen. Pale, beautiful and flamboyantly dressed, sitting with a tray f food in front of him and not even eating it. Bella describes him as beautiful with “Straight angular features” and a walk that “Belonged on a runway”. She is instantly attracted to him with one issue: Edward doesn’t seem to like her (Oh and Edward has four siblings, but we don’t want to talk about them!) Edward and Bella become partners in science, except Edward goes out f his way to ignore Bella. Now most girls would have given up, But not Bella! She just needed more reasons to write in her journal and cut herself! Ignoring the fact that quoted by one of the meaningless secondary characters, “The Cullen boy’s don’t like anyone” NONSENSE! Everyone loves Bella! So she sets off, trying to figure out why Edward doesn’t like her. But suddenly, Edward does start paying attention to her! Bella is thrilled! But now she has nothing left to complain about? Oh well. Back to complaining about how people are too nice to her and like her too much! (Damn her intelligence and cute awkwardness!) Edward then realizes that he loved Bella all along, and his feelings of wanting to kill her, was just shock from having feelings for someone who wasn’t a male. In the mean time, Edward saves Bella’s life, twice! Because we know Bella, being a poor defenseless woman, needs all the help she can get. One night Bella is lurking the dark streets alone at night instead of spending time with her willing friends, (Because who needs friends when you can sit alone and read romance novels all day?) and looking for bookstores to buy more Shakespeare books. But then *Gasp* a group of bad strong men corner defenseless clumsy Bella! Bella stands there, helpless knowing if she ran away, she would just trip and fall or something (yet again damn her clumsiness!) But Edward comes to the rescue! Shocked that Bella is on the street alone instead of in the kitchen making him a sandwich, Anyways he rescues her, well, forces her into his car. Ignoring the fact that Edward was probably stalking her, she starts to question him. Edward though demands her to stop, and forces her to talk about something else (Dominance, not abusive! SEXY!) He then being takes Bella to dinner, where the waitress relentlessly flirts with Edward, demonstrating ounce again how beautiful he is (Because we have to keep being reminded!) He then explains to Bella that he can read peoples minds. That’s not schizophrenic at all! I’d watch out for the red flags there Bella! By this point Bella is deeply in love with his light blank persona, and down right good American looks golden eyes, and chiseled statuesque chest (Did we mention how pretty his eyes were!?!?!?!?!) Anyways a bunch of crap happens,(Most of it involving describing how Edward looks) and then Edward decides to reveal to Bella why he never comes into school on sunny days, because as we all know vampires can’t be seen in the sunlight. But why!? Do they burn? Do they transform? Do they glitter? That’s right folks they glitter, Glitter like a 11 year old girl who wears glitter gel. Now any other guy would gladly take Edwards man-hood card away for glittering, (Vampire or not) but Bella seems to love it. So they lay down in the grass, Bella reminiscing about how hot Edwards sparkles are, and Edward reminiscing about how hot Bella would look if she were a man. Anyway Edward then tells Bella he’s what they call a “Vegetarian vampire” Feasting not on the blood of humans, but of cute cuddly animals, such as deer. Damn! This guy kills more animals then Sarah Palin during a mid-life crisis! Edward then explains why he was ignoring her in the beginning of the book, t was because her blood smelled so good, he couldn’t resist trying to bite her. So now we know why they’re together. Because Edward wants to drink her blood, and Bella likes the way he looks. That’s what I call a healthy relationship! Speaking of healthy relationships, Edward watches Bella when she sleeps. But just to make sure she doesn’t hurt herself somehow, I mean, women are always up to something clumsy! He also watches her when she showers but that’s just because we assu The whole thing didn't get posted:( I'll email it to you if you like!

wondering why any doctor would subject anyone to chemo? Chemotherapy Quotes "Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."---Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy. "NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein. "A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40---which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996) "Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990 The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing." "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".) "With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P Quillin, Ph.D. "1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss. "….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D. "Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."—Diamond. Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D. According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for bl Gary, did you bother to read? if I'm not mistaken the NEJ of medicine was quoted as well as several md's which if I'm not mistaken stands for medical doctors, also some with PHD's. what more do you need?I don't recall mentioning anything about alt med. I watched my mother, my aunt, her husband , a friend die from this treatment, and now my cousin is dying from this junk science, don't even bother to defend it. it's monstrous, but you are welcome to believe it if you want, I don't and I'll take my chances, as you'll take your's. good luck

What should I do with my journal? I would like to write something in it, but I don't want it to be about my personal life (already have a place for that), or some deep dark secrets. I don't want to draw in it (already have a place for that, too). I'm not much of a writer, either... Do you have any suggestions on what I should write about in it? I really want to do some sort of project with it. I was thinking of doing something like summarizing my Science notes so I could go back to it for future reference... but I 'unno. I want to see if there's any other ideas out there. :)

complete the journal..? i am doing a journal on prometheus and like i have to pretend that im prometheus writing it help me make it a half page long i was thinking earlier today about how much of a good person i am. in my point of view, people dont thank me for all the things that i provide to others. the people should thank me for providing fire.without fire, many tasks cannot be performed. i try to do my best to provide things in such a dangerous process to make life easier for the people. i take so many risks and in return i have my own titans against me. the titans actually took me to the god so that i can get eaten by eagles day after day. i dont see why it is wrong to share fire? i gave men knowledge of the so-called arts of civilization such as writing, mathematics, agriculture. medicine and science. many of my teaching has helped the people in many situations.

Secondhand obesity has now been documented.? A little fat between friends July 30, 2007 Betsy Hart - Why am I not surprised? Secondhand obesity has now been documented. That according to a study just out in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, and funded by the National Institute on Aging. AP science writer Alicia Chang summarized the study this way — "If your friends and family get fat, chances are you will too, researchers report in a startling new study that suggests obesity is [both] 'socially contagious' and can spread easily from person to person." The study found one's chances of becoming obese through "contagion" is most significant when it comes to good friends, even friends who live far apart, much more so than among those who swim in the same gene pool. If your pal becomes obese, your chances of tipping the scales too much will go up 57 percent; 40 percent if your sibling becomes overweight; and 37 percent if your spouse does. Two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese. Obesity is America's second leading cause of preventable death, after smoking, and it's fast closing in on becoming No. 1. It claims about 300,000 lives a year. The finding that it's social relationships, not genetic ones, which offer the biggest risk in weight gain just — again — reiterates that obesity is not primarily about random genetic malfunction. It's about a generation of us who just can't say no to anything, including food. But it's becoming increasingly clear it's also very much about a food culture that feeds that lust, pun intended. In any event, the idea this is "startling" to researchers is the element of all this I find most, well, startling. I've written in the past that I genuinely feel obese people, particularly the rapidly growing number of obese kids, present a health risk to my kids. After all, when my children look around and see overweight and obese people and children everywhere, it could easily make them think it's, well, at some level OK. It's just human nature to think that "everybody is doing it" or "that guy is doing it even more than I am — so no problem." And seeing food itself everywhere only "feeds" into this too. I hear from friends who tell me about the office "foodie." The typically heavy person who fills his or her desk with chocolates, potato chips, cookies and is always ready to share. If one is struggling with weight — that's a way to fail. Where are the second-hand smoke police when you need them? Why can't such people be told, "this is a snack-free zone," and then be forced to suck down the goodies outside the front door of the office on a freezing cold day? Seriously. But if the "foodie" doesn't get you, the food culture might. Snacks and goodies at every church, school or kids' event, it's always somebody's birthday in the office (don't we have to have cake?) and the grotesquely huge portions at most restaurants, especially of deserts, never cease to amaze me. I continue to think resisting this stuff is ultimately up to each one of us. (We had junk food when I was a kid, too.) But more and more, I'm beginning to see that the increasingly ubiquitous food culture is becoming something like our increasingly ubiquitous pornographic culture. It's just everywhere. And so a good thing, sex, food, in the right context, becomes a perverted, controlling monster in the wrong one. If that perversion is not of interest to you in the first place, of course, it might not matter how much is around you, you typically won't succumb to it. But if you have a weakness for the stuff at all, watch out. It can destroy you. In other words, this latest study shows — again — that Americans have to wake up and stop taking our obesity epidemic... so lightly.

Do you think these people spoke the truth or all of them are “anti-Semites”? Do you think these people spoke the truth or all of them are “anti-Semites”? "Why should we believe in God? We hate Christianity and Christians. Even the best of them must be regarded as our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor, and pity, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is a hinderance to the revolution. Down with love of one's neighbor; what we want is hatred. We must know how to hate, for only at this price can we conquer the universe...The fight should also be developed in the Moslem and Catholic countries, with the same ends in view and by the same means." (Lunatcharski, The Jewish Assault on Christianity, Gerald B. Winrod, page 44) ______________________________________ "There is no doubt that the...Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre." (A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, James Parkes, p. 81; The Iron Curtain Over America, John Beaty, p. 194). ______________________________________ "The fact is that the Jews were known only as destroyers in ancient history, not creators. They have developed no science, have produced no art, have built no great cities, and alone have no talent for the finer things of civilized life. The Jews claim to be the torchbearers of civilization, but thorough their parasitic habits have deteriorated or destroyed every nation in which they have existed in large numbers." (Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 28). ______________________________________ "Once we perceive that it is Judaism which is the root cause of antisemitism, otherwise irrational or inexplicable aspects of antisemitism become rationally explicable...Only something representing a threat to the core values, allegiances and beliefs of others could cause such universal, deep and lasting hatred. This Judaism has done..." (Why the Jews: by Denis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, 1985) ______________________________________ Dr. Albert M. Gessman, writing in the Winter 1969 number of the conservative Jewish journal, "Issues." After contrasting critically almost nine pages of glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity to the disadvantage of the latter, and after reviewing the back-grounds of both religions, he concludes that, "A Judeo-Christian heritage or tradition in the proper sense of that hyphenated word does not exist; it has no foundation in historical fact." 'Modern Jewry' Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41. ______________________________________ "It is a favorite ruse of the Jews to represent the Christians as their only enemies; in reality the persecution of the Jews began long before the Christian era, nor has it since then been confined to countries where the Christian religion prevails. If Christendom is to be accused of ingratitude for the privilege of harboring numbers of Jews in her midst, the pagan world showed itself quite equally ungrateful. Egyptians, Persians, and Assyrians kept them in complete subjection; indeed, owing to their racial characteristics, it was found impossible even under the more liberal rägime of Alexander the Great's successors to receive them into the community of nations." (World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 162). ______________________________________ AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his "On the Governance of the Jews," he wrote: "The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious." ______________________________________ DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form: "The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today." (Roman History) ______________________________________ A.N. FIELD, in Today's Greatest Problem: "Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise puzzling features become understandable. Hatred of Christianity, for instance, is not a Russian characteristic; it is a Jewish one." ______________________________________ "The Jews are not a part of a vast Whole which they re-integrate in dying, but they are a Whole in themselves, defying space, time, life, and death. Can God be outside the Whole? If he exists, necessarily he confounds himself with this Whole...Thus Divinity in Judaism is co

Did you know this about the flu and do you care? The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe" the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster. The Grim Reaper by Louis Raemaekers In the fall of 1918 the Great War in Europe was winding down and peace was on the horizon. The Americans had joined in the fight, bringing the Allies closer to victory against the Germans. Deep within the trenches these men lived through some of the most brutal conditions of life, which it seemed could not be any worse. Then, in pockets across the globe, something erupted that seemed as benign as the common cold. The influenza of that season, however, was far more than a cold. In the two years that this scourge ravaged the earth, a fifth of the world's population was infected. The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children. It infected 28% of all Americans (Tice). An estimated 675,000 Americans died of influenza during the pandemic, ten times as many as in the world war. Of the U.S. soldiers who died in Europe, half of them fell to the influenza virus and not to the enemy (Deseret News). An estimated 43,000 servicemen mobilized for WWI died of influenza (Crosby). 1918 would go down as unforgettable year of suffering and death and yet of peace. As noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association final edition of 1918: "The 1918 has gone: a year momentous as the termination of the most cruel war in the annals of the human race; a year which marked, the end at least for a time, of man's destruction of man; unfortunately a year in which developed a most fatal infectious disease causing the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Medical science for four and one-half years devoted itself to putting men on the firing line and keeping them there. Now it must turn with its whole might to combating the greatest enemy of all--infectious disease," (12/28/1918). An Emergency Hospital for Influenza Patients The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years (Taubenberger). People were struck with illness on the street and died rapid deaths. One anectode shared of 1918 was of four women playing bridge together late into the night. Overnight, three of the women died from influenza (Hoagg). Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours (Henig). One physician writes that patients with seemingly ordinary influenza would rapidly "develop the most viscous type of pneumonia that has ever been seen" and later when cyanosis appeared in the patients, "it is simply a struggle for air until they suffocate," (Grist, 1979). Another physician recalls that the influenza patients "died struggling to clear their airways of a blood-tinged froth that sometimes gushed from their nose and mouth," (Starr, 1976). The physicians of the time were helpless against this powerful agent of influenza. In 1918 children would skip rope to the rhyme (Crawford): I had a little bird, Its name was Enza. I opened the window, And in-flu-enza. The influenza pandemic circled the globe. Most of humanity felt the effects of this strain of the influenza virus. It spread following the path of its human carriers, along trade routes and shipping lines. Outbreaks swept through North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil and the South Pacific (Taubenberger). In India the mortality rate was extremely high at around 50 deaths from influenza per 1,000 people (Brown). The Great War, with its mass movements of men in armies and aboard ships, probably aided in its rapid diffusion and attack. The origins of the deadly flu disease were unknown but widely speculated upon. Some of the allies thought of the epidemic as a biological warfare tool of the Germans. Many thought it was a result of the trench warfare, the use of mustard gases and the generated "smoke and fumes" of the war. A national campaign began using the ready rhetoric of war to fight the new enemy of microscopic proportions. A study attempted to reason why the disease had been so devastating in certain localized regions, looking at the climate, the weather and the racial composition of cities. They found humidity to be linked wit

So if mental illness stems from religion, then why are some atheists mentally ill? Where does their mental illness stem from? If leaving a religion frees you from any delusion or mental illness, then wouldn't mental illness in atheists be rare? Is a mental illness based on a belief, or does it come from your brain? If people are born atheists, how do you choice a mental illness? So if people are born atheists, if they never believe in God or have a religion at any time of their lives, they will mostly likely never suffer from a mental illness? ______ Info: Investigated the relationship between causal attributions about mental illness and family functioning in 39 individuals (aged 18-41 yrs) with chronic mental illness (schizophrenic, schizoaffective, bipolar affective, schizophreniform, or depressive disorders) and their families. All family members were asked an initial open-ended attribution question and completed an adaptation of an existing measure of causal attribution, followed by a standardized measure of family functioning. Causal attributions were divided into 3 groups: people based, biology/heredity, and God/chance. Among parents and siblings, poor family functioning was associated with attribution to a person (oneself, the client, or others inside or outside the family) as the cause of the illness. No relationship was found between family functioning and causal attributions to genetics, biology, God, or chance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) Causal attributions about mental illness: Relationship to family functioning. Authors:Robinson, Elizabeth A. R., Case Western Reserve U, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Cleveland, OH, US Source:American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 66(2), Apr 1996. pp. 282-295 Publisher:US: American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc. Yeah, if religion stems from mental illness, you are saying that if a person is religious they are mentally ill. How can that be? So if mental illness comes from the brain, what if a person is not mentally ill, but is religious? How can religion be the cause of mental illness?

10 myths about sex... But do you agree? What do you think to these??? ****************** 1. Singles have more sex than married people. Contrary to popular belief, it's married people who have more fun. According to Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher's The Case for Marriage, approximately 40 percent of married people have sex twice a week, compared with only 20 to 25 percent of singles and cohabitating couples. 2. Men think about sex every seven seconds. As it turns out, this is fiction, too. According to a 1994 "Sex in America" survey, 54 percent of men think about sex every day or several times a day, 43 percent think about it a few times a week or month, and 4 percent think about it less than once a month. 3. Women are naturally more monogamous than men. Although it's difficult to prove or disprove, researchers believe this popular assumption is more a matter of perception and socialization than biology. As they point out, in most mammalian species, both the males and females are highly, and equally, promiscuous. 4. Pornography is an addictive substance. Some people view porn as a harmless pastime, while others see it as a health hazard. Either way, most scientists agree that although it's possible to become addicted to pornography, the addiction is behavioral, much like an addiction to gambling. Porn itself is not an addictive substance in the category of heroin or cocaine. 5. Herbal aphrodisiacs can enhance your sex life. Ginger, coriander, or cardamom can enhance a host of recipes, but sadly, they won't succeed in spicing up your sex life. A review by the FDA revealed that no purported aphrodisiac has ever been scientifically proven to increase sex drive. And some, like Spanish Fly, can even be potentially dangerous. 6. Sex during pregnancy will hurt the baby. Believe it or not, sex is perfectly safe during the vast majority of pregnancies. In fact, most couples can keep having sex until the woman's water breaks. However, there are cases in which sex should be avoided, so be sure to talk to your doctor if you have any concerns. 7. Women can't get pregnant during their period. Couples who believe this myth may be in for a big surprise. According to a 2000 study conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, at least 2 percent of women enter their fertile period only 4 days into their menstrual cycle, and 17 percent enter it by the seventh day. Sperm can live for up to five days, so this myth has likely resulted in many unplanned pregnancies. 8. Sex the night before an athletic event will ruin your performance. Although some coaches and athletes advocate abstinence the night before competitions, scientists are quick to point out that there's no evidence to support this myth. In fact, 2000 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness reported that sex had "no detrimental influence on the maximal workload achieved or on the athletes' mental concentration." 9. Talking to kids about sex will encourage them to have sex. It might be uncomfortable or a little embarrassing, but talking to children about sex doesn't encourage them to have it. According to the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, open communication helps kids to make healthy and appropriate decisions regarding their sexual behavior. 10. Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way. A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that men and women can indeed have platonic relationships. The researchers, who tracked 20 pairs of friends, confirmed that "friendship attraction"--a connection devoid of lust--between the genders is a bona-fide bond.

Canadian reaserchers find new theory of how life may have evolved? Your thoughts please? http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/News/ContentPosting?newsitemid=ribosome&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE-V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True FROM SYMATICO MSN: Montreal scientists unlock mystery of early molecular mechanism Two Montreal researchers have proposed a new theory for a question that has long vexed evolutionary biologists: How did a mechanism thought to help build life self-assemble? 20/02/2009 3:49:04 PM CBC News Sergey Steinberg, a biochemistry professor at the University of Montreal, found the answer in the ribosome, a relatively large mechanism within the cell that takes RNA instruction and builds proteins. His discovery, made with student Konstantin Bokov, has been published in the scientific journal Nature. Scientists have long wondered how chemicals spontaneously came together to create proteins before life itself began. Steinberg and Bokov's theory fills in a critical step in how life got started four billion years ago, said Stephen Michnick, the Canada Research Chair in Integrative Genomics at the University of Montreal. A key breakthrough came when Steinberg found that chemicals could spontaneously come together and form something as complex as a ribosome. Previous theories had suggested only simple proteins could form spontaneously. This had been shown in a seminal experiment in the 1950s in which basic chemicals were combined in a flask, heated and zapped with electricity, creating basic proteins as a result. But proving that chemicals can spontaneously form simple proteins did not prove that spontaneous action could create more complex mechanisms. "In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature," said Steinberg. Steinberg was able to show otherwise. He found the ribosome was put together using relatively simple structural rules, a bit like a three-dimensional puzzle. For critics who ask why spontaneous formation didn't lead to something other than the ribosome, Steinberg used mathematical models to show there was no other possibility. The ribosome simply wouldn't hold together if it were constructed any other way. "The assembly followed rules that were logical and for which there were no alternatives," said Michnick. "This forces us to think about bigger structures. This type of thinking is important to understanding all sorts of structure." For instance, the next step might be to consider why proteins begin to form wrongly spontaneously. Several neurodegenerative diseases occur when proteins start to malform, said Michnick. Steinberg's research could give insight in how that happens, and why. Whoppsy lol Ken your right, YA failed big time in categorizing this I shall repost!

Journal of Life Science and Nature [www.tabindah.org]? Journal of Life Science and Nature ------------ << www.tabindah.org >> The journal provides an international forum for papers on evolutionary zoology research. The journal offers a competent survey of the diversity of evolutionary research and related fields. Emphasis is on the synthesis of scientific results from anatomy, morphology, physiology, ethology, general genetics, population genetics and molecular biology. The journal contains only original articles published in English. Fields of interest: Specialises in all fields of zoological science. Particular strengths include insect taxonomy and pest control, reflecting the diversity of the native fauna, effects of introduced animals on the native biota, general and systematic zoology, and evolutionary biology. Articles published online ahead of print Articles which have been fully copy-edited and peer-reviewed are published online through our OnlineEarly feature before the print edition of this journal is published. --- Is it bi-monthly publication journal? ---

what are some examples of how science is used is every day life? specific examples!? I have to write a few journals on how science is used in my life..for example... when i use a diffuser to dry my hair.. something like that! please please please help! as many examples as you can think of!

What do you do when one of your co-workers treats you like you are stupid? I have worked at a life-science journal for a year now, and one of the science researchers treats the editorial staff as if we are idiots when we ask him a science-related question. I think he has a big ego and is very arrogant. Anyway, I want to maintain my professional attitude, but it's difficult when he replies to questions in a sarcastic way. Can anyone give me any advice?

is anyone know list of scientific journals/publishing company that has opening for life sciences?

3D Thinking in science and real life? Hi all, I am still confused to this point as to what 3D thinking really mean in life! I am doing science and much of it requires 3D thinking! Please help if anyone out there knows anything! Any reference to that topic whether Online reference, Books or Journals quoted would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance.

What specifically is 'race' in referrence to skin color? (A link to an Anthropology/ Sociology/ Life Science journal on this topic would help as a credible reference.) What is the biology of race, if there is one? What exactly gives someone a 'race' besides the human race? I don't mean culture or heritage. I know what those are. Why do the words Black, White, and Ethnic replace a person's respective culture or nationality?

the mystery of how life began may have been solved? researchers from england have demonstrated the mechanism that lead to the first living, breathing creatures. they have shown how to make the building blocks of rna from the simple chemicals that existed on earth 4 billion years ago. this is from a report in the london daily telegraph and is in the science journal - nature.

What exactly is telemeres therapy, and can it really extend life, or cure/treat cancer.? Just heard about it in some science journals and sounded promising. So it does nothing other than giving the time frame of advancment of cancer cells to find the best approach to treatment. Not very exciting but informative.

I need URGENT help; Designer Babies...science journal?!? I have a HUGE science report due very soon, as in like five days...and I can't find enough information. I need to find, read, etc a science journal about Designer Babies for part of my research. But...I can't find one for my life. I've looked at the library, actually at multiple ones, went online. Nothing. I need help, please please please please please. Anyone with some good information about Designer Babies, Genetically Selective Engineering of Babies, etc etc. I would, well I would love you forever and ever. :DD

Do you creationists think your nonsense will ever become mainstream science? Something like 99.8% of the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences support evolution. It's such a basic cornerstone in any life science that research will grind to a complete halt if it's rejected. The Centers for Disease Control would be helpless against disease if they replaced their evolutionary model with a sin-based model of disease. You simply WON'T find any articles from a creationist viewpoint in any mainstream scientific journal. You simply cannot burn enough scientists at the stake to EVER make them abandon evolution. And if scientists ever did abandon evolution, they'd switch to something equally naturalistic. About the only thing you might accomplish--and there's even a lot of resistance to that--is to push your idiocy on public schools. We're already starting to fall behind the rest of the world in scientific literacy, and such a stupid program would only further destroy America's technological superiority.

evolutionist please read and what do you think now about Christians and they do use science ? One of the most frustrating aspects of the whole Creation/Evolution debate is the fact that so much of the evidence presented in school textbooks, science journals and consequently the secular news media is just partial evidence. People can be made to believe just about anything if they are only given part of the evidence, but when all of the evidence is presented, the truth has a funny way of coming out. Have you ever wondered why so many evolutionary scientists fight legally to stop school districts from debating the facts of evolution? Why all the legal battles to keep evolution from being debated? The fact is there are mountains of scientific evidence which supports Creation and destroys evolutionary theory. One small example is something we call the Micro/Macro deception. Here's how it works. First, let's examine the word “evolution”. In the literal sense, “evolution” is not a bad word. It merely means “change over time”. We all change over time, so in the strictest literal sense, we “evolve”. Our thinking even “evolves” as we get older. But that's not what the evolutionists mean when they tell us humanity “evolved” from a common ancestor. That's where the Micro/Macro deception comes in. Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch. Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. All of the toads had it within their genetic structure to develop longer legs, so whenever the occasional toad would be born with a dominant “longer leg” gene, he would have an advantage over his brother toads, tend to survive and then pass that dominant gene onto his tadpoles and before you know it, the whole Cane toad population “micro-evolved” longer legs. If you put some dogs on an island where the climate was too cold for their fur, eventually a dog will be born with a dominant gene for thicker fur and he will survive, pass that gene onto his puppies and over time you will see that the dogs will have “micro-evolved” thicker fur. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time to adapt to the types of food available. In all of these cases with the finches, the toads, the dogs etc., the changes they experienced were already built into their genetic codes. That is critical to remember. At no time did a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop in any of these cases. It was merely a shuffling of EXISTING genetic information. (Remember that, you'll see why) This “Micro-evolution” is fully accepted by Creation Scientists. It has always been seen as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. This is the sign of a smart God. Now let's go to “Macro-evolution”. “Macro-evolution” is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Cane toads to “Macro” evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. So here's the dirty little secret the evolutionists don't like talking about. There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal. The finches stayed finches, the toads stayed toads. If the kind of evolution being taught to us now were true, those toads would evolve into non-toads, maybe a bird or possibly eventually a lizard or perhaps a cow someday. For this to happen (and here comes another dirty little secret), the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with NEW, ADDITIONAL genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. That's right. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today when we have modern technology, laboratories, scientists and the cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creati

Has any Creationist "science journal" ever printed an article that was inconclusive in regard to Creation? For instance, many articles in jounals the Creationist would call "evolutionist" publications simply report a finding that does not directly apply to or draw conclusions about evolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin of life. Do Creationists ever wonder why their journals only have articles that conclude the same very narrow-scoped thing every time? The journals I'm talking about are those similar to the Journal of Creation (formerly TJ and previously Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) by the fine scientist-preachers at Answers in Genesis. Commonsense, R. Gentry did indeed publish some articles on polonium halos in real peer review a few decades ago. They did not fare well due to lack of repeatability.

Help with Science????????? I am in ninth grade and we are doing an Earth Science Symposium. My topic will be how Earth and Mars are similar and how some theories suggest that Mars once was Earth-like and supported life. Also, that global warming may result in Earth becoming like Mars. Can anybody find me Science Journal Citations on this subject? Thanks

Science Journal cover help? For science class we have to decorate or note books and the theme is Diversiy of Life.. Any one have any good ideas???

[Ramadan] Turkey's science falling back into ignorance? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html?hpid=topnews "A recent survey, quoted in a 2008 article in the American journal Science, found that fewer than 25 percent of Turks accepted evolution as an explanation of how modern life came to be -- by far the lowest percentage of any developed nation." I hope this Creationism nonsense ends, so that Turkey can actually start learning true biology and true science, so that they do not fall behind.

Who would vote for Mitt Romney on his record? I have finally, after extensive research found part of his record. Wow, what a record.!! I am posting my findings with this question for those who doesn't like to open web sites. News * All News * In The News * Press Releases * Speeches * Debate Central * Word On The Web * Photo Gallery * Events * Chat Archive The Fourteenth Republican Debate From Florida Pat Buchanan: "His Performance Was Flawless" Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 11:56 PM EDT What They're Really Saying About Governor Mitt Romney At The Boca Raton, FL GOP Debate - Vol. II Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 11:55 PM EDT MSNBC'S Chuck Todd: "Romney looks good and sounds confident tonight." (Chuck Todd, "Romney Starting Off Well Tonight," MSNBC's First Read, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/, Posted 1/24/08) The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Romney made a strong first impression." (Marc Ambinder, "Live Twittering Of The Debate," The Atlantic, http://twitter.com/marcambinder, Posted 1/24/08) Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Florida voters got their final head-to-head look at the Republican presidential candidates tonight, and the winner of the debate was Mitt Romney." (Ed Morrissey, "Florida Debate: Romney Scores, Rudy Close Behind," Captain's Quarters' Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com, Posted 1/24/08) - Morrissey: "He looked presidential, poised, and factually prepared." (Ed Morrissey, "Florida Debate: Romney Scores, Rudy Close Behind," Captain's Quarters' Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com, Posted 1/24/08) - Morrissey: "In a debate that spent the first two-thirds with everyone doing well, Romney not only broke out on his own in the last stanza, he successfully parried some strange attacks from Tim Russert as well." (Ed Morrissey, "Florida Debate: Romney Scores, Rudy Close Behind," Captain's Quarters' Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com, Posted 1/24/08) Michelle Malkin: "Romney's being treated like the front-runner and he's acting like it." (Michelle Malkin, "GOP Florida Debate: Show Us The Conservatism," Michelle Malkin's Blog, http://michellemalkin.com/, Accessed 1/24/08) Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Mitt Romney should send a thank you card to Tim Russert and Brian Williams. They threw hard balls at the former Massachusetts governor and he hit them all, many out of the park. Romney's allocation of time had to be disproportionate, but that was the Williams/Russert choice, and Romney made the most of it." (Hugh Hewitt, "'General Hillary Clinton' And 'They're Doing It In Europe Now,'" Townhall Blog, http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Hewitt: "Democrats watching tonight have to be very worried that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee." (Hugh Hewitt, "'General Hillary Clinton' And 'They're Doing It In Europe Now,'" Townhall Blog, http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/, Posted 1/24/08) American Spectator's Wlady: "Terrific Romney answer to Russert's nosiness about how much he's spent in Florida. Russert's mistake: his insinuation that he was asking the question on behalf of the people's right to know. Romney instead let it be known he'll report his spending on Jan. 31, as required by law; and there's no reason to give his opponents a competitive advantage." (Wlady, "Rich Man, Poor Man," AmSpec Blog, http://www.amspec.org/, Accessed 1/24/08) ABC News' Rick Klein: "Romney gets an initial question on the economy -- this is tailor made for him. ? He sounds authoritative and in control on this subject." (Rick Klein, "Live Blogging During GOP Debate," ABC News' Political Radar, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar, Posted 1/24/08) National Journal's Jennifer Skalka: "Winners?Mitt Romney -- Mistake-free night." (Jennifer Skalka, "No Battle In Boca," National Journal's On Call, http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/, Posted 1/24/08) Heading Right's Ed Morrissey: "Best line of the evening so far: General Hillary Clinton." (Ed Morrissey, "Best Line Of The Evening So Far," Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/, Accessed 1/24/08) - Morrissey: "Romney just delivered a hell of a punch against Hillary Clinton, Bill, and the Democrats." (Ed Morrissey, "Romney Lapping The Pack," Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/, Accessed 1/24/08) - Morrissey: "I am impressed." (Ed Morrissey, "Romney's Running Away With It!" Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/, Accessed 1/24/08) American Spectator's Phillip Klein: "Romney is clearly benefiting from the focus on the economy." (Phillip Klein, "Quick Debate Reaction," AmSpec Blog, http://www.amspec.org/blogger, Accessed 1/24/08) Heading Right's Fausta Wertz: "[Y]es, this is the Mitt Romney hour." (Fausta, "Back To Mitt," Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/, Accessed 1/24/08) Townhall's Matt Lewis: "If one had to assign a winner tonight, Mitt Romney would probably get the nod." (Matt Lewis, "GOP Debate Analysis: Florida Now A Two-Man Race," Townhall Blog, www.townhall.com, Posted 1/24/08) - Lewis: "The debate focused more on the economy than it did on any other topic, and I think he is more adept at talking about this topic than is his primary opponent, John McCain." (Matt Lewis, "GOP Debate Analysis: Florida Now A Two-Man Race," Townhall Blog, www.townhall.com, Posted 1/24/08) - Lewis: "He also did a good job of going after the Clintons -- something that McCain should have actually done more of." (Matt Lewis, "GOP Debate Analysis: Florida Now A Two-Man Race," Townhall Blog, www.townhall.com, Posted 1/24/08) - Lewis: "Romney was ahead in the last Florida poll I saw, and since nothing that happened tonight is likely to radically upset the apple cart, he wins tonight merely by maintaining the status quo." (Matt Lewis, "GOP Debate Analysis: Florida Now A Two-Man Race," Townhall Blog, www.townhall.com, Posted 1/24/08) What They're Really Saying About Governor Mitt Romney At The Boca Raton, FL GOP Debate Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 11:11 PM EDT MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "I think conservatives probably related to Mitt Romney, talking about tax cuts, talking about being a governor, talking about what he did in the private sector for all those years. On the economic part of this debate, I don't think there is any doubt that this was Mitt Romney's best performance." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/24/08) - Scarborough: "The first 30 minutes - it was about the economy. I thought Mitt Romney absolutely dominated that segment of it." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/24/08) Time's Mark Halperin: "Romney A-" (Mark Halperin, "Who Wants To Be The Nominee?" Time's The Page, http://thepage.time.com/, Posted 1/24/08) MSNBC's Chuck Todd: "I thought this was Mitt Romney's best debate performance." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/24/08) National Review's Rich Lowry: "Romney has seemed authoritative – confident and on his game..." (Rich Lowry, "The Debate So Far," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Lowry: "'We're the Party of Change' ... Home-run answer from Romney. It was drawn from his standard lines on the stump, but a terrific message, convincingly delivered." (Rich Lowry, "'We're The Party Of Change'," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Lowry: "Good night for Romney." (Rich Lowry, "Good Night For Romney," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Lowry: "Romney is dominating the last half-an-hour." (Rich Lowry, "In Terms Of Sheer Time..." National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/24/08) Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Romney just stole that issue from both Rudy and McCain. His answer was intelligent and far-reaching. I liked the idea of high-risk areas getting together to pool risk. Rudy's been trying to pander with this idea and I think both Romney and McCain made the pandering look silly by taking a broader approach." (Mary Katharine Ham, "The Cat Fund," Townhall Blog, http://www.townhall.com/, Posted 1/24/08) National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's insights about his state's National Guard was helpful. He seems particularly aggressive and sure-footed tonight." (Kate O'Beirne, "On Offense," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/24/08) Michelle Malkin: "Excellent Romney answer on Iraq. Strong, tough, focused on the surrendercrats. He takes on Dems for their withdrawalmania?cites debate in SC when Hillary refused to say she wanted to win and recycled Code Pink line." (Michelle Malkin, "GOP Florida Debate," http://michellemalkin.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Malkin: "Romney excoriates Dems and says 'how dare they' take credit for surge." (Michelle Malkin, "GOP Florida Debate," http://michellemalkin.com/, Posted 1/24/08) - Malkin: "Romney just out-McCained McCain on the war." (Michelle Malkin, "GOP Florida Debate," http://michellemalkin.com/, Posted 1/24/08) The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Romney was swell on the economy..." (Marc Ambinder, "Romney Made A Strong First Impression... No One Tried To Jab At Him," Twitter Blog, http://twitter.com/marcambinder, Posted 1/24/08) Hot Air's Bryan Preston: "Mitt Romney is asked whether the war in Iraq was worth the sacrifice and effort. He delivers the best answer of the bunch and punches the hippies in the Democrat party to boot." (Bryan Preston, "Debate Highlights: Huckabee On The Economic Stimulus; Romney On Iraq," Hot Air, http://hotair.com/, Posted 1/24/08) Joe Scarborough: "Mitt Romney Absolutely Dominated" Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 11:00 PM EDT Governor Mitt Romney Lays Out The Vision To Strengthen America Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 10:38 PM EDT Tonight, Romney for President Communications Director Matt Rhoades released the following statement on the Florida Republican presidential debate: "The economic challenges confronting our country were central to tonight's debate. Governor Romney is the only candidate with a record of working in the real economy and creating jobs. That experience was on display tonight. He understands how to create jobs and how to bring change. That is the leadership we need in Washington, and in a few short days, the people of Florida will cast their votes for change in this country." Straight Talk Detour: McCain On Republican Vote Totals Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 10:30 PM EDT McCain Falsely Claimed That He Won Among Republicans In NH And SC In Tonight's Debate, Sen. McCain Falsely Claimed That He Won The Republican Vote In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina: MCCAIN: "But Look, I Won The Majority Of Republican Vote In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina." (MSNBC, [Unverified Transcript], Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08) However, Sen. McCain Lost In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina Among Self-Identified Conservatives And Republicans : McCain Lost Among Self-Identified Republicans In New Hampshire. "In New Hampshire, a state McCain had won in 2000 and lavished time and attention on this time around, he lost self-identified Republicans narrowly -- 35 percent to 34 percent -- to former governor Mitt Romney. But, it was among independents where McCain's winning margin came as he won that bloc by 13 points over Romney." (Chris Cillizza, "McCain And The Closed Primary Challenge," Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/, 1/24/08) McCain Lost Among Republicans In South Carolina. "In South Carolina, McCain lost Republicans by a statistically insignificant margin, but carried independents by a massive 42 percent to 25 percent margin -- ensuring his narrow three-point victory." (Chris Cillizza, "McCain And The Closed Primary Challenge," Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/,1/24/08) Conservatives Are Wary Of McCain's Past Tendencies And Willingness To Team Up With Liberal Senators. "McCain has long had difficulty currying favor from his party's conservative wing. Despite his solid voting record in the senate, many ardent Republicans have been unhappy with his past willingness to team up with liberal Sens. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration." (Alexander Mooney, "McCain Brushes Aside Suggestion Of Weak Republican Support," http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/mccain-brushes-aside-suggestion-of-weak-republican-support/, 1/20/08) "Support from the base will be crucial in upcoming contests: McCain now faces a bevy of state primaries where independents are not allowed to participate, beginning with Florida's vote on January 29. But the Arizona senator is predicting that his support among veterans, his economic proposals, and his record on environmental issues important to many Floridians will carry him to victory there." (Alexander Mooney, "McCain Brushes Aside Suggestion Of Weak Republican Support," http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/mccain-brushes-aside-suggestion-of-weak-republican-support/, 1/20/08) Gov. Romney: Working Together On Social Security Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 10:20 PM EDT Romney Record: A Stronger State Economy Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 09:49 PM EDT Governor Romney Helped Turn Around The Massachusetts Economy And Today, The State Is Among The Most Economically Competitive In The Nation: Because of work done by Governor Romney, Massachusetts is now credited with being one of the most economically-competitive states in the nation. - The Boston Globe : "Nonetheless, Romney's policies are credited with improving the state's competitiveness. His administration promoted high-density development to increase housing production, got a fast-track permitting law enacted by the Legislature to help businesses expand, and revived an agency to help firms move to the state." (Brian Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07) - The Beacon Hill Institute: Massachusetts "One Of The Most Economically Competitive States In The Nation." "Massachusetts ranks as the one of the most economically competitive states in the nation, buoyed by innovation, entrepreneurship, and an educated and skilled workforce, a new study concludes. The study, released today by the Beacon Hill Institute, a think tank at Suffolk University, ranks Massachusetts second only to Utah in the attributes that create and sustain high levels of income for residents." (Robert Gavin, "Reports: Mass. A Top U.S. Economic Competitor," The Boston Globe, 12/19/07) - The Information Technology And Innovation Foundation: Massachusetts First In The Ability "To Compete In A Dynamic, Innovation-Driven Global Economy." "It follows another study, by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank, that measures states' abilities to compete in a dynamic, innovation-driven global economy and ranks Massachusetts first." (Robert Gavin, "Reports: Mass. A Top U.S. Economic Competitor," The Boston Globe, 12/19/07) - Under Governor Romney, The State's Credit Rating Was Upgraded For The First Time Since January 2000. "Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Standard & Poor's has raised the state's credit rating one notch, from 'AA-' to 'AA'. This is the state's first ratings upgrade since January 2000, when Moody's Investors Service raised the state's credit rating from 'Aa3' to 'Aa2'." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Announces Bond Rating Upgrade For Commonwealth's Debate," Press Release, 3/15/05) - MassINC And Northeastern University Report: "The Massachusetts economy is the envy of many other states. Our economy consistently ranks among the top in measures of New Economy success. We rank near the top of the nation in our level of labor productivity and have outpaced the nation in recent years in the rate of growth. We have the most educated workforce in the nation. We also score near the top in terms of knowledge jobs and innovation capacity." (MassINC & The Northeastern University Center For Labor Market Studies, "Mass Jobs: Meeting The Challenges Of A Shifting Economy," November 2007) Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Added Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs After The End Of A Deep Recession: Before Governor Romney took office, Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month after the tech bubble burst in 2001. Under Governor Jane Swift, Sen. McCain's chief Massachusetts surrogate, the state lost over 140,000 jobs. - Massachusetts "Suffered The Deepest Job Losses In The Nation After The Tech Boom." "Massachusetts, because of its large technology sector, suffered the deepest job losses in the nation after the tech boom went bust in 2001, shedding 6 percent of its jobs, compared to 2 percent nationally." (Robert Gavin, "Job-Growth Study: Mass. Next To Last," The Boston Globe, 11/28/07) - Under The Previous Administration, Massachusetts Lost Jobs Month After Month. Under Governor Swift, Massachusetts lost 141,000 votes. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, "State And Area Employment, Hours, And Earnings," Massachusetts, Total Non-Farm, Seasonally Adjusted, Accessed 1/21/08) Under Governor Romney, jobs began to return to Massachusetts. Massachusetts added 57,600 jobs after the recession ended in December 2003. In 2006 alone, Massachusetts added 18,700 jobs. - Massachusetts Added 57,600 Jobs Since The Recession's End In December 2003 Until The End Of Governor Romney's Term. "Massachusetts has added 57,600 payroll jobs since December 2003." (Massachusetts Department Of Workforce Development, "Jobs In Massachusetts Up By 1,700 In December," Press Release, 1/18/07) - In 2006, Massachusetts Added 18,700 Jobs. "Total jobs are up 18,700 from one year ago to 3,224,700." (Mass. Department Of Workforce Development, "Jobs In Massachusetts Up By 1,700 In December," Press Release, 1/18/07) - Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Posted The First Gain In Manufacturing Jobs In Several Years. "For the first time in several years, Massachusetts has posted a gain in manufacturing jobs, according to the 2007 Massachusetts Manufacturers Register, an industrial directory published annually by Manufacturers' News, Inc. (MNI), Evanston, IL. MNI reports Massachusetts has added 3,681 net jobs since August of 2005, indicating a slight reversal in the downturn the Bay state has felt since 2001." (Manufacturers' News, "Industrial Directory Reports Massachusetts Manufacturing Jobs Up," Press Release, 8/30/06) Under Governor Romney, personal incomes grew dramatically, and the level of personal income was far higher than the national average. - During Governor Romney's Term, Massachusetts Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Grew By 17%, Outpacing Per Capita Personal Income Growth For The Entire United States. In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $46,255 in 2006. (Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State Annual Personal Income," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 1/21/08) - In 2006, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $46,255. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $36,629. (Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State BEARFACTS 1996 – 2006: Massachusetts," Accessed: 1/21/08) Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Became A Better Place To Do Business: Under Governor Romney, the business climate improved and more companies were attracted to Massachusetts. - In Three Years Under Governor Romney, The Number Of Companies In The State's Development Pipeline Went From 13 To 288. "Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney's secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years." (Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert And Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07) - The Boston Globe : "Last year, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. chose an 89-acre site at the former Fort Devens over one in North Carolina for a $660 million complex that will create 550 jobs. The deal required a customized tax credit, a $34 million infrastructure bond, and an unusual show of teamwork by Romney and the Legislature." (Brian Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert And Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07) Governor Romney took the action necessary to improve the state's business climate and stimulate the economy through pro-growth economic policies. - ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE: In November 2003, Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package To Help Spur The Massachusetts Economy. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03) - ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE: In June 2006, Governor Romney Signed A Second Economic Stimulus Package To Help Spur The Massachusetts Economy. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03) - 2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted The State's First-Ever Sales Tax Holiday In 2004. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Promotes Tax-Free Shopping Day On Saturday," Press Release, 8/14/04) - 2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted A Second Sales Tax Holiday. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney, Dimasi, Hart Promote Tax-Free Shopping Weekend," Press Release, 8/14/0) - INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Making The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Permanent. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03) - BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Tax Rebate For Manufacturing Jobs Created In The Biotechnology, Life Sciences And Medical Device Fields. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03) - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted An Expansion Of The Research And Development Tax Credit. (Jay Fitzgerald, "Gov Nearly Halves Package; Rebellious Legislators Vow To Override Stimulus Vetoes," The Boston Herald, 11/27/03) - COMMUTER TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Allowing Commuters To Deduct Transportation Costs From Their Income Taxes. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Signs $25.2 Billion FY 2007 State Budget," Press Release, 7/8/06) - BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Refundable Tax Credit To Promote Development At The Former Fort Devens U.S. Army Base. (Stephen Heuser, "$660M Drug Plant, 550 Jobs For Mass.," The Boston Globe, 6/2/06) - PERMITTING REFORM: In August 2006, Governor Romney Signed Permitting Reform To Expedite The Permit Process For New Businesses. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that reforms and streamlines the commercial permitting process, making it easier for companies to expand and add jobs in Massachusetts." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Permitting Reform Into Law," Press Release, 8/2/06) - INFRASTRUCTURE: Governor Romney Created A $200 Million Fund To Help Businesses Pay For The Infrastructure Costs Of Growing And Expanding. "The Governor signed into law the $200 million in bonding, half of which will go into a fund under the control of the Executive Office of Economic Development (EED) to help pay for infrastructure costs to help businesses grow and expand." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03) - MARKETING MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Romney Expanded Massachusetts' In-State Sales Force. "The Governor also signed $1.5 million for the creation of an in-state sales force to market Massachusetts to companies around the country." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03) I have one prescription that costs more than the insurance cost in Mass.

Am I, as an Atheist, allowed NOT to know everything about science? Why are Atheists always asked about science? I mean, it's interesting, but I'm really not gonna spend my whole life reading scientific journals.

Can science ever accept God as Creator? OK it's a bit long, i pasted it from a longer version,It seems again science buts heads with God, God said i created you from the soil/clay,after years of scientific study, they are at last getting to the origin of life . matchmaking could have sparked life 19:00 23 October 2003 New Scientist.com news service Philip Cohen Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown. The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs. These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane." Inherit, mutate, evolve The genesis of genetic material and the emergence of cell structure are hot areas of research, but until now the two had not connected. The birth of genetic material was clearly crucial for life to take on its unique abilities to inherit, mutate and evolve. And membranes were key to the physiology of cells because they protect their contents, concentrate chemicals to promote reactions and isolate successful genes from unsuccessful ones. "It's clear you really need both these elements to get evolution off the ground and running," says Szostak. Research has already shown that some of building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes are spontaneously created by chemical reactions in outer space and in conditions that may have existed on the primordial Earth. But how these subunits were then assembled is still debated. For RNA, one popular theory revolves around the unusual properties of montmorillonite clay. The negatively charged layers of its crystals create a sandwich of positive charge between them. This turns out to be a highly attractive environment for RNA subunits to concentrate and join together into long chains. 100-fold acceleration Szostak wondered whether montmorillonite could also help the assembly of vesicles from simple fatty acid precursors. He remembers the day his colleagues Hanczyc and Fujikawa ran into his office to show him their first results: the clay caused a 100-fold acceleration of vesicle formation. "It was pretty amazing," he says. Once formed, the vesicles often incorporated bit of clay and were able to grow by absorbing more fatty acid subunits. His team also showed the clay could hold RNA and form vesicles at the same time. Fluorescently-labelled RNA attached to the clay ended up assembled into vesicles after the reaction. And the researchers were able to get these "protocells" to divide by forcing them through small holes. This caused them to split into smaller vesicles, with minimal loss of their contents. Szostak admits that in a natural setting the vesicles would rarely be forced to divide in this way. So now his group is searching for different mixtures of membrane-forming molecules that might divide spontaneously when they reach a certain size. Journal reference: Science (vol 302, p 618 ) Missygal, yeah I knew that,did you know that red blood cells have no dna? 25 trillion of them carry oxygen around the body, yes giving life, well done. I think science is about discovery of the unknown and God is part of the unknown, Now for the first time in history we are able to see or know of the invisable things, why not God? Gambit, I hear what your saying, but science already proved our genetic makeup comes from the soil, now they say life could have started from the soil So what I'm saying is God said I created you from the soil! At the very least it should arouse a curiousity as to how did Men know this thousands of years ago? the knowledge of these things surely was beyond mans reason to understand. And there is tons more like this, I'm just siteing one.

Human Life Stages? 1. The ____ gland produces melatonin, a hormone that may regulate wake/sleep patterns. (1 point) pineal pituitary adrenal thyroid 2. The developing embryo receives nutrients and oxygen from the mother's ____. (1 point) ovaries oviduct blood lymph 3. Hormones produced by the ____ gland cause changes in the body during puberty. (1 point) thyroid thymus pituitary none of the above 4. After fertilization, the zygote divides and is implanted in the _____. (1 point) uterus oviduct ovary vagina 5. Identical twins have the same set of ____. (1 point) cells genes organs tissues You may refer to your Science journal to answer this question. 6. Accoding to the bar graph you created for the Mini Lab activity, during which month does the greatest increase in the length of a fetus occur? (1 point)

Unemployed life sciences PhD needs access to full-text research articles for job search.? The funding crunch brought a premature end to my first postdoc after only a year. Because I only had a year at this position, I don't have anything substantial to present from my postdoc at an interview for another postdoc position. So I need to present my dissertation research again and, because I changed specialties, I need to know what has happened in the past year within my former specialty. I've had continuous access to institutional subscriptions for the past 8 years so I don't know what kind of access to full-text articles I would have by just walking into a university library, without a university account, and using my laptop to get go through PubMed via wifi. I've recently relocated to stay with family so the nearest university is 30 miles away. I might just have to go the old-fashioned route and photocopy the actual journal (unless they've gone 100% electronic subscriptions) but I would much rather download the PDFs to print and review at my leisure. Any suggestions? Sorry about the long explanation. It's a pretty weird scenario. Thanks :) Thanks for the suggestions, guys. The 30 mile drive isn't a problem for me either. I used to commute 90+ minutes one-way before grad school. I would just rather know my options before wasting an hour (round-trip) just to find out that I'm completely out of luck, not even able to photocopy recent articles due to 100% electronic subscriptions.

Physics / paraphysics question regarding electricity and creation of life.? I remember reading an article in a science journal years back regarding an experiment conducted quite a while (perhaps centuries) ago. The experiment was based around electricity and the scientist who observed the results recorded microscopic insect like creatures being created by the electricity. I have to admit that my memory of the article is very poor and may have in fact been a dream. However, I do seem to remember that the article gave this phenomena a name(although I cannot think what it was) and I'm sure my subconcious isn't that clever. I know there's not a lot to go on but can anyone help? There's not much more info I can remember. I know that at the time of the experiment electricity was a fairly new discovery and the electricity in the experiment was generated in the lab for the purpose of the experiment.

How often do you change your mind on strongly held beliefs? I know for me it only happens when open myself to building relationships with real people, and they usually must be people I admire, or seek to emulate. Rarely do I ever read a compelling piece of text and think, "wow, I've been wrong all my life!" or, "I really need to change how I've been living." It's amazing how many people think a well written post, or a link to a pithy video, or pages of scripture, or an article from a science journal is going to somehow convince people to suddenly give up belief systems they've held for years, or embrace ones they've never had. The only thing Y!A has proven (to me) is just how poor the average persons grammar and spelling is, how close-minded people are to any ideas or beliefs that don't coincide with their own, and how uninformed and ignorant the public is. Of course, I believed most of those things before coming to Y!A. BTW - I'm not saying I don't fall into the above descriptions :-)

3D Thinking in real life!? Hi all, I am still confused to this point as to what 3D thinking really mean in life! I am doing science and much of it requires 3D thinking! Please help if anyone out there knows anything! Any reference to that topic whether Online reference, Books or Journals quoted would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance

Science!! Test Corrections- Help Please =D ? 1~ Which SI prefix means one one-hundredth (1/100) a.) physies and chemistry b.) biology, zoology, and ecology c.) medicine and agriculture d.) life, physical, and Earth science ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** 2~ A scientific theory in an explanation that a.) has been published in a journal or book b.)predicts what will happen. c.)has been tested by many observations. d.) a scientist has tested with an experiment. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 3~ The decimal equivivalent of 10 to the power of -2 is a.) 100 b.) 10 c.) 0.1 d.) 0.01 ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 4~ Using scientific knowledge for practical applications is called ________. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 5~ Astromamers use ___________ to magnify distant objects. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 6~ A possible answer to a scientific problem is a(n) _________. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 7~ Length, mass, time and temperature are four of the seven SI _________. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* 8~ In the SI system, the prefix ___________ means one billion. ********************************************************************************* 9~ Any factor in an experiment that can change is referred to as a(n) _________. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~ Thanx SOOOO Much to anyone who can answer even one of these problems even if your not sure if it's right~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

remember more stuff in life when you watched on tv? i need an articles,new papers,journal something can help me with this ???? plez i am in 6th grade and i am doin an 10th grade science fair project.

Why does the Bible claim to be able to satisfy our souls, when all else leaves us empty? It is the true bread from heaven; it is wages that do not slip through our pocket; it is the water of life, from a spring that never goes dry, rather than a leaking cistern we dig for ourselves... It is honey from a rock; manna in the wilderness; life that is truly life... aren't these rather big claims to make, from something supposedly "made up by men" and written by "bronze age goat herders" ? They must have had very big egos to make claims like that...or must we get our life giving word from a science journal written by a naturalist who observed animals on an obscure island in the middle of nowhere?

By the end of this century, is it likely that death will be thought of as temporary? A technical journal I have says that ` By the end of the century, it is likely that death will be thought of merely as an inconvenience, and no longer a major career problem' . The concept being that man will use technological advancments in robotics and cybernetics, the convergence of biological information technologies, cognitive science and nano technologies to create new opportunities for future life. I would like to know if you agree this may happen. The technical possibilities appear to be substantial.

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? "MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk. Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt. Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal." You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill. There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader: If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood. Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution? I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies. How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'. Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. WHAT IS MILK? Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning. IS ALL MILK THE SAME? Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal? Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one. Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans. Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations. Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves. Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect? In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared. In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding. In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk. WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how. The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32). Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows. As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have." Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990). What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces. Let's focus in on this because it’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion. One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc. IT GETS WORSE Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination). A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles: 1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15 There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant. A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said: Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end? In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented: It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases. In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation: I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved. OTHER PROBLEMS Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions. All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.". Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study: We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal. The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease. The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past? LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF! I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014). This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health. As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California. What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles? If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall. An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own. What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one: 1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985 In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990. One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)! An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930. Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow: The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane. This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease. Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma. There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote." The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows." The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must. The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993. A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom. OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE? Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators. Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine. Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk. For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference. There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality. WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk? It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins). Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below. Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk. For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet. To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis. If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health. THE PROTEIN MYTH Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in. As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein. For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary! Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals. IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE? Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years. What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose. Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it? Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people. How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.) What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s). One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders. The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy. LOW FAT One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?" The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water! "Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk. SUMMARY To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for". I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s. So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety. Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too. It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

What do you think about my life goals? I'm 18 years old, a female. Am pretty intelligent and a hard worker. I plan to attend madison and major in english, political science, and international relations. I want to become a lawyer eventually and i would like to write and publish articles in scholarly journals about government and so on and also write text books. (nerdy I know.) I would also like to study in Europe go back to school to either get a law degree or go into psychiatry. And eventually get a degree in teaching and education and become a professor or teacher. I really love a learning atmosphere, I can see myself getting a doctorate in any field I choose to pursue. Be honest!! I know it's a lot but I have my whole life to do all these things. money is not an issue.

Ok, Science is the answer, right? Part 4, “How the hell would they know”? Science teaches us that the earth is at least 4 billion years old. Most say its closer to 6 billion years. Science teaches us that there have been countless cycles of heating and cooling of this planet from day one. Thanks to Science we (man) have been keeping weather records for a little over 100 years. But now science wants us to believe without question that the earth is headed toward a life-shattering catastrophe because of man made global warming. All based on a little over 100 years worth of records. Isn’t that a bit like trying to predict the stock market tomorrow by reading nothing but yesterdays Wall Street Journal? Are we really ready to end our way of living for a ‘possibility’ that has no real evidence behind it? How can you judge the weather patterns to come, from a sample of weather patterns of 100 years out of 6,000,000,000 (that’s billion) Is that arrogance, ignorance, or just out right dishonesty on the part of these ‘honest well meaning scientist’?

Fraudulent AGW "consensus" continues collapsing: how much longer before warmers are compared to flat-earthers? Habibullo Abdussamatov, Director of the Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, and Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria, writes in a recent English translation of an article entitled "The Sun Defines the Climate," published in the Russian journal "Nauka i Zhizn" ("Life and science") earlier this year: "Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is 'not guilty,' and over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop." Dr. Abdussamatov further warns, "We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis." http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12209 "I love how global warming deniers always present and recycle the same nutty contrarians as if their beliefs are new. " I love how global warmers always present and recycle the same discredited genocidalist Malthusian fraudsters, as if their beliefs had any veracity. "Abdussamatov, who hasn't published climate-related studies on the issue, has been pushing this theme for awhile." Read the link - he just published a study. And I should think that he would be pushing this fact - or "theme," as you call it - for a while because he's right. By your reasoning: Algore has been pushing the AGW "theme" for a while. Because he's been pushing the theme for a while, it's therefore wrong. "which isn't supported by the evidence:" Yes, the notion that the solar output is the primary determinant of mean planetary temperatures is totally unscientific. Sure. What the hell is wrong with you people? ice, "Genocidal" is a tendency. Malthusian Genocidalism - aka Environmentalism - is an ideology or, more accurately, a neo-pagan death cult in the Anubian mold. One who adheres to such beliefs is therefore said to be a Genocidalist.

What should I do about this? I have a fake friend. Her name is Elle. I created her when my husband was diagnosed with a terminal illness and kicked me out of the house. We are doing better now and I will be moving back in a week from now. The problem is that I have grown very attached to Elle...even though she does not really exist. At first I would just use her when he asked what I am doing that evening or if he was trying my nerves and I didn't want to hang out with him but now I talk about her all the time to my husband. I think about this non existent girl a lot too. I'm just very lonely and it's nice to have someone (even if that someone is in my head) to talk to about all the things that I cannot tell anyone else (and there is a lot of it) without having them ignore, mock or get irate with me. I don't have very many friends and those I do have cannot know anything about my life. To me, Elle is more of a real friend than all those people put together because even though we don't hang out I can say we did and imagine that there is someone that I can just be myself around without having to pretend like I am someone I'm not or spend all my time trying to make people happy. I feel like she is the only person in this world who is there to care about me. Even my husband would rather focus his energy on making money or studying science journals for hours than talk to me...not that we ever have anything to talk about when he tries. The idea of Elle not being a part of my life makes me very sad. I mean sad to the point that I am balling just thinking about losing her. I feel like I'm going crazy and I am very worried that this might progress into a larger issue.

If Jesus was a carpenter & cherished the poor, then what does that say for richies who champion greed & wealth? Most richies I know are pathetically greedy and hopelessly religious, God must have blessed them, yeah? Although their contribution to the world is slight and cowardly. Before you start bombarding me with ridicule, I will tell you I have worked with special populations in the education and disability arena for three years now and have a BS in Psychology from WMU, attained April 2007. I don't see God in their misjudged eyes, only confusion, and helplessness. Have you ever had to look into a parents eyes who think you are a savior, knowing you are just a human? That, when they come to you for help: a long and challenging road lies ahead? You want to end the lifelong suffering of the child and the parents, but just cannot. Some say God can. I never read about prayer curing any disability in the medical and science journals. Have you? God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, yet the real miracles come from us. Ever wonder about that? Human thought systems and empirical sensory receivers are just about as accurate as an eye witness testimony to a UFO sighting, yet that is all the bible is. Human beings just can't accept ignorance can they? Folks, that's all we are, and we'll ever be. So you better start loving and stop hating before a world wide cataclysm gets here before God does. PS-Don't rapture me this, Armageddon me that. Google: 99942 Apophis if you want to see a real life Revelation.

Is this New Theory true : Universe Created by Intelligent Being? John Roach for National Geographic News said? On any given starry night thousands, perhaps millions, of people crane their necks skyward and allow their minds to swirl around two fundamental questions: Are we alone, and why are we here? According to a lawyer and science enthusiast in Portland, Oregon, not only is the universe full of life, but some of it may be intelligent beyond our wildest imagination. He also says that collectively as intelligent beings we are entwined in our ultimate destiny: to give birth to another universe. "Intelligent life is, in essence, the reproductive organ of the cosmos," said James Gardner, the lawyer who moonlights as a scientist. He has pulled together his theory—called the selfish biocosm—from the disparate fields of physics, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and cosmology. Gardner has published pieces of his theory in several peer-reviewed scientific journals and wraps it together in his recently published book, Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe

Creationist could you please tell me something? Why do so many of you use already long since disproven arguments? Just this morning I have seen a few. And I am talking about arguements so bad that even creationist groups like www.answersingenesis.org list them as 'arguments creationists should not use'. Here are a few I have seen used right here in the last few days. 1. Darwin recanted on his deathbed (no he didn't, that is a complete fabrication). 2. If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today (this reveals such a profound ignorance of what evolution even is that it boggles the mind). 3. There are no beneficial mutations. (even creationist websites admit there ARE beneficial mutations). 4. No new species have been produced. (even creationist websites admit that new species HAVE formed). Now again your FELLOW CREATIONISTS say these arguments are completely false. So why are you still using them? I am genuinely curious. Even if you never read a science book or journal in your life (as it is obvious most of you have not), MAJOR creationist websites caution you NOT to use these arguments. Are you telling me that your 'research' into the topic does not even include reading creationist sources??? http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996 http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use I REALLY WOULD like a creationist to actually answer the question. OK so far a few creationists are posting but none are answering the question...

A response to "Creationists, can you answer an honest question?"? Creationists, can you answer an honest question? In Religion & Spirituality - Asked by chuckeasttom - 1.) You say "MILLIONS" of Christians don't have a problem with Evolution. I disagree with that statement. Where did you get that number? And can you provide a cogent answer please? 2.) Being that we know "very little about science" I would like to hear you explain evolution, & how "something" came out of "nothing". On top of that, please provide the science to back it up since we obviously don't know about it. Question 1.) I'm not even sure what your question is, but I'll try. You ask "Has it occured to you that perhaps your problem with evolution stems from that lack of scientific knowledge?" Answer: Scientific knowledge is not a substitute for scientific facts. It's the lack of facts, not knowledge that lead me to believe evolution is not the cause of us being here. Ever notice that it's called the "Big Bang Theory", not the "big bang". It's a theory, which means there are no relevent facts to back it up. Question 2.) You ask "are you so arrogant as to assume that you, with virtually no training in science, are right and tens of thousands of scientists including every single living nobel laurate, member of the national academy of sciences, every major scientific organization, and every major science journal are wrong?" Answer: Why don't you mention the thousands of scientists & organizations that do support Intelligent Design? Are you arrogant enough to assume that you are right & they're all wrong? What about all the scientists who proclaim that the mathmatical chances of us being here by accident are 1 in 10 to the 120th power? Which is: 1 in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. (good luck trying to fatham that number). Question 3.) You ask "Has it crossed your mind that they might know something you don't?" Answer: Yes it has crossed my mind. And after investigating & researching this on my own, it is obvious to me that we are a product of creation, not accidental chance. For you... Has it crossed your mind that we might know something you don't? The Bible says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10) Question 4.) You ask "Furthemore why, when someone posts evidence, links, etc. do you refuse to even look?" Answer: We don't refuse to look. I myself am a truth seeker & always look in to something with precision & care. My questions for you: 1.) If science has the answer that the Bible doesn't then why does the Bible always come out on top? Have you ever read Isaiah 40:22? It was written over 3000 years ago & proclaims that "God sits above the circle of the earth". Why did God's people know that the earth was round over 3000 years ago yet scientists laughed at this theory untill 1492? What about Psalm 104:19, which says "He appointed the moon for seasons, the sun knows his going down". 2.) Where do our objective moral values as human beings come from? Why is it wrong to kill, rape & torture. Says who??? 3.) If we evolved then what the heck happened? Why is there disease? Why do we have a mortal life? I challenge you to look deep in to the evidence of evolution that is being presented to you. I also challenge you to realize that there is a difference between theory & fact. Besides, what if you are wrong? What if there is a God who really does love you? KC - You say theory is backed by substantial evidence. Where is this evidence????????

Im soo scared please help!!? ok so at school we have this science journal and its worth 500 points!! well after science the teacher said that tomorow we will be having a journal check and we said alright wtvr, so i went in y homeroom and this boy was randomly talking to me! he took my agend and gave it back! all our things got mixed up and when it was time to go we just picked up random stuff, i also have a make-up test tomorow and i just got home checked my bag so i could study for my test and my journal was gone!!! any advice to calm me down. Also i cant tell my teacher i miss placed it! she doesnt trust me, she will just say oh well because she doesnt rrly care bcuz its not her life she is dealing with here! im also in NJHS and can be kicked out for having a C im cathlioc

Family would disown me if i dropped out of college...? OK: Long story short. My mom wanted me to be a doctor. So i would make lots of money, and give it to her because she is on disability and social security and had 6 kids she cant afford to take care of Realization: I am a Life Science major, miserable, and do not for the life of me want to look at another organic chemistry problem as long as i live. Truth of the matter is, i HATE math & science. I was in the major for one thing only: The money. Confession:I want to be a writer. Of childrens books, teens novels, adult novels. I've had things published, i'm in the process of sending out manuscripts to publishers on a novel i wrote. I have kept a journal since i was 7 years old. Its in my blood to write. right now, since my mom is poor, the state pays for me to go to college (FAFSA/PHEAA). I had to withdraw from a semester last yr when i found out i had skin cancer & had to go for tests & surgery & crap. So im back at college, about to finish my sophmore year....and am probably going to fail Organic Chem II and Calc. I am miserable. If anything, i would want to get a Psychology degree. I'm done with the Science & Math, it was always my worst subject and i hate it. Thing is, since i withdrew before, if i fail or drop ANY courses, i am denied funds for schooling until i pay for an entire semester myself... which will never happen (me getting the loans... long story, just trust me). So i cant just DROP Organic & Calc, because then i wont be able to go back to school. And i cant FAIL organic or calc, because then i wont be able to go back to school. Solution?: I'm considering dropping the Organic & Calc, finishing up the classes I'm getting A's in and then just not going to college anymore. But Then Again: My family would honestly kill me. Theyd think i jumped off the crazy train and they would for sure blame my boyfriend of 4 years...or my cat... or anything. They dont consider writing a 'profession'. lso, what happens if i dont make it as a writer? Then i have work as a minimum wage earner the rest of my life because i wanted to chase a 'dream'. In a way, my family had made me believe that if i DONT go to college, i will live a poor life. I'm at a crossroads without a map. Anyone got directions? P.S Sorry so long, some people need all the info to give advice tho !

How to get involved in research and/or publish articles? So, I'm a university student, my program is life science, and I'm in need of some extras in my record to apply for a masters program. I've read that it is very important to have publications and be involved in research. I just can't seem to get started on it. How do you publish an article? Do you just come up with a topic, write it and once is done give it to a prof or someone for approval? do you send it to a journal or what? in a university, who are the people you look for when it comes to this stuff? And research also. I'd like to be on a research team for a prof. I don't care what position but to be doing something involving research. Where do you look for positions like that? do you simply walk around asking random profs if they do research and if i can join their team? that sounds kind of amateur. Pleeaasee help! =D

can you rephrase this essay? Scientists should have an obligation to explore every avenue of genetic make up because Human Genome Project has allowed researchers to understand the blueprint for building a person. As researchers learn more about the functions of genes and proteins, this knowledge will have and has a major impact in the fields of medicine, biotechnology, and the life sciences said in the article Genes, Dreams, and Reality: The Promises and Risks of the New Genetics from the Indiana law journal. English professor at university of Memphis stated on his blog daredreaam.com that it allows doctors and scientists to look for any flaws in the human genes and DNA in order to find out if people will have any future diseases or conditions that could affect them. It will be possible for mothers of new born babies to find out the risks of diseases or conditions as they get older. The successes of the human genome project have even enabled researchers to pinpoint errors in genes that cause or contribute to disease. The ultimate goal is to use this information to find new ways to treat, cure, or even prevent the thousands of diseases like Alzheimer’s, and cancers that afflict humankind In the article what can the New Gene Tests Tell Us? From Judges' Journal of the American Bar Association, stated that Gene testing already has improved lives. Certain gene tests can be used to clarify a physician's diagnosis, as well as determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. In addition, parents can have the option of knowing whether or not their children will be born with devastating medical disorders. Those who are at risk for preventable diseases may also find out before the disease has struck. please?im desperate... thanks!!!!

I need help with a science question/lab/whatever u wanna call it. read details. its just an easy 10 points!!!! Do video games breed violence? CAROLINE ALPHONSO- From Wednesday's Globe and Mail- February 18, 2004 at 1:15 AM EDT Violent video games have a much more damaging effect on children than parents would like to believe, leading them to perform poorly in school, argue with teachers, condone aggression and get into physical fights with their peers, according to a series of new studies. The four studies, published in the Journal of Adolescence, serve as a warning to parents and educators as video games become a greater and greater part of children's leisure Prof. Gentile asked more than 600 Minnesota students in Grades 8 and 9 about the video games they played, their school grades and whether they had been in fights. The study concludes that children who play more violent video games see the world as a more hostile place: They get into more arguments with teachers, are more likely to be involved in fights and get poor grades. On average, they spend nine hours a week playing the games, the research says. Boys play more than girls. Another researcher found greater exposure to violent video games causes lower levels of empathy and stronger pro-violence attitudes. Jeanne Funk, a professor of psychology at the University of Toledo, asked pupils in Grades 4 and 5 about their use of media and exposure and attitude toward real-life violence, and then took a measure of their empathy. She said her study adds another aspect to the risks of playing violent video games. "This is maybe a first step in thinking that it's possible that playing video games could be associated with desensitization to violence," she said yesterday. The use of violent and graphic video games has caused intense public debate. Another study in the journal surveyed Grade 8 students in Germany, and says that those who like violent video games are more likely to condone physical aggression. The German researchers asked students which games they liked, and how they would act in various real-life scenarios. NOW, I JUST NEED THE INDEPENDENT VAIRABLE ,DEPENDENT VAIRABLE, CONTROL GROUP, EXPERIMENTAL GROUP, THE CONFOUNDS, AND THE ETHICS

Earth Science Questions!!? I have an exam to study for. I had a 500 question packit and i just cannot figure out these. I really need to study though please help. Question 1 Earth's seasons are a result of Earth's distance from the sun. Earth's tilted axis and revolution around the sun. the solstices. the equinoxes. Question 2 The most important factor affecting soil composition is the type of plants present. climate. the soil profile. soil fertility. Question 3 Which volcano has formed over a hot spot? Mauna Loa in Hawaii Mount Shasta in California Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines all of the above Question 3 Is it possible to find a mold of an organism without a cast? yes, because a mold must form before a cast of the organism can form no, because a cast must form first, then become filled with minerals yes, because a mold and a cast are two different and unrelated types of fossils no, because they are only formed by animals with two shells Question 5 The imprint of a dinosaur's teeth on a fossilized bone and a set of human footprints in sedimentary rock are both examples of replaced remains. carbonaceous films. original remains. trace fossils. Question 6 The pattern of magnetic reversals on the ocean floor indicates that the oldest rocks of the ocean floor are found along transform boundaries. the youngest rocks of the ocean floor are found along subduction boundaries. the oldest rocks of the ocean floor are found along divergent boundaries. the youngest rocks of the ocean floor are found along divergent boundaries. Question 7 The two most abundant crustal elements are aluminum and iron. iron and oxygen. oxygen and silicon. silicon and aluminum. Question 8 Which of the following statements about fossils is not true? They can be used to correlate rock layers. They can always be found as living specimens today. They can be used to determine relative time. They can indicate what climates were like in the past. Question 10 The statement that an igneous intrusion is always younger than the strata it has intruded between or across is known as an angular unconformity. the Principle of Superposition. the principle of cross-cutting relationships. original horizontality. Question 11 After a scientist completes an experiment, what is the next step? to try to get the paper published in a magazine to try to get the paper published in a scientific journal to publish the paper on the Internet to call the news media and be interviewed about the experiment Question 12 Which statement about meandering rivers is false? Floods are common on meandering rivers. Oxbow lakes are often found near meandering rivers. The shape of a meandering river changes over time. Meandering rivers do not have levees because erosion occurs too rapidly. Question 13 The process of change that produces new life forms over time is called evolution. extinction. natural selection. adaptation. Question 14 Small whirlpools in a river may result in the formation of potholes. stream piracy. the formation of meanders. headward erosion. Question 15 Which statement about a medial moraine is true? It lies parallel to the terminal moraine. It forms when two lateral moraines come together. It lies parallel to the ice front. It forms on an outwash plain. Question 16 Which material is likely to be the most abrasive in a windstorm? quartz sand calcite sand clay silt Question 17 Striations caused by a glacier are parallel to the ice front of the glacier. are parallel to the general direction in which the glacier moved. are parallel to the terminal moraine of the glacier. are parallel to the end moraine of the glacier. Question 18 All the resources, influences, and conditions at Earth's surface are part of the crust. the environment. a reserve. a renewable resource. Question 19 An angular unconformity, a disconformity, and a nonconformity all show a complete record of relative time. an undisturbed sequence of strata. a matched set of strata. gaps in relative time.

Evolution vs. Creation, what's more reasonable? Source: godsaidmansaid.com I believe most of you mistake evolution with adaptation. all of you check out this: evolutionoftruth.com psychoticB: mutts do not evolve, they just adapt their genes within each other, the don't form new traits.

I'm looking for scholarly resources on unconventional/alternative recycling.? I’ve been getting bogged down from too much going on in my life right now and need some help with my Natural Science paper on alternative recycling. I’m looking for sources preferably scholarly journals on this. I’m talking about turning trash to gold. Like ski-hills, artificial coral reefs etc. Basically anything that is an unconventional form of recycling. Your help will be greatly appreciated! -Danny

Do Creationists lie about there not being a missing link to evolution? Ever hear of homo erectus? Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus Exciting new evidence about Homo erectus, see below! The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse 1983; Morris and Parker 1982; Taylor 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Many creationists traditionally considered both to be apes, but Lubenow (1992) considers both human, and that is becoming the accepted opinion in creationist circles. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity. A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests, although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are degenerate humans: "It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974). Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused by disease. There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays. Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER 3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not mentioning ER 3733). Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull. In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, ...". Bowden's description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is. One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered, cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. In a later assessment (1995) Gish says that the size and shape of the braincase and a few characteristics of the body were the only differences from a modern human. Menton (1988) similarly states that WT 15000 was classified as H. erectus only because of its age. That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man braincases, than it is to modern humans. It is strikingly similar to the Peking Man reconstruction made by Weidenreich, which even Gish agrees looks to be "intermediate between the Anthropoid Apes and Man". The skeletal differences are less obvious, but in combination they show a skeleton with small but significant differences from modern humans. The length of the neck and the neck-shaft angle in the femur are respectively "well over 3" and 5 standard deviations from the modern human norm (Brown et al. 1985). The boy was extraordinarily strong, and his spinal cord had less than half the cross-sectional area of ours (Walker and Shipman 1996). According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993). Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences. Menton (1988) states that the Turkana Boy was like a modern human "except for certain details of the skull", and then adds that: "He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton 1988) Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that significantly changes its meaning: "Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker 1985) Are erectus and sapiens the same species? Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984): "In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]." Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans). Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species: We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984) In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue. Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear. Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens. One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct...". New evidence Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range. Although this ignored the huge difference in statistical distribution of brain size between the two species (see my brain sizes page for more details), and the clear anatomical differences (see here), it was, strictly speaking, true, in that an extremely small percentage of living humans did overlap the brain sizes of erectus. Now, however, even that slender rationale has disappeared. In 2002, Vekua et al. announced the discovery of D2700, a new hominid skull from Georgia (in the ex-USSR), following the discovery of two earlier skulls (Gabunia et al. 2000). These three skulls are most similar to those of early African H. erectus specimens, but are quite primitive and also share a number of characteristics with H. habilis skulls. Their brain sizes range from 780 cc (previously the lower end of the erectus range) down to 600 cc, which is in the middle of the H. habilis range. Taken as a group, these three skulls extend the anatomical range of erectus beyond anything that could conceivably be attributed to Homo sapiens. Both in anatomy and brain size, they bridge the gap between H. erectus and H. habilis. See the D2700 page for more information about these fossils. References Angela P. & P. (1993): The extraordinary story of human origins. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books. Bowden M. (1981): Ape-men: fact or fallacy? Ed. 2. Bromley,Kent: Sovereign. Brown F., Harris J., Leakey R.E., and Walker A.C. (1985): Early Homo erectus skeleton from west lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature, 316:788-92. (announcement of the discovery of the Turkana Boy skeleton) Gabunia L., Vekua A., Swisher C.C., III, Ferring R., Justus A., Nioradze M. et al. (2000): Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: taxonomy, geological setting, and age. Science, 288:1019-25. Gish D.T. (1985): Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers. Huse S.M. (1983): The collapse of evolution. Baker Book House Company. Lubenow M.L. (1992): Bones of contention: a creationist assessment of human fossils. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Books. Mehlert A.W. (1994): Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or variability? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):105-16. Menton D.N. (1988): The scientific evidence for the origin of man. (a creationist article) Morris H.M. (1974): Scientific creationism. Santee,California: Master Books. Morris H.M. and Parker G.E. (1982): What is creation science? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers. Shipman P. (2000): Doubting Dmanisi. American Scientist, Nov-Dec 2000 Taylor P.S. (1992): The illustrated origins answer book. Ed. 4. Mesa,Arizona: Eden Productions. Vekua A., Lordkipanidze D., Rightmire G.P., Agusti J., Ferring R., Maisuradze G. et al. (2002): A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science, 297:85-9. (D2700) Walker A.C. and Shipman P. (1996): The wisdom of the bones. New York: Alfred E. Knopf. (a popular history of Homo erectus and the discovery and analysis of the Turkana Boy skeleton) Wolpoff M.H., Wu X.Z., and Thorne A.G. (1984): Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from east Asia. In F.H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans. (pp. 465-7). New York: Alan R. Liss.

Need some information on a scientific study publication..? I am 17 and I love science. I just got an interest to study the relationship of the fish in my tank. there is older and younger of the same species, and then there is some random on es as well. their interaction is evolving over time, and I would like to see what happens later on in their life and where they get to. What are the chances that a scientific journal will consider my work considering I do a year worth of studying the relationship, document each day and do everything according to scientific standards?

Are there any "holes" in the Theory of Evolution? I have gathered the following quotes from some "real" scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught: Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist). "most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago). "As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University). "The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150). "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science). "In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist). "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist). "I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97). "So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128). "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168). "I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist). "But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22) "The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13) Sorry it's so long. My question is, are these guys telling us the truth...ARE so-called "evolutionists" so married to the theory that they simply can't see or admit that the theory COULD be wrong? To set the record straight...I am not a "Creationist", I am a Christian. In the arena of evolution/vs/creation, I am "agnostic"...that is, I am not sure, either way. I am curious. I've not seen any serious evidence to prove to me that evolution is, indeed, a fact...to me, it is an open question. Why, for instance, is this "common ancestor" so difficult to track down? Common sense tells me that it would have to have been some sort of ape-like creature...but what did it evolve from, and why? How can you be sure such a creature ever existed? Where did he go? These are questions that are very real, to me, and mean much more than whether or not I'm gonna need a new flu shot because the astute li'l critters that cause flu adapted to the vaccine I had last year.... REAL answers would be appreciated, but if you just HAVE to be rude, crude, and not to shrewd, all you prove to me is that you really don't have any answers, either, or you would give them. Thank you.

Do you belong to the "new Church of Global Warming"?

Which book should i read?

BS from CNN? Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Posted: 05:20 PM ET FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty: Conservatives are happier than liberals. A study published in the journal “Psychological Science” says it’s because conservatives are better at rationalizing inequalities. Regardless of someone’s income, marital status or church attendance, people with right-wing ideologies report greater satisfaction with their lives than those with left-wing beliefs. Researchers found that conservatives also score highest when it comes to the ability to justify inequalities. For example, a conservative might support the idea of a meritocracy – that if you work hard and perform well, you’ll move up the economic ladder… and if you don’t, you probably won’t. But the study shows liberals tend to be troubled by this. Inequalities take a greater psychological toll on liberals, apparently because they can’t rationalize away the gaps in society and thus end up more frustrated by them. The study goes on to say that this research can be applied to areas other than economic inequalities. One example is that feminists may not be as happy in their marriages as more traditional women because they’re frustrated with the division of domestic chores. These latest results go along with a Pew poll from 2006. It found 47% of conservative Republicans described themselves as “very happy”, compared to only 28% of liberal Democrats who felt that way. http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

Not so sure what I want to do after high school? Need a second career option. Please help! Hey, I'm a fifteen year old who's going to be a sophomore in high school. I say I get pretty decent grades (All A's and I got a C in Algebra), I'm going to be in the choir, golf team, SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions), the yearbook and I can play three instruments : the flute (8 - 9 years), fife (3 - 4 years), and piccolo (2 years). Ever since I was so young I knew what I wanted to do as an adult - I wanted to write young adult books and pursue a career that I love to wake up every morning to. I never wanted to be a person who had a job they absolutely hated going to. Writing has always been a passion of mine, I've been writing ever since I had my first journal (where I put my short stories in), I've won a couple writing contests and I even got to meet an author in the fourth grade when I won a writing contest and meeting that person who was doing what I wanted to do just made me even more dead set on knowing that this is what I'm going to be doing for the rest of my life. Well, in seventh grade I started trying to write my book but ever since then I just seem to delete it and start a new story then delete that story and start a new one. I just can't seem to stick with my story. Maybe it's because I'm so afraid that I won't be successful at what I do. Now I'm going to be a sophomore and I'm having second thoughts. I know, I know for a fact that I still want to be an author - but I'm thinking that I may need a second option just in case. But the question is - I'm not sure what my "second option" can be! The one thing I know for a fact I never want to be is I don't want to be a lawyer, teacher, or anything involving medicine. A lawyer in my opinion would be too boring of a job for me and it won't allow me to release my creative outlet that I have. And as for anything in the medical field - well my mom is a nurse - a very successful one but seeing as to what she had to go through - I don't want to go through that, besides she sort of advises me not to be a nurse from her personal experience - she loves it but there's a love/hate relationship with it. Besides, after a year of Honors Physical Science and trying to get ready for either Chemistry or Biology both the teacher and I know that anything in the medical field wouldn't work for me. It's not something that could hold my interest. As for a teacher - let's just say I'm not the most patient person in the world so I don't think it would work out with me teaching kids. So I wiped out those three options, but the biggest worry is what's there to choose? I tried to choose based on my interests and what I'm really passionate about doing (besides writing) and here's what I came up with : - I love making stuff on the computer - signatures, wallpapers, avatars. I have like Paint Shop Pro or whatever and I just like making stuff with it. I'm not the best at it, but with practice and a lot of hard work I've become increasingly better. My blending is a whole lot better and less sloppy. I'm the person my friends go to when they need something for their Myspace. But I'm also not the most technical person in the world - while I know what I'm doing when I make the little graphics - I don't know the computer terms that may be used. - Playing the flute, I'm very passionate when it comes to music, I absolutely love it and I don't think my life would be any good without it. I love playing so many classical pieces on my flute and I also like to play a lot of Irish music with my flute and fife. I do have some trouble sometimes when it comes to making sure the rythm is played exactly how it should - but that's because I can be a little impatient. However, when I actually clap it out it comes out nicely. I love being in flute competitions and just performing at churces, retirement homes, local festivals - anything of the sort - oh and I love marching band. - I also like to help my friends with giving advice (which is why I come on here), I love helping my friends whether it's about relationships, their family issues, trouble with friends, etc. I guess I just feel good knowing that I gave someone advice - it might not always be the best - but it's usually okay. Those, I would say are my three main interest besides fashion and clothes and reading. I'm stuck. I've thought about doing something like physcology, I don't know why I like it - I've just thought about it as interesting or maybe becoming like a family therapist or something. But I don't want to be going to school forever and I'm scared it would be too hard. See this is where I'm having trouble - always second guessing myself and my goals I might have. So if anybody can help me out of what careers might be best for someone like me, it would help out a ton. Like I said before - I'm dead set on becoming an author and I will do anything it takes - but I think a second option is needed if I want to bring home the cheddar. Also I don't know if it helps - but I don't want a family when I grow up. At seven I made it clear that I don't want children. In fact when I'm twenty I'd love to get my tubes tied. I never wanted kids because I always wanted a career - besides I think I'd be super selfish to have kids seeing as I'd work full time and never be home to take care of the kids. Any help is much appreciated also if you can give me an idea of where I could go to college. I've always, always had a dream of going to NYU - but I have to be realistic and have at least a few other idea's. I live in Ohio and I know for a FACT that I want an OUT of state college. I need to get out of this state so badly it's not even funny, I just need to see something other than Ohio. So an out of state is a must with me. I know this is a lot to ask but I know some of you who are older must know what I feel like. I just need a little help. I appreaciate any help. Thank you. :)