text:
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Reason & Revelation normally is published according to a pre-arranged syllabus. This month's issue, however, is an exception, and I felt that an explanation was in order for our readers. During the past several months, the battle over the teaching of creation and evolution has become increasingly public—and increasingly hard-fought. As of July, however, evolutionists took that battle to an entirely different level. In the July 2002 issue of Scientific American, editor in chief John Rennie published what he obviously intended to be a stinging rebuke of creationism, titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." With a variant of vitriol and dogmatism rarely seen in the scientific arena, Mr. Rennie leveled a sustained attack on both creationism and creationists that echoed throughout the halls of academia—and far beyond. A few short weeks later, U.S. News & World Report followed suit by devoting its front cover (and a lengthy accompanying article by staff writer Thomas Hayden) to an in-depth defense of the "factuality" of evolution. Neither journal left any doubt about its intent, which was to caricature the concept of creationism so effectively that the average reader would walk away thinking, "Only the intellectually challenged would dare doubt the scientific validity of evolution. And only an idiot would dare defend belief in creation."
Well, enough is enough! No amount of pejorative terminology on the part of editors and journalists is going to make the scientific evidence for creation somehow "disappear." And no amount of intellectual snobbery on the part of materialistic scientists is going to make the woefully weak case for evolution somehow "stronger." A significant segment of our work at Apologetics Press is devoted to the proclamation of biblical and scientific truth. And a similarly significant segment is devoted to the defense of that truth. This special issue of Reason & Revelation is intended to do both. The misinformation being presented by the media needs to be exposed and refuted. And the truth of the matter needs to be heard. Dr. Harrub and I therefore invite your serious attention to the material that follows.
Our responses to both U.S. News & World Report and Scientific American in this issue of Reason & Revelation are the abbreviated versions. To view or download the complete, uncut versions, please click here for the U.S. News & World Report refutation, or click here for the Scientific American rebuttal.]
Well, enough is enough! No amount of pejorative terminology on the part of editors and journalists is going to make the scientific evidence for creation somehow "disappear." And no amount of intellectual snobbery on the part of materialistic scientists is going to make the woefully weak case for evolution somehow "stronger." A significant segment of our work at Apologetics Press is devoted to the proclamation of biblical and scientific truth. And a similarly significant segment is devoted to the defense of that truth. This special issue of Reason & Revelation is intended to do both. The misinformation being presented by the media needs to be exposed and refuted. And the truth of the matter needs to be heard. Dr. Harrub and I therefore invite your serious attention to the material that follows.
Our responses to both U.S. News & World Report and Scientific American in this issue of Reason & Revelation are the abbreviated versions. To view or download the complete, uncut versions, please click here for the U.S. News & World Report refutation, or click here for the Scientific American rebuttal.]
It used to be that the only things certain in life were taxes and death. According to journalist Thomas Hayden, we now can add organic evolution to that list. The latest effort to shore up the ever-faltering theory of evolution was the cover story of the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report. In explaining "how evolution works, and why it matters more than ever," Hayden stated: "It's an everyday phenomenon, a fundamental fact of biology as real as hunger and as unavoidable as death" (2002, 133[4]:43). Mr. Hayden's grandiose claim notwithstanding, organic evolution is neither "as real as hunger" nor as "unavoidable as death." Yes, the slick graphics and full-color photos presented in Hayden's article are impressive. And yes, the diminutive amount of alleged scientific evidence tossed in for good measure no doubt will convince some unsuspecting readers that evolution is indeed a "fact." But the actual evidence tells an entirely different story.
Sadly, this type of propagandizing and grandstanding in the media occurs all too often. And just as sadly, many people accept it as the "final word" on the subject—without any real knowledge as to what the evidence truly reveals. Given that millions of people read U.S. News & World Report, we felt a thorough review and refutation of "The New Reality of Evolution" was in order. Someone needs to tell—if we may borrow a phrase from respected news commentator Paul Harvey—"the rest of the story." Here is that story.
One of the first points Hayden raised in his article was that "scientists have confirmed virtually all of Darwin's postulates" (p. 44). Wishful thinking to be sure—but definitely not the truth of the matter. Darwin's theory begins by postulating that life arose from nonliving matter as a result of some purely naturalistic, completely mechanistic, and equally mysterious process on a prebiotic Earth. Abiogenesis, or as it is known more commonly, spontaneous generation, is one of the foundational concepts of evolution. When the eminent British evolutionist G.A. Kerkut published his classic book, The Implications of Evolution, he listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of that list was this statement: "The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred" (1960, p. 6).
Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, wrote twenty-one years later:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going (1981, p. 88, emp. added).
Yet for more years than most of us have been alive, evolutionists have been suggesting that the spontaneous generation of life must have occurred in some sort of "primordial organic soup" on the early Earth. However, in his 1999 book, Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins, evolutionist Noam Lahav confessed:
[S]o far, no geochemical evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution (pp. 138-139).
Scientists have tried for more than four centuries to produce something living from something nonliving, but have failed miserably. [Current reports that researchers have produced the poliovirus synthetically (see Clarke, 2002; Pollack, 2002) do not alter this fact, since even evolutionists admit that viruses are not living organisms because they cannot reproduce themselves without a host.] As Dr. Kerkut candidly admitted, the entire theory of evolution is utterly dependent upon some type of spontaneous generation having occurred. Quite obviously, something cannot "evolve" if it cannot live! But has spontaneous generation been proved? Even evolution's most ardent defenders are forced to admit that, no, it has not.
When Hayden told his readers that "scientists have confirmed virtually all of Darwin's postulates," he seriously misled them. The beginnings of life on Earth remain "unconfirmed." And since all of evolutionary theory is based on those alleged naturalistic beginnings, by definition, evolution itself similarly remains "unconfirmed." A concept based on an assumption cannot be considered "proven," and, in fact, never can be anything more than an assumption itself. Such is the nature of logic.
And speaking of logic, that brings us to Mr. Hayden's next point. He wrote that evolution's ironclad status is due to Darwin's "extensive observations and cast-iron logic" (p. 44). In an effort to build a strong foundation, Hayden built Charles Darwin into a self-assured, intellectual giant. Yet anyone even vaguely familiar with Darwin's Origin of Species knows that Darwin was plagued by self-doubt. As British evolutionist H.S. Lipson observed: "On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure of himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled 'Difficulties of the Theory' for example, shows considerable self-doubt" (1988, 2[1]:6). Darwin knew his theory was full of holes he could not fill.
Almost a century-and-a-half later, it still is. It cannot explain how organisms arise above the species level (e.g., genus, family, order, etc.). It cannot explain how, when the large majority of mutations are "bad" (and most of the rest are neutral), "good" results are required to change one type of animal or plant into another type of animal or plant. It cannot explain the origin, much less the complexity, of the genetic code. It cannot explain the "Cambrian explosion" in the fossil record, where incredibly complex "early" structures and organisms suddenly appear fully formed and completely functional (such as the dual lens system and accompanying refractive interface of the trilobite's eye). And so on. Then, of course, there is the oft'-overlooked fact that Darwin's "cast-iron logic" led him to advocate and defend the discredited concept of Lamarckianism (the idea that "acquired characteristics" can be inherited). So much for Darwin's self-assured, cast-iron logic.
In an effort to strengthen his argument for the factuality of evolution, Hayden noted that Ward Watt of Stanford University has "demonstrated natural selection in action" (p. 44). So what?! Natural selection is not a point of controversy between creationists and evolutionists. It does work—in its own limited way. Mutants and miscreants are culled out in nature. A stronger, faster animal can live longer and reproduce more than its weaker, slower counterpart. And yes, things do change over time. But again we ask, "So what?" The fact that natural selection occurs does not validate organic evolution. As Dutch botanist Hugo deVries put it: "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest" (1905, pp. 825-826, emp. added).
The point is well made. The changes we see (i.e., microevolution via natural selection) are easily documented but, in the end, are irrelevant for the simple reason that they do not cross over phylogenetic lines. For example, we may mate dogs for various traits, and thereby witness changes—but when we mate two dogs, we still get a dog. Establishing that microevolution occurs does not prove that macroevolution does. Respected Swedish biologist Sören Lövtrup observed:
Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology.... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen? (1987, p. 422, emp. added).
To make matters worse for Mr. Hayden, evolutionists even have gone on record as admitting that natural selection has nothing to do with human evolution. Daniel Koshland, of the University of California, Berkeley, commented: "At the present time the way in which mutation and selection (survival of the fittest) has worked over evolutionary time no longer seems to apply to Homo sapiens" (2002, 295:2215-2216, parenthetical item in orig.). If it doesn't work to cause animals to evolve, if it doesn't work to cause plants to evolve, and if it doesn't work to cause humans to evolve—exactly when does natural selection work to cause anything to "evolve"?
In defending Darwin's admission of a lack of transitional forms, Hayden tells his readers that "many gaps have now been filled." To substantiate this claim, he initially turns to the "dinosaur-to-bird" theory, exclaiming that "dinosaur researchers can join hands with bird experts" because their seemingly different fields of interest actually are linked "by a series of fossils that show dinosaurs evolving feathers and giving rise to modern birds."
For over 100 years, evolutionists have considered a creature known as Archaeopteryx to be the best example of a transitional form between land-dwelling animals and birds. [For a complete discussion on Archaeopteryx and the dinosaurs-to-birds theory, see Harrub and Thompson, 2001.] The urgency of needing to find some sort of "intermediate," caused evolutionists to concentrate on as many features of Archaeopteryx as possible in order to discover "combined" traits. According to Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, Archaeopteryx possessed "advanced characteristics of birds and retained a tremendous amount of 'primitive' characteristics, like teeth" (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 78). However, some fish have teeth, some do not. Some amphibians have teeth, some do not. How can a scientist look at the presence of teeth and simply assume that this animal "evolved" from something else? Evolutionist Alan Feduccia confessed: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that" (as quoted in Morell, 1993, 259:764, emp. added).
So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he observed that Archaeopteryx
has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, p. 102).
The story surrounding Archaeopteryx has been complicated by another discovery that has left evolutionists scratching their heads in regard to where, exactly, the creature actually fits in the evolutionary scheme of things. In 1986, Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues at Texas Tech University discovered the fossilized remains of two crow-sized birds allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old according to evolutionary dating methods) [see Beardsley, 1986; Chatterjee, 1991]. Chatterjee named the find Protoavis texensis (first bird from Texas), and has reported that the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like. In commenting on this, one author wrote in Science concerning Chatterjee's work: "His reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs" (Anderson, 1991, 253:35).
All of this has caused evolutionists severe problems because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, which means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds obviously could not have evolved from dinosaurs, and Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of modern birds. After looking at all the evidence for Protoavis, Kansas University paleontologist Larry Martin suggested: "There's going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face" (as quoted in Anderson, 253:35).
As Hayden continued his defense of evolution, he brought to the reader's attention a "hairy, doglike creature" that purportedly took to the sea and became the first whale. The origin of whales has dominated media headlines over the past several years as scientists have tried to explain why aquatic creatures would grow legs, walk the Earth, and then inexplicably decide to return to the water (thereby accounting for the differences between fish and aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales). The November 2001 issue of National Geographic capitalized on recent propaganda in an article titled "Evolution of Whales." While the scientific names and full-color reconstructions contained in the article appear quite impressive, the data are far from it. A closer examination of two alleged whale predecessors—Pakicetus and Ambulocetus—reveals that these creatures had very little in common with whales, and thus do not represent the animals' ancient ancestors.
Pakicetus was discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan, who claimed the find as a primitive whale—even though he had found only a jaw and skull fragments (see Gingerich, 1994, 2001). So what makes National Geographic so sure this creature is the long-lost "walking" ancestor of modern whales? Douglas Chadwick (author of the article) stated:
What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land animals but a signature of later Eocene whales (2001, 200:68).
So, from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal somehow "qualifies" as a walking whale. Interestingly, prominent whale expert J.G.M. Thewissen and his colleagues later unearthed additional bones of Pakicetus (Thewissen, et al., 2001). The skeletons of Pakicetus published by Thewissen et al. do not look anything like the swimming creature featured in either Gingerich's original article or in National Geographic. In fact, in a commentary in the same issue of Nature in which the article by Thewissen et al. was published, the following statement appeared: "All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and...indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground" (see de Muizon, 2001, 413:260). National Geographic, however, deceptively chose to display the Pakicetus in a swimming position, in an obvious attempt to try to sway the reader into believing that Gingerich's fossilized jawbone and skull fragments represented some type of aquatic creature—which they do not.
The next alleged ancestor, Ambulocetus natans, was proposed as a whale long before the dust settled from its fossilized remains. The name comes from the Latin words "ambulare" (to walk), "cetus" (whale), and "natans" (swimming), designating a walking, swimming whale. The scientists who discovered this fossil screamed "walking whale" well in advance of a complete analysis, and the illustrator for National Geographic exercised a vast amount of "artistic license" in assigning webbed feet to the creature. While such feet definitely make the creature look more aquatic, it is impossible to come to any such conclusion from a study of the fossils themselves. Soft tissues (such as webbed feet) normally do not fossilize well. There is no evidence that this creature ever spent any amount of time in the water—yet the drawing shows an animal with rear legs that appear to be built for an aquatic environment. An examination of the actual skeleton (see Carroll, 1998, p. 335) quickly dispels the notion that the rear legs performed as obligatory fins. The legs on Ambulocetus were not fins at all, but rather legs made for walking and supporting weight.
While artists make the transition appear easy, the logistics of going from a terrestrial environment to an aquatic one would be incredibly complex. Evolutionist Anthony Martin admitted:
Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface (1990, p. 12, parenthetical items in orig.).
Martin's analysis did not even address the metabolic, neuronal, reproductive, and cellular changes required for such animals to live underwater. Duane Gish summed it up well when he stated:
It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an "udder failure" (1995, p. 198).
Udder failure indeed!
In his U.S. News & World Report article, Thomas Hayden noted that Darwin held that new species evolve slowly, "the result of countless small changes over many generations" (p. 44). Hayden also noted, however, that "many creatures still appear quite suddenly in the fossil record." He went on to admit that the first animals appearing in the fossil record are "complex animals, including worms, mollusks, and shrimplike arthropods" that "show up some 545 million years ago." "Paleontologists," Hayden continued, "have searched far and wide for fossil evidence of gradual progress toward these advanced creatures but have come up empty" (pp. 44-45). He then quoted paleontologist Whitey Hagadorn of Amherst College, who sheepishly confessed: "Paleontologists have the best eyes in the world. If we can't find the fossils, sometimes you have to think that they just weren't there" (p. 45).
While at first glance the average reader might view this as an amazing, first-of-a-kind admission of defeat, history documents otherwise. The fact of the matter is, this statement—made in 2002—is little more than a dim echo of an identical admission made more than half a century ago by the eminent evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote:
Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils. There is in this respect a tendency toward systematic deficiency in the record of the history of life. It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist... (1949, p. 231, emp. added).
Creationists—adhering to the concept that scientific theories should be based upon the actual presence of evidence, rather than on the absence of evidence—have long taken exactly such a stance: transitional forms are not recorded because they did not exist!
After realizing that the gaps in the fossil record were both real and inexplicable, evolutionists set about trying to figure out a way to concoct a theory that would predict why there ought to be gaps in the fossil record. [This is one of the rare occasions in science where theories are constructed because of a lack of evidence, not because of the existence of evidence.] In his 1944 book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Dr. Simpson offered a solution to the problem of the "missing links," as he did again in his 1949 volume, The Meaning of Evolution, in which he wrote:
...continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent.... [t]heir absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has long been felt by most paleontologists....
It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution. There is much diversity of opinion as to just how such leaps are supposed to happen (pp. 105, 231, emp. added).
Notice that word "leaps." Then read what Hayden wrote concerning how evolutionists today propose to explain the perennial problem of the missing links. He wrote: "...[T]he growing suspicion is that evolution sometimes leaps, rather than crawls" (p. 44). It was because of the gaps in the fossil record that the late Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould, and Niles Eldredge, his collaborator, invented the concept known as "punctuated equilibrium." In the June/July 1977 issue of Natural History, Dr. Gould penned an article titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" (Gould, 1977), in which he linked punctuated equilibrium with geneticist Richard Goldschmidt's postulate (from his 1940 book, The Material Basis for Evolution) of "systemic mutations" that allegedly produced "hopeful monsters" by sudden leaps. Gould himself spoke eloquently of the fact that "[i]n any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed' " (1980, p. 182).
The problem, of course, comes when evolutionists attempt to find a genetic mechanism that can cause such "sudden leaps." Genetically speaking, systemic mutations would be devastating to an organism. Evolutionists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Francisco Ayala summarized the matter well when they said:
The specific solution postulated by Goldschmidt, that is, the occurrence of systemic mutations, yielding hopeful monsters, can be excluded in view of current genetic knowledge (1981, p. 969).
Indeed it can. And more than twenty years later, that assessment still is true. [For an in-depth refutation of punctuated equilibrium, see Thompson, 1989.]
How, then, does U.S. News & World Report's Hayden propose that these marvelous "leaps" in evolutionary progression occurred? In a word—catastrophes. In his view, "enormous volcanic eruptions that belched carbon dioxide, creating a super greenhouse effect [and] severe cold spells that left much of the planet in ice," plus "collisions with asteroids," were responsible for the rich variety of organisms we see around us today.
But why would such catastrophes cause organisms to "evolve rapidly"? Hayden suggested that "these convulsions killed off much of life's diversity." And that would help organisms speedily change from one kind to another by...? Harvard paleontologist Andy Knoll, whom Hayden quoted, offered the following scenario. He proposed that once conditions on Earth improved, "the survivors found a world of new opportunities. They were freed to fill new roles, 'experimenting' with new body plans and evolving too rapidly to leave a record in the fossils" (p. 45).
Is this not absolutely "magical"? We are led to believe that volcanoes and asteroids are responsible for certain animals having wings, and others having dozens of legs—all because there were "new opportunities." Has this been documented today following volcanic eruptions? No. And the specific genetic mechanism for such "miraculous" transformations would be...? Furthermore, consider this: How would evolutionists account for the sudden explosion of life in the fossil record in the first place? Did an "early catastrophe" somehow create life and endow it with its marvelous variety of spectacular features—instantaneously and simultaneously?!
Thomas Hayden then matter-of-factly proposed that "we may owe our dominance to the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago" (p. 45). According to this theory, which was set forth in the early 1980s by Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez and his son Walter, a large meteor (over six miles in diameter) hit the Earth 65 million years ago at end of Cretaceous period (see Hoffman, 1982; Alvarez and Asaro, 1990). The result was the release of vast amounts of energy, causing worldwide firestorms, tsunamis, tidal waves, etc. Great clouds of dust (from the impact), mixed with soot and ash (from the firestorms), rose into the upper atmosphere and were dispersed around the globe via the jet stream. As a result, sunlight was blocked, causing plants to be unable to grow and food chains to collapse. Dinosaurs thus became extinct. Clay layers at the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary are said to contain an unusual amount of an element known as iridium (a heavy metallic chemical element), which is said to exist in higher concentrations in extraterrestrial objects (like asteroids) than on Earth. Thus (so the theory goes), there is compelling evidence that an asteroid caused the dinosaurs' extinction.
However, there are alternative explanations. First, the iridium may have resulted from volcanic processes. Igneous rocks include traces of iridium, especially when derived from the deep mantle. Second, the Deccan Traps region of India experienced massive volcanism during the same time as the alleged extinction of the dinosaurs, resulting in basaltic lava (containing iridium) that covered over 180,000 square miles. Third, the evolutionists' own fossil record does not substantiate an instantaneous demise of the dinosaurs. Some allegedly died out within the Cretaceous period, while others apparently survived well into the Tertiary period (millions of years later, according to evolutionary dating methods). Fourth, why did the impact kill off dinosaurs, while many other forms of life apparently remained healthy and alive? Some of the least mobile creatures (tortoises, crocodiles, etc.) survived, as did vast numbers of plants, according to the fossil record. Fifth, in the fossil-rich state of Montana, the iridium layer is found above the highest dinosaur remains, which suggests that the dinosaurs actually disappeared before any impact event (see DeYoung, 2000, pp. 26-30).
That last point—the fossil-rich state of Montana—was the subject of the cover story of the June 2002 issue of the pro-evolution popular-science journal, Discover, which stated in big, bold print on its cover: "What really killed the dinosaurs? It may be time to stop blaming that asteroid." Inside that issue, in a "Letter from Discover," the editors discussed paleontologist Jack Horner, who singlehandedly has nearly doubled the number of T. rex fossils that have been discovered. The Discover editors stated that Dr. Horner "has uncovered evidence that it took a lot more than an asteroid to remove our favorite creature [T. rex—BH/BT] from the face of the Earth" (see "What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?", 2002, 23[6]:35). In the feature article ("What Wiped Out the Dinosaurs?") that followed the editors' letter, Edwin Dobb wrote:
New studies suggest that dramatic climate changes were killing off behemoths even before the asteroid impact. Long before the asteroid impact, the diversity of plants at the Hell Creek Formation [in eastern Montana!—BH/BT] was dwindling. Conifers and ferns dominated the environment. Vegetation was patchy and thin. Dinosaurs and their prey would have had to scramble to survive (23[6]:36-37, emp. added).
To suggest, as Thomas Hayden did, that the asteroid theory is responsible for the complexity of life on Earth, is indefensible. Maybe he could explain exactly how dinosaurs all over the planet were selectively wiped out by this asteroid, while other animals survived. Mr. Hayden would be well advised to research his subject matter better before he sets out to defend timeworn, threadbare, outdated scientific theories.
In trying to explain the diversity of life on Earth, Mr. Hayden resorted to the latest crutch supporting the decrepit evolutionary theory—Homeobox (a.k.a. "Hox") genes. Evolutionists portray these "master genes"—which are depicted as self-reliant, relatively simple entities that can produce major mutations—as the mechanism for changing one species into another. Thus, Hox genes are used to explain the vast differences in species we see today. Scientific literature on homeobox genes spans the spectrum from reporting experimental results to pure propaganda and scandalous speculation. Much of this speculation can be attributed to the fact that although most vertebrates and arthropods "have strikingly different body architectures, many of the regulatory genes they use to establish their body plan are conserved" (Kmita-Cunisse et al., 1998, 95:3030). In other words, the same homeobox genes are believed to be responsible for different attributes in vastly divergent species. Evolutionary scientists, however, have drawn conclusions regarding a common origin, with little regard to the actual empirical evidence. These inferences have led to the belief that one animal can experience a developmental cascade common to all animals. But Hox genes are not simply "passive providers" of encoded instructions responsible for development.
Simply put, Hox genes are pieces of DNA that either promote or inhibit other genes, which, in turn, play a role in the development of an organism. In the fruit fly, for example, one Hox gene promotes wing development. And so, during the early stages of the fly's development, this gene signals the manufacture of wing structures. Scientists have been able to use this information to produce flies without wings, or even flies with two sets of wings. But producing a two-winged fly, or adding a pair of legs to the head of an animal, is a far cry from explaining how microorganisms, plants, and animals all descended from a nonliving source.
William Bateson, who coined the term "homeosis" in 1894, "felt that he could further strengthen Darwin's case by exhaustively compiling the discontinuous variations that occur naturally within a species" (Lewis, 1994, 10:341, emp. added). Thus, evolutionists were quick to point out that homeobox genes play a significant role in the evolutionary origin of body plans (Lewis, 1994; Raff, 1996; Gellon and McGinnis, 1998). Some evolutionists have taken this a step farther and proclaimed that Hox genes are the agents responsible for saltation (the "sudden leaps" that Goldschmidt, Simpson, and Gould postulated), resulting in a new species or a higher taxon in what is essentially a single evolutionary step due to a major mutation or other "unknown cause." Paleoanthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz has advocated the view that the role of homeobox genes in individual development is a far better explanation of the origin of new species than any other mechanism. He even has suggested: "...[A]ll that is necessary is that homeobox genes are either turned on or they are not" (1999, p. 362).
Can scientists manipulate these genes to grow antennae, wings, or legs in places where they normally would not grow? Yes, they can. But does this manipulation prove evolution? No, it does not. Consider the following.
1. Hox genes do not produce "new" material. Mutating an animal to add a second pair of wings is not the same thing as creating, from scratch, a new gene for wing production. Creationist David DeWitt of Liberty University emphasized the point that, despite evolutionists' dependence upon mutations,
[t]he fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution, nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new proteins that are found in new organs and systems (2002, emp. in orig.).
DeWitt has emphasized a crucial point: scientists have not produced anything "new." And that is exactly our point! How can one claim that Hox genes provide the answers to so many different species, when the evidence demonstrates that entirely new organisms are not being formed?
2. Hox genes do not act in a "biological vacuum." They rely on numerous other genes and proteins to carry out their tasks. For instance, a light switch is great for turning on a light—but only if you have the necessary wires and bulb in place "downstream." Without those, the switch is nothing more than, well, a useless switch. Hox genes, like light switches, rely on certain "postcursors" (other genes already present in an organism). Hox genes cannot do everything by themselves.
3. Hox genes are not the first active genes in the developing embryo. As geneticist Jason Robert pointed out in the journal Evolution & Development, the mesoderm (the embryonic germ layer that gives rise to muscles, connective tissues, the vascular system, and certain organs) is genetically induced at the cleavage stage, long before Hox genes become active (2001, 3:290). Thus, Hox genes are not the initial determinant of what an organism will become.
4. Mutated genes would result in a need for new and different proteins. For instance, if a non-flying insect could be altered (theoretically) so that it developed wings, then proteins would have to be present to assist in the manufacture of those wings. Those proteins also must have "chaperone" proteins that assist them in their multiple tasks. How likely is it that the altered Hox gene, and all of these other cellular components, would evolve at exactly the same time? We also must keep in mind that all of this is occurring in a three-dimensional environment that is dependent on proteins being able to recognize and interact with other proteins. Otherwise, the entire complex is completely useless.
5. While a Hox gene may be able to alter the development of a particular structure, that does not mean necessarily that all of the items necessary for that structure will be present in the newly mutated animal. For example, wings, legs, or eyes may be transplanted to various regions of the body. But experiments have documented that the muscles and nerves necessary for those structures to function normally are not routinely manufactured. So while a non-flying animal might possess a mutated Hox gene that normally would control wing production, the other genes necessary to make the wings function would not necessarily be present—thereby rendering this "new" addition useless.
According to Hox gene proponents like Jeffrey Schwartz, "[n]ew species need not be the result of gradual changes [microevolution—BH/BT] that accumulate over many generations as suggested by conventional evolutionary theory. Instead, new species could appear suddenly, as they do in fossil record." Schwartz elaborated concerning the specifics of how this might occur when he wrote:
When particular genes are turned on for certain lengths of time and in certain regions, a worm may emerge. If the same or other genes are expressed for different lengths of time and in different regions, a more complex organism may develop (1999, p. 352).
This implies that if a gene were "left on" for a while longer, then a worm might become a frog or lizard. And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for such an outlandish claim. Worms produce worms, not lizards or frogs. While scientists may be able to induce into species "Y" a structure that normally is specific for species "X" (e.g., limbs), that still is a long way from Xs giving birth to Ys merely as a result of manipulating Hox genes!
After departing the realm of genetics, Thomas Hayden entered the field of microbiology as proof for evolution, and introduced Richard Lenski, a microbiologist who has been following twelve populations of the bacterium Escherichia coli since 1988. At one point, the populations were genetically identical, but, as Hayden reported, "each has adapted in its own way to the conditions in its test-tube home" (p. 48). By endowing such bacteria with a "sinister mind," Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Palumbi suggested that "bacterial evolution outwits one antibiotic after another" (p. 48). We are all familiar with the concept—microorganisms that change over time, appearing to perceive and then thwart our most impressive medical efforts to kill them. But do they do it "on purpose"?
Humanity appeared to have won the battle against many microbial diseases by using various drug treatments during the 1960s and 1970s. Today, however, it appears instead that we may have inadvertently toughened the battle. According to evolutionist Kenneth Miller, "the culprit is evolution" (1999, p. 50). Evolutionists frequently use this idea of the "rapid evolution" of microorganisms as "observable proof " for evolution. Their claim is that drug-resistant strains of many types of such organisms have evolved from strains that, at one time, were susceptible to these same drug treatments. Scientists would have us believe that microorganisms are "selectively adapting" to our drug treatments through a mechanism that involves genetic mutations. However, studies indicate an alternative explanation for this acquired immunity—one that argues against organic evolution.
Researchers Monica Sala and Simon Wain-Hobson (of the world-famous Pasteur Institute in France) published a paper titled "Are RNA Viruses Adapting or Merely Changing" (2000). In this particular study, they examined 85 sets of proteins from viruses that are known to infect bacteria, plants, and mammals. According to the old evolutionary hypothesis, once drug therapy alleviates the majority of susceptible microorganisms, only those that remain have mutated during replication and thus are resistant. Evolutionists believe that this represents a type of natural selection taking place, in which mutations "purposefully" confer drug resistance.
However, Dr. Sala's data indicate that the changes we are seeing are due to simple genetic drift (i.e., random genetic variations) rather than a response to drugs. These studies demonstrated that this genetic drift occurred at a constant rate, even when microorganisms were subjected to drug treatments (in other words, organisms changed whether or not they had been exposed to drugs).
The appearance of drug resistance may not be as new as researchers think. Modeling studies examining HIV-resistant mutants have demonstrated that drug-resistant strains were present before drug therapy began (Ribeiro and Sebastian, 2000), which indicates that the changes in these viruses are occurring randomly, rather than in response to a particular drug. There is additional evidence to substantiate such a claim. In an article titled "Superbugs not Super After All," Carl Wieland wrote:
That some germs were already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have never existed in nature (1997/1998, 20[1]:11).
Furthermore, microorganisms like bacteria do not become resistant to antibiotics merely by experiencing genetic mutations. There are at least three known mechanisms by which such resistance can be conferred: (1) mutations; (2) conjugation; and (3) transformation or transduction. [For additional information on bacterial antibiotic resistance, see Thompson, 1994.] But regardless of how bacteria acquire their antibiotic resistance, the fact remains that they still are exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. This "proof " of evolution turns out to be not vertical macroevolution, but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria "...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new 'species' have been produced" (Bowden, 1991, p. 56).
In his concluding remarks in his article in the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report, Thomas Hayden pointed out:
[I]t's the idea that human beings themselves are products of evolution that provokes most of the attacks on evolution. Such rejections leave most scientists mystified. "The scientific narrative of the history of life is as exciting and imbued with mystery as any other telling of that story," says Knoll. The evidence against evolution amounts to little more than "I can't imagine it," Ewald adds. "That's not evidence. That's just giving up" (p. 50).
Mr. Hayden has thrown down the gauntlet. And we will not hesitate to pick it up! He has drawn the line in the sand. And we will not hesitate to cross it!
First, the "evidence against evolution" hardly amounts to "little more than 'I can't imagine it,' " as this brief review has amply documented. Anyone willing to take the time to investigate with an open mind, soon will be impressed with the mountains of evidence against evolution. Books such as Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution (1999), or Scott Huse's The Collapse of Evolution (1997), provide compelling evidence against the theory.
Second, in multiple debates with evolutionists, creation scientists have repeatedly affirmed positive evidence for the creation model. In fact, entire books have been written on the subject (see, for example, Morris and Parker, 1987; Thompson, 2002). Creationists continually point out to evolutionists that the law of biogenesis states explicitly that life comes only from life of its kind, and that this law is the cornerstone of all biology. Creationists continually point out that the fossil record is replete with gaps, and is devoid of the transitional forms that evolution must have if it is to preserve its case. Creationists continually point out that genetic mutations reduce viability, rather than changing one species into another. Creationists continually point out that the laws of thermodynamics clearly indicate that the Universe: (a) could not have created itself; and (b) is running down and becoming less ordered, not building up and becoming more ordered. And so on.
You might ask yourself why Mr. Hayden did not bother to broach other critically important topics such as the origin of matter, the origin of life, the origin of language, the origin of sex, or the origin of the mind—all prickly topics that evolutionists absolutely abhor, and shun as much as possible.
Give up? Hardly! In fact, future issues of Reason & Revelation will tackle these topics head-on. No, Mr. Hayden, we will not give up—because the truth is on our side. And people deserve to hear the truth! What is that famous passage that is etched into the granite facades of so many governmental buildings? "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Alvarez, Walter and Frank Asaro (1990), "An Extraterrestrial Impact," Scientific American, 263[4]:78-84, October.
Anderson, Alan (1991), "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx's Perch," Science, 253:35, July 5.
Beardsley, Tim (1986), "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypothesis," Nature, 322:677, August 21.
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
Carroll, Robert L. (1998), Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Chadwick, Douglas H. (2001), "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, 200:64-77, November.
Chatterjee, Sankar (1991), "Cranial Anatomy and Relationships of a New Triassic Bird from Texas," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (biology), 332:277-346.
Clarke, Tom (2002), "Polio Made from Scratch," Nature, [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/nsu/020708/020708-17.html.
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).
de Muizon, Christian (2001), "Walking With Whales," Nature, 413:259-260, September 20.
de Vries, Hugo (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court).
DeWitt, David A. (2002), "Hox Hype," [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp.
DeYoung, Donald B. (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dobb, Edwin (2002), "What Wiped Out the Dinosaurs?," Discover, 23[6]:36-43, June.
Gellon, G., and W. McGinnis (1998), "Shaping Animal Body Plans in Development and Evolution by Modulation of Hox Expression Patterns," BioEssays, 20:116-125.
Gingerich, Philip D. (1994), "The Whales of Tethys," Natural History, 103[4]:86-88, April.
Gingerich, Philip D., Munir ul Haq, et al., (2001), "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan," Science, 293:2239-2242, September 21.
Gish, Duane T. (1995), Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, 86[6]:22-30, June/July.
Gould, S.J. (1980), The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), "Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the 'Dinosaurs-to-Birds" Theory" [Parts I&II], Reason & Revelation, 21:25-31,33-39, April and May.
Hayden, Thomas (2002), "A Theory Evolves," U.S. News & World Report, 133[4]:42-50, July 29.
Hoffman, Paul (1982), "Asteroid on Trial," Science Digest, 90[6]:58-63, June.
Huse, Scott M. (1997), The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), third edition.
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Kmita-Cunisse, M., F. Loosli, J. Bièrne, and W.J. Gehring (1998), "Homeobox Genes in the Ribbonworm Lineus sanguineus: Evolutionary Implications," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 95:3030-3035.
Koshland, Daniel E. (2002), "The Seven Pillars of Life," Science, 295:2215-2216, March 22.
Lahav, Noam (1999), Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Lewis, Edward B. (1994), "Homeosis: The First 100 Years," Trends in Genetics, 10:341-343.
Lipson, H.S. (1988), "A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory," Evolution Trends in Plants, 2[1]:6.
Lövtrup, Sören (1987), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London: Croom and Helm).
Martin, Anthony R. (1990), Whales and Dolphins (London: Bedford Editions).
Miller, Kenneth (1999), Finding Darwin's God (New York: Cliff Street).
Morell, Virginia (1993), "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science, 259:764-765, February 5.
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker (1987), What Is Creation Science? (El Cajon, CA: Master Books).
Pollack, Andrew (2002), "Scientists Create a Live Polio Virus," The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/12/science/12POLI.html.
Raff, R.A. (1996), The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Ribeiro, Ruy M. and Sebastian Bonhoeffer (2000), "Production of Resistant HIV Mutants During Antiretroviral Therapy," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 97:7681-86.
Robert, Jason S. (2001), "Interpreting the Homeobox: Metaphors of Gene Action and Activation in Development and Evolution," Evolution & Development, 3:289-295.
Sala, Monica and Simon Wain-Hobson (2000), "Are RNA Viruses Adapting or Merely Changing," Journal of Molecular Evolution, 51:12-20, July.
Sarfati, Jonathan (1999), Refuting Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Schwartz, Jeffrey H. (1999), Sudden Origins (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Simpson, George G. (1949), The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Stebbins, G. Ledyard and Francisco Ayala (1981), "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?," Science, 213:967-971, August 28.
Sunderland, L.D. (1984), Darwin's Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).
Thewissen, J.G.M., E.M. Williams, et al. (2001), "Skeletons of Terrestrial Cetaceans and the Relationship of Whales to Artiodactyls," Nature, 413:277-281, September 20.
Thompson, Bert (1989), " 'Hopeful Monsters' " and Evolution: Punctuated Equilibrium Examined," Reason & Revelation, 9:5-8, February.
Thompson, Bert (1994), "Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance—Proof of Evolution?," Reason & Revelation, 14:61-63, August.
Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Wieland, Carl (1997/1998), "Superbugs not Super After All," Creation, 20[1]:10-13, December 1997-February 1998.
"What Really Killed the Dinosaurs?" (2002), "Letter from Discover," Discover, 23[6]:35, June.


text:
It took me 3 years to finish this blouse!
Added Feb 25, 2011
by paranoire
Bochum, Germany
GOD, am I relieved. This gorgeous thing has been lingering in my shelves for years now!
It's a found vintage silk crpe bedsheet and some ivory silk organza adorned with lovely vintage mother of pearl teardrop buttons.
I will now sit down and just breathe ≈_≈°
Material Notes
found blue silk
ivory silk organza scraps
vintage mother of pearl buttons (teardrop shape)
Related Techniques
5 Comments Sign in to add a post
Feb 27, 2011, 05.58 AMby ssarryo
Wow! Nice work! I love the bib looking part of the blouse; it's so vintage.
Feb 26, 2011, 10.16 AMby nikotina
Oh, it's sooo pretty ! and on top of it all you have this gorgeous red hair to mach, perfect.
Feb 26, 2011, 03.35 AMby emily-marie
SO GOOD! The collar is gorgeous!
Feb 25, 2011, 05.20 PMby wzrdreams
This version makes me want to make another one. It is so beautiful. Good for you!
Feb 25, 2011, 04.59 PMby sewsweetviolets
This is the best rendition of the pattern I have seen. Great job. I have had projects that sit for years as well. In fact I have one that has not left undone for over 15 years. Great job, and you are right it is gorgeous!
Add to Favorites 8 people added it
This project is based on
JenniferMake it
- Jennifer #6018 Free Get it

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Gates Sees Next Windows Sometime in Next YearBy Reuters - | Posted 2008-04-04 Print
Gates' comments are in line with a
development cycle that usually releases a test version of the software
before its official introduction.
MIAMI (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.(MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) co-founder Bill Gates said on Friday he expected the new version of Windows operating software, code-named Windows 7, to be released "sometime in the next year or so."
The software giant has been aiming to issue more regular updates of the operating system software that powers the majority of the world's personal computers. Nevertheless, Gates' comments suggested that a successor to the Vista program might be released sooner than was generally expected.
Microsoft has said it expected to release a new version of Windows approximately 3 years after the introduction of Vista in January 2007. A company spokeswoman said Gates' comments are in line with a development cycle that usually releases a test version of the software before its official introduction.
"I'm superenthused about what it will do in lots of ways," Gates said in a seminar on corporate philanthropy held during an annual meeting in Miami of the Inter-American Development Bank.
"That'll be sometime in the next year or so that we'll have a new version," Gates said in response to a question from the audience.
Gates, who is due to leave his day-to-day functions at Microsoft and dedicate himself to the philanthropic efforts of the Gates Foundation in June, said the company aimed through its $6 billion annual research and development budget to take the products running on its software to "the next level."
He said new versions of Windows would help revolutionize mobile phones and run the desk of the future, which would have a touch surface display allowing users to call up items using their hands.
(Reporting by Michael Christie, Editing by Gunna Dickson)
© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
IT Solutions Builder TOP IT RESOURCES TO MOVE YOUR BUSINESS FORWARD
Which topic are you interested in?
Data Storage
IT Management
What is your company size?
What is your job title?
What is your job function?
Searching our resource database to find your matches...


text:
With cross-hatching joining everything together. In the photo below, you can see the flowery backing fabric that I chose. I needed something that would hide all of the cream-colored thread used in the background, along with dark green, gold, and red thread; the print needed to be fairly busy.
And yet another photo. Can you tell that I love feathers that knock your socks off?!!!
And so here is a sneak peak... of Reel Roses. It is an easy block to make, though I admit it has a lot of applique perimeter! The nice thing about the Quiltmaker 100 is that you get patterns for all of the blocks in the magazine. Wheee!
And another nine....


text: The January 2005 Illustrated Catastrophes column called attention to an installation at a water plant in northern Ohio in which a flexible cord ran from an explosion-proof junction box to a PVC-coated conduit body. The submitter incorrectly asserted that the area was hazardous, in which case the exposed connection would have violated 501.15. The flexible cord was used because the area it served wasn't accessible by any other means. The purpose of the explosion-proof box was to mount and protect a solid-state, low-voltage amplifier from the environment. The sensor was part of a chlorine alarm system and wasn't in a hazardous or classified area. The installation met the Code's requirements.


text:
Cow-calf producers should continue to prosper for at least the next few years, as beef exports boom and national herd numbers remain low.
That was the message from analysts at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association recent annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn. Southerners, who produce many of the nation's calves, had plenty to celebrate in Music City USA. They learned current good prices for their cattle should remain in that lofty range for two years or even longer.
"The cow-calf man is in the driver's seat on this thing. The industry needs calves and that's what we do," says Dick Daugherty, Alcoa, Tenn., former Tennessee Cattlemen's Association president.
Much talk in Nashville focused on rebuilding cattle numbers, which would take some pressure off cattle feeders. That will be difficult to accomplish quickly. Brisk demand supports continued good beef prices. That, plus drought conditions in crucial regions, encourages sending heifers to feedlots rather than retaining them for the cow herd. In order to keep feedyards full, cattle feeders will have to compete for calves.
Whether cow-calf producers elect to take profits now or build for the future, prices should remain profitable for quite some time.
USDA's cattle inventory report issued just before the NCBA meeting began shows 90.8 million head on hand. That is 2 percent below Jan. 1, 2011 numbers, and the lowest national inventory since 1952.
The report estimates the 2011 calf crop at 35.3 million, down 1 percent from 2010, and the smallest since 1950. Plus, during 2011, U.S. beef cow numbers declined 3.1 percent to 29.9 million, much more than the industry expected, and the biggest drop since 1986.
It is the sixth consecutive year, and 12th year in the past 14, of decline for the U.S. beef cow herd. Since 1996, U.S. beef cow numbers have dropped 15.4 percent. USDA economists note, however, that during those 14 years when slaughter fell just 6.8 percent, national commercial beef production actually increased 3.1 percent, due, most likely, to greater efficiency on farms and ranches.
Many beef industry analysts still hope for a cow herd turnaround, and soon.
"The economic signals are in place for restocking to begin this year. All we need now is a little encouragement from Mother Nature," says Randy Blach, CattleFax chief executive officer, who spoke in an Opryland Hotel ballroom filled with producers.
Even if Southwest drought conditions improve, though, Blach says he expects national cattle numbers to decline through 2013 before beginning an upward reversal in 2014. That means still higher cattle prices through 2012 and, quite likely, beyond.
Record prices do not necessarily equate to record profits, however. USDA Economic Research Service numbers show that total expenses for U.S. agriculture topped $300 billion for the first time in 2011, up 11.4 percent in just one year. Paying more for feed, fuel and other inputs keeps beef producers' upbeat attitude from turning euphoric.
"It's still somewhat difficult to make a profit. We have record prices but we have record expenses, too. On the feeder side, they have high cattle prices and high input prices, and they're still working on margins. So, that's a legitimate concern," says Jim Bostic, West Virginia Cattlemen's Association executive secretary.
Sizable corn crop
To moderate feed input costs, the U.S. must produce a sizable corn crop this year, and that could be problematic, says Mike Murphy, CattleFax manager of risk management. Some weather analysts project a cool, wet spring in much of the Midwest, which would disrupt normal planting, much like last year.
Murphy expects corn growers to plant a 94-million-acre crop this year, up from just under 92 million acres in 2011. Everything hinges on weather conditions, however.
"If it's a cold, wet spring, we could see a shift back to soybeans. But the equipment we have now lets farmers get the crop in the ground fast, so there may not be that much shift. The key thing is how Mother Nature treats us. There's going to be plenty of anxiety in getting the crop in the ground and in how it progresses through the summer. There is going to be a challenge in front of us," Murphy says.
"We have a historically small corn stocks-to-use level. If we get 94 million acres planted, the stocks-to-use ratio could rise to the 8-percent-to -11-percent range from the current 5-1/2 percent-to-7 percent. But it could take time to build stocks back up."
Corn exports could increase a bit over the next two years, Murphy says. He points out that, due to production problems and domestic demand, the U.S. exported 44 percent of its corn in 2011 compared to 56 percent over the previous five years. Ukraine and Argentina filled that export gap, he says.
"Even corn is becoming more and more of a global market. That's not going to change anytime soon," Murphy says. He expects to see more wheat fed as protein in cattle rations due to the price of corn, which would help to stabilize feed supplies.
Like grain, beef also benefits from a favorable export outlook, continuing the 2011 trend when beef exports increased 22 percent.
"2011 has been phenomenal for beef exports," says Brett Stewart, CattleFax global analyst. "Exports added $261 per head to the value of every fed steer and heifer. That's a fantastic success story for our industry and shows how competitive we are in the global marketplace."
Foreign customers
Erin Borror, U.S. Meat Export Federation economist, puts the added value per head at $204, still significant by any measure, and says beef exports totaled $5.35 billion last year. Big beef customers included South Korea, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Peru and Chile, in addition to more traditional buyers like Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and Japan.
"The low exchange rate for the dollar kept us competitive in these markets, and the tight global beef supply was a factor, as well," Borror says
Japan is expected to allow beef from 30 months old cattle into the country rather than limit it to 20 months due to BSE concerns. If that happens, U.S. beef exports should take another jump.
"We don't have a timeline for that but the good news is, the process is underway," Borror says.
"Their interest is not necessarily to help our beef industry but to change to help their own domestic industry. They're looking to go to more the international level. Thirty months is the limitation in a lot of markets. Thirty months doesn't create the paperwork challenge that 20 months does. Thirty months pretty much makes every animal coming out of a feedlot eligible to go to Japan," Borror says.
Borror expects China to officially open the door to U.S. beef at some point but has no idea when that will occur. Since China has no cow-calf industry and little domestic experience with beef, she thinks the Asian nation's food service industry will initially be the big customer.
"In China, we'll be building beef from virtually nothing. What they've consumed is mainly pork. It's a very exciting situation for us. We look at China as a blank sheet once we get access. The prospects are very exciting. We're going to have to work on it. They don't have a cow-calf industry and it's going to be a stretch when, if ever, they develop one. Right now they have large almost U.S.-style packers but they can't provide cattle to them," Borror says.
That prospect intrigues many U.S. beef producers. "If we could just feed every one of the Chinese people one-fourth pound of beef, how much beef would that move? I don't know exactly but it would be a lot," says Dick Daugherty, the cow-calf producer from Alcoa, Tenn.
Additional Asian markets could put even more muscle behind U.S. beef exports.
"If we ever get Japan and China really on line, it will be astronomical. We'll see prices increase even more than now just because of the supply and demand factor," says Chuck Canter, loan officer with the Central Kentucky Agricultural Credit Association in Lexington.
Canter says lenders in his area consider beef industry loans to be good business these days. "We think these good times are going to continue for at least the next 3-to-5 years. It's a supply and demand thing. The cow numbers are low. That means the price is high. The dollar is weak, so we're going to see a lot of beef exports."
The decline in the tobacco industry fuels much of Kentucky's renewed interest in beef. "That's why we want to get into livestock loans more and more. When I say livestock, I'm talking about beef, not hogs or horses or even chickens, and certainly not dairy. It's beef cattle. Our ground in Kentucky is more suitable for cattle than for row crops," Canter says.
An almost identical situation exists in Tennessee.
'We're certainly not afraid of cattle financing. We are geared toward the individual borrower. It's all about the person with us. If the farmer is a good risk and wants a loan for cattle, that's what we're looking for. We have a lot of cattle customers, part-timers, mostly. We're not making loans based on expectations in the marketplace. We're making the loans on an individual customer basis," says Johnny Sinclair, Farm Credit Service loan officer in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.
Economics of beef
Still, Sinclair likes the economics of the beef business these days.
"It's been amazing beef prices have held at these levels considering what grain and fuel prices have done. I think the Texas drought had a lot to do with it. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the beef industry is at a new level. These prices may not go back to the levels they've been at. World demand seems to be increasing," Sinclair says.
In fact, global beef prices have increased 21 percent over the past two years, says Stewart, the CattleFax analyst. With increasing world population, that likely won't stop, even if the price increase moderates somewhat, he says.
"Beef production declined over the past 3 years while the world added 300 million more people. Food prices are going to remain high and volatile. The tide is lifting. I see no reason for the dynamics to go the other way. I expect higher beef prices," Stewart says.
The U.S. stands to benefit more than other beef-producing nations, and already has. In 2011, U.S. beef owned 33 percent of the market in the eight largest international beef buying countries, Stewart says. Compare that to five years earlier, when the U.S. claimed only 16 percent of those markets.
"That's a very strong indicator of how competitive we are and what the future holds for us," Stewart says.
The immediate outlook is about as good as it could possibly be for cow-calf producers, says Kevin Good, CattleFax senior market analyst. "I'm expecting positive margins and record high calf prices. We're going to have a lot of 5-weight calves sell for $2 per pound this year," he says.
Stocker/backgrounders should also profit in 2012, though their margins will be narrower than cow-calf producers'. The troubling side of the industry comes in the nation's feedlot sector.
"Feedlots are going to be negative for the year. For them, risk management is the important thing," Good says.
Feedlot managers will have to figure expenses carefully and buy cattle wisely.
"I expect a $300 per head range in highs and lows in 2012," says Blach, the Cattlefax CEO. "The feeding industry has seen a 60 percent increase in credit needs since 2009. Fed cattle breakevens will be in the mid $130's by summer."
Blach cautions everyone in the beef business to keep a cool head.
Cautions and warnings
"Don't get caught up in the euphoria. These are dangerous times when we get all the people running in the same direction. Markets make corrections. Markets work, and they will continue to work. We will grow the cow herd over the next several years," he says.
While it is entirely possible that cow numbers will indeed increase, it will not happen quickly or easily. For one thing, there must be enough quality bulls to produce those extra first-rate calves the export markets demand.
"The reality is that we need to find 3 million head over the next 5 years, and we're still killing off cows. In order to expand, we have to have more replacement heifers and bulls to breed them. If you figure 20 to 30 cows per bull divided by a million, that tells you there's going to be a great deal of demand in the registered cattle business," says Joe Massey, International Brangus Breeders Association executive vice-president.
Keeping beef quality high during expansion has to be the primary consideration, says Ryan Peterson, herdsman for Leachman Cattle, Wellington, Colo., which produces Angus, Red Angus, Charolais and composite breeding stock.
"If conditions favor expansion, your genetic selection decision becomes paramount when you're trying to decide if you're going to progress from within the herd or bring outside genetics in," Peterson says.
"People who have progressively moved the genetic base forward in the cow herd are going to see dividends. Those who don't make genetic improvements in the cow herd are going to fall behind. There are lots of things to consider: breed, type, pedigrees, birth weight, feed efficiency, rate of gain, plus cow size. How big is too big? Is a 1,600-pound cow optimal? How about 1,200 pounds? The genetics the producer selects to expand with have a big impact."
Even with good beef prices, cattle producers still face a lot of risk.
"You've got to be aware of the risk management required to be profitable because of the volatility of this industry," says Matt McKamey, Rabo AgriFinance relationship manager, Great Falls, Mont.
"Your risk exposure can really make it difficult to be profitable. The margin hasn't changed tremendously but it takes a lot more capital to get there. You have to manage risk responsibly."
It's still an industry requiring tough decision-making. That is unlikely to change, no matter what the price per pound may be.
"The big deliberation is, are you going to sell that 700-pound heifer for $1,000 or keep her and get a calf out of her? We're getting a good payday for calves but we know we need to expand. You could say we're catching up for all those off-years when the market wasn't good," says Butch Foster, Virginia Cattlemen's Association fieldman.
More than 8,200 people attended the NCBA meeting in Nashville. J.D. Alexander, a third-generation rancher and cattle feeder from Pilger, Neb., is the new NCBA president.


text:
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Happy Birthday Day Dear Louise.......Happy birthday to you.
6 comments:
- Louise Blood said...
WHERE did you come up with that picture? I had to laugh when I saw that, you know - once your hearthrob, always your heartthrob. Now that's one for my scrapbook. You are all so dear to me, and for you and Ann to say such sweet things touches my heart.
- July 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM
- Elizabeth said...
Ah, now I'm home and can jump into the fun. This picture was great cause for laughter. When Louise and I played make-believe, she always got Roy Rogers, and I had to settle for Gene Autrey, who didn't fit the bill at all. This is so funny!
- July 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM
- Ann said...
I even remember the Roy Rogers crush. What fun. The local singing cowboy really couldn't compete!
- July 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM
- Steve Blood said...
This is way too funny. There was just an auction of Roy's things in NY city, Trigger will now reside in Neb. at a cost of just over a quarter of a mil.
- July 15, 2010 at 4:18 AM
- Elizabeth said...
Somehow a stuffed horse - or any animal is just too much to contemplate. Some people like a house full of once-alive animals in all their natural pose. Not my choice of interior decor.
- July 15, 2010 at 8:53 AM
- Steve Blood said...
But then again it is Trigger.
- July 15, 2010 at 8:56 AM


text:
Cane Creek 40 Series ZeroStack Headset
This item is currently not available.
Super-smooth steering, quality materials, cutting-edge design and serious durability are all hallmarks of Cane Creek headsets. The 40 Series has light, tough, and beautiful machined 6061 T6-aluminum cups that are internally relieved for even more gram shaving. You also get Cane Creek's corrosion-resistant black-oxide sealed bearings and quality seals throughout to keep the grease in and the dirt out, including Cane Creek's Clip Seal that completely seals the top assembly.
This headset fits 1 1/8-inch threadless forks.
Stack height: 12mm (short); 19mm (tall)
Weight: 97 grams (tall); 88 grams (short)
Read 0 ReviewsWrite a Review


text:
File Conversion MP3 to FLA
Why should I convert MP3 to FLA ?
With the conversion of the file to a different file extension you can use other programs to support it. Keep in mind, however, that MP3 file, when converted to FLA may differ slightly from the original, at least in terms of the data system. The most important information should be stored but if you want that this file after conversion from MP3 to FLA was the same, you need to do it carefully and select the proper application from the list below. There is no guarantee, of course, that the conversion will come up to all your expectations, but will certainly help in this. If, despite that, the effect of converting the MP3 file to FLA does not meet your expectations, you can simply try to find on the Internet a different version of your file in the MP3 format, properly converted earlier by someone else to FLA file. If this fails, use the information provided in the further part of the site.
programs that can help you
Other possible MP3 file conversions
If after converting the file MP3 the desired result was not achieved, you can try to change the format of MP3 file to other than FLA. On our website you will find more information on the following conversion options
File Conversions from MP3 extension to a different format :
MP3 to 3GA, MP3 to AAC, MP3 to AVI, MP3 to CAF, MP3 to CDA, MP3 to FLAC, MP3 to FLV, MP3 to M4A, MP3 to M4P, MP3 to M4R, MP3 to MOV, MP3 to MP4, MP3 to NWF, MP3 to OGG, MP3 to TOC, MP3 to WAV, MP3 to WAVE, MP3 to WMA, MP3 to WMV, MP3 to WV,
MP3 to 3GA, MP3 to AAC, MP3 to AVI, MP3 to CAF, MP3 to CDA, MP3 to FLAC, MP3 to FLV, MP3 to M4A, MP3 to M4P, MP3 to M4R, MP3 to MOV, MP3 to MP4, MP3 to NWF, MP3 to OGG, MP3 to TOC, MP3 to WAV, MP3 to WAVE, MP3 to WMA, MP3 to WMV, MP3 to WV,
What can I also do?
Unfortunately, if after performing the two previously described steps (trying to find your MP3 file converted by someone else, and the attempt to convert it to #IS# on your own) you still have a problem with your file, then there are only a few solutions left. You can once again try to find and install an application that can open the MP3 file in its original format (without conversion to FLA file). Such a solution will be difficult to implement, but it certainly will give the best result.
Extension categories
- 3D Image Files
- Audio Files
- Backup Files
- CAD Files
- Compressed Files
- Data Files
- Database Files
- Developer Files
- Disk Image Files
- Encoded Files
- Executable Files
- Font Files
- Game Files
- GIS Files
- Layout Files
- Misc Files
- Plugin Files
- Raster Image Files
- Settings Files
- Spreadsheet Files
- System Files
- Text Files
- Vector Image Files
- Video Files
- Web Files
Common conversions


text:
History of Pennsylvania Counties
The earliest responsibilities of counties included the maintenance of the local judicial system and the local prison. Because prisons were often associated with debtors, counties in a backdoor fashion acquired some responsibilities for human services, and traditionally cared for the poor and the disadvantaged.
With the advent of the 20th century, the role of county government came to be defined as it is known today. County government now had both state and local dimensions. Its primary responsibilities, traditional in nature, are as an agent of the state for purposes of administration of justice, maintenance of legal records, the conduct of elections, and administration of human services programs. Counties have also been granted powers more commonly considered local, rather than state, in character. Some of these powers include zoning, parks and recreation, emergency management and solid waste management.
Since the early 1960's, however, county government has experienced explosive growth, especially in the human services programs and criminal justice areas. Counties have grown into the role of primary provider of state and federal social programs. Counties have outgrown their former "caretaker" status and evolved into active providers of services for their inhabitants.
County Commissioners
A three-member board of county commissioners constitutes the chief governing body of the county. Statutory authority of the commissioners is both administrative and policy-making. The county commissioners are vested with selective policy-making authority to provide certain local services and facilities on a county-wide basis. Administrative powers and duties of county commissioners encompass registration and elections, assessment of persons and property, human services, emergency management, veterans' affairs, appointment of county personnel and fiscal management.
Regional Approach
Counties are widely perceived as the local government of the future. They are the major human services provider in the political system. Counties also have increasing responsibilities in areas that have a regional focus; emergency services, economic development, regional water and sewer management, and land use and growth development, to name a few.
Clinton County has become a full service regional government, fueled by modernization, urbanization, and suburbanization. Clinton County is responsible for a full gamut of state-mandated services, and locally involved in an array of emergency services, planning, information and coordination, the funding of innovative municipal incentives, and providing support to municipalities and councils of government in other ways.
As local problems spill over existing municipal boundaries, it makes sense to talk about the emerging role in the governance system. Municipal boundaries were created in a different era; they no longer match economic realities. The term "governance" captures the interaction by the public, private and non-profit sectors in forging the policies and delivering wanted and needed citizen services to match economic realities despite outmoded jurisdictional boundaries. Counties are being looked at as an effective forum for facilitating the cooperation and collaboration needed in a region for the new governance.
By taking a regional approach, Clinton County has become a model in the sharing of resources with our municipalities and neighboring counties. Through this partnering, duplication of services and information is reduced or eliminated ultimately benefiting our taxpayers who do not bear the burden of their taxes funding a county project and a municipal project which achieves the same goal. With recent advances in information technology, the sharing of information regionally has become a reality with endless possibilities.
Be a Part of County Government
Clinton County invites everyone to get involved in your local government. The commissioners meet every Thursday at 10:00 am and commissioner work sessions are held every Monday morning. All meetings, with the exception of personnel issues, are open to the public.


text:
Heavy With History: A Past Marred by Persecution is one Reason for Hutterites' Wariness
of World
Aksamit, Nichole. "Heavy With History: A Past Marred by Persecution is one Reason for Hutterites' Wariness of World." Forum, 14 November 1999, sec. E1 & E3.
The modest women of Spring Prairie Colony share a quiet moment in the early morning sun on a trailer behind a tractor headed for a cucumber field northwest of Hawley, Minnesota.
The 422-year-old German Bible in John Waldner Sr.'s care is nearly 5 inches thick and weighs close to 20 pounds.
Hand-inked illustrations, German calligraphy and ornate block letters cover its thick parchment pages.
Engravings in the iron corner-pieces attached to its thick, ivory cover reveal the year it was crafted: "1577."
The book was discovered in Romania, wedged between beams in the belltower of a Catholic Church on the site of a former Hutterite settlement, and eventually passed down to Waldner, the elder minister of this Hutterite colony northwest of Hawley.
Whenever he has trouble with modern German or English Bible translations, he turns to the yellowed pages of this precious tome.
Like the Hutterites themselves, the ancient test is heavy with history, a testament to faith and a survivor of persecution.
Hutterite Beginnings
"Hutterites have a very deep understanding, a very keen understanding of their history," says Tim Kloberdanz, a North Dakota State University anthropologist who has been studying Hutterites for more than two decades.
"And it's a history of persecution, not only in Europe but right here in the United States."
The Hutterites, or Hutterian Brethren, take their name from Jakob Hutter, an Anabaptist leader who was tortured for his beliefs and burned at the stake in Austria in 1536.
They are one of three surviving Anabaptist sects that originated in Europe during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.
Although the groups differ today in the belief and practice, Hutterites share longevity with the Old Order Amish and the Mennonites.
The first Anabaptists, so called for their belief in adult baptism, argued that the Protestant Reformation was only a start. They felt reforms encouraged by Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German and his "Ninety-five Theses" about problems he saw with the Roman Catholic Church needed to go further.
The following tenets eventually became basic doctrines of the Hutterite faith:
*Adult Baptism. Because Christ and his apostles were grown men when they were baptized, Hutterites believe that people must first know and understand the Bible and then request baptism into the faith.
*Community of goods. Hutterites argue that believers should live apart from the larger society, share a common purse and have "all things common," as in Acts 2:44. Hutterites work not for themselves but for the benefit of all in the colony. And the colony supplies its members with all they need to live.
*Pacifism. Hutterites refuse to take part in war, either by paying war taxes or serving in the military, since Christ said to love your enemies.
*Separation of church and state. Hutterites do not vote in elections or run for public office. They believe governments are God-ordained and if they have a grievance with the state, they file it in the form of a prayer.
*Marriage for life. Hutterites do not allow divorce. What God has joined together, they both argue and practice, no man can separate.
Persecution in Europe.
For these and other beliefs, Hutterites were severely persecuted and repeatedly forced to flee - from Moravia to Hungary, Romania, Russia, the United States and Canada - in search of religious freedom.
From the early 1500s to the late 1800s, the Hutterian brotherhood waxed and waned with the religious tolerance of the leaders in the lands in which they lived.
During their golden years, at least 20,000 Hutterites were living in colonies in Moravia - now part of Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
But twice in their history they abandoned communal living. And at their lowest point, only 16 Hutterites existed who had not been killed or robbed of their religious texts and forced to convert to Catholicism.
In the 1870s, when new laws in Russia required Hutterites to speak Russian in school and serve in the military, Hutterites began emigrating to America.
Under separate leaders, three groups - the Dariusleut (the Darius people), the Lehrerleut (the teacher people) and the Schmiedeleut (the smith people) - established Hutterite colonies in South Dakota.
Spring Prairie Colony near Hawley descended from the Bon Homme Colony, founded by Schmiedeleut near Yankton, S.D., in 1874.
Struggles in America
Even after their arrival in America, however, Hutterites struggled for religious freedom
Since military service is anathema to their creed, Hutterites were conscientious objectors to World War I.
Because they spoke German and Huttrisch (an evolved version of the nearly extinct German dialect Tyrolean) and refused service or any contribution to the war effort, they were often targets of hostility from non-Hutterites who viewed them as German sympathizers.
In 1917, colony elders requested President Woodrow Wilson grant them "the liberty to live according to the dictates of our conscience." With no such assurances from the president, many colonies fled to Canada to avoid military service in 1918.
Nevertheless, approximately 56 Hutterites were drafted during World War I. Many were harassed when they refused to wear military uniforms or do work that helped the war effort. Four suffered extreme tortures in military prison at Alcatraz and Fort Leavenworth, where two of the died as a result.
"Because of this history, I don't think they've ever forgotten what the outside world can do to them," Kloberdanz says.
"I do think they appreciate the kindness they see in the outside world, but they remember the acts of violence that were perpetrated against them. That's one of the reasons they are wary of the world. They have forgiven, but they haven't forgotten."
Anti-Hutterite sentiment in America dropped off after World War I. During subsequent wars, Hutterites were allowed to serve in national parks and other non-military posts as an alternative to the draft.
Another golden period?
At the time of their most recent census (1996), 37,297 Hutterites were living in North America. That number is estimated at 38,000 today.
The 174 colonies in Minnesota, the Dakotas and Manitoba are Schmiedeleut. The Dariusleut and Lehrerleut have 269 colonies in Montana, Washington and the other Canadian provinces.
The three groups differ slightly in terms of dress and custom, but share the same fundamental faith and belief in communal living.
Although the colonies have experience tremendous population growth in the last 100 years, Waldner says Hutterites are far from another golden period.
"Now, of course, I don't speak for all Hutterites, but I say we're in a sharp decline," he says. "And I'm not talking about numbers. I'm talking about principles."
When Waldner's great-great-grandfather helped found Bon Homme Colony in 1874, Hutterites seldom has use for litigation or government assistance.
But now, Waldner says, the colonies have a lawyer who helps them with liability lawsuits and the paperwork required for health and property insurance. The colonies now participate in federal farm programs like CRP.
And, in certain instances, they also accept a small amount of government aid to help care for their elderly.
"Many of us do this reluctantly, as taxes continue to rise and we struggle for existence," Waldner says. "For our forefather, this would have been out of the question. Their theory was with God's help and trust in him we will get along without government assistance. But being without liability in their time and being without liability in our time is a different story.
"I guess it's just human beings. If you look at America and the people who set up the Constitution and you look at the country today, it doesn't seem the same."
All of this worries Waldner, on whom both the influence of his Hutterite ancestors and the fear of God weigh heavily.
He knows it will never be easy to resist reliance on the government, involvement in politics, changes in dress and personal ownership.
"The world changes in fashion probably as often as the moon changes. We've got a great struggle to keep from the ever-changing styles and modes of the world," Waldner says.
"But the Christian principles don't change and he who set up the principles doesn't change. If you or I want to change, we're free to go. But then, I guess there's the day of reckoning."
Reprinted with permission of The Forum


text:
EBC Stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 Brake Kit
- Includes EBC GreenStuff brake pads
- Includes EBC Ultimax slotted brake rotors
- Designed for heavy brake use without brake fatigue
- GreenStuff brakes improve brake effect between 10-20% over OE
- GreenStuff brake pads reduce wear and tear on rotors
- Operates up to 200 degrees cooler preventing brake fade during high performance
- Slots remove dirt, dust and debris helping to maintain a consistent contact between pad and rotor
Push your ride to the limit and brake with confidence using EBC Stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 brake kit. Upgraded brake pads. Check. Upgrade brake rotors. Check. What more could you want?
EBC GreenStuff 2000 Series brake pads are specifically designed for light SUVs and cars. These pads can improve brake effect by up to 15%. Green Stuff pads are engineered to stand up during extreme brake use without "fall-off" or brake fatigue that is common in factory brake pads. Greenstuff pads create a medium dust level, which is a great improvement over factory brake pads. Greeenstuff brake pads will deliver a great pad bit, while also reducing noise and brake dust.
EBC slotted rotors (USR Series) are constructed of high quality grey iron, and engineered to rigorous standards. EBC brake rotors undergo extensive testing and quality control, ensuring excellent performance and customer safety. USR rotors are finished with a black Geomet coating, which delivers a excellent look while also protecting against corrosion and rust. Narrow slots are designed to sweep away dust, dirt, and debris, which allows for constant contact between pad and rotor. The slots on USR rotos also reduce the operating temperature, which can reduce the temperature by up to 200 degrees. Cooling rotors equals less brake fade during extreme situations, which is exactly what you'll need when it's time to slam on the brakes.
Increase your braking power with an EBC Stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 brake kit. Brake with confidence, everytime!
Limited warranty
EBC stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 brake pads are backed by a 12 month or 10,000 mile warranty and the stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 brake rotors are backed by a six month or 10,000 mile warranty. The warranty is for replacement of similar product or refund of purchase value only excluding all labor and ancillary charges such as vehicle towing, fitting, inconvenience, purchasing of other manufacturers products and is valid for a period of six months from date of purchase or 10,000 miles of highway use. Warranty is invalid if product is used for racing, rally, drifting, track day experience driving, or any other form of competition. Drivers/users must assess the performance and durability or EBC Brakes products themselves if any EBC is to be used in racing.
EBC Stage 2 USR Greenstuff 2000 brake kits are specifically designed for your ride. EBC brake kits can be installed at home, or by your trusted mechanic. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to give RealTruck a call at 877-216-5446.


text:
Find Mary Kay Makeup In Garden City, ID
Makeup by Mary Kay is carefully designed to ensure women look and feel beautiful. From eye makeup like our Lash Love® Mascara to lipstick, foundation and brushes, there's something for each woman to look and feel amazing. Find the best makeup in Garden City with the help of a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant. They can help you get samples and explore different styles and trends to find the perfect look for you. Mary Kay has been making women feel confident and beautiful for over 50 years. Find out what Mary Kay can do to make you look amazing whether for home, school, work or a special event. Contact a beauty consultant in Garden City today.


text:
Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN Sony E mounted on Sony A6000 : Tests and Reviews
Further readings for the Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN Sony E
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
Lens Recommendations | July 03, 2013
Introduced during 2011, the 24-Mpix Sony NEX-7 remains a high-watermark for mirrorless models despite recent introductions from rivals. We've now had the opportunity to measure the performance of this camera with a number of promising new lens models. Read on to see how well the combination of Sony's high-resolution APS-C sensor and the very latest E-mount lenses perform.


text:
If your looking for the next craze in Radio Control you found it; The World of RC Motorcycle Nitro and Electric 1/5th and 1/4 scale Bikes. We carry the top of the line Ferrari of all RC Motorcycles and Nitro Quads all Italian made by Nuova Faor. GNO is your North and South America Distributor. We also stock OPS World Championship Radio Controlled Nitro Marine. Off-Road and On-Road Engines and parts. If you have an OPS Marine, Buggy or Off-Road Engine chances are we have your parts. Our mission is simple: to provide the best products and service to our customers at the lowest prices possible. We take great pride in our company, our commitment to customer service and in the products we sell. Our online store is designed to provide you with a safe and secure environment to browse our product catalog. We carry top of the line Italian made RC products and are the US Distributor for Nuova Faor Products. We accept Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and payments by mail. Whether you are new to our site, or you're a returning RC fan, we have all of your needs in our Discount On-Line RC Store. Best of all shipping $4 any size order anywhere in the USA. Our major product lines include; Nuova Faor, OPS Nitro Engines 20 Times World Championship's, Acme Racing Buggies and Parts, Picco Nitro Engines, Riverhobby buggies and parts. Check us out, we guarantee your satisfaction!
Welcome to the world of 1/4 and 1/5th Scale Motorcycle Racing. If you're looking for the Ferrari of RC Bikes you have found them Nuova Faor Italian made best of breed. GNO will be happy to custom build your bike! Also check-out Nuova Faor's ¼ scale Nitro Quad!
OPS Factory modified race engines for your boat, car and buggies, without a doubt best engines on the planet modified right from the factory in Italy. GNO carries a full line of Nitro engines and parts. Need something in a hurry just give us a call happy to expedite your order.
We have a wide variety of ACME parts for your condor and other vehicles!
Check out our YouTube videos!
Gotnitroonline.com offers all of the latest and greatest parts and accesories to build the most custom RC that fits you!


text:
S.A.S & Ransom - Shake And Break
Jordan Tower reports "Ransom and SAS video to Shake and Break!!!! A Quick video for the new year! JORDAN TOWER FILMS!!!! JTF TO THE DEATH!!!! "
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Mark 4 - Hand Sewn
- Product Details
- Moto-Lita Mark 4 - Hand Sewn Steering Wheel
- Manufacturer
- From the day the business started, each and every steering wheel has been made by hand. Moto-Lita take a pride in their avoidance of hi-tech gadgetry. Moto-Lita don't profile our wheels with lasers, they cut or press them. A robotic arm doesn't spray our varnish on; it's applied, coat-by-coat by hand with a beautifully effective low-tech brush, so that every handmade steering wheel leaving their workshop in Thruxton is worthy of carrying the Moto-Lita name. Moto-lita wouldn't have it any other way, and they wouldn't supply you with any lesser degree of quality. From the point in the late '50s when Simon Green designed and built the first Moto-Lita steering wheel for Arthur Moss, father of Stirling Moss, our name has been synonymous with high quality British craftsmanship. From humble beginnings making one-off racing car steering wheels, we've expanded our range to offer steering wheels for the most respected and admired classic cars from Britain and around the world.
- Ask a Question
Product Question/Stock Enquiry?
Customers Also Bought...
EBC D913 Standard Front Discs£136.80


text:
Fast cars and great craft beer are teaming up for the first time ever at the Charlotte Motor Speedway. This is an historic partnership between America's hometown sport and Oskar Blues all- American made beer.
Oskar Blues Brewery's Super Late Model race car was just the first step.
Now Dale's Pale Ale and Mama's Little Yella Pils will be the only craft beers available at the speedway, the Speedway Club, zMax Dragway and The Dirt Track. America's first canned-craft beers brewed in Brevard already are winding their way down from the mountains for Speed Week, which kicks off the race season the week before Memorial Day.
"We are so excited to welcome Oskar Blues here," says Brandy Mills, CMS business development director. "As a facility, this ensures we deliver the best products and experience for our fans, and Oskar Blues provides that," Mills said.
More than 1.5 million racing enthusiasts visit the speedway annually, and those folks now can enjoy a craft beer.
Grab Oskar Blues Brewery's cold Dale's Pale Ale or crisp gold metal winner Mama's Little Yella Pils at select concession stands, the Winner's Circle Lounge, Whiskey River and the Fan Zone for the upcoming Coca-Cola 600 and Bank of America 500.
Now the original craft beerin- a-can is Charlotte Motor Speedway's first official craft brewery partner.
For more on Oskar Blues, contact Chad Melis, chad@ oskarblues.com or Anne Fitten Glenn, af@oskarblues. com.
Encouraging children to sharpen their reading and money-saving skills, TD Bank again will hold its annual Summer Reading Program.
The program rewards children who read 10 books during the summer with a $10 deposit into a new or existing Young Saver account.
In 2012, 45,281 children participated in the program and read 452,810 books, earning $452,810 for their Young Saver accounts.
Children are encouraged to ask TD Bank employees about saving money when they visit any TD Bank store.
The 2013 Summer Reading Program brochure features a personal savings chart for tracking progress, as well as suggested questions children can ask about savings accounts and the Penny Arcade coin counting machine.
The TD Bank Summer Reading Program runs through Sept. 30.
For more information, visit a local TD Bank store or go to http://tdbank.com/summerreading/
Compiled from staff reports
High Interest: May 17
Fast cars and great craft beer are teaming up for the first time ever at the Charlotte Motor Speedway. This is an historic partnership between America's hometown sport and Oskar Blues all- American made beer.