Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

Evolutionists, Atheists are wrong and have proved themselves to be fools, frauds, or fanatics

By Dr. Don Boys Sunday, May 2, 2010 (Canada Free Press)

A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn. Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution. Other major scientists critical of evolution have died in the last 25 years.

I wrote in my Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? that “a mutation is an unexpected and random change in a cell, produced by the penetration of the cell by radiation, mutagenic chemical or other disorganizing agent. Mutations produce change, but not improvements. Evolutionists believe that most mutations are harmful while others believe they are all harmful or neutral.” Evolutionists must claim that some mutations are helpful because basically, all evolution rests upon that premise.
Pierre Grasse was known as the greatest scientist in France, and he disputed the value of mutations when he wrote, “...No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Grasse went on to say that it “is not true” that bacteria are evolving quickly because of numerous mutations. He reminds all that “To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized.” Devious, deceptive, and dishonest evolutionists now claim that change is evolution, but that is so silly it is embarrassing. Everyone admits to change, but the change is never from a simple to a more complex creature. Never.
Grasse was supported earlier by Professor N. H. Nilsson of Lund University who said, “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” Nilsson added, “It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” 

Michael Pitman, (died 2000) former chemistry professor at Cambridge, confessed, “Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”
Not only are mutations always harmful, but they produce changes in present characters, never producing new characters. Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see in the animal and plant kingdoms. They teach that the many changes in combination with the pressure of the environment over billions of years have produced the differences between one-cell amoeba and complicated humans; however, mutations never create; they corrupt. Thus, the results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.

The mutation theory is without any scientific foundation

The mutation theory is without any scientific foundation. In fact, Ernst Mayr, a famous evolutionist, believed mutations were the answer as to how evolution allegedly took place, but his own experiments with fruit flies proved the opposite! Mayr tried to increase and decrease the number of bristles on fruit flies that normally have 36, but he discovered that the flies died if they had more than 56 and fewer than 25. Repeated experiments of 30 generations proved the fact of limitations, and when the fruit flies were left alone, they were back to 36 bristles in five years!  Of course, change takes place, but it is always limited change and never any improvement.

No fruit fly, peppered moth or any other creature has formed a new creature through mutations and natural selection, and more and more top scientists are supporting that position. The co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, Sir Ernest Chain, called natural selection and chance mutations a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.” And the murmur continues. The 1971 winner of the Nobel Prize in science, Dr. Dennis Gabor (died 1979) said: “I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations…”
We creationists will continue to remind evolutionists that their lie about “change” has been exposed. Richard Dawkins wrote of evolution, “No reputable scientist” refuses to accept evolution.  A similar statement has been declared by many silly, shallow scientists and the gullible continue to believe it. However, a lie is a lie if everyone (including “experts’) believe it. The above quotes from world-famous scientists prove Dawkins is a Dummy.

Moreover, as I scanned the list of dissenting scientists I was impressed with so many of various fields, all from prestigious universities who were willing to “put their names on the line” for all to see. Those courageous scientists were experts in medicine, biology, geology, anthropology, zoology, physics, genetics, etc. holding doctoral degrees from Rutgers, MIT, Baylor, Oxford, Dartmouth, Tulane, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Purdue, Indiana, Yale, Duke, Stanford, Cambridge, Temple, Berkeley, and many others. Even a few Christian universities such as Liberty, Cedarville, Asbury, Wheaton, etc., are represented.

I am waiting for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Company to admit their lies in the advancement of atheism as they have declared that “evolution is a fact not disputed by any qualified scientists.” Obviously the atheists are wrong and have proved themselves to be fools, frauds, or fanatics.  Maybe all evolutionists are in a special classification—Homo Ignoramus!

Many atheists thrive on ignorance
Front page / Science / MysteriesSource: Pravda.Ru 25.03.2009

by Babu G. Ranganathan
Information, whether it be information in the genetic code, on a computer software program, on a type-written page, on a hand-written page, in radio signals, in the electrical signals flowing through a telephone line, anything where there is sequential arrangement of matter or energy conveying instructions, messages, codes, such phenomenon does not happen and cannot happen by chance.

Many people who easily believe in Darwinian macro-evolution theory do not understand what genes really are. They are information. DNA is information! Those who do understand and still believe in macro-evolutionary theory should know better or have been so brainwashed so as not to think critically about the theory or they wish to believe in the theory in spite of evidence to the contrary for personal motives and reasons.
Even Chaos theory shows that only a minimal level of order will ever be possible by chance.

The creation/evolution issue really begins with the origin of life. So, let's start there. We will not bother discussing the issue of time and the age of the earth and universe. Many do not realize the assumptions involved and the circular reasoning used by evolutionists in their various dating methods. That is another story. So, let's begin with the origin of life issue. Millions of high school and college biology textbooks imply that Stanley Miller, in the 1950's, showed that life could arise by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all, even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies!

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to popular evolutionist writers like Richard Dawkins, many in society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of evolution's problems. Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once there is life and not before.

Evolutionists believe that random mutations in the genetic code, caused by environmental forces such as radiation, will produce over time increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to use so that life can evolve from simpler species to more complex ones. There is no evidence that chance mutations can or will provide increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to act upon so that evolution would be possible from simpler species to more complex ones. It's like saying that the random changes caused by an earthquake will increase the complexity of houses and buildings!

Natural selection is not an active force. It is a passive process in Nature. Only those variations that have survival value will be "selected" or be preserved. Once a variation has survival value then, of course, it's not by chance that it is "selected". But, natural selection, itself, does not produce or design those biological variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. "Natural selection" is just another way of saying "natural survival". If a biological change occurs that helps a species to survive then that species, obviously, will survive (i.e. be "selected"). Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.
Natural selection is just another tern for survival of the fittest. But, survival of the fittest is exactly what makes Darwinian macro-evolution impossible. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

The only evolution in nature that is observable and can be called science is microevolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows.

Macroevolution, or variations across kinds, is not science but faith.
The genes exist in all species for microevolution but not for macroevolution, and, as stated already, there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits for natural selection to act upon.
Genetic similarities between species are no proof of common biological ancestry because it cannot be proved that these similarities are due to a common biological ancestry via chance mutations.

What if the similarities between species are due to a common designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes? Only genetic similarities within a biological kind can be used as proof of relationship.
It is not rational to believe that genes can come into existence by accident or chance. Just ask any genetic engineer!

Thus, it is far more logical to believe that genetic similarities between species are due to a common designer rather than common chance evolutionary ancestry .
In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.
All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter.
Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution. Even artificial, or synthetic life, is a creation by scientists, through intelligent design, of a DNA code built from "scratch" which is then inserted into an already existing living cell.
There simply is no scientific basis for believing life could have arisen by chance processes even if given the right environmental conditions to sustain life. What if we should discover life on Mars?

Even if we should discover life on Mars it wouldn't prove that such life originated by chance. Also, if we do find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed rock and dirt containing microbes into outer space much of which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.
"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

This would also explain, as MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown has pointed out, why some meteorites contain organic compounds because they are remnants of the original debris spewed from the Earth due to very fierce ancient geological disturbances and activity. Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents "simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great! Dr. Gish's article may be accessed here.

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in an intelligent Designer behind the origin of life and the universe. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. Science cannot prove that we're here by either chance or design. Both require faith. Where will you place your faith?

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. degree with concentrations in theology and biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's website may be accessed at: www.religionscience.com.

Turkish Military Officials in Israel to Pick Up Drones
Tammuz 10, 5770, 22 June 10 08:41 by Hana Levi Julian

(Israelnationalnews.com) A Turkish military delegation arrived Tuesday in Israel to pick up the rest of an order of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones – this, despite rumors just a week ago that Ankara had canceled the deal.
According to a report in the Turkish Zayman daily newspaper, the delegation is expected to stay for at least two weeks. The military officials allegedly came “to conclude test runs in the delivery of four Israeli-made drones, the remaining lot in a 10-UAV deal between Turkey and Israel.”

Last week the same paper reported that all military agreements with Israel had been canceled by Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan in another slap at the Jewish State following the clash on the Turkish-sponsored six-ship flotilla that attempted to break Israel's sovereignty over Gaza waters.

Among the deals that were nixed, according to that report, was the agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries to supply the Heron UAV to the Turkish Air Force. The $180 million contract with IAI and Elbit Systems included electronic equipment and spare parts in addition to the 10 Heron drones.

The Turkish government admitted Friday to slaughtering as many as 120 Kurdish rebels in raids on their hideouts in northern Iraq last month. Israeli-made unmanned drones have been used to attack the positions, which were located with assistance from U.S. intelligence sources.

Erdogan, who had announced the suspension in the military hardware deals with Israel, also reportedly vowed yesterday to “destroy” the Kurdish rebels.
Meanwhile, Turkish author and philospher Adnan Oktar told Israel National News on Tuesday afternoon that although there is indeed "mutual tension" at present, he believes it is still possible to salvage the once-strong diplomatic and cultural ties between the two countries.

"Devout Jews and devout Muslims can establish peace and security in the Middle East," Oktar said. "One of them is the son of Ishmael and the other is the son of Jacob... It is not only Muslims who are trapped behind the walls; Jews are also imprisoned behind them. Let them come and live freely and build factories and open universities and do business in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey."

Ironically, Oktar added that the ideologies of atheism and Darwinism, seen so often as marks of progress in secular, intellectual circles, would ultimately prove the undoing of both Jewish and Muslim societies in the Middle East: "Bloodshed is inevitable, because these ideologies believe that conflict is essential to progress," he explained.Evolutionists, Atheists are wrong and have proved themselves to be fools, frauds, or fanatics.

Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border
Tammuz 11, 5770, 23 June 10 04:36, by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(Israelnationalnews.com) The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran.

Both reports follow by less than a week the Pentagon’s confirmation that an unusually large American fleet sailed through the Suez Canal Saturday. Several reports stated that an Israeli ship joined the armada.

The Pentagon played down the news, saying the American maneuvers were routine. However, a report by Iran on Wednesday that it has enriched dozens of pounds of 17 per cent enriched uranium serves as a reminder that time is running out to stop Iran from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Fars News Agency said the Israeli military aircraft landed 10 days ago at the Saudi base near the city of Tabuk, located in northwest Saudi Arabia, one of the closest areas in the oil kingdom to Iran.

Fars said that the Tabuk base will be the central station for an Israeli attack on Iran. It quoted an Islamic news site that a commercial airline passenger said the airport in Tabuk was closed to all other traffic during the alleged Israeli landings. The passenger said that "no reasonable explanation” was given for shutting down the airport and those passengers were compensated financially and booked in four-star hotels.

“The relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel have become the talk of the town,” the passenger added. The chief authority in Tabuk, Prince Fahd ben Sultan, was reported be coordinating the cooperation with Israel.

Azerbaijan
Iran’s government-funded Press TV reported that the Revolutionary Guards began closely patrolling the Islamic Republic’s northwestern border after noticing the American forces, which Iran claimed also included Israeli troops. Azerbaijan’s independent Trend news site also reported on Wednesday that American armed forces are in the country, which is in an armed conflict with rebels.

Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said Tuesday that his forces are mobilized “due to the presence of American and Israeli forces on the western border.” The Guards reportedly have called in tanks and anti-aircraft units to the area in what amounts to a war alert.

Enriched Uranium

As signs point to a higher American-Israeli military profile aimed at Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Islamic Republic’s vice president and director of the nuclear program, announced Wednesday that Iran has produced another 37 pounds of uranium enriched to 20 percent. The production of the uranium defies United Nations demands that Iran stop its unsupervised nuclear development, although the 20 percent level is far below level that is needed to build a nuclear weapon.
"Potentially, we can produce 5 kilograms (11 pounds) a month, but we are not in a hurry over this," Salehi told the semiofficial ISNA news agency.

Russian Church vs. Darwinism

Tuesday May 25, 2010 MYT 1:46:16 AM
In Moscow, Orthodox Christian churches draw closer
MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Dmitry Medvedev warmly welcomed the spiritual leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians on Tuesday, hailing improving ties between Russia's powerful church and its ancestor faith.
Relations among the Orthodox have improved after past strains when churches in former Soviet states such as Estonia and Ukraine broke away from the Russian mother church and tried to pledge allegiance to the patriarch in Istanbul.
"The visit of your Holiness is a significant event and, beyond all doubt, it will help strengthen the dialogue which always linked the two sisterly churches," Medvedev told Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, according to a transcipt published by the Kremlin.
Russia's influential Patriarch Kirill has assigned a high priority to improving inter-faith relations since his election last year. Church sources say dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church has improved markedly and an historic meeting between Pope Benedict and the Russian Patriarch is now in prospect.
Medvedev said Bartholomew's visit was "especially important, taking into account the fact that Russia is a country where the majority of the population is Christian Orthodox in its faith".
The size and growing political clout of the Russian Church, which has strong backing from Medvedev and premier Vladimir Putin, contrasts sharply with Bartholomew, who has a tiny flock and is under severe pressure from the Turkish authorities.
Turkey refuses to recognise Bartholomew's full title and has kept his church's main seminary in Halki closed despite pressure from the European Union and U.S. President Barack Obama.
Addressing Bartholomew, Medvedev stressed "the constructive and fully-fledged dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state ... which allows us to tackle very hard tasks".
THE MOTHER CHURCH
Underlining his status as Orthodox leader, Bartholomew replied: "We, as the Mother Church, are glad about this success and harmony, about these kind relations of cooperation which exist between the state and the Russian Orthodox Church."
Muslim Istanbul, formerly the Byzantine capital Constantinople, is the ancient seat of Orthodox Christianity.
Patriarch Kirill, who leads the biggest of the Orthodox churches with 160 million believers, visited Bartholomew in 2009 to show his interest in improving relations.
Greeting the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow, Kirill has shown deference to his guest and even personally translated his address from Greek into Russian for the congregation during a solemn service in Moscow's gold-domed Christ the Saviour Cathedral.
The previous day, the two church leaders led a procession of 40,000 through central Moscow to commemorate the name days of Cyril and Methodius, the saints who brought Orthodoxy to the Slavs in the ninth century.
Amid the signs of mutual respect, it was unclear whether the two sides discussed the contentious issue of breakaway Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and Estonia.
Religion experts said that the significance of Bartholomew's visit to Moscow could not be over-estimated.
"This is an extraordinary visit," said Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, an expert on relations between Moscow and Constantinople.
"It signals a real synergy for world Orthodoxy and shows they (the patriarchs) are working towards solutions of the problems they have."
(Additional reporting by Ayla Jean Yackley, editing by Paul Taylor)
(Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by xxx)

Russia Church wants end to Darwin school "monopoly"
Thu, Jun 10 2010
By Conor Humphries
MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian Orthodox Church called Wednesday for an end to the "monopoly of Darwinism" in Russian schools, saying religious explanations of creation should be taught alongside evolution.
Liberals said they would fight efforts to include religious teaching in schools. Russia's dominant church has experienced a revival in recent years, worrying rights groups who say its power is undermining the country's secular constitution.
"The time has come for the monopoly of Darwinism and the deceptive idea that science in general contradicts religion. These ideas should be left in the past," senior Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion said at a lecture in Moscow.
"Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has proved divisive in the United States, where Protestant groups promote Creationism, the idea that God made the world as described in the Bible, and the "intelligent design" view positing an unnamed creator.
The atheist Soviet state, which collapsed in 1991, used Darwin to disprove religious teachings. The theory, which biologists say gives a verifiable explanation for how life forms develop through natural selection, now dominates in Russian schools as it does in science teaching in most countries.
Hilarion said the theory that one species could evolve into another had never been proved. Children "should know about the religious picture, the creation of the world, which is common to all the monotheistic religions," he said.

DANGEROUS IDEA
Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a veteran dissident, told Reuters Russian liberals would fight any attempt to introduce religious teaching into Russian classrooms, particularly in science.
"It's a dangerous idea and we will do all we can to stop it," she said. "We overcame Communism as the state ideology and certain forces want to replace it with Orthodox Christianity."
She said it was unlikely religious teaching would replace Darwin in the national curriculum, but it could find its way into some schools with enough pressure from the Church.
Hilarion heads the Church's external relations department. His lecture to Russian Foreign Ministry officials in Moscow was dedicated to fighting "fanatical secularism" of liberals hostile to religion, and called for dialogue with moderate secularists and cooperation with Catholics against common foes.
Orthodox Christianity is Russia's dominant religion and both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin regularly attend Orthodox services.
Russia also boasts several large religious minorities -- including around 20 million Muslims in a population of 141 million -- which have at times expressed concern about what they say is the privileged place of the Orthodox Church.
Medvedev on June 1 signed a law making July 28 a national holiday to mark the Church's founding with the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Kiev in 988. Muslim lawmakers have since asked for a national holiday to mark the arrival of Islam in Russia.
Hilarion said other faiths should not be worried as the baptism holiday was dedicated to all citizens due to the role of Vladimir's baptism in the foundation of the Russian state.
"It is difficult to even imagine Russia -- if there would even be a Russia ... if that choice had not been made," he said.
(Writing by Conor Humphries; editing by Peter Graff)
© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or visit: www.reutersreprints.com.