1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    07 Oct '10 15:34
    Some more Vedic thought

    Little more than a century ago, science began to entertain notions of life arising from inert chemicals. Through the microscopes of that time, the cell appeared to be no more than a simple bag of chemicals. Therefore it seemed reasonable to scientists such as Darwin to imagine that elementary living forms might have arisen from the random combination of organic chemicals in a primordial soup. But as man probed into the mysteries of the living cell, the idea that life came from chemicals began to appear less reasonable. Yet most scientists today cling to the dogma of chemical evolution.


    As time went on, microscopic exploration gradually revealed increasingly complex phenomena within the tiny cell, such as the precise regulation of cellular metabolism by the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), which involves the sophisticated interaction of thousands of kinds of elaborately structured protein molecules. It was no longer quite so easy to imagine how all this could have occurred by random combination of chemicals.


    Describing the remarkably intricate biochemistry of the cell, James D. Watson, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, wrote in his book *Molecular Biology of the Gene, "We must immediately admit that the structure of the cell will never be understood in the same way as that of water or glucose molecules. Not only will the exact structure of most macromolecules within the cell remain unsolved, but their relative locations within cells can only be vaguely known. It is thus not surprising that many chemists, after brief periods of enthusiasm for studying 'life,' silently return to the world of pure chemistry."1


    Yet despite ever-increasing awareness of the structural and behavioral complexity of even the simplest living systems, many scientists continue to theorize that life has emerged from a primordial chemical soup without the direction of any higher organizing principles. They imagine that in the course of random chemical bonding, simple molecules combined into complex organic compounds, which eventually integrated themselves into self-reproducing organisms. This scenario is being presented as the undisputed truth about the origin of life in every science classroom around the world--in grade schools, high schools, and colleges and universities. Radio, television, and the popular science publications reinforce the message.


    To some, talk about topics such as whether or not life emerged from matter may appear far removed from day-to-day affairs, and thus irrelevant to their own lives. Whether the discussions involve highly reasonable ideas based on solid evidence or vague, unsubstantiated hypotheses rooted in flimsy data and nurtured by scientific prejudice, they seem like subject matter for scholars in ivory towers. But because the answers to fundamental questions about the origin of life determine how we view ourselves and our place in the universe, they profoundly affect our sense of identity, our decisions, our feelings, our relationships, our behavior--in fact, they affect all aspects of our life, including the goals of our whole secular society.


    Before looking at the explanations offered by mechanistic theories on the origin of life and consciousness, we shall first consider three examples of what goes on inside the living cell, thereby helping us appreciate the incredible complexity of even the simplest organisms.


    While contemplating these examples, it is crucial that we remember that according to the understanding of modern chemists, the molecules involved are merely submicroscopic units of matter. The remarkable ways in which they combine might lead one to attribute mystical potencies for self-organization to them. Scientists, however, are quick to reject this idea, insisting instead that molecules do nothing more than follow the laws of physics. But just how molecules acting according to these relatively simple mechanistic laws could combine together to produce inconceivably complicated cells has yet to be explained. And how such cells could evolve according to the same laws to produce complex higher organisms is an even knottier question. So despite the rigid adherence of the scientific community to its current mechanistic explanation of chemical evolution, it would seem appropriate for us to remain open to the possibility that other factors may be involved in chemical evolution--perhaps even some kind of self-intelligent organizing principle.


    Our first example concerns the bacterial cell's protective wall, which is manufactured from various molecules synthesized within the cell. To construct its wall, the cell initially forms molecular building blocks from simpler compounds by processes involving many sophisticated operations. Once these blocks are assembled, the cell arranges them into a precise weave of horizontal and vertical rows comprising the cell wall. This manufacturing process resembles a complex factory assembly operation, wherein specifically designed machines first build component parts from raw materials and then assemble those components into a functioning, finished product.


    A second example of the cell's internal complexity is its formation of a fatty acid, palmitic acid, from fourteen molecular subunits. Fatty acids are the chief molecules for energy storage in cells. To manufacture palmitic acid, the cell creates an elaborate, circular "molecular machine" from protein molecules. At the "machine's" center is an arm, also comprised of molecules, that swings through six "work stations". Each time the arm rotates, two molecular subunits of the fatty acid are added by the action of enzymes at the work stations. (Enzymes are highly complex protein molecules that aid chemical reactions within the cell.) After seven rotations, the required fourteen units are present and the fatty acid is released.


    For this rotary assembly machine to work, all six different enzymes must be present in the right order, and the molecular arm must be properly arranged. In general, a complex machine is operable only if all vital parts are present and functioning. For example, it would be hard to imagine an automobile engine being able to run without a fuel pump or camshaft. It's hard to see, therefore, how the molecular machine described above could have come into being through any kind of step-by-step evolution.
    Our third example, the action of the enzyme DNA gyrase in cellular reproduction, graphically illustrates the serious problems mechanistic theories face in attempting to explain the origins of complex behavior in cells. In a bacterium such as E. coli, the DNA molecule is a loop-shaped, intertwined double helix, which separates into two helixes during cellular reproduction. As the upper portion of the helix uncoils, it naturally causes the lower portion to wind upon itself, or supercoil. Since the DNA is already folded hundreds of times to fit in the cell, supercoiling invariably causes the strands to tangle. This tangling would prohibit reproduction; therefore the cell activates an enzyme, DNA gyrase, that unravels the knots in the DNA strands. The gyrase rearranges the DNA strands as follows. First it cuts one of the overlapping strands, then pulls the other strand through the opening, and finally joins the ends of the cut strand back together. By means of this highly sophisticated operation, the DNA gyrase sorts out the tangle of chromosomes.


    The question for biochemists is this: How could the DNA gyrase molecule have originated? It must be much too complicated in structure to have come about in one stroke, by the random combinations of molecules in the primordial soup. Scientists might therefore suggest it underwent a process of gradual evolution, step by step. But here's the catch--without DNA gyrase, there would have been no cellular reproduction, and without cellular reproduction, there is no evolutionary process to produce the gyrase. The origin of the gyrase enzyme thus remains one of the great mysteries of cellular evolution.


    The above-mentioned three examples indicate the intricate structure and operation of the cell. No one has any experience of a machine that developed without a designer's plan and specifications; therefore it's reasonable to consider the possibility that such complex arrangements came about by a preconceived design. Unfortunately, such commonsense conclusions have no place in the currently dominant theories about the evolution of life. Rather, the proponents of chemical evolution struggle to manufacture alternative explanations that refer only to blind chance and the impersonal laws of physics.


    The most common scenario portrayed by chemical-evolution theorists begins more than four billion years ago, when clouds of gases and dust are believed to have condensed on the earth's ancient surface and gradually formed the primal atmosphere. Activated by ultraviolet light and electric bolts, this primitive atmosphere is supposed to have spontaneously given birth to organic chemical compounds, which then, for some 1.5 billion years, accumulated in ancient seas. These organic compounds interacted chemically and eventually formed primitive polypeptides (proteins), polynucleotides (DNA and RNA), polysaccharides (cell sugars), and lipids (fatty acids). A standard college text gives the final step: "From this rich broth of organic molecules and polymers, the primordial organic soup, the first living organisms are believed to have arisen."2


    Unquestionably a provocative and somewhat poetic description--but how well does this grand speculation hold up to even moderate scrutiny? We have already discussed the amazing complexity of even simple living systems, so any claim that blind natural forces originally organized molecules into elaborately functioning systems must explain the exact principles and step-by-step processes involved. This has not been done.


    Biochemists may call upon...
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Oct '10 17:181 edit
    The relevance of perirhinal cortical cholinergic and glutamatergic neurotransmission for taste recognition memory and learned taste aversion was assessed by microinfusions of muscarinic (scopolamine), NMDA (AP-5), and AMPA (NBQX) receptor antagonists. Infusions of scopolamine, but not AP5 or NBQX, prevented the consolidation of taste recognition memory using attenuation of neophobia as an index. In addition, learned taste aversion in both short- and long-term memory tests was exclusively impaired by scopolamine. These data provide neurochemical support for the theory that cholinergic activity of the perirhinal cortex participates in the formation of the taste memory trace and that it is independent of the NMDA and AMPA receptor activity. These results support the idea that cholinergic neurotransmission in the perirhinal cortex is also essential for acquisition and consolidation of taste recognition memory.

    Previous SectionNext Section

    Perirhinal cortex has been defined as a higher-order polymodal associational cortex because it receives both unimodal input from all sensory modalities as well as afferents from polymodal association areas (Burwell 2001). The principal pathways come from frontal, parietal, temporal, cingulate, occipital, and subicular cortices (Deacon et al. 1983). In addition, perirhinal cortex sends direct and indirect (through entorhinal cortex) projections to the hippocampus (Burwell and Amaral 1998), a structure involved in plasticity and learning (Martin and Morris 2002). Moreover, it should be noted that the perirhinal cortex is interconnected with the amygdala and the insular cortex (McDonald and Jackson 1987; Burwell and Amaral 1995), brain regions responsible for gustatory learning and memory in the rat (Lamprecht and Dudai 1996; Yasoshima and Yamamoto 1997; Bermudez-Rattoni and Yamamoto 1998).

    Lesions to the perirhinal cortex induce several cognitive deficits that range from difficulties recognizing an item that has been previously presented (recognition memory; Mandler 1980), to impairments in cross-modal associative memories (for review, see Murray and Richmond 2001). For example, damage to the perirhinal and entorhinal cortices (referred to as rhinal cortex) impairs cross-modal tactual–visual recognition memory (Goulet and Murray 2001) as well as cross-modal flavor–visual associative memory in which the monkey must use an association between a food cue and a visual object to get a food reward (Parker and Gaffan 1998). In addition, injury to the perirhinal cortex (Meunier et al. 1993; Mumby and Pinel 1994; Malkova et al. 2001) as well as perirhinal microinjections of the cholinergic muscarinic receptor blocker scopolamine impair visual recognition memory (Tang et al. 1997), whereas intraperitoneal administration of physostigmine, a cholinesterase inhibitor, improves it (Aigner and Mishkin 1986). These results indicate the relevance of the perirhinal cortex cholinergic activity for normal visual recognition memory. In addition, diminished performance on tactual (Buffalo et al. 1999) and olfactory recognition memory tasks has been reported in animals lacking perirhinal cortex (Otto and Eichenbaum 1992). However, auditory recognition memory is not affected by lesions of the perirhinal cortex (Kowalska et al. 2001).

    Scarce information about the participation of perirhinal cortex on taste recognition memory is available in the literature (Brown and Xiang 1998). Because eating and drinking are multimodal integration processes, that is, the aspect (visual), odor (olfactory), texture (somatosensory), and taste of a foodstuff must be integrated in specific brain regions to predict how tasty or disgusting an edible might be, and because it is known that the perirhinal cortex integrates almost all sensory modalities to identify an object as the same even in different contexts or perspectives (Murray and Richmond 2001), the perirhinal cortex emerges as a plausible integration region of taste information with that of other sensory systems. In this regard, it was reported that perirhinal cortex is involved in conditioned taste aversion (CTA), in which a palatable taste changes from positive to aversive because of a malaise-inducing agent injection. Thus, Tassoni et al. (2000), using a sodium channel blocker (TTX), reported that temporal inactivation of the perirhinal cortex when rats drink a novel taste solution impairs CTA, but the impairment was not observed when inactivation was induced between taste exposure and induction of malaise (association phase) or before the retrieval test. These results indicate that the perirhinal cortex is involved in the formation of the taste memory trace (TMT; for definition, see Gutierrez et al. 2003b), but not in the association or retrieval of learned taste aversion.

    Therefore, in this study we assessed the participation of cholinergic and glutamatergic receptors of the perirhinal cortex on taste recognition memory and learned taste aversion. We used the innate neophobic behavior as a novelty index. This behavior consists of a reduced fluid consumption that rats show when exposed to a novel taste solution. This response is attenuated in subsequent presentations (Nachman and Jones 1974; Domjan 1976); that is, rats drink more when the taste is familiar. Attenuation of neophobia (AN) was therefore used as an index of taste recognition memory. It should be stressed that AN is a long lasting behavior that persists for days (Buresova and Bures 1980) or even months (Best et al. 1978), and it is dependent on muscarinic receptor activity of the insular cortex (gustatory cortex; Gutierrez et al. 2003a,b).

    To evaluate in more detail the participation of perirhinal cortex on learned taste aversion, microinjections of scopolamine were performed in this area. It has been previously demonstrated that scopolamine impairs specifically the formation of the TMT when it is injected in the insular cortex (Naor and Dudai 1996; Ferreira et al. 2002; Gutierrez et al. 2003b). In addition, NMDA and AMPA receptor blockers were also applied because previous reports indicate that glutamatergic activity is required in the insular cortex for CTA long-term memory but not for taste memory trace formation (Ferreira et al. 2002; Gutierrez et al. 2003a,b).
    Previous SectionNext Section
    RESULTS
    Taste Recognition Memory

    To assess the role of muscarinic, NMDA, and AMPA receptors in the perirhinal cortex on taste recognition memory, respective antagonists were microinjected either before or after novel taste presentation. A highly concentrated saccharin solution (0.5😵 was used, which is known to increase the robustness of neophobia; that is, rats innately drink much less saccharin solution in comparison with their normal water consumption (cf. Fig. 1, first sacch vs. Fig. 2, acquisition). All animals showed comparable neophobic response to saccharin (F(3, 82) = 1.1; p > 0.05), drinking on average only 31% (3.7 ± 0.25 mL) relative to water baseline (Fig. 1A,B). On the second taste experience (Fig. 1A, second sacch), the group treated with scopolamine drank similar levels of saccharin solution as in the previous presentation, whereas all the other groups increased their saccharin intake, showing the expected attenuation of neophobia (F(3, 47) = 14; p < 0.0001). In the third taste experience (third sacch), there were still significant differences between the scopolamine group and the vehicle group (F(3, 47) = 5, p < 0.01). However, despite these differences, rats that received scopolamine displayed a normal attenuation of neophobia because they drank as the control group did during their second saccharin intake. These results indicate that scopolamine does not induce a permanent effect on taste recognition. It should be noted that the activity of scopolamine lasts less than 24 h (Sipos et al. 1999), and it was only injected on the first saccharin presentation.
    Figure 1
    View larger version:

    * In this window
    * In a new window

    * Download as PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Percentage of consumption (mean ± SEM) during the first (novel), second (familiar), and third 0.5% sodium saccharin (sacch) presentation compared with water baseline; every saccharin presentation was given at 24-h intervals. Drugs were injected before (A) or immediately after (B) taste presentation.
    Figure 2
    View larger version:

    * In this window
    * In a new window

    * Download as PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2

    Effect of muscarinic receptor antagonist, scopolamine (Scop), NMDA receptor antagonist, (AP-5), AMPA receptor antagonist (NBQX), and vehicle (Veh) microinjected bilaterally into the perirhinal cortex upon conditioned taste aversion (CTA). (A) The microinjection was given 20 min before taste presentation on the acquisition day (saccharin followed by malaise-inducing agent injection; LiCl). (B) The microinjection was given immediately after taste exposure but before malaise induction on the acquisition day. In both A and B the long-term memory test (LTM; saccharin) was given 72 h after the acquisition trial. (**) p < 0.01 significantly different among groups.

    The results were similar when scopolamine was microinjected immediately after novel taste presentation; that is, there were no significant differences on the first saccharin intake (F(1, 35) = 2.8, p > 0.05). However, on the second taste experience, scopolamine prevented attenuation of neophobia (F(1, 35) = 83.5, p < 0.0001). Moreover, on the third taste presentation, there were still significant differences among groups (F(1, 35) = 7.8, p > 0.01; Fig. 1B).

    As can be seen in Figure 1A, the inactivation of AMPA or NMDA receptors before taste presentation did not impair neophobia or attenuation of neophobia, which indicates that taste recognition memory can persist even in the absence of activity of these receptors in the perirhinal cortex.
  3. Standard memberrandolph
    the walrus
    an English garden
    Joined
    15 Jan '08
    Moves
    32836
    07 Oct '10 17:37
    In mathematics, the imaginary unit allows the real number system to be extended to the complex number system , which in turn provides at least one root for every polynomial P(x) (see algebraic closure and fundamental theorem of algebra). The imaginary unit is denoted by i, j, or the Greek &#953; (see alternative notations). Although its precise definition varies, the imaginary unit's core property is that i2 = &#8722;1.
    There are in fact two square roots of &#8722;1, namely i and &#8722;i, just as there are two square roots of every non-zero real number. Misuse of the imaginary unit can lead to difficulties.
    For a history of the imaginary unit, see Complex number: History.
    Contents [hide]
    1 Definition
    2 i and &#8722;i
    3 Proper use
    4 Properties
    4.1 Square root
    4.2 Multiplication and division
    4.3 Powers
    4.4 Factorial
    4.5 Other operations
    5 Euler's formula
    5.1 Example
    6 Alternative notations
    7 See also
    8 Notes
    9 References
    10 External links
    [edit]Definition

    The powers of i return cyclic values:
    (repeats the pattern from blue area)










    (repeats the pattern from blue area)
    The imaginary number i is defined solely by the property that its square is &#8722;1:

    If i is defined in this way, then it follows from straightforward algebra that &#8722;i is also the square root of &#8722;1.
    Although the construction is called "imaginary", and although the concept of an imaginary number may be intuitively more difficult to grasp than that of a real number, the construction is perfectly valid from a mathematical standpoint. Real number operations can be extended to imaginary and complex numbers by treating i as an unknown quantity while manipulating an expression, and then using the definition to replace any occurrence of i2 with &#8722;1. Higher integral powers of i can also be replaced with &#8722;i, 1, i, or &#8722;1:



    [edit]i and &#8722;i

    Being a quadratic polynomial with no multiple root, the defining equation x2 = &#8722;1 has two distinct solutions, which are equally valid and which happen to be additive and multiplicative inverses of each other. More precisely, once a solution i of the equation has been fixed, the value &#8722;i (which, one can prove algebraically, is not equal to i) is also a solution. Since the equation is the only definition of i, it appears that the definition is ambiguous (more precisely, not well-defined). However, no ambiguity results as long as one of the solutions is chosen and fixed as the "positive i". This is because, although &#8722;i and i are not quantitatively equivalent (they are negatives of each other), there is no algebraic difference between i and &#8722;i. Both imaginary numbers have equal claim to being the number whose square is &#8722;1. If all mathematical textbooks and published literature referring to imaginary or complex numbers were rewritten with &#8722;i replacing every occurrence of +i (and therefore every occurrence of &#8722;i replaced by &#8722;(&#8722;i) = +i), all facts and theorems would continue to be equivalently valid. The distinction between the two roots x of x2 + 1 = 0 with one of them as "positive" is purely a notational relic; neither root can be said to be more primary or fundamental than the other.
    The issue can be a subtle one. The most precise explanation is to say that although the complex field, defined as R[X]/ (X2 + 1), (see complex number) is unique up to isomorphism, it is not unique up to a unique isomorphism — there are exactly 2 field automorphisms of R[X]/ (X2 + 1), the identity and the automorphism sending X to &#8722;X. (These are not the only field automorphisms of C, but are the only field automorphisms of C which keep each real number fixed.) See complex number, complex conjugation, field automorphism, and Galois group.
    A similar issue arises if the complex numbers are interpreted as 2 × 2 real matrices (see matrix representation of complex numbers), because then both
    and
    are solutions to the matrix equation

    In this case, the ambiguity results from the geometric choice of which "direction" around the unit circle is "positive" rotation. A more precise explanation is to say that the automorphism group of the special orthogonal group SO (2, R) has exactly 2 elements — the identity and the automorphism which exchanges "CW" (clockwise) and "CCW" (counter-clockwise) rotations. See orthogonal group.
    All these ambiguities can be solved by adopting a more rigorous definition of complex number, and explicitly choosing one of the solutions to the equation to be the imaginary unit. For example, the ordered pair (0, 1), in the usual construction of the complex numbers with two-dimensional vectors.
    [edit]Proper use

    The imaginary unit is sometimes written in advanced mathematics contexts (as well as in less advanced popular texts). However, great care needs to be taken when manipulating formulas involving radicals. The notation is reserved either for the principal square root function, which is only defined for real x &#8805; 0, or for the principal branch of the complex square root function. Attempting to apply the calculation rules of the principal (real) square root function to manipulate the principal branch of the complex square root function will produce false results:
    (incorrect).
    Attempting to correct the calculation by specifying both the positive and negative roots only produces ambiguous results:
    (ambiguous).
    The calculation rule

    is only valid for real, non-negative values of a and b.
    These problems are avoided by writing and manipulating , rather than expressions like . For a more thorough discussion, see Square root and Branch point.
  4. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Oct '10 18:09
    Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation myth[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"[2]

    However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 51% of the listed Steves are biologists.[4]

    The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" that have signed the list. As of 7 October 2010 (2010 -10-07)[update], the Steve-o-meter registered 1,145 Steves.[5]

    Contents [hide]
    1 Statement
    2 History
    3 Reactions
    4 See also
    5 References
    6 External links


    [edit] Statement
    The statement that signatories agree to reads:

    Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

    There have been some complaints that the statement left out the geological sciences, where evolution is an important principle as well. However, this oversight was noticed too late and it was decided that it would be more effort than it is worth to go back to correct it.[4]

    The statement also has been criticized for including a slightly inaccurate statement about common descent, in light of the work of Carl Woese, published in 2002.[4] Woese argues that there is "horizontal transfer of genetic material" among organisms, making the evolutionary trees more complicated than had been previously thought.[6]

    [edit] History
    The project was named in honor of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). It began in 2003, with an official press release on February 16, 2003.[7] The press release was issued at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2003 convention in Denver, Colorado, after a lecture by Lawrence Krauss titled "Scientific Ignorance as a Way of Life: From Science Fiction in Washington to Intelligent Design in the Classroom." Krauss made the actual announcement and directed the reporters to NCSE Director Eugenie Scott, who was sitting in the audience in the front row.[8]

    The original goal was to collect the signatures of 100 Steves, but this goal was reached in about 10 days. Both Nobel Prize-winning Steves in science — Steven Weinberg and Steven Chu (who has since been appointed Secretary of Energy in Barack Obama's Cabinet) — were among the first 100 Steves. Over 200 Steves responded in the first month.[8] As the news of Project Steve spread by word-of-mouth, ever-increasing numbers of Steves contacted the NCSE, and the list continued to grow.

    Project Steve captured the attention of the media. The first media coverage included articles in the Washington Times, Science, the Oakland Tribune and an interview of NCSE director Eugenie Scott by Australian science journalist and radio broadcaster Robyn Williams for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio show, "The Science Show". "The Science Show" arranged for Geoff Sirmai and David Fisher of the Australian musical comedy team "Comic Roasts" to write the "Steve Song", a parody of the Monty Python song about Spam, for Project Steve.[9][10] The song had its debut on "The Science Show" episode featuring the interview of Scott which aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National on the 8th of March, 2003.[11]

    Cambridge University Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking was the 300th Steve to sign the list. By the time the announcement was made on April 21, 2003, another five had joined to bring the total number of Steves to 305.[12] By December 26, 2003, St. Stephen's Day, Project Steve had grown to 400 scientists.[13]

    As Project Steve reached the 400 scientist mark, the NCSE decided to offer a commemorative novelty Project Steve t-shirt. The t-shirt is emblazoned with the proclamation, "Over _00 Scientists named Steve Agree, Teach Evolution!" in large letters, where the blank contains the most recent hundreds mark. A list of the current signatories is included in a smaller typeface on the t-shirt as well.

    Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch and Nick Matzke published an article in the July/August 2004 issue of the Annals of Improbable Research (with all the Steves that had signed up to that point listed as co-authors) called The Morphology of Steve which contained "the first scientific analysis of the sex, geographic location, and body size of scientists named Steve"[14]. The data were obtained using NCSE's "pioneering experimental steveometry apparatus"—the t-shirt.

    Shortly after the second anniversary of Project Steve in February 2005, 543 Steves had signed the list. A front page story in the Ottawa Citizen marking this event was published on February 20, 2005.[15] On September 12, 2005, the 600th Steve signed the list.[16] By February 16, 2006, the third anniversary of Project Steve's official launch, the Steve-o-meter stood at 700.[17] On April 24, 2007, the list had grown to 800 Steves.[18] As of August 9, 2010 there were over 1100 Steves on the list, with Steven J. Smith being #1140.[19]

    There have been articles about Project Steve in The Times, Scientific American, Yale Daily News, Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus, The Guardian, MIT's TechTalk, The Arizona Republic, among many others.[20]

    [edit] Reactions
    William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" petition had eight Steves as of July, 2007,[21] has said that:

    "If Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies—that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution."[22]

    Inspired by Project Steve, and motivated by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwinism" list, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.[23] During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000 percent higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, according to archaeologist R. Joe Brandon.[24]

    [edit] See also
    Clergy Letter Project
    Evidence of common descent
    Level of support for evolution
    Flying Spaghetti Monster
    [edit] References
    ^ List of living scientists who accept the biblical account of creation from Answers in Genesis
    ^ NCSE Project Steve official webpage, National Center for Science Education, February 16, 2003
    ^ According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve. Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition.[citation needed]
    ^ a b c "Project Steve: FAQs". http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve-faq. , National Center for Science Education website, February 16, 2003, last updated February 12, 2009
    ^ The List of Steves
    ^ "On the evolution of cells," Carl Woese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2002 Jun 25; 99 [13]: 8742-8747
    ^ TEACH EVOLUTION! Over two hundred scientists named Steve agree, National Center for Science Education press release, February 16, 2003.
    ^ a b All About Steve (and Darwin), Glenn Branch and Skip Evans, Geologic Column, Geotimes, May 2003.
    ^ Project Steve FAQ, National Center for Science Education, March 15, 2005.
    ^ Steve Song wma audio file, National Center for Science Education website
    ^ The Steve Project, radio show transcript, The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 8, 2003.
    ^ Hawking is Steve #300, National Center for Science Education, April 21, 2003.
    ^ Project Steve Update, National Center for Science Education, December 26, 2003.
    ^ Eugenie C. Scott, Nick Matzke, Glenn Branch, et al. (2004). "The Morphology of Steve" ([dead link]). Annals of Improbable Research 10 (4): 24–29. doi:10.3142/107951404781540...
  5. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Oct '10 05:521 edit
    To A ThousandYoung.

    Yes, good effort, but you fail to recognize that any person on any list, is but a fraction of the people who are really against the false therory of evolution.

    If every person in the world who favoured discent from Darwins evolution therory, and without having to reveal there true identity, where to put a list together, then that list would be very very very long.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    09 Oct '10 06:42
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    To A ThousandYoung.

    Yes, good effort, but you fail to recognize that any person on any list, is but a fraction of the people who are really against the false therory of evolution.

    If every person in the world who favoured discent from Darwins evolution therory, and without having to reveal there true identity, where to put a list together, then that list would be very very very long.
    And you know this how?
    As soon as you care to describe your alternative to Evolution then you'll have people interested. Until then,maybe you could stop clogging up the threads with this crap ...
  7. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Oct '10 07:45
    Originally posted by amannion
    And you know this how?
    As soon as you care to describe your alternative to Evolution then you'll have people interested. Until then,maybe you could stop clogging up the threads with this crap ...
    Dear Mr cheating science person.

    You know i have answered the very question you just asked, but you pretend to not know, this is your dishonest way.

    You know that I have asked you to read "Forbidden Archeology" many times, and there you will find the answer.

    And after you read that, then read "Forbidden Archeology the Impact" thankyou.
  8. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    09 Oct '10 08:11
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    Dear Mr cheating science person.

    You know i have answered the very question you just asked, but you pretend to not know, this is your dishonest way.

    You know that I have asked you to read "Forbidden Archeology" many times, and there you will find the answer.

    And after you read that, then read "Forbidden Archeology the Impact" thankyou.
    Well yeah, this is a credible work. And full of useful alternatives to Evolution.
    Not.

    ...
    Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that Cremo's "specimens no longer exist" and called his work pseudoscience.
    His book Human Devolution, which like Forbidden Archeology claims that modern man has existed for millions of years, attempts to prove this by citing "every possible research into the paranormal ever conducted anywhere to "prove" the truth of holist Vedic cosmology which proposes the presence of a spiritual element in all matter (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of "devolution"😉."

    ...
  9. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Oct '10 13:59
    Originally posted by amannion
    Well yeah, this is a credible work. And full of useful alternatives to Evolution.
    Not.

    ...
    Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Tom Morrow of ...[text shortened]... (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of "devolution"😉."

    ...
    You are saying stuff thats not true, isnt there an honest man in this forum.

    There are many, many, archeological specimens, of man made artifacts, in rock strata, dated millions of years, and the cheating scientists, have hidden them from public scrutiny.

    The book has uncovered all this hard evidence, that cant be denied, but the lieing scientists, still cling to their fabricated therory....Why?

    Because the therory of evolution, is fabricated by dishonest people, who use it to support their atheistic nonsense beliefs.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Oct '10 15:14
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    There are many, many, archeological specimens, of man made artifacts, in rock strata, dated millions of years, and the cheating scientists, have hidden them from public scrutiny.
    But you see the problem is that on the one hand I have a whole bunch of scientists who gave me computers, electricity, space flight and all the other modern wonders of the world, and on the other hand I have you, who so far has insulted me at practically every opportunity especially when I ask for some sort of confirmation for your claims.

    So who should I believe? Why should I believe you when you claim that all this evidence exists but is being hidden by scientists? I cannot see the evidence all I have is two claims by two parties, so it comes down to credibility of those parties. So please explain why I should find your claim the more credible one?

    Also, I am interested to know how you know about all these artifacts if the scientists are hiding them. Did they show them to you, or did you learn about them through some other means?
  11. Standard memberrandolph
    the walrus
    an English garden
    Joined
    15 Jan '08
    Moves
    32836
    09 Oct '10 21:44
    You guys have ruined what was once a great thread.
  12. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69617
    09 Oct '10 21:51
    Requests
    14 group invitations
    11 Page suggestions
    You have 25 games and application requests. In order to view them, click on Games or Applications in the menu on the left.
    Pokes
    Clare · Poke back
    Get connected
    Who's on Facebook?
    Find your Friends
    Who's not on Facebook?
    Invite them now
    Who's here because of you?
    Track your invitations
    Connect on the go
    Try Facebook mobile

    Top news · Most recent34
    News Feed
    Wednesday at 16:31 · Invite guests
  13. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    11 Oct '10 17:082 edits
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    Some more Vedic thought

    Little more than a century ago, science began to entertain notions of life arising from inert chemicals. Through the microscopes of that time, the cell appeared to be no more than a simple bag of chemicals. Therefore it seemed reasonable to scientists such as Darwin to imagine that elementary living forms might have arisen from rocesses involved. This has not been done.


    Biochemists may call upon...
    “...As time went on, microscopic exploration gradually revealed increasingly complex phenomena within the tiny cell, such as the precise regulation of cellular metabolism by the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), which involves the sophisticated interaction of thousands of kinds of elaborately structured protein molecules. It was no longer quite so easy to imagine how all this could have occurred by random combination of chemicals. ...”

    -and nobody is suggesting that all this complexities came about all at once by “random combination of chemicals” as you suggested above! What is generally suggested is that something vastly simpler and rudimentary spontaneously formed first such as a microsphere ( a cell-like structure that has been shown to spontaneously form under certain conditions in the presence of water and various organic chemicals and have been demonstrated to be able to self-replicate in the lab (a bit like a crystal) despite being non-living! ) that engulfed something like a self-replicating RNA enzyme (which could have also spontaneously formed and are known to sometimes function with little or no help from complex proteins ) that gave the microsphere some kind of advantage (no matter how small or subtle that advantage) and this microsphere would have had less than a billionth of the complexity of modern cells.

    Once such a microsphere with an inheritable advantage forms, evolution has a chance to take over and gradually add one tiny bit of complexity at a time over countless generations until cells similar to modern bacteria evolve. So the complexity of modem life does not pose a problem here.

    “...A second example of the cell's internal complexity is its formation of a fatty acid, palmitic acid, from fourteen molecular subunits. Fatty acids are the chief molecules for energy storage in cells. ...”

    -yes, in some (NOT all!) MODERN cells. That does not mean that this was true in the FIRST living cell (because it probably wasn't ).
    Fatty acid metabolism would have evolved AFTER the formation of the first cell.

    “...The question for biochemists is this: How could the DNA gyrase molecule have originated? It must be much too complicated in structure to have come about in one stroke, by the random combinations of molecules in the primordial soup. Scientists might therefore suggest it underwent a process of gradual evolution, step by step. But here's the catch--without DNA gyrase, there would have been no cellular reproduction, and without cellular reproduction, there is no evolutionary process to …...”

    Firstly, the first genes to exist are far more likely to be RNA genes rather than DNA genes and so the first cell probably wouldn’t have needed DNA.
    Secondly, why couldn't there have first been a vastly simpler protein molecule that does the same job as DNA gyrase albeit much less efficiently? DNA gyrase is not the only solution to how DNA can unwind!

    “...The origin of the gyrase enzyme thus remains one of the great mysteries of cellular evolution....”

    Err, no; new kinds of enzymes evolve from mutations -so no mystery there.

    The whole of your post is flawed because it ignores these four points above esp the first one (so the complexity of modem life does not pose a problem ).
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Oct '10 03:061 edit
    To Andrew Hamilton

    Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.

    I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is arranging itself, into complex usefull forms.

    Why should cells combine themselves to the point of giving us a cow, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    12 Oct '10 03:10
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    To Andrew Hamilton

    Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.

    I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is a ...[text shortened]... w, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.
    No, not an accident - natural selection. To call evolution accidental is both mistaken and idiotic.
Back to Top