Rod's Alter Ego

Such A Deal

Money back guarantee! If for whatever reason you are not completely satisfied by everything you read at this blog, simply email me a short explanation stating why and I will remunerate your wasted time. You're not going to find that kind of unconditional guarantee of satisfaction anywhere else in the Blogsphere -- not even Instapundit! Technorati here we come! Eat your heart out Malkin.

...

Saturday at the Farm felt like fifty with a light westerly breeze. Uprights walked sans hats or gloves, their jackets unzipped. Then, not fifteen minutes into our walk, we see this at our favorite canyon cut. Make up your mind Mother, spring or winter. She decided; today is was back to winter, though you could still sense her ambivalence. It was one of those weird morning walks where you could feel the touch of a warm sun shining on your shoulders, but the air was stinging cold, and it was snowing at the same time.

At one point we rounded a corner and were startled by N framed in the tree.

Speaking of ice, scientists still don't agree why it's slippery. Don't be fooled, in a number of important ways scientists really don't know understand how matter works, not exactly.¹ Turns out it doesn't matter if we don't fully understand matter. Very often scientists need to understand just enough to do something useful. Take cancer, for instance. For the most part killing it remains a puzzle. Killing the bad cells while leaving the good cells unharmed is not as easy as you might think. Chemotherapy is the equivalent of shock 'n awe in Baghdad; sure, you kill a lot of bad guys, but can you say collateral damage? Well, if you can't cook 'em with chemistry, then how about baking them? Nanotubes to the rescue.

Master, on the other hand, will be taking a Proteomics approach to understand if biomarkers can be used to prognose and predict the metastatic course of colorectal cancer. You have to identify the beast and its strategies before you kill it.

[1] I read an article about a new fossil discovery here. I read with interest but was stopped by this, emphasis mine:

The animal appears to have been more than a foot long and weighed nearly 2 pounds, with a tail remarkably like a beaver and seal-like teeth clearly adapted for catching and eating fish, its discoverers say.

You see this kind of misrepresentation of the hypothesis of evolution all the time, and you have to wonder why adamant evolutionists are not tripping over themselves to correct it. Features are not "adapted for" anything. As described, evolution is not a search algorithm; it is not trying to find a solution for a problem, or evolve an anatomical feature for the advantage of a new opportunity (eg, catching and eating unwitting fish). News clips like this one mislead the public as to what the hypothesis of evolution actually states. So where's the outrage?