text:
Debate Summary (by Dan Ryder)

I just received a nice email from Mr. Mackay, in which he admits that he’s got it all wrong. He now accepts evolution, and is willing to interpret Genesis as being somewhat metaphorical.

Just kidding! But he should, shouldn’t he?

We’ve seen that John’s religious dogmatism is so strong that no amount of distorting or ignoring evidence is beyond him. As long as it’s fashioned to fit with Genesis, he hears a melodious ring of truth. If it can’t fit, he doesn’t hear it at all.

The evidence suggests that this is exactly how creationists manage to misread the data so dramatically. John owed us a similar explanation for how, as he believes, the biologists could be so wrong – but he manifestly failed to do so.

Instead, we got quotemines and a failure to answer the vast majority of my challenges. When he did answer them, he fell into absurdities: for example, his comments on so-called flood geology commit him to denying myriad facts in geology, chemistry, biology, astronomy, archaeology, and even basic laws of physics.

The main theme I pursued was that there are multiple lines of utterly conclusive evidence for common descent, all based on the same common sense reasoning. John’s comments on this theme descend into contradiction. For example, he’s happy to accept the conclusive evidence for common descent in some cases (e.g. kangaroos and bacteria), but arbitrarily rejects that very same evidence in others (e.g. primates and mammals). He argues that species-level gaps in the fossil record show common descent to be impossible in those cases, while blithely admitting that exactly similar or bigger gaps exist among current organisms that are related. He denies that we’ve ever observed evolution, but needs it to happen so fast that we could film it.

John: When your hypothesis leads to contradiction, that means the hypothesis is false. (John’s not worried, though, because if the Bible says black is white, or that there are circumstances in which it’s OK to beat people to death, it must be true.)

Since I’ve been denied the right to post even the smallest comment in response to John’s debate summary (in which it’s rumoured he’ll be linking to lots of rubbish without fear of me exposing him), here are some links that might help you figure out where any new mistakes are:

Talk Origins (see especially here [updated here] and here. If John falsely implies that a common creator can explain the pattern of organism similarities, see here.
Talk Reason
• evangelical Christian biologist Dennis Venema
The Panda’s Thumb group blog
• A simple introduction to evolution

Thanks to John Mackay, the Creation Club… and to you for reading!

Debate Summary (by John Mackay)

Most of what Dr. Dan did over the past weeks was attack straw men and shown his misunderstanding of the biblical creation model.

Dan tried (and failed) to connect languages with biological evolution. Fact – languages/dogs change, but this is not evidence organisms change to completely different kinds

Dan also claimed small mutational genetic changes accumulate to evolve new organisms. The late biology professor Lynn Margulis famously stated: “Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear…No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.” I agree. No one has observed the evolution of a single new body part let alone new organisms. Supermutagenesis experiments of fruit flies for over 100 years underscores this failure. Organisms give rise to progeny only slightly varied from their parents. I support common ancestry in that every organism can be traced back to separately created parents.

Likewise Erwin’s paper challenges Dan’s claims;

As for fossils, they support the creation model very well. “Most fossil species appear suddenly without transitional forms in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.” (Graham and Campbell, Biology: Concepts and Connections, 2006, p. 290.) This means the first fossil bat, seal, ant or shrimp is essentially identical to modern versions with no hint of differing ancestors from which they supposedly evolved. Fossils are a record of sudden death, representing catastrophically torn apart ecosystems transported and buried, first during Noah’s flood, and later in smaller cataclysms

Dan supports geologic strata of great age and cited varves in the Cache Creek area. But I have a buried complete fossil mesosaur across many varves which proves multiple varves can be deposited rapidly. Also, Guy Berthault’s flume experiments showed that mixed mineral laden currents do RAPIDLY produce strata explaining how fish can be fossilized in the act of eating one another, again undermining Dan’s deep time argument.

During the debate, I asked for evidence of molecules-to-man evolution (macroevolution). Dan boasted science overwhelmingly favours evolution because of “the sheer weight of evidence,” which he would cite in the online debate.

Dan still hasn’t cited this evidence. Put up or shut up as they say. Sadly Dan has done neither.

More Observable evidence

Evolution: the basics (by Dan Ryder)

If you look at human beings, it’s immediately obvious that there’s lots of variation. Much of that variation is accompanied by contributing genetic variation – on average, your DNA sequence differs from another person’s by about 0.1 percent (about 6 million letters of DNA).

Where did all this variation come from? From mutation, broadly construed. Whenever cells divide, copying errors can occur – from single-letter swaps, deletions, or insertions, to duplications of entire genes (or entire genomes – all the DNA!). Bits of DNA can be chopped out and moved around; in addition, viruses can insert their DNA sequences and sometimes these can stay put, like genetic squatters. All of these sorts of changes have been observed in the lab, and if any of them end up in sperm or egg cells, the resulting mutations are passed on to the next generation. A recent estimate for the single-letter mutations in humans suggests that you inherited about 30 of them from each of your parents! (That doesn’t include many of the other sorts of mutations, including e.g. gene duplications.) In other words: we’re all mutants.

A few of those mutations can have a large effect (sometimes good, but usually bad, causing a miscarriage), but most have a small or even zero effect. So variation accumulates – thus that 6 million letter difference that you have, on average, with someone else.

So far, young earth creationists agree.

Now, this variation is spread as evenly through the human population as all the sex allows. (Travel these days is making it more even.) But imagine that a group of people becomes isolated from the rest, so that nary a sperm makes it across the gap. What will happen? Well, both groups will continue to accumulate variation. But mutation is a random process; so the two groups will accumulate some different genetic variations. Maybe small differences that don’t matter at all, that are completely invisible – unless you sequence their DNA. Or maybe larger differences that still don’t matter, but that are visible (like racial differences).

Still, young earth creationists are nodding their heads.

Now what if those two groups stay isolated for, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Those small differences will become larger, no? Like in Darwin’s finches, for example, or rock wallabies. Of course, there’s something else that can encourage change, and that’s natural selection. If one of the variants within a population has comparatively more offspring, that variant will become more common, and may even push out some other variants. For example, in a small population of brown bears that were isolated in arctic conditions, those with a light fur mutation would have been better off: precursors to the polar bear. This is a small but significant difference between the two groups. Other changes accumulated too, like skeletal and tooth changes, and we now have brown bears and polar bears as distinct species. (They can still interbreed in principle; they just tend not to because they don’t share a habitat any more.)

Still, John’s happy with all this. Because these changes are all within a “kind” – the human kind, the finch kind, the bear kind.

So where does he get off the boat? Actually, I have no idea. The longer the process goes on, the greater the variety that will be produced. He asks: how could mutation bring about large changes? I ask: how could it not bring about large changes!? It’s inevitable, given population separation and enough time. When the ball starts rolling down the hill, it keeps going unless you stop it. What stops it, John? (Maybe you’ll say: time, the young Earth. In which case the debate turns to the age of the Earth, and the impossible rate of evolution you’ll need to generate the observed variation within your “kinds”.)

How large a change is required for a change in a creationist “kind”? John is careful not to say. However, he is very clear that chimps and humans belong to different kinds. On the other hand, he thinks that all the rock wallabies belong to the same kind. Problem: the genetic distance between chimps and humans is the same as the genetic distance between the two most distantly related species of rock wallaby: 2%. If mutation and natural selection produced all the rock wallabies from a common ancestor, as John seems to accept, then how can he deny that it produced chimps and humans from a common ancestor too? For the wallabies, he accepts the mechanism (mutation and natural selection) and he accepts the common sense reasoning (the logic of common descent). But not in the chimp/human case, despite the fact that the mechanism would do the trick, the common sense reasoning applies, and the distance travelled would be the same.

Worse for him: the genetic distances within the kangaroo kind, the bear kind, the ape kind, the bird kind, and [gulp] the bacteria kind are much greater. And he indicates that they’re related by common descent too. (Though he won’t answer my direct questions to clarify that.) Well, if the range of genetic diversity within birds can be generated by common descent, so can the range of diversity within mammals. It’s roughly the same amount. John simply cannot have all the “kinds” he wants.

I’ve just shown that mutation and natural selection can produce large changes via common descent, and therefore changes in “kind”. Of course, John sees this problem. What he wants to say is this: God designed the “kinds” so that a certain amount of genetic variation was encouraged within them; they can mutate up to that point, but no further. (That’s ultimately what he means for the variation to be “built in” to the kind – see his finches point here.) The problem is there is absolutely no reason to suppose that mutation is restricted in this way. There’s nothing to stop the ball from rolling.

Worse for him, we know the ball didn’t stop rolling, because we have a record of the path it took in all the DNA sequences discussed in the “language analogy” thread, plus all the hundreds or thousands of similar DNA-based trees of descent that have been produced by biologists. These paths are consistent only with no-barrier mutation-based change. If there were barriers, they’d show up as separate, isolated trees of descent for each kind. But that simply isn’t what we find.

The mutation half of the evolution mechanism (by Dan Ryder)

The theory of evolution has two main planks: 1) organisms (and species) are related by common descent, and 2) variation is generated by mutation, natural selection, and chance (e.g. genetic drift). In a couple of places, John has now cast aspersions on mutation as a source of variation. Note that this doesn’t touch the first plank, common descent – that’s the one I’ve been pushing him on (e.g. here and here). No answers from him yet on that plank.

I’m happy to take up the topic of mutation, though.

First, in his “Trees and Kinds” post, John asserts without argument (and without defining his terms) that mutation can’t produce new kinds, because complex “information” always comes from intelligence. That’s demonstrably false on any reasonable interpretation of “information”. Karl Sims’ evolved virtual creatures in this cool movie and many other kinds of evolved artificial life (e.g. here and here) are clear counterexamples. In these examples, the programmer is like a designer who creates the first life, and then lets evolution do the rest. It’s clear that the increase in “information” as these creatures evolve comes not from the designer, but from the evolutionary mechanism. Indeed, the researchers involved often have little idea of how the creatures are even managing to do these things!

In the same post, John claims that biologists believe that mutation produces variation in organisms “by blind faith.” (The skunk complains of the rose’s stench.) Here are some powerful reasons why biologists accept mutation as the fundamental source of variation upon which natural selection acts:

a) Mutation-based evolution has been observed (despite John’s claim to the contrary):
• In Lenski’s meticulous experiment on E. coli, small populations (by bacterial standards) have been reproducing in controlled conditions (which limit evolution’s scope) for years, and Lenski’s team has tracked all the mutations. Some of these mutations have led to new capabilities, for instance the consumption of citrate in the presence of oxygen (a capability that is used to distinguish normal E. coli from Salmonella).
Kubinak et al. have observed viruses mutate to resist particular parts in mouse immune systems.
• Peter and Rosemary Grant observed mutation-based evolution occurring over the course of decades in Darwin’s finches. (More on finches in a moment.)
Castro-Nallar and colleagues have shown how, over the last hundred years alone, the HIV virus has mutated from a single type to hundreds. Many of these mutations are beneficial to the virus (though not to us!); for example, resistance to AZT.
• In the oral debate, John stated that antibiotic resistance in bacteria results only from genetic variation that is already present in the original population of bacteria. This is false – many novel mutations have been studied that lead to antibiotic resistance in various types of bacteria. See the review, Fitness effects of mutations in bacteria, or here (quote: “Spontaneous mutations, in particular, are pivotal in the emergence of novel resistances.”)
I could go on an on. But of course John won’t actually comment on any of those cases. He’ll just repeat his mantra, “But you haven’t shown me any evidence, yet, Dan! Where is it?” Maybe he thinks “evidence” means “bananas.” I’d have to agree with him that none of my posts contain bananas.

b) Mutation has been observed in the lab, of all sorts of different kinds (see my next post for some details). When we look at DNA sequences of modern related organisms (whether two human cousins or mice and bears) and compare them, we can work out the changes that would have led from a common ancestor’s DNA sequence to the sequences of those modern organisms. (Sometimes we even have the ancient DNA sequence, like with this polar bear.) Those transformations fit very nicely with the types of mutations we’ve observed in the lab.

We can even work out roughly how long the transformations must have taken, based on observed mutation rates. Then we can go to the fossil record, and see if that prediction matches. (See the amazing example of Foraminifera, in note 2 here.) Time and again, the genetic data fits with the fossil record. This is stunning evidence that mutation is the fundamental source of variation.

I should note that evolution acknowledges other sources of variation besides mutation, e.g. symbiosis (mitochondria and chloroplasts), sex, and recombination. (You might include here the insertion of viral genomes too, but I’m just counting that as a type of mutation.) Mutation doesn’t have to do all the work.

Finally, let me say something about John’s mistake about the finches, in his fifth paragraph here. He cites a Nature article (which is volume 442 by the way, not 445 as he states), claiming that it shows finch variations are not caused by mutations. He says “The genetic information for all finch beak shapes is built in and they can flip flop beak shape almost at will.”

First, flip-flopping is irrelevant – if the selection pressures reverse direction (as the Grants observed), so will beak shape. Evolution doesn’t have a “target”, though this is a popular misconception. Evolution is just about change whatever the direction.

Second, the study John cites does not show that beak shape variations are not caused by mutations. In fact, the article assumes that they are. What the article is showing is that there are separate mechanisms that determine different aspects of beak shape (e.g. length vs. width). This means that mutations can affect length and width independently, which makes it easier for finches to evolve new beak shapes. Of course, John would say: God designed that mechanism for easier evolvability; biologists would say that it’s a product of evolution – same old dispute. What’s not in dispute is that it’s mutation that causes the variation. (Indeed, Petren et al. work out the history of those genetic changes in “A phylogeny of Darwin’s Finches based on microsatellite DNA length variation”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (1999) 266, 321-329.)

Sidetrack Dan (by John Mackay)

SIDETRACK DAN is a good label for what you have often tried to do in this debate on fossils and genetics support evolution etc Dan. I have ignored most of them such as homosexuality, the age of trees and Old Testament being in error about slaves, therefore not inspired etc, so let me just put a perspective on this.

You raised C14 age of trees as indisputable evidence the Genesis record could not be taken literally. That would be a great argument except for one thing! Dating method results are not facts. You may choose to believe that whatever Carbon 14 is doing now it has always done, a basic necessity for the method to work, which is your only option if you have no authoritative witness from the past. But you need to admit that you got this assumption from the founding father of modern Geology from Charles Lyell who is on record as declaring the reason for his choice of such an assumption was his aim “to free the science from Moses!”( ref…)

He was well aware Genesis teaches the opposite. The present is very different from the past. Lyell knew nothing about C14 but he knew Genesis teaches God made the world very good. Ipso facto: in a good world devoid of death and suffering there was no loose canon H.E. radiation from above or below. Implication; not even short lived isotopes such as C14 would prove reliable in trying to reach beyond Noahs flood. Again – its not the facts that contradict genesis – it is your opinion as your create arguments. The reason why C14 and all the other methods contradict Genesis is they are designed to do this as Lyell and his disciple Darwin and their descendant Sidetrack Dan. Besides the most important point here is the age of a tree has little to do with how it got to be a tree. So where are your fossils and genetics Dan. All favour the mate. Sudden appearance and after their kind.

You are on your own Dan: “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” – Mark Ridley, ‘Who doubts evolution?’, New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 plus: “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. Henry Gee, ³Return to the Planet of the Apes,² Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

AS FOR ADMITTING a god for the purpose of the debate, the real God was unimpressed and neither was I his servant.

When you claim that some of the statements re slavery show the fallibility of scripture be careful Dan. Atheist philosophers are normally those who favour woman’s rights to kill their babies in the womb, of getting rid of the elderly when it is convenient, and of assisted suicide, so you are not in a moral position to judge how to treat slaves in a culture far different than yours. Of course if you are against any or all the above, now is the time to say so and then explain why. I can. God as creator has the right to tell us what is wrong. Stronger than that even. He has the right to judge us and will do so one day. Better yet. The Creator Christ came down to earth to die in our place so we could be forgiven all the murders and immorality thefts and adultery etc, that plague mankind, if we but humble ourselves and ask. I did.

Kind (by John Mackay)

UNKIND DAN as this debate draws to a close and I sit here in Toronto airport pondering Dan slates faux pas grande, I am amused by his statement John: thank you for defining “kind” for me. You say the term refers to a group of organisms that are all related by common descent. OK, fine. (Dan Ryder on February 27, 2012 at 12:54 pm)

You remind me Dan of when I first went to the USA 30 yrs ago and was very homesick. Missing wife and new baby and the young family where I stayed also had a new child so in perfect innocence I asked if could nurse the baby. The mother looked horrified . The husband embarrassed. What they meant by nurse was very different than what we Aussies meant. We meat to hold the baby – the Americans meant to breast feed it. So get it into your head Dan when we talk about common descent within a kind we are not talking about evolutionist common descent. Your atheistic theory of common descent means lifeless molecules becoming cells, becoming multicelled, becoming fish, becoming amphibians etc up to man and it is still happening. Creation of Biblical kind means the bird kind is unrelated to the fish kind. Mankind is unrelated to ape kind. But all humans black white or any shade in between are related and have not evolved by millions of years of natural selection plus mutation. Hence the creationist term Mankind Single cells did not originate from lifeless molecules, but were created by the cleverness of the pre-existent creator Christ and in my last post for this debate that’s the topic I will address.

Trees and Kinds (by John Mackay)

HOW KIND? Yes it is true – I have hammered and will continue to hammer after their kind. You claim my use the of the term ‘kind’ is spectacularly vague. Nonsense. It is experimentally proven that organisms reproduce after their kind. What’s vague about that?
Kind simply refers to all those creatures that are related as in mankind being unrelated to the bird kind or the ape kind. You want the actual details on how God created? We know about as much about that process as evolutionists know about abiogenesis. But here is the difference. Complex information ALWAYS comes from intelligence. Always. This is where evolution fails big time. We have a source of complex information in the intelligence of God. Evolutionist have to rely on experimentally unsupported, yet to be found mechanisms they accept by blind faith alone! You continually view mutations/natural selection as the hero of the evolution story when there is no evidence that our laboratory efforts can mutate new types of organisms and gain new complex information. Our
attempts to scientifically reproduce the evolution fantasy have all proved to be failures. And that with carefully controlled lab conditions, scientists etc., and not natural non-guided conditions which is what evolution demands. The amount of your faith in evolution is admirable but foolishly founded in desperation. As Dr. Kemp curator of Zoological Collections at Oxford University so clearly stated; “To account for evolutionary changes that take millions of years to completion solely by reference to processes that can be studied only over tens of years requires an extraordinary faith.” T S Kemp, Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 251. No, that is not a quote mine.

DATING TREES: I couldn¹t believe you would waste space in the debate on tree ring chronology since showing that a pine tree is old only undermines your case. If pine trees have remained pine trees for 10,000, or 30,000 or 300,000,000 yrs, then you have made a
claim that is no help to your argument for evolution. Knowing how old they are does not tell us where they came from. But the older you make them the longer we can argue they have not evolved! There is no observation evolution does happen, no mechanism to show it can, and no evidence to support it has ever happened! On this basis Dan I could allow you millions of years and safely predict you will find nothing evolves into a new KIND of organism. Case closed! Yet again- but are you listening?

So-called “flood geology” (by Dan Ryder)

Sedimentary rock forms when layers of deposits (often in water, but also on land) gradually build up and are compressed into rock. Organisms become fossilized in some of these layers, and we can trace the gradual changes in the organisms on Earth by looking at those fossils, since newer ones are on top of older ones (unless there has been some geological upheaval). These patterns have allowed palaeontologists to construct family trees of life on Earth that are independently corroborated by the DNA analyses I discussed in my “language analogy” post.

Each type of fossil is found only in a restricted range of rock layers (strata) – sometimes a large range, sometimes a small range. For instance, you just don’t find the familiar mammals anywhere except the top layers. These regularities are so good that oil companies employ experts in the subject in order to identify layers, the better to find oil deposits.

All this suggested to early geologists that the Earth is very old indeed, and that there was a succession of different creatures throughout this extremely long history. But many geologists still wanted to hold on to the Biblically derived model that the Earth was only thousands of years old – they clung to the idea that all those layers were deposited by Noah’s Flood. That hope finally died with the advent of modern dating techniques, which demonstrate that these rocks go all the way back to roughly 4 billion years ago. Here is a partial list of those dating methods:

Amino acid racemization (L-to-D) (AAR), Argon40 to argon-39 chronometric, Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS), 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis, chronostratigraphy (requires chronometric methods as well), Coral reef annual layering, Dendochronology (tree-ring), Deuterium-hydrogen isotope analysis, Electron spin resonance (ESR), Fission track dating, Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN), Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic) reversal time scale (GTRS), Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole), Helium dating, Infrared-stimulated luminescence, Lutetium-176 to hafnium-176 geochronology, Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure, Milankovitch cycle astrochronology, Neon-21 to helium-3 dating, Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA), Ocean sediment core analysis, Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), Oxygen-16/Oxygen18 stable isotope analysis, Polar ice-sheet core, Potassium-40 to argon-40 chronometric, radiocarbon dating, Radioluminescence (RL), Radon-222-lead-210-lead-206 chronometric, Rhenium-187-osmium-187 chronometric, Rubidium-87-strontium-87 chronometric, Samarium-147-neodymium-143 chronometric, Strontium87 to strontium-86 chronometric, Tephrochronology, Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure, Thermoluminescence (TL), Thorium-232-lead-208 chronometric, Uranium-235-lead-207 chronometric, Uranium-238-uranium-234-thorium-230-radium-226-lead-206 chronometric (U-series) and Varve analysis.

Each method covers only a certain time range, from a few thousand years to billions of years. In each case, we take some natural process that changes with time, we measure its pattern of change today, and use that information to infer the dates of old things the process has affected. The marvellous thing is that we have so many completely different independent dating techniques that all agree where they overlap that we can be certain that we’re dating the rock layers correctly. Anyone who is not desperately hanging on to the inerrancy of Genesis will see that this is proof of an old Earth, and proof of the succession of organisms.

What can young earth creationists do with this evidence? They’re forced into contortions you wouldn’t believe:

1) They say that the strata were laid down from “settling” after Noah’s flood (except for the “creation week” layer at the very bottom). If you go to the McAbee fossil beds near Cache Creek (highly recommended!), you’ll find several hundred thousand micro-thin layers chock full of fossils (which geology dates to around 50 million years ago). After the rain stopped, the flood waters must have been as calm as a perfectly still aquarium for months or years to achieve that kind of settling! (But why the exactly similar layers?? I’ll tell you why: it’s a seasonal accumulation of debris, roughly one per year. But John can’t say that. And why are they now rock? Eons of compression, but John can’t say that either.)

2) They say that the settling occurred in such a way that each creature is found only within a certain range of layers across the globe. For example, hippopotami are always inexplicably found far above cockroaches with external ovipositors – I guess they were really, really heavy cockroaches! In the Grand Canyon, there are 2000 feet of sediment (containing marine organisms) before the first reptiles and plants appear. Were the reptiles treading water for months on end? (And the plants too?) Not only that, but the reptiles left tracks in the sediment (e.g. in the Hermit Shale layer). How did they manage to walk around on the bottom of the ocean, after having all been killed in the first 40 days of a violent global deluge, I wonder? And then other animals left more tracks on top of the layer above? and then the flood deposited thousands more feet of sediment? You can see why geologists laugh at so-called “flood geology.”

3) Moreover, they have to say that the many independent dating methods that make it *look* as though each layer is independently confirmed to be a certain age, and where these layers *appear* to follow a beautiful succession of dates, millions to billions of years old, are all wrong, in completely different ways for completely different reasons. That, I hope you can see, is utterly preposterous! All to save a literal interpretation of Genesis – there’s no independent confirmation of any of these crazy hypotheses.

Fossils and Finches (by John Mackay)

Dan we’ve been waiting nearly 2 weeks for that promised evidence and to date your blog entries read as just so many insinuations and patronizing replies. So let’s move the debate up a notch.

FOSSIL RECORD: We have established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record, have no ancestors and have been stable in form from their first appearance on earth. This fact alone speaks against evolution and supports the Biblical Kind account. The argument that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution because organisms have evolved to reach astable ‘equilibrium’ with selection pressure is not persuasive and is frankly a bit of a cop-out.

The fossil record doesn’t support the change from one kind of organism to another at all which you have to establish in order to convince any of us that the evolution of kinds has occurred! I am surprised you haven’t brought up evolution’s favourite whale of a tale story but perhaps you are beginning to see the flaws in that one.

The time is way past for you to argue that the fossil record is inadequate and spotty and only catches some change. It has been 150 yrs since Darwin and we have found billions of fossils. Billions. It’s hard to sweep that amount of evidence under the rug when we all know that not one example of an invertebrate  fish evolution sequence exists. That IS damning evidence. The experts in the field admit that the fossil record does not support evolution as I have repeatedly stated and you have repeatedly ignored.

GALAPAGOS FINCHES: You also ask; ‘Was the common design in finches achieved thru God targeting genetic changes?’ Are you deliberating baiting me with this? The genetic information for all finches was already present in its ancestor. As they proliferated, the different types of finches occupied different environments and it was these changes that Darwin used to support his theory of evolution. We now know that these finch changes are not caused by mutations. The genetic information for all finch beak shapes is built in and they can flip flop beak shape almost at will. This is adaptation and natural selection but it is not evolution. More information can be found here Nature, vol. 445, p563, 3 Aug 2006. And don’t forget that creationists were the first to define natural selection and adaptation before Darwin’s book. We emphasize that natural selection is not evolution. All that natural selection produces is the LOSS of genetic material and variability. It can’t evolve anything, just eliminate the unfit in a population. Finches turning into finches is of no use to you Dan and every support to us creationists. Admit it mate – you’ve lost.

The debate format

Just a reminder to everyone of the format: Mr. Mackay and I place our main points in posts (like this one) on the blog’s home page, and subsequent debate on that point (just between us) occurs in the comments. So make sure you click on the speech bubble at the top of each post, or the “replies” link at the bottom – that’s where most of the action is!


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

How CIOs Can Take Charge of Business Social Strategies

Becoming a social enterprise, aka digital transformation, isn’t just about having a Twitter presence or a sales force equipped with iPads. It’s about embedding social into all parts of your organization which requires hard work and a lot of change. CIOs are one of the key cornerstones to making that happen but probably not in the way you’d expect.

Most companies would agree that becoming a social business is frankly better business – it can boost sales, improve employee retention and enhance customer satisfaction. Becoming a social enterprise puts the customer and employee at the center of the universe rather than the enterprise.

While there are numerous examples of companies like Burberry using digital technology in innovative ways, recent research by Capgemini Consulting and the MIT Center for Digital Business found less than 20 percent of large traditional companies are truly reshaping their business for digital – and most are only partially reaching their potential.

To be successful, enterprises should be stubborn on vision and flexible on the details. For CIOs, this means re-envisioning their role from seeking control to providing guidance, helping the IT department become solution enablers rather than gatekeepers.

While it might not be intuitive to a CIO, most work required to become a social enterprise is about changing mindsets and cultural acceptance. Only a small piece is actually about having the right tools and integration – most social solutions don’t require IT management. Here are a few recommendations to help ease the transition:

Training = the Most Overlooked Part of the Process: In a social enterprise, your staff works differently. Some roles will disappear and others must learn new skills. CIOs should not only make their teams aware of how their roles will change, but help them make that shift. CIOs also have a hand in training employees. While training employees on a new ERP system is understood, most enterprises wrongly assume everyone knows how to properly use social tools.

Governance Often Takes a Backseat: I have seen companies end up with 25 Facebook pages or 20 different social monitoring tools. CIOs should maintain visibility, rationalizing their application landscape by meeting regularly with the CMO and other key stakeholders to discuss current and future initiatives. That’s not to say CIOs should not be afraid to say no to initiatives that don’t fit within the broader business strategy.

-  Social Does Not Mean Separate: Social is simply another channel. It’s not a separate silo. CIOs should take a user-centric approach to integration, tying new platforms into existing systems especially for CRM. I hear all too often about social media teams responding to a customer complaint on Twitter, directing them to customer service only to have the agent ask them again to explain the problem. That information must be integrated.

-  Don’t Create a Policy for Policy’s Sake: Most policies aren’t created to help employees, but to reassure other stakeholders. Policies should be used to provide guidance, not to police employees. The CIO’s role will shift towards empowering people rather than telling them what is not allowed. At Capgemini, each country can have its own social media presence with only a few rules to serve as guidance such as only launching a presence once you know what your goals are, and who will be maintaining those channels.

-  Look Bottom-Up: Five years ago, MySpace was the leading social network, now it’s Facebook. Things change. Rather than forcing employees to use certain platforms, CIOs should investigate which are already being adopted internally and embrace them. Attempting to introduce another tool won’t be a success.

Rick Mans (@rickmans) is the social media lead at Capgemini.

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

The FedEx Slump Keeps Getting Worse

FedEx shares fell 6.9% today after some tough talk from the company’s management, on an earnings call discussing a set of grim quarterly results. From the WSJ’s Bob Sechler:

Fedex warned Wednesday that a restructuring plan it announced last autumn likely won’t be sufficient to offset an accelerating shift by international shippers away from priority services to lower-cost options.

The Memphis, Tenn., global shipping giant, which posted a 31% decline in fiscal third-quarter earnings that came in below Wall Street expectations, said it is planning additional cost-cutting measures in its big express shipping division. The moves include grounding some flights to and from Asia beginning April 1 and potentially retiring some older aircraft.

“Given the persistence of the trend [away from priority shipping], additional cost-cutting efforts are under way,” Chief Financial Officer Alan Graf told analysts during a post-earnings conference call. “It’s a trend that has continued to accelerate this year versus our previous expectations.”

As we wrote back in October, the restructuring plan underway at FedEx is about retooling the company for a different era: more sea freight and less air freight, tougher overseas competition, new trends in global trade. The company planned to replace about 5,000 of its delivery trucks with newer, more fuel-efficient models, modernize its air fleet, and offer voluntary buyouts to “several thousand” staff. The company would get smaller, more efficient and, it said, $1.7 billion more profitable over the coming three years.

Now even that plan might not be enough, with demand moving from express air delivery to slower and cheaper options even faster than many previously expected. FedEx now plans further reforms to its network, Sechler reported today, including grounding some of its express flights.

Is there anyone still looking for speedy couriers? Internet retailers are getting more and more Americans addicted to super-fast delivery, but even then, FedEx needs to be careful who it deals with. From the WSJ last week:

A division of FedEx has agreed to pay New York City $2.4 million to settle an accusation that it improperly delivered up to 70 tons of contraband cigarettes.

The city sued FedEx Ground for accepting packages from a Kentucky company called CigarettesDirect2U, which helped New Yorkers evade high cigarette taxes by shipping untaxed cartons from out-of-state.

Those types of sales are illegal. CigarettesDirect2U was shut down by federal authorities in 2009.

FedEx Ground said in a statement that it was paying the money to avoid expensive litigation, and not because it had done anything wrong.

The company said it already prohibits illegal tobacco shipments and would cooperate with New York City to ensure that shippers comply with that policy.

A city lawsuit against CigarettesDirect2U is pending.

See also:
FedEx Plans More Cost Cuts as Express Business Deteriorates – WSJ
FedEx Cuts Back As “Evolving Market” Demands Less Shipping – Corporate Intelligence

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Cigarette Maker Funded Lung Cancer Scanning Study

CigarettesA cigarette company was a major funder of a much-publicized study of CT scanning as a way to screening smokers for lung cancer.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006, had a long list of backers, including the National Institutes of Health.

In the middle of the list was the Foundation for Early Detection of Lung Cancer. The foundation received $3.6 million in grants from the Vector Group, the parent company of cigarette maker Liggett, the New York Times’ Gardiner Harris reports this morning.

Claudia Henschke, of Weill Cornell Medical College, was the lead researcher on the study and the president of the foundation, and the dean of the school was a director.

The financial ties were no secret: Vector issued a press release in 2000, saying that it intended to give $2.4 million to to finance Henschke’s research. Articles in Business Week and USA Today mentioned the gift, the NYT notes.

“It seems clear that you are trying to suggest that Cornell was trying to conceal this gift, which is entirely false,” Henschke and her co-author wrote in a statement to the Times. “The gift was announced publicly, the advocacy and public health community knew about it, it is quite easy to look it up on the Internet, its board has independent Cornell faculty on it, and it was fully disclosed to grant funding organizations.”

Still, some key players were unaware that the researchers received money from the tobacco industry. “In the seven years that I’ve been here, we have never knowingly published anything supported by” a cigarette maker, the editor in chief of the New England Journal told the NYT.

The American Cancer Society funded Henschke’s research, too, but would not have done so had it known of the grants from the tobacco company, the group’s chief medical officer told the paper. “If you’re using blood money, you need to tell people you’re using blood money,” he said.

Bonus Disclosure: Earlier this week, JAMA published Henschke’s report of “undisclosed potential conflicts of interest” regarding patents on their lung cancer screening work. For more on that side of things, see this Health Blog post.

Photo by GypsyRock via Flickr

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Cerberus Takeover of Caritas Christi Gets Judge’s Okay

The guard dog of hell is another step closer to owning some Catholic guardians of health.

A Massachusetts judge has just signed off on a deal that lets a division of Cerberus Capital Management take over Boston’s Caritas Christi Health Care System, the WSJ reports. State health officials and Catholic authorities near and far (i.e. the Vatican) already gave their own stamps of approval. That means all that remains is for Cerberus and Caritas to officially close the deal.

A Catholic group in Massachusetts opposed the deal, worried about a provision that permits Cerberus to eventually remove the religious affiliation if finances demand it — in exchange for a $25 million donation to charity. (The group compared that to the payment Judas allegedly received to betray Jesus.) Cerberus has said it intends to maintain the Catholic ties.

The nearly $900 million deal is the latest in a hospital M&A frenzy touched off by the federal health-care overhaul, which encourages the adoption of pricey IT such as electronic health records and also pushes coordinated care. Private equity is also fueling deals, as firms find themselves flush with cash in a market with few investment opportunities. (Read why public hospitals are being sold.)

Deals are unfolding in Detroit and in smaller cities, where many of the nation’s 3,000 nonprofit hospitals are in debt, unable to borrow more and anxious to reinvest in facilities and technology.

Image: iStockphoto

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

How the U.S. Gave Iran the Upper Hand

IranThe U.S. government so badly mishandled the findings on Iran’s uranium-enrichment program that the world now faces a far greater risk of nuclear-weapons proliferation, the Economist says.

In a cover story some two months after U.S. intelligence services concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, the British newsweekly says the report undid five years of painstaking diplomacy aimed at keeping the bomb out of Tehran’s hands.

Why not applaud what might be an olive branch from Washington toward its longtime adversary? The problem is that the intelligence estimate played down Iran’s ability to produce uranium, which the authors call the toughest skill in bomb-making. The design and engineering work needed to turn fissile material into weapons, the focus of the National Intelligence Estimate assembled by 16 U.S. agencies, would be relatively easy to hide, and to restart. No one knows how much progress Iran achieved toward building a nuclear warhead before 2003.

Moreover, Iran can’t be trusted to use its nuclear program, run by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, toward only peaceful ends, given the country’s track record of stonewalling and misleading the diplomatic community.

The idea that a nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t be the disaster some fear is mistaken, says the Economist. A nuclear Iran might prompt other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, to go nuclear, too, greatly increasing the risk a weapon will be used.

A military strike against potential nuclear sites likely poses too many security and diplomatic risks. But there is still hope that the U.S. and its allies can salvage the situation, chiefly if the U.S. drops the precondition to negotiations that Iran suspend uranium enrichment. At the same time, Russia and China need to agree to much tougher sanctions against Iran. It isn’t clear, as the U.S. and its allies have hoped, that tightening the financial screws will sway ordinary Iranians against the country’s nuclear program. But it might be the best option to repair a policy that the authors say is at the point of collapse. – Wendy Pollack

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Should Publications Be Liable for Running Fraudulent Ads?

ddfgLast week, a federal court shut down Pinnacle Development Partners and froze its assets after the SEC accused the company of operating a nationwide Ponzi scheme, in which returns are paid with other investors’ money. The WSJ did some of the heavy lifting in unearthing this sordid tale.

Today, financial-fraud watchers are asking why Newsweek, the WSJ, and others accepted ads from Pinnacle, which raised money through “an extensive national advertising campaign” promoting its investment returns in some 40 publications, according to the SEC. Here’s today’s story from the WSJ.

“The first sign that should put everyone on notice — investors and newspapers — is a promise of outlandish returns,” says Kelly Bowers, an SEC lawyer. Pinnacle’s ads promised returns of 25% in a little as 45 days. The SEC said Pinnacle’s advertising itself was illegal, irrespective of any fraud, because Pinnacle hadn’t registered with the agency to sell securities. According to the WSJ, publications typically review every ad they accept and flag for further review ones that are potentially libelous, illegal or offensive to readers.

What are the legal issues? The WSJ reporter, Zachary Seward, asked a couple of media lawyers:

  • Floyd Abrams, a well-known First Amendment lawyer at Cahill Gordon, says the law generally protects publications from liability for running fraudulent ads. “Society cannot ask, and the courts will not ask, of newspapers that they do the equivalent of investigative journalism to check out the bona fides of their advertisers,” he says. Abrams added that publications are hesitant to vet their ads, or at least tell readers they do, because “if they fail to identify the fraudulent ad, they might be in more trouble than if they hadn’t started down that road in the first place.”
  • Paul Davis, an FTC attorney, says his agency, which regulates business advertising, says obeying securities laws is left to the advertiser, not the publication. Davis tells the WSJ that the FTC has long debated whether action should be taken against publications that run deceptive or misleading ads. “And the answer was simply no,” he says, because the ads are protected as free speech.

A better understanding of these legal issues isn’t helping someone like Marvin Reyes, who, according to the WSJ, invested $25,000 in Pinnacle after seeing the ads. Though he did some of his own research, Reyes says he relied heavily on the ads, and remembers thinking, “If these guys are advertising with a full-page ad in a publication like Newsweek, they have to be legit.”

Popular on WSJ

‘The Brain’ and ‘The Monster’: The Many Personas of Judge Richard Posner


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Nasdaq Shares Jump On Facebook Listing Report

Nasdaq shares are getting a lift this afternoon as Facebook has decided to list its stock on the tech-heavy exchange.

UPDATE: WSJ reports Nasdaq has scored the Facebook listing, citing people familiar with the matter. Spokesmen for Nasdaq OMX Group and NYSE Euronext declined to comment. CNBC earlier reported the news.

Nasdaq shares recently rose 1.5% to $25.59. Meanwhile, NYSE Euronext dropped 1.4% to $28.28.

Ever since Facebook announced it was going public the exchange operators have been battling over the high-profile stock listing. Nasdaq stands to reap fees as well as bragging rights from the decision.

In considering which exchange to choose, companies often look at the costs as well as the promotional efforts an exchange will make to raise a corporation’s profile. That includes events like the NYSE’s or Nasdaq’s opening and closing bell ceremonies. Exchanges offer companies various other services for a variety of needs, such as investor relations.

NYSE Euronext, which owns the NYSE, and Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., owner of the Nasdaq, have battled for years for some of the top stock listings by offering incentives such as co-branding possibilities and prime advertising space.

Both exchanges have scored big wins in the latest crop of Internet listings. In 2011, NYSE nabbed LinkedIn Corp. and Pandora Media Inc., while Nasdaq won Groupon Inc. and Zynga Inc.

Facebook said in February it planned to raise as much as $10 billion in the offering, which could value the social network as high as $100 billion. The company will list under the ticker symbol “FB.”

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Morning MoneyBeat: Utility Stocks Face Heavy Burden

Associated Press

Morning MoneyBeat is the Journal’s pre-market primer packed with market updates, insights and must-read news links. Send us tips, suggestions and complaints:

Click here to receive this morning newsletter via email

MARKET SNAP: At 6:00 a.m. ET, S&P 500 futures down 0.04%. 10-Year Treasury yield lower at 2.57%. Nymex up 35 cents at $102.05. Gold 0.5% higher at $1301.10. In Europe, FTSE 100 down 0.1%, DAX down 0.1% and CAC 40 down 0.2%. In Asia, Nikkei 225 down 0.1% and Hang Seng up 1%.

WATCH FOR: April Producer Price Index (8:30 a.m. Eastern Time): seen +0.2%; previously +0.5%. Agilent Tech, Cisco Systems, Coty, Deere, Jack in the Box, Kate Spade, Macy's, NetEase, RE/MAX, SeaWorld Entertainment and Smithfield Foods are among companies scheduled to report quarterly results.

Unheralded utility stocks have kept the market afloat for much of the year while closely followed momentum stocks have sputtered. But the rally in utilities is starting to wane, and that could spell trouble for the broad market.

The S&P 500′s utilities sector, comprised of stocks generally known for their slow-but-steady gains, is up 10% this year, by far the best performer of the index’s 10 large-cap sectors. But utility stocks are down 3.2% in May, the only S&P 500 sector in the red this month even as the broad index finished Tuesday at a new all-time high.

That could signal a shift in leadership is brewing, a trend investors say they are watching closely. Russ Koesterich, chief investment strategist at BlackRock, warned this week that utility stocks are expensive and could be vulnerable to further declines.

The question now is which group of stocks will lead the market’s next move, especially with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 already perched at record levels. Will utilities regain their strength and keep propelling the market to new highs this summer, or will beaten-down momentum names such as Internet, social media and biotech stocks step up? If neither do well, will the rally sputter?

The Dow is riding a five-day winning streak and the S&P 500 is up 2.7% year-to-date.

“The S&P 500 didn’t need the high growth, speculative names to keep it afloat the last few months, but for this breakout to hold, the market will need demand for this space to persist,” says Frank Cappelleri, a sales trader at brokerage firm Instinet.

Strength in utility stocks suggests investors have taken a more defensive mindset in 2014 compared to last year’s big rally. Utility stocks are attractive for their rich dividend yields and reliable profits. They tend to hold up better in times of financial-market turmoil but lag during booming economies. Lower bond yields and a choppy stock market this year have revived interest in utilities.

With the blue-chip Dow up less than 1% this year, many investors say they are growing tired of the market’s slow slog. David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, compares the market’s performance this year to an airplane being stuck in a holding pattern.

“I know we will land, but the wait is frustrating,” he says. “Holding patterns don’t last forever, and at some stage the market is likely to move in a more decisive direction.”

Whether utilities remain on top could foreshadow how the broad market performs in the months ahead.

Morning MoneyBeat Daily Factoid: On this day in 1804, the Lewis and Clark expedition started their journey from a camp near present-day Hartford, Ill., crossing 8,000 miles of newly purchased U.S. territory, to the mouth of the Columbia River.

-By Steven Russolillo; follow him on Twitter @srussolillo.

Macy’s is projected to report first-quarter earnings of 59 cents a share, according to a consensus survey by FactSet. Expectations for the first quarter are subdued due to weather disruptions, with investors likely to focus their attention on details for April and May, analyst Charles Grom at Sterne Agee said in a note.

Deere is forecast to post second-quarter earnings of $2.47 a share.

Dow industrials component Cisco Systems is likely to report third-quarter earnings of 48 cents a share. “We look for whether Cisco can stabilize its product gross margins and if the ramp of new products can provide greater visibility on a possible return to growth exiting calendar year 2014,” said Brian Marshall at ISI Group.

Tech Firms’ Cash Piles Cool Fears of a Meltdown: “Tech stocks’ swoon has given investors flashbacks to the dot-com meltdown. But a Wall Street Journal analysis shows at least one harbinger of trouble is absent today: tech firms in danger of collapse.”

U.S. Backs Off Tight Mortgage Rules: “Federal regulators are reversing course on some of the biggest postcrisis efforts to tighten mortgage-lending standards amid concern they could snuff out the fledgling housing rebound.”

Heard on the Street: Watt’s New Plan Leaves Fannie’s and Freddie’s Investors Out: “Investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac clearly liked what they heard Tuesday from Federal Housing Finance Agency director Mel Watt. But were they really listening?”

Bank of England Forecasts Signal Rate Rise Next Year: “The central bank left its forecasts for growth and inflation in the U.K. more or less unchanged, a sign that it remains on course to raise its benchmark interest rate from a historic low early next year.”

Glaxo’s Ex-China Chief Accused of Ordering Staff to Commit Bribery: “Chinese authorities on accused GlaxoSmithKline former China chief of ordering subordinates to commit bribery.”

Claims for Madoff Cash Swell: “Thousands more victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme could receive compensation for their losses based on the preliminary findings of a new claims process administered by the Justice Department.”

Sony Predicts Another Year of Losses: “Sony said that problems in its consumer electronics division would drag the company to its fifth annual loss in six years, disappointing investors who had expected a restructuring to begin to bear fruit.”

Pershing Wants Allergan Holders to Push for Merger Talks: “Pershing Square Capital Management LP is calling for a “referendum” of shareholders of botox-maker Allergan in an attempt to get the company to engage in negotiations with Valeant Pharmaceuticals.”

Bay Area’s Big Builders’ Bet Starts to Pay: “Technology companies like, Dropbox and LinkedIn are renting big chunks of office space in towers before they are built, a payoff for developers who bet on San Francisco’s boom.”

FCC Steps Into a Broadband Thicket: “When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler releases his plan to regulate broadband networks on Thursday, he will invite debate on whether the government should make a move the agency has long avoided: classifying broadband Internet as a public utility for regulatory purposes.”

London Silver Fix to End: “The London silver fix, an important price-benchmarking process for the metal, will end on August 14. ”

Turkey Mine Blast Kills More Than 200: “A coal-mine blast in Western Turkey killed at least 205 workers on Tuesday in the nation’s worst mining catastrophe in more than two decades, sparking a massive effort to rescue hundreds of miners still trapped.”

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

Four Charts to Scare the Stock Market Bulls


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

The Daily Start-Up: Yes, You Can Haz $30M

Top stories in today’s VentureWire:

dailystartup_D_20090806101628.jpgArt by Mike Lucas

In either a savvy nod to the changing nature of media or a sign of the coming apocalypse, Pet Holdings Inc., the company behind LOLcats, has raised a $30 million Series A round led by Foundry Group. Who knew cute kitties and bad spelling could take you so far?

Like many start-ups,
medical imagery company Dicom Grid Inc. had a rough time raising a Series A. Luckily, a doctor-turned-VC saw a huge market opportunity and backed the company, in the latest installment of VentureWire’s weekly series, “The Series A Team.”

Also, telecommunications equipment maker Stoke Inc. is now valued at around $200 million after raising a $17 million Series E round to accelerate sales to carriers around the world….The majority of North American limited partners think the venture climate in the U.S. is improving, according to a new survey from Coller Capital….Michael Ahearn, chairman of First Solar Inc., has launched a new venture fund with a target of $300 million.

(VentureWire is a daily newsletter with comprehensive analysis of all the investments, deals and personnel moves involving start-ups and their venture backers. For a two-week trial, click here.)

Elsewhere around the Web:

Goldman Sachs blames the media for its decision to allow only non-U.S. clients to invest in Facebook, apparently spooked by a Securities and Exchange rule that prohibits investors from publicly promoting private placements.

The CEO of E-Commerce China Dangdang blasted Morgan Stanley on China’s Twitter-like microblogging service Sina Weibo, accusing the financial services firm of undervaluing his company’s recent IPO, reports WSJ’s China Realtime Report. “I regret not giving the job to Goldman Sachs,” Guoqing Li wrote, while also exchanging insults with a user claiming to work at Morgan Stanley.

Sending a resume to a venture capitalist before they ask for it is generally a bad strategy, says VC-turned-entrepreneur Mark Davis.

A European venture firm ventures back to the ’80s. Ingenious Entertainments VCT has invested GBP1 million in a music festival in Scotland that will rock out 1980s hits (U.K.-style), Financial News reports.

The FinTech Innovation Lab in New York City
is accepting applications for its annual program that supports start-ups developing technology for the financial services industry. Selected participants get workspace in New York, $25,000 in funding and access to chief decision-makers in the financial services industry. The deadline to apply is Jan. 31.

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ


text:
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

GOP Has Choices – None Easy – on Debt Ceiling

In this file photo, Paul Ryan attends a news conference following a House Republican meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington in December.
European Pressphoto Agency

House Republicans are meeting Thursday at a hotel in Cambridge, Md., to map out their legislative strategy for the year, but they face a near-term decision that could dictate everything else that follows – what to do with the debt ceiling.

The Treasury Department has said the ceiling will have to be lifted or suspended by late February to prevent the government from falling behind on its bills.

The White House has said the debt ceiling must be raised or suspended without conditions, insisting President Barack Obama will not negotiate any spending or policy changes in exchange for an increase in the borrowing limit. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.) has said Senate Democrats also wouldn’t budge.

But a number of Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), have said there will have to be some conditions placed on any increase in the debt ceiling in order to win enough votes to pass the House. He hasn’t specified what the GOP might call for, but he’s hinted it could be a change to promote more energy development or perhaps some sort of regulatory rollback.

Republican leaders have been cautiously trying to tamp down expectation that they can win something big in this fight. They are expected to present their caucus with a rather blunt scenario at the retreat – if they are going to demand something in exchange for the debt ceiling, they better be unified in their “ask.” Democrats have managed to splinter the GOP in past debt ceiling fights, causing Republicans to lose leverage because they don’t have enough votes to mobilize behind a single plan.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) is likely to remind his colleagues at the retreat how the October government shutdown cost their party politically, and warn that another fiscal fight could backfire if misplayed.

Republican leaders don’t want to do anything to offer an opening to Democrats, who are still smarting from the rocky roll out of the health law, among other things.

That being said, GOP leadership could face a big revolt if they decide to throw in the towel a month before Treasury’s deadline. Republican leaders are likely to emerge from the retreat with a few conditions for raising the debt ceiling, and they could bring some of the ideas up for a vote to test party unity.

If Republicans fail to get 218 votes for any of these proposals, Senate Democrats will likely marshal a “clean” debt ceiling increase through their chamber. This could force House lawmakers to pass the bill or risk financial market turmoil.

But if the GOP can unify behind a proposal that raises or suspends the debt ceiling and makes some sort of budget or policy change that voters think is reasonable, then Democrats will quickly find themselves on the hot seat with little time to spare.

Follow @wsjwashington on Twitter

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

Gun-Control Groups Reignite Debate by Crossing the Aisle in Senate Races


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Two Move Into Creepy 'Model Home' - Bloody Disgusting!

Two Move Into Creepy ‘Model Home’

Monique Gabriela Curnen (pictured; The Dark Knight, Contagion) and Kathy Baker (Machine Gun Preacher, Take Shelter) have been set to topline Model Home, the directorial feature debut from Patrick Cunningham.

The movie explores the practice of “live-in staging,” where recently evicted families are recruited to live in unsold properties. Curnen plays a single mother who begins to entertain dangerous fantasies while “staging” a model home in an otherwise empty development while Baker portrays a realtor who grows increasingly suspicious and alarmed.

The screenplay was co-written by Cunningham and William Frank. Filming begins this month.


text:
Bloody Breasts

A  web-based documentary about the women of the horror industry

Is horror a genre that can only be enjoyed by men?  Does it still serve to reinforce desired gender roles/societal stereotypes?  Can a woman call herself a feminist AND still enjoy horror films?

In addition to presenting horror film events and websites initiated by women, this webseries focuses on female horror filmmakers, scream queens and fans of the genre.  The topic of feminism and horror is then contextualized within the current horror industry, thanks to contributions from experts of the genre.

September News!

The September episode is replaced by the first-ever Bloody Breasts panel that was filmed on Sunday, July 17th during the Fantasia International Film Festival in Montreal.

 It has been brought to my attention that some people had trouble watching the embedded videos on the site, which could possibly be due to bandwith issues (hey! this is a good sign, it means that people are watching it!)

If you've been having difficulties, please note that you can also watch all the episodes HERE.

For past episodes, please visit the Episodes section of this website.

Make a Free Website with Yola.


text:
Thursday, April 30, 2009

30 Million Suns

seconds and days upon the hours and weeks, they all pass by, sometimes even years too, might even be facing decades and ages, winds go by, rains, storms, hail and heat.
flowers and fruits will bloom and die again, only to regenerate in the following spring with everlasting determination and dedication. Trees will grow their leaves and the green will rule. Green always rule.

Army Naval Commandos

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Weathering and Rusting

Thought you might want to see the new methods i am using for rusting and dusting.. I have a passion for derelict vehicles, left to rust..

Thursday, August 21, 2008

My very own, private love story..

In 1992 i started a mini G4 publication using an old photocopy, some black and white poorly reproduced photos, an old typwriter, and my own will to form what was called CIVIL WARS.

In 2008, i present Civil Wars on a new level. I hope you enjoy my work as much as i do.

Friday, August 15, 2008

White Thunder - Centauro Inside Out

The new book was released 10 days ago, and i am jubilant to say that it is being met with great enthusiasm world wide.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Nun Nun Part II

Here are some more photos of the kit's progress, i will prime it and have it ready for paint next.


text:
Facebook Twitter Instagram Desksite Tumblr
  • RSS

Throwback Thursday: Catching up with Andrew Cassels

Thursday, 05.29.2014 / 4:00 PM ET / News
By Alex Busch  - BlueJackets.com
Share with your Friends

Throwback Thursday: Catching up with Andrew Cassels

Let's throw it back to the 2002-03 season, the debut season for former left wing and captain Rick Nash, and also the first season in Columbus for a veteran center named Andrew Cassels.

Cassels, a native of Mississauga, Ont., was brought in for the 2002 season to complement Nash as well as ramp up the scoring for the Blue Jackets. He also become a character player on the team, a respected voice in the dressing room with 12 years of NHL experience prior to arriving in Columbus.

“I brought (Cassels) in to play with Rick Nash, to be quite honest,” former Blue Jackets president, general manager and head coach Doug MacLean told BlueJackets.com. “I thought he’d be a great fit for Nash, and actually they had great years together.

“He was an experienced guy who was a playmaker, and a real quality guy. Andrew put up good points, he was good in the dressing room, and a popular player on the team. He was just a real good guy, and gave us a couple of real good years.”

The former Blue Jackets center was one of the best centers in team history despite playing in Columbus for just two seasons. During his first year in Columbus, he racked up 68 points (20 goals and 48 assists), the second best total of his career, which was trumped only by his 85-point campaign with Hartford in 1992-93.

When reflecting on his time in Columbus, Cassels remembers the city being extremely enthusiastic about the team, especially because it had just been established in 2000.

“It was a new sport to the area, and obviously with Ohio State being how big they are, the support that they gave us was incredible,” he said. “It was one of my most favorite arenas to play in, the fans were just great, it was sold out every night, and they definitely were a part of a lot of wins that we had back then.”

After retiring from the NHL in 2006, Cassels went right into coaching and made a few stops around the minor leagues
before joining the Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) as an assistant coach for one season. Cassels now spends his summers working for Morgan Construction in Columbus, and during hockey season, he's taken on a coaching role with the AAA Blue Jackets program.

From his time spent in central Ohio both as a player and now a full-time resident, Cassels has witnessed hockey's significant growth in the region - especially during the last two years of Blue Jackets hockey. Although the team didn’t see Stanley Cup playoff action until five years after he left the team, Cassels thinks the team is now headed in the right direction and has the potential to compete - and win in - the playoffs every season.

“When they made the playoffs (in 2009) I think people got a taste of playoff hockey,” Cassels said. “Expectations became higher, and when they missed the playoffs it seemed like everyone was disappointed. I think that it should be expectations now and moving forward to be in the playoffs every year.

“I think especially how hard they played Pittsburgh, it showed that it’s a young and upcoming team, with young players like Boone (Jenner) and Ryan (Murray). There’s a great base there with the young guys, and they’ve got that blue-collared work ethic that I think is going to go a long way in this community. I think it’s a group that if they stay together, they’re going to get better every year and hopefully make longer runs in the playoffs each year until they get to that Cup and win it.”
BlueJackets.com is the official Web site of the Columbus Blue Jackets. The Columbus Blue Jackets and columbusbluejackets.com are trademarks of The Columbus Blue Jackets Hockey Club.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2016 Columbus Blue Jackets Hockey Club and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved. View the Columbus Blue Jackets Privacy Policy AdChoices NHL.com Terms of Service
Please use the feedback form if you have any recommendations or comments.


text:
SEEDS FOR SALE IN USA/world site to learn and trade

I wanted to let you know a great site for people in the USA to buy seeds!

Also this site is AMAZING and you can also trade seeds with people on this site. You need to take some time to get familiar with the site in order to learn from it.

Check them both out! They were both brought to my attention by friends.

Recommended Posts

Leave a Comment