วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 30 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

History of the Earth

The age of the earth is estimated at 4.6 billion years. During the course of this immense period of time, the earth evolved from a cloud of cosmic dust, undergoing constant changes into what we know today.

The earliest era, called Precambrian, encompasses the time period from the very first beginnings of the earth to the time when the first rocks appeared. These rocks contained petrified residues from which it was possible to determine the age of one layer of rocks. No petrified remnants dating back to the Precambrian proper were found. It is not possible to provide any precise information concerning the formation of the rocks of that time because, since that time, the earth has been undergoing constant changes. It is possible to classify only certain processes of the origins of the mountains (most importantly in Northern America, Scotland, and Greenland - Laurentian Plateau formation).

The earth originated probably as a result of a formation of clusters of minuscule particles of cosmic dust and gases, where these were constantly bombarded and joined by new mass particles until finally the whole mass began circling around the sun as the third of a total of nine planets. In the beginning, the earth was hot and it dotted with countless volcanoes. It lacked oxygen and atmosphere. During that stage, life on Earth was impossible.

The earth was slowly cooling down, allowing water vapour and gases to escape and create an atmosphere. It started to rain and the oceans formed. It is probable that the first single-cell animals originated already 3.6 billion years ago, most likely by means of the spontaneous joining of molecules. Later on algae and bacteria evolved and, finally, the first multi-cell animals, such as articulates and cnidaria (coelenterata), which are made of simple cavities surrounded by soft tissue.

Approximately 4 billion years ago, the earth had a solid lithosphere. Later, about 3.9 billion years ago, water began to form on its surface. Immense earth masses originated some 3 billion years ago. In the past, their form and distribution had undergone changes. From a single giant continent encompassing the entire surface of the Earth there emerged the first two continents, which drifted away from each other and divided further.

The Precambrian era is followed by the Paleozoic era. Our knowledge concerning this period rests mainly on the evolution of animal life (fauna). Fossils were found in the rocks of the layers of the earth and, by determining their age, it was possible to estimate the age of the individual layers. The most important fossils of this kind are the trilobites and graptolites. However, within this immense time period, there already existed numerous mollusks, crustaceans, first vertebrates, etc., which evolved in ever greater diversity. By the end of the Paleozoic era there existed the first vertebrates - reptiles, which deposited their eggs on the ground. They evolved from the amphibians. In addition, during the Paleozoic era, the mountain range of Ural originated, uniting Europe and Asia into one continental block. The Appalachians also originated near the end of this era.

During the following era, the Mesozoic, which ended 66 million years ago, emerged the American Andes and Rocky Mountains. There occurred a mass extinction of approximately 90 percent of all animal species. For a long time, dinosaurs dominated life on Earth. They included inhabitants of the oceans, flying dinosaurs as well as land animals. However, they were not the only ones who were evolving. First birds and even small mammals began to appear. During the Jurassic period, i.e., the middle part of the Mesozoic era, a major portion of the European continental mass was flooded, but during the period that followed, the Cretaceous, this continent returned to its original form. These floods explain the fact that marine fossils were found in mountainous areas. When the dinosaurs and numerous reptiles became extinct and, with the dawn of the Tertiary period of the newest era of the Earth 65 million years ago, the Cenozoic, a great diversity of mammals began to appear. Some 55 million years ago horses, proboscideans, and artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates or hoofed mammals) first appeared, followed by (38 million years ago) the anthropoids (apes), hogs, deer, and other animals. The mountain ranges of Alps, Pyrenees, Caucasus, and Atlas emerged during this period.

During the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic period (following the Tertiary period), the global climate change occurred. Cold periods alternated with warm periods, giant glaciers and enormous inland masses of ice formed and, in the warm periods that followed, there were great floods as a consequence of the melting of these ice masses. Present-day human emerged at the end of this period.

The Earliest Time Period of the Earth (Precambrian)

Geologically, Precambrian Time is the earliest era. It encompasses the time from the formation of the earth's crust more than four billion years ago to the beginning of the Cambrian Era, approximately 590 million years ago, and represents more than 80 percent of the entire history of the earth.

The earliest part of the Precambrian, called Archaean, encompasses the first 1.5 billion years from the origin of the earth. We know very little about this time period. Also, it is not absolutely clear how the earth originated. A part of the sun may have broken away, resulting in the planetary system, which includes our earth, or it may been the result of clusters of cosmic particles.

The prevailing hypothesis is that, when the sun originated through tremendous heat and cooling (contraction), it began to cool down. Matter particles swirling around the sun were transformed by condensation into gases, ice, and radioactive matter, forming new celestial bodies (planetoids). The planetoids, due to their gravity, attracted more and more particles until they became planets circling the sun.

It took at least 10 billion years for the Sun and protoplanets to emerge. The process of formation of planets, together with their moons, possibly ended approximately 5 billion years ago. We call this period "the star era." This is when the Archaean period begins. Following its formation, the earth began to cool down. This process proceeded relatively quickly because the temperature difference between the universe and the earth's crust was considerable.

The atmosphere, which most likely consisted mainly of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen, also cooled down. Water began to form, evaporating constantly, until it turned into "primeval rain" and flooded the earth's surface, which still continued to cool down. The existing rocks were therefore scattered and formed the first rock layers. Oxygen, indispensable for animals and plants, did not yet exist, for which reason life could not originate on earth at that time.

The Archaean period is followed by the Proterozoic period. In recent years, rocks were discovered in different regions of the world which, according to detailed studies and calculations, date back 3.8 billion years. The earliest ones come from sedimentary rocks from South Africa and Greenland. Very few fossils exist from that time and the majority of them are fossilised plants. In the earliest rocks we find mainly filament and spheroidal microorganisms - single-cell algae, while in younger rocks there are already branching filamentous algae and primitive fungi (lichens). These were found in coarse-grained limestone in Ontario and in the rocks from Minnesota and Great Britain.

The Precambrian animal fossils are documented very seldomly. Probably only at the end of this era there existed mainly cnidarians, articulates, hydrozoans, and medusoids. For these mollusks the fossilisation was rather difficult and therefore findings are very rare. During the Cambrian period, however, live organisms having solid body parts began to occur on a larger scale, for which reason their fossils are may be more commonly found. By all indications, in the Precambrian period, the continental regions were empty and desolate.

There were probably inhospitable masses of bare rocks since the slowly emerging life was developing in shallow seas. While the first prokaryota (meaning lacking nucleus) consumed "primeval soup" and during the process of acquiring energy liberated only a small amount of oxygen, with the occurrence of organic matter interacting with solar rays, the production of oxygen increased considerably.

In this manner the content of oxygen in the atmosphere increased, a consequence of which was the formation of a protective ozone layer which deflects damaging ultraviolet sunrays, where only under this protective layer could life on Earth originate.

It is assumed that the temperature was between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius because only on the basis of this assumption could life originate. It is possible that, at that time, ice covered extensive regions. However, it may be assumed that the Earth was not completely covered by masses of ice. As documented by numerous fossils, a number of primitive marine species evolved during the early Cambrian.

Translating Persian French Translations French Persian Translating Dutch Swedish Translations Swedish Dutch Translating Belgian

The Paleozoic Period of the Earth

The Paleozoic period of the Earth is the time period between the Precambrian and Mesozoic periods. This era lasted approximately 340 million years and is divided into several periods: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian.

Cambrian is the earliest part of the Paleozoic. Its name is taken from the Roman name for northern Wales, "Cambria," where rocks from this period were found. At that time, approximately 590 million years ago, the continents formed one giant supercontinent called "Gondwana." It included the continents of Africa, Antarctica, South America, Western Australia, as well as parts of India, Florida, Mexico, southern Europe and, possibly, China. These continental masses were situated in the southern hemisphere and extended almost to the south pole. They were separated from the north by a wide band of ocean and then towards the north pole there followed other more articulated continental masses separated by seas.

First the climate was cool to moderate. Later on global warming took place, as documented by scientific studies of red sandstones and saline deposits, such as rock salt, and gypsum.

An extensive development of flora and fauna begins during the Cambrian period. In the seas there developed a diverse number of animals such as fungi (mould), trilobites, and crayfish-like creatures, which had a hard chitin armour. There were also prehistoric mussels. They all lived on the seafloor and medusae existed in the waters. Flora consisted mainly of a vast variety of algae and seaweed. Land plants and animals were not yet in existence but evolved later.

The Cambrian period is followed by the Ordovician period. This period takes its name from a Celtic tribe of Ordovics who inhabited northern Wales and covers the time period between 505 and 439 million years ago. The geographic situation was similar to the one that existed during the Cambrian period but the continents continued to come closer and their coasts were became more flooded. There was an ice age during the Ordovician period. In South America, it is possible to see the moraines deposited by glaciers. The fauna of the invertebrates evolved mainly in the seas during warm climate regions.

Deposits in dark slates indicate that, in the deep waters, lived multi-cell (metazoan) graptolites, an extinct type of flagelliform with a hard exterior chitin skeleton, who formed colonies. A great variety of calcarea evolved in shallow seas. In grainy calcareous layers, we find generally brachiopods and bryozoa, relatives of today's mussels, as well as a great diversity of trilobites. The body of these articulates was covered by a chitin carapace consisting of three interconnected parts. In addition, there were corals and crinoids. The first vertebrates also evolved and possibly the first primitive fish which, however, did not have yet fins or jaws.

There were no complex plants yet, but blue and green algae were spreading from salty seawater to fresher coastal waters. Traces of tracks of reptilian animals similar to centipedes were found in petrified sandbanks dating to the Ordovician. If any animal species existed on land, there would have had to be plants to sustain these animals. However, according to extensive research and calculations, plants did not exist until the following period, called the Silurian period.

The Silurian period is the third period of the earth's Paleozoic stage and its name is derived from the pre-Celtic tribe Silurs, who lived in Wales. It encompasses a period between 438 and 408 million years ago.

From a geographical point of view, there existed two completely interlocked continents; the northern part called the Laurasia and the southern part called the Gondwana. Both parts were alternatively more or less under water. The north pole at that time was probably in the northern Pacific Ocean and it is assumed that the south pole was situated in southwestern Africa. The equator crossed from southeastern Europe, over northern Australia and Greenland to the centre of America.

The climate was mostly humid and warm, turning a little drier at the end of the Silurian. This is indicated by limestone, gypsum, and rock salt dating from that time. This rock salt forms today's salt deposits.

The most common marine animals were invertebrates such as graptolites, trilobites (articulates), and simple corals (cnidarians). Crinoids, as common at that time as algae, consisted of calycinal bodies anchored in the bottom of the sea by means of their stalk. Their bodies were surrounded by tentacles. Corals, which built enormous cliffs that still fascinate scientists today, became extinct approximately 230 million years ago. They were replaced by today's corals, now found in warm seawaters. Marine scorpions and articulates grew to gigantic proportions of up to two metres (Pterygotus).

First jawless fish, which did not have bones but rather a cartilaginoid skeleton, appeared in the seas. We are aware of their existence because they had small bony plates on their head and body, where these plates became fossilised. Two of these species survive today: the eel-like fresh-water lampreys and the slimy, worm-like blennies (blenniidae). At the end of the Silurian period, the first primeval ferns and club moss (lycopodium) appeared on land.

The Devonian period, the fourth period of the earth's Paleozoic stage, which is named after the English county of Devonshire, comprises the period between 490 and 360 million years ago.

The land masses of the continents were constantly moving also during this period. The climate of the northern hemisphere was warm while, in the area of the south pole, there were several ice belts. In linkage to the first beginning in the preceding Silurian period, the intensive evolution of higher types of terran plants continued. These plants were generally horsetails and ferns which, in the late Devonian period, would grow as tall as trees. Thus fauna was injected with new evolutionary impulses.

Numerous new kinds of animals began to evolve, mainly fish. The Devonian period is therefore also called the period of fish. The jawless fish of the preceding Silurian period evolved into shield-headed fish which, as the first vertebrates, also had jaws. Originally the skeleton of the first vertebrates was not formed by bones but by cartilaginoid matter.

During the Devonian period, there were also thorny-finned/lobe-finned fish (ichthyostega). They had thick fins and rigid skeleton and they were able to remain on land. By means of these fins, they could move on land and even abandon a dried-out lake or river and find another water habitat. The ichthyostega are considered as a transitional form toward land animals.

The sea was the habitat mainly of corals, ammonites, snails, conchoidal crayfish and echiderms, as well as trilobites and similar kinds. Scorpions, arachnids, terran reptiles, myriapeds and early, wingless insects were evolving on land.

The Carboniferous period (from the Latin word for coal), is the fifth geological segment of the Earth's Paleozoic. This period, which began 360 million years ago and which ended 286 million years ago, is also called the period of anthracite because, during that time, the largest deposits of this coal in the history of the Earth were formed, a result of a conjunction of favourable climatic, biological, and geological factors.

The climate in central Europe, which at that time was situated near the equator, was tropical and humid, similar to the climate that is found today in the rainforest of the Amazon. During the course of the Carboniferous period, there were powerful movements of the lithospheric plates which resulted in the formation of mountain ranges and valleys between them. Many regions were alternately just above the sea level and slightly below the sea level and dense forests grew in the coastal regions. These were periodically covered by water; when the sea level decreased, these forests underwent vigorous growth again.

The forests consisted of club moss growing up to 30 metres, ferns and horsetails and resembled today's tropical swampy forests. As a consequence of the fluctuation of the water levels, these forests were constantly flooded by water, which formed sediments. When oxygen could not penetrate, peat began to form and later on coal.

The first land vertebrates began to evolve in this environment. The transitional form between fish and land vertebrates (ichthyostega), numerous kinds of amphibians (amphibia), as well as amphibians with rigid skeleton began to evolve.

At the end of the Carboniferous period, many animals using only lungs for breathing and which were are not forced to live only in water, begin to appear. These reptiles did not have to return to the water to lay their eggs in that their eggs generally had leathery shells providing protection against predators and the weather. The group (anapsida), predecessor of today's turtles, was among these reptiles.

During the Carboniferous period, there also lived gigantic myriapods reaching lengths of up to one metre, arachnids, scorpions, prehistoric dragonflies (meganeura), cockroaches, and insects. They lived in higher situated forests consisting already of conifers. Analogous to the Devonian, numerous kinds of algae, plant and animal single-cell organisms, corals, ammonites, and articulates inhabited the oceans. By now, the trilobites had disappeared, although a great variety of fish continued to exist.

The southern hemisphere of the globe was completely different. There was still Gondwana, the continuous continent consisting of a part of North America, India, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. A major portion of this continental mass was situated near the equator of that time and, during the transitional period toward the Permian period, was covered by gigantic ice mass (the Permian-Carboniferous ice age). When, at the end of the Carboniferous period, Gondwana moved over the south pole toward the north, it collided with Laurasia to form a contiguous continental mass called Pangea.

The last geological period of the earth's Paleozoic stage was the Permian period. It represents the period between 286 and 248 million years ago and was named after a former Russian province of Perm situated west of the Ural Mountains.

At that time, Gondwana connected with the northern continents to create a gigantic continental mass called Pangea, resulting in an extensive rising of mountains. This supercontinent was surrounded by a great ocean (Panthalassa). Here, corals, ammonites, and large single-cell animals continued to exist. This was the only period when all the continents formed one continental mass.

Many of the kinds of animals indicated earlier became extinct during the Permian. Causes of this phenomenon are not clear. It is possible that it was linked to the gradual receding of the oceans.

A number of the amphibian animals remained in the vicinity of the water. Another part of this group gradually withdrew. During the Permian period the amphibians of the earth's Paleozoic stage reached their greatest expansion, although this period brought changes for the amphibians. In some regions simultaneously appear early forms of reptiles similar to mammals. They were forcing the amphibians out of their environment or at least competed against them for the space.

Following the unification of Laurasia and Gondwana, the prehistoric amphibians and reptiles penetrated into Gondwana, where these kinds of animals did not exist yet. During the Permian period, there begin to appear cammsaurs - real reptiles. Dimetrodon a Edaphosaurus are examples of this group.

The flora of this period is characterised by the penetration of conifers and the appearance of ginkgophyta. Club moss, horsetails, and ferns, which depended on humid and warm climate, began to recede.




History of the Earth
Translation Service
Translation Resources

วันพุธที่ 29 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

The Evolution of Extinction

When you think of Galapagos, the first two thoughts that come to mind are Charles Darwin and giant tortoises. The giant tortoise is the iconic symbol of these islands. The name Galapagos come from a Spanish world for saddle - referring to the shell of these gentle giants. The national park uses an image of the giant tortoise as its logo. Whenever you see information about the Galapagos - you see pictures of the beloved giant tortoise.

The world's largest tortoises, Galapagos Tortoises have a lengthy 150-year lifespan. Male tortoises are known to grow to be over 600 pounds. The archipelago was never attached to a continent and all the plants and animals, which arrived in the Galapagos, did so by either swimming, flying or floating. The journey across the ocean was too difficult for grazing mammals that dominate the grasslands of other parts of the world, and thus the slow moving tortoise reigned as king for thousands of years.

At the time of Charles Darwin's visit in 1835, it was thought that 250,000 tortoises and 12 subspecies existed here. It was the comments regarding the tortoises from the local vice-governor, which first dismissed by Darwin, would later come to inspire him:

"I have not as yet noticed by far the most remarkable feature in the natural history of this archipelago; it is, that the different islands to a considerable extent are inhabited by a different set of beings. My attention was first called to this fact by the Vice-Governor, Mr. Lawson, declaring that the tortoises differed from the different islands, and that he could with certainty tell from which island any one was brought. I did not for some time pay sufficient attention to this statement, and I had already mingled together the collections from two of the islands. I never dreamed that islands, about fifty or sixty miles apart, and most of them in sight of each other, formed of precisely the same rocks, placed under a quite similar climate, rising to a nearly equal height, would have been differently tenanted; but we shall soon see that this is the case. It is the fate of most voyagers, no sooner to discover what is most interesting in any locality, than they are hurried from it; but I ought, perhaps, to be thankful that I obtained sufficient materials to establish this most remarkable fact in the distribution of organic beings."

Darwin and his shipmates aboard Beagle viewed tortoises much in the same way as the pirates and whalers, tortoises were something to be exploited. The members of the Beagle harvested 30 tortoises from the islands, which they ate on their way home.

Over the past few centuries the systematic harvesting of tortoises for meat, oil, as well as the introduction of new species dwindled the population down some 90% from what it was in during Darwin's visit. Both the Floreana and Pinta tortoises are noted as extinct and all of the remaining 10 species of Galapagos Tortoise are listed as endangered species.

In 1959, 100 years after the first publishing of Darwin's On the Origin of Species the Galapagos Islands became as a national park. The park service together with the Darwin Foundation has made remarkable steps over the past 50 years towards the preservation, conservation and restoration of native species.

Perhaps the best example of their efforts is the story of the Espanola tortoise. At one time there were at least 3000 native tortoises on the island of Espanola. However Espanola is one of the flattest and most accessible of the islands, making it a favorite place for passing ships. As a result by 1965 there were just 14 remaining tortoises living on Espanola - 2 males and 12 females. The tortoises were transferred to the Charles Darwin Research Station on Santa Cruz. A third male was then discovered at the San Diego Zoo. In the 1970's the tortoise-breeding program began. From the brink of extinction, of 15 tortoise the program has been a success and today nearly 1500 Espanola Tortoise have been repatriated to their native island.

With the success of the Espanola program stopping the extinction of other species proved to be more problematic. In 1971, Lonesome George was discovered on the Pinta. He has the unique distinction of being is noted as the last remaining of his species. George was relocated to the Darwin Station and scientists began work on the question how to keep the Pinta Tortoise from becoming extinct. Two females from Wolf Volcano on Isabela were placed in the pin with George. These females were selected as they were found to be the genetically closest relation to George and though any off spring produced would not pureblood - the species would some how continue.

For years George showed little or no interests in these females. But in 2008, the national park announced both of Geroge's companions laid eggs. The world awaited news if the Pinta race had been saved. At the end of the year it was announced none of the eggs were viable and their search for how to save the species continued.

In 1994 a team of Yale Scientists began the Galapagos Tortoise Genetics Process. The group went to Isabela and took blood samples from 27 tortoises living high on the Wolf Volcano. Some 2000 tortoises are thought to live in and around Wolf. These tortoises are of significant interest, as tortoises here, resemble more than one subspecies. Normally each group of tortoise will either have a domed shaped shell (similar to the tortoises of Alcedo or other parts of Isabela) or a saddleback shaped shell (similar to Lonesome George) depending on the environment where they live. Yet near Wolf, tortoises can be found with both domed and saddleback shells.

Over the next decade the genetics team began collecting DNA samples from the tortoises in not only in Isabela, but also began samples from tortoises at the Darwin Station, around Galapagos, and tortoises held in captivity all over the world. On Pinta they found they took DNA samples from the remains of 15 tortoises and they cataloged the information to gain a better understanding of the species.

As they began to review their database, the impossible seemed to be possible. First they believe they have discovered a second pureblood Pinta tortoise. A Tortoise known as Tony, thought to be approximately 50 years of age is living at the Prague Zoo - from all current data Tony appears to be the same exact subspecies as George.

As they sifted through the DNA information they discovered the reason the Wolf tortoises appeared to resemble more than one subspecies. Isabela and the area near the Wolf Volcano was often the last stop for pirate ships in Galapagos. It appears that these ships collected tortoises on other islands during their stay only to discard them here. When testing the DNA samples, several of the tortoises living on Wolf were found to be first generation hybrid Pinta tortoises - tortoises born to mothers from Isabela and fathers from Pinta. This discovery meant that some of the tortoises living on Wolf were 50% the same genetic subspecies as Lonesome George. This information provided new hope that by further investigation a pureblood or half-blood female Pinta tortoise can be found - and the Pinta race can survive.

The genetic team seemed to have uncovered a miracle - still there were more surprises to realize. The research discovered descendants of the extinct Floreana Tortoise. The Floreana subspecies became extinct during the early 20th century due to human activities, and unlike Lonesome George no known examples were known to have survived. Yet, the DNA research uncovered 9 tortoises with high percentage of Floreana genome (up to 94%) and they believe 1 tortoise may even be pureblood. Of the tortoises identified of being from Floreana 6 are female and 3 are male all of which are currently residing at the breeding center in Santa Cruz.

Drawing from the success of the Espanola breeding program these new findings of the Genetics team, man may now be able to make up for some of their previous wrong doings. What was once extinct may not be extinct in the future. It's all just a matter of time with the help of science and mother nature.




Teresa is with Galapagos Online Tours http://www.galapagosonline.com a travel guide to the Galapagos Islands specializing in Galapagos Cruises, Galapagos Tours and vacation packages. And http://www.galapagosdive.com a divers guide to the Galapagos Islands.

Evolution and Anger

Ultimately as human beings we are scared of conflict. Yes you did hear me clearly. WE ARE SCARED OF CONFLICT. This may seem like an outrageous proposition considering our evolution. After all we did descend from cavemen who's job and duty it was to kill other animals. In fact they relied on conflict (specifically killing other animals) for their very own survival. Ever heard of Darwin's survival of the fittest? And what if you had a problem with another member of your tribe? Did you go to mediation? NO. Did you go to relationship counselling? NO. You physically fort it out. And assuming you didn't kill each other, you both moved on with your lives. Do you think they had anger management problems back then?

Our evolution is not the problem. It has provided us with a very effective way of dealing with our anger...by dealing with it at the time, usually through conflict and physical conflict at that. In fact the use of physical violence to settle disputes has been present throughout history, it only has died off recently (excuse the pun).

I asked my grandfather and uncles how they use to deal with disputes during their school years. And in both generations they said that they would settle a dispute that they had with someone through a physical fight and shake hands with the other person afterwards. Now I'm not condoning physical fighting and suggesting that you should settle all of your fights with a physical confrontation. What I'm suggesting is that you should deal with your anger as it arises and don't allow it to fester and turn into more anger within you, which ultimately you are not in control of.




Mark is a registered Psychologist in Brisbane, Australia specialising in Anger Management

http://www.angermanagementbrisbane.com

วันอังคารที่ 28 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

Are Humans Ever Born Again As Animals?

The question as it is posed; I do believe in reincarnation but am a little confused in that I have read in some books that a human person can be born as an animal in another life. Could you explain this and set the matter straight for me?

I guess we will have to assume that anyone who reads our little one way chat already has some suspicion that life does not end when the physical body is jettisoned by the inhabiting personality. There have been so many ample proofs of reincarnation that I won't attempt to convince anyone of the obvious, but leave those who are dead set on a one life scenario to their own beliefs. Funny thing about this is that no matter how vehemently a person believes that they are entitled to only one life, followed by a somewhat nebulous future, there is nothing they can do to limit themselves to just one paltry existence if that is what they so desire.

Reincarnation is one of the natural characteristics of "physical reality", that is, reality existence in a world of concrete, rigid objects and events, formed from the inner nature of atomic structure. The main reason that reincarnation is a necessary characteristic of physical reality is that no physical  objects or bodies last can last forever, and in the case of your physical body, its demise must not be a permanent condition but a time of rest and renewal. In other realities such as your familiar dream world, reincarnation is not needed since dream constructions, unlike physical ones, do not deteriorate and die as physical bodies do. A thought never dies, nor does a dream even though you may lose track of it.

Reincarnation is just one of the two main characteristics, the other is that all physical worlds (and there are many), exists in a psychological bed of probabilities. What that means in simple terms, is that all events, past, present and future exist in a very real inner universe of creative impetus toward things to come, providing an inner psychic storehouse of possibilities for future development. Having said that, back to the main subject for this discussion, reincarnation, what is it, why does it exist and how does it work?

Self aware, self propelled inner energy is the source of all manifestations, objects and people, animals and plants alike. If it were not for your propensity to classify and catagorize things by dividing them arbitrarily into groups to your liking, then you could easily see that these groupings are very misleading. It is you who decides who or what is ALIVE and what is not, and for that matter, what does alive really mean? Why do you say man is alive and a rock is not? Are they not constructed of many of the same elements? Is a rock, not alive (dead) because you do not see it move? You do not usually see coral move, but you cannot deny that coral is alive.

All of what you consider living organisms reincarnate, from snails to humans, the difference being that the lower life forms move in and out of living structures more easily than you because they are not burdened by the existence of ego awareness and intellect as you know it. The reality behind all  living matter lives forever in those terms only not continuously, but surely maintaining a certain continuity of life from one existence to another.

When an animal reincarnates, it may do so only within its specific classification, and I don't particularly like that term, since it is also arbitrary, but it will have to do for now. It will usually, as in all species, seek to reincarnate in either the same form, a cat into a cat, or join consciousness with other species to form a more complicated species within the same classification, as in a squirrel reincarnating into a dog. In other words, a squirrel may live again and again as a squirrel, but there will come a time even within these seemingly lower classifications, when the need for advancement will necessitate the combining of energies with other species to form a more meaningful existence in terms of psychological values and satisfactions. There are no real limits to the possibilities within the reincarnation progressions of animals or men, but there are practical limitations. What I am saying here is that even simple cell is an incipient entity, that will sometime, somewhere be realized.

All reincarnational realities are therefore practically limited to intra-species lives, meaning that mammals will reincarnate as mammals, birds as birds and fish as fish. It only seems to your from examination of fossil records that birds evolved into dinosaurs through the process of reincarnation and evolution, but you are not seeing the whole picture and you are missing evidence that would show countless in-between species that did not take, that ran into an evolutionary dead end, leaving confusing gaps in your understanding of reincarnation. But for the sake of our discussion, all species  reincarnate and evolve withing their own classifications, developing refinements and changing and adapting to their environment.

Then, in answer to the original question, NO,,,,,,,man does not reincarnate into any animal and likewise, no animal ever reincarnated or evolved into a man or woman. In other words, there is NO transmutation of species. Period. There is no inter-species reincarnation or evolution even though you incomplete records may lead you to believe there is.

There is another ramification of life and death that you have probably not considered. Lost somewhere in ancient times when countless early species were sorting themselves out for significant meaningful lives in a new and rapidly changing environment, between man and primate, there were countless varieties of man-monkey and monkey-man that died out, leaving you to think that you are seeing a continuous progression of monkey into man. That is not the case, man was always man as fish were always fish, birds always birds, mammals always mammals. The similarity in gene structures simply indicate that all life is very much alike.

Finally, if you want to get really specific, you could say that there are elements of monkeys, dogs, flowers and trees in man. Lets say that you die, your cells finally drop from your body into the earth where they lie dormant for years, combining with other natural elements in the soil.. Lets also say that in that same location, other animals and plants have died and their bodies have also assimilated into the earth. A farmer plants corn on that very same plot of land that is made up of many elements and past cellular structures of countless creatures and plants. The corn crop assimilates nutrients from the earth, some of which carry traces of past living things.

An expectant mother eats corn that she purchased from the super market that was grown on that very same plot of land and her body uses these nutrients derived from the corn to facilitate the growth of the fetus within her body. Your mother did the same, not thinking that in doing so, she was passing along to you the remnants and history of the Earth and its ancient and current life forms, so life always springs forth from death and you could say in a rather real way, that in your physical make up, you carry the traces of many other past species.

Conclusion; There is NO transmutation of species as you think of it. You will never be a cow.

Next Article Preview: Don't take life too Seriously.




My name is W. Allan, single male 62, a resident of Naples Florida. I graduated from Washington University in St. Louis and have in the past, written a column called SECRET REALITY which was carried by spiritual and metaphysical magazines. I have recently started a blog to publish my work with the intent of incorporating expanded versions of my blog in book form. You can contact me any at my e-mail address: w.allan@hotmail.com. You may also read other articles at my blog at: http://answersbygod.com

Animals and The Melting Arctic Ice Cap

The arguments for global warming can sound a bit vacuous when discussing temperature changes of only one degree. The impact of the melting Arctic ice cap on animals is much more tangible.

There is little dispute that the Arctic ice cap is melting. Since 1979, it has definitively shrunk by 20 percent. The issue amongst most people debating global warming is whether this is because of global warming or just a natural cycle of the planet.

From a common sense point of view, it is difficult to imagine global warming is having no impact on the ice caps. The rising temperature of the planet would seem to be a common sense cause of the melting ice. Alas, common sense rarely seems to be used in debates these days.

As the cap melts, the impact on animals in the area is readily apparent. The primary problem is the reduction of habitat. Polar bears are the most obvious animals suffering from this situation. The habitat of the polar bears is the ice flow areas around the edges of the caps. As the caps melt, the flows are disappearing and pulling back to the extent that there is no ice on the shores. The extent of the melting is such that a Russian ship was able to reach the North Pole in 2005 without the use of an ice breaker. This lost habitat is pushing the polar bears to the edge of extinction. Various estimates put the total population at 20,000 and dropping.

There are, however, positive developments for some species. Recent empirical evidence shows the various seal populations of the Arctic are exhibiting growing population numbers. The exact reason is unclear, but they are appearing more and more in southern regions of the cap, which leads to the conclusion that their habitat is actually expanding.

The receding caps are also opening up extensive new habitats for fish. The melting ice is full of nutrients and fish migration to the new opening seas is astounding. Pink salmon, in particular is being seen spawning in rivers far to the north of their usual spawning grounds.

In general, the impact of the melting Arctic ice caps is a mixed situation. The polar bears certainly don't see anything to be happy about.




Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more Global Warming Articles.

Humans Are Animals But Animals Are Not Human

Introduction:

It seems that there is a lack of understanding and more than a few misconceptions when it comes to the subject of animals. This article will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we need to make if we are to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions rather than by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an animal attack to the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all people do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous. What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the evidence. The evidence I refer to includes television shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also includes the news media, and even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the fallacies range from the small to the absurd.

The main point the reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals, driven by basic instincts necessary for their survival. They do not feel anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals may contain the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as highly developed or reasoned through as ours seem to be. So, when we attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are making a silly mistake. We need only try to look at the situation from the animal's point of view. This shouldn't be hard, because we have the ability to reason. We need only attempt to return to a state of mind that we haven't had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave walls.

The Main Issues:

The tree hugger is as much to blame as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and survives they usually make the statement; "It didn't know what it was doing". This is not true. The animal knew full well what it was doing. They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves in that situation. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When we venture out into nature we cannot expect that we will not be attacked by a wild animal. What we must expect is that there is a possibility, and we must accept responsibility for this if we are going into the woods anyways.

Animals are finding their natural lands threatened by housing developments, businesses, and other activities that bring human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our responsibility. If a person enters the forest for any reason, and is attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; it's their fault. Why? Because they know in the back of their mind that it is a possibility. If you go into the woods with your children and they are attacked, then it is the parent's fault. Why? Because they knew it was a possibility. You have every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad happens, you can't blame the animal.

There are people out there who believe that animals are of no consequence. The only thing that matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a car, shot, or killed by anything other than natural means; so what. This is a very ignorant viewpoint to have for one reason. We live in a world that is governed by balance. One thing affects another and if one species disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it can be in a good way for that species and sometimes it can be in a bad way. If all predatory birds were to go extinct than it would be great for rodents. It would not be so good for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct without greatly upsetting the balance of things. It's when multiple extinctions occur that a major problem will arise. These individuals that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals, usually are quick to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must die! I doubt that they would even consider the possibility that they bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we must be aware of the dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously enter, knowing full well that we could be attacked by a bear or a shark.

I will never forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the streets of Mexico. If I remember correctly, this elephant was performing in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began running through the streets. This elephant ended up being shot to death in the street. I had no problem with that, it was clear the animal had to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, "This is a tragic event, but let's not forget why this was necessary." That may not be his statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my opinion that was an extremely ignorant statement that had me cursing out loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his trainer. It is also true that the elephant was out of control. Why are these the only valid points? Did anyone stop to think that the elephant should not have been there in the first place? Elephants do not belong in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo should serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals that are endangered.

Animals are wild, the only mistake made in the elephant situation is that "WE", thought we could tame or control this animal. Can we do it? Yes, we can, but should we, NO! Personally, if an animal that is in a zoo or a circus attacks a person then I do not want to hear about it. No sympathy will be found with me. The bottom line is that animals belong in the wild. I do not care how tame or domesticated we think that they are. The chance will always remain that they can attack for reasons that really do not matter. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out why people do some of the things they do. The last thing I want to have to do on a daily basis is try to figure out what an elephant, bear or a shark was thinking.

When I was younger, I went to zoos. The last time I visited a zoo I was 21 years old, and it was at Busch Gardens and Disney's Wild Kingdom. I am 31 years old and I have not been to a zoo since. I will never go to a zoo again simply because I do not believe in them. To take a wild animal and stick it in a cage for our amusement is simply ridiculous. How many of us would like to be stuck in an enclosure, I don't care how natural or comfortable that it is, and then told we can never leave? Not many, but since we are not talking about people than it does not matter. Animals do not belong in cages. They are meant to be out in the wild. So, when we place animals in situations that they instinctually do not belong in then we cannot hold them accountable for their actions. The only people that can be held accountable for animal attacks occurring in zoos or a circus are we. Not just the owner of the zoo or circus, but the person that was attacked as well. After all, they are the ones paying the fee to enter an area where dangerous animals are kept. Its all about responsibility and too often are we not willing to accept our share of the responsibility in this day and age.

Animals are not governed by the same things that we are. If a person wrongs us then we get angry. If a person loves us then we love back. Human beings are capable of an array of emotions including, jealousy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc. We also have the ability to plot and scheme. If someone makes us extremely angry or jealous then we may wish to do harm against that other person. Animals do not think this way and yet whenever I hear, or read of an animal attack; I always hear someone try to attribute human motivations to why the animal behaved the way it did. Real life is not Lady and the Tramp, or Over the Hedge. Animals do not reason like we do. The only activities that animal are concerned with are eating, sleeping, pooping, peeing, and reproduction. From the day they are born till the day they die, they are only concerned with life processes.

Our way of life along with our highly developed brain allows us to move beyond these simple processes. They are still there and will forever remain the focal point of life, but they will never consume as much of our lives as it does for animals. Humans still need to eat, sleep, poop, pee, reproduce, etc. We have more free time that allows us to focus on other things. We work for food and recreational things. We get water from a well and live in houses and apartments. This allows us to apply our energies elsewhere. Animals are not afforded this. Mainly because they have not evolved to the extent that humans have. This is nobodies fault, its just how it is. With this evolution comes responsibility on our part. We have to realize that we are responsible for our actions because we are aware of our actions. It is different with animals, they are not aware of their actions.

If I am walking in the woods and a grizzly bear attacks me, it does not do so out of anger. The grizzly may simply see me as an easy target. If it is hungry then it will look for food. It is wrong to say that human beings are not part of what they eat. A bear will eat just about anything if it is hungry. We know that bears eat meat. In fact, bears have been known to eat everything from berries to bucks. I think the reason that we say things like, "They don't normally eat people", or "We are not part of their diet", is because we are rarely in contact with bears. Since our evolution we have put ourselves in contained environments called houses, which are surrounded by towns and cities. No bears here, although in rural areas, residents can catch glimpses of bears in their back yards. The bottom line is that we are meat. Yes, human beings are meat. We are. You can slice us, dice us, stick us in a frying pan, and eat us. You will not starve either. I'm sure we are packed with tons of protein and fat, perfect for surviving long winters. We don't normally think of us as food, because we tend to frown on cannibalism. We eat chicken, beef, pork, lamb, duck, lobsters, crabs, etc, etc. There is very little on this earth that we don't eat.

Why is a bear eating a person any more appalling than a human eating a bear? I think the main reason is that we then imagine if it were we getting eaten, and then we conclude that it would suck. Whether it sucks or not does not matter. What does matter is that we are edible just like any other animal on this planet. To say that a bear is blood thirsty, or got the taste for blood is a ridiculous statement as well. From the time they are a bear cub; they have the taste for blood and they eat plenty of it. What they mean by "have a taste for blood" is that they have tasted human and like it. Here is a good example. If I had never tasted Chinese food before and then I try it, and then it turns out that I love it. I am going to want to eat Chinese food as often as possible. In reality I love Chinese food, and would eat it everyday if I could. The same may be true for bears. How do we know what we taste like? We don't eat each other so how do we know whether or not we taste good? For all we know human meat could be the greatest freaking tasting meat on the face of the earth. I will bet it is very tender, given the less active nature of our society.

So, if a bear attacks me, and he gets a taste; it may just be that he likes it. It is only natural for the bear to seek out some more of that tasty meat. So, it is not that a bear is blood thirsty, it just means that he has tasted human, likes it, and continues to seek it. Human beings make nice targets. Look at us, we have no claws, no long sharp teeth, we are not very big, and have lost the ability to protect ourselves in the wild without a club, knife, or a gun. The only thing we have going for us in that situation is our higher intelligence. Since we can't kill the bear with our bare hands we are forced to try and outsmart it by playing dead. Incidentally we are not the only animals that employ this tactic.

Another very important piece the grizzly bear attack puzzle is human expansion. We are constantly expanding into new territories that were once inhabited by these animals. How can we be sure how they view this activity? As I said before, I doubt they exhibit any rational human thought to the situation, but they do recognize change. Some animals may be able to associate humans with this change that threatens their home. This may trigger a natural instinct to attack. This may lead an animal to kill for the sake of killing. It is not out of anger or jealousy. All the animal knows is that we are responsible for the changes, they feel threatened, and they attack. This is much the same as a young male lion challenging the older lion for control of the pride. During rutting season, bucks lock horns for the right to mate. These are instinctual actions that may be triggered by human encroachment into an animal's territory. This would then cause an animal to see us as a threat, and in the animal world you only do two things with a threat: you either drive it away or you kill it. This behavior may account for some of the animal attacks that occur in this country and around the world.

Of course; It depends upon what animal you are talking about. Bears, deer, big cats may exhibit this behavior but it is highly unlikely that a shark or a crocodile would. In the case of many shark attacks it is either a case mistaken identity, or they just don't care, because it looks edible and they are going to eat it. It can't say for sure about crocs, but I would assume that the majority of attacks are about food with a handful about territory.

Conclusions;

The bottom line is that many of the animal attacks that occur in this country are simply a matter of an opportune meal. Human beings wander into environments where animals live and they simply view us as an easy target. Animals see us as food, nothing more. How often do we think twice before cutting into a steak or eating a burger? This is much the same way, as a predator would view us in their environment. They don't see us as a person; they see us as a nice juicy steak...for arguments sake. We need to keep this in mind before we venture out anywhere that we can come into contact with these animals. Even if you don't think of some of these animals as dangerous, you still have to be cautious. Just ask anyone that has been attacked by a deer! Many of us would not assume a deer would pose a threat, but they can do damage. In the end we cannot ever really comprehend why the animal attacked us. The fact remains that animals can and do attack. Sometimes we live and sometimes we die. If we choose to enter the woods then we much accept this consequence. We must also keep this in mind when moving into a new housing development. It will take animals time to let go of old territories and seek out new territories. Unfortunately they may not always be able to and this brings humans and animals into contact more and more. As much as we like to think that we rule the earth, it's only an illusion. It is an illusion that can cost us dearly if we are not careful in the future.

I am not saying that if a bear kills a person or a child that it should not be killed. Personally, I believe it depends upon the circumstances of the attack and the wishes of the family members. Ultimately, whether or not the animal is put down I assure you that the animal has no sense of right or wrong. If an animal such as a bear eats a person, than in all likely hood it will try to eat another. We must taste good to them, or else the statement, "That bears got a taste for blood", would not have survived as long as it has. So ,what do you do with an animal like that? I guess the only thing we could do is try not to give them the opportunity to get a liking for people meat. We need to be more aware about how the world works beyond the confines of our cities and towns. There is another world that we left long ago called the wild. Knowledge is power. We need to be aware of the possibility of an attack when we enter the woods. We must always be aware that if we live in rural areas that the possibility still also remains. We should familiarize ourselves with the animals that pose a threat in our region and find out what measures we can take to ensure our safety.

As far as zoos go, we should take full responsibility there. If an animal in captivity eats one of us then oh freaking well! It's our fault the animal is in that situation in the first place. Elephants belong in Africa, polar bears belong up north, and lions belong in Africa, and so on and so forth. We can't expect them to suppress millions of years of natural instincts simply because we want to train them to entertain us. That is simply absurd. The same can be said for a circus or any other form of entertainment that utilizes wild animals. No matter how well trained we think they may be, they can still attack us for whatever reason. The bottom line is that we would not get attacked if we did not put animals in the position to attack us. If we had left the elephant in Mexico in Africa where it belongs than that trainer would still be alive today, hopefully in a different profession.

Even the most domesticated animals on the planet can still be unpredictable. A dog can turn on its owner in a heartbeat. It may have never done so before and it may never do so again. Still, it is not that animal's fault; it is the fault of the person with the animal. I have had more than my fare share of cats and dogs in my lifetime and I have had a few scars to prove it. As far as I am concerned it goes with the territory. If I am willing to have a pet then I must be willing to bear the consequences of that animal's action.




Dennis James Huff

วันศุกร์ที่ 24 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

Evidence For Evolution - A Nested Hierarchy

One of the overarching pieces of evidence for the evolution of life on earth is the idea of a nested hierarchy. There are several ways to categorize different items, but things related by a common ancestor will show a particular pattern of categorization.

For instance, let's consider automobiles. Automobiles could be classified by make, then by model, then by year. Or they could be classified by year, then by make, then by model. Or any other myriad classification schemes, all of which would be correct. If two people start with a list of cars, they will both come up with perfectly valid yet very different classification ideas. This is because automobiles are each created independently; while they share an "evolution" of sorts as far as technology goes, each car is created as its own separate entity.

But compare this with languages. Assuming you are familiar with language, you would classify Spanish and French together as Romance languages, and English and Scots under Old English, and Old English under West Germanic. Languages can only be classified in one way, and two different people starting with the same data will arrive at the same classification scheme.

This is called a nested hierarchy, and alone is enough to show strong evidence of common ancestry.

Life on earth shows this type of pattern of groups nested within groups nested within groups. Of the animals with a backbone, there are mammals. Within mammals, there are marsupials and placentals. Within placentals are cows, and bats, etc on down to individual species. While some of the details of specific family groups are still controversial, life shows this unique pattern which alone is strongly indicative of common descent.

Following from this principle, biologists can construct family trees of different groups which aid in classification and predictions in fields as diverse as embryology and paleontology. For instance, the family tree of baleen and toothed whales predicts a common ancestor around 35 million years ago that has features of both, and this fossil has been found.

Nested hierarchy alone is almost enough evidence to strongly imply common descent, if not directly the idea of the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation coupled with natural selection.




Martin Kulp is a writer with many distinct interests. He owns several websites on a variety of topics, one of which is information about prostate cancer. See his article on prostate cancer treatment centers at http://prostaide.org/prostate-cancer-treatment-center-options

Brain Evolution and Charles Darwin's Theory

According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, some species manage to survive and prevail in their environment, while other species tend to disappear because they are not strong enough. The selective process decides which species lives and which will become extinct, depending on their resistance.

This concept is accepted by many people until today and they refuse to understand that Darwin was wrong.

He was right when he discovered that the human being is an animal, but the evolution of the species doesn't occur based on the resistance of each species, as many biologists after Darwin proved to the world with their research.

They concluded that if the organism didn't have the basis to evolve until certain point, it would never go further. There is a program that allows each organism to know how to behave in its environment and how to solve its survival problems, including how to find food and be protected from enemies. There is also an evolutionary program in each organism's cognitive mechanism.

A monkey will never be as intelligent as a human being, no matter how many years it may live, because it doesn't have a proper brain. It was not programmed to be as intelligent as man. So, there is no natural selection: there are only many programs for each species. These programs define the animals' behaviour, the route of their lives and evolution. The same happens in case of human beings.

Darwin's conclusions by observing the selective process were based on the knowledge of his time. He couldn't suppose that there are several programs behind the selective process that prepares each species to resist natural selection, which means that this selection doesn't happen by chance.

When we try to understand the formation of the human brain and the appearance of the conscience, we realize that this is a formation that took an incredibly long time. It cannot be something that could have evolved in our planet, because our planet is too young and the components of the human brain and their functionalisms are too complex.

The formation of the first brain and conscience occurred by chance at a time so distant that we cannot calculate it. It didn't take place on our own planet, in the same way that the formula for the formation of the first live cell didn't appear by chance in our planet because the planet's age (about 4.6 billion years old) is not sufficient to allow all the necessary combinations required by probability for the formation of the first live cell, since the permutations and combinations for this event would have been too many and they would take more time than the planet's age itself.

Therefore, we can conclude that the human being didn't appear on Earth by chance. The human brain and the formula for the appearance of the animal life are ancient and could not have been developed in our young planet, but all the animals, including man, have behavioral programs in the mechanism through which they acquire knowledge. These programs permit their perfect functionalism and survival in a hostile environment. Programs that might have being prepared by a superior brain for sure, since they could not have appeared by chance.

Thus, the human being inherits an ancient brain that can think and feel and is aware of its existence, but one has to pass through the same evolutionary process through which all animals pass in this planet, because probably, one has to be tamed like them...




Prevent Depression and Craziness through the scientific method of Dream Interpretation discovered by Carl Jung and simplified by Christina Sponias, a writer who continued Jung's research in the unknown region of the human psychic sphere.

Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com and http://www.booksirecommend.com

Click below to download your copy of the Free ebook
Beating Depression and Craziness

Sacred Science - A Spiritual Look At Evolution

Evolution, I propose, is the most Intelligent of designs. The miracle of life isn't diluted by the science that makes it all possible, but deepened and enriched by it.

Intelligent Design argues that " certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection," and "is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

I see much wonder, but no such apparent design, and neither, ultimately, did Charles Darwin, because knowledge lifted the scales from his eyes and the wonder of nature became less a thing divine and unknowable and more a natural work of art continually in progress.

"The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me," he wrote," and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sence of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sence, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music."

About "The old argument of design in nature...which formerly seemed to me so conclusive," wrote Darwin, in his autobiography, it "..., fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. "

He wrote his friend, botanist Joseph Hooker, "What a book a Devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of Nature. My God, how I long for my stomachs' sake to wash my hands of it."

But even that is to anthropomorphize the reality of life on earth with a suggestion of intent even more than Darwin knew he should. He ultimately came to prefer biologist Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" over "natural selection" because the latter suggests the idea of some entity doing the selecting.

It must have been extraordinarily difficult to be Charles Darwin in his age. He began with aspirations of one day being a vicar, but trusting the journey of his intellect and reasoning became a non-believer in a single presiding entity over the universe in support of the indominable forces of nature.

"... can the mind of man," asked Darwin," which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience?

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. "

My favorite sacred scientist, or at least sacred observationist, is Annie Dillard, and I pull from her bible, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Harper (Perennial Modern Classics, 1998), for much of the rest of my text here. Few people, I believe, have brought together the sacred and the scientific as beautifully and thought provokingly as she has. Dillard's "intelligent designer" echoes Darwin, and sounds more like actor Jim Carey in Bruce Almighty than the mysterious planner of creationist designs.

"Nature," writes Dillard, "is above all, profligate. Don't believe them when they tell you how economical and thrifty nature is, whose leaves return to the soil. Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave them on the tree in the first place? This deciduous business alone is a radical scheme, the brainchild of a deranged manic depressive with limitless capital. Extravagance! Nature will try anything once. This is what the sign of the insects says. No form is too gruesome, no behavior too grotesque. If you're dealing with organic compounds, then let them combine. If it works, if it quickens, set it clacking in the grass; there's always room for one more; you ain't so handsome yourself. This is a spendthrift economy. Though nothing is lost, all is spent."

Dillard acknowledges the same mystery as Darwin, but heads in another direction, one that I find wholly inspiring, spiritually uplifting and fully life affirming, and that Darwin may have enjoyed as well. Dillard sees *some* sort of originating force. She uses the word "creator," but keeps it lower case. She identifies this creator as "he" but that seems clearly for the utility of writing.

"Look, in short, at practically anything," she says, "the coot's feet, the mantis's face, a banana, the human ear - and see that not only did the creator create everything, but that he is apt to create *anything*. He'll stop at nothing.

"There is no one standing over evolution with a blue pencil to say, "Now that one, there, is absolutely ridiculous and I won't have it." If the creature makes it, it gets a "stet". Is our taste so much better than the creator's? Utility to the creature is evolution's only aesthetic consideration. Form follows function in the created world, so far as I know, and the creature that functions, however bizarre, survives to perpetuate its form. Of the intricacy of form, I know some answers and not others.

"...But of the variety of form itself, of the multiplicity of forms, I know nothing. Except that, apparently, anything goes. This hold for forms of behavior as well as design - the mantis munching her mate, the frog wintering in mud, the spider wrapping a hummingbird, the pine processionary straddling a thread. Welcome aboard. A generous spirit signs on this motley crew."

Consider the jumping spider. Have you ever taken the time to look at one, before flinging it away from you? Jumping spiders are amazing creatures! They have incredible vision and can jump over 20 times their body length. They have eight eyes to gauge distance and detect motion. Four of the eyes are long and tubular, with a narrow field of view but allowing for sharp focus. That's why they seem to look at you so critically - they are! Jumping spiders also have four eyes on the top of the head - 2 toward the back and 2 toward the front, that broaden their field of view and act more like motion detectors.

How about frogs? Without their help, we'd be over-run by insects, and predatory animals would lose a principle meal. In some parts of the word, they form the largest component of vertebrate biomass; with more live weight per acre than mammals, birds, or reptiles.

They're also, for better or worse, a key environmental barometer; they're indicator species, the canaries in our environmental mines. Find a frog with more than four legs and something's up in the neighborhood, and it's probably not good.

Their metamorphic life cycles - usually egg to tadpole (or other water-living larva) to land-based adult - exposes amphibians to both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Unlike birds or snakes, their eggs have no shells and are protected only by a very thin, permeable gelatinous membrane. And adults, with their moist thin skins, are very sensitive to its surroundings, as well.

Lizards? Like frogs, they're both a vital predatory species with respect to insects, and an equally important species of prey for larger animals. Our lizards here in Florida are spectacular...we've got beautiful skinks that actually guard their eggs until they hatch; so-called "glass lizards," which are legless and are the largest lizards in Florida; we've got geckos with huge catlike eyes and feet Spiderman would envy.

Zoologists Eric R. Pianka and Laurie J. Vitt call lizards "Windows to the Evolution of Diversity," and wrote a coffee table book of the same name (University of California Press, 2006) . Who'd a thunk it? A coffee table book about the evolution of lizards! Only people for whom life on earth, whatever its source, is a miracle could spend lifetimes exploring the ways and means of lizards.

"Certainly nature seems to exult in abounding radicality, extremism, anarchy," wrote Annie Dillard. "If we were to judge nature by its common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed. In nature, improbabilities are the one stock in trade. The whole creation is one lunatic fringe. If creation had been left up to me, I'm sure I wouldn't have had the imagination or courage to do more than shape a single, reasonably sized atom, smooth as a snowball, and let it go at that. No claims of any and all revelations could be so far fetched as a single giraffe.

"The question from agnosticism," observes Dillard, "is, Who turned on the lights? The question from faith is, Whatever for?"

Whatever for, indeed.

Perhaps the answer is simply, "Why ever not?" "Tug on anything at all," said John Muir, " and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe. " With all the cocktail of the universe whirling through the agar of space, how could the lights *not* come on?

"The creation in the first place, being itself," wrote Dillard." Is the only necessity for which I would die, and I shall. The point about that being, as I know it here and see it, is that , as I think about it, it accumulates in my mind as an extravagance of minutiae. The sheer fringe and network of detail assumes primary importance. That there are so many details seems to be the most important and visible fact about the creation. ... If the world is gratuitous, then the fringe of a goldfish's fin is a million times more so. The first question - the one crucial one - of the creation of the universe and the existence of something as a sign and an affront to nothing, is a blank one. I can't think about it."

And when you come right down to it, how can any of us? Why waste any of the relatively precious few moments we have on earth quarreling over the question we can't answer, let alone ask properly, when there is so much to learn, or at least appreciate, about the fringe details?

".. it is to the fringe of that question," decided Dillard. " that I affix my attention, the fringe of the fish's fin, the intricacy of the world's spotted and speckled detail."

It is evolution, says Dillard, says Darwin, says life on earth, that is the vehicle of that intricacy, the detail man.

"The stability of simple forms is the sturdy base from which more complex stable forms might arise," writes Dillard. "forming in turn more complex forms and so on. "

Dillard observes that there are 228 separate and distinct muscles in the head of an ordinary caterpillar, and that there are six million leaves on a big elm. Not only that,the leaves are toothed, and the teeth themselves are notched.

"In and out go the intricate leaf edges," says Dillard, "And "don't nobody know why"."

Only ten percent of all known life forms on earth are alive today. All the other forms, notes Dillard, fantastic plants, unimaginably strange creatures with various wings, tails, teeth and brains, are all gone, utterly and forever.

"Why so many forms?" asks Dillard. "Why not just that one hydrogen atom? The creator goes off on one wild, specific tangent after another, or millions simultaneously with an exuberance that would seem to be unwarranted, and with an abandoned energy sprung from unfathomable font. What is going on here?

"The point of the dragonfly's terrible lip, the giant water bug, the birdsong, or the beautiful dazzle and flash of sunlighted minnows is not that it all fits together like clockwork - for it doesn't, particularly, not even inside the goldfish bowl - but that it all flows so freely wild, like the creek, that it all surges in such a free, fringed tangle. Freedom is the world's water and weather, the world's nourishment freely given, its soil and sap; and the creator loves pizzazz."

Isn't it all spectacular?! Even these storms that blow us off the face of the earth, melt our civil engineering projects into mud, force us fleeing onto our man-made highways with our carbon dioxide belching steel and plastic beasts of burden. We can't have one without the other: beautiful, peaceful nature without ugly brutish nature; drought without flood; summer without winter; light without darkness; life without death.

"Evolution loves death more than it loves you or me," observes Dillard. "this is easy to write, easy to read and hard to believe. The words are simple, the concept clear - but you don't believe it, do you? Nor do I. How could I, when we're both so loveable?"

And here's the crux of the whole thing: Either the world, our mother, says Dillard, is a monster, or we ourselves are freaks.

To consider that the world is a monster, running, as Dillard suggests, "on chance and death, careening blindly from nowhere to nowhere" we must assume that it somehow produced "wonderful us" with our senses of moral outrage in an amoral world.

"..little blobs of soft tissue," said Dillard," crawling around on this one planet's skin are right," and the whole universe is wrong."

The alternative, she suggests is that "creation itself is blamelessly, benevolently askew by its very free nature, and that it is only human feeling that is freakishly amiss.

"Our excessive emotions are so patently painful and harmful to us as a species," writes Dillard, "that I can hardly believe that they evolved. Other creatures manage to have effective matings and even stable societies without great emotions, and they have a bonus that they need not ever mourn."

She adds that some higher animals do appear to have emotions similar to ours, that dogs, elephants and otters, among others, appear to mourn their dead.

"Why do that to an otter?" she asks. "What creator could be so cruel, not to kill otters, but to let them care?

"It would seem that emotions are the curse, not death...We are the freaks, the world is fine, and let us all go have lobotomies to restore us to a natural state...and go back to the creek lobotomized and live on its banks as untroubled as any muskrat or reed.

"You first."

Of course you won't go first. Nor will I. And neither will Dillard, and even Darwin was not sufficiently discouraged by the brutal facts of life he saw all around him.

Like Dillard, we bring our human values to the creek and so save ourselves from being brutalized.

"My reservations about the fecundity and waste of life among other creatures is...mere squeamishness," says Dillard. "After all, I'm the one having the nightmares. It is true that many of the creatures live and die abominably, but I am not called upon to pass judgment. Nor am I called upon to live in that same way, and those creature who are, are mercifully unconscious."

We have signed a covenant, says Dillard, to which every thing, even every hydrogen atom, is bound.

"The terms are clear: if you want to live, you have to die; you cannot have mountains and creeks without space, and space is a beauty married to a blind man. The blind man is Freedom, or Time, and he does not go anywhere without his great dog Death. The world came into being with the signing of the contract. A scientist calls it the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A poet says, "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower/Drives my green age." This is what we know. The rest is gravy."

And it is the gravy that I live for! Some see God as a wishing well, throwing him penny prayers: ask and you shall receive, knock and the door will be opened.

I see God as force and energy; atoms of air; waves of light; birth and death powering the evolutionary machine of adaptive, ever changing life. This, I feel, is a god worth falling face down upon the macrobiotic soil for, a god worth thanking with every oxygen-rich breath I take; a god before which to lay the sacrifice of stewardship before, and for whom to perform atonements of voluntary simplicity, like walking and recycling in the service of continued life and living!

"The universe was not made in jest," concluded Annie Dillard,"but in solemn incomprehensible earnest. By a power that is unfathomably secret, and holy, and fleet. There is nothing to be done about it, but ignore it,or see. "

May we live with eyes wide open!



วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 23 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

New Zealand - Probably The Most Beautiful Country in The World

Probably the most beautiful country in the world. There is nothing you can compare to it, and that happens because nowhere in the world you can find such a small place with so many different natural things to see. And as the new tourism promo says: "Welcome to the youngest country in the world".

All lands were already discovered before any human ever set foot in New Zealand. At same time, the geography of the country as we see it nowadays was pretty different not a long time ago. Separating first from the the Antarctica and Australia, when they were forming a single continent, New Zealand went sailing alone and during one period, it was nearly disappeared under the water.

Eventually, tectonic movements made the land gain altitude again to end with the image that maps offer today. Placed in the middle of a zone with tectonic movement, the North island is actually being pushed in one direction and the South Island in the other. All this underground activity has had a strong power in creating a long range of volcanoes on the North Island, and a huge mountain range at the south, the Southern Alps, with the ceiling at about 3800m.

That dramatic continuous modification of the surface caused that New Zealand today is such a varied country, where we can find from massive volcanoes to long white sand beaches, blue lakes, sub-tropical forests and huge snowed mountains.

Something that makes a difference from other countries is the conditions in which animal life had the evolution. No predators where found ever in the island, so birds became losing the need to fly. And the effect was so tremendous that they even ended losing their wings! One clear example is the kiwi, the national bird. Don't be mistaken. It really has wings, but to see them you need to catch the animal and try to find them. So little cute useless wings has the shy kiwi!

Together with the kiwi, a great animal, possibly the biggest in the world as it used to reach more than 2 meters high, was another wingless bird called Moa. Unfortunately for them, when the Maori people came from the islands and arrived to New Zealand, they became the first predator in this lands. And absolute massacre happened and the Moas were extincted. The amount of meat for the hungry Maoris was a too strong temptation.

On the other hands, the Maoris learned the lesson and became to fall in love with their lands, with animals and nature and everything living that was around. Everybody places gods in different places. We Christians close them in churches, but they learned to place their gods in nature, and they learned to respect it and live together in harmony.

The situation could have not been worst then when the English discovered this lands. The arrival was not violent, but the aim of the conquerors to transform the wild nature in something that could seem like home make an absolute disaster to the natural environment. Also, with their boats they brought many kind of animals that were not present before, rats, sheep, and many more, as well as new species of plants.

The effect was devastating and nearly a 70% of the forests were destroyed. The aim of the retired soldiers to transform the environment in somewhere they could live in reached points that still today are present there, like the Bridge to Nowhere. Literally, they created a bridge to cross to some lands they wanted to cultivate, but the power of nature conquering their lands was so strong that they had to go back. Nowadays this bridge crosses above a river, and once you are on the other side, you find yourself in the middle of nowhere. Nature has gained back its property!

Fortunately for the country, and thanks in part to the experience and influence of the Maori people, new laws were signed, massive protests against the destruction of the trees happened, and the battle began to get back to Nature territory.

Nowadays, still many things resisted all the attacks. This innocent land suffered too much, scars are visible in most places, many tears were dropped by the trees. But thanks to the strong battle that was fought there, nowadays the kiwi spirit is one of the most respectful for nature, in an aim to protect what is still there and expand it in order to bring to nature what once was stolen.

An applause for every kiwi in the world. Your spirit will succeed. Together you saved your country and kept it being the most beautiful land in the world. Keep fighting and bring that land back to its origin!




Planning a trip to New Zealand? You will find some help at: Travel to South Pacific

8 Days, 7 Nighs, 4 stars hotel Deluxe Accommodation for up to 4 persons in more than 600 destinations Worldwide for less than 140 US Dollars/person? Find out how to do it: Free Hotels

For general information on traveling around the world: Travel Addicts

Dani Alonso

วันพุธที่ 22 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553

The Evolution of Astrology

Do the planets really affect our moods, personality, and life's course? Many of humanities earliest civilizations seemed to think so. The study of Astrology started during the Upper Paleolithic era with the creation of star charts in France between 16,500 and 13,000 BCE. The most famous of these prehistoric star charts depicted "The Summer Triangle" and the Pleiades constellations. The first Astrologer's early pictographs were symbols of animals like bulls, antelopes, and horses drawn with a series of dots resembling star constellations like Taurus and the Pleiades. There is some debate amongst scientists whether these dots and dashes represent an extensive star map or just a shamanistic spiritual vision common to other groups during this period.

Although early pictographs are interesting, the exact intent of the individuals drawing them is hard to discern. Therefore modern Astrology most likely developed in early Mesopotamia often called "the fertile crescent" which housed the first recognized human societies like the Sumerians.

Like many early observations of the cosmos, observation of the night sky for signs of significant events played a key role in the development of Astrology. The Mesopotamians, however, added a key element to this query into the constellations when they added a system of patterns including planets that might affect human behavior, personality, and societal events. Only when the stars evolved from just being signs from above foretelling events into a system of assigning humans with attributes based on planetary locations did true Astrology, as we know it exist.

The Greeks further expanded the first Astrology of the early Mesopotamians refining it to apply to their religious deities (which were assigned different constellations, planets, etc.). Deifying, personifying, and even worshipping the heavens became a practice at this point. The use of Astrology to foretell an individual's future evolved from the Astrology once reserved to foretell the fate of kings and principalities, in Greece during the sixth century BCE.

Later during the third century BCE because of the conquests of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander "The Great" Alexandria, Egypt became the hub of Astrological knowledge. The final evolution of this Hellenistic astrology prevalent in Alexandria during this period gave rise to modern Western Astrology complete with zodiac, horoscopes, and charts.

Finally, the astrological works of Greek and Egyptian astrologers migrated from its Alexandrian hub, in Egypt, into Europe. At this point Arabic scholars migrating into Europe during the High Middle Ages introduced Horary or Western Astrology to the European Continent. Europeans scholars translated the Arabic astrological texts to Latin during this period to create an "almanac" of star charts. Doctors were required to study this text and abide by certain aspects of it, in their medical practices.

During the Renaissance period, in Europe, which occurred between the 14th and 17th centuries a select few like the Medici family, in Italy, practiced Astrology at first. Interestingly enough the prominent Medici family also used one of the first known set of Tarot cards called the Minchiate Tarot (Also thought to be brought to Europe from Egypt). Over time as astrology became more popular, Astrologers became commonplace. These traditional Astrologers were usually scholars versed in mathematics.

The next period in the history of astrology occurred during the Age of Enlightenment. This period during the 17th and 18th centuries dealt the practice of Astrology a severe blow. With the acceptance of Mikolaj Kopernik's concept of heliocentric cosmology, the world cast aside the Ptolemaic basis for Astrology and Astrology itself. Mikolaj Kopernik's simple explanation of planets in retrograde also posed a problem for Astrology. Moreover, Kepler's scientific defense of Kopernik's work and theories on planetary movement along with Galileo's refractive telescope discovering four of the moons that orbited Jupiter compounded the issue. At this point Astrology and Astronomy where forever separated as science and pseudo-science. Astrology fell out of favor at this point for nearly 200 years.

During the twentieth century, however, a revival in Astrology occurred. Popular horoscopes based on sun sign astrology and the zodiac began appearing, in tabloids. Most people do not take these type of horoscopes as seriously as our ancient ancestors did; however, some still seriously consult the stars to see what fortune awaits them daily.




Fred Gimino administrates the Free Psychic Network. His site provides advice and insight in the hopes that people may live happier more satisfying lives. Content including Psychic Oracles in genres including Astrology, Numerology, Tarot, And Horoscopes may be accessed on and through his site. Why not enjoy your live Psychic Reading Today?

The Paintball Game - Evolution of the Gun and Game

The evolution of the game has been swift from its origins in the 70s to the modern game we know today. It all started with the paintball gun. The term "marker" is a much newer term introduced to make the sport more marketable to the masses. So, what is the history of this relatively new sport and how has it evolved over three decades?

The first paintball guns were used on cattle ranches in the 1970s to single out animals from the herd. James Hale, of Daisy manufacturing , invented a gun for this purpose.

This practice soon evolved into a game and the first ever recreational paintball game took place in June 1981 in New Hampshire, USA. A group of friends used Nel-Spot 007s to play a very basic form of the game over a massive area to capture the flag.

One of the earliest guns available was the Splat Master; it was made entirely of plastic. It could hold ten paintballs, was powered by small co2 cylinders and had a slow fire rate. The gun had to be tilted back to drop each paintball into the firing chamber and cocked by pushing a button on the handle.

The paintball game was first marketed by Charles Gaines, a writer, as National Survival Game- NSG. It started in a very primitive form with players working individually rather than in teams. As the game evolved over time, the rules became more sophisticated and teams became a matter of course. Different types of games sprung up, but the "capture the flag" principle was the most popular.

As the paintball game developed, so did the need for a more sophisticated gun. The pump action marker was introduced with its increased rate of fire.

Caleb Strong opened the first outdoor commercial paintball field in Rochester in 1982. Two years later he opened an indoor version in Buffalo. The development of the commercial industry allowed for more organized, tournament style games and interest in the sport accelerated. The games became more exciting as smaller fields made the action quicker.

The gun continued to evolve in line with the paintball game. As the need for speed increased, the introduction of the 12 ounce co2 tank with its constant air was a major breakthrough.This in turn led to the advent of the semi-automatic gun with its incredible fire rate. Then followed the electric hopper to cope with the fire power of the semi-automatics.

Private and commercial fields are everywhere today as the sport has attracted a huge following. Whilst most players will only ever compete at a recreational level, professional teams compete at a national and international level with prizes worth hundreds of thousands of  dollars. The National Professional Paintball League was founded in 1992 and is the major force in the professional tournament circuit.

Professional players today are using fully automatic computerized markers. The Angel was the first of its kind. It was equipped with a motherboard in the gun's handle offering a selection of different modes of fire.

There is no reason to believe that the paintball game has completed its evolution. It has come a long way from the cattle ranches of thirty years ago, but it is fair to assume that the sport has not finished its journey just yet.




Hawksbill Paintball
Hawksbill Sports was established by players, for players. Our goal is to give you the products you need to enjoy the sport of paintball. We have low prices and fast shipping and promise the best customer service you can find anywhere. For more information about paintball guns and other accessories, go to: http://www.hawksbillpaintball.com.