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