Darwin - Origin of Species

Charles Darwin's book, The Origin of Species was published in 1859, and it ranks as one of the few books in history to have such a long-lasting influence on the whole world. From the starting the book and its theories were controversial.

First, a concentrate of things need to be made clear. Evolution was not an idea primary to Charles Darwin. His grandfather and other scientists had put forth similar ideas under the name Transmutation. Well-known theories had also been circulating as far back as antique Greece. Also, while The Origin of Species is by far Darwin's most popular book, his thoughts and hypothesis on Natural choice in effect were covered in two books; in expanding to Origin of the Species there was The Descent of Man. Origin covered animals and plants, Descent was focused on Man.

The main thrust of Darwin's thesis in Origin was that individuals within a species will survive and thrive agreeing to the strength and profitability of their acquired traits. Those better attuned to the environment will pass on their sure attributes and be "Naturally Selected" to carry on the species. Over time the individuals best superior to survive will pass on the sure traits they possess, propagating their line within a species. Those without strong traits or having negative ones will slowly die off. This is a synthesized version of Natural choice by Survival of the Fittest. This is the system put transmit by Darwin in The Origin of the Species (and The Descent of Man).

These ideas themselves are not particularly controversial. Darwin's insistence on Natural choice without the hand of a inventor is where problems are raised. If you take his view that Natural choice is nothing more than a callous advancement of a species thru a ruthless weeding out process, you have a tough time explaining human morality. While different population have raised separate issues over the years the interrogate about morality is the most base and the most serious. For example, caring and having condolement for the handi-capped or less well off would run counter to Darwin's theory. The weak, poor or sick, under his premise, would need to be eliminated to ensure the survival of the fittest. Using Darwins own statements and thesis you would end up rationalizing slavery and eugenics.

From before it was even published The Origin of Species has caused controversy. One hundred and fifty years later and it's still fermenting debate. population need to get the full facts about Darwinism and where it can lead so they can have the ability to make reasonable and informed opinions. Still a hot topic, the debate around the origin of life can only Move transmit if there is an honest and fair investigation.

---

HD 1080p Plasma

Charles Darwin For Kids

Some people have described Charles Darwin as the "father of modern biology". Either this is true or not, is of policy a matter of opinion, but it is de facto true that Darwin's idea, of evolution by natural selection, is one of (arguably the main) the key foundation stones of modern biological sciences.

The year 2009 marks the bicentennial anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, and as a succeed there are currently many celebrations and commemorations of Darwin's life and work going on. Is however a great pity is that among the normal public, although many people have heard of Charles Darwin and know that he has something to do with the system of evolution, many do not know de facto know what his work was about.

Many people wrongly believe that the system of evolution attempts to interpret the origin of life, and that Darwin was the creator of this theory. Neither of these is true. The system of evolution is not about how life first appeared (this is a different field of study known as "abiogenesis"), but rather is about how successive generations of organisms change over time. Additionally, Darwin was by no means the first someone to propose an evolutionary theory, or even the transmutation of species (how one species evolves into another), but rather was responisble for providing a mechanism and an explanation (known as "natural selection") by which evolutionary processes work.

The main notion behind natural choice is de facto surprisingly easy (although it does have complex and fascinating implications) - that organisms with heritable traits that are helpful to successful reproduction, will tend to predominate over organisms without such useful heritable traits, and thus, over successive generations, useful heritable traits will tend to become more common in any population. To interpret this concept, Darwin used an analogy of selective breeding - pigeon breeders, over just a few centuries, have been able to produce a great range of different domestic pigeons by choosing for single heritable traits - and similarly he argued that nature, over many millions of years, could produce a great range of different organisms, by its own form of selection.

Among some religious people, Darwin's ideas, and even the idea of evolution, remains extremely controversial. Among the scientific community, the principle of evolution, as well as related facts such as the great antiquity of the Earth, were already ordinary by Darwin's time. Darwin's system of evolutionary (namely natural selection), however was for many years only one any competitive evolutionary theories - it was only by the 1930s, when Darwin's ideas were combined with those of Gregor Mendel in what is known as the "modern synthesis", that it began to be recognized that natural choice was de facto the driving force behind evolution.

---

vibram five fingers running who makes the giant hydraulic crusher Hp Laptop Backpack

Should You Have to Defend Your Belief?

"If there is a God, why does he allow all the evil in the world?"

How often are you asked that question? And how often do you find yourself defending your faith in God? Should you have to? Do unbelievers permanently find themselves called upon to illustrate why they don't believe in God?

Atheists argue that there is no proof that God exists and see their stance as having solid foundations. But does it? Is there proof that he doesn't exist? Are there as a matter of fact stronger grounds for atheism than for theism?

Let's begin with the question of 'Knowledge'. Nothing is ever 100% certain, even historical 'facts', or scientific 'facts'. After all, it used to be a scientific fact that all the planets revolved nearby the Earth, it being the centre of the universe. So maybe some beliefs we have today will at last turn out not to be 'facts'.

It is very difficult to take a strong atheistic position and endeavor to give grounds for this. So why is it always believers who are called upon to prove their beliefs? Why don't we ask the unbelievers, the doubters, to prove that God doesn't exist?

This was the viewpoint of the philosopher, Ayer. He argued that the possibility of religious 'knowledge' is ruled out. The existence of a being defined as 'God' cannot be demonstrably proved. But he also said that it cannot be disproved either!

Let's look at the case for whether side.

The first seminar put up by unbelievers is commonly a comment of an all-loving, all-Powerful God. "What about all the disasters and suffering in the world that he allows to happen?" "What about itsybitsy children being murdered? What about rapes? The Holocaust? Mans' inhumanity to man. Why does God allow all the evil in the world?"

For some, this deliberate upon can be a great threat to faith. So let's look at moral evil as in the examples above. The seminar from atheists is commonly how can a loving God permit such terrible things to happen? God is love. And he is all Powerful. Couldn't he stop such evil?

Theists' acknowledge could be that God wanted his creation, man, to have free will. He didn't want robot-like beings. He wanted to give us the occasion to make good decisions, to be able to choose or to reject Gods' laws, to pass or fail his tests.

So why do men fail when we have the moral and intellectual capacity to distinguish good from evil? Why didn't God create beings who could resist temptations?

Consider this. If God is omniscient, he must have known in develop how his creatures would act, and therefore must have had good intuit to arrange matters as he did. He allows us to make our own moral choices, but like all good parents, he will punish us for any wrongdoings. Jesus said "As ye sow, so shall ye reap". The law of Karma, as in Buddhist traditions, makes sense of this. As believers in reincarnation, Buddhists state that karma is carried from life to life, and even if sinners are not punished in this life, they will get their comeuppance in the end.

So that's moral evil explained so that it still fits in with our idea of an all-loving God. But what about natural evil? For example, plagues, earthquakes, droughts, famine. Even if we can make sense of moral evil, can we do the same with natural evil? Can man and his free will be held responsible for this too?

Maybe in some instances they can. But the philosopher, Leibniz said "God created the best inherent world." He wanted man to have the occasion to make the right choices, to exercise his moral worth, to put others first. So did God create a world where he knew natural disasters would happen in order that man could prove himself? Make sacrifices to help or save others? Do natural disasters as a matter of fact go against the idea of an all-loving god?

He even intervenes 'miraculously' sometimes. So let's very briefly look at miracles. The term generally refers to a fortunate occurrence for which no immediate explanation is available. They are sometimes a transgression of a law of nature.

However, many habitancy don't see miracles as proof of the existence of God, because they dispute the existence of miracles. Testimonies of witnesses can be inadequate or unreliable.
But you don't have to believe in miracles to believe in the existence of God. So what other grounds for reliance are there?

One seminar centres nearby design. The universe is ordered and consistent. We can witness that all nearby us in nature. Believers argue that it couldn't have happened by chance. There must have been a designer, a inventor for all of it. However, Darwins' law of evolution is believed by many to catalogue for the developments, order and manufacture in the world.

In our three-dimensional, material world, it's very hard to conceive of such a being as God. It can be seen as rational not to believe in him. We have the evidence of our senses. We can't see him or hear him, but does that mean he's not there? So what about all these arguments for and against theism and for and against atheism? Can whether position as a matter of fact be proved or disproved?
Try this line of seminar the next time your faith is questioned. It's based on a quote from the philosopher, Descartes: "God possesses all perfections, and existence is a perfection." ... Therefore he exists!

Footnote: Definitions:
Theism = The reliance in a God who not only created the universe, but takes an active part or interest in it.
Atheism = Against knowledge of God.
A strong atheistic position = Stating we Know God doesn't exist.
A weak atheistic position = A reliance that God doesn't exist.

---

Coffee Ftx 40

slave Leadership, Robert Greenleaf - A describe of the Book

In Charles Darwins "Origin of Species we see in the title the essence of the work. Between the covers lie wrapped in the mysterious prose of the age the basic tenets that withhold the title. I have tried and failed to find the association Between the title and the groundbreaking law that followed its publication but assume that others must have.

I have similarly found in the title of Robert Greenleaf's book "Servant Leadership" a great conception that leaps out of the title, the leader being the servant of those he leads, but reading the book have also failed to make the association Between the words in the book and the conception embodied by the title. My failure in no way compromises Greenleaf's conception summed up so succinctly by the sleeve notes which tell us.

"The servant leader is enduringly attentive to the needs of others. In this way the leader becomes a follower and in so doing ensures that those served grow as habitancy to become more autonomous, wiser and freer."

In holding with real truths Robert Greenleaf is not the originator of the conception of the servant Leader he is naturally the rediscoverer for our generation. What Stephen Covey writes in the forward is that "There is nothing as considerable as an idea whose time has come. servant Leaderships time has come."

Starting from the facility that "Traditional high operate top down administration is naturally not working" Greenleaf sets out to show the reader why and most importantly, what the alternative is.

Most administration initiatives regardless of where they generate wish others to be bought into the idea so that they can use it to make a disagreement in the organisation and this "Buy In" seems to take up an fabulous estimate of time finding for the edge that will strength habitancy to supervene the new initiative.

Servant Leadership is not about changing the way that other habitancy work by training them or having focus groups or otherwise compelling them to conform. servant Leadership is an acknowledgment that the way that we ourselves behave as leaders affects the behaviour of our workforce. The leader, by behaving in a customary directive administration manner can prevent his workforce from performing, becoming the servant Leader stops that from happening and allows the workforce to grow to their full potential.

The book paraphrased by Stephen Covey in the forward tells us that true leadership is an inner potential as much as an rehearsal in authority. He tells us that a low trust culture characterised by high operate management, political posturing, protectionism, cynicism, and internal competition naturally cannot compete with those organisations nearby the world that do emPower people.

The message of "Servant Leadership" seems very clear.

The way that the leader behaves dictates the way the habitancy led behave.

When the leader is controlling and directive he creates the environment in which his workforce cannot perform. When the leader is supportive and attentive to the needs of his workforce he allows them to engage and grow into their full potential.

The disagreement in doing Between these two types of workforce is fabulous and as he says, "Only those organisations whose habitancy willingly volunteer their creative talent will thrive as store leaders"

"Servant Leadership" is an acknowledgment that as leaders we are responsible for the doing of those we lead, not by our example but by the way we make them feel about what they do.

Servant Leadership is above all based on practise not talk.

Leaders can turn the doing of their organisations by changing the way they behave towards their workforce, because the leaders behaviour changes the way that the workforce feel about what they do.

It comes down to a easy choice. Continue telling the workforce what you think they should be doing and you make them incapable of doing what you want. Be attentive to their needs and the leader can draw out and construct the best in his workforce.

"Servant Leadership" has changed the way that Leadership is defined, I hope this book helps leaders to understand the Power of that new definition.

A narrate of the Book by Peter A Hunter

---

bloom energy flowers

Charles Darwin Facts

Charles Darwin, one of the most foremost figures in the history of science, was born on February 12th 1809 (he shares a birthday with 16th Us President, Abraham Lincoln) in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England. He was the grandson (on his father's side of the family) of Erasmus Darwin, a supreme natural philosopher, and also of Josiah Wedgwood (on his mother's side of the same), who is of procedure known for the industrialization of the output of pottery.

Darwin was spent the year of 1825 as an an apprentice physician with his father, and was subsequently sent to the Edinburgh University to study medicine. Darwin however neglected his medical studies, disliking surgery and finding lectures to be boring - instead his time at Edinburgh awakened an curious in him in taxonomy (the classification of living things) and nautical environments. In 1828, Darwin was sent to Cambridge with the intention of studying for a Bachelor of Arts with the long term aim of becoming an Anglican parson - Darwin however found himself however more curious in beetle collecting, botany, geology and natural philosophy.

Perhaps the key event of Darwin's life was a five year travel nearby the world on the ship Hms Beagle. This travel took place in the middle of 1831 and 1836, and while the ship's primary mission was to eye and chart coasts, Darwin was able to study the geology of areas visited, and amass a vast variety of natural history specimens.

Darwin's travel on the Beagle, was probably the main inspiration for his later ideas. Of these, the most important, and the best known, was his system of evolution by natural selection. Although, evolutionary ideas had been common since at least the 18th century, what Darwin was able to do was to spin the process (natural selection) by which evolution occurred, as well present overwhelming arguments and clear evidence of his position.

Of course, both in Darwin's lifetime and still today, many religious people found themselves unable to accept Darwin's ideas. On the other hand, there are of procedure many religious people who did not find their faith to be an obstacle to notice of evolutionary ideas.

Among the scientific community, the idea of evolution was soon roughly Universally accepted. Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection took longer to be accepted, and was for a time one of only several competing evolutionary theories. By the 1930s however, Darwinian evolution by natural selection moderately emerged as the front-runner of the varied evolutionary theories, especially when combined with Mendelian genetics, in what was known as the "modern synthesis". Today, natural selection and Mendelian genetics together form the basic foundation of all modern biological science.

---

Nikon Compact Digital Camera Cloth Baby Doll Diapers

God Created Man - A Refutal Of Darwin's system

The ideas Of Evolution

There are people resembling one another, at least seven agreeing to sources. If some such people, of distinct ages, are arranged in a row, we will be tempted to believe that they are related to each other. The casual similarity of the figure of east coast of America and the west coast of Africa, was sufficient to jump to the conclusion that, one broke away from the other, as if these are ice blocks! There is the Kennedy rock hill, which looks like the profile of the ex President of the Usa, when viewed from a particular point. A scientific ideas must be subjected to the same hair splitting analysis, as is primary in a criminal case. A particular evidence against the prosecution ideas will, if the evidence is admitted in the court, enable the culprit to get away with it.

Survival Of The Fittest

If survival is the aim of evolution, plankton, grass and cockroaches are good evolved than mammals, many species of which have been totally wiped off from the earth. Man is highly vulnerable. If the resemblance in behavior is studied, Asian elephants are much more similar to us, than the chimpanzee. It was in the news that a female elephant, of a circus company, was eloped by a wild elephant. Savitry, the circus elephant, returned after some months in the forest, carrying a baby in its womb! Did they love each other as children, before Savitry was caught by men? Otherwise why did its lover pick her for mating? My father used to tell us about an elephant which could write 51 letters of Malayalam in sand, using a stick. Their memory, affection for their owner, or vengeance against mahouts, who all the time beat them, are well known. They do not have a season for mating. They have the monthly course. The medicines prescribed in ayurveda for elephants are the same as for us, only the doze has to be elephantine in proportion!

Some Oddities

Evolution must have a confident pattern; otherwise, it will be a think only. The elephant, again, is an odd animal. Normally, the hind leg is stronger in animals, including man. The elephant has very strong forelegs, seeing like concrete columns, supporting the weight of the whole body. Its scrotum is private inside, the nose is very long and capable of executing delicate Movements, it does not sweat etc.

The poor dog has to wait for indispensable time, to withdraw its penis after mating, because it swells enormously, at the time of disCharge, and has to come down to normal size, before it can be withdrawn, attracting the concentration of children, who sometimes beat them, while still tied up.

There is a story about it.

The five Pandava brothers share the same woman. The man who goes into her chamber, leaves his chappals at the door, to show that madam is engaged, and the newcomer should wait. One day a dog took the chappals away. Other brother came and hurried in to mate, when he saw real performance blue film!

So they cursed the wicket dog, resulting in this oddity. The small donkey has very big penis. I do not know how the female accommodates it. The big camel has a small one. I am not saying these things for fun. This shows lack of any pattern in creation. Commonly plants use nutrients from the soil. But the pitcher plat has a taste for non-veg food.

Vanila is a native of Madagasker, where the insect fertilizing it, by carrying the pollen grains, is available. In its absence in Kearalam, the farmer is given instructions for doing it by artificial means. Even otherwise, plants depend on insects for propagation of the species, and the insects on plants for honey. Can the bee survive without plants? Creation is a very complicated thing. Let us leave it to Brahma.

Water And Land

It is believed that life began in the sea, then came amphibians and, then land animals in the end. But mammals are found in the sea also.So they are not highly evolved?

The most feebleness is the omission of sea animals of eerie shapes, some seeing like rock, but opens a mouth indiscernible before. If Darwin had seen Discovery channel, he would have quietly withdrawn his theory.

I saw in the web an item of news that Taiwanese scientists came across the skeleton of homo sapien, at least a million years earlier than the date of coming of our ancestor,Mary.

Man Is Devil'S Own Creation

Why do we have long hair and beard? Is there any explanation? Like the tail, fir too vanished. But the hair is longer than shown for Mary, the prototype of homo sapien. Man has many inexplicable characteristics. He has the uniqu potential to convey, by his facial expression,ideas as delicate as I Love You. Anger, joy, contempt etc. Can be seen in his eyes. He is the only animal that lies on its back, which is flat. Other animals do sex from behind. Man and woman do it, facing each other. We are divided by distinct languages.

Other Animals And Birds Speak The Same "Language"

Other animals do not fight among themselves.

Man is envious. Other creatures exploit species, distinct from their own. Man exploits his own brothers, development them slaves either directly or by giving wages.

Today, he is development a large amount of nulear Power plants, without a belief about time to come generations, who will curse us, after we have left the scene.

All through history he has done only one thing- ( kill ) to the Power of billion billion!

---

Senseo Hd 7810

Darwin's Observations of Orchids and His law of Natural selection

Orchids have evolved in numerous dissimilar environments around the world and even today's scientists study them to learn more about the evolution of plants.

It is engaging to note that famed scientist and originator of the system of Evolution made detailed observations of orchids to help prove his theories of natural selection.

When Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 he was criticized for not providing sufficient proof of his theories. Darwin admitted that more investigate was requisite and chose Orchids as the subject of added study because of their involved adaptations.

In 1862 he published On the various Contrivances by which British and foreign Orchids are fertilized by insects. In this book he shows by just consideration that Orchids evolved to attract inescapable insects for their pollination. He said that the dissimilar Orchid species devised dissimilar methods to ensure cross pollenization.

Darwin showed that orchids and insects co-evolved as a effect of involved ecological relationships. This opened up the new areas of study of pollination investigate and reproductive ecology, directly linked to Darwin's ideas on evolution, and supported his view that natural selection led to a collection of forms through the leading benefits achieved by cross-fertilization.

The book describes how the connection in the middle of insects and plants resulted in the gorgeous and involved forms which natural theology attributed to a grand designer. By showing how practical adaptations make from cumulative minor variations of parts of the flowers to suit new purposes, Darwin countered the prevailing view that gorgeous organisms were the handiwork of a creator.

Darwins system of evolution established the foundation of modern biology. Scientists today are still doing investigate on Orchids and their evolution.

---

All American Pressure Cooker Canner Generac Generators 4000 Watt

Darwin's association advice For Men

Sometimes you need to stop listening and start observing

Sometimes the best inherent relationship guidance for men entering the dating game means taking a episode from evolution. What many women say they want in a man and the reality of the men they typically pick are often two very distinct things. If your dating skills hinge on what you hear women saying then by far the best guidance I can give you is to stop listening and start Watching. I'm going to show you why being the guy a woman says she wants will put you on permanent friend status, and why being the man she's helplessly drawn to will bump you up to boyfriend status.

Does she want a listener of a definite talker?

If a woman says she wants a man who listens to her, but all the time chooses to date men that dominate a conversation, your next Move ought to be showing her you have the reliance to dominate a conversation as well. Although she might say she wants a good listener, she obviously she's a helpless slave to her biology. What her biology tells her that the over definite guy that dominates conversations is going to be a successful provider for her and any inherent children.

How come women go the opposite of what they say they want?

I can think of half a dozen women that say they want a man with a sense of humor, then all the time date boring guys with money. If you want to know why women say one thing and do another it comes down to their biological motivation for selecting a mate. Although women might not have any intention of getting pregnant, when she evaluates an concerned man she can't help but think about how good of a father he would make for her children on a basic level. By basic level, I'm referring to providing food and shelter. On a basic level it isn't the guy that makes her laugh that brings home the bacon, it's the definite leader.

The best relationship guidance for men all the time follows a woman's biology, not coarse sense

Although logically a programmer that can payment a fortune for his services should be a great selection for a mate. A woman that is dominated by her desire to pick a mate that will be capable of providing for her hereafter children ought to be drawn to geeky finding guys. But we all know that it doesn't work that way. The hypothesize lies in the fact that she's operating on an old hard wired assumption that a big, strong, wholesome guy is the one that is going to be a great provider. So sorry fellas, get in the gym and quit drinking so much soda!

Just because you happen to be a great guy, doesn't mean that you can't get together with the girl of your dreams. You can still be yourself, but the prominent episode from this relationship guidance is remember that you aren't getting in any place unless you remember to push her biological buttons!

---

Harry Potter Wands Magic

Creation Vs Evolution - the Fossil article

Creation Vs Evolution - the Fossil article

Evidence is plainly not what we have been told when it comes to Darwin's theory of evolution. In the creation vs. Evolution dispute, nothing contradicts evolution like the fossil record.

Most of us have been told that the evidence found in the fossil narrative confirms Darwin's theory. The exact opposite is true. The fossil record, in fact, is the worst endorsement for evolution in the creation vs. Evolution argument dispute.

How can this be so?

Our teachers have taught us that the fossil evidence shows the 'pathway' of evolution. The fossils that are needed to give credibility to the evolutionary theory are 'intermediate fossils'. This would be the 'in-between' fossils that show us the evolutionary path between assorted kinds of fossils. If horses had evolved from dogs, for instance, then there should be many 'dorse' fossils found in assorted parts of the earth.

Unless we can find many of these types of fossils (there should be easily millions of these) throughout the world, then there is easily no fossil evidence that evolution ever took place.

This does not seem to be good for evolutionists in the creation vs. Evolution argument.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, no intermediate fossil has ever been found. Not even one has ever been verified in the last 150 years. (Whale evolution has been used lately, but this example is rife with scientific problems). The intermediate fossils of the past are now nothing more than just fossils of extinct creatures and nothing more.

Another one of these examples has been the archaeopteryx. This was a bird with claws on its wings. Many evolutionists figured that this was an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. It was learned that this creature was discovered in a layer where birds already existed. This creature turned out to be nothing more than an extinct bird.

There are easily no intermediate fossils left that can be used as an example. None. But we are enduringly told that there is.. The evidence in the creation vs. Evolution dispute is missing for the evolutionists (although the textbooks do not admit this fact).

Even Charles Darwin admitted that unless these 'in-between fossils were found, his theory was useless. He knew one thing about evolution: no concrete evidence supported his theory, yet. (But he was very positive that it would in the near future.) There are still no fossils to show us that evolution ever occurred.

Creationists, in contrast, have continuously proclaimed that the fossil narrative should show positive kinds of creatures with huge gaps in between each kind. This is easily what the fossil narrative shows.

The fossil narrative is not amiable to those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The evidence in the creation vs. Evolution argument clearly supports creationists in regard to the fossil record. Until intermediate fossils are discovered to reserve Darwin's theory, it would seem that the fossil narrative is undoubtedly in favor of creation.

---

Guitar Toilet Flush Mount Harry Potter Book Boxed Set Refurbished Nook Color

What Is The theory of Evolution?

What Is The theory of Evolution?

People have all the time wondered who we are, where we came from, and how we came to be. Scholars argue that we are the descendents of an unknown base ancestor to the ape and that we are intimately linked to them as well. Others argue that we came to be based on the teachings in the Bible. In any case the evolution law provides a good discussion which gives citizen the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time doesn't associate anyway to what is usually religiously practiced.

The law of evolution has been argued by scholars for many years. The base law is the Darwin law of Evolution which states that all life is linked and has descended from a base ancestor. This law argues the fact that todays plants and animals (including humans) have evolved over time from our primitive ancestors straight through the process known as natural selection. This process states that the useful traits of our ancestors over an extended duration of time resulted in what is known as todays plant or animal. To put it simply, we are the most up to date model of what is known as a human like the most up to date model of a car, and like a car over time it will "evolve" and become more adapted and productive to great suit its environment.

There is also the moot on either evolution is a fact or theory. Most scientists believe that evolution is authentically a law with very well supported facts, such as fossils. While others believe that evolution is a fact and can be proven anytime. Religious experts would often argue evolution to be law but at the same time scientists would argue what they believe to be law as well. Each side in turn could both be law since one is based on facts on what is and the other is based on faith. Who knows what to believe authentically when both sides gift such strong arguments? We as humans are stuck with this difficult decision on either to believe what we were raised (for the most part) to believe or to believe the facts that are brought before us.

Regardless on if it's a fact or theory, it is still a widely discussed topic on how we came to be what we are today. We must also take note that with all the facts that we have on this subject, it is still a big puzzle with many missing pieces that still need to be discovered. Without more and ultimately the rest of the pieces, the topic of evolution will never be able to reach its full potential.

Review Tassimo Coffee Machine LDM Biological Microscope

Darwin's Island Treasure - The Galapagos

Darwin's Island Treasure - The Galapagos

Darwin had minute idea of the huge influence the Galapagos islands were going to have on his career, and neither did he perceive just how relevant they would become following the publication of his seminal work in 1859. But let's pause for a moment and return to September 15th, 1835. Following a long voyage from Callao, Peru, Hms Beagle arrived at the archipelago with Charles Darwin on board, who was only 26 years old at the time. In spite of many reasoning he was the valid naturalist on board the ship, he did in fact have other responsibilities. He was a true deckhand and served as an assistant to Captain Robert Fitzroy. Naturally, his passion for nature and measurement to query the inexplicable led him to witness any place he visited in the most of detail and he set out to make as thorough an exploration of the Galapagos islands as possible.

It was exactly this degree of acute observation that Darwin employed upon his return to England when analyzing his collections from the voyage on the Beagle ship. Helped considerably by some very influential contacts in the scientific fraternity at that time who supported his work, Darwin was able to put to the world the evidence that would forever convert the reasoning of mankind.

He used to write normally in his diary whilst on board the Beagle. According to comments he makes on the Galapagos, it is clear that there were two main characteristics that easily struck him from the outset: both the impressive geology of the islands, and their unusual atmosphere in the context of the tropics. In later writings, he also notes the impact of animal life on the archipelago and his exploration of each personel island. Charles Darwin discovered the Galapagos from a unique angle, giving rise to the belief that the islands were as they were as a ensue of their improvement over time.

It is the historical and scientific significance of this observation, coupled with the natural attractiveness of the islands per se, that draws thousands of people to visit them year upon year. The unique contact of being able to mix with animals in the wild, and witness the manner in which they have adapted to the harsh volcanic surroundings of the islands, is what most visitors come in search of. From lizards, tortoises and penguins, to tropical fish, frigate birds and finches all made notable by Darwin, you'll find a range of living creatures practically unrivalled in any other part of the world.

An perfect way to take in the faultless diversity the Galapagos have to offer is by cruising between the dissimilar islands, taking time to hop off and ensue in Darwin's footsteps, relax on the beaches or snorkel among exotic maritime life. Travelers of all types will find something at the Galapagos. Whether it's scientific curiosity, the spirit of adventure and exploration, or the simple, relaxing sensation of finding yourself living at one with nature, you are sure to come away with an unforgettable holiday experience.

For a dependable tour operator able to make this trip of a lifetime become a reality, look no added than Escaped to Latin America.

Dyson DC17 All Floors Vacuum 27 Watt Replacement Bulb

Darwin-Evolutionism - Undeniable Astronomic Improbabilities Despite Secular Claims of Proven Fact!

Darwin-Evolutionism - Undeniable Astronomic Improbabilities Despite Secular Claims of Proven Fact!

Darwin-Evolution Theory

Charles Darwin, in 1859, published his very fantastic principles about evolution: an accidental spark of original life from Lightning remarkable a pool of pre-biotic soup, random mutations of life forms, small cumulative steps over eons of time; and continuous natural option via "survival of the fittest". The whole non-religious world became believers, and scientists anxiously sought to find the first "missing link" - fossils which would prove Darwin's theory. However, a century passed and tens of thousands of fossils were dug up, examined and documented - but no such evidence was found. (However, his theories do apply very well after the original species has - somehow - come to life!)

Despite this lack of confirmation, however, a basic bias, favoring Evolution by leaders and intellectuals everywhere, took root, has grown and continues today, nurtured by a tendency of the secular elite to publicize items of hold and to negatize contrary findings. The corollary has been a generation of "brainwashed" teachers, students, writers, judges and the normal collective - "Darwin-Evolutionism" being thorough as fact (and trust in "God" or a inventor dismissed as childish). Even those who know otherwise ordinarily "go along" to avoid ridicule, adding to the Universal belief-system. This, despite expanding scientific challenges - such as a serious lack of fossil corroboration plus contradicting scientific data while up-to-date decades - casting doubt on Darwin theory. Thus, most educated habitancy today believe in Darwin-Evolutionism and reject the possibility of a creator, despite accumulating evidence that there is less and less of Science disagreeing with the Bible, and more and more of actual confirmations!

Secular Elitist Views
The writings of columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post on Darwin-Evolutionism are representative of the reasoning and mindset of most (non-scientist) erudite writers and steerers of collective thought:

• "Darwin, visiting the Galapagos Islands in 1835, was stunned by what he saw and evolved a principles to elucidate it all - natural selection."
• "Creationism - [is] a matter of religious trust .. Not scientific principles or fact."
• "intellectual honesty counts for less and less. .. [or] intellectual integrity."
• "The current and ongoing strike on evolution, is an assault, on reasoning and truth and skepticism.

Similar views of the liberal elite have appeared in all prominent newspapers and magazines, evidencing a clear attitude of smug superiority, phrases such as "intellectual honesty and integrity" and the disCharge of "creationism" abound.

Even more scathing than Cohen's column, the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" featured an record by Hendrick Hertzberg, not-too-subtly entitled "Mired". It ostensibly argued the competitive theories of Darwinism and Creationism - labeling the latter "mud theory" (citing Genesis, ".. Water . . And the Lord formed man of the dust". (The distinct explanation: "mud is what you get when you add water to dust.") Sophisticated and humorous, the record ridicules Creationism,
Hertzberg's statements and the comments they invite:

• "The mud principles is still dominant in the United States" "A competitive principles .. Conceived a century and a half ago by Charles Darwin .. Commands solid majorities in most of the industrialized world .. Remarkable evidence for its validity .. Near-unanimous hold of scientists everywhere." Comment: The statements: "over-whelming evidence of its validity" and "near-unanimous hold of scientists" are both strenuously challenged by many scientists.
• equates "natural science and supernatural supposition as different schools of thought." Comment: Denigrating the popularly-believed "biblical principles of Creationism" as only "supernatural supposition" - seems a gratuitous insult to the large majority of religious Americans!
• "Id (Intelligent Design) recognizes that the age of the universe is measured in billions, not thousands of years." Comment: Apparently neither Mr. Hertzberg nor his editors are well-known with Einstein's law of "time dilation" (Law of Relativity), and seem unknowing about what Science says happened at the starting of our universe (See Ezine article, "Big Bang - starting of Universe: 13.7 Billion Years Ago (Earth time - vs six days Cosmic and Bible time!)".
• "But I.D. - whose central (and admittedly refuted) talking point is that distinct structures of living things are too intricate to have evolved without the intervention of an "intelligent designer" - enjoys virtually no scientific support. " Comment: "Easily refuted" and "virtually no scientific support"? It would be consuming for Mr. Hertzberg and his editors to refute the arguments of so many outstanding scientists - reading the sections herein on the mathematical improbabilities for life by random opening mutations (Darwin-Evolutionism).

Fear of Pro-Darwinist Intolerance

Noteworthy has been the corollary of fear of the dominant and increasingly intolerant secular world-view, its unwillingness to accept contrary scientific developments, and thus - for those whose work tends to challenge Darwinism - a concern for personal reputations and careers, even for world-class scientists.

A century ago, Dr. C. Walcott, Director of the Smithsonian Institute, did the "unthinkable" for a paleontologist - he re-hid 60,000 fossils that he had just discovered in the Burgess Pass of the Canadian Rockies. Under a tropical sea 530 million years ago, the sand so fine, that soft tissue was preserved, the 60,000 fossils were the many find ever. Walcott, however, did not issue his findings and give them to the world, but hid them again in the Smithsonian's basement lockers (re-discovered by a graduate-student after almost a century.) He did so because the sixty-thousand first-ever fossils showed fully-formed creatures of all extant life forms - not a single missing-link or inter-step creature! The Burgess Pass fossils show that the fossil record does not hold Darwinian theory. Walcott obviously worried that his findings could destroy even his credit and career.

A bit later, even Professor Albert Einstein acted similarly in regard to his expanding universe Field Equations - subsequently confirmed by the Hubble expansive observations. An expanding universe meant a "shrinking" universe as one thought about the past. And without size limitation, Einstein's principles would therefore mean that the starting of our universe was but a tiny speck - such a observation was distinct to evoke the belief of the biblical Genesis story, contrary to his own beliefs and the secular world-view of Darwin-Evolutionism - maybe ruinous to his career. Einstein, therefore, also did the "unthinkable" - he incorporated a "fudge factor" so his mathematical universe would be constant in size! After the irrefutable expansive proof of an expanding universe, he admitted his performance as "the biggest blunder of my life."

In present-day school systems, Boards of instruction and courts, influenced by aggressive secularist Aclu et al, have established the classroom curriculum - teach only Darwin-Evolutionism. Teachers who do not go along are being expelled.

Pro-Darwin Scientists, Frank and Honest!

The objections by civic and school leaders to the teaching of consuming form as an alternate to Darwin-Evolutionism theory, has resulted in a growing controversy, with a flurry of articles purporting to hold the pro-Darwin court rulings. However, it is quite informative to read such articles by scientific authorities in the fields of relevance: biology, chemistry, biochemistry. Paleontology, etc., and - despite the conviction by these intellectual elite that D-E is proven fact - witness the lack of such proof! Each progressive bit of knowledge of Life's origins acquired while the past two centuries seems to find only deeper mysteries. The escalating complexity of researcher's reports have come to be increasingly multifaceted. Listed below are quotes from pro-D-E scientists which feature the fact that D-E is not proven fact and, in all probability, cannot ever be proven. (Adding to this, there is still the Remarkable mathematical improbabilities by scientists who challenge both an accidental origin and a Darwinian mutational improvement for life on Earth. Note. The compounding complexities of the explore attempts and arcane hypotheses are presented in the source reference book; as also are the individually quoted scientist-authors)

The following quotes are by pro-Darwin scientists - refuting the claims by secularists that D-E- is proven science - despite 175 years of research, the principles is still engulfed in mysteries:

• "Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism - able to store, replicate, and send to progeny data [as do Rna, Dna]";
• ".. Most sober attempts to reconstruct life .. [are] fraught with guesswork. "
• "Rna meets requirements, but is very unstable. A self-catalyzing, self-replicating Rna molecule is unlikely to have arisen spontaneously. So where did it come from?"
• ".. Cooked" by some unknown vigor after being" chemically combined in a pre-biotic soup".
• "..perhaps life's precursor molecules formed .. In a soup of prehistoric organic compounds four billion years ago."
• "The hypothesis that a pre-biotic soup fostered an Rna world .. Then spawned life, still .. Most coherent .. Life's evolution .. [but] exact pathway for life's origin .. Never be known."
• "How did genetic polymers [Rna] come to direct protein synthesis in [the] early atmosphere?"
• .. Pro-D-E scientists .. World's most-knowledgeable - Crick, co-discoverer of Dna (admitted agnostic, inclined to atheism). "From Watson-Crick base pairings .. Molecular biologists .. Protein synthesis .. Most unlikely."
• "Ten years later...Crick invoked 'sequence hypothesis' .. Dna .. Expressed [as] .. Message and code .. Remained obscure .. [the] spelling of .. The message and [its] mechanism."
• "Mechanism conceived as .. Single-stranded Rna .. [the] messenger. Jacob and Monom argued [against] .. Details of code, sixty-four codons govern twenty amino acids .. Details obscure. No .. Direct connection in the middle of .. Rna and amino acids."
• Crick wrote, "If consider physico-chemical nature of amino acid side chains, do not find .. Features .. Where are .. Knobby hydrophobic surfaces .. [or] expensed groups? " .. Led to windup .. "nucleic acids not form templates for amino acids, therefore data contained - wisdom of the species - had to be expressed .. As code".
• In 1969 .. Adapters .. Discovered .. Twenty designated [as] 'transfer Rna' .. Raised question, 'What acted to adapt the Adapters to amino acids? ' ..
• amino acylation [designated] tRna - ribosome .. Replication to Transcription to Translation .. Proceeds [only] one direction .. well-known [enigma] form 'chicken and egg. 'Without amino acid -'tRna' .. No translation from Rna - without Dna, no synthesis .. Suggests life comes only from life. Which came first, chicken - form of Dna, or egg - form of proteins? And if neither, how could life have begun? " "hypotheses .. Chicken was egg."
• Discovery of ribozyme .. Ribonucleic enzyme .. An whole world of Rna. "This catalogue .. No longer fantasy. But it is not yet fact."
• Miller-Urey .. Experienced geochemists .. Reservations." ".. Pre-biotic climate more .. Neutral than reductive .. Minute methane .. Good deal of carbon dioxide." "..remained embarrassing hidden .." "The issue .. Troubling. up-to-date paper in Science .. Pre-biotic climate .. Seriously in error." Crick: "Either a reducing climate or [we do] not have .. Organic compounds [as] required for life."
• "Among questions .. Nitrogenous base cytosine. Not a trace .. [in] meteors, comets or Antarctic -nor produced .. In pre-biotic chemistry. Beyond living cells .. Not found at all."
• "1999 Proceedings, Nat'l Acad. Of Science, R. Shapiro - Robertson-Miller principles - cytosine - went nowhere." "..fall to 0 (zero) percent .." ".. Robertson-Miller chemical reaction "..self-defeating .. Contingent on unlikely circumstances."
• ".. Involved sugars also needed .. Dextro-riBose .. Chemist A. Eschenmoser altered molecules .. Skeptics noted chemist himself necessary to process .."
• "Events .. Appear to depend on [the] large assumption, unproved, that early climate was reductive."
• "The historical task assigned .. Forming chains of nucleic acids .. Discovering those capable of self-reproduction. Without first .. No Rna, without second .. No life."
• Darwin-Evolution begins with self-replicating, and self-replicating admittedly what needs to be explained."
• "To accumulating program of assumptions, add two more .. By means [we] cannot double .. [how did] pre-biotic molecule witness how [to] replicate itself? "
• Microbiologist, C. Woese, "If nucleic acids cannot .. Identify amino acids .. No 'fundamental principle'.. At work."
• "The most difficult and consuming question .. Origins of life .. Genetic code .. From a chemical perspective, arbitrary. The other half .. performance of the proteins .. Necessary. The question follows: how did .. The whole system-get there? "
• " prevailing belief among molecular biologists is - questions only answered by experiment. H. Suga experiment .. Ribozime managed to adhere itself .. Suga summarizing results of research, "..no more than .. A feather [being the] foundation of a building.
• "Darwin perspective .. Impediment: the assignment of a degree of vision .. That the process could not maybe possess."
• " prudent to recall how much has been assumed. [Six assumptions] .. Paradigm revolution .. Metabolism .. Alternative to Rna world .. No evidence [that] it is true."
• "Could two steps have taken place simultaneously? If so, .. Appears - very Minute discrepancy in the middle of a Darwinian explanation and frank admission .. Miracle at work."
• " no one has conducted experiment prominent to self-replicating ribozine. .. Minimum distance needed .. almost 100 nucleotides. .. Odds 1 in 10 to 60th Power .. No betting man would take .. [real] odds even worse."
• "175 years since F. Wohler .. [experiment] urea .. Questions about origins of the mind and of life ".. 'immense and Remarkable universe .. Impossible .. [to be] corollary of 'blind chance' - we may have to say that 'mind' and 'life' appear in the universe for no good intuit that we can ascern. "

Pro-Darwin Scientists (also explore Complexities)

Pro-Darwinism scientists are well motivated, mostly atheistic, just unwilling to accept the idea of a God or inventor or consuming Designer. However, they are honest in their explore admissions.

Natural History Magazine, "The Origins of Life". Feb. 2006; Antonio Lascano, Biology Professor; President, International community for Study of Origins of Life -among world's most esteemed scientists, dedicated believer in Darwin-Evolutionism.

• principles from Zoologist Haeckel - first life forms plants - micro-organism .. Photosynthesis .. Non-living matter; principles rejected by Oparin .. Long period a-biotic synthesis organic compounds .. Obtain as pre-biotic soup .. Preceding life - proposing "organic molecules could evolve straight through fermentation into pre-cellular systems .. Could have led to cells .. Fed on pre-biotic soup .. "
• Chemist Wachter-shauser proposed "iron-sulphur" hypothesis, iron sulfide mixing with hydrogen sulfide, releasing hydrogen .. Organic compounds could form from carbon monoxide in climate .. "life" could have begun if "self-catalyzing" systems emerged from organic compound". "Unfortunately, geologic record .. Not respond questions by Miller or Wachtershauser .. No knowledge of early Earth environment, temperature, ocean acidity, climate .. No fossil record of 'first cell entities'".
• Theories and experiments with pre-biotic simulation since 1807, Proust, Berzeriul, Wohler, Strecker, Butlerov, et al, attempted synthesizing molecules under primitive conditions. Miller and Urey, others also, confirm "amino acids and molecules can form", but even with extra-terrestrial molecules to "spice" pre-biotic soup - "how did single compounds come to be Involved molecules, then first living entities - remains "most consuming quiz, in science."

Commentary Magazine, "On the Origins of Life", Feb. 2006, David Berlinski.; wide article, covering unblemished history of centuries-long attempts to create life in laboratory from inorganic materials of assumed early world atmosphere. starting in 1828 with cyanic acid and ammonia, first synthesis of urea, chief constituent of urine, achieved by chemist Wohler. Theories of pre-biotic "soup" of methane and ammonia led to experiments with electrons of hydrogen atoms, electrical disCharges replicating Lightning, and then to Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. Earlier, Watson and Crick published double helix Dna principles in Nature magazine, ".. Copying mechanism .. For genetic material." Watson-Crick experiment seemed victorious - amino acids found in living systems. From promising start, history of man's (futile) attempts to "create life" from pre-biotic soup of inorganic matter - exhaustively presented. (Doctorate in biology would be helpful to realize the up-and-back steps of Involved theories and experiments.) (Note - summary-conclusion same as herein -cannot prove whether way - however, obstacles to Darwinian principles are insurmountable.)

Quotations of various elements of the historical record are from the articles. The exchanges of technical consulation emphasizes the complexity and zeal with which pro-Darwin scientists push themselves seeking a non-creator solution. Other articles on the branch are "Monkeys and Morals", New Republic Magazine, Gertrude Himmelfarb; witness Magazine, "Testing Darwin", by Carl Zimmer.

Scientists and Mathematicians consuming D-E theory

• "In the five-million-year transition, pre-Cambrian to Cambrian life, the basic anatomy of every animal alive developed. Gigantic morphological changes were required in every part of the ancestral genome. ... [yet] no evidence of evolution within the five-million-year span of the Cambrian explosion."
• Cambrian explosion of life is one of the many discoveries - 530 million years ago - "basic anatomies of all life forms extant today appeared simultaneously in the oceans."
• "No pro-Darwin evidence in the fossil record - neither fossils nor range of life furnish proof of one species changing into another, or improvement of Involved life from earlier, simpler forms."
• "The explosion of life recorded in the Burgess Shale fossils contradicted .. Gradualism" (evolution principles of Darwin - cumulative random mutations).
• "Approximately 250 million years ago, 95 percent of all marine life suffered a Gigantic extinction - ecology wide open .. Yet no new body plans evolved to fill ecological gap. Why?"
• "Every paleontologist knows .. New species, genera and families .. Appear suddenly, not by gradual, continuous transitional sequences. "
• "A major question in proving principles of evolution - fossil record never revealed Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear right away - fuels the consulation - each species created by God."
• "Paleontologists - not seeing expected changes .. Fossils recognizably the same .. Known to paleontologists long before Darwin [who] prophesized hereafter generations would fill the gaps .. 120 years later, abundantly clear .. Fossil record shows prediction wrong .. Species static .. Everybody knew it but favorite to ignore it. Paleontologists, obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predictions, simply looked the other way."
• "Eldredge-Gould belief of punctuated equilbria gained wide acceptance among paleontologists .. [Darwinism] fails to catalogue for paradox: within continuously sampled lineages, rarely [the] gradual morphological trends expected - convert occurs with sudden appearance of new well-differentiated species."
• "Modern multicellular animals - first appearance in the fossil record 570 million years ago - with a bang. Cambrian explosion - arrival of virtually all major groups of modern animals - all within miniscule span (geologically) of a few million years."
• "The fossil record caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than Cambrian explosion - coincident appearance of almost all Involved organic designs."
• "Paleontologists long aware of contradiction in the middle of Darwin's postulate of gradualism and actual findings of paleontology .. No evidence for any convert of species into different genus, or for origin of an evolutionary novelty. Whatever truly novel always appears right away in the fossil record."
• "In the whole fossil record, with millions of specimens, no midway transitional fossil ever found at the basic levels of phylum or class."
• "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures Minute by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures, a bit like what went before, a bit like what came after. But no one has found any evidence of such transitional creatures - oddity attributed to gaps in the fossil record - expected to fill when rock strata of permissible age had been found. In last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of past 600 million years - no transitional forms. "
• "Given that evolution, according to Darwin - follows, logically, that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms prominent from the less to the more evolved. Instead - only gaps - no evidence of transformational intermediates in the middle of species."
• "Is only one genetic principles workable? Based on all biological and paleontological data, that seems to be the case. Why"
• "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages in the middle of major transitions in organic design, admittedly our inability, even in imagination, to form functional intermediates .. Persistent, nagging question for gradualist accounts of evolution."
• "Biology has discovered that life started after appearance of liquid water.. Three billion years later, animal life exploded in a burst of aquatic organisms, all phyla alive today."
• "Contrary to scientific belief held until recently, fossil data demonstrate that first easy plant life appeared immediately after liquid water, not billions of years later. "
• "The fossil evidence .. Challenges superior evolution .. Found world-wide ... The Cambrian explosion encompassed the globe. Jointed legs ,. Eyes with optically excellent lenses - all evolved simultaneously [for] all body plans extant today - single burst in the fossil record. "
• "Darwin's principles incompatible with current scientific data."
• With regard to birds and wings, earliest fossil data .. "research by paleontologists and biologists furnish no clue [re] developmental origins - wings emerge suddenly .. Fully developed. "
• "The wide Museum of Natural History in London - whole section devoted to Evolution - not a single case with a morphological convert - daisies and moths convert color, but remain daisies and moths."
• "Transitional forms totally absent from fossil record at basic level of phylum. Only after body plans are established are fossil transitions observed"; "Inter-phylum improvement [proven] false by the fossil record".
• "Convergent evolution" - emergence of organs similar in function in differing species. Most Remarkable eye; gene that controls improvement - the same in all phyla, an implausible probability Molecular biology proves "the same gene (one of 50,000-70,000) controls improvement of all optic systems in phyla of all living creatures. "
• "Humans ... almost 70,000 genes ...and almost 70,000 proteins. All mammals - similar .. Proteins - "strings" [each] in the middle of 200 and 1000 amino acids ... Thus fifty to seventy million amino acids...[for animal] structures - make up thirty trillion cells of a human. Can this admittedly be believed to be the corollary of just random selection? "
• "Scientists point out that random mutations should work both ways - disintegrate a new composition or extend from easy to complex" (if "ethical honest"). Mathematical estimates [for] random reactions per Darwin - simply not sufficient time!"
• "Whether studying bacteria, a blade of grass or a human, all base their existence on the same 20 amino acids.
• "The lungfishes, like every major group of fishes .. Origins based on nothing. "
• "Animal life confined to thirty-four basic body plans - why? "
• "It is a easy ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain garage .. Throughout duration. "
• H. Morowitz, Professor of Physics, Yale University; "Random events cannot catalogue for the origin of life. "
• "Michael Behe, makes compelling consulation against "macro-evolution .. The intricacy of sub-cellular biochemical systems .. "macro-evolution cannot control at the microcellular level" - proving point using five systems in the body - "any Minute convert causes very specialized machinery of the cell inoperable. From sub-cellular perspective, impossible for a bacterium to evolve into organism with Involved biochemical systems because of their irreducibly Involved mechanisms, no matter how much time available!"
• "Paleontological data is consistent with the view that all currently recognized phyla evolved 525 million years ago. Despite half billion years .. No new phylum level designs have appeared. "
• "Eldredge and Gould .. Take the [fossil] record at face value. .. No evidence of modification within species, or .. Intermediate in the middle of species, because [believe] neither occurred - species form almost instantaneously - remain unchanged."
• "We have long known of stasis and abrupt appearance .. Have chosen to fob it off on imperfect fossil record."
• "Paleontologists ever since Darwin searched for sequences [of] fossils .. A expected fact that most species remain recognizable, virtually unchanged .. In geological sediments."
• "The Remarkable prevalence of stasis - an embarrassing feature of fossil record - best ignored."
• "Paleontologists not seeing the expected changes - fossils remain recognizably the same .. Known to paleontologists long before Darwin .. [he] prophesized hereafter .. Would fill in gaps .. 120 years later, abundantly clear .. Fossil record shows prediction wrong."
• "The record jumps, and all evidence shows .. record is real, gaps reflect real events in life's history, not a poor fossil record .. Flatly fails to substantiate .. Hope of graded change."
• "Despite the consuming promise - paleontology provides means of "seeing" evolution - nasty difficulties for evolutionists - most notorious - "gaps" [in] fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms in the middle of species, and paleontology does not furnish them."
• "The geologic record .. No evidence as to the origin of fishes. "
• "No fish is belief to be ancestral to earliest land invertebrates. "
• "Scientists have no proof that life was not the corollary of .. Creation ., but driven to seek explanations [in] natural law. .. No clear-cut respond [how life arose from inanimate matter] because chemists never succeeded in creation of life from non-living matter. Scientists .. Do not know .. Appearance of life .. Miraculous. maybe life on the earth - unique. No scientific evidence precludes possibility."/li>
• "With the benefit of hindsight, it is Remarkable that paleontologists have thorough gradual evolution as Universal pattern on a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages, none of which admittedly withstands close scrutiny. "
• "Instead of seeing the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists .. admittedly find is .. Species appear suddenly, show Minute or no convert while their existence, then right away go out of the record. rarely [is it] clear that their descendants were admittedly good adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological revising .. Hard to find."
• "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove. "
• "In other words when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match .. The pattern was judged to be wrong. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously .. Persist for millions of years virtually unchanged only to disappear abruptly. question is morphological stasis. A principles [Darwin] is only as good as its predictions .. Claims to be a wide explanation of evolutionary process - failed to predict long-term morphological stasis - now recognized as most remarkable aspects of fossil record."
• "The origin of life is still a mystery - not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any of any bodily or chemical health [which leads to evolution]. I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation .. Can elucidate the Involved and rational assosication of brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it inherent to fly the idea of some consuming and organizing force?"
• "The paradox [of] -life's origins makes spontaneous improvement from inanimate matter impossible: "living cells need both proteins and nucleic acids: nucleic acids for replication, proteins, to verbalize the cell. But neither of these Involved molecules can be produced without the other. " The most marvelous consulation against Darwinism is - "Both of these exceedingly Involved mechanisms (proteins and nucleic acids) were found to be present and fully industrialized in the earliest known living organisms. "
• "Since the monumental consulation on Macro-Evolution held in Chicago in 1980 ... Total reevaluation of life's origins .. World-famous paleontologist, Dr. Niles Eldridge, American Museum of Natural History, unequivocally declared - Remarkable evidence, both statistical and paleontological, [point out] that life could not have started on Earth by series of random chemical reactions."
• Physisist Nathan Aviezer: "Except for three acts of creation, the biblical catalogue of .. The universe can be explained in terms of present-day laws of nature/li>
• "There are 10 to the 390th Power inherent combinations of proteins, [but] fewer than 2 x 10 to the 12th Power [permit 'life'] - therefore only one out of 10 to the 378th power of protein combinations [permit life] .. By random mutations on Dna of genome ,, as if nature chose at random from a bag containing a billion, billion, billion (repeated forty times) proteins, the only one that worked, and then repeated the trick, again and again..."
• "Rediscovery of Walcott's (hidden) fossils in the mid-1980s changed evolutionary belief - scientific journals: Scientific American, National Geographic, Time, many newspapers, e.g. The New York Times, etc., featuredarticles questioning evolution. However, apparently all these had no corollary on the mind-set of intellectual leaders - all those writings in so many major newspapers and scientific journals were apparently ignored - today the high school textbooks and college biology courses still teach that 'invertebrates slowly evolve into vertebrates, and judges and columnists still proclaim what they were taught in their youth."

(Note: It is submitted that the last item, as well as the data and arguments of so many prominent scientists in the specifically applicable fields of paleontology and biology - that this admittedly seems to be evidence of "brain-washing"! It is admittedly not science, admittedly not intuit nor logic, but can only be a willful anti-religion fervor which continues to fuel the wide trust that Darwin-Evolutionism has been scientifically proven.)

Comparative Analysis: D-E vs I.D.
From the voluminous data above, from the frank admissions of pro-Darwin scientists, to the mathematical improbabilities from consuming scientists, it is clear that only anti-religious zeal drives the "Darwinism-is-proven" agenda. Since neither principles can be proved or disproved, with the Gigantic improbabilities for D-E, the rational option has to be consuming Design.

End - anti D-E improbabilities
While Darwin-Evolutionism can be analyzed from calculations of improbability, there is no similar methodology applicable to form intelligence or a inventor - a matter of religious trust or disbelief. However, the analysis of fictional detective Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson seems right on point: "After you have eliminated all the probabilities, then all the possibilities - what you have left is what you must accept." Thus with the Darwin-Evolutionism (theory of accidental, haphazard, mutations) eliminated by expansive improbabilities, the only remaining possibility is "Intelligent Design" - that our world could only have come about by planned intelligence, and design.

Windows 7 PRO PK1

Darwin's Discovery

Naturalism holds that a material, physics-based universe offers a true basis for understanding the world and our humanity. The view is widespread. And as you pursue it, you soon seek that if you didn't already know, humanity has no final meaning.

The end stares us in the face. Science may have some of the answers, but if we have all evolved straight through random chemical combinations and mutations, then all the attempts to find what our humanity means are nothing more than what we take from the casino of our uncertain impressions. Trapped inside our own mental there is no final meaning. Except that denials soon get to sound paradoxically as if they were final! - Food for thought?

Darwins

Makes you wonder

Darwin's Discovery

If there is no final basis for the validity of our own mental we are left with an accidental cerebral universe of molecules with no rhyme or greatest reason. We have merely inherited our whirling mental molecules from our forebears.

Charles Darwin was acutely aware of the impact of his own principles on the validity of human reason, and in 1881, one year before he died, (he had expressed similar views in his Autobiography in 1876) he explained how rational convictions could not be sustained on the basis of evolution:

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the succeed of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt all the time arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? 1

What is Darwin saying here? On the basis of his new beliefs, (no doubt arrived at using his reason) his own theorize was unable to reach convictions he could trust beyond the scope of naturalism. But can he even place real belief or value in his new beliefs, knowing they have only come from his own mind? He would like to believe so.

Reason needs a foundation

As we look back, we can see that Darwin's principles was not about changing his worldview on the basis of research-based evidence, but about postulating ideas based on a naturalistic philosophical worldview, without an enough basis for the validity of his reason.

Now, the same 'lower animal' mental applies to Darwin's plausible-sounding case for evolution. And you are supposed to be impressed and deLighted at this fabulous discovery that your suitably impressed and deLighted mental has only come from lower animals. Well, do you enjoy having your mental treated as trash, because that's what Darwinism does for you?

Consider a uncomplicated analogy; how Darwin used two separate stools to sit on when he did his academic work. He sat on the first stool, which was strong and secure, to do his investigate and writing. Here, he utilised a high view of his reason, probably unacknowledged although inherited from the biblical theistic worldview of his Western culture, and more than that, one he inescapably possessed as a personal, divine image-bearer. But, he has a problem; he dislikes the high honour and the profound responsibilities that go with it, and sets out to deny it. So he rejected the Genesis list of the moral fall causing guilt, suffering and sorrow, and soon became an enigma to himself.

And as he denies the high validity of his reason, without realising it, he is suddenly whisked onto a second stool as he thinks about his new evolutionary beliefs and what succeed they might have upon his own thinking. As he does, he comes to see that the second stool is so weak it fails to maintain the high validity of his reason, and leaves him with his 'horrid doubt'.

Doublethink

This analogy shows how Darwin held two simultaneously incompatible sets of assumptions. Without the first, he could never have arrived at the second. But, with the second, he didn't have the first! If your mental comes from lower animals you don't have enough belief to believe in it! If Darwin's principles were true, you would never know.

As Darwin formulated his theory, the most underlying changes take place in his own mind, in his ideological beliefs, and the way he interprets reality. Now as his mental circulates, he interprets discoveries and forms new beliefs that he thinks prove his theory, when all they do is to give plausible maintain to his new ideological beliefs.

Charles Darwin began by assuming his mental was sufficiently developed to postulate and confirm the empirical validity of evolutionary belief - that countless, tiny accidental biological changes in organisms tended, by natural selection, to abandon the least useful changes (mutations, as such, weren't known then) and maintain the most beneficial. What he didn't know was that, in any given gene pool, there is no evidence of any process ever adding new genetic information to that pool, causing other related, but more developed organism to evolve from it, as is required by his theory.

Darwin's principles is his personal dream. However, large numbers of people have thorough that it has conclusively discredited biblical Christianity, when it's done nothing of the sort.

What is often missed is that once Darwin confessed to his doubts about not being able to trust the conclusions of his thinking, on the basis of it advent from an animal like a monkey, he had let the cat out of the proverbial bag. In one fell swoop, he did not leave himself a leg to stand on! But he had already made an optimistic leap, against his reason, to believe his principles and to release it.

Darwin's discovery

This discovery that Darwin made - call it an admission, if you prefer - is actually stunning; it is of the top consequence, and he made it when he realised that his belief in evolution undermined the validity of his theorize he had used in arriving at his new beliefs, and instead gave him a weak one inherited from lower animals that he couldn't trust!

So as you reflect on the validity of your own reason, you may find it helpful to rule on which stool are you sitting. Because if you accept Darwin's beliefs, you are using the high view of your mental to accept a lower one, that is not only in conflict with the higher one, but which undermines the validity that you have used to believe Darwin. The new beliefs make nonsense of the high view of theorize you have used in accepting them!

How does this happen? The information article of evolutionary belief is inconsistent with a high view of the rational human person, and in fact destroys it; a fact Darwin chooses to ignore when he continues to use his high view of theorize to propagate his futile beliefs! On the basis of naturalistic evolutionary belief, the validity of theorize self-destructs. Darwinism is one of the most subtle attacks ever made on the foundation of human theorize in an endeavor to replace Christianity with secular humanism - based on a naturalistic world view.

Ultimately Darwinism has not discredited the empirically accumulate and credible foundations of Christianity, the historic Genesis fall into a broken and spoiled world, and the advent of Jesus Christ, who by his life, sin-bearing death and resurrection, has provided a final solution. Now, God graciously reconciles to himself all who trust in Christ and his accomplished work on the cross. Those who do, become new creations in him. There is a fully trustworthy answer, after all.

1. Charles Darwin (Darwin Internet Correspondence Project, letter 13230), personal correspondence to William Graham, 3 July 1881.

Darwin's Discovery

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

How To Avoid Darwin's Revenge

Montezuma's Revenge is a colloquial name given to a range of illnesses mostly caused by bacterial infections that many tourists suffer from when visiting Mexico. The name is derived from the Aztec ruler Moctezuma Ii (c. 1466-1520) whom the Spanish conquistador Hernándo Cortés defeated.

While Montezuma's Revenge might have nasty consequences, such as diarrhea, vomiting and fever, history knows of a more severe form of revenge. Have you ever heard of Darwin's Revenge?

Darwins

Montezuma's Revenge has almost nothing to do with Montezuma. But Darwin's Revenge is an altogether different story, and a more severe one.

How To Avoid Darwin's Revenge

In his youth, Charles Darwin used to pray. As a young man he even planned to become a clergyman. But Darwin gave up his intention of taking holy orders and on his historical journey on the Hms Beagle (1831-1836) he read the first volume of Charles Lyell's system of Geology that had just been published and later also became acquainted with the second volume.

Like James Hutton, Lyell rejected the biblical timescale of earth history and espoused the idea of millions of years instead. Hutton was the father of uniformitarism or the idea that the present slow and gradual geological processes are the keys to insight the past history of the earth. Darwin found inspiration in Lyell's ideas.

By the time of the Beagle's voyage Darwin no longer trusted in the Old Testament and soon afterwards also lost his faith in the New Testament. Then in 1851 Darwin's 10-year old daughter Annie died of fever. Like many other skeptics after him, misfortune caused him to abandon biblical Christianity altogether. For instance, the actor Dana Andrews (1909-1992) lost his faith when his two sisters died suddenly. Darwin could not understand that God could so mercilessly take away his daughter.

Darwin obviously failed to understand how a good God could allow evil things to happen to population he understanding were innocent. Abandoning the Bible's explanation of the world, he made up a great story of his own in which the struggle for existence and the survival the the fittest played major roles. While the idea of evolution had its roots in Greek philosophy, Darwin was the first to associate it with natural selection, a understanding he borrowed from Edward Blyth (1810-1873), a customary zoologist and chemist.

What Charles Darwin failed to realise was that we no longer live in the customary very good world but on a planet that is groaning because of mankind's sin, as the apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:21-22. Darwin was well aware of William Paley's book Natural Theology. Paley's consulation for invent was popular in Darwin's time but it was not able to list for the presence of evil and sin in the world.

Darwin's rejection of historical Christianity had disastrous consequences. Darwin's views caused many others to abandon the biblical worldview and brought about or encouraged evils like racism and eugenics that were a result of his ideas. This confirms a biblical truth. As Paul writes in Galatians 6:7, deeds all the time have consequences. The same truth seems to apply to ideas.

We cannot do much to leave Montezuma's Revenge when we visit Mexico the first time. But the good news is that we do not have to be infected with Darwin's Revenge. There is a remedy for it - the gospel of Jesus Christ. By knowing Him "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).

How To Avoid Darwin's Revenge

50 inch Plasma Tv Red Sammy Hagar Zamberlan Hiking Boots

Nature Vs nurture - Theories of Personality in 21st Century

Nature vs look after theories have wasted a lot of energy of human beings. Plato is considered first to realize that you are made of not only flesh but also an intellectual soul.

The issue may be much older...

Darwins

In Greek Mythology, when gods created man, they endowed him with divinity. However, the man started spellbinding them. They feared his potentials and decided to deprive him of the might.

Nature Vs nurture - Theories of Personality in 21st Century

"Where to hide the divinity?" was the big question

They considered heights of icy mountains, limits of shining stars and pits of the earth. But every place was accessible to man's capabilities.

Then they decided to hide it within the man himself.

Since then the man has been climbing icy mountains. He has navigated deep seas. He has traversed moon. His machines have even touched Mars. But he is still seeing for his 'lost paradise'.

Man, it is inside you!

They call it personality now. It is 'scientific' to ask how it comes into being. Is it inheritable? Is it natural? Is it outcome of environment? Have you any will to convert your behaviors or you are bound to consequent the dictates?

Nature vs look after theories focus upon these issues. The new discoveries in genome and portion physics have revived the debate. Incidentally, more they discover, more they bewilder. The abstraction continues intensifying.

How to Define Nature Vs look after Theories

There are three distinctive schools of thought.

1- Personality is Natural

This group believes that your personality is consequent of evolutionary process. You inherit behaviors due to involved interaction of genes. They operate your behaviors. So you don't have a free will to act otherwise.

2- Personality is Nurtured

This group argues that you don't get your personality inherited. Your mind is a blank slate at your birth. It is your environment, instruction and culture that make up your behaviors. There are differences on the issue of 'free will' to convert your behaviors.

3- Personality is Spiritual

This group claims that your personality is consequent of neither nature nor nurture. It is gift of some deity. They are split on the issue of 'free will'.

Nature Vs look after Theories and Evolutionary Psychology
-
Darwin's law of evolution led William Hamilton, George Williams and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that like corporal organs, your personality is consequent of natural choice for survival of the fittest. You do as your genes dictate.

They propose that fear of death, fear of injury, fear of snakes, shyness, addiction, criminality and sexual orientation are main examples of inheritable behaviors. Steven Pinker (2004) includes religiousness, liberalism and conservativeness in the list. William Paley considers cognitive capabilities, temperaments and cHeating behaviors inheritable.

However, there is strong annotation on this approach.

1- There is no singular Universal behavior which can be proved evolutionary. Even fear of death, that seems natural to all, is overridden in crusades, suicides and suicide bombings.

2- You are made of 25,000 to 30,000 genes. They are merely twice to the whole in a fruit fly. Chimpanzees share 95% of your genetic characteristics. However, they don't share even 10% of your behaviors.

3- People don't differ in behaviors as they do differ in skin pigments. Extroverts, introverts, optimists, pessimists, criminals, liberals etc are found in all societies and cultures. Even identical twins (with 100% similar genes) and fraternal twins (with 50% similar genes) behave differently in most of the cases.

4- No genome scientist has connected genes or a set of genes with any kind of behaviors.

5- There are a good whole of living organisms and fossils which propose intermediary stages to the corporal evolution. However, no such intermediary stages are ready for personality evolution.

Nature Vs look after Theories and Physics

The discoveries in physics have all the time in case,granted new meat to the nature vs look after theories. The conclusions of Newton and Einstein helped the citizen to believe that future events can be improbable with the help of true knowledge of matter and natural laws. This led psychologists to propose that your future behaviors can be predetermined. The whole mechanism of psychometrics follows this hypothesis.

However, portion physics has changed the situation altogether. Evidence proves that you can't make two (almost) simultaneous measurements of observables correctly. For example:

1- Position and momentum of a particle

2- Position and direction of a particle

3- Time and frequency of a sound wave

4- Wavelength and magnitude of a sound wave

The list goes on...

The portion physics has shaken determinism. So much so the scientists have to devise "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" which challenges that any corporal event can be improbable surely in time and space.

Do you think that particles are too small to sway big events?

Reconsider it.

What would happen if Hitler had died in his young age of cancer, which can occur with a wee genetic mutation?

Nature Vs look after Theories and Reality

"What was the first cause?" Aristotle had asked centuries before

It has been proved that the universe is not consequent of infinite series of collaborating causes and events. There was a first event; the big bang just 13.7 billions year ago. What was its cause?

There can be only two answers:

1- There was no preceding cause, or

2- There was a first Causer

When you affirm the first statement, you agree that there might be other events which don't have preceding causes. The birth of personality is one of them.

However, if you agree with the second statement, then you are siding with the spiritual school of thought.

What About Environment?

It plays very foremost role in making of your behaviors. However, any behavior that you procure is amendable. Secondly, it is not only environment that influences you, the vice versa is also true. You can count hundreds of names who influenced their environments, cultures and societies.

The best guidance is to believe in your personality. Use your free will to develop and refine your behaviors. Use all out capabilities to procure small successes daily to build bigger one in future. Your way of mental and style of doing shall settle your destination.

Meanwhile, let the counsels of nature vs look after theories to continue with their confusing debates.

Nature Vs nurture - Theories of Personality in 21st Century

Cusinart Coffee Maker Free Baby Car Seat Harry Potter Paperback Boxed Set

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Dozens of cultures have stories that talk about an extremely large flood or even a worldwide flood. But what does the ideas of evolution have to do with a worldwide flood? Everything, if scientific evidence can show that this worldwide flood took place in the old two to three hundred million years.

Is there for real any evidence to reserve this idea? for real there is global evidence. Each continent on the globe has oceanic fossils in it. In addition to this, there are maritime fossils in the highest mountain ranges in the world. At the very minimum there is evidence to reserve that water covered the highest peaks.

Darwins

If we explain strata(layers of earth) in other way other than evolutionist view, we could say that flood waters, huge mudslides and quick burials caused the formation of the strata layers. It is extremely conceivable that this happened since floods have formed strata historically in incredibly brief stages of time. This is what occurred on Mt. St. Helens when water built up and resulted in flood waters forming layers of strata. These earth layers were for real much more exiguous than the strata found at the Grand Canyon. But a global flood would be immensely more potent, forming earth layers that would be a great deal larger than Mt. St. Helens formed.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Evolutionary explanations have a much more difficult time explaining the strata formation with the fossils preserved inside. Their explanation is that these layers took thousands or even millions of years to form. Each fossil organism and beast must lie there until it is covered with the sedimentary rock. This would probably take as long as hundreds or thousand of years to accomplish (according to evolutionary time frames). How many organisms are going to lie around long sufficient to fossilize, especially considering that large amounts of moisture and water are present...which is known to increase decay rates overall.

Some of these fossils would have had to be made quickly. In singular perfect moths and butterflies. From my understanding there is plainly no scientific explanation to show how fossils have been created so slowly. A gigantic flood would explain much better and agrees with scientific consideration while slow fossilization plainly contradicts the scientific facts.

Another question for the ideas of evolution is that many of the rock layers have valuable bends in them without any sign that they broke (there are missing fractures). This could only happen if the layers of strata were soft (just as they might be in the case of a world-wide flood).

There is also the reality that there is soil missing from the rock layers all over the world. Soil should be found in each strata layer if they were formed at a slow speed. The one and only thing that properly explains this phenomena is global flood. The strata are formed from sedimentary rock, after all, which is rock created from water.

There is for real plenty of evidence that points to the fact that there was a worldwide flood, or at the very least a very large one that would have decimated creatures all around the world that lived on land. If this is for real the case, then evolution could never have happened (or the land creatures would have had to begin the evolutionary process all over again). Evidence, in this case, is thoroughly against the ideas of evolution.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Zoeller Sump Pumps bloom energy ipo