text:
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Evolutionary theory continues to be plagued by persistent problems that defy solution via rational thought. This is true whether one examines the origin of the Universe—or the origin of life. But nowhere is the glaring inadequacy of evolutionary theory more evident than in its feeble and failed attempts to explain the origin of sex. The pervasive presence of the male and female sexes (whether in plants, animals, or humans), and the ubiquitous nature of sexual reproduction based on differences in gender, deftly defy any naturalistic explanation. This two-part series of articles will examine topics of a potentially sensitive nature (due to the subject matter under review). However, Dr. Harrub and I want to assure each of our readers that we have absolutely no intention of stooping to "street slang" to do so. Appropriate medical terminology will be employed, and the discussion of the issues involved will be carried out in a straightforward, scientific, and respectful manner. We invite your attention to this investigation of the "Achilles' heel" of evolution.]
The advertisement indicates that this particular "ovulation predictor kit" is "the only technology based solely on hormone monitoring that provides you with personalized daily fertility information for pregnancy planning." For around fifty dollars, a person can purchase this product, which is intended as an aid in determining the optimum moment for a human female to conceive.
Viewing this scenario through the eyes of a baboon, the advertisement would seem to indicate that baboons are a somewhat "superior" species when compared to humans. A female baboon, for example, does not need a "predictor kit" to monitor her hormones or detect her period of ovulation. Instead, she gives off a distinctive smell, and the skin surrounding her genital area swells and turns a bright red color that is visible to a male from some distance. Most other female animals are equally aware of their own ovulation, and often will "advertise" it to males using visual signals, odors, or behaviors. The question becomes: Whence did these differences in physiology and behavior originate? Or, to put it more bluntly: How did sex evolve?
Take a look around. The world surrounding you is literally teeming with living organisms ranging in size from microscopic bacteria to giant California redwoods. But how did it all get here? One of the first thoughtful questions children often ask is, "Where did I come from?" If we were to allow evolutionists to answer this question, they would point to various fragments from the fossil record and confidently declare that humans have descended from an ancient ape-like ancestor. Evolutionists have spent many decades trying to iron out a seamless sequence of descendants in their so-called "evolutionary tree of life." However, one of the most glaring failures of this alleged lineage is its inability to account for the origin of sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction, and the existence of a male and female within each species that reproduces sexually.
Biology texts are quick to illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then conveniently give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, interestingly, we never learn exactly when (or how!) independent male and female species "evolved." Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, "Where did males and females actually come from?," or "What is the evolutionary origin of sex?," evolutionists become as silent as the tomb in which they have laid this perennial problem. How is it that, at one point in time, "nature" was able to evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently "evolved" so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species' standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]
The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not always a favorite topic of discussion in many evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories and proposals evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: "Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction" (1982, p. 54). Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of "The Ultimate Existential Absurdity"):
Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, "isn't it obvious?" Joking apart, it is far from obvious.... Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (pp. 108,111, emp. added).
In an article in Bioscience on "How Did Sex Come About?," Julie Schecter remarked:
Sex is ubiquitous.... Yet sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? At first blush, its disadvantages seem to outweigh its benefits. After all, a parent that reproduces sexually gives only one-half its genes to its offspring, whereas an organism that reproduces by dividing passes on all its genes. Sex also takes much longer and requires more energy than simple division. Why did a process so blatantly unprofitable to its earliest practitioners become so widespread? (1984, 34:680).
Why sex? Why indeed?! We invite you to read further as we survey several issues concerning the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.
The distinguished microbiologist of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Lynn Margulis, and her son Dorion Sagan (Ms. Margulis is one of the late Carl Sagan's three wives; Dorion is their son), have gone on record as stating: "Many theories of sex are clearly fallacious.... Putting these ideas of sexual origins together, our hypothesis is quite different from the accepted wisdom about the role of sex in evolution" (1997, pp. 290,293). Indeed it is! To quote them: "...[C]omplex microscopic beings and their descendants developed the first male and female genders, and our kind of cell-fusing sexuality involving penetration of an egg by a sperm" (p. 78). In his 2001 book, Liaisons of Life, Tom Wakeford addressed this unorthodox idea and concluded:
Margulis's hypothesis for the origin of sexuality is radical. She believes that the ecological relations of ancient microbes drove a process that ultimately led to our way of reproducing. She bases this ambitious idea on a theory she published in 1967. Now classic, the theory attempted to explain the biggest missing link in evolution—the jump from bacteria (often called prokaryotes), all of which lack nuclei, to modern cells, or eukaryotes, whose cells contain nuclei....
Unlike many other transitions in evolution, there are no intermediates between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. It is as if honeybees mutated into humans without any evidence of rats, cats, or chimpanzees in between. The evolutionary processes behind this great revolution have had to be discerned without the help of one of the evolutionist's most trusted sources of evidence—the fossil record (pp. 147-148).
Perhaps it is this complete lack of evidence that has caused Margulis and Sagan to suggest that since sex is basically a historical mishap of sorts—a kind of "accidental holdover" from the era of single-celled organisms—then its maintenance is therefore a "nonscientific" question that "leads to intellectual mischief and confusion" (as quoted in Crow, 1988, pp. 59-60).
While there may well be many "clearly fallacious" theories regarding the origin of sex, and while the fact that sex exists may indeed represent to evolutionists a matter of "intellectual mischief and confusion," the fact of both the ubiquity and the complexity of sexual reproduction has not eluded Darwinists. Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist at the American Museum of Natural History, has admitted that "sex occurs in all major groups of life" (Eldredge and Cracraft, 1980, p. 102). Or as Jennifer Ackerman wrote somewhat emphatically in her 2001 book, Chance in the House of Fate: "Now, it seems, nature hurls the sexes at each other" (p. 49, emp. added).
But why is this the case? Evolutionists have practically been forced to concede that there must be "some advantage" to a system as physiologically and energetically complex as sex—as Mark Ridley admitted when he wrote: "...[I]t is highly likely that sex has some advantage, and that the advantage is big. Sex would not have evolved, and been retained, unless it had some advantage" (2001, p. 254, emp. added). Yet finding and explaining that advantage seems to have eluded our evolutionary colleagues. Sir John Maddox, who served for over twenty-five years as the distinguished editor of Nature, the prestigious journal published by the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994 for "multiple contributions to science"), authored an amazing book titled What Remains to be Discovered in which he addressed the topic of the origin of sex, and stated forthrightly:
The overriding question is when (and then how) sexual reproduction itself evolved. Despite decades of speculation, we do not know. The difficulty is that sexual reproduction creates complexity of the genome and the need for a separate mechanism for producing gametes. The metabolic cost of maintaining this system is huge, as is that of providing the organs specialized for sexual reproduction (the uterus of mammalian females, for example). What are the offsetting benefits? The advantages of sexual reproduction are not obvious (1998, p. 252, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
The fact that the advantages of sex "are not obvious" is well known (though perhaps not oft'-discussed) within the hallowed halls of academia. J.F. Crow lamented:
Sexual reproduction seems like a lot of baggage to carry along if it is functionless. Evolutionary conservatism perpetuates relics, but does it do so on such a grand scale as this?... It is difficult to see how a process as elaborate, ubiquitous, and expensive as sexual reproduction has been maintained without serving some important purpose of its own (1988, p. 60).
Photomicrograph of male sperm cell attempting penetration of female egg cell
What is that "purpose"? And how can evolution (via natural selection) explain it? Would "Nature" (notice the capital "N") "select for" sexual reproduction? As it turns out, the common "survival of the fittest" mentality cannot begin to explain the high cost of first evolving, and then maintaining, the sexual apparatus. Sexual reproduction requires organisms first to produce, and then maintain, gametes (reproductive cells—i.e., sperm and eggs).
Additionally, various kinds of incompatibility factors (such as the blood Rh factor between mother and child) pass along more "costs" (some of which can be life threatening) that are automatically inherent in this "expensive" means of reproduction. In sexual organisms, problems also can arise in regard to tissue rejection between the mother and the newly formed embryo. The human immune system is vigilant in identifying foreign tissue (such as an embryo that carries half of the male's genetic information), yet evolutionists contend that the human reproductive system has "selectively evolved" this "elaborate, ubiquitous, and expensive" method of reproduction. In trying to reconcile the logic behind what causes such things to occur via naturalistic evolution, vitalist philosopher Arthur Koestler observed:
Once upon a time it all looked so simple. Nature regarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining "fitness"....Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction—we are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve? (1978, p. 170).
The question of "what makes evolution evolve" is especially critical when it comes to the origin of sex and sexual reproduction. As Dr. Maddox went on to say: "Much more must be learned of the course of evolution before it is known how (rather than why) sexual reproduction evolved.... That task will require intricate work by future generations of biologists" (pp. 253,254, parenthetical item in orig.).
It is our contention, based on the evidence, that the intricacy, complexity, and informational content associated with sexual reproduction demand the conclusion that sex is neither a "historical accident" resulting in evolutionary baggage, nor a product of organic evolution itself, but rather is the product of an intelligent Creator.
Many single-celled organisms reproduce asexually. If we all descended from these single-celled creatures, as Margulis and Sagan have suggested, then why was the simple-yet-efficient method of asexual reproduction set aside in favor of sexual reproduction? Dobzhansky and his co-authors commented on this ironic difficulty in their book, Evolution:
With respect to the origin of sexual reproduction, two challenging questions present themselves. First, in what kinds of organisms did sex first arise? And second, what was the adaptive advantage that caused sexual reproduction to become predominant in higher organisms? (1977, p. 391).
An example of the asexual reproduction process known as budding
Asexual reproduction is the formation of new individuals from cells of only one parent, without gamete formation or fertilization by another member of the species. Asexual reproduction thus does not require one egg-producing parent and one sperm-producing parent. A single parent is all that is required. Sporulation (the formation of spores) is one method of asexual reproduction among protozoa and certain plants. A spore is a reproductive cell that produces a new organism without fertilization. In certain lower forms of animals (e.g., hydra), and in yeasts, budding is a common form of asexual reproduction as a small protuberance on the surface of the parent cell increases in size until a wall forms to separate the new individual (the bud) from the parent. Regeneration is another form of asexual reproduction that allows organisms (e.g. starfish and salamanders) to replace injured or lost parts.
As they have struggled to explain the existence of sexual reproduction in nature, evolutionists have suggested four different (and sometimes contradictory) theories, known in the literature as: (1) the Lottery Principle; (2) the Tangled Bank Hypothesis; (3) the Red Queen Hypothesis; and (4) the DNA Repair Hypothesis. We would like to discuss each briefly.
The Lottery Principle was first suggested by American biologist George C. Williams in his monograph, Sex and Evolution (1975). Williams' idea was that sexual reproduction introduced genetic variety in order to enable genes to survive in changing or novel environments. He used the lottery analogy to get across the concept that breeding asexually would be like buying a large number of tickets for a national lottery but giving them all the same number. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, would be like purchasing a small number of tickets, but giving each of them a different number.
The essential idea behind the Lottery Principle is that since sex introduces variability, organisms would have a better chance of producing offspring that will survive if they reproduce a range of types rather than merely more of the same. The point being made by those who advocate the Lottery Principle is that, in their view, asexual reproduction is poorly equipped to adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions due to the fact that the offspring are exact duplicates (i.e., clones) of their parents, and thus inherently possess less genetic variation—variation that ultimately could lead to radically improved adaptability and a much greater likelihood of survival). As Carl Zimmer wrote under the title of "Evolution from Within" in his volume, Parasite Rex: "A line of clones might do well enough in a forest, but what if that forest changed over a few centuries to a prairie? Sex brought the variations that could allow organisms to survive change" (2000, p. 163). Matt Ridley added:
...[A] sexual form of life will reproduce at only half the rate of an equivalent clonal form. The halved reproductive rate of sexual forms is probably made up for by a difference in quality: the average sexual offspring is probably twice as good as an equivalent cloned offspring (1993, p. 254, emp. added).
It would be "twice as good," of course, because it had twice the genetic endowment (having received half from each of the two parents). As Reichenbach and Anderson summarized the issue
For example, why do most animals reproduce sexually rather than asexually, when asexual reproduction seems to conform best to the current theory that in natural selection the fittest are those that preserve their genes by passing them on to their progeny? One theory is that sexual reproduction provides the best defense against the rapidly reproducing, infectious species that threaten the existence of organisms. The diversity in the species that results from combining different gene pools favors the survival of those that are sexually reproduced over those that by cloning inherit repetitive genetic similarity (1995, p. 18, emp. added).
It is that "diversity in the species," according to the principle, which helps an organism maintain its competitive edge in nature's struggle of "survival of the fittest." But the Lottery Principle has fallen on hard times of late. It suggests that sex would be favored by a variable environment, yet a close inspection of the global distribution of sex reveals that where environments are stable (such as in the tropics), sexual reproduction is most common. In contrast, in areas where the environment is unstable (such as at high altitudes or in small bodies or water), asexual reproduction is rife.
The Tangled Bank Hypothesis suggests that sex evolved in order to prepare offspring for the complicated world around them. The "tangled bank" phraseology comes from the last paragraph of Darwin's Origin of Species, in which he referred to a wide assortment of creatures all competing for light and food on a "tangled bank." According to this concept, in any environment where there exists intense competition for space, food, and other resources, a premium is placed on diversification. As Zimmer described it:
In any environment—a tidal flat, a forest canopy, a deep-sea hydrothermal vent—the space is divided into different niches where different skills are needed for survival. A clone specialized for one niche can give birth only to offspring that can also handle the same niche. But sex shuffles the genetic deck and deals the offspring different hands. It's basically spreading out progeny so that they're using different resources (2000, p. 163).
The Tangled Bank Hypothesis, however, also has fallen on hard times. In his book, Evolution and Human Behavior, John Cartwright concluded:
Although once popular, the tangled bank hypothesis now seems to face many problems, and former adherents are falling away. The theory would predict a greater interest in sex among animals that produce lots of small offspring that compete with each other. In fact, sex is invariably associated with organisms that produce a few large offspring, whereas organisms producing small offspring frequently engage in parthenogenesis [asexual reproduction—BT/BH]. In addition, the evidence from fossils suggests that species go for vast periods of [geologic] time without changing much (2000, p. 96, emp. added).
Indeed, the evidence does suggest "that species go for vast periods of time without changing much." Consider the following admission in light of that point. According to Margulis and Sagan, bacteria "evolved" in such a fashion as to ultimately be responsible for sexual reproduction. Yet if that is the case, why, then, have the bacteria themselves remained virtually unchanged—from an evolutionary viewpoint—for billions of years of Earth history? In his book, Evolution of Living Organisms, the eminent French zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, raised this very point.
[B]acteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87, emp. added).
Additionally, it should be noted that today we still see organisms that reproduce asexually, as well as organisms that reproduce sexually—which raises the obvious question: Why do some organisms continue to reproduce asexually, while others have "evolved" the ability to reproduce sexually? Don't the asexual organisms ever "need" genetic variety in order to enable genes to survive in changing or novel environments (the Lottery Principle)? Don't they ever "need" to prepare their offspring for the complicated world around them (the Tangled Bank Hypothesis)?
The Red Queen Hypothesis was first suggested by Leigh Van Valen in an article titled "A New Evolutionary Law" in Evolutionary Theory (1973). His research suggested that the probability of organisms becoming extinct bears no relationship to how long they already may have survived. In other words, as Cartwright put it: "It is a sobering thought that the struggle for existence never gets any easier; however well adapted an animal may become, it still has the same chance of extinction as a newly formed species" (p. 97). Biologists came to refer to the concept as the Red Queen Hypothesis, named after the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass who took Alice on a lengthy run that actually went nowhere. As the queen said to poor Alice, "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Think of it as a "genetics arms race" in which an animal constantly must run the genetic gauntlet of being able to chase its prey, elude predators, and resist infection from disease-causing organisms. In the world of the Red Queen, organisms have to run fast—just to stay still! That is to say, they constantly have to "run to try to improve" (and the development of sex would be one way of accomplishing that). Yet doing so provides no automatic guarantee of winning the struggle known as "survival of the fittest." "Nature," said the eminent British poet Lord Tennyson, is "red in tooth and claw." Currently, the Red Queen Hypothesis seems to be the favorite of evolutionists worldwide in attempting to explain the reason as to the "why" of sex.
Think about this. Why are babies born young? Stupid question—with a self-evident answer, right? Evolutionists suggest otherwise. The point of the question is this. Our somatic (body) cells age. Yet cells of a newborn have had their clocks "set back." Somatic cells die, but the germ line seems to be practically immortal. Why is this the case? How can "old" people produce "young" babies? In a landmark article published in 1989, Bernstein, Hopf, and Michod suggested that they had discovered the answer:
We argue that the lack of ageing of the germ line results mainly from repair of the genetic material by meiotic recombination during the formation of germ cells. Thus our basic hypothesis is that the primary function of sex is to repair the genetic material of the germ line (p. 4).
DNA can be damaged in at least two ways. First, ionizing radiation or mutagenic chemicals can alter the genetic code. Or, second, a mutation can occur via errors during the replication process itself. Most mutations are deleterious (see Cartwright, 2000, p. 98). In an asexual organism, by definition, any mutation that occurs in one generation will be passed on automatically to the next. In his book, The Red Queen (1993), Matt Ridley compared it to what occurs when you photocopy a document, then photocopy the photocopy, and then photocopy that photocopy, etc. Eventually, the quality deteriorates severely. Asexual organisms, as they continue to accumulate mutations, face the unpleasant prospect of eventually becoming both unable to reproduce and unviable—neither of which would be at all helpful to evolution.
But if sex "evolved," it would help solve this problem since mutations, although they might still be passed on from one generation to the next, would not necessarily be expressed in the next generation (a mutation must appear in the genes of both parents before it is expressed in the offspring). As Cartwright put it:
In sexually reproducing species on the other hand, some individuals will be "unlucky" and have a greater share than average of deleterious mutations in their genome, and some will be "lucky," with a smaller share. The unlucky ones will be selected out. This in the long term has the effect of constantly weeding out harmful mutations through the death of those that bear them.... Deleterious mutations...would have devastating consequences if it were not for sexual reproduction (p. 99).
But, as Cartwright went on to admit: "This theory is not without its problems and critics" (p. 99). One of those problems, expressed by Mark Ridley (no kin to Matt), is: "We do not know for sure that sex exists to purge bad genes" (2001, p. 254). No, we certainly do not! And, in fact, evidence is beginning to mount that perhaps the DNA Repair Hypothesis is itself in need of "repair." As Sir John Maddox noted:
One view is that sexual reproduction makes it easier for an evolving organism to get rid of deleterious changes. That should certainly be the case if there is more than one genetic change and if their combined effect on the fitness of the evolving organisms is greater than the sum of their individual changes acting separately. But there is no direct evidence to show that this rule is generally applicable (1998, p. 252, emp. added).
We must not overlook an important fact throughout all of this: These theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, but they do not explain the origin of sex. How, exactly, did nature accomplish the "invention" of the marvelous process we know as sex? In addressing this very issue, Maddox asked quizzically:
How did this process (and its complexities) evolve?... The dilemma is that natural selection cannot anticipate changes in the environment, and so arrange for the development of specialized sexual organs as a safeguard against environmental change (p. 253, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
Exactly our point! It is one thing to develop a theory or hypothesis to explain something that already exists, but it is entirely another to develop a theory or hypothesis to explain why that something (in this case, sex) does exist. As Mark Ridley begrudgingly admitted: "Sex is not used simply for want of an alternative. Nothing, in an evolutionary sense, forces organisms to reproduce sexually" (p. 109, emp. added).
Perhaps Cartwright summarized the issue well when he said: "There is perhaps no single explanation for the maintenance of sex in the face of severe cost" (p. 99). Since he is speaking of a "naturalistic" explanation, we would agree wholeheartedly. But we would go even farther to state that there is no naturalistic explanation at all for the origin or maintenance of sex.
Why, then, does sex exist? In his 2001 book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer admitted:
Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce.... And sex carries other costs as well.... By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns.... Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages? (pp. 230, 231, emp. added).
From an evolutionary viewpoint, sex definitely is "an inefficient way to reproduce." Think about all the sexual process entails, including the complexity involved in reproducing the information carried within the DNA. It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.
No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The "sexual" method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away (pp. 108-109, emp. added).
Again, from an evolutionary viewpoint, sex would be considered "absurd." But from a design viewpoint, it is nothing short of incredible!
Yet there is an even more important question than why sex exists. How did sex come to exist? Evolution is dependent on change (the English word "evolution" derives from the Latin evolvere, meaning "to unroll, to change"). Quite obviously, if everything remained the same, there would be no evolution. Evolutionists believe that the driving forces behind evolution are natural selection and genetic mutations occurring over lengthy spans of geologic time (as Peter Ward put it in his 2001 book, Future Evolution, "Evolution takes time," p. 153). Mutations are primarily the result of mistakes that occur during DNA replication. There are three different types of mutations: beneficial, deleterious, and neutral (see Mayr, 2001, p. 98). Neutral mutations (which admittedly do occur) are, as their name implies, "neutral." They do not "propel" evolution forward in any significant fashion. Deleterious mutations "will be selected against and will be eliminated in due time" (Mayr, p. 98). That, then, leaves beneficial mutations, which, according to evolutionists, are incorporated into the species by natural selection, eventually resulting in new and different organisms.
But what does all of this have to do with the origin of sex? Evolutionists adhere to the view that the first organisms on Earth were asexual, and thus they believe that, during billions of years of Earth history, asexual organisms experienced numerous beneficial mutations that caused them to evolve into sexual organisms. But the change of a single-celled, asexual prokaryote (like a bacterium) into a multi-celled, sexual eukaryote would not be a "magical" process carried out by just a few, well-chosen beneficial mutations (as if nature had the power to "choose" anything!). In fact, quite the opposite would be true. Why so? Ernst Mayr, who undeniably ranks as the most eminent evolutionary taxonomist in the world, remarked in his book, What Evolution Is: "Any mutation that induces changes in the phenotype [the outward, physical make-up of an organism—BT/BH] will either be favored or discriminated against by natural selection.... [T]he occurrence of new beneficial mutations is rather rare" (20001, p. 98, emp. added). Beneficial mutations (viz., those that provide additional information for, and instructions to, the organism) are indeed "rather rare." Furthermore, as evolutionists have been known to admit quite candidly, mutations that affect the phenotype almost always are harmful (see Crow, 1997; Cartwright, 2000, p. 98). The famous Stanford University geneticist, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (who is the head of the International Human Genome Project), addressed this fact when he wrote:
Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one (2000, p. 176, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
In addressing the complete ineffectiveness of mutations as an alleged evolutionary mechanism, Dr. Grassé observed:
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.... The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.... There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it (1977, pp. 88,103,107, emp. added).
Grassé is not the only prominent evolutionist to take such a view in regard to mutations as an ineffectual driving force for evolution. In a speech presented at Hobart College several years ago, the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould spoke out in a somewhat militant fashion about the subject when he said:
A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species.... That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change (1984).
All of this raises the question: If mutations are not the cause of evolutionary change, then what is?
There is more to the problem of the origin of sex, however, than "just" the fact of rare, beneficial mutations and their much-more-frequent cousins, the harmful, deleterious mutations. There is the added problem related to the two different types of cell division we mentioned earlier—mitosis and meiosis. During mitosis, all of the chromosomes are copied and passed on from the parent cell to the daughter cells. Meiosis (from the Greek meaning to split), on the other hand, occurs only in sex cells (i.e., eggs and sperm); during this type of replication, only half of the chromosomal material is copied and passed on. [For an excellent, up-to-date description of the complicated, two-part process by which meiosis occurs, see Mayr, p. 103.] Once meiosis has taken place,
[t]he result is the production of completely new combinations of the parental genes, all of them uniquely different genotypes [the genetic identity of an individual that does not show as outward characteristics—BT/BH]. These, in turn, produce unique phenotypes, providing unlimited new material for the process of natural selection (Mayr, p. 104, emp. added).
It is those very facts—that meiosis allegedly has "evolved" the ability to halve the chromosome number (but only for gametes), and that it actually can provide "unlimited new material"—which make the meiotic process so incredible. And the critical importance of meiosis to life as we know it has been acknowledged (albeit perhaps begrudgingly) even by evolutionists. Margulis and Sagan, for example, wrote:
We think that meiosis became tied to two-parent sex and that meiosis as a cell process, rather than two-parent sex, was a prerequisite for evolution of many aspects of animals.... [M]eiosis seems intimately connected with complex cell and tissue differentiation. After all, animals and plants return every generation to a single nucleated cell (1997, p. 291, emp. added).
These two evolutionists have admitted that meiosis is critical for sexual reproduction. Yet in their volume, Slanted Truths, they stated unequivocally that meiotic sex evolved "520 million years ago" (1997, p. 293). How, pray tell, could the bacteria that are supposed to be responsible for the evolution of sex have "stabilized a billion years ago" (as Grassé observed that they did), and then 500 million years after that stabilization, mutate enough to "evolve" the painstaking process of meiosis? Is anyone actually listening to what evolutionists are saying? Read carefully the following scenario, as set forth in Jennifer Ackerman's 2001 book, Chance in the House of Fate, and as you do, concentrate on the items we have placed in bold print that are intended to draw the reader's attention to the "just-so" nature of the account being proffered.
The first sex cells may have been interchangeable and of roughly the same size. By chance, some may have been slightly bigger than others and stuffed with nutrients, an advantage in getting progeny off to a good start. Perhaps some were smaller, faster, good at finding mates. As organisms continued to meld and join their genetic material, the pairs of a larger cell with a smaller one proved an efficient system. Over time, the little rift between the sexes widened, as did the strategies of male and female for propagating their own genes (pp. 48-49, emp. added).
The first sex cells may have been.... By chance, some may have been.... Perhaps some were.... Over time, the.... It is little wonder that, in their more candid moments, evolutionists admit, as Ackerman eventually did, that "when it comes to sex, we inhabit a mystery" (p. 115).
Notice, however, the admission by Margulis and Sagan that "meiosis seems connected with complex cell and tissue differentiation." Indeed it does—now! But how did a process as incredibly complex as meiosis ever get started in the first place? What (or, better yet, Who) "intricately connected it with complex cell and tissue differentiation"? With all due respect, there is not an evolutionist on the planet who has been able to come up with an adequate (much less believable) explanation as to how somatic cells reproduce by mitosis (thereby maintaining the species' standard chromosome number in each cell), while gametes are produced by meiosis—wherein that chromosome number is halved so that, at the union of the male and female gametes during reproduction, the standard number is reinstated.
Lewis Thomas, the highly regarded medical doctor who served for many years as the president and chancellor of the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, was unable to contain either his enthusiasm or his praise for the system we know as "sexual reproduction." In his book, The Medusa and the Snail, he wrote about the "miracle" of how one sperm cell forms with one egg cell to produce the cell we know as a zygote, which, nine months later, will become a newborn human being. He concluded:
The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another around the whole sky, until all my money runs out (1979, pp. 155-157).
Dr. Thomas' money is perfectly safe. No one has been able to explain—from an evolutionary viewpoint—the origin of sex, the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself a marvel of design). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Evolutionary theorists ask us to believe that random, chance occurrences brought about this marvelously interdependent process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place via meiosis, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to rejoin the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn. The idea that all of this "just evolved" is unworthy of consideration or acceptance, especially in light of the evidence now at hand.
Ackerman, Jennifer (2001), Chance in the House of Fate (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Bell, Graham. (1982), The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Bernstein, H., F.A. Hopf, and R.E. Michod (1989), "The Evolution of Sex: DNA Repair Hypothesis," The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, ed. C. Rasa and E. Voland (London: Chapman and Hall).
Cartwright, John (2000), Evolution and Human Behavior (London: Macmillan).
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).
Crow, J.F. (1988), "The Importance of Recombination," The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas, ed. Michod and Levin (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates), pp. 56-73.
Crow, J.F. (1997), "The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine (1977), Evolution (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
Eldredge Niles and Joel Cracraft (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology, (New York: Columbia University Press).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1984), "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).
Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1977), Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Kitcher, Philip (1982), Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Koestler, Arthur (1978), Janus: A Summing Up (New York: Vintage Books).
Maddox, John (1998), What Remains to be Discovered (New York: The Free Press).
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (1997), Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution (New York: Springer-Verlag).
Maynard-Smith, John (1986), The Problems of Biology (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).
Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson (1995), On Behalf of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ridley, Mark (2001), The Cooperative Gene (New York: The Free Press).
Ridley, Matt (1993), The Red Queen (London: Viking).
Schecter, Julie (1984), "How Did Sex Come About?," Bioscience, 34:680-681, December.
Thomas, Lewis (1979), The Medusa and the Snail (New York: Viking).
Van Valen, Leigh (1973), "A New Evolutionary Law," Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30.
Wakeford, Tom (2001), Liaisons of Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Ward, Peter (2001), Future Evolution (New York: Henry Holt).
Williams, George C. (1975), Sex and Evolution [in the Monographs in Population Biology series] (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Zimmer, Carl (2000), Parasite Rex (New York: The Free Press).
Zimmer, Carl (2001), Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (New York: HarperCollins).


text:
Welcome to HearCom
This site is for anyone who is interested in issues related to hearing and communication - including members of the public as well as professionals who are already working with or who are interested in issues related to hearing.
The site contains information relevant to hearing screening, diagnosis and rehabilitation across Europe, and is produced by HearCom, a European funded research project. For more information about the HearCom consortium, see About the Project.
If you'd like step by step advice about hearing loss and its management, then HearCompanion is here to help you! This unique guide to understanding the process of having your hearing tested, getting hearing aids (if you need them), and of all the other forms of support available, will tell you what you need to know.
More detailed information about the scientific and technical aspects of hearing and communication is collected and updated in the Professionals area. The members of the HearCom consortium aim to keep this website as up to date as possible after the end of the HearCom project.
Why is communication so important?
Communication is very important in all areas of life. It is important that new technology in society makes communication easier. For example, if we lose our hearing, we can sometimes struggle with things that we were able to do easily in the past. HearCom seeks to provide tools and solutions to improve communication for hard of hearing and deaf people, as well as second language users and people in noisy environments.
→ start slide show:
This website is supported by:
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Syrian President Bashar Assad reshuffled his Cabinet on Saturday, appointing seven new ministers in a move that appeared aimed at trying to shore up an economy that has been ravaged by the country's 2-year-old revolt, state media said.
State TV said Assad replaced the heads of the oil, finance, social affairs, labor, housing, public works and agriculture ministries. Key security ministries such as defense and interior, which are on the front lines of the civil war, remained unchanged.
Syria's economy has been devastated by the civil war, which has left major cities in ruins and gutted the nation's industries. Power outages are common and Syrians in some areas must stand in hours-long lines for bread and gasoline.
The reshuffle took place as fighting in Damascus and its suburbs raged for a fourth consecutive day, with clashes focused in southern and northeastern neighborhoods of the capital.
Rebels brought their fight within a mile of the heart of Damascus on Friday, seizing army checkpoints and cutting a key highway with a row of burning tires as they pressed their campaign for the city, the seat of Assad's power.
Both the rebels and the government consider the fight for Damascus the most likely endgame in a civil war that has already killed more than 60,000. The regime controls movement in and out of the heavily defended city with a network of checkpoints, and rebels have failed so far to make significant inroads and hold them.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported intense air raids on several Damascus suburbs on Saturday, including Zamalka and Douma, and near a major highway that leads to the capital. It added that troops shelled the northeastern neighborhoods of Jobar and Qaboun that have witnessed fighting and shelling since Thursday.
A resident who lives near Jobar said he fled with his family Friday afternoon to a safer area close to central Damascus because of the intensity of the fighting.
"It was a bad day. We heard lots of explosions," he said speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
The Observatory and the Local Coordination Committees reported that rebels captured a housing compound for army officers in the Damascus suburb of Adra. To the north, the Observatory said rebels entered parts of the Mannagh air base near the border with Turkey that has been subjected to attacks by rebels for weeks.
The civil war has heavily damaged infrastructure like oil pipelines, bridges and water and power stations. The airport in Syria's largest city and commercial hub, Aleppo, is closed due to fighting. The exchange rate for one U.S. dollar today is around 95 Syrian pounds on the black market, which is more than double the 47 pounds to the dollar when the crisis began in March 2011.
The presidential decrees issued Saturday appeared to be an attempt to address some of the fallout - economic and social - from the civil war.
The order split what used to be the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs into two posts, apparently to give the new Ministry of Social Affairs responsibility for rising number of people who have fled from one part of the country to another to escape the fighting.
Jens Laerke, a spokesman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said Tuesday that 2 million people have been displaced inside Syria while 4 million need urgent help. Those numbers could rise if fighting continues, he said. He said the humanitarian situation in Syria had reached "catastrophic" proportions, with some 2.5 million people lacking food.
Syria's civil war has settled into a bloody stalemate that shows no signs of stopping, despite several tentative proposals from both sides to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Syria's Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi floated the latest proposal late Friday, saying Damascus is ready for dialogue with the opposition, so long as they lay down their weapons. He said anyone who responds will not be harmed.
The offer is unlikely to gain much traction among the Syrian opposition. The rebel movement is highly decentralized and deeply distrusts the regime, and most groups are unlikely to stop fighting so long as Assad remains president.
Assad in a rare speech in January outlined his own vision for ending the country's conflict with a plan that would keep him in power. He also dismissed any chance of dialogue with the armed opposition and called on Syrians to fight what he called "murderous criminals."
He offered a national reconciliation conference, elections and a new constitution but demanded regional and Western countries stop funding and arming rebels trying to overthrow his regime first.
Syria's opposition rejected the proposal. Those fighting to topple the regime have repeatedly said they will accept nothing less than the president's departure.
On Jan. 30, in a sharp shift from their resolve, the Syrian National Coalition's president, Mouaz al-Khatib, said he is willing to talk to the regime if that would help end bloodshed. His call was sharply criticized by members of the opposition.
Al-Khatib suggested that Assad should begin releasing tens of thousands of political prisoners as a first step before Sunday or the offer will be void.
Mroue reported from Beirut.


text:
Hey again. I just want to rant right now so if you dont want to listen it is fine. I'm male Asian 22-23 years .
A few years ago i noticed my butt cheeks turned black. It is not my whole butt though but a very good portion. I am Asian so our skin tends to be yellowish. I noticed this maybe 2 years ago? I never did anything because i hoped it would go away. I didn't want to go to a doctor because I was scared and embarrassed which i regretted so much now.
In April of 2009 i went to a doctor who i went there mainly because i had some other problems. Then i asked the doctor to see my butt because it was dark. He immediately said it was a boil and gave me some cream for 1 week and use those gauze pads. He said if nothing worked.. which didn't I would go to a surgeon he referred me to.
One week later i went to the surgeon and the moment he saw my butt, he was extremely upset that i did not go to see a doctor sooner. He said it was a pilonidal cyst and immediately did an office procedure which i later found it was called drainage. I had to soak my butt in the bathtub for 1 week. I had to also stick the gauze pads 2 times a day for 1 week. I recalled when i got home after the drainage, i had a lot of blood but after that day, it was less and less. When i went back to him a few days later, he looked at my butt and said it looks like it is healing well and said to NEVER SEE HIM AGAIN.http://www.pilonidal.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif I asked him what about the color of my butt and he said to not worry about it. Well the thing is my butt has turned black and purpish. Some people here think it is hyperpigmentation which most likely occurred because of the pilonidal cyst.
I then went to a skin doctor and when he saw me in April 18 i think, he said the area is definitely inflamed and suggested me doing surgery. I told him i just had my Pilonidal cyst drained a week ago by a surgeon and he knows the surgeon as well and he said then there is nothing he can do but to wait 4 weeks to see him again. I went to him for a 2nd opinion even though he was skin doctor and not surgeon. Reason i went to him was because he's a skin doctor and i wanted to know what i can use on my butt to change the color of my butt from black back to my normal color. And when i say the skin color turned from yellow to black i am not kidding. It looks black which most likely is hyperpigmentation. It still looks flared up but the thing is my pilonidal cyst doesn't look like it has any problems. To those ppl who complain about the pain, I don't think i felt much pain really. I went to doctor b/c of the butt color change and didnt even know there was a cyst.
Today I went to my skin doctor and woke up real early because this doctor has a lot of patients and dont have appointments. Everything is walk in so you need to be on line etc. Well when i got there today doctor wasn't there so i have to wait till Wednesday to see him. I also have to schedule an appointment to see the surgeon again because i want to talk to him about what the skin specialist says.
I mean i look in the mirror at my butt cheeks now and it looks black and inflamed so it would definitely be embarrasing as well. I wanted to know as quick as possible what i can do like using some hydroquinone cream or whatever to change the color back to normal. Its like I want to live like there is no tomorrow but this pilonidal cyst and butt discoloration holds me back
I mean if i showed any of you guys a picture of how my butt looks you would be like wow how did it get black since most of you people here who have a pilonidal cyst don't have anything happened to your skin in your butt.
Is there any point of doing surgery since some people here said the pilonidal cyst came back? I already had it drained 1 month ago. The most important thing right now to me is it possible to change the skin color of my butt back to normal? It is black and covers a good amount of area as well.
Here are some pictures of my butt and the pilonidal cyst and the butt discoloration that turned black. I understand if you dont want to see it because it would look horrible.
Warning these are pictures of my butt to show what happened to it.
Im going to skin doctor this wednesday again and my surgeon hopefully later this week or next week.
http://forums.wrongdiagnosis.com/images/misc/progress.gif http://forums.wrongdiagnosis.com/images/buttons/edit.gif


text:
Linear operators: Spectral operators
Wiley-Interscience, 1971 - Mathematics - 20 pages
From inside the book
38 pages matching respectively in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 38
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Spectral Operators
Terminology and Preliminary Notions
47 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
adjoint operator algebra of projections Amer analytic arbitrary asymptotic B-space Banach space Boolean algebra Borel sets boundary conditions bounded Borel function bounded linear operator bounded operator commuting compact complex numbers complex plane constant contains continuous functions converges Corollary countably additive Definition denote dense differential operator disjoint Doklady Akad domain eigenvalues elements equation exists finite number Foias follows from Lemma follows from Theorem formal differential operator formula Hence Hilbert space hypothesis identity inequality inverse Lebesgue Math matrix measurable functions multiplicity Nauk SSSR norm normal operators operators in Hilbert perturbation polynomial Proof properties prove quasi-nilpotent restriction Russian satisfies scalar operator scalar type operator scalar type spectral Section semi-group sequence shows spectral measure spectral operator spectral theory spectrum strong operator topology subset Suppose trace class type spectral operator unbounded uniformly bounded unique vector weakly complete zero


text:
MPG Disclaimer: *Based on 2009 EPA mileage and driving range ratings. Use for comparison purposes only. Your MPGe/MPG and driving range will vary depending on driving conditions, how you drive and maintain your vehicle, battery age/condition, and other factors.
*Please contact dealer to verify price, options, and other vehicle details.
All vehicles are subject to prior sale. While every attempt has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data displayed, the Dealership is not responsible for any errors or omissions. *Unless otherwise specified, all advertised prices exclude tax, tag, registration, title, and $100 documentation fees.


text:
"The Core of the Terrorist Problem Is Political"
Your majesty, the world is shocked by terrorist attacks that are carried out by people who claim to be fighting for Islam. You, as a prominent Muslim leader, have claimed that Islam is a religion of peace. Does that mean that Islam has two faces?
Prince Karim Aga Khan IV: No, I don't think so. For one thing, you have to think about the fact that this is just represents a very, very small minority of the world's Muslim population. Also, these people are primarily driven by political and not religious motives. It would be wrong to consider them representative of Islam.
The Western world has to take a close look to see which forces are in play in order to differentiate between belief and things that have nothing to do with belief. We as Muslims could also ask the same things: like what's happening in Northern Ireland. If I as a Muslim came to you and were to say: What's happening in Northern Ireland reflects Catholic and Protestant beliefs, then you would say: you're uneducated.
In many western countries, including Germany, more and more people have the opinion that Islam and democracy are irreconcilable. If that's true, then a mutual understanding and effective cooperation between Muslims and the Western world would be practically impossible.
Aga Khan: That's true, but I don't see a conflict between Islam and democracy. There's absolutely no conflict if you look at the original form of the Muslim community.
Tolerance and pluralism are at the top of your agenda for improving conditions for all humans. Is that because your own followers, the minority Ismaili Muslims, are discriminated against? At times, other Muslims have even gone so far as to describe you as a heretic.
Aga Khan: In every religion there are differences of opinion about the interpretation of the religion. But I don't think the Ismailis are still discriminated against today. To the contrary, we're building bridges to the representatives of other directions of Islam. Because the idea of pluralism is tightly anchored in Islam.
Of course there are many different interpretations. But the differences in interpretation is not a problem in Islam. I would even go so far as to say that Islam is a very broad religion. There's a very famous line by Allah in the Quran: "I have created you from one soul." With that line, he meant all of humanity.
Since the end of 2001, the West has been seeking a dialogue with the Muslim world. But more and more people are frustrated because no real answer is coming from the Muslim side. They're waiting for the voices of moderate Muslims who will vocally and clearly speak out against terrorism in the name of Islam. Why aren't we hearing these voices?
Aga Khan: I think you can hear these voices more often now. We have to consider that there are forces inside the Islamic world that do not promote freedom of opinion -- especially in regards to religion.
Is there hope that we can someday stop terrorism?
Aga Khan: Firstly, I'd say this: Let's remedy the causes of terrorism. Generally that's political frustration and not a question of religion. The situation in the Middle East was not created by Islamic beliefs.
The situation in Kashmir was not created by Islamic belief. The situation in Afghanistan was not created by Islamic beliefs. So we have to identify the core of the problem, and that is political in nature. And when we know the real causes of what drives people to desperation, then we can get a grasp on it.
Interview conducted by Günter Knabe
Comments for this article: "The Core of the Terrorist Problem Is Political"
Quite possibly religious belief isn't a dominant motivating factor for what we are seeing in the Mid East region (and spreading), but certainly religious affiliation is used as a dividing line between politically-motivated factions. It's more economic in nature than we generally think: a scramble for resources while they are still available to grab. This includes oil, water, minerals, anything that can bring prosperity. China and the West are the potential buyers and the hapless bystanders in this scramble for wealth.Sorento14.06.2014 | 19:25 Uhr


text:
Corn-and-Shrimp Chowder with Bacon (Adapted from Everyday Food)
6 ears corn
4 slices bacon, sliced into 1/2" strips
6 to 8 scallions, white and green parts separated and thinly sliced
2 medium baking potatoes, peeled and cut into 1/2" cubes
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
3 cups milk
2 cups vegetable broth
1 teaspoon Cajun or seafood seasoning
1/2 teaspoon chopped dried thyme
16 ounces large peeled and deveined shrimp
salt and fresh ground black pepper
Husk and remove silk from the corn cobs. Slice kernels off each cob. Scrape each cob down with a spoon to release any pulp left on the cob.
In a large saucepan, add bacon and cook over medium-high until browned and crisp, about 6 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer bacon (leaving drippings behind) to a paper tower-lined plate to drain.
Stir scallion whites and potatoes into the pan - cook, stirring, until the scallions have softened, about 2 minutes. Add flour - cook, stirring, for 1 minute. Gradually stir in milk, vegetable broth, Cajun (or seafood) seasoning and thyme. Bring mixture to a boil - reduce heat to a simmer and cook, stirring occasionally, until the potatoes are tender, about 10 to 12 minutes. Stir in corn kernels and pulp - cook, stirring, for 1 to 2 minutes. Add shrimp and scallion greens - cook until shrimp are just opaque, about 2 to 3 minutes. Remove from the heat and season chowder with salt and fresh ground black pepper.
Serve each portion topped with crisped bacon.
Makes about 4 servings.
Just found the recipe? Click here to see where we talked about it!
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Corn-and-Shrimp Chowder with Bacon
2 comments:
Hey Joe - What remarkable timing you have! I was reading a couple of blogs before I hunted down a corn chowder recipe to appease the craving I've had for a week now....perfect, perfect timing. It's going on the menu....perhaps for tonight if I can get my rearend to the store!ReplyDelete
Terri - I hope you enjoyed it if you gave the recipe a try!ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Thomas MacEntee, at GeneaBloggers.com, is writing a series of posts this week on the multiple opportunities in the genealogy industry/community - including as a career. As with any blog post, the comments recorded are also very useful to consider. Also, please note the thanks he gives at the end of the posts, and in the posts, to other useful information by others.
This series was prompted by a number of blog posts and Facebook discussions over the past several days. I took a small part in some of those discussions, and feel the need to add some further comments of my own here, as well as to bring attention to the fine series Thomas is presenting. Others are doing the same...
As you know, I am a retired university business school professor emeritus who also has pursued my own family history and genealogy seriously since 1995. I began blogging seriously in September of 2005, as a volunteer (as part of my life as a professor) working in local tourism. I retired at age 70 and am still capable of writing and reading at a high level of my own choosing.
Note the 'of my own choosing' phrase, above. During my first year of retirement, I made a conscious effort to determine what mix of work and leisure was going to work best for me - and my wife. I blogged about it.
As retirement approached, I became familiar with the latest Print-on-Demand book publishing options, and began to publish non-fiction family history books (4 to date). Promoting these books lead to my book blog, which included reviews and other book related activities, begun in March 2009. I am an active member of LibraryThing and their Early Reviewer program. In doing a thorough review of blogging in general, to promote my books, I discovered genealogy blogs. I began my genealogy related blog in September 2009 as a part of that process.
The one specific goal I had set for that first retirement year was to: finish the fiction novel I had begun in 1987 - before the first retirement year was over. Promotion of the work and the novel was tied into the book blog, but, I also created a new blog for the family saga novel series that appeared to be headed for a trilogy. The first novel in the series, "Back to the Homeplace," was completed and published, in Spring 2010. The second in the series, "The Homeplace Revisited," will appear in June 2011, with a little luck. While I make a few dollars from the novels, it does not cover the cost of the others books we are buying and reading every month!
Two additional non-fiction family history books are in the works, and I am anxious to get into them in more depth as soon as the second novel is laid to rest.
In the summer of 2010 I also became affiliated with Examiner.com. This is a commercial news organization of the online era. I assume the closest comparison might be to the Huffington Post... however, the point of Examiner.com is that it focuses on local news written by local writers. It is 'for pay' in the broadest sense of the word - that is, we are paid very little (unless we are read widely and get a "lot" of hits on our articles). Only a few are able to write for the money - most of us write for the love of the writing and the recognition of our work in print. I write on two topics: as Springfield (MO) Genealogy Examiner, and, as Ozarks Cultural Heritage Examiner. Note: I appreciated subscribers (free)!
And, I am still the retired Grandpa and husband that I am expected to be - I hope!
So, GeneaBlogger is 'one of my favorite things' - but far from my only thing! Amateur or professional is the least of my concerns, thank you very much. That is my 'two cents' - I hope you will write about yours!
[As I am writing this, Amy Coffin published her thoughts on The We Tree Genealogy Blog! I'm sure there are others, as well! ;-) ]
Families are Forever! ;-)


text: I was at a hunt test in Minnesota that had a owner handler Q and I was running JH. I was at the awards and after this guy came up and started talking to me and he was so interesting I stayed for another hour after just to hear his stories. Usually I am ready to hit the road after awards but I was caught up in his stories. He told me about his dog named Super Sue and her accomplishments. Wow what a dog. He also was the original owner of Dogs Afield. I was amazed at how down to earth he was and taking the time to talk to a JH yankee like me. Oh and vote for Super Sue in the Retriever News he wants to let everyone know. Wish I could train with him sometime but Texas is a long way down there.


text:
Quality CareFind out why Mayo Clinic is the right place for your health care. Make an appointment.
Meet the StaffFind a directory of doctors and departments at all Mayo Clinic campuses. Visit now.
Research and Clinical TrialsSee how Mayo Clinic research and clinical trials advance the science of medicine and improve patient care. Explore now.
Visit Our SchoolsEducators at Mayo Clinic train tomorrow's leaders to deliver compassionate, high-value, safe patient care. Choose a degree.
Professional ServicesExplore Mayo Clinic's many resources and see jobs available for medical professionals. Get updates.
Philanthropy at Mayo ClinicYour support accelerates powerful innovations in patient care, research and education. Give today.
Subscribe to Housecall
Our general interest e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.
Drug information provided by: IBM Micromedex
It is very important that your doctor check your progress at regular visits to make sure this medicine is working properly and to check for unwanted effects. Blood and urine tests may be needed to check for unwanted effects.
This medicine may cause chest pain, fever, chills, itching, hives, flushing of the face, rash, dizziness, fainting, or lightheadedness, troubled breathing, or swelling of the face, tongue, and throat within a few hours after you receive it. Check with your doctor or nurse right away if you have any of these symptoms.
This medicine may cause a serious type of reaction called tumor lysis syndrome. Your doctor may give you a medicine to help prevent this. Call your doctor right away if you have a decrease or change in urine amount, joint pain, stiffness, or swelling, lower back, side, or stomach pain, a rapid weight gain, swelling of the feet or lower legs, or unusual tiredness or weakness.
Ofatumumab can temporarily lower the number of white blood cells in your blood, increasing the chance of getting an infection. It can also lower the number of platelets, which are necessary for proper blood clotting. If this occurs, there are certain precautions you can take, especially when your blood count is low, to reduce the risk of infection or bleeding:
This medicine may increase your risk of developing a serious and rare brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Check with your doctor right away if you are having more than one of these symptoms: vision changes, loss of coordination, clumsiness, memory loss, difficulty speaking or understanding what others say, and weakness in the legs.
Check with your doctor immediately if you have any symptoms of liver problems including skin and eyes turning yellow, dark brown-colored urine, right-sided abdominal or stomach pain, fever, or severe tiredness.
While you are being treated with ofatumumab, do not have any immunizations (vaccines) without your doctor's approval. Live virus vaccines should not be given with this medicine or soon after you receive it.
Portions of this document last updated: Feb. 01, 2020
Copyright © 2020 IBM Watson Health. All rights reserved. Information is for End User's use only and may not be sold, redistributed or otherwise used for commercial purposes.
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.


text:
The Griff has been on either Orijen or Acana his whole 11 years .
On senior Orijen now and for the last 2 years , I likely have been over
feeding him.He is fairly inactive because I am .
He has diarrhea at present and fasting . After 24 to 36 , I will be going
to lean turkey, white rice , and a little real pumpkin .
If this is caused by Orijen 38% protein can it just show up suddenly .
Any thoughts ! Thnx


text:
The effort to recall "America's toughest sheriff," Maricopa County, Arizona's Joe Arpaio, fell short of the 355,000 voter signatures needed by yesterday afternoon.
Arpaio reacted to the outcome in a statement.
"After months of name calling, after the disparaging effigies and theatrics … this latest recall effort has failed," the sheriff said. "This effort failed because the good people of Maricopa County, whom I'm honored to serve, rejected the wrongheaded idea of overturning an election."
The recall campaign was launched by Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona, which protested the sheriff's aggressive approach to stopping illegal immigration, charging his office targets people on the basis of race, in violation of the Constitution.
Respect Arizona said it believes "our children deserve a sheriff that respects families, respects immigrants and respects Latinos."
Randy Parraz, president of Citizens for Better Arizona, told the Los Angeles Times the two groups had nearly 300,000 signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline Thursday. He said the setback won't slow down Arpaio's critics, vowing "this fight is not over."
In support of Arpaio, whose backers are as passionate as his enemies, a group called Citizens to Protect Fair Election Results was formed.
The group's attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, said "dangerous, subversive-like activities of Respect Arizona have the potential to launch this county and possibly the entire state in what can only be called an 'Electoral Civil War' that could cost the citizens of Arizona millions of taxpayer dollars."
Klayman charged the allegations against Arpaio are "not only false on their face, but, in addition, also fraudulent since Respect Arizona obviously does not represent the majority of voters of Maricopa County, Arizona, who just re-elected Sheriff Arpaio a few months ago."
Arpaio's opponents contend he must be dismissed because his office has failed to adequately investigate more than 400 sex crimes cases and has cost the county $25 million in legal settlements over treatment in county jails.
In addition, in a complaint brought by Latinos, a federal judge ruled last Friday that Arpaio and his deputies unconstitutionally target people because of race.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers. At issue was whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling innocent citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.
The ruling charges the agency stopped cars because they had dark-skinned people in them and arrested Latinos for suspected immigration violations without proper authority.
The sheriff strongly insists there has been no racial profiling, and he plans to appeal the decision.
Last summer, the Obama Justice Department closed a criminal probe into Arpaio and his deputies that also charged racial profiling of Latinos and unlawful arrest. The investigation began in 2008.
The Justice Department also sued Arizona for its law allowing state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.
As WND reported, Arpaio has charged Obama "is waging war on Arizona over illegal immigration."
Arpaio's supporters have argued the sheriff won re-election fairly and that recall organizers shouldn't be allowed to contest the election because they didn't like the outcome.
Arpaio has said his office addressed the problems with the sex-crimes investigations and has made changes to prevent a repeat.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled regarding state Senate Bill 1070 that Arizona has the right to ask whether suspects are in the U.S. legally but cannot punish anyone for it.
In response to the ruling, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's suspended "the 287(g) program," which allowed the DHS to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
"Evidently Obama didn't get everything they wanted from the Supreme Court, so they decided to retaliate against Arizona," Arpaio said at the time.
"What the Obama administration wants is amnesty," Arpaio said. "DHS has made it clear the goal is to allow people here illegally to hit the streets."
Arpaio's Cold Case Posse team of volunteer investigators continues to probe President Obama's eligibility for office, focusing on the birth certificate made public by the White House. Arpaio and the posse have concluded the birth certificate is a fraud and are urging Congress to investigate.
In April, a suspicious package addressed to Arpaio contained a bomb that was powerful enough to maim or even kill him, his office said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/do-sheriff-joes-enemies-have-enough-signatures-to-oust-him/#4j6YEdpwgbpSZYUW.99


text:
RALEIGH � Carlos Rodon answered the call for North Carolina State as the Wolfpack defeated North Carolina 7-3 on Saturday night at sold-out Doak Field.
Rodon, the All-American left-hander, kept the Tar Heels in check as N.C. State evened the highly anticipated Atlantic Coast Conference baseball series at one game apiece.
�This win means more than any other win,� Rodon said, noting the rivalry.
The teams meet in the series final at 7 tonight. A record crowd of 3,123 was on hand for the middle game of the series.
�Rodon was very, very special,� N.C. State coach Elliott Avent said. �He kept a great-hitting lineup at bay.�
Rodon (5-2) threw 6 2/3 innings, using 129 pitches. He left with 10 strikeouts and without surrendering a run. But North Carolina first baseman Cody Stubbs greeted reliever Grant Sasser with a three-run home run, with two runs charged to Rodon.
That closed the margin to 7-3, but by then the Wolfpack (34-11 overall, 15-8 ACC) had done enough damage.
�Either way, we didn�t score when (Rodon) was on the mound,� North Carolina shortstop Michael Russell said. �He was lights out.�
Top-ranked North Carolina (41-4, 19-2), which halted N.C. State�s 15-game winning streak in the series opener a night earlier, collected 12 hits and left 14 runners on base.
�You get runners on and he�s still out there,� North Carolina coach Mike Fox said of the Tar Heels� chances. �It�s a 1-on-1 battle and he made some big pitches when he needed to.�
And he had some help.
N.C. State center fielder Brett Williams threw out Colin Moran, who was trying to score from second base on Mike Zolk�s two-out single, in an awkward play at the plate to end the top of the fourth.
Moran appeared to take the wrong route toward the plate as he reached the dirt area, essentially running into the tag of catcher Brett Austin in what amounted to a mini-collision. Austin held the ball as the players were tangled in what was otherwise polite contact. Avent called Austin�s maneuver one of the best defensive plays he had ever seen by a Wolfpack player.
The Tar Heels threatened again in the fifth, putting two runners on board with one out. Rodon struck out Landon Lassiter and Moran.
�I reached back for that one fastball against Moran,� Rodon said.
A similar situation developed in the sixth, then North Carolina leaving the bases loaded when pinch hitter Tom Zengel struck out. That came a batter after a full-count walk that made the home crowd restless.
�That�s where the competitor came out,� Avent said of Rodon. �I told him (after that inning) that�s as good as I�ve ever seen you in handling that situation.�
That added to the Tar Heels� frustrations.
�He is who he is, he�s tough to hit,� Russell said. �We had a few chances. We put up a fight late.�
The Wolfpack opened the scoring when Trea Turner singled to lead off the third, stole second and scored on Austin�s single to left-center field.
�That helped us gain some confidence,� designated hitter Jake Armstrong said of scoring first.
The Wolfpack loaded the bases without the ball leaving the infield in the fourth, then scored when Matt Bergquist�s chopper was knocked down by Russell. Another run scored on a passed ball before Turner�s fielder�s choice squibbler in front of the plate brought in the next run for a 4-0 lead.
In the fifth, Grant Clyde�s double in the right-center gap drove in Jake Fincher from first base, causing the exit of Tar Heels starter Benton Moss (7-1). Two batters later, Armstrong laced a two-run single.
�Absolutely atrocious,� Moss said of his stint. �It was a terrible outing.�
Turner, the Wolfpack�s all-time leader in stolen bases, was picked off second base with one out in the first inning. He led off the inning with a walk and went to second on an errant pick-off throw.
-- EXTRA BASES �: The four-run margin was noteworthy because North Carolina�s previous three losses came by a combined five runs, including one setback in 11 innings. � When Williams threw out Moran at the plate, it was the fifth time this year that an N.C. State outfielder registered an assist on a play at the plate. Williams did it for the third time. ... Stubbs� homer was the first long ball allowed by Sasser in 30 2/3 innings this season.


text:
No DS Lite for my kids—they're getting this Chinavasion emulator handheld console so that they can experience the NES, SNES, Genesis, Game Boy Advance and Neo Geo just like their father did.
The 2.8-inch QVGA screen may be quite tiny to read the entirety of Final Fantasy IV on, but they're going to be doing it in the back of a moving car. That helps, right?
SD card, mini USB, NTSC/PAL TV out, FM radio, voice recorder and stereo speakers round out the rest of this fantastic package. If I don't have kids in the next few years I'll just get this for myself at $88 each. [Chinavasion via Oh Gizmo via Uber Gizmo via Retro Thing]


text:
Malcolm Dixon is an actor who worked with Jim Henson's Creature Shop as an additional performer on The Dark Crystal, and as one of the goblin corps on Labyrinth.
Dixon's film resume is highlighted by Time Bandits, where he starred as Strutter alongside Kenny Baker and Jack Purvis, and Star Wars (as a Jawa) and Return of the Jedi (as an Ewok warrior). Other films include Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (as an Oompa Loompa), Flash Gordon, and Willow.


text:
Please know the weather in Chicago and the recipient's city. If above 60 degrees F., or are shipping to warm areas (ie, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, Southern California, etc.), please call 847-864-5504 to place your order personally with us to insure you are receiving the appropriate methods and costs. Please do not hesitate to call us at 847-864-5504 with any questions.
Please be assured that your items will ship out so as to arrive as close to your requested date as possible. We cannot, however, guarantee specific delivery dates. We typically ship via United Parcel Service (UPS), but reserve the right to determine the most efficient carrier for your order.
Orders will be shipped within 5 business days after receipt of order. The Delivery Time shown under Delivery Method is the courier's estimate for their delivery service once we have shipped your order. If you need your gift sooner, please call us at 847-864-5504.
Credit Card Authorization and verification must be received prior to processing your order. If you are shipping to a warm climate, please contact us at 847-864-5504 or click here to email for charges related to insulated boxes and shipping service. We cannot guarantee shipments to or through areas where the daily average temperature is 65° F or above without the use of insulated containers, and delivery within 2 business days.
Refunds will only be provided on goods received damaged. Please contact us for authorization. All refunds will be provided as a credit to the credit card used at the time of purchase within five (5) business days upon receipt of the returned merchandise.
Privacy Policy
This privacy notice discloses the privacy practices for www.belgchocpiron.com. This privacy notice applies solely to information collected by this web site. It will notify you of the following:
- What personally identifiable information is collected from you through the web site, how it is used and with whom it may be shared.
- What choices are available to you regarding the use of your data.
- The security procedures in place to protect the misuse of your information.
- How you can correct any inaccuracies in the information.
Information Collection, Use, and Sharing
We are the sole owners of the information collected on this site. We only have access to/collect information that you voluntarily give us via email or other direct contact from you. We will not sell or rent this information to anyone.
We will use your information to respond to you, regarding the reason you contacted us. We will not share your information with any third party outside of our organization, other than as necessary to fulfill your request, e.g. to ship an order.
Unless you ask us not to, we may contact you via email in the future for our e-newsletters to tell you about specials, new products or services, or changes to this privacy policy.
Your Access To and Control Over Information
You may opt out of any future contacts from us at any time. You can do the following at any time by contacting us via the email address or phone number given on our web site:
- See what data we have about you, if any.
- Change/correct any data we have about you.
- Have us delete any data we have about you.
- Express any concern you have about our use of your data.
We take precautions to protect your information. When you submit sensitive information via the web site, your information is protected both online and offline.
Wherever we collect sensitive information (such as credit card data), that information is encrypted and transmitted to us in a secure way. You can verify this by looking for a closed lock icon at the bottom of your web browser, or looking for "https" at the beginning of the address of the web page.
While we use encryption to protect sensitive information transmitted online, we also protect your information offline. Only employees who need the information to perform a specific job (for example, billing or customer service) are granted access to personally identifiable information. The computers/servers in which we store personally identifiable information are kept in a secure environment.
Notification of Changes
We may amend this Privacy Policy at any time by posting the amended terms on the web site. Your continued use of products or services will constitute your acceptance of any changes or additions to this Privacy Policy.


text:
wish you all a very mery christmas greetz jenneke
Thank you for taking the time to leave us a comment. We appreciate every comment and try to reply via email to as many as we can. Have a fantastic day!UPDATE...Sorry I had to update my comments to be approved. Spam is now getting through. :(


text:
The Internet has already reshaped our mental space. Thanks to the Web, the way we read, recall, and relate is vastly different from the way it was just 15 years ago. Today, an even bigger change is afoot. The Internet is about to change our physical space. And this change may well usher in the largest construction boom in human history.
This goes far beyond laying fiber-optic cables to reach every home. It will entail rebuilding our cities, suburbs, the places we work and shop, and our homes. The best news of all is that the jobs required to make these changes will be high-paying local jobs, isolated from low-wage foreign competition.
Every important advance in the way we interconnect has spawned a construction boom. Civilization demands a different physical infrastructure to derive the full benefit of the new technology.
Connections promote growth
In ancient times, the advent of wagons, domesticated animals, and crude ships made possible the first cities. They were all needed to bring food and fuel to support the lives of city residents. Centuries later, sailing ships that could cross oceans and bring back exotic goods led to the growth of great seaports like New York, London, Venice, and Genoa. The railroad necessitated the building of thousands of miles of track, changed the configuration of cities, and ushered in the development of suburbs near major rail stations. It also led to the creation of industrial cities such as Manchester, England, and Pittsburgh, with their working-class slums – a distasteful side effect. Most recently, cars created a construction boom – highways, shopping centers, office buildings and factories outside the city, and suburbs.
The Internet, the world's most powerful interconnection technology, will similarly drive tremendous changes to our physical world.
Much of our current physical infrastructure is really an information proxy. We go to the office to communicate with others, access our files, and facilitate the interaction between customers and business operations. We go to retail stores to find out what is available, check prices, and see how merchandise looks. But if we can move information cheaply enough, there is less need for either these locations or our physical presence there.
Physical presence is very expensive. It costs a lot to get from where you live to where you work or shop. Office and retail space are expensive to build, rent, and maintain. Keeping the space cool in the summer and warm in the winter, and clean at all times, is expensive as well.
When I shop in virtual space, I reduce the need for bookstores, drugstores, and many other retail functions. Many retail functions will shrink to vanishingly small size or evaporate. Do you remember when travel agents were everywhere?
Today our office is our computer. Physical mail and the need to sort it and deliver it is less important. Most of our files are electronic. Many of us spend little time at our office desks and more time working at home. More firms are having their employees share office space or are making offices very small and sharing conference space.
There are many business processes that can be made more efficient and can be engineered to take up less space. Fewer clerks are needed for order entry. Purchasing functions can be streamlined. Using information systems to manage the supply chain and factory floor reduces the need for manufacturing and warehouse space.
The implication of all of this is quite clear. If we can move information cheaply and quickly in the Internet Age, then less retail, factory, and office space will be required on a per capita basis.
Much of the existing space will eventually be repurposed. Office buildings and shopping centers will be torn down and become locations for apartment buildings – a repurposing construction boom. This is already happening in edge cities like Tysons Corner, Va. But I suspect that is only a minor portion of the construction boom.
Many of our homes and neighborhoods were built to take advantage of a car-centered economy. They're simply ill-suited to take full advantage of a Web-based economy, so a major migration of American workers – along with the construction it entails – is coming.
On a modest scale, as more of us spend more time working from our homes, we will want better home-office space to accommodate computers, desks, and other office equipment – a fairly basic renovation.
Since there will be less need to travel, public transportation will become both more valued and more practical, especially if it allows people to give up an expensive car. If I only go to the office twice a week, why not trade in my car and ride the train with a good wireless connection? This will increase the demand for public transportation and will lead to more construction.
Walking-friendly cities
On a major scale, there is a good chance that the Internet Age will compel many of us to live in walking-friendly cities. This migration will motivate us to rebuild our cities in the image of the late urban theorist Jane Jacobs, with mixed neighborhoods where people can live, work, shop for the essentials, eat out, and entertain themselves all within walking distance of their homes and apartments. With the Internet supplying us with so many work, shopping, and entertainment options, this type of city structure becomes very appealing. So our cities will be repurposed for the Internet Age just as the railroads repurposed cities in the Industrial Age.
It is safe to assume that virtual travel will become less expensive and more effective, and that physical travel will cost more and be less convenient. Also, since it is so easy and inexpensive to move information, there will be less need for physical travel. Why get on an airplane when you can videoconference from your home?
Just as Henry Ford may not have predicted the rise of drive-in movie theaters when he invented the Model T, the Internet Age will produce changes to our physical landscape that we can't now envision. And other changes that we do expect might never happen, or might happen in a different way. But what I am certain will happen is that the Internet will drive the physical restructuring of society. The sooner we begin building society with a physical infrastructure attuned to the Internet Age, the sooner our economy will revive and jobs begin to appear.
Bill Davidow has been a high-technology industry executive and a venture investor for more than 30 years. This essay is based on his latest book, "Overconnected: The Promise and Threat of the Internet."