You know.. some people just don't get it.

1. Evolution doesn't explain where the Earth and rock(s) came from. - TRUE.

HOWEVER, PHYSICS and COSMOOLOGY do. Evolution is a purely biological theory. Bringing up two different areas of science and claiming that one part can't explain the other is a logical fallacy.

2.There is no evidence whatsoever that life can form from non-living things - INDETERMINATE (neither true nor false)

Experiments have been done to try to "recreate" the conditions presnt in the early earth. This has lead to the discovery of simple amino acid chain formation. In fact, later experiments have discovered these amino chain spontaneously "regrouping" to form larger and more complex chains that are more homogenous with their environment. While not completely living , this shows a strong evidence base for the spontaneous nature of DNA and mitocondria, both of which amino-acid based replication and functioning

3. We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitionary than there were in Darwin's time. There are some fossils that could be pointed to as transitionary forms, but they are questionable. - FALSE

I don't know what IDIOT thought up these couple of lines, but it is UTTER B***S***! In Dartwin's era, there were very few fossils, and most were dismissed as hoaxes or ancient dragons. Now, fossils are being dug up ALL OVER THE WORLD. Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA testing (which wasn't even known in Darwins time) has bourne out the mechanics of evolutionary divirgence and followed the traits paths forward and backwards in time. And the only people "questioning" the are the Creationist MORONS who are certain the world is less than 7,000 years, and anything that doesn't fit that is "questionable".

4. The "Cambrian Explosion" and Walcotts subsequent interpretation of the fossil record has been overturned through radio carbrbon dating of different fossils found in the layer, proving the are in fact from different era's. Hence, the fallacy that "everything just suddenly appeared at once". It's since been proven that sinkholes formed at later times and deposited fresh material in the same layers as some pre cambrian fossils, and were subsequently "sealed in" at a later time.

5. Structural Homology hasn't been a "scientific theory" for over 80 years. DNA evidence actually SHOWS the close links that similar species share. And mitochodrial DNA (which is different from cellular DNA) proves those links go back even further. For instance, every human on earth shares the same mitochonrial markers that can be traced back to an Africanfemale human fossil named "Eve", who lived over 50,000 years ago. Plus, most of the DNA in all species id devoted to protien and enzyme production, not structure. Hence, we don't KNOW for surewhich sequences are actually guiding the structural developement in embryos, and there for are related.

6. Genetic reproduction between males and females represents the "blending" of the dissparate Gene Sequences of both the mother and father. However, not all sequences can be perfectly joined. Most of the time this results in one of the donors sequences being excluded, and the others being used expressly. This is known to guide" Dominant/Resessive" gene expression. However, once in a while a new sequence is introduced, that is niether the mothers or fathers. Most of the time this has absolutely no effect. However, in some cases it introduces a change, whether good (increased strength, agility, new skin color, etc.) or bad (birth defects, cancer). Depending on the environment and competion for resources, these can increase or decrease the chances for any creature to mature to adulthood, attract a mate, and reproduce. The chance of any "new" sequence getting passed on isn't perfect. But if enough "children" are born, the chances of it re-appearing are better. If enough children are born with theser genes "expressed", it may even become dominant in a local community.

The best 3 Stephen King (based) movies:

1.The ShawShank Redemption (adapted from "Rita Hayworth and the ShawShank Redemption" in 'Skeleton Crew').

2.Stand By Me (adapted from "The Body" in 'Different Seasons').

3. 'Misery' or 'The Green Mile'

Honorable Mention: 'CreepShow','Cats Eye''1408' and Kubricks 'The Shining'

Worst SK movies:

1. Cujo- Not only is the book fairly boring, the movie is in the top of 'Worst Movies Ever Made'.

2. 'Running Man' - Almost no relation to the story, other than the name (See 'LawnMower Man')

3.'The TommyKnockers' or 'The Stand'. Both stories were badly butchered from the books.

(Dis-)Honarble Mentions: 'It', 'Maximum Overdrive', 'Silver Bullet'.

This is a sad day, indeed. I, and I 'm sure many others, frequent this web-site looking for un-biased reviews of the latest games. I want to know the good and bad points of the games, not some marketing rep. speech about how absolutely "Awesome" and "Revolutionairy" it is. So the reviewers need to be kept SEPERATE and PROTECTED from the Sales and Advertising departments. If ANYONE wants advertising with Gamespot, it should be under the condition that it will not affect or influence reviews in any way . Anything less than this is not reviewing/journalism, simply independent marketing.

After seeing Jeff's video review myself, courtesy of YouTube, I don't think it was overly critical or "harshly toned" as has been reported. Obviously, even Jeff was dissappointed in the end product. I've heard stronger, more negative reviews on other games by plenty of the other editors and staff of GameSpot, so it's not that either. The game looks and plays like a cheap version of the 'Grand Theft Auto' series, only with dumber AI and flawed mechanics. Other reviewers are similarly faulting the same things that Jeff points out, and none have given it anything over 7, with the average being 6.5. So, what's the REAL beef? If Eidos threatened to pull advertising, then GameSpot should have threatened back with revealing Eidos threats and blasting them in the Press and 'Web. As the saying goes: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything".