Evil Goblin

China - I really do think you are taking this piece far too seriously. It was simply written to get people thinking. It is obvious that the conclusion drawn by "the mathematician" is nonsense - the point is to dig out the errors with the argument (which you are doing a good job on), not to try and convince anyone that there is any Intelligent Design involved.

I haven't read it but I've no doubt that it makes a very powerful case - if I find the time I will get a copy and read it but in the meantime I'm quite happy to accept the arguments. As I said earlier, I'm a firm believer that evolutionary theory a la Dawkins is correct. But the quote doesn't say everything happens at once but is sequential. I don't think you're right here, China - I really don't think the piece was intended to convince anyone of anything - just an amusing diversion.

I may be wrong but I think the error is not in the arbitrary rate itself but in the assumption as to the number of mutations required to achieve an evolution.

So, China - you've joined the Creationist Camp! But any hand you deal has to be one of all possible hands. The actual odds do not matter unless you forecast which particular hand will emerge from a deal and bet good money on it! Have I got the flaw in the logic right?

The mathematical process is obviously wrong somewhere but I can't see where! Perhaps it would help if I was a mathematician. BTW, I'm a firm believer in evolution. Albert - I do not think it does to take this analysis as a serious one - I think it's just a puzzle someone has put together for amusement and brain exercise.

I came across this recently - seems to make a good New Year puzzler! "Evolution? Is there such a thing as an iron-cast fossil record? It could be argued there isn't and Darwin knew it. He accounted for it by saying that paleontologists hadn't yet looked in the right places. He predicted that in a hundred years, they would have found thousands of the dead-end versions of species against which nature selected. More than a hundred and fifty years later, not one has been found. It is claimed 'here are fossils showing the horse in stages of its evolution. But they are only assuming the fossils are related. These fossils are more likely to be of different species instead of stages of the same one. They prove nothing. The other species became extinct. The horse didn't. And the assumption that those fossils are arranged in the correct order, showing progression in certain features, can't be supported with evidence. Neither carbon dating nor any method of fixing the period of a fossil is precise enough to support that arranged order. Again, they've been assumed to belong in that order but mere assumptions do not qualify as science. Most serious mathematicians are 'offended' by Darwin's theory of evolution. The tiniest measure of time isn't the seconds shown on a clock face. The smallest measure of time is how long a ray of light takes, travelling at the speed of light, to cross the smallest distance on the molecular level of the universe. For argument's sake, let's just say it's a millionth of a second. The Earth is four billion years old. If you multiply four billion by the number of millionths of a second in a single year, you get a staggeringly large figure, arguably greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches around the Pacific Ocean. Now think about the complexity of a single gene. It contains so many features – thousands of bits of data – each of which had to be acquired by mutation. But the tiniest worm on Earth could not have evolved from a one-cell organism in four billion years even if there had been a mutation in every one of those millionths of a second. By observing and measuring the rate of the universe's expansion and calculating backward to the big bang, we can date Earth's creation in the process. The entire universe is only about 13.7 billion years old. So if, being irrational, we say Earth was formed in an instant after the big bang, that doesn't help our little worm. There still wouldn't be enough time in twenty billion years for him to evolve from a single-cell organsim at the rate of one mutation per millionth of a second. The minimal number of genes required to support cell function and reproduction in the simplest life form of life is 256. Our little worm may have a couple of thousand. It's estimated that the human genome contains anywhere from 30,000 to 150,000 genes. If the worm couldn't have evolved during the entire existence of the universe, how many hundreds of billions of more years would have been required for us to evolve? This is why evolutionists hate mathematicians."

Is it just me that hates that twee word "offering" when all they're talking about is their new product.

I remember those days well - two Belfast boats and two Ardrossan boats calling at Ramsey Pier decanting hundreds of holidaymakers - and most of interest to us lads at the time, Girls Brigade Units over for their annual camp!

I believe that the ready mixed dough is supplied to Shoprite by RB - Shoprite just finish the bake.

China - I've been to China several times in the last 18 months and the impression I have is that what Beijing says goes only so far as it suits the different regions. I wouldn't hold out a hope in hell of things like the smoking ban being enforceable - it will just be ignored. As long as something does not challenge the political supremacy of the Communist Party it does not tend to excite Beijing's concern very much.

I don't know - perhaps JW can comment?

The problem is that the AML provisions, in reality, are only applied to the "little" people - those with billions can get away with it as Governments and banks either turn a blind eye or accept any story they're told. Every now and then one of the "little guys" has to be hung out to dry so as to present the veneer to the plebs that ML will not be tolerated. I am afraid the real world is not the world we think exists - we live in an illusion. To paraphrase that American lady (I forget her name) who was done for tax evasion - "only the little people are bound by Money Laundering Rules.

I am not sure whether this question is serious or not - the meaning is so obvious that I would have thought that even a 5-year old could understand it. Let's just say that before advocating the harshest and perhaps counter-productive conditions for offenders people might reflect that one day circumstances may result in them being in the same situation.

Seems that you (and some others) have never understood the saying "There but for the Grace of God..........."

Tugger, the interest repayments are made to Macquarie, which err... owns the Racket. Go figure! Not quite... The financing is through Spanish an Portugese banks. So who are the shareholders? With IOMSPCo being registered as a NMV the AR's doesn't show that information. Careful, Andy - this non-disclosure of ownership on public record is one of friend Murphy's pet hates.