text:
The fast read
For a quick, pre-digested, highly-compressed version of this Annual Report: read this section.
The full story starts in 'Who we are'. Please read that, too.
Who we are
WPP is the world leader in communications services. It comprises leading companies in all these disciplines:
- Advertising
- Media Investment Management
- Consumer Insight
- Public Relations & Public Affairs
- Branding & Identity
- Healthcare Communications
- Direct, Digital, Promotion & Relationship Marketing
- Specialist Communications
There are more than 150 companies within the Group – and each is a distinctive brand in its own right. Each has its own identity, commands its own loyalty, and is committed to its own specialist expertise. That is their individual strength. Clients seek their talent and their experience on a brand-by-brand basis. Between them, our companies work with 344 of the Fortune Global 500, all 30 of the Dow Jones 30, 63 of the NASDAQ 100 and 33 of the Fortune e-50.
It is also of increasing value to clients that WPP companies can work together, as increasingly they do: providing a tailor-made range of integrated communications services. More than 730 clients are now served in three distinct disciplines. More than 470 clients are served in four disciplines, and these clients account for almost 57% of Group revenues. Group companies also work with almost 360 clients across six or more countries.
Collectively, over 158,000* people work for WPP companies; out of over 2,500 offices in 107 countries.
- *
- Including associates
View a list of our companies and their websites.
Why we exist
Our mission
To develop and manage talent;
to apply that talent,
throughout the world,
for the benefit of clients;
to do so in partnership;
to do so with profit.
Within the WPP Group, our clients have access to companies with all the necessary marketing and communications skills; companies with strong and distinctive cultures of their own; famous names, many of them.
WPP, the parent company, complements these companies in three distinct ways.
- First, it relieves them of much administrative work. Financial matters (such as planning, budgeting, reporting, control, treasury, tax, mergers, acquisitions, investor relations, legal affairs and internal audit) are co-ordinated centrally. For the operating companies, every administrative hour saved is an extra hour to be devoted to the pursuit of professional excellence.
- Second, the parent company encourages and enables operating companies of different disciplines to work together for the benefit of clients. Such collaborations have the additional benefit of enhancing the job satisfaction of our people. The parent company also plays an across-the-Group role in the following functions: the management of talent, including recruitment and training; in property management; in procurement and IT; in knowledge sharing and practice development – with an increasing emphasis on corporate responsibility and sustainability.
- And, finally, WPP itself can function as the 21st-century equivalent of the full-service agency. For some clients, predominantly those with a vast geographical spread and a need for marketing services ranging from advertising through design and website construction to research and internal communications, WPP can act as a portal to provide a single point of contact and accountability.
Read more about our role here.
What we think
A new normal and why Mad Men (and women) are becoming more important by Sir Martin Sorrell
2011 was a record year against almost all measures, showing just how far we have come from the dark days of 2008 and the Lehman collapse. WPP achieved like-for-like revenue growth of 5.3%, with gross margin growing even faster at 5.9%. The recovery was LUV-shaped, with the BRICs, Next 11 and digital regaining their greater prominence, and the mature markets and media slowing, hit by the Eurozone crisis and US budgetary deadlock.
The prospects for 2012 look similar, despite the maxiquadrennial impact of the UEFA Football Championships, Summer Olympics and US Presidential election. The following year could be more challenging, but 2014 may well be a different story if the new US Administration finally begins to tackle the deficit issue. In addition, it will be a mini-quadrennial with the Winter Olympics, FIFA World Cup and US mid-term Congressionals.
In summary, the long term looks reasonably good. WPP's growth will continue to be driven by nine factors – globalisation, overcapacity and the shortage of talent, the web, retail, internal communications, central and local organisational focus, the rise of finance and procurement, the role of government, and sustainability.
Read Sir Martin Sorrell's article .
Plonk and Placebos by Jeremy Bullmore
A brand is routinely described as a product with added presentation. The product is said to be the bit that delivers: the taste, the function, the effect. And the presentation is there merely to attract the eye and distinguish the product with some ill-defined property called personality.
An examination of the placebo effect, demonstrated to exist over decades of pharmaceutical research, shows that this is a dangerously superficial understanding of the nature of a successful brand. Because of the far from fully-understood inter-relationship of mind and body, a well-known, well-presented brand will deliver more real satisfaction to its users than an anonymous, generic equivalent: and this is just as true for an analgesic as it is for a bottle of wine.
Read Jeremy Bullmore's essay .
How we're doing
Financial summary
|Change %
|Headline EBITDA2
|Headline operating profit2
|Reported operating profit
|Headline PBIT2
|Headline PBIT margin2
|Headline PBT2
|Reported PBT
|Headline earnings2
|Reported earnings
|Headline diluted earnings per share2,4
|Headline diluted earnings per share (including exceptional tax credit) 2,4
|Reported diluted earnings per share4
|Ordinary dividend per share
|Ordinary dividend per ADR3
|Net debt at year-end
|Average net debt5
|Ordinary share price at year-end
|ADR price at year-end
|Market capitalisation at year-end
|At 19 April 2012
|Ordinary share price
|ADR price
|Market capitalisation
- The financial statements have been prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
- 1
- Billings is defined in the Financial glossary.
- 2
- The calculation of 'headline' measurements of performance (including headline EBITDA, headline operating profit, headline PBIT, headline PBT and headline earnings) is shown in note 31 of the financial statements.
- 3
- One American Depositary Receipt (ADR) represents five ordinary shares. These figures have been translated for convenience purposes only using the income statement exchange rates shown in the Financial Statements. This conversion should not be construed as a representation that the pound sterling amounts actually represent, or could be converted into, US dollars at the rates indicated.
- 4
- Earnings per share is calculated in note 9 of the financial statements.
- 5
- Average net debt is defined in the Financial glossary.
2011 results
2011, our twenty-sixth year, was a record year in almost all respects. Revenue, profit before tax and earnings per share all reached new highs.
Total share owner return was enhanced by a 38% increase in dividends to 24.6p, a record level, and included a 45% increase in the second interim dividend to 17.14p.
Billings were up almost 5% to £44.8 billion. Revenues were up over 7% to £10.0 billion, the first time the Group has exceeded £10 billion. Including 100% of associates, revenue is estimated to total over £12.1 billion.
Headline PBIT was up over 16% to £1.429 billion against £1.229 billion in 2010. Headline PBIT margin was 14.3% in 2011 against 13.2% in 2010, well ahead of target.
Headline EBITDA increased by 14% to £1.640 billion. Headline profit before tax was up almost 19% to £1.229 billion and reported profit before tax was up over 18% to £1.008 billion, above £1 billion for the first time. Diluted headline earnings per share were up over 19% to 67.7p (an all-time high) and diluted reported earnings per share were up over 40% to 64.5p.
Free cash flow and net debt
Free cash flow strengthened to £1.013 billion in the year, over £1 billion for the first time. Net debt averaged £2.8 billion in 2011, down £0.2 billion at 2011 exchange rates, and net debt at 31 December 2011 was £2.5 billion, or £0.6 billion higher than 2010, reflecting stronger acquisition and share buy-back activity in the latter half of the year. The Group's average net debt was around 1.7 times headline EBITDA in 2011 compared with 2.1 times in 2010, and well within the Group's current target range of 1.5-2.0 times.
Revenue growth
Our reported revenue growth for the year of over 7% reflected the strength of sterling, primarily against the US dollar. On a constant currency basis, which excludes the impact of currency movements, revenues were up over 8%.
On a like-for-like basis, excluding the impact of acquisitions and currency, revenues were up 5.3%, with gross margin up 5.9%. In the fourth quarter, like-for-like revenues were up 4.5%, down slightly on the third quarter, primarily due to stronger comparatives.
On a combined basis, over the last two years, there has been a sequential improvement in like-for-like quarterly revenue growth, with 6.7% for the first quarter, 10.3% in the second, 12.2% for the third and 13.1% for the fourth.
Geographic performance
North America continued to show good growth throughout the year, with constant currency revenues up 6.3%. The UK, against market trends, showed even stronger growth, with constant currency revenues up almost 9% and gross margin even stronger up almost 11%, accelerating in the second half.
Western Continental Europe, although relatively more difficult, grew constant currency revenues by over 6%.
In Asia Pacific, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe, revenue growth was strongest, up well over 12%. Like-for-like growth was up well over 10%.
Sector performance
In constant currencies, Advertising and Media Investment Management revenues grew by 12.2%, with like-for-like growth of 7.4%. Growth in the Group's Media Investment Management businesses was very consistent throughout the year, with constant currency revenues up almost 19% for the year and like-for-like growth up almost 13%.
Consumer Insight revenues grew 1.7% on a constant currency basis, with gross margin up 2.2%. On a like-for-like basis, revenues were up 0.8% with gross margin growth stronger at 1.9%.
The Group's Public Relations & Public Affairs businesses had another good year with full-year growth in constant currencies of 6.2%, with like-for-like revenues up 4.6%. Operating margins rose by 0.3 margin points to 16.1%.
At the Group's Branding & Identity, Healthcare and Specialist Communications businesses (including direct, digital and interactive), constant currency revenues grew strongly at 10.1% with like-for-like growth of 6.9%.
The Group's global direct, digital and interactive agencies showed continuing strong growth, with like-for-like revenues up well over 7% for the year. Over 30% of the Group's 2011 revenues came from direct, digital and interactive, up over one percentage point from the previous year.
Our key priorities
Our goal remains to be the world's most successful provider of communications services to multinational and local companies, not just the largest.
To that end, we have three key strategic priorities:
- Our immediate goal is to deliver annual EPS growth of 10-15% through organic revenue growth of up to 5%, margin improvement of 0.5 margin points or more and use of our cash flow.
- Medium term, to build upon the successful base we have established whilst integrating our most recent acquisitions effectively.
- Long term, to increase the combined geographic share of revenues from the faster-growing markets from over 29% to 35-40%; increase the share of revenues of new media from 30% to 35-40%; and increase the share of more measurable marketing services – such as Consumer Insight and direct, digital and interactive – to be more than 50% of revenues, with a focus on digital and consumer insight, data analytics and the application of new technology.
2011 revenue by geography % Region Percentage North America 34 UK 12 Western Continental Europe 25 Asia Pacific, Latin America,
Africa & Middle East
and Central & Eastern Europe
2011 headline PBIT1,2 by geography % Region Percentage North America 37 UK 17 Western Continental Europe 20 Asia Pacific, Latin America, Africa & Middle East and Central & Eastern Europe 32
2011 revenue1 by sector % Sector Percentage Advertising and Media Investment Management 41 Consumer Insight 25 Public Relations & Public Affairs 9 Branding & Identity, Healthcare and Specialist Communications 25
2011 headline PBIT1,2 by sector % Sector Percentage Advertising and Media Investment Management 47 Consumer Insight 18 Public Relations & Public Affairs 10 Branding & Identity, Healthcare and Specialist Communications 25
- 1
- Percentages are calculated on a constant currency basis. See definition in the Financial glossary.
- 2
- The calculation of headline PBIT is set out in note 31 of the financial statements.
- Read more in our letter to share owners.
- Our 2011 financial statements are presented here and at www.wpp.com/investor.
Who runs WPP
Non-executive chairman
Philip Lader
Chairman of the Nomination and Governance Committee
Member of the Compensation Committee
Executive directors
Sir Martin Sorrell
Chief executive
Paul Richardson
Finance director
Chairman of the Sustainability Committee
Mark Read
Strategy director
Chief executive, WPP Digital
Non-executive directors
Colin Day
Member of the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee
Esther Dyson
Member of the Compensation Committee and Nomination and Governance Committee
Orit Gadiesh
Member of the Nomination and Governance Committee
Ruigang Li
Stanley (Bud) Morten
Koichiro Naganuma
Lubna Olayan
Member of the Nomination and Governance Committee
John Quelch
Jeffrey Rosen
Chairman of the Compensation Committee
Member of the Audit Committee
Senior independent director
Timothy Shriver
Member of the Compensation Committee
Paul Spencer
Chairman of the Audit Committee
Sol Trujillo
Member of the Audit Committee
Members of the Advisory Board
Jeremy Bullmore
John Jackson
Richard Rivers
Company Secretary
Marie Capes
Read the Directors' biographies.
How we behave
Corporate governance
The Board of Directors as a whole is collectively accountable to the Company's share owners for good corporate governance and is committed to achieving compliance with the principles of corporate governance set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code.
Our goal is to comply with relevant laws, regulations, and guidelines such as the UK Corporate Governance Code, the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, the NASDAQ rules and, where practicable, with the guidelines issued by institutional investors and their representative bodies.
WPP operates a system of internal control, which is maintained and reviewed in accordance with the UK Corporate Governance Code and the guidance in the Turnbull Report as well as the relevant provisions of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 and related SEC rules, as they currently apply to the Company. In the opinion of the Board, the Company has complied throughout the year with the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Turnbull Report and also with the relevant provisions of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 and SEC rules.
Paul Richardson is the Board director responsible for sustainability and chairs WPP's Sustainability Committee, established in 2003. WPP's five most significant issues are:
- The impact of our work for clients. Our goal is for WPP to be a centre of excellence for sustainability communication, giving our clients the best advice and enhancing consumers' understanding of sustainability issues. The value of client business supported by our sustainability credentials is worth at least $1 billion.
- Marketing standards, including ethical decision-making, privacy and data protection, and compliance with marketing standards and our Code of Conduct.
- Employment practices, including diversity and inclusion, training and development. Women currently account for 54% of our total employees and 31% of our Board members and executive leaders. In 2011, WPP invested £58.3 million on training and wellbeing.
- Environmental performance. WPP was ranked 41 in Newsweek's Green Rankings of the 500 largest global companies. We have reduced our carbon footprint per person by 26% since 2006. Our target is a 63% reduction by 2020.
- Social investment including pro bono work. Our total social investment was worth £15.3 million in 2011, the equivalent of 1.5% of reported profit before tax.
Full details of our governance policies and practices, and our sustainability activities, can be found in How we behave.
How we're rewarded
Executive remuneration policy is set by WPP's Compensation Committee and is governed by three guiding principles:
- Performance
- Competitiveness
- Alignment with share owner interests
The committee's work during 2011 included:
- A comprehensive review of the compensation arrangements for executive directors, in conjunction with the ongoing review of the Group chief executive's compensation.
- Supervision of the Group's equity incentive plans that are critical to the attraction and retention of talent.
- Oversight of the Group's cash incentive programs and approval of the awards to the most senior business leaders below Board level.
- Reviewing developments in areas of corporate governance and ensuring the Company's compliance with changes to the design of compensation of Board directors.
Our directors' remuneration and interests are set out in How we're rewarded.
A full report from the Compensation Committee.
About share ownership
WPP is quoted on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in New York.
Analysis of shareholdings
Issued share capital as at 31 December 2011: 1,266,373,821 ordinary shares owned by 12,653 share owners.
Share owners by geography % UK 36 US 35 Asia Pacific, Latin America, Africa & Middle East and Central & Eastern Europe 29
Share owners by type* % Institutional investors 95 Employees 2 Other individuals 3
- *
- In addition, 2.07% of the Company's share capital is under option to employees.
Substantial share ownership
As at 20 April 2012, the Company is aware of the following interest of 3% or more in the issued ordinary share capital:
|Legal & General
The disclosed interest refers to the respective combined holdings of this entity and to interests associated with it. The Company has not been notified of any other holdings of ordinary share capital of 3% or more.
Share owner relations
WPP has a continuous program to address the needs of share owners, investment institutions and analysts, supplying a regular flow of information about the Company, its strategy and performance. WPP's website, www.wpp.com, provides current and historical financial information including trading statements, news releases and presentations.
More information relating to share ownership.


text:
Thank you for your interest in Next Generation Sequencing services. To obtain a quote, please supply the details below then click Request Quote.
Thank you for your interest in Next Generation Sequencing services. To obtain a quote, please supply the details below then click Request Quote.
Created "by scientists for scientists", NEB is renowned for consistently providing exceptional product quality and unsurpassed technical support. For nearly four decades, NEB has been shaping the landscape of bioscience research by discovering, developing and supporting superior research reagents. In addition to NEB's commitment to scientific innovation and customer relations, NEB notably ensures the environmental sustainability of the company's business practices. Our passion is our promise.
The Genesearch e•Freezer is an innovative reagent delivery system offering scientists 24 hr access to products with fully computerised stock control and accounting systems to minimise administrative overheads.
Founded by research scientists in 1999, Cell Signaling Technology (CST) is a private, family-owned company headquartered in Danvers, Massachusetts with over 400 employees worldwide. Active in the field of applied systems biology research, particularly as it relates to cancer, CST understands the importance of using antibodies with high levels of specificity and lot-to-lot consistency. It's why we produce all of our antibodies in house, and perform painstaking validations for multiple applications. And the same CST scientists who produce our antibodies also provide technical support for customers, helping them design experiments, troubleshoot, and achieve reliable results. We do this because that's what we'd want if we were in the lab. Because, actually, we are.
© 2015 Genesearch Pty Ltd

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pet Charities: How You Can Help an Animal in Need
'Tis the season to be charitable to furry friends in need.
With hundreds of worthy pet organizations that could use your help, it can be tempting to just give to the last one that ran a heart-wrenching commercial. But with a little research, you can reward a group that you truly find meaningful. "Pick a charity that reflects your values and delivers on promises," says Carri Harte of Maguire/Maguire, an association management firm that screens groups for the nonprofit Animal Charities of America. Harte offers her tips on finding a pet-friendly foundation.
Ask for Opinions
Talk to fellow pet lovers—owners, kennel operators, veterinarians and groomers—and have them share their experiences with donating to various organizations. They can also be a great resource for learning about lesser-known charities.
Find a Cause
"Do some research to choose the group that particularly speaks to you," says Harte. While national organizations frequently work on big picture issues, such as animal rights legislation and awareness campaigns, local ones are more likely to serve a niche need in their community. Ultimately, what matters most is that you believe in the mission. Check websites like animalcharitiesofamerica.org, a nonprofit federation of national groups, and localanimalcharities.org, which lists community focused organizations that rescue, nurture and rehabilitate animals.
Track Your Donation
Ideally, the majority of a charity's budget—70% or more—should be going toward programs, not fundraising costs or staff salaries, says Harte. The IRS requires tax-exempt organizations to file a 990 form, which details their purpose, programs and finances. It should be posted on the group's website or on charity navigator.org and guidestar.org. "If something on the form raises questions, call the charity," says Harte. "Any reputable company will be happy to explain where their funds go."
Play Favorites
Every donation involves a processing fee, so giving a larger amount to a single group rather than a small sum to several may have a greater impact. Some organizations may even allow a monthly payment plan. Consider pooling your resources with like-minded friends for an agreed-upon cause or even hosting a neighborhood fundraising event, like a bake sale.
Helping Cats and Dogs
Alley Cat Rescue
ACR sterilizes and vaccinates stray cats through the trap-neuter-return (TNR) program. saveacat.org
Angel Canines for Wounded Warriors
Through a partnership with American Airlines, this organization provides wounded war veterans with free flights to special facilities so they can train and acquire a service dog. angelcaninesforwoundedwarriors.org
The mission of this nonprofit is to rescue Labrador retrievers and Lab mixes from shelters throughout the Northeast and South and place them in loving homes. labs4rescue.org
Noah's Wish
During natural disasters, the foundation sets up shelters for displaced animals. It also offers nationwide training courses on the skills needed during an emergency. noahswish.org
Originally published in the November 2013 issue of Family Circle magazine.


text:
Author: Angel Romero
Angel Romero y Ruiz has been writing about world music music for many years. He founded the websites worldmusiccentral.org and musicasdelmundo.com. Angel produced several TV specials for Metropolis (TVE) and co-produced "Musica NA", a music show for Televisión Española (TVE) in Spain that featured an eclectic mix of world music, fusion, electronica, new age and contemporary classical music. Angel also produced and remastered world music albums, compilations and boxed sets for Alula Records, Ellipsis Arts, Music of the World.


text:
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
Researchers have long known that an animal's body size plays a critical role in brain size (Gibbons, 1998, 280:1345). Whales and elephants, for example, compensate for their large brains by an increased size in other organs that provide energy (e.g., larger heart and lungs provide more oxygen). But humans do not follow this rule. In the context of the so-called primates, the human brain is approximately "three times larger than the value predicted for an 'average' monkey or ape with our body size" (Jones, et al., 1992, 116). If evolutionists are right, the human brain has tripled in size since the era when "Lucy" (akaAustralopithecus afarensis) walked the Earth, yet our bodies have yet to even double. According to primatologist Robert D. Martin, humans "have the largest brain size relative to body size among placental mammals" (as quoted in Gibbons, 280:1345). Yet, as Ernst Mayr admitted:
What is perhaps most astonishing is the fact that the human brain seems not to have changed one single bit since the first appearance ofHomo sapiens, some 150,000 years ago. The cultural rise of the human species from primitive hunter-gatherer to agriculture and city civilizations took place without an appreciable increase in brain size. It seems that in an enlarged, more complex society, a bigger brain is no longer rewarded with a reproductive advantage (2001, p. 252, emp. added).
One question that evolutionists have difficulty answering is why "other animals" have not similarly "evolved" larger brains. If humans somehow were able to surmount all of the physiological and energy-related obstacles standing in the way of growing larger brains, why have reptiles, birds, or fish not followed suit? Exactly how is our brain different from those of animals? Was it forced to grow larger and "rewire" as we climbed out of trees and changed our diets? Hardly! Evolutionists candidly admit that "our brain is unusually large," and that "its internal wiring shows only subtle differences from other mammals" (Jones, et al., p. 107). But if the wiring is essentially the same, and if we know of animals that have larger brains, then what accounts for the vast differences we see between human intelligence and animal intelligence?
Equally important, of course (at least from a human vantage point), is the question: What caused the tremendous increase in human brain size? Scientists admit that no one knows. Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar wrote: "We cannot answer exactly why we evolved our large brains" (1996, p. 80, emp. added). Ornstein conceded:
We look at whether the human mind is, in part, an accident. Its evolution turns around a central question: Why is our brain so big?Why have a brain capable of not only chess when there was no game, but of building guided missiles when there was no metal or chemistry or writing? For the brain (which is the most "costly" neural material in the body) ballooned up radically 2 million years ago, and the "usual suspects" for this expansion don't seem to have primary responsibility. It was not language, it was not tools, it was not bipedalism alone. The brain seems to have increased in size before all the organized societies, cooperation, and language would have had any call for such a development.
This is the central mystery of the mind: It is difficult to see why we are so advanced relative to our nearest ancestors. We aren't just a slightly better chimp, and it's difficult, on reflection, to figure out why. This gigantic cortex has given us our adaptability as well as the extra capacity to adapt to the heights of the Himalayas, the Sahara Desert, the wilds of Borneo, even to central London....
Life challenges alone were probably not enough to inspire the astonishing rapidity of brain growth. There must have been another reason.... This development occurred well before organized society or language and long before technology. It is an amazing spurt in growth in the most complicated structure in all biology (1991, pp. 8, 37, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).
But was it the brain's size alone that allowed for these "nonadaptive side consequences"? Apparently not, as Johanson and Edgar went on to note.
In absolute size, the human brain breaks no records. Elephant brains exceed ours by a factor of four, and some whale brains are even bigger.... Monkeys, apes, and humans possess the biggest brains relative to body weight of any terrestrial mammal. So, part of the answer is that the human brain is just a highly elaborated ape brain. Yet this is still something different, something unique, about the size of the human brain. Our brain is three times larger than the predicted size for a hypothetical non-human primate of average body size....But size isn't everything. Our brain also differs significantly from those of apes in the proportion of various parts.... The human brain is a sponge that soaks up sensations and observations, and it is a masterful organ for storing, retrieving, and processing a wide range of detailed and complicated information.... So, size alone does not explain our unusual mental abilities. What counts is what's inside the package, and how it is all arranged... (p. 80, emp. added).
In part one of this series, we quoted Ian Tattersall, who concluded his assessment of the brain with these words:
There's a huge amount, of course, that we don't know about how the brain works, and especially about how a mass of chemical and electrical signals can give rise to such complex effects as cognition and consciousness (1998, p. 70).
We also quoted Richard Morris, who lamented:
Scientific knowledge of the brain is woefully incomplete. Scientists do not know how the brain acquires and stores information, how it produces feelings of pleasure and pain, or how it creates consciousness. The functioning of the human brain is a profound mystery (2001, p. 200, emp. added).
We could not have said it better ourselves! Evolutionists do not know how the brain evolved. Nor do they possess much understanding about how the brain acquires and stores information, in spite of decades of intensive research. Mayr readily admitted: "The synapses, for instance, apparently play an important role in memory retention, but how they do so is almost entirely unknown" (2001, p. 252). Similarly, evolutionists do not know how the brain creates consciousness (a subject we will examine in an in-depth fashion in future installments). Yet the leading candidate to serve as a potential evolutionary explanation for the mind (and then, ultimately, consciousness) is, perhaps somewhat conspicuously, the brain. Some (like MIT psychologist Steven Pinker and his colleagues) believe that the brain evolved its specific regions with a purpose (if you will pardon the pun) "in mind." Others, like Stephen Jay Gould and his cohorts, have suggested that, to quote Ornstein, "structures that evolved for one purpose later changed their function" and gave rise to consciousness (1991, p. 33). Not much agreement here, to be sure.
But there is one place where a consensus does exist. Monroe Strickberger, in his textbook,Evolution, put it like this: "[A]lthough we do not yet know the precise relationship between the matter of the brain (neurons, synapses, and so on) and the thoughts and feelings it produces, that such a relationship exists is no mystery" (2000, p. 56, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added). That a relationship between brain, mind, and consciousness exists may be "no mystery." But why and how that relationship exists, certainly is!
Perhaps it is because of the mystery that surrounds the various functions and attributes of the brain that, as our knowledge of the brain has multiplied in what sometimes seems to be almost a geometric progression, it is becoming increasingly popular to "downplay" the extreme complexity of the brain itself—no doubt in the hope that the general populace will begin to think like this: "Well, if the once-impenetrable fortress of humanity that is the human brain has now been breached and explained by science, then we have answered evolution's most critical problem!" Nice sentiment, to be sure—but not anywhere close to the truth.
Attempts to minimize the brain's amazing abilities have become rather commonplace, it seems. Consider just one example. In an article on mind/body problems titled "The Power of Mood" that he authored for the January 20, 2003 issue of Time magazine, Michael D. Lemonick commented:
The brain, after all, is only another organ, and it operates on the same biochemical principles as the thyroid or the spleen. What we experience as feelings, good or bad, are at the cellular level no more than a complex interaction of chemicals and electrical activity (2003a, 161[3]:66, emp. added).
In the introductory article ("Your Mind, Your Body") he wrote to accompany the feature articles in that same issue of Time, Lemonick went on to suggest:
Mind and body, psychologists and neurologists now agree, aren't that different. The brain is just another organ, albeit more intricate than the rest. ...Scientists are also learning something else. Not only is the mind like the rest of the body, but the well-being of one is intimately intertwined with that of the other. This makes sense because they share the same systems—nervous, circulatory, endocrine and immune (2003b, 161[3]:63, emp. added).
Russell Stannard, in The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?, wrote:
It is a widely held assumption that nothing goes on in the brain that is markedly different from what happens in inanimate matter. Although the processes occurring in the brain are undoubtedly more intricate because of the extreme complexity of the physical structure, they are nevertheless all to be held accountable for—in principle—through the operation of the well-established laws of nature (2000, p. 45, emp. added).
Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett, in an interview on this very subject, said matter-of-factly: "The mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain..." (as quoted in Lewin, 1992, p. 157, emp. added). Nuland took the same approach.
The mind is a man-made concept, a way to categorize and contemplate the manifestations of certain physical and chemical actions that occur chiefly in the brain. It is a product of anatomic development and physiologic functioning. What we call the mind is an activity, made up of a totality of the innumerable constituent activities of which it is composed, brought to awareness by the brain. The brain is the chief organ of the mind, but not its only one. In a sense, every cell and molecule in the body is a part of the mind, and every organ contributes to it. The living body and its mind are one—the mind is a property of the body (1997, p. 349, emp. added).
In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick even went so far as to suggest that it soon may be possible to identify specific neurons in the brain that cause consciousness. He asserted that, eventually, all mind processes, including consciousness, will be explicable as nothing more than the firing of neurons—i.e., in terms of interactions between atoms and molecules (1994, pp. 3, 259). Steven Pinker is on record as stating: "Nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity" (1997b, emp. added). B.A. Farrel announced bluntly: "A human being is a modulator of pulse frequencies, and nothing more" (as quoted in Allan, 1989, p. 63). Or, as Jerome Elbert put it: "I do maintain that 'mental events can be reduced to brain events' " (2000, p. 265, emp. in org.). He then predicted:
Science will probably succeed in describing how our consciousness arises from natural processes. It will probably explain how thinking, reasoning, emotions, motivations, and intuition function as a result of the activity of the brain, and as a result of the brain interacting with the rest of the body and the outside world (p. 268).
Think with us for a moment, however, about the implications of what you have just read. Beliefs have consequences! If: (a) "what we experience as feelings, good or bad, are at the cellular level no more than a complex interaction of chemicals and electrical activity"; (b) "mind and body...aren't that different"; (c) "the mind is a property of the body" and "mind is a man-made concept"; (d) "nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity," what does all of this mean?
Let Steven Pinker explain. He believes (as noted above) that "nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity." Would it surprise you to learn, then, that in a New York Timesarticle, Dr. Pinker suggested that women who murder their newborn babies may not be either mad or evil, but simply unconsciously obeying "primeval instincts to sacrifice their children for the good of the tribe"? (see Blanchard, 2000, p. 382). In his fascinating book,Does God Believe in Atheists?, John Blanchard addressed Pinker's suggestion: "This is the logical outworking of materialism, but if reducing the brain's activity to electrical impulses can sanction murder, what can it condemn?" (p. 382, emp. in orig).
What indeed? Atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admitted that if evolution is accepted as true, then "morality is no more...than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses" (1995, p. 241, emp. added). But if, as Ruse went on to say, "morality is a creation of the genes" (p. 290), then by what criterion, or group of criteria, do humans make moral decisions? Reichenbach and Anderson commented on this very issue when they wrote:
Reductionism, however, threatens the very concept of the person. Where persons' actions and beliefs are ultimately explainable in terms of unpredictable neural firings and chemical transfers, those acts and beliefs are no longer the purposeful product of human choice. ...This means that reductionism is particularly disastrous for morality, not to mention our concept of personhood itself (1995, p. 279, emp. added).
And what place is there for that famed human possession, "free will"? Are we merely products of our environment? Does input truly equal output? Nancey Murphy recognized the quandary of losing our free will, and reducing the brain to little more than matter.
First, if mental effects can be reduced to brain events, and the brain events are governed by the laws of neurology (and ultimately by the laws of physics), then in what sense can we say that humans have free will? Are not their intendings and willings simply a product of blind physical forces, and thus are not their willed actions merely the product of the blind forces? (1998, p. 131).
She went on to comment:
Second, if mental events are simply the products of neurological causes, then what sense can we make of reasons? That is, we give reasons for judgments in all areas of our intellectual lives—moral, aesthetic, scientific, mathematical. It seems utter nonsense to say that these judgments are merely the result of the blind forces of nature (p. 131).
Have we no option but to do whatever our genes have programmed us to do? In other words, how can the materialist escape the stranglehold of determinism—the idea which suggests, as its name implies, that everything we do is "determined," and that we have, in essence, no free will. This farcical idea is exactly what Cornell professor William Provine has advocated. In 1998, during "Darwin Day" at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, he delivered the keynote lecture titled "Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life." During his lecture, he displayed a slide that stated: "Finally, free will is nonexistent." It went on to note: "Free will is the worst of all cultural inventions. Belief in free will fuels our revenge-minded culture" (see Provine, 1998).
In the now-famous text of his Compton Lectures, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, British philosopher Sir Karl Popper made the point that even if determinism weretrue, it could not be argued, since any argument is itself presumably predetermined by purely physical conditions—as would be any and all opposing arguments. As Popper put it:
According to determinism, any such theories—such as, say, determinism—are held because of a certain physical structure of the holder (perhaps of his brain). Accordingly, we are deceiving ourselves (and are physically so determined as to deceive ourselves) whenever we believe that there are such things as arguments or reasons which make us accept determinism. Or in other words, physical determinism is a theory which, if it is true, is not arguable, since it must explain all our reactions, including what appear to us as beliefs based on arguments, as due to purely physical conditions. Purely physical conditions, including our physical environment, make us say or accept whatever we say or accept... (1972, p. 223, emp. added).
In their book, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Sir John Eccles and his co-author Daniel Robinson commented on the correctness of Popper's assessment—and the absurd nature—of determinism when they observed: "This is an effective reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd—BH/BT]. They then went on to state: "This stricture applies to all of the materialist theories" (1984, p. 38; cf. also Eccles, 1992, p. 21). Indeed, itis absurd. And yes, it does apply to "all of the materialist theories."
A good illustration of this is the life, teachings, and actions of the French novelist commonly known as the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), who gave his name to sadism, in which a person derives sexual satisfaction from inflicting pain and humiliation on others. De Sade argued that, since everything is chemically determined, whatever is, is right. The distinguished microbiologist, Lynn Margulis, and her co-author/son Dorion Sagan, discussed this very point in their book, What is Life?
The high-born Frenchman Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade (1740-1814) keenly felt the vanishing basis for morality. If Nature was a self-perpetuating machine and no longer a purveyor of divine authority, then it did not matter what he, as the infamous marquis de Sade, did or wrote (1995, p. 40, emp. added).
Or, as Ravi Zacharias put it: "Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd" (1990, p. 138).
In his book, In the Blood: God, Genes and Destiny, Steve Jones suggested that criminal behavior was determined largely by genetic make-up (1996, pp. 207-220). In discussing Jones' book, one writer, Janet Daley, insisted that if genetics is indeed ultimately responsible for "bad" traits, it also must account for "good" ones. She observed: "If we can never be truly guilty, then we can never be truly virtuous either." Daley went on to say:
Human beings are only capable of being moral insofar as they are free to choose how they behave. If they have no power to make real choices—if their freedom to decide how to act is severely limited by forces outside their control—then it is nonsense to make any ethical judgements about them. It would be wrong, as well, to base a judicial system on the assumption that people are free to choose how they will act. The idea of putting anyone on trial for anything at all becomes absurd (1996).
In fact, attempting to locate a "basis for morality" in the blind outworkings of nature is futile. As Ruse put it: "There is no justification for morality in the ultimate sense" (as quoted in O'Hear, 1997, p. 140). In Dave Hunt's words, "There are no morals in nature. Try to find a compassionate crow or an honest eagle—or a sympathetic hurricane" (1996, p. 41). Are those who advocate the idea that "nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity," willing to accept the consequences of their belief?
Every human begins life as a single fertilized cell. When the male and female gametes join to form the zygote that will grow into the fetus, it is at that very moment that the formation of a new body begins. It is the result of a viable male gamete joined sexually with a viablefemale gamete, which has formed a zygote that will move through a variety of important stages.
The first step in the process—which eventually will result in the highly differentiated tissues and organs that compose the body of the neonatal child—is the initial mitotic cleavage of that primal cell, the zygote. At this point, the genetic material doubles, matching copies of the chromosomes move to opposite poles, and the cell cleaves into two daughter cells. Shortly afterwards, each of these cells divides again, forming the embryo. [In humans and animals, the term "embryo" applies to any stage after cleavage but before birth (see Rudin, 1997, p. 125).]
As the cells of the embryo continue to divide, they form a cluster of cells. These divisions are accompanied by additional changes that produce a hollow, fluid-filled cavity inside the ball, which now is a one-layer-thick group of cells known as a blastula. Early on the second day after fertilization, the embryo undergoes a process known as gastrulation, in which the single-layer blastula turns into a three-layered gastrula consisting of ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm, surrounding a cavity known as the archenteron. Each of these layers will give rise to very specific structures. For example, the ectoderm will form the outermost layer of the skin and other structures, including the sense organs, parts of the skeleton, and the nervous system. The mesoderm will form tissues associated with support, movement, transport, reproduction, and excretion (i.e., muscle, bone, cartilage, blood, heart, blood vessels, gonads, and kidneys). The endoderm will produce structures associated with breathing and digestion (including the lungs, liver, pancreas, and other digestive glands) [see Wallace, 1975, p. 187].
Within 72 hours after fertilization, the embryo will have divided a total of four times, and will consist of sixteen cells. Each cell will divide before it reaches the size of the cell that produced it; hence, the cells will become progressively smaller with each division. About twenty-two days after fertilization, the brain begins its embryonic development with the formation of the neural tube. About twenty-two days after fertilization, this hollow region begins to develop (Moore and Persaud, 1993, p. 385). The cells located within this hollow tube eventually will multiply, migrate, and become the brain and spinal cord. Once the brain is fully developed, three distinct regions can be identified: forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. Structures such as the cerebrum, thalamus, and hypothalamus are located within the forebrain. The midbrain is made up of the superior and inferior colliculi and the cerebral peduncles. The hindbrain is composed primarily of the cerebellum, pons, and medulla oblongata. Literally millions of neurons are housed in each of these structures, from which radiate communicating axons to other regions, giving the entire brain the unique ability to communicate with itself (thanks to a small structure known as the corpus callosum, the left and right hemispheres of the brain have the ability to communicate with one another).
While the regions and structures within the brain have been dissected exhaustively and mapped out considerably, what can those neurological pathways tell us about function? Can we look at the exterior surface of the brain and determine the intellectual capabilities of an individual? Evolutionists must think so; look at the "dumb," hairy, club-carrying creatures that they portray as our ancestors. These evolutionists would like to be able to look at a fossilized skull, or even an endocranial cast, and determine what "prehuman" brains were capable of doing in the distant past. However, as Terrence Deacon admitted: "Surface morphology and underlying brain functions are not directly correlated in most cases." He went on to say: "We must be careful when drawing functional interpretations from endocasts" (1999, p. 116).
Many materialists are adamant that the human brain has evolved through a layering process—with each "higher species" adding a new layer. Thus, as Ian Tattersall commented in his book, The Monkey in the Mirror, "as far as is known, not much if anything has been 'lost' in the course of human brain evolution. Our skulls still house the descendants of structures that eons ago governed the behavior of ancient fish, of primitive mammals, and of early primates" (2002, p. 72).
According to this "triune" brain theory, the brain evolved in three stages: the reptilian brain, followed by the paleocortex, and then the neocortex. Thus, the innermost portion of our brain is said to be the reptilian brain—since evolutionists believe it to be the oldest and most primitive portion. It therefore would include structures such as the pons and medulla, and would handle many of the autonomic tasks needed for everyday survival (e.g., breathing) [see figure below].
Evolutionists suggest that this portion of our brain has remained essentially unchanged by evolution, and that we therefore share it with all animals that possess a backbone. The next "layer" is said to be the mammalian brain or the paleocortex, which is alleged to have arisen when mammals evolved from reptiles. It would include structures such as the amygdala and hypothalamus. Then, on top of this, evolutionists claim we have added another layer—the neocortex (or human brain), which allows humans to handle logic. This new layer is said to "envelop" the other layers in gray matter, and amounts to 85% of the human brain mass. William Poundstone, in his biography of Carl Sagan, observed that even Dr. Sagan propagated this myth. Poundstone noted: "His extended discussion of the triune brain implicitly endorses it as (at least) an interesting idea. That was what some neurologists found objectionable. 'It's dismaying for people like us,' complained Boyd Campbell of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 'to see Sagan come and swallow all that stuff, write The Dragons of Eden, and get a Pulitzer Prize for it' " (1999, p. 254, parenthetical item in orig.). Dismaying indeed. As James Trefil pointed out, this way of thinking is "completely wrong."
Unfortunately, this understanding of the brain has led to a rather oversimplified notion of brain function in some parts of the popular press—in which the brain is seen as a set of successive overlays. At the bottom (the brain stem and diencephalons) is a kind of primitive, reptilian brain shared with all animals, with progressive overlying refinements added until we get to the cerebral cortex, which reflects the highest brain functions. In its extreme form, this view presents the idea of the brain as a kind of sedimentary structure, like the stratifications of the Grand Canyon. Each new layer adds a new function, while underlying layers stay more or less the same. This is another of those concepts that the French call a fausse idée claire. It's simple, elegant, clear, and completely wrong (1997, p. 75, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).
And yet the textbooks still show a progression through fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. This theory of how the brain evolved in layers has suffered the same fate as that of a soufflé when the oven door is slammed—it has fallen flat.
Schematic of the evolutionary "triune" brain theory, showing the reptilian, paleocortex, and neocortex. According to evolutionists, however, this theory has been shown to be "completely wrong."
We all have experienced the unpleasantness of sitting in front of a physician with our tongue outstretched, saying "Ah," while the doctor gags us with a wooden tongue depressor. However unpleasant this dreadful routine may be, it does have a purpose. By having you open your mouth, protrude your tongue, vocalize the word "Ah," and confirm an intact gag reflex, doctors are able, not only to look at the back of your throat, but also to assess many of your cranial nerves. Humans are born with twelve pairs of these special nerves, each performing a different function, and each going to a different location within the body.
Unlike nerves that originate from your spinal cord, cranial nerves drop directly out of the brain and then proceed to their target organs. Remember, however, that your brain is completely encased in bone—your skull. So, exactly how do these twelve cranial nerves get to where they need to go? The answer is that they travel through well-placed foramina or "holes." Each pair of nerves has a specific "hole" through which it descends in order to reach a target such as the eye (optic nerve) or the heart (vagus nerve). If you were to take a skull and pour water where the brain normally would be sitting, you soon would notice water coming out of several different holes. These holes allow the cranial nerves to travel from the brain to their target organs. But ask yourself this question: How did the holes get there? Did they evolve, too? Did these cranial nerves simply "evolve" out of the brain, and then "wait around" until holes evolved in the skull? And let's not make a small issue out of these tiny holes: the brain is constantly bathed in cerebrospinal fluid—a fluid that you do not want "leaking out" of the cranium. The formation of the holes and the dural layers that prevent this "leakage" definitely point to an intelligent Designer.
Walk into any office, hospital, or grocery store, and you will find yourself in the presence of computers. Computers have become an integral part of our everyday lives—they even played a role in getting this series of articles to you. But most intelligent individuals will agree that computers did not arrive on this planet as a result of time, natural law, and chance. Computers are designed and manufactured, and they constantly are being improved to increase their speed and capabilities. But the computer fails miserably in comparison to the human brain. When is the last time a computer grabbed a pencil to compose a sonnet, a short story, or a poem? How many computers are capable of taking a piece of wood, fashioning it in the shape of a violin, and then sitting down to play Barber's Adagio for Strings? And yet, evolutionists insist that the human brain—an object far more complex, and with far more capabilities than a computer—"evolved" in order to provide us with traits such as memories, emotions, the ability to reason, and the ability to talk. Other individuals like to "simplify" the human brain to the level of modern-day computers. They rationalize that, like computers, the human brain can rapidly process, store, and recall bits of information. Also, some scientific investigators compare neuronal connections to the wiring found within computers. However, the inner workings of a computer inevitably can be reduced to one thing—electronics. The basic function of computers always involves the movement of an electrical charge in a semiconductor. Contrariwise, the brain operates purely on electrochemical reactions. The transmission of nerve signals involves specific chemicals known as neurotransmitters. Once a neuron has been caused to fire, it moves these neurotransmitters into the tiny space between itself and its neighboring neurons (at the synapse), in order to stimulate them.
Superficial view of cranial nerves and the interior base of the skull demonstrating the various formina. LifeART image copyright (2003) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Additionally we know that the human brain can reason and think—i.e., we possess self-awareness. Computers have an ability to carry out multiple tasks, and they can even carry out complex processes—but not without the programming and instruction they receive from humans. Additionally, computers do not possess the ability to reason. When asked to translate into Russian the sentence—"the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"—one computer came up with words that meant "the vodka is fine, but the meat is tasteless" (Allan, 1989, p. 68)—which is a far cry from the original meaning. Nor are computers self-aware. In comparing a modern-day computer to the awesome power of the human brain, astrophysicist Robert Jastrow admitted: "The machine would be a prodigious artificial intelligence, but it would be only a clumsy imitation of the human brain" (1981, p. 143).
It has been estimated that if we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain (Weiss, 1990, p. 103). Plainly put, the brain is not just an advanced computer. All those convolutions and neuronal networks are the result of an intelligent Creator. If we are able to rationalize that a computer found in the middle of the Sahara Desert did not just "happen" by random chance, then why are so many willing to believe that a far more complex human brain occurred in such a fashion?
Neuroscientists already have gone, to use the Star Trek mantra, "where no one has gone before." Scientists now possess the ability to record the neurological activity from a single neuron. Using ultra-fine microelectrodes, we can proceed down through the brain's cortex, and patch-clamp neurons in order to determine specifically what ionic changes are occurring across the neuronal membranes. We have the ability to use tracer dyes to detect where a nerve sends a specific signal. Entire maps have been made that demonstrate the neurological pathways of specific types of neurons. We have tremendous hope that new areas of research, such as neuronal stem cells and nerve growth factors, will relieve or cure some of the neurological diseases that exist today. But science is far from understanding and comprehending the complexity of the brain. In fact, the brain remains a puzzle with far more pieces missing than have been properly set in place to complete the puzzle.
Upon hearing of the death of a child, a mother will begin to weep uncontrollably. What actually caused the tears to flow down her face? Where does she hold those treasured memories of her offspring? Some scientists would have us believe that those tears are merely a product of organic evolution, and that through time, we as humans "naturally selected" for them. But why? Man can reason, laugh, cry, and even worship. Why would we selectively want to cry at the loss of a loved one? Or why would our fleshly "brain" go to great lengths to worship and praise something it has never seen—unless we are more than mere matter? Evolutionist Steven Pinker wrestled with this point in his book, How the Mind Works.
How does religion fit into a mind that one might have thought was designed to reject the palpably not true? The common answer—that people take comfort in the thought of a benevolent Shepherd, a universal plan, or an afterlife—is unsatisfying, because it only raises the question of why a mind would evolve to find comfort in beliefs it can plainly see are false. A freezing person finds no comfort in believing he is warm; a person face-to-face with a lion is not put at ease by the conviction that it is a rabbit (1997a, pp. 554-555).
The precision and complexity of our brain, and the manner in which it is able to interact with our mind, clearly point to an intelligent Designer. Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Roger Sperry, a psychologist at the California Institute of Technology, observed:
Before science, man used to think himself a free agent possessing free will. Science gives us, instead, causal determinism wherein every act is seen to follow inevitably from preceding patterns of brain excitation. Where we used to see purpose and meaning in human behavior, science now shows us a complex bio-physical machine composed entirely of material elements, all of which obey inexorably the universal laws of physics and chemistry.... I find that my own conceptual working model of the brain leads to inferences that are in direct disagreement with many of the foregoing; especially I must take issue with that whole general materialistic-reductionist conception of human nature and mind that seems to emerge from the currently prevailing objective analytic approach in the brain-behaviour sciences. When we are led to favour the implications of modern materialism in opposition to older, more idealistic values in these and related matters, I suspect that science may have sold society and itself a somewhat questionable bill of goods (1966, pp. 2-3, emp. added).
We suspect so, too.
Allan, John (1989), The Human Difference (Oxford, England: Lion).
Blanchard, John (2000), Does God Believe in Atheists? (Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press).
Crick, Francis (1994), The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Daley, Janet (1996), Interview in Daily Telegraph, (London), May 1.
Deacon, Terrence W. (1999), "Impressions of Ancestral Brains," in Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed. Steve Jones, Robert Martin, and David Pilbeam (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Eccles, John C. (1992), The Human Psyche (London: Routledge).
Eccles, John C. and Daniel N. Robinson (1984), The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind (New York: The Free Press).
Elbert, Jerome W. (2000), Are Souls Real? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Gibbons, Ann (1998), "Solving the Brain's Energy Crisis," Science, 280:1345-1347, May 29.
Hunt, Dave (1996), In Defense of the Faith (Eugene, OR: Harvest House).
Jastrow, Robert (1981), The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Johanson, Donald C. and Blake Edgar (1996), From Lucy to Language (New York: Nevraumont).
Jones, Steve (1996), In the Blood: God, Genes, and Destiny (London: HarperCollins).
Jones, Steve, Robert Martin, and David Pilbeam, eds. (1992), Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Lemonick, Michael D. (2003a), "The Power of Mood," Time, 161[3]:64-69, January 20.
Lemonick, Michael D. (2003b), "Your Mind, Your Body," Time, 161[3]:63, January 20.
Lewin, Roger (1992), Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Macmillan).
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (1995), What is Life? (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).
Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud (1993), The Developing Human (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).
Morris, Richard (2001), The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul (New York: W.H. Freeman).
Murphy, Nancey (1998), "Nonreductive Physicalism: Philosophical Issues," What Ever Happened to the Soul?: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature, ed. Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), pp. 127-148.
Nuland, Sherwin B. (1997), The Wisdom of the Body (New York: Knopf).
O'Hear, Anthony (1997), Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ornstein, Robert (1991), The Evolution of Consciousness (New York: Prentice Hall Press).
Pinker, Steven (1997a), How the Mind Works (New York: W.W. Norton).
Pinker, Steven (1997b), "Interview," Sunday Telegraph (London).
Popper, Karl R. (1972), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Poundstone, William (1999), Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos (New York: Henry Holt and Co.).
Provine, William (1998), "Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life," [On-line], URL: http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/default.html.
Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson (1995), On Behalf of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Rudin, Norah (1997), Dictionary of Modern Biology (Hauppauge, NY: Barrons).
Ruse, Michael (1995), Evolutionary Naturalism (London: Routledge).
Sperry, Roger W. (1966), "Mind, Brain, and Humanist Values," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September.
Stannard, Russell (2000), The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?(Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press).
Strickberger, Monroe W. (2000), Evolution (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett), third edition.
Tattersall, Ian (1998), Becoming Human (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace).
Tattersall, Ian (2002), The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human (New York: Harcourt).
Trefil, James (1997), Are We Unique? A Scientist Explores the Unparalleled Intelligence of the Human Mind (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Wallace, Robert A. (1975), Biology: The World of Life (Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear).
Weiss, Joseph (1990), "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March.
Zacharias, Ravi (1990), A Shattered Visage (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt).


text:
Inspired by Jaguar cars, our designs are original art produced by our in-house creative team. Our merchandise is not official Jaguar merchandise and in no way associated with the Jaguar Motor Company.
We can offer up to 5XL so if you would like to request a larger size, please contact us on firstname.lastname@example.com. (Please be aware that there will be an additional cost for these larger sizes.)
100% combed cotton (Grey: 85% Cotton, 15% Viscose)
Jersey, 165g / 4.95oz.


text:
REAL ESTATE- ON THE BLOCK- Give me liberty: Or give me Hidden Springs Farm
ADDRESS: 3396 Fox Mountain Road
NEIGHBORHOOD: Free Union
2007 COUNTY ASSESSMENT: $1,502,400 (under open space easement with Virginia Outdoors Foundation)
YEAR BUILT: Reconstructed 1991
SIZE: 5,695 fin. sq. ft. (main house only)
LAND: 157.4 acres
CURB APPEAL: 9 out of 10
LISTED BY: Joelle Meintzschel of Quest Virginia Realty 434-760-2601
How does one approach a nearly $8 million home? In this particular case, very, very happily. The architect-designed undulating driveway teases visitors with brief glimpses of the house, so when we finally arrive, the tide of both anticipation and excitement is running high.
Built around 1800 in Brookneal for Patrick Henry's daughter, Hidden Springs Farm was carefully disassembled and reconstructed on its current site in 1991. At that time, the owners added a basement and installed up-to-date utilities. The original house, a classic colonial two-over-two, shines like a beacon from its hilly vantage point. At this price, though, it seems pretty pointless to mention that the attention to detail has in no way been shortchanged.
From the heart pine doors, floors, staircase, wainscoting, and mantels to the plaster and lathe ceilings and walls, authenticity was the paramount concern in the restoration. Unfortunately, the meticulousness lends an air of museum stillness to the rooms and creates the feeling that perhaps a velvet rope should be strung to ward off children's sticky fingers. Even so, with the beauty of the wood and the solidity of the modern foundation, it's easy to appreciate the work done to maintain historical accuracy. Better than watching it disintegrate in Small Town, Virginia.
A wide foyer splits the first floor into living and dining areas. Two stairwells– one in the entrance hall, the other in the dining room (separated only by a wall)– lead to the same place upstairs. Here, a little upgrading has been done to allow for a master suite complete with ample bathroom and massive closet. The relatively new basement is typical of other high-end basements, with Berber carpet in what is called the "family" room. The rest is given over to storage.
Two identical wings have been added, one housing the kitchen, the other a library. Both rooms blend seamlessly into the vernacular structure, fooling visitors into believing that all is original.
From the library, a newer construct appears and beckons alluringly. The current owners worried that they didn't have adequate views of the mountains and wanted a space that could be enjoyed from indoors and out. And so the same architect responsible for the driveway designed a curved 29-foot breezeway with stone floor that leads to a great room. French doors running the entire length provide views of the majestic scenery (this land plus a neighbor's 200 acres are protected by a conservation easement). A wall of windows in the great room opens to a wide stone terrace, perfectly suited for entertaining.
The owners also wanted to add more bedrooms since the main house has only one. Instead of building yet another addition, the architect decided to create what he calls a "village concept." Out the back door of the great room and through a formal garden with fountain sits a two-bedroom guest cottage. Mimicking the big house, it lures visitors with a tricky play of shadow and light. An unlit vestibule leads guests to seek out the light in the two bed chambers beyond. Each has its own full bathroom and fireplace.
But we're talking $7.6 million here, and so of course there's much, much more: a 120-square-foot stone garden shed, a log cabin circa 1800 reconstructed to perfection by Charles McRaven, an almost 5,000-square-foot barn/garage, a four-bay equipment building, two gazebos, extensive wildflower gardens, and chestnut split-rail fencing– all of it installed here in the last 15 years or so.
But these details fail to do the property justice. This is an almost perfect piece of Virginia real estate, all of it built to last and to enjoy. True, the sticker price is a shock. It makes us wonder: what would compel someone to leave a $7.6 million home? Where do you go from here?
Photos courtesy of the agent


text:
Public Participation Plan
In order to expand public access to our transportation decision-making process, BART initiated an intensive community involvement process and planning effort to develop a Public Participation Plan (PPP). The plan will guide BART's ongoing public involvement endeavors to ensure the most effective means of providing information and receiving public input on transportation issues, with particular emphasis on involving traditionally under-represented groups.
BART Public Participation Plan (284k .pdf)
Public Participation Plan Development Summary Report (256k .pdf)
Appendices A-B (92k .pdf)
Appendix C (83k .pdf)
Appendices D-G (33k .pdf)
Appendix H (47k .pdf)
Appendices I-L (360k .pdf)
Executive Summary (115k .pdf)
公众参与计划执行总结 (267k .pdf)
대중 참여 계획 사업 개요 (169k .pdf)
Plan de Participación Pública. Resumen ejecutivo (169k .pdf)
Phần Tóm Lược Kế Hoạch Công Chúng Tham Gia (.230k .pdf)
Draft of the BART Public Participation Plan:
Related links:
BART seeks your input at a series of community meetings
Portrait of a meeting: communities glad to have a voice, on issues large and small
Statement regarding February letter from the FTA
Oakland Airport Connector advocates vow to work with FTA
BART Board approves new Oakland Airport Connector funding plan


text:
Real Estate At A Glance: Single-family home sales
Special to the Daily
After two sub-par months, single-family home sales returned to the nine-year average number in November. For the year-to-date, sales are up by nearly 20 percent over last year. The average sale price for Summit County homes is $804,600 through November, 2.5 percent higher than last year-to-date.
With supply and demand nearing balance, the single-family market has returned to health ahead of the overall market.
There are 1,531 properties for sale as of Dec. 31. Expiring listings will move the number well below 1,500 to begin 2013.
94 … single-family homes sold for over $1 million to date in 2012
80 … single-family homes sold for over $1 million to date in 2011
Chuck Leathers is the broker/owner of Chuck Leathers Real Estate Co. He can be reached at (888) 485-2300 or email him at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.


text:
Found 2 resultsAuthor Title [ Type] Year
Filters: Author is Bohnert, Alexander [Clear All Filters]
03. Journal Papers
Structural change in insurance: the emergence of comprehensive value networks. CEUR Worshop Proceeedings. 2397, 39.(2019).
Digital Agendas in the Insurance Industry: The Importance of Comprehensive Approaches. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice. 44(1), 1-19.(2019).


text:
loups58 needed a new stationery design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 23 designs submitted by 7 freelance designers.
We need to create a brochure which follows our colours and the different graphical elements that we allready have.
All the information about this contest are available here : http://germainl.info/broch/
You will find all the elements you need.
Les Enfants Terribles
Desired Color Scheme:
Black and Pink
Desired Style:
Fresh, stylish, following existing design, professional but fun
Accepted File Formats:
.ind (indesign) or quark, AI
All the information you need can be found here : http://germainl.info/broch/


text:
25 of Our Favorite Feel-Good Skin Care Tips of All Time
Your skin is a telltale indicator of how good you feel. Did you break out last time you were a ball of stress? Not a coincidence, we're afraid. If you and your complexion need a little boost, try these tips and tricks to help give yourself the happiest face possible.


text:
While most of the Solar Decathlon Europe 2012 projects we have featured so far focused on just one 75 square meter solar-powered dwelling, Canopea comprises a collective of small buildings that form a healthy green habitat in dense urban settings. Team Rhône-Alpes only built one prototype for the collegiate design competition that will be open to the public in Madrid beginning 14 September, 2012, but they will also introduce a concept that includes 69 of these compact solar-powered dwellings organized around a unifying vertical farm.
Taking inspiration from tree canopies that absorb 95% of the forest's overall solar energy and capture 30% of the rainfall, the nanotowers are less than 10 stories high and each floor is its own home. The top floor below spaces beneath the photovoltaic canopy are shared and play host to laundry and cooking facilities as well as a small recreation area. Clusters of nanotowers are linked with passageways filled with gardens, storage areas and recycling facilities.
In order to optimize energy conservation, each of the nanatowers that make up the Canopea are connected to smart grids that manage all of the heating and cooling systems, in addition to a variety of other services that can be monitored with touch pads. While the team from Romania eschewed super high-tech solutions, team Rhône-Alpes has embraced it wholeheartedly.
The 75 square meter unit that the team has developed for SDE 2012 comprises the bottom two floors of one nanotower. It features a master bedroom, bathroom and additional room with a lot of flexible open space along with large bay windows in the living room that open to an outdoor garden. Earthern walls create a pleasant internal environment while operable louvers permit natural ventilation and daylighting. And finally the roof is composed of silkscreened bi-glass photovoltaic panels.
Conceptually one of the more complicated projects we've seen to date, we're looking forward to seeing the final product in Madrid. Stay tuned!