text:
Microbiologist admits Darwinism's shortcomings, says we should stick with it for now because …
February 17, 2014 | Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolution, News |
There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.
No really, BigThink's Kas Thomas actually admits,
Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies). …
Yes, Darwinism is always promoted on faith; you just don't expect to hear biologists admit that. Hope this guy's job is safe. Many places have frozen hiring, now limited to career zombies.
When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab.
Yes of course, but those are unspeakable words. Read the rest and note the comments.
Okay. Here's the problem with his approach, summarized from above: A theory that so consistently misleads as he describes is probably wrong, not just incomplete. It's like going south when you should be going north. We keep explaining away the discrepancies in landmarks until finally, we just have to stop and ask, "Where exactly are we in relation to our destination?" But then we must begin by acknowledging that "evolution" (Darwinism) is not better than nothing, instead of shutting down online discussion.
Wish the guy luck; he's into good questions.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
43 Responses to Microbiologist admits Darwinism's shortcomings, says we should stick with it for now because …
Why it is an absolute disaster that the
incompletewrong theory of Darwin is allowed to continue as if it has no problems.Because finding God leads to a wonderful life.
Boy, this article has Jerry Coyne and fellow Darwinian trolls having a fit in the comment section. 🙂 As well they should be. The points that Dr. Thomas honestly admits to are all severe problems for Darwinism that have all been hammered away at for years by ID proponents:
The Trouble with Darwin by Kas Thomas – February 16, 2014
Excerpt: Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies). Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.) The means by which new survival skills emerge is, at best, murky. Of course, we can't expect Darwin himself to have proposed detailed genetic or epigenetic causes for speciation, given that he was unaware of the work of Mendel, but the fact is, even today we have a hard time figuring out how things like a bacterial flagellum first appeared.
When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab. Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is great at explaining things like the loss of eyesight, over time, by cave-dwelling creatures. It's terrible at explaining gain of function.
It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs. (Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.) It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids,
http://bigthink.com/devil-in-t.....ith-darwinKas Thomas is a graduate of the University of California at Irvine and Davis (with degrees in biology and microbiology) and a former University of California Regents Fellow, Thomas has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.
Now Darwin's followers are saying Thomas should be stripped of his degrees or should ask for his money back. Guy's got guts. Anyone know him?
I see that Jerry Coyne is the self-appointed chief inquisitor of all heresies against the Church of Darwin.
5selvaRajanFebruary 17, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Kaz Thomas seems to be a technical writer and a software documentation professional. He is not a Microbiologist. Please check
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kasthomas -
6JoeCoderFebruary 17, 2014 at 8:00 pm
It looks like Kas was formerly a microbiologist. From his blog:
I guess I should have made clear, up front, that I have two degrees in biology: a B.S. from UCI and a master's in microbiology (summa cum laude) from UC Davis, where I was a Regents' Fellow. I took (and passed) qualifying exams for a Ph.D. One of the specialty areas I was examined in was molecular genetics.
Maybe being a microbiologist is like learning to ride a bike?
7nullasalusFebruary 17, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Kaz Thomas seems to be a technical writer and a software documentation professional.
According to his bio page at the OP's linked site:
A graduate of the University of California at Irvine and Davis (with degrees in biology and microbiology) and a former University of California Regents Fellow, Thomas has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level. He was on the Inventions Committee at Novell, Inc. and is the holder of seven U.S. software patents. He has a long and varied background in technical writing (most recently serving as a Technology Evangelist for Adobe Systems) and is in love with the word heterodoxy.
He seems to have about as much claim to be a microbiologist as Dawkins has to claim he's a scientist. If we're judging by current professions, Dawkins and Kas Thomas are both writers. And PZ Myers is a blogger who sometimes teaches.
Seems like he has a bachelors degree in microbiology, then started a PhD and dropped it. So, not a microbiologists but not without trianing.
Of course, we should judge articles but the quality of their arguments, not the credentials on their authors. In this case, it's clear the author's education has taught them almost nothing about evolutionary biology. Does teh ID movement really want to throw it's support by someone who can say something as uninformed at teh quoted text
When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab.
Or someoe who doesn't seem to know what speciation is, or thinks " Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest,"?
I just read Coyne's "rebuttal"- what a joke. Coyne sez the BF came from the TTSS yet he doesn't say how the TTSS arose. He actually references Pallen and Matzke as if they demonstrated how a BF evolved via natural selection and/ or drift.
The best part is Coyne's examples of natural selection in no way indicative of NS being a designer mimic nor creating something like a bacterial flagellum.
Too funny…
wd400- evolutionary biology is mostly just a glossy narrative void of scientific rigor and detail. And truthfully it reads like Lamarkism- just look at the narrative of how the vision system allegedly evolved. It is all Lamarkism- all of it physical changes to the vision system that get passed down. Nothing on the molecular level wrt its evolution.
11nullasalusFebruary 17, 2014 at 9:24 pm
In this case, it's clear the author's education has taught them almost nothing about evolutionary biology.
Really? The fact that he has doubts about the extent of what we know via evolutionary biology is enough to indicate that?
He seemed to mostly bluntly say what is all too obvious when reading up about the field.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab.
Which part of this do you even disagree with? Are you saying most non-neutral mutations are beneficial?
Via Nature: Mutational effects can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral, depending on their context or location. Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious.
Or someoe who doesn't seem to know what speciation is
He does seem to know what speciation is. The fact that the word has multiple meanings doesn't really speak against him.
or thinks " Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest,"?
Insofar as he means it's historically been selectionist, Larry Moran seems to agree. Sayeth ID-hating Larry:
The revolution is over and strict Darwinism lost. We now know that random genetic drift is an important mechanism of evolution and there's more to evolution than natural selection. Unfortunately, this blatantly obvious fact is not understood by the vast majority of people and teachers. There are even many scientists who don't understand evolution.
Maybe it's not Kaz Thomas who doesn't know much about evolutionary theory, but his critics.
I disagree with the entire quoted text (which is why I quoted all of it). i.e. the argument that because most non-neutral mutations are deleterious, mutations can't be the source of adaptation.
There aren't multiple definitions of speciation, and the species probldm is not about speciation but human's ability to delimit species.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting Moran, who confirms the falsity of Thomas' claim that "almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on 'survival of the fittest'".
wd400 funny how no one really understands evolution except you and your Darwinian cohorts! As well, since you quoted it, do you have a problem with this claim?
"The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab."
Because that is exactly what we find!:
"The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution": Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution": Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006Response to John Wise – October 2010
Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38811.htmlMutations and Darwinism – Dr Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfgiAWBluxEIn fact the top five supposedly 'beneficial' mutations of Lenski's LTEE, after 50,000 generations were combined and found to negative epistasis. This is NOT what you need to have your preferred hypothesis be true wd400!
The reason why mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, and we have such a hard time finding any truly beneficial mutations on there way to building things up wd400, is because of the 'poly-constraint' imposed by the poly-functionality' inherent within an organism. The following article is about the genome but the principle of poly-constraint due to poly-functionality is also extended to proteins:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically " poly-functional" [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., "it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated" [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142.
39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432.
40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654.
41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997.
42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816.
43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.
http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism is this:
To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and many other studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what "fitness landscape") must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle:
If we were to actually get a proper "beneficial mutation' in a polyfunctional genome, then instead of the infamous "Methinks it is like a weasel" single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their now falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add (Shapiro, Nobel), we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.S A T O R
R O T A SSator Square
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_SquareWhich is translated ;
This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center).
This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
https://vimeo.com/81930637In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read.
Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):
"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages."
Edward N. Trifonov – 2010Supplemental note:
Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information – Jonathan Wells – published online May 2013
Conclusion:,, Recent discoveries of multiple overlapping functions in non-protein-coding DNA show that the biological information in the genome far exceeds that in the protein-coding regions alone. Yet biological information is not limited to the genome. Even at the level of gene expression – transcription and translation — the cell must access information that is not encoded in DNA. Many different RNAs can be generated from a single piece of DNA by alternative splicing, and although some splicing codes occur in intronic DNA there is no empirical justification for assuming that all of the information for tissue- and developmental-stage-specific alternative splicing resides in DNA.,, even after RNA has specified the amino acid sequence of a protein, additional information is needed: Protein function depends on three-dimensional shape, and the same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently to produce proteins with different three-dimensional shapes [144–147]. Conversely, proteins with different amino acid sequences can be folded to produce similar shapes and functions [148,149]. Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism – the genotype-phenotype mapping = cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a "distributed multilayer network" [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152]. So non-protein-coding regions of DNA that some previously regarded as "junk" turn out to encode biological information that greatly increases the known information-carrying capacity of DNA. At the same time, DNA as a whole turns out to encode only part of the biological information needed for life.
http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0009 -
14nullasalusFebruary 17, 2014 at 9:56 pm
I disagree with the entire quoted text (which is why I quoted all of it). i.e. the argument that because most non-neutral mutations are deleterious, mutations can't be the source of adaptation.
Great, so disagree with him. But that's not indicative of him being clueless about evolution, and by pointing out that most non-neutral mutations are harmful doesn't exactly put him at odds with ID proponents, or somehow make his ideas wrong.
There aren't multiple definitions of speciation, and the species probldm is not about speciation but human's ability to delimit species.
If you change what does or doesn't count as a species, you are trivially changing the definition of speciation, since you'd be making reference to different populations and standards for species. It looks like Kaz is going in an ID direction here, since most of what he wrote seems to be emphasizing the development of novelty.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by quoting Moran, who confirms the falsity of Thomas' claim that "almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on 'survival of the fittest'".
Read Moran again. As I said, taking 'survival of the fittest' to mean 'natural selection', which does seem to be where Kaz was going with that, makes it clear what he was talking about – and that he wasn't wrong. What does Moran think of the almost exclusive emphasis on selectionism in modern evolutionary theory? You tell me.
15nullasalusFebruary 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm
The big point of Kaz Thomas' article seems to be this: there are very large holes in evolutionary theory, some of them to be practically expected given the scope of what it's trying to explain and the nature of the subject. Origins of novelty beyond the marginal would be one of those current holes, the Cambrian Explosion, the speed of evolution, the onset of human intelligence, etc. He didn't really seem to say anything groundbreaking here, much less false, but man – judging by the comments, some people are just furious.
I'm sorry, but if someone drags out "most mutations with bad, so adaptaton can't be the result of mutation" I think we can safely assume they have't read or tought very deeply about evolution.
Moran, I'm sure, doesn't think anything about the "almost exclusive emphasis on selection in modern evolutoinary theory" since, as he clearly states there is no such thing. The popular undertsanding of evolution certainly focses mostly on selection. So, again, Thomas' mistake marks him out as someone who knows little about real evolutionary theory.
wd400, funny you always claim to truly understand evolution but by golly you never present any empirical evidence of it happening. (in fact I've found you being dishonest in the regards a few times),,, Would you like to try falsify the null hypothesis for functional information generation by material processes (Abel) or is that beneath your exalted opinion of yourself?
18CentralScrutinizerFebruary 17, 2014 at 11:39 pm
wd400: I'm sorry, but if someone drags out "most mutations with bad, so adaptaton can't be the result of mutation" I think we can safely assume they have't read or tought very deeply about evolution.
That may be your opinion, but you never provide any substantial reasons to agree with you.
But do feel free to provide any blow by blow description of how RV+NS is responsible for the development of any novel body plans, cell types, tissue types or organs… except for simplifications (less complex) or degenerative effects.
19nullasalusFebruary 18, 2014 at 12:04 am
I'm sorry, but if someone drags out "most mutations with bad, so adaptaton can't be the result of mutation" I think we can safely assume they have't read or tought very deeply about evolution.
Kaz seems to be saying that evolution as we've been able to model it and study it in the lab is great at producing changes that are degrading or minor tweaks of function, but producing novelty is a blindspot. You may disagree, but it's not some obviously wrong statement.
Moran, I'm sure, doesn't think anything about the "almost exclusive emphasis on selection in modern evolutoinary theory" since, as he clearly states there is no such thing.
Let's quote Larry again: The revolution is over and strict Darwinism lost. We now know that random genetic drift is an important mechanism of evolution and there's more to evolution than natural selection. Unfortunately, this blatantly obvious fact is not understood by the vast majority of people and teachers. There are even many scientists who don't understand evolution.
20nullasalusFebruary 18, 2014 at 12:15 am
By the way – does anyone else notice that when it comes to evolution, disagreement is always translated as 'You don't understand evolution!'?
Larry Moran plays the card in the link I give. Everyone's playing the card with Kaz. Dawkins and company played the card with EO Wilson. EO Wilson arguably played it right back. Jerry Fodor got the same treatment for writing What Darwin Got Wrong. Thomas Nagel got the same.
It's as if disagreement is literally unthinkable. You're either all on the same page or you just don't get evolution fundamentally.
@20. This is an important observation. Evolution is being taught to children, but the theory is in such a sad state that those with a college science education apparently don't understand it properly. Lock step conformity to a theory that can't be explained isn't science.
22Ho-De-HoFebruary 18, 2014 at 6:52 am
"You don't know how evolution works!"
– Consensus science.
A bit of a rummy affair what?
It's as if disagreement is literally unthinkable. You're either all on the same page or you just don't get evolution fundamentally.
I guess you don't realize that lots of schooling is required to understand evolution. Years and years of training; books to read; seminars to attend. . . .
After all this preparation, you will finally understand that evolution is the "survival of the fittest."
24CentralScrutinizerFebruary 18, 2014 at 8:16 am
Nullasalus: By the way – does anyone else notice that when it comes to evolution, disagreement is always translated as 'You don't understand evolution!'?
It's a joke really. And every time I hear I'm reminded of the old retort: "I'll tell you the same thing I once told a stand up comedian at a strip club in Vegas: I didn't come here for the jokes."
wd400's claim that only the 'enlightened' highly educated Darwinists (of which he considers himself to be one) truly understand evolution is an interesting claim for him to make since every thuggish troll on the internet thinks he has full mastery of the deepest intricacies of evolution. I think the truth of the matter is far closer to this quote News highlighted the other day:
"You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton's Mechanics or Einsteins Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible "scientific" theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: "Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong." You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its "aha!" moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived."
– Laszlo Bencze
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....arwin-day/of note:
"For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works."
Gregory ChaitinActive Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], "For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works." In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4 -
I guess you don't realize that lots of schooling is required to understand evolution. Years and years of training; books to read; seminars to attend. . . .
It is called "Special High Intensity Training. It is only when one is full of S.H.I.T. can one successfully promote evolutionism.
wd400, perhaps Richard Lewontin doesn't understand evolution either?
Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) – Casey Luskin April 12, 2011
Excerpt: Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it–changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, "You know, we've tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I've told you about." This just appalled me. So I said, "Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it's gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?" And he looked around and said, "It's the only thing I know how to do, and if I don't do it I won't get grant money." –
Lynn Margulis – biologist
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45691.html -
You don't need to take courses, attend seminars or gain degrees to understand evolution (indeed, that's the very first point I made in this thread). But if you want you opinion to be taken seriously, and you actually want to change the way we understand evolution, then the honus is on you to understand the theory you are critiquing.
If you can say "mutations are mostly bad, so no driving adaptation" or "evolutionary theory is almost all about survival of the fittest" then you haven't really engaged with evolutionary biology (I don't know how many times you we need to reprodice that quote of Laryr Moran confirming he agrees with that last point, btw).
So, you are welcome to think what ever you want to about evolutionary biology. But if you want to make a meaningful critique of it as a science, and not the popular conception of evolution of your own misunderstanding of the field, then you will have to spend a little time understanding it. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
wd400- please reference this alleged theory of evolution so we can all see what it says.
wd400, actually, contrary to how you think science works in the rarefied air you breath of the few enlightened Darwinian elite, the way science actually works the burden is on you to prove that Darwinism is realistically feasible. With no actual empirical grounding, nor rigid mathematical basis, supporting your grand Darwinian claims that all life arose by undirected Darwinian processes, then, as far as 'real' science is concerned, everything you say is complete rubbish:
"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?"
(Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003)
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....the-day-8/Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton's mechanics and Einstein's theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859." …
http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/ -
Simple logic: on this Earth, as we know it, life can come only from life. We do not know how life originated, but once it did appear, it progressed from single-celled organisms to us complicated conscious humans. Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened. That is why I believe in theistic evolution. Entirely natural processes don't seem capable of developing the complexity of living organic chemistry in the present human genome.
wd400 @28:
If you can say "mutations are mostly bad, so no driving adaptation"
Actually, it's much worse than that. Almost ALL mutations are bad, IMO. I say this because Darwinists do not count all the mutations. They only count the ones that survive being repaired by the organism, which are a tiny fraction of the total. IMO, if living organisms did not have a gene repair mechanism, there would be no life to speak of.
33lifepsyFebruary 18, 2014 at 6:44 pm
If you can say "mutations are mostly bad, so no driving adaptation"
That claim actually has far more empirical weight than the converse. And if we're talking about adaptation of novel increasing functional complexity, what you quoted there is by all accounts, practically a law of nature.
Your position to the contrary has no evidence whatsoever.
or "evolutionary theory is almost all about survival of the fittest" then you haven't really engaged with evolutionary biology
Pretty obvious he is referring to proposed evolutionary mechanisms, (and I think you know that) in which case he would be correct again. Neo-Darwinists bow before the god of natural selection.
This wasn't a technical treatise. It was simply a couple paragraphs summing up evo theory and its problems.
You're just kicking up dust, wd400. Someone insulted your religion and you have to take a shot at him. -
Have you read R.A. Fisher's "Genetical Theory of Evolution"?
I have read what I consider the most important parts, including Chapter 2, on the "Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection."
Do you know upon what basis he derives this "theorem"?
How many population genetics books have you read, or accessed? I've probably have seen many more than you have. I have four textbooks on "genetics" on my bookshelf.
I've looked all over for plausible mechanisms in which NS can account for the rise in complexity that evolutionary theory requires. I have found none.
By complexity, I simply mean that for any truly 'new' function to arise, proteins have to be involved. (I'm sure you would agree here.) And, any 'new' protein involves a tremendous number of bases, let alone nucleotides. Present evolutionary theory does not provide a plausible way in which NS can account for this quantum astronomical growth in complexity that is required.
I'm afraid that the 'onus' is on Darwinists to provide such a mechanism. Common sense tells us they have not provided it.
Please cite authorities, books, articles. Show me something.
With respect to:
"If you can say "mutations are mostly bad, so no driving adaptation" . . ."
I have no doubt that wd400 knows more about population genetics than I do.
This statement reminds me, however, of an introductory class I took on genetics and evolution. In the section on "Mutations as the source of genetic variation", the professor discussed bad mutations, neutral mutations, and beneficial mutations. He said most mutations are bad. No surprise there. Others are neutral, such as AAA -> AAG. [Note, it is not clear that these are purely neutral, but I'll go along for now.]
We then talked about mutation rates, fixing in populations and so on. So far so good.
The part that caught my attention, however, was a drive-by comment by the professor (missed, no doubt, by many students) that we would not be dealing with beneficial mutations because "they are so rare that it is not worth trying to calculate."
But that is just an anecdotal experience from one class by one particular individual. Maybe wd400 has more hard data he can bring to the table to tell us about these beneficial mutations. How often do they happen? What is the rate? What observations allow us to draw this conclusion?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I've read The Genetical Theory of Evolution, but a long time ago. I really have no desire to measure-off our bookshelves.
AS to the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, I'm familiar with it. In his book Fisher was quite impresice in describing it, but it's a simple enough observation which formalises some of our intuitive feeling about the way natural selection works. Personally, and I differ from many other evolutionary biologists, I think the relaxation of selection is probably a major driver of complexity. You could read Lynch's The Origins of Genome Architecture to get a feel for this if you haven't already.
In fact, for most species most mutations are near enoguht o neutral as to make no difference. In culutre and in well-adapted populations benificial mutants are rare enough that they can be excluded from most calculation. Which isn't to say tehy dont' exist. Here is one paper I read recently, which surprised me in that it had evidence for benifical mutations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3548015/
We also have population genetic evidence for mutation enttering populations are being rapidly pushed toward fixation.
Thanks, wd400. After I wrote my comment #35, I thought I should have given more shrift to neutral mutations, because I realize some people, including you, view most mutations in that light.
I agree that beneficial mutations can exist. Particularly if we divorce the concept of "beneficial" from concepts like "constructive" or "information-producing", etc. In nearly all cases known, we are dealing with a breakdown of a pre-existing system or protein. But, yes, in particular circumstances or specific environments, that breakdown could be beneficial by being the lesser of two evils. Sickle cell being the classic example; several others in the same vein.
Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll try to read through it completely when I get a chance. This sentence jumped out at me though (in the context of deleterious vs. neutral mutations we were discussing):
"The net effect of accumulated mutations in D. pulicaria across all lines assayed was deleterious in 67.6% of the lines (proportion of significant negative slopes), neutral in 24.3% (proportion of non-significant slopes) and beneficial in 8.1% (proportion of significant positive slopes)."
I take it that even if one were to argue that most mutations are "neutral" individually, that over time the cumulative effect is strongly detrimental. Indeed, if given more time and more accumulation, even their observed 24.3% would likely have partly tended detrimental. The 8% beneficial in this particular situation is interesting. I'll see if I can tell what additional meat they put on that statement.
Finally, you said: "We also have population genetic evidence for mutation entering populations are being rapidly pushed toward fixation."
Do you mean more rapidly than would be expected under normal genetic drift/neutral calculations? Or are you referring to beneficial mutations under selection?
A couple of quick these,
The experiment is in a mutation-accumulation lines, not populations. Because they go through such massive bottlenecks they are effectively free of selection. So, without negative selection the effects of mutation would indeed be ruinous.
o you mean more rapidly than would be expected under normal genetic drift/neutral calculations? Or are you referring to beneficial mutations under selection?
These are the same thing, I think? When a mutation arises then rapidly approaches fixation that's down to selection. Thankfully, that also produces unique signatures (the one I had in mind is loss of diversity around the focal mutation, since recombination doesn't have time to move other variants around).
The calculations under drift and under selection would be different, right? Depending on the direction/extent of the selection pressure. Maybe you're just saying they are the same in this particular experiment due to the lack of selection?
At any rate, I think I understand what you were saying, namely, that mutations being "rapidly pushed toward fixation" is indirect evidence of their beneficial nature. I think that is probably a reasonable inference (with the usual caveats around the concept of "beneficial" and what it might mean in a particular context).
When I initially read your comment I thought you were referring to some other, unusual kind of push toward fixation, so that is all I was trying to clarify.
We also have population genetic evidence for mutation enttering populations are being rapidly pushed toward fixation.
"population genetic evidence"? I would think that science requires real world evidence.
What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth.
We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. (Baraminology can easily explain the diversity of life starting from the originally Created Kinds)
Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by BWE, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the "organisms are the sum of their genome"*
To understand the challenge to the "superwatch" model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann's seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of "complex contingent assemblages of matter" (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them "determinants"- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.
Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern "gene-centric" view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann's determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.
Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the '80s and '90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life's order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann's "unambiguous bearers of information" or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being "isolated directors" of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene– Michael Denton "An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey", Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
Se also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?"
* we are just what emerges from the interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn't change what type of organism comes out)
Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – "Haldane's Ratchet" – Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford – 2013
Excerpt: Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet".
http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d.....fa9c20.pdfStudy demonstrates evolutionary 'fitness' not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration
An illustration of the possible mutations available to an RNA molecule. The blue lines represent mutations that will not change its function (phenotype), the grey are mutations to an alternative phenotype with slightly higher fitness and the red are the 'fittest' mutations. As there are so few possible mutations resulting in the fittest phenotype in red, the odds of this mutation are a mere 0.15%. The odds for the slightly fitter mutation in grey are 6.7% and so this is far more likely to fix, and thus to be found and survive, even though it is much less fit than the red phenotype.,,,
By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the 'fitness' of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the 'fittest' simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-e.....ccess.htmlThis following headline sums up the preceding study very nicely:
Fittest Can't Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014
http://crev.info/2014/02/fitte.....er-arrive/The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population (Philip J. Gerrish & Richard E. Lenski)
"As shown by Manning and Thompson (1984) and by Peck (1994), the fate of a beneficial mutation is determined as much by the selective disadvantage of any deleterious mutations with which it is linked as by its own selective advantage."
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski.....Lenski.pdf -
Your response was respectful, substantive and fairly accurate. So, congratulations there.
As to Lynch's book, I've not read it, though I remember reading an article by him covering some of the same ground.
I will give it a look-over when I can.
As to relaxing NS, you imply that the primary function of NS is 'negative' selection, and not 'positive' selection. I imagine you would rely heavily on 'neutral drift.'
The problem with relying on 'neutral drift' is that when this is coupled to 'negative selection' the time frame for the right kinds of mutations is just way too long. Behe has documented this in a number of ways, as well as Axe and Gauger working with protein domains.
But let's put all of this to a test.
What do I mean? Well, in an experiment conducted in the latter half of the last century, a lizard was transplanted from one Adriatic Island to another. War broke out in the region. 35 years passed. When they went back, the lizards had grown larger, changed their behavioral patterns, and had slightly different jaws. But the biggest change of all was that "cecal valves" appeared in their digestive tract–obviously to deal with their changed habits and changed diet.
The problem here is that everything happens so fast!! There is no way that either neutral drift, or NS, can explain so many large-scale changes occurring in so short a time. We have to have recourse to some other mechanism. The obvious choice would be that the changed diet and life habits (absence of predators and competitors) 'triggered' a response within their genome, likely brought about by "guided" mutations, and which, therefore, could take place rather quickly–within a generation or two.
I forget how many lizards were transplanted; but it wasn't a whole lot.
Let's say it was a 100. Let's say they mate 3 times a year. Let's say they produce four offspring, on average, in each mating.
50->400->1600 (yr 1)1600->6400->25600 (2nd yr.) I suspect the island couldn't handle 25,600 lizards, so the population would end up stabilizing itself, so that, effectively, you would have 3 x 4 x 25,600 offspring per each subsequent year.
(36-2) x 307,200 = 10,444,800 offspring in the last 34 years, and roughly 92,000 the first two years, which can be ignored.
So, "evolution" has 10.5 million (10^7) chances at the right mutation. And the probability of a particular mutation, at a particular spot on the genome is roughly 200/5 x 10^9, or 4 x 10^-8. So, if "evolution" needed ONE mutation at some particular spot along the genome, there wasn't enough time for that ONE mutation.
If you bump up the island population to 100,000 instead of 25,600, then you end up with 40 million chances–still less than what is needed to overcome the rarity of a particular mutation occurring at a particular location within the genome.
First of all, NS needs something (a mutation) to act upon. Here, there is the likelihood that not even ONE needed mutation occurred. So, NS is out—which is your position, more or less.
That leaves 'neutral drift'. Well, let's say that because of "neutral" mutations over long generations of times, there are a whole lot of 'potentially beneficial' residues within the genome.
But they were all there before the lizards were moved!!So that means that AT LEAST ONE MUTATION must occur for anything other than what you had before. And, as I've just demonstrate, there wasn't enough passage of time for even ONE mutation.
We no longer have any reason to consider either 'neutral drift', or NS, as the causative agents of the change which took place there in the Adriatic.
You know, in physics departments throughout the USA, there are "string theorists" up the kazoo. Why? Because the scientific "establishment" was convinced that "string theory" was the answer for unifying the SM with GR (general relativity). But the LHC found no evidence of the kind of particles that "string theory" predicts. And, so, changes are occurring in physics departments. And physicists are beginning to deal with the fact that "string theory" is not the final solution to the above problem.
This "natural" experiment in the Adriatic is enough evidence for sensible people to leave behind Darwinian theory. Are they? No.
Are "string theorists" giving up? NO. Will they ever give up? Probably not. Will they eventually die? Yes.
And then there will be a paradigm shift.
I suspect something like this will have to happen in evolutionary biology. (Darwin more or less saw things just this way. He looked to the young to accept what was being rejected by almost the entire biological community at the time. And it worked. Hopefully, it can work again; but, this time with different results.)
PaV, as to Lizards:
Phenotypic Plasticity – Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTALizard Plasticity – March 2013
Excerpt: So in this study, plasticity experiments were conducted. When the lizards were taken off a plant diet and returned to their native insect diet, the cecal valves in their stomachs began to revert within weeks. As the authors conclude, this pointed heavily to plasticity as a cause. We can infer that the this gut morphology likewise arose in similar fashion when coming into contact with the plant diet.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
Adafruit accessories for Raspberry Pi now available at Newark element14
Premier supplier partnership underscores distributor's commitment to the Maker Movement and will provide Newark element14 with Adafruit's newest products first
CHICAGO—OCT 23, 2012 Newark element14, a business of Premier Farnell (LSE:pfl) and the leading distributor of electronic components and engineering solutions in the Americas, today announced a new collaborative product partnership and distribution agreement with Adafruit, an innovative electronics educator, creator and e-tailer for makers of all ages.
Newark element 14 and Adafruit are working closely to develop and distribute exciting new Raspberry Pi accessories. Adafruit will be delivering their new products and designs to Newark element14 first as their premier partner for Raspberry Pi efforts.
Available for same-day shipping, the initial Adafruit line offers accessories for the $35 Raspberry Pi mini-computer (now with 512MB), including the popular Adafruit Pi Cobbler Breakout Kit to easily "cobble" together prototypes, and the Pi Dish,which enables a Pi to be attached to a full sized breadboard. The device, cables, power supplies, peripherals and tools can be purchased at http:www.newark.com/pi
Raspberry Pi was quickly embraced by the Maker movement, as well as by engineers and developers, when it was launched on the element14 Community in February. The Community, a recent winner of the Makey award for "best education/outreach", serves as a global hub for exclusive trainings, technical information and discussions about Raspberry Pi.
"The team and community at Newark element14 is a perfect match for our shared goal of helping to inspire and educate the next generation of engineers, makers and tinkerers," said Limor Fried, founder and engineer of Adafruit Industries.
"We salute Adafruit as one of the pioneers of the Maker movement, and we are delighted to partner with them to better serve our mutual customers," commented Jeff Uden, vice president, product management, Newark element14. "Together, we can offer electronics enthusiasts and educators even more of the technical information, community resources and the products they need to support their projects."
The Maker Movement defines a subculture of people of all ages who pursue engineering interests such as electronics, robotics and 3-D printing and support the use of open source, accessible technologies, such as Arduino.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Last night I had the extreme pleasure of seeing the amazing Azealia Banks LIVE in concert for the first time and let me tell you, the girl was spectacular. Thus far, the only time Azealia has performed in SoCal was at the Coachella Valley Arts and Music Festival last Spring … so last night's concert at The Fonda Theater in Hollywood, CA was her first proper LA show. Dubbed The Mermaid Ball, Azealia headlined a night of live performances from artists like Kingdom, Gita, Charli XCX, Rye Rye (with special guest Robyn) and more. As the final act, Azealia BROUGHT DOWN THE HOUSE! I managed to snap some photos at the show last night, which you can check out below.
The whole night really reminded me of the party kids concerts that the club kids used to throw in NYC back in the 80s. Many people were dressed up in over-the-top costumes (many following the Mermaid Ball theme) and there were more hipsters packed into the venue can I could count. Altho Azealia Banks is straight up SICK hip hop, she really resonates with the hipsters and gays. Here are some of the photos I snapped of last night's fun:
The costume contest was really fun. The girl who won was dressed as a full on mermaid … she couldn't even stand up or walk, she had to be carried everywhere. I was so impressed with Azealia's performance, she really has an amazing star quality. She is talented, she knows how to work the crowd and she seems to really love being on stage. She's a very electric performer, it's hard not to be effected by her exuberance. Here is video of her performance last night of her megahit song 212:
This video isn't great but it's better than the video I recorded. I filmed the entire 212 performance perfectly … except I had my finger over the microphone and the sound was completely ruined :( Such a bummer. Still, not even the most perfectly filmed video can do justice to Miss Bank$'s performance. She slayed last night. I am very much looking forward to seeing her again, hopefully soon. If you get the chance to see her live (I understand she will be in the Europe for the rest of the Summer) you MUST see her live.
I don't have plans for today, lots of laundry. I'm gonna try and meet up with friends later on … we'll see. Happy Sunday!!


text:
Town Square
Stanford admits 6.6 percent for Class of 2016
Original post made on Mar 30, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 30, 2012, 4:23 PM
Comments (8)
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 30, 2012 at 9:56 pm
It sounds like a boring student body. Why doesn't Standford become more heterogeneous?
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Give me a break Anne. Any parent or student admitted to Stanford should be extremely proud of their accomplishments. The admissions department appears inspired to build a diverse and brilliant student body. Beat Cal.
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2012 at 1:20 am
Congrats. Welcome to the road more traveled. Ah, safety.
a resident of another community
on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:51 pm
What's boring about being admitted to a college you applied to i the hopes of being a part of that community? The competitive nature of the college app process is nerve wracking for the best students-How about a big applause for all who applied (most were probably qualified academically!) and a thumbs up for those fortunate enough to get in?
Gees, a little pride in the next generation please...
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm
After going through the app. process with my daughter (now at a UC) I think universities like Stanford need to make applicants aware of their odds. I spent $60 over and over again for my daughter to apply for colleges. What a waste. Be upfront universities about GPA, legacies and a kid's REAL chance of getting into your institution. I can't help but think Stanford and institutions of its ilk profit from that app. fee, leading kids on just to make a buck.
a resident of another community
on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:24 pm
The college application process is grueling....and rejection is a very difficult experience, especially when a candidate is extremely qualified. Note that just about all applicants to Stanford, especially local ones, are "extremely qualified," but they admit students based on many factors and applicants must qualify academically.
The applicants know the odds of admittance to top universities before submitting their applications. Nevertheless, they apply to multiple universities -- as they should!
Each institution has different priorities, scholarships, etc. and they will be accepted at one or more institutions of their choice. And...perhaps the rejection by a university is a valuable lesson as a child moves into adulthood. Life has both rewards and rejections.
Your $60 did not make Stanford rich. They spent that many times over reviewing your daughter's application.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2012 at 4:48 pm
check back later for how many they take off their waitlist.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm
There is a trend to apply to a whole bunch of universities if you can afford it - that is the type often applying to Stanford.
I wonder about the role of the recruited team athlete at Stanford. While I am not a sports expert, I attended a sport event at Stanford this year (that was otherwise enjoyable) except for the fact I was inflicted with some stunning behavior by (other Stanford team) athletes sitting behind us. I am not certain what team they were from. Aside from one guy being quite ill and sneezing, coughing loudly all over us, he was rude and loud and flat out boorish. Err - not the sophisticated, high-achieving academic type at all. I think most of all the athlete buds were Caucasians.
In fact at the half (it was not football, incidentally) I insisted to my family that we move. It wasn't an issue of them cheering on their Stanford team on the field - I know some supporters can be over the top on that.
The boorish athletes (who also contacted various buds on their cells and we all nearby in the audience could hear their appalling discussions) were not part of the sport on the field, I want to make THAT clear since those athletes appeared normal - but they yelled sexist, appalling things down onto the field to one of the Stanford teammembers there (aside from criticizing some of the players on both teams...)
My real point is, I generally had the sense the athletes behind us were not students with high grade point averages. I know some universities are secretive about GPA's, majors, etc. of their athletes, but wow...I remember reading about a glorified football star who stated about heavy travel, not concentrating on coursework, taking a quarter off...it all sounds super luxurious at the expense of being a real student.
Take into account the acceptance rate - I assume fullride athletes are offered early/first - correct? - at a much lower entrance requirement - and THEN the regular academic applicants get their shot. With Stanford emphasizing sports so strongly, I think this is some sort of element in their admissions.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Coupon for Yourself and Your Partner
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 6,157 views
Housing Impact Fees and the Economy
By Steve Levy | 5 comments | 2,542 views
Planning for College Tours
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,375 views
Driverless self-driving car testbed issues
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 450 views
Luck despite bad luck
By Sally Torbey | 0 comments | 150 views
Short story writers wanted!
The 31st Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult (15-17) and Teen (12-14) categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by April 13, 2017. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.


text:
Popular Searches
Eric Byrnes is gone, and some Diamondbacks fans couldn't be happier.
We get it. The TV show could seem a bit much, especially the past couple of years. The somersault he'd do on throws from the outfield could wear thin on some. Certainly it did for the segment of online fans that nicknamed him Flipper.
And there were the pop-ups. Oh, so many pop-ups. Between Byrnes and Chris Young, you might have needed a chiropractor for the kinks in your neck after a series at Chase Field last season.
But we have better memories of Byrnes. As the beat writer who covered the team during most of his time here, I can tell you his personality was a joy to behold, and his skills as a conversationalist were unparalleled in the Diamondbacks clubhouse.
Here are five things we'll remember fondly from Byrnes' time in Arizona:
The year before Byrnes arrived, the Diamondbacks were maybe the most-boring team in baseball. You sometimes wondered if guys such as Shawn Green, Jose Cruz Jr. and Troy Glaus were capable of changing expressions.
Byrnes helped change that. His enthusiasm was contagious for fans at Chase Field, whether he was busting it up the line on a routine grounder or making a diving attempt on a ball in the gap.
He never was boring to watch. Even the routes he would take on routine fly balls could be a spectacle.
Reliever Clay Zavada deserves all the attention he gets for his 'stache. He has taken the art to another level.
But Byrnes was ahead of his time. Slugger Jason Giambi got a lot of credit in 2008 for his mustache, but it was Byrnes who first declared it the "Year of the Mustache."
"I will have a 1970s porn 'stache the entire year," he declared that April while sporting a thin layer of blondish lip hair.
Conditions prevented that from happening. His plan was to keep growing it as long as he was either hitting or the team was winning. His hamstring injury got in the way.
With the Diamondbacks being the young team they were, they seemed ready to panic after they fell behind two games to none against the Colorado Rockies in the 2007 National League Championship Series.
The pressure was on. Byrnes did his best to try to relieve it at a news conference the day before Game 3.
"We have not been outplayed," Byrnes said. "If anything, it's the other way around."
His comments became the story of the day, taking the spotlight off of everybody else in his clubhouse.
It didn't work. But it wasn't forgotten. Every time the Diamondbacks returned to Coors Field, Rockies fans booed Byrnes before every at-bat.
Your regular Heat Index scribe, Bob Young, likes to recall what it was like covering Charles Barkley on a daily basis. Some days, Young said, he wouldn't have anything to write. But after a conversation with Barkley, he'd call the copy desk requesting extra space.
Byrnes had the same ability, and for that we probably owe him a Coke.
You never really knew what would come out of his mouth, but it almost always was interesting or hilarious.
In the dugout before Game No. 162 last season at Wrigley Field in Chicago, Byrnes walked past a few reporters and extended his hand.
He had a feeling his time with the Diamondbacks might be over. He shook hands with each of us, thanking us and telling us how much he enjoyed it. He then turned toward a Chicago writer, an unfamiliar face.
"I don't know you," he said, grabbing the guy's hand, "but it's been a pleasure."
It was funny and disarming. And not a bad way to go out.
Reach The Heat Index at firstname.lastname@example.com or 602-444-8680.
Popular Searches
Arizona Diamondbacks Tony Clark greets Eric Byrnes after Byrnes hit the game winning RBI-single against the Atlanta Braves in the 11th inning of a game.
View subscription options


text:
Russia, U.S.: Reactions to WSJ Story on Web-Savvy Homeless
Global Voices Online
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Earlier this month, Russian social networking portal Habrahabr.ru featured photos and some translated text (RUS) from the May 30 Wall Street Journal piece on the online presence of the U.S. homeless - On the Street and On Facebook: The Homeless Stay Wired.
The original English-language story has generated 93 comments. On Habrahabr.ru, there are currently 183 responses - and below are some of them:
Wow!!! 0_0
Here you don't run into bums with laptops [...]
Here even if you run into one, you wouldn't think that he bought it.
Here a bum would get killed for this laptop. And, quite possibly, by the law enforcement people.
Here even an ordinary person who takes out a laptop in the street wouldn't survive for too long...
Here it's not even often that you run into an ordinary person with a Macintosh ))
If this were April 1, I would've never believed it. But, damn it, we are dirt poor even compared to the bums in the United States.
These are singular cases. We also have all kinds of whiz kids among bums. One is even making movies and winning awards at festivals. But the majority are alcoholics.
Here some students can't afford to buy a laptop [...]. It's making me sad (
There is some difference - as far as I know, they have summer in California all year round. And there are many open - and free - wifi's, too, I guess. Here in [St. Petersburg], if you become homeless, then nine months of the year a laptop and internet are the last things to be concerned about. :)
Here vodka is the best laptop.
There, bums can't live without internet, while here educated and well-employed people have no idea what internet is for. This difference is more upsetting that the difference in money availability.
Some people can't understand what they need a computer for, and internet is a totally different dimension for them altogether.


text:
Reading Faces / The Authors
Central Library, Foyer Gallery Cases
Reading Faces
Portraits by Jay Brady
I have been drawing all my life. Some of my influences are: playing in the woods; playing on a construction site; imitating people, animals and objects; watching water pool and flow; watching and listening to branches and leaves in the wind; watching the light change; pretending in the midst of the real world; singing; dancing; Halloween; the work of Degas, Goya, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Lautrec, van Gogh, Cezanne, Manet, Bach, Dvořák, Chopin, Schubert, Louis Armstrong, George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Howlin' Wolf, Charlie Parker, Nino Rota, Benny Goodman, Sidney Bechet, Fred Astaire and Erik Satie; the work found in caves such as those at Altamira and Lascaux; Chinese brush painting; and calligraphers such as Zhang Xu.
I draw spontaneously, absorbing the subject matter, impersonating it inwardly, feeling its inflection and structure—as with music—and then enacting it using marks. As soon as I begin, I have two more tools: accident and improvisation. Drawing is such an absorbing activity—responsive, flexible, investigatory, full of ideas. The intense combination of observation and improvisation creates something like a spell. It's a marvelous condition.
Jay Brady has worked in various forms of printing, print preparation, production and publishing for years. She has exhibited her work at many venues, including the Fiona & Ryan Art Space and Starting Artists in Brooklyn, and the White Street Windows in Manhattan. She earned a BFA from Bennington College.
To contact Jay Brady:
email@example.com | http://reticule.wordpress.com/
Helene, 2010
©Jay Brady
Erika, 2009
©Jay Brady
Raoul, 2011
©Jay Brady
The Authors
Mixed-media portraits of authors by Bonnie Gloris
A fleeting moment captured in a snapshot, an intriguing word or phrase, a distant memory that has suddenly surfaced—any of these elements may be my inspiration for a new work of art. As I consider each fresh muse, my vague ideas gradually coalesce into a more coherent concept.
My intuition then guides how to best manifest my vision and combine its elements in a way that is complex without being complicated. For some concepts, a realistic oil painting is fitting. For others, a looser mixed-media piece is more poignant. Some become experimental drawings in my sketchbook. Usually, my focus is the human interest: a figure that becomes the main character in a tantalizing narrative, revealed by some elements of the scene, yet veiled by others—unsettling or comforting, evocative but never pretentious.
The development of my artwork is an organic process; it often suggests approaches to me that I had not anticipated. I add layers and repeatedly bring forth and push back the light and shadow; the colors become saturated and the once-flat surface gains depth. I make patterns emerge from the background, cause nostalgic motifs to appear and immerse the scene in an aura of mystery, working diligently until the piece feels finished. Sometimes the outcome is exactly how I imagined it would be. More commonly it has evolved into something unexpected, bringing realizations of feelings I didn't know I had, but am glad to have discovered.
Bonnie Gloris is the art director of NY Arts magazine and the manager of Broadway Gallery NYC. She has exhibited her artwork in galleries across the country, including shows in New York City, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Detroit, Atlanta and Portland, as well as several solo exhibitions in Jersey City. She was profiled in Communication Arts online magazine, and her work was selected for publication in 3x3 magazine's illustration annual. She earned a BFA in illustration from Parsons the New School for Design.
To contact Bonnie Gloris:
firstname.lastname@example.com | www.bonniegloris.com
Anais Nin, 2010
©Bonnie Gloris
Henry Miller, 2010
©Bonnie Gloris
Maya Angelou, 2006
©Bonnie Gloris


text:
Shop Now
Add to Cart
Want a custom quote? Need help? +39 080 554 3553 firstname.lastname@example.com
Archiproducts is official dealer of all the brands on shop.archiproducts.com. Each product is certified by the manufacturer
100% Safe Purchases
Easy returns
Get directly in touch with Kristina Dam Studio
Request Info
Request catalogues
Retailers list
Copenhagen K / Denmark
Kristina Dam Studio Esplanaden, 6 1263 Copenhagen K | Denmark Tel.: +45 25736392
Copenaghen Denmark
Tuala Hjarnø | Photography CPH Studio// Photography Copenhagen
Collection BOTANIC POSTERS by KRISTINA DAM STUDIO
Photographic print
Photographic prints by KRISTINA DAM STUDIO


text:
Geum triflorum
2017 CatalogOrder the 2017 Catalog printed on genuine paper for $2. Digging Dog Nurserya retail and mail order plant nursery specializing in unusual and hard to find perennials, ornamental grasses, shrubs, trees, and vines.
31101 Middle Ridge Rd. Visit Us! Winter Hours: Tues 10 am – 4 pm |
Customer Comment:"I just wanted to let you know that the plants you sent me here in Central Illinois, arrived in tiptop condition." ~Wendy in Illinois view Digging Dog's comments with Dave's Garden (The Garden Watchdog) |


text:
Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 0 members ; 35 anonymousDiscussion: New member looking for a team to play on
Posted | Discussion |
Oct. 19, 2009 Cats 3 posts | New member looking for a team to play on I am looking for a team to play on in the Bonita Springs, Fl. area this winter. |
Oct. 19, 2009 Cats 3 posts | And by the way, I am from MN. and 60 years old. |
Oct. 19, 2009 ROOSTER10 Men's 60 91 posts | CATS Give me a call at 727-743-6674. I am the Area Director FHC here in Fl.We play each month and I may be able to hook you up with a team. |
Oct. 20, 2009 BossBandit Men's 50 55 posts | Cats, Also get in touch with Frank Galuppo at 239-434-6933. He is the Clubs and Leagues representative for that part of the state and he can help you get hooked up. Duane |


text:
Rhiannon Ward has a Bachelor of Arts in geography at the University of Regina. Her time in the student press generated an enduring devotion to social justice, print media, and caffeine.
Tanya Andrusieczko has Master's degrees from the London School of Economics and the University of Saskatchewan. She is a longtime student of politics and social justice, and she cheers on feminist resistance and clear writing.
Copy editor
Jenn Harris loves many things: collective resistance to systemic oppression; delivering perfectly punctuated, grammatically correct material to her clients; trail running; her bicycle; being involved in her community; dancing; and apples.
Taylor Bendig is a writer and researcher with a love of photography, local history, and semicolons. He lives in Regina with his partner and needy-but-adorable dog.
Iryn Tushabe is a transplanted Ugandan living it up on the Prairies. English is her third language and she will respectfully let you know if she thinks you're butchering it.
Katie Doke Sawatzky writes, edits, and parents in Regina. She is the Experiments with Truth editor for Geez Magazine and an assistant editor for Rhubarb. She looks forward to j-school in the fall and a relaxing summer before that.
Carla Green is a freelance journalist, radio producer, and fact checker living in Los Angeles.
Kim Kovacs is a Canadian-Oxford-Dictionary-toting, red-pen-wielding, grammar-policing bibliophile who moonlights as a nitpicker (i.e. proofreader) on the Volunteer Brigade at Briarpatch. She is based in Regina, Treaty 4 Territory.
Web Developer
For over 10 years Derek Hogue has been designing and developing websites for radical publishers; artists and musicians; and non-profit advocacy organizations across Canada and beyond. He does this from his politically-beleagured yet economically-affordable hometown of Winnipeg.
Board of Directors
Briarpatch is overseen by a dedicated and delightful volunteer Board of Directors. Each member is indispensable in guiding the magazine through patches of rough sea and ensuring that the ship is sailing in the right direction.
- Sean Dunham
- Aina Kagis
- Jean Hillabold
- Chris Kortright
- Nickita Longman
- Aidan Conway
- Darin Milo
- Tiffany Strachan
- John Campbell


text:
The Hunger Games is one of the biggest successes of the 2012 movie year to date. In fact, until Marvel Studios unleashed The Avengers, Games was the biggest movie story.
Plans are moving forward on Catching Fire, the sequel to Lionsgate's massive movie hit, and the studio has figured out one way to ensure that the next movie will be even bigger than the first.
They're going to shoot key sequences in IMAX.
That's what Lionsgate motion picture group co-chairs Rob Friedman and Patrick Wachsberger confirmed to the Hollywood Reporter, saying that Catching Fire director Francis Lawrence plans to use IMAX cameras for certain scenes, allowing Lionsgate to screen the sequel in multiple IMAX theaters (as the studio did with the original Games).
Expanding to IMAX helps studios collect additional revenue from a more expensive movie ticket price… not that Games needs much help in that department. The original film, released in March, earned a staggering $648.2 million at the global box office according to Box Office Mojo. And sequels generally outperform their predecessors at the box office.
Lawrence, meanwhile, isn't the first to attempt these visual tricks. Christopher Nolan, director of the beloved Batman trilogy, shot chunks of his The Dark Knight using the 70MM ratio structured to fit the IMAX screen. He'll do the same for this summer's The Dark Knight Rises, which reaches theaters on July 20.
Hunger Games fans will have to wait a little while longer than that to see what I Am Legend helmer Lawrence cooks up for Catching Fire. The Games sequel isn't due in theaters until Nov. 22, 2013. While it's certain Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson will return to the franchise in the pivotal roles of Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark, producers still need to hire actors to portray Finnick Odair, Johanna Mason and Plutarch (though we recently learned that role had been offered to Philip Seymour Hoffman, if he wants it).
And you'll see personalized content just for you whenever you click the My Feed .
SheKnows is making some changes!
b e h e a r d !
Welcome to the new SheKnows Community,
where you can share your stories, ideas
and CONNECT with millions of women.
Get Started


text:
Workplace Mediation Skills One Day Course Delegates who came on this course in May described it as: "extremely interesting and thought-provoking" "a very good seminar with just the right amount of content - the size of the group also, in my opinion, was perfect as it involved everyone in the interaction of the role play without being too onerous!!" "I am happy to say that, using the skills I learnt on the Workplace Mediation Skills course, I now have a better understanding of the problems my employees face and the team morale has improved greatly." "It just totally works!" This one-day introductory course will show you how mediation works; and how you can use mediation and conflict resolution skills as a manager to resolve workplace disputes and prevent workplace problems from escalating.
Who are the facilitators? Your facilitator for the day is Hayley Bloodworth who is an experienced employment lawyer and trained mediator. Who is the course for?
What is Workplace Mediation? Mediation is a way of resolving differences and disputes by using a neutral third party to bring two or more parties together with a view to reaching agreement. Workplace mediation is a way of resolving conflict between employers and employees; or between groups of employees. It is powerful addition to the "management toolkit" and is especially effective when it is used at an early stage. What will be covered?


text:
OREGON 75LGX - 100ft Roll of Chainsaw Chain
Replaces OEM : Oregon : 75LGX-100R
Carlton : A3LM
Stihl : 36RSC
Windsor : 63APL
Chain Number : 75
Pitch : 3/8"
Chain / Cutter Type : Chisel
Gauge : .063"
Grind : Round
Sequence : Standard
Drive Link Count : 1640
Rolls : Yes - 100ft
Fits : Selected chainsaws with 12" to 36" guide bars
Features : Similar to our best-selling Super 70 an ideal chain for high-production cutting of clean wood.
? Top-performing square-corner ?chisel? cutters sever wood fibres completely in a single pass.
? Ramp-shaped depth gauges help reduce kickback without the weight or bulk of bumper drive links or tie straps.
Patented steel is tougher than any of our competitors It cuts every type of timber stands up in any kind of weather and stays together in all cutting conditions
LubriLink is a cavity in the chain tie straps that acts like an oil reservoir This additional lubrication ensures oil remains on the chain bar and chain joints to increase chain and bar life
Vibe-Ban chain reduces the level of vibration by 25% or more at the handles
Witness Mark Top plate witness mark makes sharpening easier and more accurate as well as easier to achieve equal cutter lengths
Please Note : Recommended for petrol saws up to 100cc 12?-36? guide bars
Brand : OREGON
Product Line : Chainsaw chain saw chain


text:
1995 Academy AwardsTrivia brain teasers have some element of trivia in them, but they are not just pure trivia questions.
Try and unscramble the names of the nominees for the Best Actor in a Leading Role for the 1995 Academy Awards, and then try and match them with the movie they were in.
Best Actor in a Leading Role for 1995: SDSRUEFYDRRIACH NPNENSAE ECGASNAILCO ITSRIOOMMAISS SHNOIPKYANNOTH The Movies these Actors starred in: OPNOISTLI NNOIX SVAEGSLAGLNEIAV GWNAILKMNADDAE SOUPSHDONLALRM What Next?
See another brain teaser just like this one... Or, just get a random brain teaser If you become a registered user you can vote on this brain teaser, keep track of which ones you have seen, and even make your own. Back to Top |


text:
Does the Green Tea Diet Work? Steven Popec (0) With all the weight loss miracle claims, it's hard to ascertain what actually works, and what's actually good for you. There are many fad diets and crash diets that make wondrous and difficult to believe claims, but many of these are incredibly unhealthy, damaging, and can wreak havoc on your body, and cause far more harm than good. Diet pills and diets that exclude food groups are advertised all the time these days. The truth is that there is no miracle cure, but adding green tea to a healthy diet and exercise plan may help you to lose weight.Weight loss effects Being at a healthy weight is about more than just social acceptance. It can lead to significant health improvements, such as a lower cholesterol, and put you at a lower risk for heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, and a variety of other ailments. The "secret" is that green tea contains a chemical called epigallocatechin gallate, or EGCG, which may be beneficial in helping you lose weight. This is just one of many nutrients and antioxidants that green tea contains that have a beneficial effect on your health and your weight loss adventures.What green tea is and does Loose leaf green tea comes from the same plant as white, black, and oolong tea. It's a plant called camellia sinensis which is grown in many countries all over the world. The difference between these types of teas is all in the processing. Green tea is a little more oxidated than white tea, and unlike the fermentation process of black tea, is produced by steaming fresh leaves. In this way, the process yields a higher content of certain types of beneficial nutrients and compounds. Due to this process, loose leaf green tea has a higher content of polyphenols than does black tea, or oolong tea. Green tea has many healthful effects, including a boost in your metabolism which will lead to burning off calories at a quicker rate. Green tea has also been shown to help improve your energy, which leaves you with more energy for daily exercise. It may also burn off fat, making it easier to see those pounds start dropping. The EGCG polyphenol that occurs naturally in this tea will make it easier to burn off more calories throughout the day. It has a stronger effect than other natural compounds to increase thermogenesis, which leads to a higher amount of calories burned off at the end of the day. While all of these are shown in various studies, the truth is that there is no miracle weight loss cure. There is no answer that will instantaneously slim your waist. Weight loss is a journey, and it takes a lot of work and a lot of time. It needs to include a well balanced, healthy diet, and daily exercise. But adding loose leaf green tea to your daily routine can help you in this process. Drinking green tea can only be helpful, as it has a myriad of other nutrients and antioxidants that will lead to health improvements in many areas. It can't hurt to give green tea a try. It's healthy and tasty. Drink up and enjoy! facebook twitter google+ email
Loose Leaf Teas and the Male Diet Steven Popec (0) Trying to lose weight? Add a few cups of tea to your day, and it may help. Loose leaf tea has many health benefits, it is packed with nutrients and antioxidants. There are four different types, which consist of green, white, black, and oolong teas. They are each unique and contain their own creative flavors and aromas.Only men? And now, new studies show that drinking two cups of tea may help men to lose weight in their waistline. The study did not yield the same results in women. Weight loss in the abdominal area is important, as it reduces other health risks such as diabetes and heart disease. But the weight loss associated with tea can also help women, though not specifically in their waistlines.Weight loss improves your overall health Weight loss in general produces many health benefits. Getting down to a healthy weight is one of the easiest ways to reduce LDL cholesterol, which is the bad type of cholesterol. Maintaining a healthy weight can help tremendously with a multitude of health problems. It can reduce many health risks by preventing them from forming.Heart disease, stroke, diabetes Being at a healthy weight can prevent you from developing high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and it can help prevent you from developing cardiovascular diseases. Maintaining a healthy weight can also help prevent heart attack and stroke. A healthy diet with daily amounts of exercise can truly be an answer to a number of health risks, and green tea can help.Self-image and self-confidence People who are overweight or obese may face other types of problems. This condition can interfere with their self-esteem and self-confidence. It may impact their lives to the point where it is difficult to feel that they are living life to the fullest. Weight loss is an important step in fulfilling life goals and may help to alleviate social anxiety, and stress about self-image.Options other than tea But with all the products being marketed these days, who knows what really works? The truth is, crash diets don't work. They may help you lose a lot of weight very fast, but it's weight that's easy to, and usually will be, put back on. Diet pills have inimical side effects and harmful chemicals. Drinking tea is a healthier, natural way to improve your health and to get down to a healthy weight.Improve your metabolism Loose leaf green tea can help to improve your metabolism, which will in turn help you to increase the amounts of calories you will burn off. It also has the ability to help you burn fat at a quicker rate and prevent fat from staying in your body.Add tea to a healthy lifestyle There is no miraculous panacea that will answer all your weight loss woes. There's no magical spell that can vanish away pounds. But loose leaf tea has been scientifically studied to have a positive impact on weight loss. Of course, having a well balanced and healthy diet and getting daily exercise are vital to living a full, healthy life. But adding tea to your day can help you on your way. facebook twitter google+ email
Rooibos, the perfect health alterative tea Steven Popec (3) If you like experimenting with food and drinks and are very fond of tea, or if because of health conditions you are limited in the consumption of black tea and coffee, we recommend you to try Rooibos tea. There is still a lot of controversy regarding its name. Yet it is wise to call this Rooibos or Rooibos tea, because is the closest in sound to Afrikaans - one of the languages, mainly spoken in Southern Africa. In translation, this word means "red bush". This product was popular in Southern Africa for generations and is now consumed all over the world. Thanks to its healing properties Rooibos is also called the elixir of the Bushmen. This tea is made from young shoots that are cut, finely shredded, and then spread on a flat surface for about eight hours. During this time, Rooibos undergoes a process of natural fermentation that produces reddish -brown color and enhances the flavor. Then, the tea leaves subjected to final drying in a special machine, pasteurized and packaged. Un-oxidized green Rooibos is also produced by method similar to production of green tea, but due to more demanding production process is more expensive than red Rooibos. Good quality Rooibos can be determined by the uniformity and brightness of color. Tea should be light and crumbly, needles are long and even. Rooibos tea can be excellently improved with most household decorations. For instance, mallow or sunflower blossoms are beautifully set off against the thin, rust-brown needle-like leaf. Rooibos is becoming very popular in Western countries especially among health-conscious consumers due to its lack of caffeine and tannic acid. Rooibos is safe for people that suffer from high blood pressure. This tea is a healthy beverage choice for the kids. Rooibos contains a high level of antioxidants. Many experts believe that due to these properties Rooibos is quite possible to use even in baby food. Generally, with regard to the process of brewing, Rooibos tea is completely unpretentious. Unlike many other exotic types of tea, Rooibos steeps with boiling water and drink is ready in 8-10 minutes after brewing. This tea does not become bitter when steeped longer, moreover, tea leaves can be steeped multiply times. Rooibos Tea - it's just a real storehouse of vitamins (E, R, A, C) and other nutrients (copper, iron, calcium, zinc). Moreover, copper and vitamin C are responsible for the most effective absorption of iron in the human body. Rooibos tea is highly recommended to vegetarians. But of course you should not totally rely on Rooibos, if you want to fully satisfy the needs of your body's iron. Some doctors advise to use Rooibos as an antidepressant. It assists well with nervous tension, fatigue and headaches, allergies and digestive disorders. Since it contained glucose, tea is not only a great thirst quencher, but also wonderful soother. facebook twitter google+ email


text:
The Antiplatelet and Immune Response Trial
This study has been completed.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: May 1, 2013
Last updated: June 27, 2014
Last verified: January 2013
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study
Study Status: | This study has been completed. |
Study Completion Date: | January 2014 |
Primary Completion Date: | January 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):


text:
A Book Packed with Rules, Tools and Insights
Mickey Mantle and Ron Lichty, two software industry veterans with over 70 years of combined experience, have crafted a book that will help any software manager be more successful. Having spent their careers developing software, leading software development projects, and managing programmers and teams, they have now distilled their experience into a book that every beginning programming manager should read and have on their bookshelves for reference.
It's a book that will also help executives who struggle sponsoring projects dependent upon software success – CEOs, COOs, CTOs, and others – understand the craft of software development and the intricacies of how to manage software people and teams to deliver software projects successfully.
This book will help any software manager get a handle on their own unmanageable challenges.
True to its subtitle, the book is comprised of Rules, Tools and Insights for managing software people and teams:
Nearly 300 rules of thumb and nuggets of wisdom from software luminaries, managers, and developers – succinct insights into managing programmers and development teams – are collected into three sections:
- Managing
- Managing People
- Managing Teams to Successfully Deliver
The book delivers dozens of tools the authors have collected or created over the years to help manage programmers: they share their sample job descriptions, interview summaries, interview questions, goal setting templates, developer skills inventories, code review guides, sample project workbooks, and many other tools that will save managers hours and days of time and effort.
The authors share, in nine chapters, their hard-won experience gained from programming, managing and delivering software spanning two managerial lifetimes of companies and situations. The insights are sprinkled with anecdotes from their experience as well as rules of thumb and nuggets of wisdom they gleaned from their gurus.
- Chapter 1 - Why Programmers Seem Unmanageable
- Chapter 2 - Understanding Programmers
- Chapter 3 - Finding and Hiring Great Programmers
- Chapter 4 - Getting New Programmers Started Off Right
- Chapter 5 - Becoming an Effective Programming Manager: Managing Down
- Chapter 6 - Becoming an Effective Programming Manager: Managing Up, Out, and Yourself
- Chapter 7 - Motivating Programmers
- Chapter 8 - Establishing a Successful Programming Culture
- Chapter 9 - Managing Successful Software Delivery