44 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Comet chooses BHF as its charity of the year Electrical retailer Comet has chosen the British Heart Foundation (BHF) as its new charity partner for 2005/2006.The partnership will begin in February 2005 and run for at least 18 months. The money raised by Comet’s employees at its 250 stores during the partnership will help fund BHF’s Heart Nurses who provide essential care for sufferers of heart disease in their own homes.The charity was chosen after feedback from staff members. Veronica McCarthy, Social Responsibility Manager for Comet, explained: “We put our shortlist of charities to the vote across the business and the consensus was an overwhelming and resounding ‘yes’ to the British Heart Foundation. Many of our colleagues will be able to relate to the charity’s work, through knowing a friend or family member who is a victim of heart disease. BHF has a lot of events already in its calendar for 2005 in which we can get involved.” Advertisement About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Howard Lake | 14 December 2004 | News Tagged with: Events AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis
– in 3-vehicle smash-upAn unidentified man is now lying in the mortuary of the Georgetown Public Hospital with his body torn in two following a three-vehicle smash-up at the intersection of Smyth and D’Urban Streets, Georgetown on Sunday afternoon.The Hospital’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Mitzy Campbell also confirmed that four other persons, including a pedestrian, are in critical condition nursing severe wounds to their bodies.The Tundra collided into the minibus and then into this parked AllionThe accident occurred around 16:00h. Minibus BVV 5273 was said to be proceeding along D’Urban Street heading to South Georgetown when it was struck from behind by a black Tundra which was said to be speeding along Smyth Street headed North.The Tundra, bearing registration GRR 8350, then hit a parked blue Allion before coming to a halt.According to information received by Guyana Times after being struck, the minibus which was said to be fully loaded toppled a number of times.Several injured persons, including a six-year-old and 16-year-old Brian DeSantos, had to be pulled from the mangled minibus, some in an unconscious state.The now dead man was said to be half in and half out of the minibus; hence his horrific injuries.One the persons in intensive careThe driver of the minibus is among those said to be battling for their lives in the emergency Unit of the Hospital.The driver of the Tundra who was confirmed by eyewitnesses to be a woman fled the scene.This publication visited the Hospital and was able to speak to a number of those who were injured.One of the passengers of the minibus, who identified herself as Lynette, relayed that she felt an impact before the bus started to topple.“All I know is that the bus got hit, and it toppled and then fall on its side. Everybody started to holler and everybody started to hold onto each other and when I come out of the bus, one man I saw half of his body was inside the bus and half was outside. After that, people start running to help us.”The woman, who is also the mother of the injured six-year-old, said her son injured his leg.Urlan Nedd, another badly injured man, explained to this newspaper that just as the bus went over the ‘double corner’ at Smyth Street, it was “lashed” by the Tundra.He added that the bus started to “spin” before it turned onto its side. The man received injuries to his head, chest and extremities.The Police are currently investigating the matter and a manhunt was launched for the errant driver, who is also said to be injured.
Joel Achenbach (Washington Post) got a page in the March 2006 National Geographic. His short piece on chemical evolution was juxtaposed (whether intentionally or not we do not know) against a news item on archaeology announcing the discovery of a new Dead Sea Scroll – the first found in 40 years – a fragment from Leviticus 23 on priestly ordinances for feasts and solemn assemblies unto the Lord. Achenbach’s page could hardly contrast more starkly. It is entitled, “The Origin of Life… Through Chemistry.” For Achenbach, the Pentateuch is clearly not a contender as a source of answers to the big questions:The emergence of life on Earth is on a short list of the biggest unknowns in science. Did life begin in a small, warm pond at the edge of a primordial sea, as Charles Darwin speculated? Or deep beneath that sea, around one of the burbling hydrothermal vents first seen in the 1970s? And never mind the where: What was it, this initial germ of life? Was it a cell? A replicating molecule? (Emphasis added in all quotes.)By implication, only naturalistic, unguided explanations need apply. Achenbach spent the page promoting the view of Harold Morowitz, Eric Smith and Robert Hazen that life originated not with a cell, RNA or DNA, but rather via metabolism – some self-perpetuating chemical cycle that needed no cell to grow and evolve. Even though he admits this is a very controversial idea (and fails to mention it begs the question how a cell or genetic code could have co-opted a metabolic cycle to become a living cell), it didn’t stop him from launching into opinions about education, creationism, and the long philosophical debate over free will vs. determinism:This is probably not what opponents of the teaching of evolution want to hear, but it seems that a kind of molecular natural selection applies even to the world of geochemistry. Some types of molecular chains outcompeted [sic] other molecular chains for the planet’s resources, and gradually they led to [sic] the kind of molecules that life depends upon—and all this before the first living thing oozed forth [sic]. Many scientists say that life wasn’t a freak accident at all, but the likely outcome of the interaction of the molecules and minerals of the Earth. “Life is an elaboration of something very simple,” says Smith. “It looks easy and inevitable.”Hazen’s new book adapts the Biblical creation title, Ge•ne•sis, but with no spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters. Hazen emphasizes the idea of “emergence,” i.e., that “From simple beginnings, complexity can emerge.” An example cited is that consciousness emerges from the collective activity of individual neurons. Then comes Achenbach’s winning entry:All of this is sure to be a matter of contentious debate for a long time. But ours would not be so interesting a world if its ultimate secrets were easily discovered. It took us four billion years to evolve to a point where we could even begin the search. The cartoon illustration shows molecules combining, emerging upward, till one breaches the surface and looks like a rising sun, its beams spreading gloriously into a new sky. Achenbach’s entry is equaled or perhaps surpassed by a quote from James Shreeve in the article on DNA and human migration (p. 63): “What accounts for the ancient wanderlust? Perhaps some kind of neurological mutation led to spoken language and made our ancestors fully modern, setting a small band on course to colonize the world.”Achenbach’s page should be ridiculed, scoffed at, deplored and castigated on scientific grounds, let alone on grounds of philosophy, theology, or history. Why is there no rebuttal? Why do stupid ideas get free press in NG and most other pop-sci rags, even when any educated science writer should be aware of the extreme implausibility of the whole scenario? Any kind of metabolic cycle that consumes all available resources is not going any further, even if geochemists find one (don’t hold your breath). A chemical cycle is not a perpetual motion machine, and natural selection cannot be invoked for a system that does not yield progeny able to mutate. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible that a genetic molecule would ever arise with a code matching this chemical cycle, let alone incorporate it into a membrane and discover the art of complete automated self-replication, even if it “wanted” to (which is against materialist rules to even imagine). “Emergence” is one of those miracle words in the naturalist dictionary. Hazen talks glowingly about emergence in his lectures, but the examples he gives are really lame. For inorganic processes, are you impressed by wave patterns in sand?. All his examples in the living world, whether internet commerce or neurons producing consciousness, involve intelligence, or else logically beg the question whether naturalistic processes could have produced them. In short, the whole theory of metabolism-first origin of life is fraught with extremely serious scientific and conceptual challenges. The little bit of chemistry lab work done in support of it is irrelevant, because it is done under highly controlled conditions by intelligent design. Metabolism-first is a fringe opinion among evolutionists themselves. Its popularizers are in no position to start lecturing about determinism, human consciousness and the meaning of life. We trust that any explanation of why the quote above wins SEQOTW is superfluous for our highly perceptive and intelligent readership. Scientific materialism became a fad in Germany in the mid-1800s. Ludwig Feuerbach popularized the term “you are what you eat.” Karl Vogt, Jakob Moleschott and Ludwig Büchner formed an “unholy trinity” of scientific materialists who promoted, with religious fervor, a radically naturalistic view of a universe consisting of nothing more than molecules in motion. Their materialism was absolute and positivistic. It included human rationality: Vogt wrote that “thoughts stand in the same relation to the brain as gall does to the liver and urine to the kidneys.” They built their materialistic house on the assumptions that (1) life was simple (just one more natural arrangement of matter) and (2) natural laws in a clockwork universe rendered a Creator obsolete. They also worked to promote a new view of scientific practice – methodological naturalism – i.e., working as if scientific materialism is true. Like today’s evolutionary evangelists, they demanded surrender of all of philosophy and the humanities. Worth noting, each of these men hated Christianity. By young adulthood, having become enthralled by scientific laws, each went on a crusade to replace all religion with a “scientific” view of the world. It was time, they preached, for mankind to grow up and get real. Science had taught us to jettison all “superstitions” about God and a spiritual realm. The only thing that existed was matter, obeying Newtonian-style force laws. Mind was just an artifact, an “emergent property” of matter, a secretion of the brain. (Historians note: Karl Marx was also caught up in this materialistic euphoria.) The science that fueled 19th century materialism can no longer hold up. We know much more now about the fine-tuning of the universe and the extreme complexity of life. We have discovered that living cells are not just bags of molecules obeying force laws, but programmed factories of molecular machines with incredibly rich libraries of coded information. Though mind is clearly influenced by the brain, scientists still struggle to reduce consciousness and rationality to mere neurons. Natural laws expressible in equations, the Newtonian dream of the materialists, have proved elusive in biology. The “clockwork universe” of Laplace has given way to a statistical world, with uncertainties residing in the basic units of matter. We have learned that positivism is self-refuting. The hope of eternal progress has turned to vanity. The vision of an eternal, steady state universe has been replaced by one with a sudden beginning and a slow, ignominious end. Notice that their assumptions and anti-religious sentiments preceded their “scientific” writings and popularizations of materialism. The same assumptions and motivations still drive today’s evolutionary-science community, even though their castle was built on an obsolete early-19th-century conception of the world. Meanwhile, the enforcement of methodological naturalism that came to dominate scientific practice after Darwin ensures they will never escape from their bonds. The present crop of scientific materialists, with their evident optimism and confidence in the eventual success of origin-of-life studies, should consider the bitter end of their path. They should ponder the fact that depression afflicted many of the early scientific materialists.1 Büchner, the symbolic leader of the scientific materialism movement, expressed his personal feelings years after the publication of his immensely popular and influential materialistic gospel, Force and Matter. His pessimistic conclusions must necessarily follow if Ge•ne•sis rather than Genesis is the true history of the world. Extremely depressed and nearly suicidal, Büchner wrote under a pseudonym what he felt about life around the same time he was confidently preaching materialism in his book. He reflected, “We are like dogs on a treadmill. The glowing irons of life prod us to restless running without goal, until we fall dead from exhaustion in the grave we have made for ourselves.”2(Visited 46 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The genome of a sea anemone has been published, and of all things, this lowly animal has genes common to vertebrates, even humans. Science Daily began with a conundrum, “The first analysis of the genome of the sea anemone shows it to be nearly as complex as the human genome, providing major insights into the common ancestor of not only humans and sea anemones, but of nearly all multi-celled animals.” UC Berkeley’s Center for Integrative Genomics deciphered the genome and published the results in Science.1 “Surprisingly, the team found that the genome of the starlet sea anemone, which is lumped with jellyfish and corals into the earliest diverging eumetazoan phylum, Cnidaria, resembles the human and other vertebrate genomes more than it resembles the genomes of such well-studied ‘lab rats’ as fruit flies and nematode worms.” The starlet sea anemone, Nematostella vectensis, is just a few inches in diameter and has about 16 to 20 tentacles. It lives in brackish lagoons and marshes and feeds on passing nutrients. It’s not just that this creature’s genome is as complex as that of humans that was surprising. It has a comparable gene number, and, “Many of the anemone’s genes lie on its 30 chromosomes in patterns similar to the patterns of related genes on the 46 chromosomes of humans.” Nicholas Putnam of the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) of the Department of Energy said, “Many genes close together in the sea anemone are still close together in humans, even after six or seven hundred million years.” A story entitled, “Surprises in the sea anemone genome,” from The Scientist, added another anemone-human connection: “The researchers also discovered that exon-intron structure is very similar between modern vertebrates and sea anemones. Both have intron-rich genomes and about 80% of intron locations are conserved between humans and anemones.” Insects, by contrast, have a 50 to 80% dissimilarity from humans in their intron patterns. Science Daily added, “This similarity is present in the sea anemone and human genomes, despite the obvious differences between the two species.” The original paper commented on the “extensive” amount of conserved linkage with muted astonishment, “This is a notable total, given that any chromosomal fusions and subsequent gene order scrambling on either the human or Nematostella lineage during their ~700 million years of independent evolution would attenuate the signal for linkage.” The team also found that the sea anemone possesses about 1500 novel genes, unique to this animal compared with other eukaryotic groups. A consequence of the study for evolutionists is that complexity must be assumed to have been present farther back in time, back in the Cambrian when the basic body plans of animals are first seen in the fossil record. According to the team’s analysis, “The ancestral eumetazoan already had the genetic ‘toolkit’ to conduct basic animal biochemistry, development and nerve and muscular function,” Science Daily said. Putnam explained, “Basically, the sea anemone has all the basic mechanisms of interacting with the outside world seen in more morphologically complex creatures.” These traits appeared abruptly and have persisted ever since. Not only that, the exon-intron structure, chromosome positions and other similarities not usually associated with natural selection would have been conserved (i.e., unevolved) since the beginning of metazoan animal life. As could be expected, evolutionists are trying to make the most of these surprises and claiming they are “shedding light on evolution”. Elisabeth Pennisi used that line, titling her commentary in the same issue of Science, “Sea Anemone Provides a New View of Animal Evolution.”2 Daniel Rokhsar (UC Berkeley) said, “Anything the sea anemone has that also is found in humans, flies, snails or any other eumetazoans must already have been present in the common ancestor of eumetazoans.” Why, then, did more advanced organisms like flies and nematodes lack many of these genes? It’s “because both the anemone and vertebrate genomes have retained many ancestral genes that flies and nematode worms apparently lost over time,” Putnam said. “The genes of flies and worms also have been jumbled up among the chromosomes, making it hard to track genes through evolution.” This does not explain, however, why over much longer periods of time these genes did not get lost or jumbled in the sea anemone for 600 million years – and in the vertebrates, who presumably use the same genetic toolkit as fruit flies and nematodes (e.g., genes for muscles, nerves, senses, reproduction and digestion). Science Daily also used the word “apparently” based on the assumption of common descent: “The anemone genome, on the other hand, has apparently changed less through time and makes a good reference for comparison with human and other vertebrate genomes in order to discover the genes of our common ancestor and how they were organized on chromosomes.” Nevertheless, Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda, Maryland, was surprised at the complexity of this supposed primitive creature. He told The Scientist that this implies that the common ancestor of all animals “was already extremely highly complex, at least in terms of its genomic organization and regulatory and signal transduction circuits, if not necessarily morphologically.” The article said this pattern contradicts “the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution.” The original paper concluded by attempting to put the genetic surprises into an evolutionary context that would allow for both extreme “tinkering” and extreme stasis. The tension is palpable:Some are the result of domain shuffling, bringing together on the animal stem new combinations of domains that are shared with other eukaryotes. But many animal-specific genes contain sequences with no readily recognizable counterparts outside of animals; these may have arisen by sequence divergence from ancient eukaryotic genes, but the trail is obscured by deep time. Although we can crudely assign the origins of these genes to the eumetazoan stem, this remains somewhat unsatisfying. The forthcoming genomes of sponges, placozoans, and choanoflagellates will allow more precise dating of the origins and diversification of modern eumetazoan gene families, but this will not directly reveal the mechanisms for new gene creation. Presumably, many of these novelties will ultimately be traced back, through deep sequence or structural comparisons, to ancient genes that underwent extreme “tinkering”.They ended by reminding everyone that genes have to do something. Finding that part out, and tracing it back through misty trails of evolutionary ancestry, is easier said than done:The eumetazoan progenitor was more than just a collection of genes. How did these genes function together within the ancestor? Unfortunately, we cannot read from the genome the nature of its gene- and protein-regulatory interactions and networks. This is particularly vexing as it is becoming clear—especially given the apparent universality of the eumetazoan toolkit—that gene regulatory changes can also play a central role in generating novelties, allowing co-option of ancestral genes and network stonew [sic] functions. Of particular interest are the processes that give rise to body axes, germ layers, and differentiated cell types such as nerve and muscle, as well as the mechanisms that maintain these cells and their interactions through the growth and repair of the organism. Nematostella and its genome provide a platform for testing hypotheses about the nature of ancestral eumetazoan pathways and interactions, with the use of the basic principle of evolutionary developmental biology: Processes that are conserved between living species were likely functional in their common ancestor.1Putnam et al, “Sea Anemone Genome Reveals Ancestral Eumetazoan Gene Repertoire and Genomic Organization,” Science, 6 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5834, pp. 86-94, DOI: 10.1126/science.1139158.2Elisabeth Pennisi, “Genomics: Sea Anemone Provides a New View of Animal Evolution,” Science, 6 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5834, p. 27, DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.27.“Extreme tinkering” – you saw it again right there: the evolutionists bowing to Tinker Bell, their goddess of novelty. Now, however, they can’t figure out how she could also be the goddess of conservation. Creation is full of booby traps for those who deny it was purposefully and intelligently designed. Picture a group of blind men walking barefoot through a minefield of mousetraps in the wrong direction. It is a measure of fallen man’s stubbornness when every surprise, no matter how painful, assures them that they are making progress. Each ouch, they confidently claim, is shedding light on their way (whatever “light” means to a blind man). The way is hard for those who walk by pain, not by sight (Proverbs 4:19), especially when light is readily available to all who choose to see (Psalm 119:130, John 1:1-14).(Visited 512 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
If I could give salespeople training in only one thing, I would pick any of the fifteen things on this list before I would train them on “social selling.”How to Cold Call and Book Appointments: There isn’t anything higher on this list because cold calling is what would improve most salespeople’s results faster than anything else.How to Overcome Objections (or Resolve Concerns): No matter how good you are, without the language and rationale to deal with objections, you aren’t creating or winning an opportunity.How to Differentiate Themselves and Their Company: I’ve never asked a salesperson what make their company different and gotten a compelling response, even when their leadership team believes they know their differentiators.How to Leverage the Buying Cycle: Salespeople would benefit more from knowing how to serve their dream clients as they go through the stages of buying more than anything they might learn about Twitter.How to Understand What Makes an Opportunity: Unless and until your dream client agrees to pursue change with you, you don’t have an opportunity.Why They Need to Follow Their Process: Most companies don’t follow a process, and neither do their salespeople. I’d teach them why they should follow it and how it helps them win.How to Target and Nurture Their Dream Clients: Too little time, too many prospects. You have to focus on the clients for whom you create the most value. You need to nurture those relationships.How to Plan a Sales Call: Honestly, most salespeople don’t plan their sales calls at all. It’s a mistake to waste a client interaction.How to Open a Sales Call: Without the ability to open a sales call effectively, you quickly come across as an amateur and a time waster.How to Do Good Discovery: Without understanding your dream client’s most strategic needs, it’s difficult to be compelling, and it’s more difficult to frame your solution.How to Gain Commitments: First, most salespeople don’t know all the commitment they need, and when they do, they don’t have the language to gain those commitments. I’d teach them to close.How to Build Consensus: No one builds consensus on LinkedIn. Complex sales require consensus. Without it, you lose to the status quo.How to Think Like a Businessperson: In B2B sales, business acumen and situational knowledge are what allows you to create value. I’d teach this before I’d let the salesperson flounder around on Facebook.How to Tell a Story: One of the ways you prove how what makes you different makes a difference for your clients is through the stories you tell. Tweet that.How to Negotiate: Most salespeople crumble at the first question about price. I’d teach them to negotiate around value.I could extend this list by another 15 competencies salespeople need more than they need social selling. If you want to build a personal brand that stands the test of time, being good at what you do counts for more than being known.
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Man Utd striker Rashford: Christmas programme can change everythingby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveManchester United striker Marcus Rashford insists they can turn their season around over Christmas.Rashford knows the glut of games can shoot United up the table.”We have to try to keep up the intensity that we’ve shown in the last couple of [Premier League] games and keep improving,” he told MUTV.”It’s always a good feeling to see the ball hit the back of the net but, in the last game, I was happy anyway. I was happy with the performance in the first half. I think, at the beginning of the second half, it dropped a little bit, which is natural when we’ve had a run of tough games, but we managed to lift it again which was important for us.”I just want to see the team improving, and for us to improve ourselves as individuals, so we can become more consistent. That’s what we’ve been lacking and that’s why we’re not higher up in the table. The Christmas period is always busy so consistency is the main thing. The look of the season can change in just this one month, so we need to pick the points up and keep improving.“
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say INSIDER: Man Utd boss Solskjaer can be stubborn b*****dby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveKristiansund coach Christian Michelsen is delighted for Ole Gunnar Solskjaer over his early success at Manchester United.Solskjaer has won the first five games of his time in charge.Michelsen told VG: “For someone who has been in his circle of friends, this is unreal. The whole thing is really surreal. Ole Gunnar has lifted a sinking ship with lots of negativity and whining. What he is experiencing now is great.”This tells me about everything in football if you are good, work hard and have potential. Ole Gunnar has stepped up the path for all of us with Norwegian passports not only once, but twice. He bursts boundaries. “Ole has always been a stubborn b*****d who has set goals that he wants to achieve. You talk about the smiling, kind Ole Gunnar – but the devil: He is also a winner who is not afraid to say so when it is needed. At the same time, he is associated with the good values that Norwegians have. And that’s Ole Gunnar: He is one of the people.”
When it comes to new home sales, Calgary is generally considered to be a buyer’s market.Despite that, prices for a two-story home are up by about 3.2 percent over the past year.The average listing is about $529,000.Corrine Lyall with Royal LePage said there are a lot more listings compared to a year ago.“There’s definitely some really great choice for buyers, especially with the larger amount of inventory we have this year compared to last year. I think we’re almost 30 percent more in term of new listings on the market,” she said.Lyall says because there are more choices, many first-time buyers are skipping entry-level homes and purchasing higher-end houses.
The differential, which was over US$50 at one point this fall, has bounced back in recent days and now trades at about US$25 less than the benchmark West Texas Intermediate price.Notley is buying rail cars and continues to push Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for action to end the pipeline bottleneck, considered the primary culprit for the low prices.Trudeau said this week his sympathy is with Alberta this holiday season, but Notley says she hopes that comment comes with a gift receipt so she can trade it in for a pipeline. SLAVE LAKE, A.B. – Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says the decision to cut oil production seems to be working but says it’s not a long-term solution.Notley has ordered companies to cut production by almost nine percent starting in the new year to close the price gap between Alberta oil and the North American benchmark.That price gap was growing so wide that vast reserves of oil were building up in Alberta and the price was falling through the floor, leading to fears of massive job cuts and project closures.