In this case, it is not so much that it is of interest to the reader, but that is lends support to the argument. Or, better put, it doesn't disagree with the argument and has a peculiar form that would make sense according to the argument.

--

On a completely unrelated side note, out of the multitudinous typos in the earlier drafts of this reply, i typed "ithe" in place of "with the". When i replaced the missing "w" and had "withe", i thought that was a pretty cool contraction.

Which part made you ask that? :)

So, be aware of your audience?

So, you ready to start a fork? :)

Thanx.

If you meant that seriously, care to share the results?

Untrue - some (many) mutations are bad, and the ones that change are the ones that die.

Evolution occurs when a mutation is a) beneficial and b) significant enough that it allows an animal to survive longer than those without that mutation. Being alive longer means they breed more. Breeding generally passes on the mutation.

It really is quite random, and there is no guarantee that the animals that change are better. Indeed for an animal that's particularly well suited to an environment that hasn't changed in a long time there could be very little room for evolution to occur. Certain types of fish (like gar and bowfin) for example have survived for tens of millions of years with relatively minor evolutionary changes.

Obligatory:
http://xkcd.com/603/

That's the crux of the issue. A good language shouldn't be one that lets you code cleanly - it should do its very best to make sure you CAN'T code sloppily.

I don't even think this ruling applies to generic birth control pills.

IIRC, this ruling doesn't get them out of paying for any and all birth control - simply birth control methods that they equate to being non-preventative and hence more like an abortion (ie, "the morning after pill").