At some point the sky seemed to say "Tapo rivet, no rain today more ". But soon it began to drizzle .
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Disney Princess Monopoly
Is it a fact demonstrated the evolution of species? and 4
Fossils of DTIS, remains practically the oldest living things found so far.
CONCLUSION:
is desirable to bring clarity to this issue and to test the paradigm, to foster research in these three fields:
· quantification metric morphological variability of the skeletons of the species of higher organisms.
· Inventory and study of sedimentary deposits of pre-Jurassic continental lake.
· Comparison of the 'species' fossil collections of living species preserved in museums.
After the above, I understand that not only the evolution of species is not the only consistent conclusion, but the only conclusion consistent with objective scientific data and especially with the data provided by paleontology, there has been no evolution of species.
Only from a prior ideological stance, or from an uncritical compliance paradigm "scientifically correct" can be interpreted scientific data in an evolutionary sense.
[i] - It was thought by what was known up to 1,990, but exceptions have been found in the mitochondria of all types of living beings, and the nuclear codes of bacteria, yeasts, ciliates and algae. About this view:
A. Sanvicens, op. cit. pg. 146. And Jukes, TH: "Genetic Code 1,990. Outlook "Experientia, 46, 1990, p.: 1149.
Knowing that there are exceptions and peculiarities, it is usually the cells of all living things use the same genetic code. For what concerns us here, we can still be considered an objective scientific observation.
Semogil May 7, 2011 
ON: "THE CONSTITUTION OF ALL BASICALLY LIKE LIVING .... SUPPORT THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION. "
is easy to find statements like this: All living things use the same system to preserve and transmit genetic information, DNA, and mRNA., And "read" by the same genetic code. This is proof that all living beings from a common trunk evolution. The first part of the text, written in plain, is an objective scientific observation. [i]
The second part of the text, written in bold, is a pseudo-scientific interpretation subjective
is an interpretation that does not follow directly from the premise (first part of the text, which itself is a conclusion drawn from the results of the experiments), and is normally deducted from the objective data, interpretation but an interpretation can not be taken not to dislodge them directly, and since no one was able to conduct any experiments to prove or even suggest that any living being comes from another by evolution, is not acceptable that interpretation. The logical thing would be to extract an interpretation consistent with the results of the experiments, for example, living beings to perform their vital functions require an organization based biomolecular DNA.
is pseudo-scientific, since it rules out the experiments that can predict the outcome, as befits any scientific question. See if someone dares to propose an experiment to show what being alive is to evolve a palm tree, for example, and design the protocol to check.
is subjective, as other scientists, can and do draw from the first part of the text, another interpretation entirely. For example, American creationist scientists are in the universality of the genetic code, the unit of creation by God. While scientists Supporters of the theory called "intelligent design" seen in this universality, a powerful test of intelligence that has designed an excellent biological mechanism. Other scientists on the other hand, do not feel the need to remove any "conclusion" of that evidence.
other hand the fact that life in all its variants use the same key biomolecular or physiological, it says nothing about the evolution of species in order to draw any such conclusion, it must be demonstrated before it is possible life with other nuclear molecules with other different genetic code, etc.
is easy to find statements like this: All living things use the same system to preserve and transmit genetic information, DNA, and mRNA., And "read" by the same genetic code. This is proof that all living beings from a common trunk evolution. The first part of the text, written in plain, is an objective scientific observation. [i]
The second part of the text, written in bold, is a pseudo-scientific interpretation subjective
is an interpretation that does not follow directly from the premise (first part of the text, which itself is a conclusion drawn from the results of the experiments), and is normally deducted from the objective data, interpretation but an interpretation can not be taken not to dislodge them directly, and since no one was able to conduct any experiments to prove or even suggest that any living being comes from another by evolution, is not acceptable that interpretation. The logical thing would be to extract an interpretation consistent with the results of the experiments, for example, living beings to perform their vital functions require an organization based biomolecular DNA.
is pseudo-scientific, since it rules out the experiments that can predict the outcome, as befits any scientific question. See if someone dares to propose an experiment to show what being alive is to evolve a palm tree, for example, and design the protocol to check.
is subjective, as other scientists, can and do draw from the first part of the text, another interpretation entirely. For example, American creationist scientists are in the universality of the genetic code, the unit of creation by God. While scientists Supporters of the theory called "intelligent design" seen in this universality, a powerful test of intelligence that has designed an excellent biological mechanism. Other scientists on the other hand, do not feel the need to remove any "conclusion" of that evidence.
other hand the fact that life in all its variants use the same key biomolecular or physiological, it says nothing about the evolution of species in order to draw any such conclusion, it must be demonstrated before it is possible life with other nuclear molecules with other different genetic code, etc.
Fossils of DTIS, remains practically the oldest living things found so far.
CONCLUSION:
is desirable to bring clarity to this issue and to test the paradigm, to foster research in these three fields:
· quantification metric morphological variability of the skeletons of the species of higher organisms.
· Inventory and study of sedimentary deposits of pre-Jurassic continental lake.
· Comparison of the 'species' fossil collections of living species preserved in museums.
After the above, I understand that not only the evolution of species is not the only consistent conclusion, but the only conclusion consistent with objective scientific data and especially with the data provided by paleontology, there has been no evolution of species.
Only from a prior ideological stance, or from an uncritical compliance paradigm "scientifically correct" can be interpreted scientific data in an evolutionary sense.
[i] - It was thought by what was known up to 1,990, but exceptions have been found in the mitochondria of all types of living beings, and the nuclear codes of bacteria, yeasts, ciliates and algae. About this view:
A. Sanvicens, op. cit. pg. 146. And Jukes, TH: "Genetic Code 1,990. Outlook "Experientia, 46, 1990, p.: 1149.
Knowing that there are exceptions and peculiarities, it is usually the cells of all living things use the same genetic code. For what concerns us here, we can still be considered an objective scientific observation.
Semogil May 7, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
I Have A Herpes Outbreak Whenever I Exercise
You have some photos of Sempervivum I grow in my town (Serrania de Cuenca Baja) totally abandoned in a yard where no one cares. Living from the rain that falls to them when they fall and survive every winter at temperatures up to - 10 ° C and even lower.
In the pictures there is everything: calcareum, tectorum, arachnoideum, cultivars such as Jeanne d'Arc, etc. and some were planted between the wall rocks:
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What To Do With An Ugly Pedestal Sink
BOOK FAIR
This year I have invited the Glauka Award, which granted to Lorenzo Silva, so I'm reading part of his work.
http://www.fllic.es/
There is this other video on the soul of the organization of the FLIC: Public Library:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v = 9BxzmMsgVu0 
This year I have invited the Glauka Award, which granted to Lorenzo Silva, so I'm reading part of his work.
http://www.fllic.es/
There is this other video on the soul of the organization of the FLIC: Public Library:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v = 9BxzmMsgVu0
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Quotes On Accepting Other Religions
Is it a fact demonstrated the evolution of species? - 3
Part Three
Part Three
ON "NOW LIVE THERE ARE THINGS THAT NO FOSSIL REMAINS"
This punto, en realidad es el único de los cuatro, que a primera vista puede tener alguna relación con una prueba de la evolución de las especies. Y tampoco es la única deducción coherente, ni siquiera la más plausible. Veamos: Si no hay restos fósiles de muchos de los seres vivos actuales puede ser por dos motivos: a) Estos seres vivos no existían en un pasado geológico; y b) Si existían, pero no encontramos restos fósiles de ellos.
Analicemos estas dos posibilidades:
1. Sencillamente existe la posibilidad de que no haya restos fósiles en épocas geológicas antiguas de algunos seres vivos de los que existen en la actualidad, simplemente porque no existían en aquella época. Pero this has not necessarily understood in the sense that if there is not that evolved from others that if they lived then.
At this point it is impossible to move forward without making a precision of a philosophical nature, as the interpretation given to this point, always has its roots in a decision of faith, even for those who try to defend that argument only from science.
For those who believe there is a primary cause of the existence of living beings, we accept that living things were created, we can not accept that the fossil remains of some living things in the geological past can be simply that had not been created yet since there is no obstacle scientific, philosophical or theological view that preventing the creation was staggered.
On the other hand, those who believe that there is no first cause and that life is the result of "chance", since it is not permissible spontaneous generation now, "need to believe that life arose at a certain point, with an atmosphere different from now, what has already been sufficiently debunked. [i] also need to believe that living things have come from other existing before them no where else?. So, I understand that with regard to this point, it is a matter of needing to believe in evolution, by no means a scientific conclusion, since it can not be demonstrated in any way that living things come from other than current and past them in time.
So that at this point, we find ourselves faced with the comment of Stanley Jaki Benedictine monk, quoted by Cardinal Schönborn: "The biggest problem of the Darwinists claim there is no end, is as follows: the purposeless evolutionary process of course comes as the end result to be, the man who does everything with a purpose. As evolutionists deny the existence of an end, with one goal: their goal is what you want materialism, certainly, this is not a science, is an anti-metaphysical. " [ii]
2. If we consider the possibility that actual living beings exist in the geological past, but found their fossil remains, this may be due to one or more of these reasons:
1 - The sites where these fossils are not preserved or have been are too buried. If you take seriously that: orogenic processes buried continental sediments, leaving the surface rocks of marine origin, that the continental sediments are only 1% of all sedimentary rocks formed, and that the processes of regional metamorphism destroyed most fossils, we can understand that there is a possibility real elevada, de que conforme nos remontamos atrás en el tiempo geológico, sea exponencialmente más difícil encontrar sedimentos fosilíferos continentales, independientemente de qué seres vivos existieran entonces. Por lo que el no encontrar sus restos fósiles, no permite afirmar con certeza que un ser vivo no existía en una época geológica determinada.
2 –. Todavía no hemos encontrado esos fósiles. Continuamente estamos presenciando como nuevos hallazgos remontan hacia atrás la presencia de algunos seres vivos en la tierra, como ejemplos de esto, podemos citar:
· el descubrimiento en Diciembre del 2.003 de restos de canguros, koalas y comadrejas en China en los primeros niveles Cretaceous, 50 ma. Older than that so far admitted. [iii]
• A Canadian team, consisting of Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan and others, has found a horseshoe crab fossil in the Ordovician rocks of northern Manitoba (Canada) 445 million years old. The fossil Lunataspis have called aurora, meaning literally "crescent moon shield of the dawn" in reference to its shape. Although it is more primitive than their modern descendants and his likeness is undeniable traces its 100 m length. more than was thought until this discovery. [iv]
• And also Silvina Valais in 2008 described a site of footprints in Patagonia, in rocks at the base of the Triassic, in which there are three types of footprints of birds and a type of mammal tracks. Which traces the origin of birds from the Middle Jurassic to the base of the Triassic, about 70 ma. [v]
is a mistake to say that one species, a family or phylum appeared in a geological epoch. That is a fact always provisional. And only reach some level of credibility when carrying out a comprehensive inventory of sites of earlier times by their lithology, sedimentary environment and conservation status, could contain such fossils, not contain.
3 - As we do not know the morphological variability of the species, we can easily conclude erroneously that a small morphological change indicates a distinct species. This is certainly what happens with the "evolutionary series" of species that have been built for example with horses and pigs in Neogene sediments of the Great Lakes area of \u200b\u200bAfrica.
As we see that even in this point you can argue that the evolution of the species is the only consistent position. Will be the only consistent position if one accepts uncritically the paradigm "scientifically correct." We have seen that the only possibility can be deduced from this point lies in a need to believe it has been.
[i] - Sanvisens, Alejandro "The whole truth about evolution" - Edit. Promotions and university publications - 1,996. pg - 185 ss.
- Abelson, PH Proc. Nat Acad. Sci, 55, 1365 to 1966.
- Gish, Duane T. "Theories about the origin of life: a critique" Edit. Clie - 1985, pg. 31.
- Shapiro, Robert (1,986): "Origins" p. 103 - Edit. Salvat - Barcelona.
- Canuto, VM, JS Levine, TR Augustsson, CL Imhoff (1982): Nature, 296, p. 816.
- Pfug HD, and Jaeschyke-Boyer, H., "Combined structural and chemical analysis of the microfossils of 3,800 years", Nature (1979) p. 280:483.
- Gish, DT, op. cit. p. 31 - 32.
- Carver, JH, "Atmospheric oxygen levels prebiotics" Nature, 1981, 292: 136
- Walker, JCG, "New evaluation of the role of oxygen and ultraviolet light in Precambrian evolution, Nature 1976, 264: 620 -624.
- Maynard Smith, John: "The problems of biology." Edit. Chair, Col Theorem, 1,987, p. 176.
- Gerald F. Joyce - "RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life Nature - 338, p. 217-224, 1989
- Thaxton, Charles. "DNA, Desing and Origins of Life" - 1,986
- Cairns-Smith, AG 1990. "Seven clues to the origin of life." Madrid, Edit. Alianza Editorial. p. 81ss.
- Johnson, Phillip E. "Darwin on Trial" Edit. Homolegens - 2,007, p. 125 ff.
[ii] Card. Christoph Schönborn - "Case or Disegno? Evoluzione e creazione secondo a federation ragíonevole "domenicano Bologna Studio Editions 2007. pag - 153.
[iii] - www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2003/12/12/ciencia/1071195388.html
[iv] - Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan - February 13, 2008
[v] - De Valais, Silvina - Central Library Univ Buenos Aires Faculty of Natural Sciences Thesis 4247.
This punto, en realidad es el único de los cuatro, que a primera vista puede tener alguna relación con una prueba de la evolución de las especies. Y tampoco es la única deducción coherente, ni siquiera la más plausible. Veamos: Si no hay restos fósiles de muchos de los seres vivos actuales puede ser por dos motivos: a) Estos seres vivos no existían en un pasado geológico; y b) Si existían, pero no encontramos restos fósiles de ellos.
Analicemos estas dos posibilidades:
1. Sencillamente existe la posibilidad de que no haya restos fósiles en épocas geológicas antiguas de algunos seres vivos de los que existen en la actualidad, simplemente porque no existían en aquella época. Pero this has not necessarily understood in the sense that if there is not that evolved from others that if they lived then.
At this point it is impossible to move forward without making a precision of a philosophical nature, as the interpretation given to this point, always has its roots in a decision of faith, even for those who try to defend that argument only from science.
For those who believe there is a primary cause of the existence of living beings, we accept that living things were created, we can not accept that the fossil remains of some living things in the geological past can be simply that had not been created yet since there is no obstacle scientific, philosophical or theological view that preventing the creation was staggered.
On the other hand, those who believe that there is no first cause and that life is the result of "chance", since it is not permissible spontaneous generation now, "need to believe that life arose at a certain point, with an atmosphere different from now, what has already been sufficiently debunked. [i] also need to believe that living things have come from other existing before them no where else?. So, I understand that with regard to this point, it is a matter of needing to believe in evolution, by no means a scientific conclusion, since it can not be demonstrated in any way that living things come from other than current and past them in time.
So that at this point, we find ourselves faced with the comment of Stanley Jaki Benedictine monk, quoted by Cardinal Schönborn: "The biggest problem of the Darwinists claim there is no end, is as follows: the purposeless evolutionary process of course comes as the end result to be, the man who does everything with a purpose. As evolutionists deny the existence of an end, with one goal: their goal is what you want materialism, certainly, this is not a science, is an anti-metaphysical. " [ii]
2. If we consider the possibility that actual living beings exist in the geological past, but found their fossil remains, this may be due to one or more of these reasons:
1 - The sites where these fossils are not preserved or have been are too buried. If you take seriously that: orogenic processes buried continental sediments, leaving the surface rocks of marine origin, that the continental sediments are only 1% of all sedimentary rocks formed, and that the processes of regional metamorphism destroyed most fossils, we can understand that there is a possibility real elevada, de que conforme nos remontamos atrás en el tiempo geológico, sea exponencialmente más difícil encontrar sedimentos fosilíferos continentales, independientemente de qué seres vivos existieran entonces. Por lo que el no encontrar sus restos fósiles, no permite afirmar con certeza que un ser vivo no existía en una época geológica determinada.
2 –. Todavía no hemos encontrado esos fósiles. Continuamente estamos presenciando como nuevos hallazgos remontan hacia atrás la presencia de algunos seres vivos en la tierra, como ejemplos de esto, podemos citar:
· el descubrimiento en Diciembre del 2.003 de restos de canguros, koalas y comadrejas en China en los primeros niveles Cretaceous, 50 ma. Older than that so far admitted. [iii]
• A Canadian team, consisting of Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan and others, has found a horseshoe crab fossil in the Ordovician rocks of northern Manitoba (Canada) 445 million years old. The fossil Lunataspis have called aurora, meaning literally "crescent moon shield of the dawn" in reference to its shape. Although it is more primitive than their modern descendants and his likeness is undeniable traces its 100 m length. more than was thought until this discovery. [iv]
• And also Silvina Valais in 2008 described a site of footprints in Patagonia, in rocks at the base of the Triassic, in which there are three types of footprints of birds and a type of mammal tracks. Which traces the origin of birds from the Middle Jurassic to the base of the Triassic, about 70 ma. [v]
is a mistake to say that one species, a family or phylum appeared in a geological epoch. That is a fact always provisional. And only reach some level of credibility when carrying out a comprehensive inventory of sites of earlier times by their lithology, sedimentary environment and conservation status, could contain such fossils, not contain.
3 - As we do not know the morphological variability of the species, we can easily conclude erroneously that a small morphological change indicates a distinct species. This is certainly what happens with the "evolutionary series" of species that have been built for example with horses and pigs in Neogene sediments of the Great Lakes area of \u200b\u200bAfrica.
As we see that even in this point you can argue that the evolution of the species is the only consistent position. Will be the only consistent position if one accepts uncritically the paradigm "scientifically correct." We have seen that the only possibility can be deduced from this point lies in a need to believe it has been.
[i] - Sanvisens, Alejandro "The whole truth about evolution" - Edit. Promotions and university publications - 1,996. pg - 185 ss.
- Abelson, PH Proc. Nat Acad. Sci, 55, 1365 to 1966.
- Gish, Duane T. "Theories about the origin of life: a critique" Edit. Clie - 1985, pg. 31.
- Shapiro, Robert (1,986): "Origins" p. 103 - Edit. Salvat - Barcelona.
- Canuto, VM, JS Levine, TR Augustsson, CL Imhoff (1982): Nature, 296, p. 816.
- Pfug HD, and Jaeschyke-Boyer, H., "Combined structural and chemical analysis of the microfossils of 3,800 years", Nature (1979) p. 280:483.
- Gish, DT, op. cit. p. 31 - 32.
- Carver, JH, "Atmospheric oxygen levels prebiotics" Nature, 1981, 292: 136
- Walker, JCG, "New evaluation of the role of oxygen and ultraviolet light in Precambrian evolution, Nature 1976, 264: 620 -624.
- Maynard Smith, John: "The problems of biology." Edit. Chair, Col Theorem, 1,987, p. 176.
- Gerald F. Joyce - "RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life Nature - 338, p. 217-224, 1989
- Thaxton, Charles. "DNA, Desing and Origins of Life" - 1,986
- Cairns-Smith, AG 1990. "Seven clues to the origin of life." Madrid, Edit. Alianza Editorial. p. 81ss.
- Johnson, Phillip E. "Darwin on Trial" Edit. Homolegens - 2,007, p. 125 ff.
[ii] Card. Christoph Schönborn - "Case or Disegno? Evoluzione e creazione secondo a federation ragíonevole "domenicano Bologna Studio Editions 2007. pag - 153.
[iii] - www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2003/12/12/ciencia/1071195388.html
[iv] - Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan - February 13, 2008
[v] - De Valais, Silvina - Central Library Univ Buenos Aires Faculty of Natural Sciences Thesis 4247.
Semogil April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Jenna Haze In Got Dick T Shirt
Is it a fact demonstrated the evolution of species? - 2
(second part)
ON "IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEDUCTION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE THAT LIVING FOSSIL NOW DO NOT LIVE. " This observation must be qualified first, as many species are still living from the remote past. Are those has been called "living fossils", more numerous than we think, from the esquizofita Kakabekia [i] the famous Nautilus, passing shark, Ginkgo, the horsetails, the frog or the ant. [ii] The fact that these organisms continue to live on earth and appear in the fossil record of ancient times, we can deduce two things: that there are extinct and have not evolved. This group of "living fossils" is growing every day with increasing the fossil record and natural variability is accepted morphological species. From this group of organisms, even considering only those in which only morphology has changed, it is not possible to deduce the evolution of species, they can only deduce the stability of Species. The other species that have lived on earth, it's not present existence, may be due to one or a combination of several of these possibilities: 1. Just has existed throughout the history of the earth many living species that are extinct. The number of extinct species is considerable, it is meant as an argument against this tautological invention called adaptation. [iii] In recent centuries, humanity has witnessed the extinction of numerous species, and today we have huge lists of flora and fauna in danger of extinction, and not even one of these cases, some well-documented, we have observed that some individuals of this species had different provably descended to him, before dying. As much as I try, I can not understand what to do scientifically speaking, that a species is extinct, the species that originate from each other by evolution. In this first case, say that the evolution of species is the only deduction is completely free. 
2. There are many species still living in ancient times but now some strains are more common than those that have prevailed in other geological eras. Specific criteria in paleontology is very delicate, if not useless, if anything, should be used with caution. In paleontology, you can only recognize shapes, and leaving aside the few remaining in which they appear fossilized remains or marks of the soft parts of organisms, the fossil record can be grouped into three types: the remains or shells or molds external structures, internal skeletal remains, and traces or signs of life. In the first type, seashells or external structures, the morphological changes seen in the consistent and continuous geological series can be explained well by: a) - lateral overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, in situations of transgression or regression. And b) minimum chemical changes in the environment, as tested and Chabry Pouchet, D'Arcy Thompson and others. [iv] Among other things, demonstrated that foraminifera of a species, reacting to minor changes in the alkalinity of the medium, building shells "own" other species of foraminifera. In the case of skeletal remains of vertebrates, we are in a very similar situation, to say that the fossil remains of a lizard (for example), belonged to an individual of a different species to species of lizards living in Currently, it is essential first serious study with extensive sampling of the morphological variability each of the parts of the skeletons of dinosaurs living species, which has not been done. And secondly, you can not define a species with a small fragment of a skeleton, it is more, when you look at the findings of remains of vertebrates, especially dinosaurs, that only lived on earth a specimen of each species, it repeatedly, each finding is assigned to a new species, different from the current and unlike any fossils found so far. We must put a lot of evolutionary unbiased order in vertebrate paleontology, and even have to start seriously assessing the critical importance of environmental physicochemical conditions and other epigenetic factors in phenotypic expression of a dominant variety, or a size in living in a given geological period. So until they determine with relative certainty the ability of morphological variability of a species, this second point, one can not obtain any evidence for evolution of species. 
3. The ancient species have disappeared from the fossil record because they have evolved to more modern species. This is the opportunity that is accepted by supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, but if this is what happened in Earth's history, paleontology observe something other than what is in strata. Let's see: a) All evolutionists, regardless of the evolutionary mechanism that advocate, understand that it is one or a small number of individuals who differ on the specific model and gives rise to a new species. If this is what has happened, the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms, rather, would be difficult to follow a specific form in time. This is not so, the forms appear stable for long geological time (with due caution in estimating geological time). b) As shown in the fossil record is a stable and suddenly from one stratum to the next, it disappears like that and there is a new, not always similar to previous the evolutionary idea, it should add to the possibility that some individuals suddenly acquire a new form, the need for instant termination of all individuals who have maintained the previous form. And this is not that have happened once, but it is the mechanism in each new variation. c) is a research question which of Eldredge and Gould on the series of Trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, [v] do not include analytical references the saline composition of sediments and sedimentary structures smallest, since the result of their research is more concerned with the overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, which play a continuous synchronized "monsters viable" and simultaneous extinction. So this third section also provides no evidence that species have evolved from other species, this third point is an unsupported idea paleontology.
2. There are many species still living in ancient times but now some strains are more common than those that have prevailed in other geological eras. Specific criteria in paleontology is very delicate, if not useless, if anything, should be used with caution. In paleontology, you can only recognize shapes, and leaving aside the few remaining in which they appear fossilized remains or marks of the soft parts of organisms, the fossil record can be grouped into three types: the remains or shells or molds external structures, internal skeletal remains, and traces or signs of life. In the first type, seashells or external structures, the morphological changes seen in the consistent and continuous geological series can be explained well by: a) - lateral overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, in situations of transgression or regression. And b) minimum chemical changes in the environment, as tested and Chabry Pouchet, D'Arcy Thompson and others. [iv] Among other things, demonstrated that foraminifera of a species, reacting to minor changes in the alkalinity of the medium, building shells "own" other species of foraminifera. In the case of skeletal remains of vertebrates, we are in a very similar situation, to say that the fossil remains of a lizard (for example), belonged to an individual of a different species to species of lizards living in Currently, it is essential first serious study with extensive sampling of the morphological variability each of the parts of the skeletons of dinosaurs living species, which has not been done. And secondly, you can not define a species with a small fragment of a skeleton, it is more, when you look at the findings of remains of vertebrates, especially dinosaurs, that only lived on earth a specimen of each species, it repeatedly, each finding is assigned to a new species, different from the current and unlike any fossils found so far. We must put a lot of evolutionary unbiased order in vertebrate paleontology, and even have to start seriously assessing the critical importance of environmental physicochemical conditions and other epigenetic factors in phenotypic expression of a dominant variety, or a size in living in a given geological period. So until they determine with relative certainty the ability of morphological variability of a species, this second point, one can not obtain any evidence for evolution of species. 3. The ancient species have disappeared from the fossil record because they have evolved to more modern species. This is the opportunity that is accepted by supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, but if this is what happened in Earth's history, paleontology observe something other than what is in strata. Let's see: a) All evolutionists, regardless of the evolutionary mechanism that advocate, understand that it is one or a small number of individuals who differ on the specific model and gives rise to a new species. If this is what has happened, the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms, rather, would be difficult to follow a specific form in time. This is not so, the forms appear stable for long geological time (with due caution in estimating geological time). b) As shown in the fossil record is a stable and suddenly from one stratum to the next, it disappears like that and there is a new, not always similar to previous the evolutionary idea, it should add to the possibility that some individuals suddenly acquire a new form, the need for instant termination of all individuals who have maintained the previous form. And this is not that have happened once, but it is the mechanism in each new variation. c) is a research question which of Eldredge and Gould on the series of Trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, [v] do not include analytical references the saline composition of sediments and sedimentary structures smallest, since the result of their research is more concerned with the overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, which play a continuous synchronized "monsters viable" and simultaneous extinction. So this third section also provides no evidence that species have evolved from other species, this third point is an unsupported idea paleontology. (to be continued soon)
[i] Siegel, SM and Guimarro, C, "On the culture of a microorganism similar to the Precambrian microfóssile Kabekia umbelata, NH rich in atmosphere" Proc. Scad Nat. Sc, 55, 349-353, 1967. [ii] To see the best list of these species have not changed over geologic time, in P. Grasse - "The evolution of the living" Edit. Blume 1977 p. 86 to 110.
[iii] The very idea of \u200b\u200badaptation implies that an organization could not do or suffer something, suddenly, as something new, get it or suffering it without being destroyed. Is to show that this has ever happened in nature. And in any case, it is a fallacy, because all organisms are well adapted, as they are alive, and the only possible way to scientifically measure adaptation, is a quantitative estimate of those killed and those who survive, and for this, there are words and concepts like life and death, clear enough to avoid having to invent new ones that mean lo mismo.
[iv] Tompson, D'Arcy. "Sobre el crecimiento y la forma" Edit, JT Bonner - Cambridge 2003 - p.138, p. 193 y 194th Pouchel y Chabry Socc. Biol Paris 9 - 1-1989 - Acad. Sci. París 108-1889: 196 - 198 Brady HB Rep. Chall Foraminifera p. 1884 203 pl XIII. Bastch "shells of the lake andes" af 1791 p.4 pl VI fig 15th Dreyer "Peneroplis, a study on the morphology and biological species to ask" Leipzig, 1898. Bucket and Fickert "Aartbilding and affinity with the foraminifera" tubbing zool work 3-1899 - 35
[v] Eldredge, N, and Gould, SJ "ed punctuate equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism" Models Paloebiology Cooper & Co 1973.
Semogil April 14, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
How Longdo Blackberryfruit Live
BASIN Cheever and I, red. Cherry Moon
Without keys in the dark
was one of those days when everything goes well.
had cleaned the house and
written two or three poems that I liked.
did not ask for more.
Then I went into the hall to throw trash
and behind me, by a strong current,
the door closed. I was
keyless
feeling dark and the voices of my neighbors
through their doors.
is transitory, I said;
but could well be the death
a dark hallway
a closed door with the key in the trash
hand.
of "Salmon" 
I just finished the Journals of John Cheever. The brilliance of his prose joined the sound of his bowels.
A page of good prose is one where you can hear the rain, says, and certainly are five hundred pages Journals good prose where you can hear everything, even the shortest cry of his heart.
Confirmed: a man not easily pursue is left by himself, or life as long it is.
Another thing:
Cosmopoética In a program, I discover a new poet: Fabián Casas. Seeking something of yours. It seems rather informal but very expressive. A sample:
was one of those days when everything goes well.
had cleaned the house and
written two or three poems that I liked.
did not ask for more.
Then I went into the hall to throw trash
and behind me, by a strong current,
the door closed. I was
keyless
feeling dark and the voices of my neighbors
through their doors.
is transitory, I said;
but could well be the death
a dark hallway
a closed door with the key in the trash
hand.
of "Salmon"
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Wii Fit Calories Accurate
FABIOLA,
One of those amazing encounters one who gives this city. Then I will tell more about your environment, in these blogs.
One of those amazing encounters one who gives this city. Then I will tell more about your environment, in these blogs. 
Thursday, March 31, 2011
On Vuse Why Does The Eta Say Infinity
Has it been shown that evolution is the origin of species? - 1
FACT IS SHOWN THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES?.
have been many attempts to argue to justify that statement, I will take as an example an excerpt from a lecture by Antonio Pardo at the University of Navarra: [i] "It should be noted that the evolution of species within the meaning of macroevolution, is not actually observed directly, but it must be admitted if it is to maintain a minimum consistent with what has been observed in multiple disciplines, and a coherent logic: it is the only deduction to the evidence that there are fossils of creatures that now live, and now there are living things which are not fossils, as has been proven beyond doubt, that spontaneous generation in the recent circumstances of the world is impossible, the only valid inference is that, in past times, creatures of kind have led to beings of another kind by generation. This is what we call evolution. Apart from this evidence and inference from fossils, there are many other evidence pointing in the same direction: the constitution basically the same for all living beings, composed of proteins, sugars, genetic information, diaphragm, respiratory, etc. Such coincidences, very abundant, they speak of a common origin, and support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution, ie the emergence of new species generation. " In this review, we break down four arguments: 1. "If you want to maintain a minimum consistent with what has been observed in multiple disciplines." 2. "It's the only deduction to the evidence that there are fossils of creatures that now live." 3. "Now there are living things which are not fossils." 4. "The constitution basically the same for all living beings .... Support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. " I will discuss these four arguments to see if it really the evolution of species is the only consistent conclusion. 
ON "WHAT IT TAKES OBSERVED IN MANY FIELDS." I understand that is primarily concerned with genetics, embryology, molecular biology and sociobiology. All these sciences have much to say about how life is, how living things behave, what is the cause of some diseases and so on. But everything they say, everything what they say about the origin of species, can not be proven, so their claims in this area are always conditional, can not happen to be logical explanations for how things happened, if indeed what happened. In no case are evidence in the empirical sense. Also these sciences can show what he can achieve by manipulating human life, but what happens in a laboratory does not have to be what has happened in nature. These sciences can never scientifically prove anything about the origin of life and species. The only science that can say something strongly, on the evolution of living beings throughout history Earth is paleontology (included in that name paleoanthropology and multiple auxiliary sciences such as sedimentology and paleogeography). Thus, all the other considerations evolutionary science can not be accepted as evidence that evolution ever existed, are hypotheses that require begs the question, because clearly intended to demonstrate something, using what they want to establish as a principle of his argument. Due to ideological manipulation of the groups who control the scientific publications and large grants, it broadcasts an ideological version of scientific discovery, and only those fit into the "scientifically correct", which in this case is the evolutionary paradigm. Is overwhelmingly larger volume of scientific information to provide arguments against the evolutionary hypothesis, but its spread is inversely proportional to its ability to challenge the paradigm, and as is the case of a bibliographic survey done here, suffice it to an example is sufficient by itself: The experiments Weigel and Jürgens 2005 [ii] that managed the production of a variety of Arabidopsis thaliana with a mutation clearly identified, but the plants granddaughters and great granddaughters repaired the genetic mutation and were phenotypically like their predecessors before the mutation. It turns out that the same has been observed in other organisms and even humans. [iii] This has been proven in the greenhouses of a university, can not directly infer what was the origin of species throughout history, just an indication. But no one has experimentally observed that a species will mutate and become another. It is not correct to indicate that the observations of many disciplines support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. Therefore, it can be perfectly consistent with what we have observed all these sciences, (not all the interpretations that have been noted), and it does not suggests that the evolution of the species is a fact, more Quite the contrary.
(continued soon)
ON "WHAT IT TAKES OBSERVED IN MANY FIELDS." I understand that is primarily concerned with genetics, embryology, molecular biology and sociobiology. All these sciences have much to say about how life is, how living things behave, what is the cause of some diseases and so on. But everything they say, everything what they say about the origin of species, can not be proven, so their claims in this area are always conditional, can not happen to be logical explanations for how things happened, if indeed what happened. In no case are evidence in the empirical sense. Also these sciences can show what he can achieve by manipulating human life, but what happens in a laboratory does not have to be what has happened in nature. These sciences can never scientifically prove anything about the origin of life and species. The only science that can say something strongly, on the evolution of living beings throughout history Earth is paleontology (included in that name paleoanthropology and multiple auxiliary sciences such as sedimentology and paleogeography). Thus, all the other considerations evolutionary science can not be accepted as evidence that evolution ever existed, are hypotheses that require begs the question, because clearly intended to demonstrate something, using what they want to establish as a principle of his argument. Due to ideological manipulation of the groups who control the scientific publications and large grants, it broadcasts an ideological version of scientific discovery, and only those fit into the "scientifically correct", which in this case is the evolutionary paradigm. Is overwhelmingly larger volume of scientific information to provide arguments against the evolutionary hypothesis, but its spread is inversely proportional to its ability to challenge the paradigm, and as is the case of a bibliographic survey done here, suffice it to an example is sufficient by itself: The experiments Weigel and Jürgens 2005 [ii] that managed the production of a variety of Arabidopsis thaliana with a mutation clearly identified, but the plants granddaughters and great granddaughters repaired the genetic mutation and were phenotypically like their predecessors before the mutation. It turns out that the same has been observed in other organisms and even humans. [iii] This has been proven in the greenhouses of a university, can not directly infer what was the origin of species throughout history, just an indication. But no one has experimentally observed that a species will mutate and become another. It is not correct to indicate that the observations of many disciplines support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. Therefore, it can be perfectly consistent with what we have observed all these sciences, (not all the interpretations that have been noted), and it does not suggests that the evolution of the species is a fact, more Quite the contrary. (continued soon)
[i] Antonio Pardo, "The Evolution. State of the Seminar on Science, Reason and FeJueves, March 10, 2005, 12 am. Hall of the Humanities Building University of Navarra. Www.unav.es/cryf/
[ii] Detlef Weigel and Gerd Jürgens: "hotheaded healer" Nature 434 p.443 - 2,005.
[iii] Hirschhorn, RJ Med Genet. 40, 721-728.
Semogil March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)