to go to more than one hundred per hour is a mistake.
do not see anything.
Less than a hundred, on a road of La Mancha.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
What Does Loss Of Lordotic Curve Mean
I always thought (2) two strangers
to go to more than one hundred per hour is a mistake.
do not see anything.
Less than a hundred, on a road of La Mancha.
to go to more than one hundred per hour is a mistake.
do not see anything.
Less than a hundred, on a road of La Mancha.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Schwinn Johny G Black Spinning
What we know about the specific nature of the walnut?
The bark is smooth on young branches, and very rough over the years. The wood is heavy, and noble, very appreciated in carpentry.
Walnut is incompatible with the garlic, the nearby presence may cause his death.
all that together and other aspects unknown to me, are the essential notes of nuts, they all belong to the same species, because everyone responds to the specific nature.
That essence can manifest in many specific morphologies, depending mainly on soil conditions and climate.
could be included in essence to have pairs of chromosomes X, but could not include the nucleotide sequence because these sequences indicate the management of the amino acids of proteins with which it has to be built walnut and perform their vital functions and it is clear that not all walnut clones, there are many viable sequences for each protein using walnut, so setting one of them, does not define the specific nature of the walnut, which is common to all.
On the other hand, there are requirements and other incidental features, such as finding a nut that opens into three leaflets, is something accidental, not essential. 
Since the matter has arisen for walnuts, I will try to approach the specific nature of walnut.
The essence is the what of the substance.
is absolutely impossible for man in this world can reach all making a walnut tree is a walnut tree and nothing else.
Being aware of the limitations of our finite understanding, but relied on the intelligibility of living beings, I will try to enumerate a few essential notes of nuts.
Walnut is a living being with a vegetative soul that allows you to feed, grow, repair and reproduce.
The walnut is a large tree, after the first year, none of your buds maintains dominance, so configured with multiple trunks of equal importance to build a well rounded cup.
The walnut is a good shade tree that has compound leaves with large leaflets, is deciduous.
The walnut has unisexual flowers, male are hanging catkins and the female separate clusters of two or three, with showy stigmas.
The walnut is a drupe fruit, the shell adopts an ellipsoidal shape, opens on two flaps. The fruit is oily, with a thin skin gently with a bitter and reminiscent involutions brain lobes.
The essence is the what of the substance.
is absolutely impossible for man in this world can reach all making a walnut tree is a walnut tree and nothing else.
Being aware of the limitations of our finite understanding, but relied on the intelligibility of living beings, I will try to enumerate a few essential notes of nuts.
Walnut is a living being with a vegetative soul that allows you to feed, grow, repair and reproduce.
The walnut is a large tree, after the first year, none of your buds maintains dominance, so configured with multiple trunks of equal importance to build a well rounded cup.
The walnut is a good shade tree that has compound leaves with large leaflets, is deciduous.
The walnut has unisexual flowers, male are hanging catkins and the female separate clusters of two or three, with showy stigmas.
The walnut is a drupe fruit, the shell adopts an ellipsoidal shape, opens on two flaps. The fruit is oily, with a thin skin gently with a bitter and reminiscent involutions brain lobes.
The bark is smooth on young branches, and very rough over the years. The wood is heavy, and noble, very appreciated in carpentry.
Walnut is incompatible with the garlic, the nearby presence may cause his death.
all that together and other aspects unknown to me, are the essential notes of nuts, they all belong to the same species, because everyone responds to the specific nature.
That essence can manifest in many specific morphologies, depending mainly on soil conditions and climate.
could be included in essence to have pairs of chromosomes X, but could not include the nucleotide sequence because these sequences indicate the management of the amino acids of proteins with which it has to be built walnut and perform their vital functions and it is clear that not all walnut clones, there are many viable sequences for each protein using walnut, so setting one of them, does not define the specific nature of the walnut, which is common to all.
On the other hand, there are requirements and other incidental features, such as finding a nut that opens into three leaflets, is something accidental, not essential.
If any of the qualities we have mentioned, it is not essential, it is common to all the walnuts, then it is not an essential feature, but accidental.
If an evolutionist, I would that a species is something more definite and concrete, if you want to distinguish two species because there are walnut with paripinnate leaves and other leaves imparipinnate, and argues that blind chance has produced a mutation that caused the morphological change (which on the other hand can not prove) you have to accept if you want to be consistent, that the evolution does not serve any purpose but that is random, within a time, can produce a new mutation that stir the change, so what he Speech is variability within a species, if you will, over time, even in the case that at this particular time, and how far can one ensure, these two walnut trees that differ in specific detail not cross (which also rarely happens), because if the mechanism is that game randomness within a time, a new mutation may make it cross again.
I fully understand that the botanists who are dedicated to the taxonomy, looking for maximum accuracy and morphological or genetic distinction, but I'm talking about something else, a living being, they only study the one hand, the rest, unfortunately , have lost sight of.
If an evolutionist, I would that a species is something more definite and concrete, if you want to distinguish two species because there are walnut with paripinnate leaves and other leaves imparipinnate, and argues that blind chance has produced a mutation that caused the morphological change (which on the other hand can not prove) you have to accept if you want to be consistent, that the evolution does not serve any purpose but that is random, within a time, can produce a new mutation that stir the change, so what he Speech is variability within a species, if you will, over time, even in the case that at this particular time, and how far can one ensure, these two walnut trees that differ in specific detail not cross (which also rarely happens), because if the mechanism is that game randomness within a time, a new mutation may make it cross again.
I fully understand that the botanists who are dedicated to the taxonomy, looking for maximum accuracy and morphological or genetic distinction, but I'm talking about something else, a living being, they only study the one hand, the rest, unfortunately , have lost sight of.
Semogil February 17, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
How Do I Find Out The Value Of Land Per Acre
raining.
Vertical ocean.
Sunday tail lurks beneath the moss.
I just finished "Eleven ways to feel alone," Richard Yates.
I've also read "Helena and the summer sea," Julian Ayesta.
The first is the proof that, without the need to write well, you can tell good stories. The second, that writing well (even doing it wrong on purpose) no matter what is written is not a story. I
.
Both great.
Maybe some of Yates's stories have bored me, on reflection. Others do not, I have stopped eating at his table those poor lonely can not even allow melancholy.
Ayesta leaves open room overlooking the sea. Is overwhelming.
I .
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Good Rhymes For Three Yr Olds Birthday Invitation
REAL WOMAN LIFTING LARGE-WHITE FLAG ON A CRADLE
Open Skies Policy
While rains
After ...
Open Skies Policy 
While rains 
After ... 
News Today TIME 12 February 2011
TIME News almost a year ago exactly, 16 February 2010
Monday, February 7, 2011
Foto Lesbian Tribadism
Evolutionists deny the use of reason to those who think like them
Do we use the scientific method?
Do we use the scientific method?
An estimated commentator, after expressing his belief that we do not use reason or the scientific method, lectures us about him, in his words, this method goes like this: Facts - Scenarios - Test the hypothesis - Testing - Theories - Testing of theories according to facts.
I also worked well in what regards the history of living things, eg
is an indisputable fact that if I plant a walnut, is born a walnut tree, walnut tree that also produces a fruit that are nuts, which In turn, if they are planted, they grow like a walnut.
I raise my hypothesis: "This has been happening walnut trees there. " Review
paleobotanical record and see that I can find fossils of leaves and fruits of walnut back to the Cretaceous, which according to the accounts that paleontologists generally accepted, are about 100 million years. This at first seems a proof of my hypothesis.
If I keep looking for more evidence to back in time, I find that the remains of the walnut found only in continental sediments, usually paleosol and fluvial sediments, and is that hardly any of paleosols and fluvial sediments above the Cretaceous that have been metamorphosed, Tectonic or buried, so if you have been walnut before or not, I can not test-
The only rich sediments that record the oldest plant, are always sediments of the Carboniferous period, but correspond to sedimentary environments of peat bogs, marshes and swamps, in which live no nut, so no I can go back further back in time.
So the theory is that the walnuts are a kind stable over time,
How I can test this theory?, Looking for a walnut tree, planting a walnut and seeing how far I can find adequate sediment containing fossils of walnut There are fossils of walnut.
I am aware that there are people who argue that the walnuts have arisen through evolution of ferns from the Carboniferous, but since there is no evidence of this, because I prefer to stay with what I can see, and what is more logical and is a species that takes 100,000,000 years without evolving there, not done ever.
not understand how we can call to reason and unscientific, unless there are other hidden agendas.
I also worked well in what regards the history of living things, eg
is an indisputable fact that if I plant a walnut, is born a walnut tree, walnut tree that also produces a fruit that are nuts, which In turn, if they are planted, they grow like a walnut.
I raise my hypothesis: "This has been happening walnut trees there. " Review
paleobotanical record and see that I can find fossils of leaves and fruits of walnut back to the Cretaceous, which according to the accounts that paleontologists generally accepted, are about 100 million years. This at first seems a proof of my hypothesis.
If I keep looking for more evidence to back in time, I find that the remains of the walnut found only in continental sediments, usually paleosol and fluvial sediments, and is that hardly any of paleosols and fluvial sediments above the Cretaceous that have been metamorphosed, Tectonic or buried, so if you have been walnut before or not, I can not test-
The only rich sediments that record the oldest plant, are always sediments of the Carboniferous period, but correspond to sedimentary environments of peat bogs, marshes and swamps, in which live no nut, so no I can go back further back in time.
So the theory is that the walnuts are a kind stable over time,
How I can test this theory?, Looking for a walnut tree, planting a walnut and seeing how far I can find adequate sediment containing fossils of walnut There are fossils of walnut.
I am aware that there are people who argue that the walnuts have arisen through evolution of ferns from the Carboniferous, but since there is no evidence of this, because I prefer to stay with what I can see, and what is more logical and is a species that takes 100,000,000 years without evolving there, not done ever.
not understand how we can call to reason and unscientific, unless there are other hidden agendas.
Semogil February 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)