3 Types of Sexual Life Cycles - Evolution

3 Types of Sexual Life Cycles - Evolution One of the properties of life is the ability to reproduce to create offspring that can carry on the genetics of the parent or parents  to the following generations. Living organisms can accomplish this by reproducing in one of two ways. Some species use asexual reproduction to make offspring, while others reproduce using sexual reproduction. While each mechanism has its pros and its cons, whether or not a parent needs a partner to reproduce or it can make offspring on its own are both valid ways to carry on the species. Different kinds of eukaryotic organisms that undergo sexual reproduction  have different types of sexual life cycles. These life cycles determine how the organism will not only make its offspring but also how the cells within the multicellular organism will reproduce themselves. The sexual life cycle determines  how many sets of chromosomes each cell in the organism  will have. Diplontic Life Cycle A diploid cell is a type of eukaryotic cell that has 2 sets of chromosomes. Usually, these sets are a genetic mixture of both the male and female parent. One set of the chromosomes comes from the mother and one set comes from the father. This allows a nice mixture of the genetics of both parents and increases diversity of traits in the gene pool for natural selection to work on. In a diplontic life cycle, the majority of the organisms life is spent with most of the cells in the body being diploid. The only cells that have half the number of chromosomes, or are haploid, are the gametes (sex cells). Most organisms that have a diplontic life cycle start from the fusion of two haploid gametes. One of the gametes comes from a female and the other from the male. This coming together of the sex cells creates a diploid cell called a zygote. Since the diplontic life cycle keeps most of the body cells as diploid, mitosis can happen to split the zygote and continue splitting future generations of cells. Before mitosis can happen, the cells DNA is duplicated to make sure the daughter cells have two full sets of chromosomes that are identical to each other. The only haploid cells that happen during a diplontic life cycle are gametes. Therefore, mitosis cannot be used to make the gametes. Instead, the process of meiosis is what creates the haploid gametes from the diploid cells in the body. This ensures that the gametes will have only one set of chromosomes, so when they fuse again during sexual reproduction, the resulting zygote will have the two sets of chromosomes of a normal diploid cell. Most animals, including humans, have a diplontic sexual life cycle. Haplontic Life Cycle Cells that spend the majority of their lives in a haploid phase are considered to have a haplontic sexual life cycle. In fact, organisms that have a haplontic life cycle are only composed of a diploid cell when they are zygotes. Just like in the diplontic life cycle, a haploid  gamete from a female and a haploid gamete from a male will fuse to make a diploid zygote. However, that is the only diploid cell in the entire haplontic life cycle.   The zygote undergoes meiosis at its first division to create daughter cells that have half the number of chromosomes compared to the zygote. After that division, all of the now haploid cells in the organism undergo mitosis in future cell divisions to create more haploid cells. This continues on for the organisms entire life cycle. When it is time to sexually reproduce, the gametes are already haploid and can just fuse with another organisms haploid gamete to form the zygote of the offspring. Examples of organisms that live a haplontic sexual life cycle include fungi, some protists, and some plants. Alternation of Generations The final type of sexual life cycle is a kind of mix of the two previous types. Called alternation of generations, the organism spends about half of its life in a haplontic life cycle and the other half of its life in a diplontic life cycle. Like the haplontic and diplontic life cycles, organisms that have an alternation of generations sexual life cycle begin life as a diploid zygote formed from the fusion of haploid gametes from a male and a female. The zygote can then either undergo mitosis and enter its diploid phase, or perform meiosis and become haploid cells. The resulting diploid cells are called sporophytes and the haploid cells are called gametophytes. The cells will continue to do mitosis and split in whichever phase they enter and create more cells for growth and repair. Gametophytes can then once again fuse to become a diploid zygote of the offspring. Most plants live the alternation of generations sexual life cycle.

Indiscreet and Indiscrete - Commonly Confused Words

Indiscreet and Indiscrete - Commonly Confused Words The homophones indiscreet and indiscrete are not synonyms. Indiscreet is the more common word. Indiscrete is a technical term primarily used in scientific writing. The adjective indiscreet means imprudent, lacking good judgment, or carelessly talkative. The noun forms of indiscreet  are  indiscreetness  and  indiscretion. The adjective indiscrete means not separated into distinct parts. The noun form of indiscrete is indiscreteness. See also: Discreet and Discrete Examples The lawyers indiscreet remarks to the media provoked an angry response from the judge. Dr. John Watson: One word, Sherlock! That is all I would have needed! One word to let me know that you were alive!Sherlock Holmes: Ive nearly been in contact so many times, but I worried that, you know, you might say something indiscreet.Dr. John Watson: What?Sherlock Holmes: Oh, you know, let the cat out of the bag.(Martin Freeman and  Benedict Cumberbatch in The Empty Hearse. Sherlock, 2014) The indiscrete nucleus does not have a nuclear membrane and is therefore not separate from the cytoplasm. Practice(a) Questions are never _____; answers sometimes are.(Oscar Wilde, An  Ideal Husband)(b) Topology aims to formalize some continuous, _____ features of space. Answers to Practice Exercises Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words200 Homonyms, Homophones, and Homographs Answers to Practice Exercises: Indiscreet and Indiscrete (a) Questions are never indiscreet; answers sometimes are.(Oscar Wilde,  An  Ideal Husband)  (b) Topology aims to formalize some continuous, indiscrete features of space. Glossary of Usage: Index of Commonly Confused Words

Nazism Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Nazism - Research Paper Example The acceptance of the German public of Hitler and his government though irrational, was not unexplainable. The horrific actions of the Third Reich are well documented. The end result of the Nazi’s evil ideologies included the occupation of most European nations and the ‘final solution,’ the annihilation of over six million Jews. During this the rise of Nazism, the ethnic and romantic ideals of ‘Blood and Fatherland’ gained impetus. According to this notion, German blood and the German fatherland were holy and those ethnic minorities within the country that did not belong to the German race were seen as contaminating German blood and tarnishing the German fatherland. This stream of thought brought to bear an enormous influence on the Nazi ideology, which viewed â€Å"the spilling of blood as part of a holy crusade† (Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, 1991: 189). In his rise to power, Hitler garnered support by holding rallies but his oratories were hardl y credible or persuasive on an intellectual level. Usually, his speeches were predictable, repetitious and lacked substantive arguments. The influence of minds was spawned by the delivery of the speeches which possessed energy and a hypnotic, rhythmic pulse to them.

Are Events Particulars Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Are Events Particulars - Essay Example He also critiques Chilosm's contention that there are recurring events - he gives an example of dropping a saucer in mud one day and doing it again the next. So how does one classify such an event, is a particular event How can we make these discrete events as one, one might talk of same event continuing but then in case of a continuous event recurring after a break, what if the event occurred with separate participants, two persons got married and two others did the same. Will this count as a same event or event sum! Even if one were to allow unrepeatable events, how can one solve the paradox of same event happening more than once, perhaps resumption of the event after a pause might suffice. Only he says if there are particular unrepeatable events than same event can occur on more than one occasions (Donald, essays). Davidson believes that events are particulars, so that same event can be cross referenced from more than representation, further physical event even though these might be causally related; he classifies mental events as those rationalized by reasoning. This does not mean that correlations do not exist, it is only that such correspondences cannot be rendered in the precise mathematical form outlined by strict laws. Regarding equivalence of events and if events are indeed particulars he says that events should be similarly causal for them to be identical and also that the concerned events should occupy the same spatial location (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The differentiation between mental and physical events is quite amorphous they are really two ways of looking at the same things viewed from two different perspectives. The question to ask is whether this event is constituent of or composed of event which is purely physical, a mental event might have hidden aspects, properties which are not immediately discernable, but by using exemplifications the associations might become clearer. (Helen Steward, ontology of the mind) Helen Steward discusses Jaegwon Kim and Jonathan Bennett's theories on events in his book "The Ontology of Mind". Events according to Jaegwon Kim, he says, are to be represented canonically such that their inherent metaphysical character is kept intact; events have a structure, its constituents are object(s) and time (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Any event can be represented by the expression [S, p, t] where S is substance, p is property and t time. Kim's events exemplify properties, but the property exemplified is the constitutive property while any number of non constitutive properties is exemplified (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Two events are identical only if the three variables match in the respective events and the concerned Events 4 event is a "dated particular" (Helen Steward) and event's identity is tied to a particular property. The issue is using event describing sentences using explicit times cannot be mapped on a particular event and

The Infallibility of the Bible: Astronomical Errors

The Infallibility of the Bible: Astronomical Errors 03/12/2017 There is overwhelming support for inerrancy from history. The idea that the Bible can contain errors is a relatively new belief. Author and scholar Harold Lindsell stated, Apart from a few exceptions, the church through the ages has consistently believed that the entire Bible is the inerrant or infallible Word of God[1]. You need a transition here The presence of observable and falsifiable[J1] scientific evidence is perhaps the most compelling reason for the conclusion that the Bible is not free from error. Because this evidenc[J2]e clearly yields certain conclusions that are contradicted by direct statements from biblical authors, we can safely say that the Bible is an imperfect book containing flaws of [J3]human origins. Due to the overwhelming amount of scientific errors the book possesses, you [J4]should have great comfort in deciding that there was no divine inspiration or intervention in creation. Furthermore, the vast categories of errors contained in the Bible demonstrate that the mistakes are not confined to a single author or field of study, a realization that should question the foundation and intent of the book as a whole. This paper will focus considerably on the first chapter of Genesis, astronomy, and biology because each of these topics unmistakably contributes to the faux pas of apologetics. THE BEGINNING: Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as a complete lie. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.[2] Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below seas and the water above sky, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a firmament (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using expansion, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is rakia, which the KJV more accurately translated as a solid body.3 Why is the KJV translation more in line with the authors intent? First, its the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that its the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that theres a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2). Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because theres an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we can conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect. God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. Its unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges[3]. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, theres no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurren t periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols to divide the day from the night (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called light (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the suns creation. In addition to the sun gaffe, the scientifically ignorant author commits the mistake of listing the moon as a light (16). If we were to be rigidly technical about the Bibles claim, this verse is another scientifically erroneous notion because the moon merely reflects illumination from the sun. Isaiah and Ezekiel also make this mistake in their prophecy accounts (30:26 and 32:7, respectively). Again, we often take our modern knowledge about the universe for granted, yet such a gift was completely unforeseeable to the ancient Hebrew. Another problem arises from the sun not appearing until the fourth day when you consider that plants suddenly appeared on the third day (11-13). While its definitely possible, even very likely, for plants to survive without the sun for a single day, many apologists have attempted to rectify the obvious timeline problems in Genesis by altering the meaning of a day. Once they consummate this amendment, theyve created a timeline in which the plants exist without sunlight for however long these days are to them. In most cases, a biblical day must necessarily be no less than a period of millions of years in order to be congruent with scientific data. While the general Hebrew term for day, yom, doesnt necessarily mean a twenty-four hour day, we still understand it to be a short time period based on every contemporaneous instance of its use. Millennia simply do not qualify using this unbiased criterion. Furthermore, the author provides us with the precise definition of yom in every creation instance: morning and evening. Naturally, well revisit these creationary intervals in the upcoming Thousands Or Billions. For now, lets return to the problem of the plants thriving without the suns existence. Most vegetation requires sunlight to undergo photosynthesis, the process of using light energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into nutrients. I wouldnt bet on plant survival much more than a month without the sun. While its true that the biblical creation has this mysterious light existing prior to the arrival of plants, the only thing we can conclude about its existence is the probable lack thereof. The sun, on the other hand, is fully compatible with plant life. Once again, this obtuse blunder can be justified by the limitations of the ancient Hebrews knowledge because he obviously wasnt aware that plants were feeding off sunlight for their survival. As one final minor point on plants for now, God says he has given us every plant for food (29). However, were now aware of plants with qualities poisonous enough that make us avoid physical contact with them. Such disturbingly reckless advice hardly seems to be the kind likely given out by an omniscient deity. God allegedly created the stars on the fourth day (16), but what were they, and what was their purpose? Biblical authors believed that stars were small sources of light contained within the imaginary firmament covering the earth. In other words, they exhibited no divine inspiration, whatsoever, telling them that stars were actually unfathomably enormous gaseous spheres seemingly countless miles away. In short, the authors celestial hypothesis was incorrect on location, number, and size.[4] Verification for the location part of this position is quite easy to demonstrate. After God made the sun, moon, and stars, he set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth 6(17). So along with the sun and moon, the stars are apparently housed in this imaginary physical boundary separating the sky ocean from the open air above earths inhabitants. The Bible also remarkably claims the outdated belief that stars were extremely small in size. After the disclosure of their location in the firmament, and after God tells Abraham several times that his people would be as numerous as the stars (which is also impossible, yet its claimed to have been fulfilled in Hebrews 11:12), the next clear reference to size and position of these celestial bodies is found in the book of Isaiah. Here, the prophet speaks of exalting a throne above the stars of God (14:13). Likewise, Job says, behold the height of the stars, how high they are (22:12). Stars are not high; they are distant. One would expect these two divinely inspired individuals to make this distinction in their records; instead, they boldly demonstrate that they shared the popular yet erroneous belief that God fixed the stars at the skys apex. The book of Psalms states that God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names (147:4). Thats quite an impressive accomplishment considering scientists estimate that there could be as many as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the known universe. If God truly told anyone how many stars surrounded our planet, the ridiculous firmament belief should have ceased without delay.[5] Daniel speaks of a vision that he had concerning a giant goats horn knocking the stars down to the ground where the goat stamped upon them (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth. Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them? More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous? In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both record Jesus foretelling of an era when the stars shall fall from heaven (24:29 and 13:25, respectively). Jesus, a supposedly perfect human being who was supposedly the only son of a supposedly perfect god, wasnt immune to scientific ignorance either. Revelation was the grandiose vision of John, yet another man who God allegedly inspired, but John also thought that stars were bright objects of insignificant size directly above the earth. In this record of his dream-like hallucination, he claims to see Jesus holding seven stars in his right hand (1:16). While John may have seen what looked like seven stars in Jesus hand, this is not what the text clearly states. The passage unambiguously says Jesus was holding seven stars in his hand. Thus, Johns statement is certainly in error. In addition, John mentions a dream in which the stars of heaven fell unto the earth and compares this event to a fig tree shaking off its leaves (6:13). Furthermore, he describes a great star falling into the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters (8:10). If a star were to fall to our planet as John indicates, it would annihilate the earth upon impact because these bodies are generally hundreds of times larger than our world. Finally , John sees a dragon swing its tail around, consequently knocking a third of the stars in the sky down to the ground (12:4). Theres no need to discuss how enormous such a hypothetical tail would have to be in order to accomplish this impossibility. After all, Revelation was only a vision. On the other hand, we must expect Christians to accept that this man had a unique foreknowledge of humankinds imminent future. In other words, these ridiculously fantastical events must remain futuristic certainties to biblical apologists. At this point, we can safely say that anyone attempting to harmonize the scientifically determined position, size, and number of our celestial neighbors with a literal interpretation of the Bible is veraciously wasting his time. Another embarrassing tale of biblical nonsense is the construction of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. According to the bogus legend, everyone on earth spoke the same language when the erection of the tower began. Because the people of earth had a great desire to catch a glimpse of God, they built this supposed tower intending to breach the sky. As God didnt like the possibility of people spotting him, he confused their languages to prevent the architects from understanding one another. Unable to continue construction, everyone with different languages went separate ways. This story is unfeasible for many reasons.[6] The first problem with the incredulous account is the incongruency of the common language theme. We know that many different languages existed centuries before the storys setting around 2500-2000 BCE. Not only that, but another Pentateuch author had said Noahs sons separated according to their own tongues in the previous chapter (Genesis 10). At the very least, we have a major timeline discrepancy in need of an acceptable resolution. Furthermore, the notion that nineteenth century man had the architectural knowledge to build a tower even a mile high is ridiculous. To fathom that a group of ignorant ancient Hebrews could make an equivalent accomplishment is ludicrous. Interestingly, no divine inspiration is available as a possible excuse for the illogical story because God wasnt siding with his people on this occasion! If he didnt wish for the people to see him, he wouldnt have provided the means for them to do so. Of course, the most obvious blunder is Gods supposed fear of us actually reaching him in the sky. To suggest that an omniscient god would destroy a building because he felt he was in danger of humans catching a glimpse of him is an equally ludicrous proposal. The aspects of this story once again go back to the ancient Hebrew belief that God eternally resided on top of a dome covering the earth. Since an omniscient deity would know that the people could not possibly reach him, he would not have stopped the towers construction for the specific reason provided by the Bible. The story cries of a myth.[7] We also have fanciful tales about giants roaming the earth during the Pentateuch era. Theres a lot of room for interpretation here because the exact nature of these mysterious giants is unknown. However, we understand that the Bible has them living both before and after the flood (Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33). Some Christians have argued these giants are the dinosaurs, but this proposed explanation fails to be consistent with the flood caused the dinosaur extinction hypothesis offered by others in the same crowd. While the text is most likely referring to a race of people, archaeologists have found no reliable evidence that these creatures existed. Given the track record of the Bible thus far, its reasonable to conclude that the Genesis giants are, at best, an exaggeration of an otherwise normal species of life. Jesus also commits another scientific blunder when he declares the mustard seed to be the smallest seed of the earth (Mark 4:31). There are, in fact, many seeds smaller than the mustard, such as the South American orchid, but the Hebrews were obviously ignorant of most everything outside of their homeland. Had God presented this bit of information to the author of Mark, it seems unfeasible that the writer would portray Jesus as a man so careless with his diction. This example is clearly another biblical error on the growing accumulation that arises from the same limitation of divinely uninspired perspective. The suggestion that the Bible is lacking a scientific foundation is nothing less than a colossal understatement. The Bible has failed fair, impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple fields of science. If God truly is the inspiration behind this purportedly divine declaration to the world, he shows absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology, geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other disciplines not covered in this chapter. In fact, the Bible handicaps those who use their God-given talents of reason and logic to settle blatant biblical problems. Nothing can be more detrimental to the authenticity of a statement than contradictory phenomena that we readily observe and experience. With no other evidence to consider, these natural manifestations should always override what we might hope and think to be correct explanations for unignorable discrepancies. Such is the power of science and r eason. They are the impartial pursuit of an answer to a question, not the search for supplements to a predetermined answer. These are just a few examples of how it is useless and counterproductive even for fundamentalists to try to extract concepts from the Bible that they do not have as well as try to argue that they possess any technical and scientific knowledge beyond their time. The Bible is a religious, spiritual, moral and mythological book, and as such is subordinate to the world view of its time and place. It is perfectly possible for Christians to be at peace with their religion and their holy book even though they are aware of their primitive conceptions of the Universe and the World, even as Frei Betto would say in his text The Bible in 12 Steps: Just as no one fails to take a remedy because there is an error of agreement in the bull, Jews and Christians do not care if they find a historical misconception in the biblical texts, and in their eyes they are, rather, religious texts. There are notions of science or history and they know that the biblical authors did not intend to reach methodological and scientific precision.We interweaved religious, historical and scientific references according to the knowledge of the time.While the quality of the wiring, the electronic conduits, the post or the lamp , For who seeks light to see better? FREI BETTO The Bible in 12 Steps That is, a fable does not have its essential content invalidated by the fact of describing fantastic things, like Talking Foxes. In the same way, a myth should not be devalued by its physically absurd elements. If I do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, it is rather by many other factors, such as those quoted in Is the Divinely Inspired Bible ?, yet it does not invalidate its cultural value. The biblical apologists are even lucky that, thanks to the early Catholic Church, only the 3 synoptic gospels and the gospel of John were considered canonical. What in themselves already present myriads of errors conception about nature. Otherwise, it might be utterly impossible not to see Biblical Geocentrism, which although present is not so explicit. In Hebrews 11, the apostle Paul refers to the translation of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, which is not described in the Old Testament, only vaguely suggested in Genesis 5:22. Pauls knowledge certainly came also from other gospels, such as the apocryphon Enochs Book of Secrets, which tells the story mentioned by Paul, which makes this book a little more trustworthy than the other apocryphal even Because it is most probably from him that Paul also removed the mention of the angelic hierarchy of Thrones, Dominions, Principalities and Powers, as quoted in Colossians [1:17], and in other excerpts from his New Testament epistles. Well, this book, written at the same time as the other Gospels by some scholar who knew Aristotelian Geocentrism, explicitly describes the mechanisms used by angels to move the Sun around the Earth, in addition to the other celestial spheres Of the trio Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, were accepted by most scholars, and yet were far more advanced than the primitive idea of a Flat Earth lost in an Abyss. Probably the incompatibility of Hellenistic geocentrism, which already knew the sphericity of the Earth, with the much more primitive concepts of the Bible, was one of the factors for the disqualification of the apocryphal book of Enoch. It is certainly lucky. For fundamentalists already have a tremendous work to hide and omit blatant biblical naivety about the reality of nature, and to distort and decontextualize verses. Turning the affirmation of the apologists: Many errors were indeed stated, but conservative biblical scholars have always been able to find solutions to these problems. Perhaps they have forgotten to say that these solutions only satisfy even the counselors who have solved their rationality within Religious Fanaticism. [1] Zondervan, (The Battle for the Bible, 1978) [2] Long, Jason (Biblical Nonsense, 2015) 3 Ibid [3] William Henry Burr (Self-Contradictions of the Bible, 2016) [4] C. Dennis Mckinsey (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, 1995) 6 Ibid [5] Long, Jason (Biblical Nonsense, 2015) [6] Bart D. Ehrman (Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer, 2009) [7] Bart D. Ehrman (Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer, 2009) [J1]Word is not used in the right context. [J2]Which evidence? [J3]about [J4]one

History of the Amana Communes :: essays papers

History of the Amana Communes With the new foundland of north America, Europeans saw a chance to apply their hopes and dreams of a perfect Utopian society. They saw an oppertunity to raise communities of so called ‘utopian societies’ that they could not create in their already ruled land of Europe. While there would be Utopian experiments is Europe -like the Paris commune and the Fourierist Planxes, it would only be in America where the European divines would apply their Utopian ideals with such effort. The socialism of these early communities was the kind that Marx, rightly or wrongly, would brand as ‘utopian,’ suggesting that it was idealistic and impractical. Rather than seeking to create an ideal government or reform the world, the members of these communal groups withdrew form the sinful, corrupt world to work their miracles in microcosm, actually hoping to imitate the elect state of affairs that existed among the Apostles, who were said to hold all things in common. The most interesting point of these communal groups to me might be the overall backing of their desire to create a community. It seems some of the communal groups, such as the Amana, were only created out of feelings of guilt and hope for redemption. From Oveds book, two hundred years of American Communes, he describes the Amana as seeing their community as an island of redemption in a world awash with temptation, sin and avarice; the Elect could come and perfect themselves, if they were prepared to heed the Lord’s call to chastity, poverty, simplicity, hard work, purity, and brotherly love. Although they sought redemption, the main driving force behind the Amana was that they sought religious freedom. Unhappy with their religious rights and flixability in Germany, the Amanas left ifn 1842, settling near Buffalo, New York. In 1855, the â€Å"community of True Inspiration,† as they were called, moved west, forming their first village along the Iowa River. The Amana set up their communities with a diligent effort. Each village practiced their Utopian ideals and worked together as one large community. Perhaps the most impressive view of the Amana may be their unique contributions to social reform. Many aided and abetted the abolitionists, women’s rights, and objections to war. Their history and communal methods were basically unchanged for 89 years. The Amana is definitely one of the longest lasting communal societies in the world. In a sense you could actually say it was a bit of a success. The Amana had thier whole social class set up eliminating the need for conflict.

Operations Performance Objectives

1. OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES In accordance with Slack, Chambers and Johnston, performance objectives is a generic set of performance and indicators that can be used to set the objectives or judge the performance of any type of operation. In this context, there are five key most objectives that can or will be used to help improve the operations of a service industry (Dental health care as stated earlier). a)Quality Quality can be defined in so many ways. In simpler terms we will describe it as the element in a product that rises above the other and is able to satisfy the needs/specifications of a consumer and has some high value attached to it. Quality in operations performance objectives for a dental health care ensures that most appropriate treatment is delivered and that customers are all treated with courtesy (getting value for their money). This entails doing the right thing at the right time and meeting customer specifications, which leaves them satisfied. b)Speed Speed is defined as the elapsed time between customers’ placing orders and the goods/services being delivered to them. With speed, it means that the delivery of the service required is done within the shortest possible time. For example the time it takes for the dentist to screen the teeth of the patient to the time he gives an answer of what his findings are should be reduced and acceptable to the customer. In turn, this reduces likeliness of lagging behind and not being able to finish attending to all the patients in time. It does impact positively on the improvement of operations when time is highly considered. As the cliche goes, ‘time is money and time wasted is never gained, so use it wisely. ’ )Dependability Dependability is the delivery or making available of goods/services when they were promised to customers. It can also be defined as staying true to one’s word and trustworthiness. In this context it would mean avoiding cancellations of appointments with customers. It really pays highly to an organization for customers to know that they can depend on the services provide d to them at that particular organization. It helps in creating rapport with the customers, hence allowing for them to even encourage other people to come and seek for services from you. d)Flexibility This is the degree to which an operations process can change what it does, how it is done and when it is done. When something’s flexible, it simply means that there is room for change or adjustments. In this case, it means that the service industry (dental health care) should be ready to introduce new treatments and/or have many more treatment to match up to the customers’ ever changing and varying demands. This helps the industry to expand. e)Cost Cost can be defined as the monetary value attached to the services/goods provided and also attached to the production or offering of that good/service. Cost helps to identify how operation scan be run at a more affordable price right for the marketplace the industry operates in and be able to achieve good profit margins. To the producer or service provider, the lower the cost of production the means lower the prices for the customers, which means more savings. In conclusion, â€Å"performance objectives are the key to unlocking any communications or performance initiative. The answer is the foundation and structure of your work on any project: the performance objective. † Document Information Design Inc. 2004.