Friday, August 26, 2011

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

Fractals explain all natural phenomenon. Although fractal geometry was theorized at the beginning of the 20th century, it was not until the improvement of the super computer that we have been able to see the full implications of fractals. Bruce Lipton, cellular biologist, explains in this series of 8 videos from 2005 entitled, As Above, So Below, an Introduction to Fractal Evolution, that Darwin's principles of Evolution was flawed. Mutations are not mistakes or random, but intentional changes brought about by choices made at the cellular level. And, he adds, because of fractal geometry, we can see that the evolution of humanity is a fractal of the evolution of the earth.

This series of videos on fractals follows his lecture on the nature of the human cell. We can only do what cells can do, Dr. Lipton explains, because we are made of cells which are protein machines that Move.

Darwins

And, why is this leading to non-biologists? This is not a math schedule and this is not a biological treatise. This is a conference that starts from a biological question, and ends with a spiritual answer.

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

This is the rejoinder to the meaning of life. Bruce Lipton has taken a scientific principles and given a corporal explanation to A course in Miracles and given added confirmation to the Mayan Calendar which we will marry to his theory.

Fractal Evolution Part 1

Genetic determinism has taken us in the wrong direction, Dr. Lipton asserts. Our condition is determined by perceptions, not genetics. Dr. Lipton will show us how (and keep in mind fractals) a cell is able to perceive and rejoinder much as we are able to do.

Darwin's facility that genetic mutations are random was in error. And, his idea that nature selects the strongest does not hold true. Mutations normally detract from the viability of an organism. Nature eliminates the weakest mutations and doesn't really care about the strongest.

Dr. Bruce Lipton states that we desperately need a new principles of evolution. There have been 5 mass extinctions that all but wiped out life on this planet. This coming one, the 6th will occur with the largest planet citizen by far. And, we don't have much time to get ready.

Part 2

Dr. Lipton starts with a microscopic background on the cell. Each cell has a backbone and the shape is determined by the distribution of sure and negative Charges. Proteins can Move by changing the Charges. They rejoinder to signals from the environment such as vigor fields that cause constructive or destructive interference. Such signals cause the backbone to change. A specific stimulus binds to the cell membrane at a specific receptor. When the right signal is present, they work. When the wrong signal is present, they might not work or they might Move away. The skin of the cell is the brain of the cell or the mem-brane.

The skin, membrane, is two rows of molecules, mirror image to each other. -- A crystal, but movable. The outside, polar heads are water loving, and the interior, the legs are oil loving lipids. -- Much like a butter sandwich; neither water nor oil objects would really Move through. However, the membrane also has proteins that are called Imp, or integral membrane proteins. These proteins have antennae which are tuned to specific items. If we think of fractals for a moment, these proteins are able to perceive and rejoinder to changes in their environment, just as humans can perceive change and adjust to our environment.

Dr. Lipton shows us a diagram which look's just like a butter sandwich to explain the membrane above. Let's add olives to the butter in the sandwich he suggests. When pimentos are in, grape juice added to the bread will not pass through, but when the pimento is absent, the grape juice can pass straight through the open olive.... In a membrane, proteins change shape, effectively chance the olive. The way that they do this is there are two kinds of proteins, receptors and effectors. The first receives stimulation from the environment, changing the protein gears which allows the second to send the signal into the cell. There is a association between the two which changes the shape of the effector, allowing the item on the surface to pass into and straight through the cell.

Part 3

Together, the receptor and effector proteins have an awareness of the environment (perception) and transduces this perception into response.

Definition of the membrane: This is a liquid crystal, a semi-conductor (because not all things can go through) containing gates and channels.

"A computer chip is a liquid semiconductor with gates and channels...."

Oh, my, all cells are also Batteries. On the surface there is a sure potential, and on the inside there is a negative potential.

The cell membrane is a programmable chip, an organic chip, or a carbon chip. A computer has silicon chips, but they furnish the same result.

And, why does Dr. Lipton want us to think about our cell membranes as tiny computers and our cells as tiny Batteries? We have 50 trillion cells, which furnish a great quantity of information.

Part 4

A bit of data is the input-output of the cell. The cell surface, with all the antennas is the keyboard. When an estrogen hits an estrogen receptor.... Anything is out there types information into the keys.

The nucleus is just a disk. Once the information is downloaded, you can eject the disk. The 3-d image of the cell is the screen.

How many bits of data does our computer handle? notice this. The proteins that embed are about the same size as the thickness of the membrane, therefore olives can only be added over the surface. The bigger the bread, the more proteins that can be fit over the surface.... My goodness, the bigger the organism, the more awareness it can have....

Dr. Lipton points us to an report from Science and Society: Ralph Abraham wrote "Mathematical studies of fractals describe that the repetitive branching-within-branching buildings of a fractal represents the best way to get the most surface area within a three dimensional space -- a crucial asset for the human lung for instance."

This uses fractal geometry. Euclidian Geometry goes from 0 dimensions to 3 dimensions allowing for only whole numbers.

Crumbling a paper, Lipton explains, causes it to go from 2 dimensions to 2.5. If you cut it anywhere, it's not really more than 2 dimensions, but it is also is no longer relegated to 2 dimensions. You can't make Anything in nature using Euclidian geometry. Nature responds to fractal geometry. Plants are fractals. Trees are fractals. Crystals are fractals.

Part 5

In a fractal like the Mandlebrot set, either you go deeper into it or come out of it, the Mandlebrot shape/set keeps repeating.

This is how a fractal works. You start with one equation, and add some chaos. For example, on the surface of of a circle, make someone else circle half the size. Repeat. (Here comes a microscopic chaos....) On each third circle, if a coin comes up heads, make the circle a microscopic to the left of center. If the coin comes up tales, make the circle a microscopic to the right of center.

This is fractal geometry, and all things in nature is made this way. When you repeat this equation hundreds of thousands of times, you get something like the Mandlebrot Set.

Do you remember the Rosetta Stone that helped archeologists to learn the meanings of Egyptian Hieroglyphics? The lowest was Greek, a story about kings and queens. The middle was Demotic a modern version of Egyptian, and it told the same story. The top was Hieroglyphics. We made the logical leap that it also told the same story and it allowed us to learn how to read Hieroglyphics. -- As above, so below.

Now, look at biology. On the bottom, we have the cell. In the middle, we have Humans. Above, we have civilization. The principles of life at the lowest are the same as are needed at the top. Agreeing to the principle of fractal geometry, the story of the evolution of life progresses in the same way from the cell to the human to the final evolution of civilization.

We are destroying our planet because we have no plan to support the planet!

We each are a civilization of 50 trillion cells. They are able to share energy, to support each other and to take care of each other. If particular celled units have the sense to work together for the greater good of all, then how is it that so many humans have strangeness in looking this?

Eckhart Tolle would say that it's the ego.

Part 6

The images in fractals repeat themselves over time. Let us look at the history of the earth as a fractal repeating itself.

The zone where waves and particles meet is the chaos zone -- the interface where they interact. The earth is a particle. The waves are the non linear waves of the solar system. At the surface, before there was life, there was only inorganic chemistry. Inorganic items do not want to change. They will stay as they are for as long as they can.

When pigments evolved, they were able to trap vigor from the sun and use the inorganic material, to make organic chemistry. -- We are energized earth and we don't want to stay still.

Once the inorganic chemistry was added to the earth, the photons hit the earth and didn't just radiate back any longer. They were trapped in the inorganic matrix of the earth. This is where life occurs. We physically came from the planet (mother earth) and energetically came from the sun (father sun).

The egg is the earth that we came from, and the sperm simply adds the information. Phospholipids are self assembling. At first, the proteins were just rambling all over. When phospholipids started to come together, they caught proteins.

If you put bacteria in a membrane, they will form someone else organism called a euchariotic cell.

As human civilization evolves, it will have similar characteristics to the evolution of the earth. The fish were first and lived only in water. Amphibians took the water with them to the land. (This was agricultural stage of humans where we learned to irrigate. ) Reptiles are roughly like machines. Their tongues and their eyes, flick, flick, flick.... When the environment was flush and stable they did fine. This was the start of the engine age.

In the Mayan Calendar, this was the Planetary Cycle which ran from 1755 to 1999. It is a cycle of manufactures and Power, beginning with manufactures and ending with Power. Human consciousness was aimed at Power. The next cycle, beginning January 5th, 1999, is the Galactic Consciousness cycle. This duration is about Ethics. The Power train is getting its Ethics put in.

Part 7

Dinosaurs, are like lizards, but as their size increases and they need more muscles they still need only one nerve impulse. When the environment changed, they didn't have adequate awareness to cope the changes in the environment. Awareness is brain, and body is administration. As they got bigger, there was an imbalance. -- Small awareness and immense administration.

We are now in a dinosaur period. What is the fuel that is fueling the civilization today? Fossil fuel.

What was next on the earth? Birds followed the dinosaurs. Wilbur and Orvil Wright started our bird evolution. The fullest expression of this was the landing on the moon. The icon of the earth picture from the moon changed society. We became aware of the finiteness of the earth.

On earth, mammals followed birds. Mammals are nurturers, and we, the meek, took over. Reptiles are known and live for the moment. Mammals are self-conscious and live for the future.

George Bush was reptilian. The Iraq war is an example. They were not able to look 6 weeks ahead to anticipate what might happen. This was the end of the Mayan calendars' power consciousness period.

This planet is going straight through changes and those of us who are the meek, the mammals, the caretakers who are prepared to make changes and to be complicated with others will insure survival. Our time will come. We will not survive with reptilian thinking! The Galactic Consciousness Cycle of the Mayan Calendar will insure that only those who are putting Ethics and galactic consciousness ahead of power will move transmit really and comfortably.

Again, using fractals, we can look at the earth as a cell and we are perception units, proteins, in the surface of the cell. If we do it right, the cell will survive.

Using a liver cell as an example. 99% of a liver cell is the same. The nuclei is dissimilar because that is where the genes are. On the surface of the cell, are self receptors. If you take those receptors off, then you can put that cell into any other human, or into a mouse and it won't be rejected. So, the nucleus is not what signals someone else cell with identity, it is the self receptors on the surface of the cell.

Part 8

So, here's the question: If the only part of the cell that determines the personel from whom it was taken are the antennae, the self receptors, then can't we say that they are the self?

These antennas are what determine where that cell is accepted.... They read the environmental signal in a way that is unique to me.

Heart and lung donor recipients begin to express the identity of the person who was the donor. How does this happen? The self receptors verbalize the broadcast of the person who died. Some donors have come to be vegetarian. Others have come to be smokers. One donor was able to recognize the killer of the person who donated her heart to her!

We are television sets who live in our antennae. We are a broadcast.

Just as Dr. Bruce Lipton was beginning to get a hold on the idea that he was a broadcast, his cells challenged him. "If you were just a spirit, how would you know what a sunset looks like? What does love feel like?"

He had to adjust his idea. The corporal body is a gismo to sense the world. The cells take that information and translate it into something we can understand. Our antenna send the impulses into our brains which converts it into something we can understand. It is vigor which is translated.

If we eliminate our limiting beliefs, Dr. Lipton promises, we can generate Anything we want right here. Those personel receptors, blue or red or green, are a narrow frequency of the white Light, which is God. When we put all the frequencies together, we have white Light. If we take even one particular person and don't include them, we cannot have white Light which is the totality of the whole spectrum. Every human is a considerable cell in that organism.

The Mayan Calendar explains that after Ethics have replaced power in human consciousness, we will be ready for the final cycle which starts in 2012. This will be the Universal Cycle. In this duration we will be able to meet our galactic neighbors, we will see the end of man-made lack, consciousness will surpass technology and we will evolve to known co-creation of existence and experience.

Bruce Lipton asks and answers, "What do you want from here on? Skip worrying about the past and who did what to whom.... We each are a considerable part of the One."

Appendix discussion:

We are bustling communities of 50 trillion cells which came together to generate a more efficient organism.

We are also one cell among 6 billion who might come together to share information and awareness to generate one living organism called humanity. We will then be working in a coherant fashion. The synergy of awareness will be the equivalent of taking one amoeba and comparing it to a human.

The fractal is the cell and it is each human being and also humanity. We are all based on the same fundamental unit. The multicellular unit is the human who is a reiteration of a cell. We have no new functions that are not already in a cell.

Dr. Lipton concludes: When we come together to make a wholeness, then humanity will perfect the evolution of the earth. The earth will then, with a voice of unity, be able to speak with other Ones.

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

DuroMax Electric Start Generator KitchenAid Garbage Disposal Feed A Prayer to Owen Meany

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

When most people think of evolution the first thought that comes to mind is what in Darwin's time was known as transmutations: the idea that species convert in time and space (geographic location). Darwin did not develop this idea which had been around since the 18th century at least. Even the idea of humans being classified with the great apes was not Darwin's invention. However, in was the observations Darwin made on his voyage that first convinced him transmutation must have occurred. He observed living sloths, armadillos, tapirs and anteaters in the same geographic locations as he collected fossils of extinct, similar yet distinct versions of the same creatures. He also observed the blending of one species into other with changing location. On his voyage Darwin was struck by the way the common rhea was substituted by a different, smaller range of rhea the further south one went; this singular example of species changing with geography stood out in his mind. Why is it that two so similar yet confident species should be found living in adjacent regions? In Origin of Species Darwin described what he believed to be the most prominent mechanism by which transmutation occurs - natural selection. The basic concepts of natural choice are.


- There is an possible variability within the individuals of any species.
- These variations can be inherited via sexual reproduction
- Some individuals will have variations that give them an benefit in the singular environment in which they live. Given that organisms furnish more offspring than can survive, those with the most advantages are most likely to pass on these traits.

Darwins

This can in effect be more accurately described as 'survival of the best fit' rather than 'survival of the fittest'.

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

This thought of nature as a continuum extends to humans, meaning that humans are a part of nature. Does this leave humans no extra place at all and make us 'nothing but apes'? No. Humans may be in effect a type of ape, but I believe we are also an example of the universe becoming known and contemplating itself.

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

Lenox Butterfly Garden

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Do Gaps in the Fossil description Show That Darwin Was Wrong?

Darwin believed that small changes or mutations in species over small periods of time would originate large changes - new species - over large time frames. However, although some fossil 'transitional forms' have been found, for the most part the fossil description does not show a gradual turn in organisms but rather sudden bursts of species production, such as the illustrious Burgess shale. Some population believe this wholly disproves the system of evolution, others say it must mean there are some serious gaps in our comprehension of how the process occurs.

Scientists have traditionally put the gaps in the fossil description down to the low probability of any fossils being formed at all. The system of punctuated balance suggests that evolution admittedly does occur in a stepwise manner at species level, with species remaining the same for millions of years followed by rapid bursts of change. To understand how punctuated balance might occur think a species as a ball in a system of hills and valleys. The lowest points of the valleys laid out a garage species. Most of the time when a genetic mutation disturbs a species it tends to roll back down into the same valley. Occasionally a mutation increases a species' Fitness sufficient to push it over the hill and into the next valley causing a new species to rapidly appear. But is this sufficient to elaborate everything? Why is it that at inescapable periods in earth history there were sudden bursts of millions of new species?

Darwins

Darwin's idea of small changes adding up to dramatic changes over a long time was revolutionary as before then it was questioned either any theories about the past could be carefully scientific. A bumpy rather than flat fossil description does not totally disprove Darwin's theories, but does tell us there is more to the photograph than meets the eye.

Do Gaps in the Fossil description Show That Darwin Was Wrong?
Do Gaps in the Fossil description Show That Darwin Was Wrong?

Reinventing Your Life

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Is Charles Darwin's ideas Relevant Today?

What is relevant is the assumption by Darwin that Life is ever evolving, nothing is static. Darwin contended this; it is like plasticine or rubber, where life continues to mould itself, evolving in a process of natural selection where the weak or lazy give up and die, and the more forceful impose themselves by changing or adapting to the conditions to survive, grow and prosper.


Is it still the same today? I think so. What do you think? Are we still stuck in the same process of Natural selection as Charles Darwin contended some two hundred years ago? My acknowledge is, "Yes, most probably!"

Darwins

Your existence is the same. Evolution is something that is slow but when we stand way back (like geologists and paleontologists can do) they see the bigger photograph stretched out over time, as Darwin did.

Is Charles Darwin's ideas Relevant Today?

The race is survival, the close line is reproduction; this is what Darwin's Natural selection is defined as. It is the key definition to justify evolution. An example of animals surviving could be like the giraffe growing a longer neck to feed on vegetation other animals could not reach.

Humans have a similar fight for survival with disease. In their explore of Aids, microbiologists have taken great notice in Africa where a few sex workers who have endured long periods of sexual touch with many clients who are Hiv positive. These female sex workers have physically adapted and plainly come to be immune to the Hiv virus. These immune sex workers plainly go about their chosen work immune to the disease. How is that? Darwin might say it is an example of natural selection. I would agree.

It appears to be a great example of Charles Darwin's theory of the process of Natural Selection. Aids has been at the forefront of virus expansion since the early 1980's, and already some habitancy are immune to this deadly disease. Now that's evolution sped up, in real time today. Some of the women are connected to one another and have likely passed the resistance on to the next generation, the microbiologists have concurred.

Another example appears from hundreds of years ago, some habitancy had the genes to survive the plague which killed millions in Europe centuries ago.

Is Darwin's theory occurring today? If it is, is it relevant? Taking the example of the African sex worker, it maybe occurring. Future explore will deliver those results.

Natural selection is relevant today because it helps us understand the natural changes in our surroundings, and even those imposed upon nature by humans. Can you think of natural selection occurring today whereby it has been started by humans?

Here is an example. How about horse breeding. How about pigeon breeding. These are examples of human imposed natural selection and we are therefore part of that process.

Is Charles Darwin's ideas Relevant Today?

The North Face Backpack

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Most of us have been taught that mutations are 'the car of evolution'. That evolution took place through millions of these mutations.

As I began studying this subject, I discovered two very entertaining facts.

Darwins

First, no scientist has ever discovered a series of mutations that have caused a turn from one kind of creature to another. Unless this can be shown, no evolution has ever taken place.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Secondly, mutations are bad. They never have a distinct succeed (at least not permanently). Why are they so harmful? Because mutations are a succeed of information being subtracted from the genetic code of a creature or organism.

Down's syndrome is just one human example of a mutation. These mutations are all the time harmful, deadly or, at best, neutral (no known effect).

But, some would argue, what about mutations of bacteria that allows them to survive in an antibiotic substance? Isn't that proof that mutations can be good.

Not so fast.

These mutations are still bacteria that are lacking information that the normal bacteria have. The mutation (missing information) allows the bacteria to survive but they die off much faster once they are put back into normal population of that same type of bacteria. So instead of a permanent advantage, the mutation is still harmful in the long run.

Is there a human example of this type of thing? Could a harmful mutation literally be a good thing? Well, yes. But again it is temporary.

A good example might be blindness. Is blindness ever good? It could be in distinct situations. For instance, we know (through studies) that population that are relaxed have less of a tendency to be seriously or fatally injured in an automobile accident than those that are tense.

If a blind someone was relaxed before a serious auto accident (because he could not see the accident coming), it is possible that blindness could be the intuit that the person's life was saved. So it is feasible that a serious disability could save a person's life. But no one would desire to be blind in quarterly life experiences because it may save their life in an auto accident someday.

Once the blind someone is back into quarterly society, the disadvantage of blindness becomes apparent once again.

The process of evolution would need the exact opposite of mutations. It would call for the increasing of information (positive genetic information) not a subtraction of it. This has never been observed to occur.

The two serious problems with the law that mutations have lead to evolution is that there is no scientific evidence to show that they can succeed in good effects and there is no scientific proof whatsoever to show that mutations have caused a new and improved kind of creature (the previously mentioned bacteria are still the same kind of organism). Until it can be proven that mutations can be good (permanently) and that these mutations cause new kinds of improved creatures or organisms, evolution remains impossible.

Mutations, the 'vehicle for evolution' are heading in the opposite direction that it should be... If evolution were true. It takes great faith to believe that mutations could conceivably lead to new and improved creatures. To date, science literally does not give any evidence that evolution is possible through mutations.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Beltronics Rx65 Blue Adjustable Showerhead Shower Water

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Charles Darwin's law

Charles Darwin is today known for his theory of evolution by natural selection. He industrialized this theory over a whole of years after returning on a 5 year (1831 to 1836) round the world travel on Hms Beagle. The frame of the theory was first presented in a paper read to the Linnean society by Charles Darwin's friends, Sir Charles Lyell and John Dalton Hooker (Darwin himself was unable to attend this presentation of his work because of the modern death of his child son from scarlet fever) on July 1st 1857. Darwin then presented his ideas to a wider public, and at considerably greater length, in his first-rate 1859 book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", which today is regularly referred to plainly as "On the Origin of Species".


Many habitancy misunderstand what Darwin's theory is about. Perhaps the most base error is that it is a theory of the origin of life ("abiogenesis"), that is not the case - Darwin's theory does not deal with that matter, but rather is only about how successive generations of organisms turn over time ("evolution"). Other base point of blurring about Darwin's work is that he was the first person to suggest the idea of evolution - this is far from the case - evolutionary ideas date back to at least the 6th century Bce (e.g. The Greek philosopher Anaximander). Instead Darwin's great understanding was "natural selection", which is an explanation of how evolution works to yield new species and to generate organisms distinguished to their environments.

Darwins

Although of policy there are many details and fine points behind the idea of natural selection, the basic idea behind it is beautifully simple. It begins with the observation that children tend to be similar to their parents. From that observation one can state that anything heritable traits are good at helping organisms to survive and reproduce will tend to come to be more base in a population, whereas harmful heritable traits will gradually come to be less and less common. Of course, random changes to heritable traits ("mutations") may also occur, but these too will tend to come to be or less base depending on either they are helpful or harmful. Finally, when we think the heavy age of the Earth, this provides adequate time for the accumulation of tiny improvements in useful heritable traits to yield a great variety of separate organisms - in fact all life on Earth.

Charles Darwin's law
Charles Darwin's law

Garmin Forerunner 205 Gps Fitness Monitor can crusher wall mount automatic can crusher

Monday, August 1, 2011

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

A great boon for the system of evolution was an experiment named the Miller/Urey experiment. This experiment used a estimate of chemicals, together with ammonia and hydrogen. By putting electrical Charges into these chemicals it produced two of the very simplest of amino acids (these are needed to build a protein molecule).

This test gave promise to the hope that maybe this was how life was formed. This scientific experiment gained much public attention because it gave much validity to the idea that life came from non-living (inorganic) chemicals.

Darwins

That hope was dashed after awhile. Some huge problems arose:

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

One fact was that no oxygen was included in the experiment. Oxygen is needed for approximately all life forms. But this oxygen would thoroughly destroy this experiment (oxygen would cause an explosion). Oxygen, although needed for approximately all forms of life, will also eliminate the possibility of life while the 'formation of life'. I.e. The exact same ingredient that is required for life would eliminate all life in the preliminary stages.

Besides this problem, others arose as well:
1. There is no scientific evidence that the atmosphere was even close to the same type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment. It has never existed on the earth.
2. If it ever did exist, it would be deadly to virtually all forms of life on earth
3. The chemicals used in the experiment would eliminate the life forming possibilities.
This experiment has turned out to be a dead end for habitancy seeing for the evolutionary 'beginnings of life'.

It does get much worse.

Even evolutionists in general admit that the Miller/Urey experiment does nothing to bolster their theory. But many teachers, textbooks and even professors use this experiment to support the evolution theory.

So, although this experiment is not valid (to use in support for the system of evolution), the children in the Us are studying that it is a valid support for the theory. The textbooks used over our nation still use the experiment although it has been rejected by evolutionists decades ago as any support for the theory.

That would mean that our young adults and even our children are being taught 'facts' that thoroughly contradict science (Unfortunately, authentically scores of other examples like this are still in textbooks).

Yes, students are being taught Darwin's evolution system by dozens of 'facts' that have been proven wrong decades ago. Has the time come to replace this type of data in textbooks with the truth? Or should we allow these textbooks to continue together with outdated (and false) material?

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

heavy duty can crusher