I don't see how predicting something after it happened is a prediction, unless the CIA is making the prediction.
The first penicillin resistant bacteria appeared in 1947. If I'm not mistaken, it was Staphylococcus aureus, which isn't even harmful to humans. That was followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae (1967), gonorrhea (1976) and Enterococcus faecium (1983).
If they want to impress me, they can predict which bacteria specifically will become resistant. I would consider that a prediction, instead of an obtuse generalization in the style of Nostradamus.
I've been saying that for years, so it's a lot more than twice.
I'm totally lost there. I've never even been to Portugal and don't really care, unless it's Whirled Cup qualification time.
That's most unfortunate, since they rely on it to their own detriment.
When I was a TA, I used to fail students for citing Pukipedia. It was department policy (and the university frowned on its use but didn't ban it outright).
Here's a very typical Pukipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74
Tthe article contains numerous fallacies and blatantly false facts.
False. It was deployed to the Indian Ocean. See ship's logs and original documents declassified more than 15 years ago.
Totally false.
The Task Force never withdrew from the Bay of Bengal, because it never entered the Bay of Bengal, nor had it been ordered to so.
No Soviet submarines were “dispatched to shadow the fleet.” There were two Soviet surface squadrons and a submarine squadron (6 submarines including two guided missile subs) already in the Indian Ocean Region prior to the departure of Task Force 74. One of the Soviet surface squadrons was in the Bay of Bengal. One might possibly conclude that the Task Force did not enter the Bay of Bengal in order to avoid a direct confrontation with Soviet vessels, but that’s a bit of a stretch.
According to the ship's logs, the Task Force moved into the West Andaman Sea between the Andaman Islands and Nicobar Islands before changing course and moving southwest toward Ceylon (Sri Lanka). In fact, on the day that Pakistan surrendered, the Task Force was just east of Ceylon before moving to Point Charlie on the southern coast of India, then it sailed into the Arabian Sea to the Gulf of Kutch which lies to the south of Karachi, Pakistan.
The Task Force then came about and headed south where it laid off Mumbai (Bombay) for a few days. After spending about 3 weeks sailing up and down the coast of Pakistan/India (um, being shadowed by Soviet submarines and two Soviet surface squadrons), the Task Force left sometime during the latter part of the 1st week of January and headed back to Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Very obviously, the Task Force did not feel threatened by the presence of two Soviet surface groups and a submarine squadron if they spent three weeks or more cruising around the area.
The names of the Soviet ships are available through any number of resource.
Wrong. The USS Anderson was decommissioned and struck in 1946, and the naval registry shows it was sold as scrap in 1962.
A ship that was decommissioned in 1946 could not possibly be cruising the Indian Ocean in 1971.
Also the USS Bausell was not part of the task force, but the USS Waddell was (and ship's company have organized associations and publish things like the ship's log and discuss various cruises and other activities, so there's no excuse to be stupid).
Why rely on false and erroneous information when you can go to the source?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-a/dd411.htm
If anyone is interested, the nuclear attack submarine was the USS Gurnard.
There's also an error by omission, since three other ships were omitted.
That's also patently false.
The ship's logs state quite clearly that they had no navigational maps of the area; that the entire region had very heavy commercial shipping traffic; that marker lights (identifying points, shoals, reefs, sand bars and other underwater hazards) were not functioning in many areas; and that several people had to transfer to the Enterprise from other ships to assist in navigation and on-the-fly map making.
The destroyers accompanying the Enterprise had re-fueled at Malacca or re-fueled en route. The range is 4,500 miles cruising at 18-24 knots. I dare say they were in no danger of running out of fuel.
If the bozo who wrote the article had done any research, he'd know they were traveling with an oiler, which could refuel all ships twice, so the real range is over 12,000 miles.
The TOE for a Marine battalion in 1971 was 979 marines, not 200.
This telex...
US Ambassador to India dtd December 8 said:
...contradicts this:
Very obviously the Task Force was already underway before December 8.
There are 1,000s of articles just like that, and that's why we don't use Pukipedia. I won't even mention the atrocious spelling and grammatical errors. Nothing more nauseating than someone with 8th Grade reading comprehension trying to sound like they're at Level 16 on the Slosson Scale. Many of the articles are very slanted and heavily biased, engaging in academic dishonesty.
Natural Selection occurs after Evolution has already taken place. It is nothing more than a sort of Quality Control/Assurance process. It either rejects evolutionary "mistakes" or it rubber-stamps them.
Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Natural Selection does not cause Evolution. Evolution does not require Natural Selection. Evolution would occur even if Natural Selection never took place.
Natural Selection did not cause an early primate to lose its tail. Evolution caused the primate to lose its tail. Natural Selection merely said, "Okay, I like it. Drive on."
You might want to study the mechanics of Evolution again. Evolution does happen to individuals. The whole process of Evolution begins with the individual. It is the individual that initiates Evolution.
What are you suggesting? Natural Selection caused a group of hominids to drink from the John F Kennedy Memorial Lake teeming with FOXP2 genes and they walked away talking, "Ask not what your clan can do for you....?"
Surely you're not suggesting gene mutations are retroactive? How exactly does that work? Did a hominid mutate with the FOXP2 gene and then magical ether floated around and retroactively caused all living hominids to have the FOXP2 gene or did the sky god come down and wave his trident about in a special ceremony?
Evolution starts with the individual. It is not a group process. There aren't any mass mutations. It isn't everyone standing around wishing they could talk and then their wish is granted.
One individual organism mutates. That mutation will spread through the population after many generations. How many generations? That depends on when the organism reaches reproductive maturity, how often it reproduces and how many offspring it produces with each cycle.
Natural Selection may or may not play a role. It depends on the nature of the mutation, since Natural Selection is geared more toward the population as a whole, and not to specific organisms within the population.
Morality, like Truth, is Absolute. It doesn't matter what other people think, although I sure Richard Nixon and televangelist Jim Bakker would disagree.
statement