วันเสาร์ที่ 26 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

The Evolution of the Home Business Industry

While it may seem like a brave new world out there for home business entrepreneurs, fear not...

All things evolve over time... Animals, humans, the land, beliefs... And even companies and business models!

It's simply a necessity if one is to survive. When something can't adapt to the rest of the world's evolutionary process, it becomes extinct. This is as true for MLM as it was for the dinosaurs, typewriters, and most recently, analog television.

MLM ignores the most powerful marketing arena on the planet: the media. Even if affiliates wanted to advertise on television or the radio, or send out professional direct marketing mailers, they don't have the means to do so.

Most affiliates don't have the money to engage in the one marketing strategy that could actually bring them a strong customer base.

Let's talk about a real solution to having to deal with rejection and massive downline attrition on an almost daily basis... There's a little-known breakthrough business model that's starting to pick up momentum that's easily 25 times more powerful than MLM or Network Marketing.

But the best part is this obscure business model was designed from its very inception for people who don't like to sell. However, if you DO decide to refer others, there are some really great benefits for that too, but it's completely optional.

In other words, we're talking about something that has major mass appeal, and it's called...

Cooperative MarketingA 21st Century Business Model

When you remove all the negatives that are usually associated with building a traditional MLM or Network Marketing business, you're left with something that has massive appeal to the majority of people in North America who are non-marketers or sales types.

I call this the "path of least resistance." When you remove the resistance, you have something that most people will naturally be attracted to and follow through on.  

Welcome to the end of old-fashioned and outdated opportunities. But first, a little history lesson...

Ever heard of Co-Op Advertising? Co-Op Advertising, by simple definition, allows someone like you and I to partner with a company (or manufacturer) in their advertising and marketing efforts. We pay small percentages of the advertising costs and get to share a requisite percentage of the profits. That's a pretty simple concept, isn't it?

This type of scenario allows you and I to profit from the brand awareness and resources of a large company. In fact, last year, over $33 billion was spent in Co-Op Advertising, so this is no small niche concept, but it doesn't really have all the pieces of the puzzle in place for what most home business entrepreneurs like us are looking for - long-term residual income.

A "Cooperative Marketing" business model on the other hand, is much more powerful than Co-Op Advertising. It's actually been around for several years already, but is quickly becoming THE solution for the challenges facing network marketers and home business entrepreneurs in the Internet age, and here's why:

It's a well known fact that fortunes are being made by selling high demand products on radio and television, especially those products that appeal to the ever expanding (and aging) baby-boomer market.

It sounds simple in theory. Develop a great product; give it massive media exposure, and bingo, the big money rolls in. True, national media is a powerful way to build wealth. But unfortunately, it's economically out of reach for most entrepreneurs.

In Cooperative Marketing, you get to enjoy the benefit of sharing in the company's revenue - but you're able to significantly lower your risk and financial exposure. Why is this important? Because you only participate after a company has acquired the customer, not before.

You see, in a Cooperative Marketing business model, your dollars buy you (or in some cases you earn) the lifetime profit-share rights to those customers and the resulting commissions from any future purchases they make. By participating in such a model, you are utilizing the very same methods Fortune 500 companies use to build a HUGE customer base.

Simply put, you can accumulate acquired customers from a Cooperative Marketing company and earn (or in some cases purchase) the lifetime profit-rights to the residual earnings of future purchases by those customers. Best of all, this can even be done part-time and on a very reduced involvement level.

And just to be clear, even though some Cooperative Marketing companies may pay commissions on multiple tiers, the Cooperative Marketing model is NOT the same as MLM, Network Marketing, or Direct Sales, in that you don't have to ram something down people's throats to make it work.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting paid on multiple tiers of commissions, that's not the problem. In fact, many businesses in the real estate and insurance industries have paid their agents this way for years.

What we're talking about here is an alternative to these other business models that can work for everyone, and work very well. Let me explain how and why...

Let's go back for a moment to the most popular business model in the home business industry: Network Marketing or MLM. The single biggest challenge of ANY traditional MLM business has always been acquiring customersandkeeping those customers re-ordering over and over again.

The idea of "Do it once and get paid for life" has been nothing more than an empty pipe dream for most people in the home business industry until now, courtesy of the Cooperative Marketing business model. That being said it's imperative that you gather as much information as you can so that you can honestly evaluate the long term profitability of ANY legitimate home business opportunity or business model. To do so there are many objective factors to consider so therefore to assist you in doing this I recommend you download the FREE report at: http://www.mlmmythbusters.net 

Skipping this could be a HUGE financial misstep because there's no escaping this sobering fact: Over 97% of the people who join any home-based business fail. During this frustrating journey, the overwhelming majority of them spend much more than they ever make, so be sure to do everything you can to prevent becoming yet another statistic.




Bill Walker is the Founder and CEO of Sierra Sunset Enterprises. Based in Burbank, CA his company serves as a National Recruiting and Training Agency for 19 of the fastest-growing companies within the hottest industries in the home-based business arena. With over two decades of experience in home-business entrepreneurism, Bill has often used the educational skills he utilized for 14 years as a classroom teacher, to mentor and train thousands currently running a home business, or those that are considering such a venture via seminars, telephone conference calls, college extension classes, etc. Currently Bill is a passionate advocate of Passive Income Programs (PIPs) which require no selling or recruiting. To learn more about Bill or to contact him directly, visit: http://www.whoisbillwalker.com

วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 24 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

Two Different Types of Evolution

When people ask why something evolved, usually they mean what use that feature served the organism in its environment. These are called adaptive changes. An example of an animal that shows amazing functional adaptations to its environment is the Maned Three Toed Sloth. The maned three-toed sloth is so extremely well adapted for its life hanging upside down out of trees that its fur grows in the opposite direction to every other mammal. Extra vertebrae in its neck give it greater flexibility for swiveling upwards while it is upside down. The sloth also cultivates algal blooms in its fur to provide excellent camouflage against the greenish grey bark.

However a few scientists, most notably Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), believe that rather it is nonadaptive changes that are the main driving force behind evolution. It was argued by Gould that the flexibility of human consciousness comes precisely because of its nonadaptive functions. Natural selection may have selected for larger brains but once they had reached a certain size all the characteristics we recognize as human consciousness could have come 'for free'. A characteristic may have many more uses than the function it was originally adapted for. Human brains are very flexible precisely because they are not adapted to any single particular use. Our hands are good for typing with, but that is not what they were originally evolved for! The mountain tapir's long prehensile truck is used for grasping leaves while feeding, but it also can be used as a snorkel allowing the animal to hide underwater from hunters and predators. These are all examples of nonadaptive uses of a feature.

Scientists have discovered a way to measure whether a genetic change is adaptive or not. Genetic mutations have been discovered to occur in a predictable manner, much like nuclear decay. This is called the molecular clock of evolution. According to the neutral theory of evolution most of these mutations have no effect on the organism at all. Natural selection acts to keep highly functional genes as they are, while nonfunctional genes mutate at random. Mole rats are totally blind but still have a lens buried under skin and fur. It is thought they use this lens for adapting to the changing seasons by some unknown mechanism. A protein in this lens has undergone 4 times more mutations over 100 million years than in sighted vertebrates, but only once fifth of the mutations expected had the lens had no function at all. This suggests the lens is still functional, but that its function is less specified than in animals with vision.



The Myth of Human Evolution

Our solar system hurtles through the universe, spinning and turning with the precision and timing of a fine watch. The biosphere of our planet is perfect, able to forever sustain all life in perfect balance and harmony while requiring the addition of nothing other than sunlight. The 'simplest' form of life is represented by a one-celled bacteria, acknowledged to be many times more complex than the most complex thing ever created by man. However, the living cell also possesses the miraculous capability of self-reproduction! The human body is comprised of at least twenty trillion cells (20,000,000,000,000), each of which is more complex than a bacterium. Shortly after the human female egg is fertilized it begins producing cells. Somehow, each one of those cells immediately knows where to go and how to begin functioning in combination with other cells in the formation of a greater sub-system, and each sub-system understands how to interact with and begin coordinating with many other systems. Hundreds of millions of cells begin forming into what will eventually become the optic nerve, which is actually an optics and electrical communications bus of fantastic complexity and refinement that allows the brain to process optical data and interpret and regulate functions of vision. In fact, the human eye with its complementary systems is infinitely more complex and refined than the most advanced video camera, and just the lens of the eye represents a level of achievement in optical science that far surpasses the multi-tiered optical systems of the most advanced telescopes. Other processes begin that somehow lead the direction of calcium and mineral carrier cells in the construction of thousands of different, complex designs of bone and tooth formations of varying densities and consistencies. Some have enamel layering depending on function, and others mobile connecting joints with built-in permanent lubrication systems along with blood producing factories located within bone cores that represent nothing less than wonders of technological design. All the while this intelligently guided planning is being organized and inter-coordinated with other processes resulting in the creation of nerve, hormonal, glandular, digestive, lymphatic, pulmonary, muscular, auditory, cardio-circulatory and olfactory systems, sub-systems and organs that reflect a truly incomprehensible degree of complexity, intricacy and engineering mastery. The human brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe. With the tremendous advancements in knowledge gained in recent years as to how the brain functions and what it does, scientists will affirm that using presently available computer technology they could not duplicate the human brain's processing power or data storage capacity even if they could construct a computer the size of the planet earth! (The fastest, most powerful super-computing arrays yet developed by IBM and NEC have processing speeds equivalent to at most one-third of the brain-of a common housefly.) In fact, it has been estimated that the power and capacity of the human brain to process and store information is infinite! Most of what our brains do is performed without our conscious realization as hundreds of thousands of complex, elaborate systems are constantly monitored, regulated, controlled and communicated with via untold trillions of instruction sets per millisecond, 24 hours a day, over a nervous and chemical network that makes the entire world's satellite and fiber optics telecommunications systems combined seem like a crude, simple and primitive toy. However, the most amazing thing done by the brain is something that no computer can begin to do, which is to enable the generation of original conscious thought, reason and emotion.

During the 19th Century it was thought by scientists that the universe consisted of two basic entities-matter and energy. Due to the great scientific advancements that have occurred in the 20th Century coupled with a deeper awareness and level of thought, it is now seen that there is a third, vastly more important entity at work in the universe and that is required for life to exist-information. Information is a mass-less quantity that is not reducible to energy. This awareness is forcing another realization that is taking root among many contemporary scientists and thoughtful people-the acknowledgement that information is only generated by intelligence, and intelligence is meaningless, impotent and even impossible apart from an original, driving purpose-in other words a will and a desire-a personality.

Of this kind of science [evolution] it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' " Dr. David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

Almost 150 years after the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", the postulated law of biogenesis remains unchallenged-life can only come from previously existing life. In Darwin's time biologic and organic systems were thought to be many, many times simpler than they are known to be today. Just the likelihood of all of the tremendously complex organic components being formed and then coming together by any imaginary scenario of chance to create the nucleus of cellular life, DNA, can be shown to be an impossibility "of the highest order". Yet even then the DNA could not have survived without the equally complex, highly structured systems of support needed and that are present in the simplest living. The double strand helix of DNA is called by scientists: "The most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the universe." Far from being able to create life in a laboratory, scientists today will readily say that they have only scratched the surface in uncovering the seemingly imponderable mysteries and complexities of organic life. Note: Evolutionists admit that the possibility of the right combination of atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is at least 1 in 10 raised to 113- a number that exceeds the estimated total number of atoms contained in all of the billions of stars within each of all the billions of galaxies in the known universe combined! Mathematicians dismiss as having never taken place, even regardless of an infinite time frame, anything that has a probability of occurrence of less than 1 in 10 raised to 50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 complex protein molecules are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them could occur at random is greater than 1 in 10 raised to 40,000! However, many scientists feel that this calculation does not represent the most difficult challenge to the spontaneous generation of cellular life, since it doesn't take into consideration the issue of structure, in the same way that a huge pile of steel, aluminum, plastic and glass is not automatically structured into a Boeing 777.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact, it is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling." - T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Within the genetic code of any living thing there is allowance for variation. For example, all members of the feline or cat family could have sprung from just two original cats, a male and a female. But variation and speciation (formation of a new 'species'), among felines does not represent evolution since there is no vertical or upward increase in genetic complexity that has occurred. It is an example of horizontal change with no increase in complexity, as when dog or horse breeders selectively breed those animals to bring out certain characteristics. A dog can be bred to a certain size, either smaller or larger, but there is a point at which there is no further change possible since that limit allowed for in the genetic material (DNA), has been reached, and it is impossible for a dog to be inter-fertile with any other family of animal. A dog can never become anything other than a dog, and there is no evidence to indicate or even suggest that it has ever been anything other than a dog. Almost all of the so-called 'evidence' of evolution that is cited in textbooks represents this type of horizontal adaptation that occurs continually in all living things, however it would be a complete mistake to think of it as evolution as this is not what is taking place. The evolutionary idea that change occurs gradually in living organisms due to the passing on of inherited mutations has been completely discredited, yet this impossibility is still taught as fact in most school systems world-wide! True genetic mutations are extremely rare in nature and of those, 99% are demonstrably harmful to their recipients and render them no beneficial advantage. The extremely small percentages of mutations that are not harmful are seen as being neutral. Finally, almost all mutations are repaired and blocked from genetic transference within 3 generations due to the self-rejuvenating nature of DNA. Just as was the case with the peppered moth in 19th Century England, living organisms are constantly giving birth to a wide variety of non-exact duplications of themselves that are allowed for within the limits imposed by their genetic sphere, and one particular variation can become dominant in any population due to the very real process of natural selection through 'survival of the fittest' (but this never results in vertical, upward change representing increased genetic complexity). Dr. Jay Y. Chien, an internationally respected scientist with the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology in China is best noted for his extensive, groundbreaking research into the best-preserved fossil fields in the world representative of the 'Cambrian' geologic era, located in China's Yunnan Province. Dr. Chien has stated that his research convincingly reveals Darwin's hypothesized 'Tree of Life' to be in reality almost exactly the opposite of what Darwin proposed, (Darwin's 'Tree' is always displayed in high-school and college biology texts as accurately representing the history of all evolutionary descent on earth, and is the most famous icon of evolutionary dogma). However, long-standing research by scientists into the Cambrian era, evolution's so-called 'Big-Bang', has always shown that almost all now existing animal phyla (types) had suddenly appeared in that one geologic time-span. In the words of scientists: "almost overnight", geologically speaking.

"The creation account in Genesis [Bible] and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils." D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975 [biochemist].

Evolutionary explanations have no means of accounting for instinct in living things, which is the pre-programmed ability of some animals, birds and insects to perform feats that sometimes reflect what almost seems to be a superhuman wisdom. Certain ant colonies in sub-Saharan Africa build large above ground communities that incorporate a very ingenious method of natural air-conditioning that can maintain the interior temperature of the hill at a level 15 degrees cooler than the outside air. The delicate ant larvae within the community need to be maintained at this lower temperature or they will not survive. The exact way in which this impressive feat of engineering was accomplished was studied for many years before it was fully understood, and now the same principle of design is incorporated in civil engineering allowing for the building of much more energy-efficient structures. Evolution has no way of rationally explaining how co-dependency in biologic or ecological systems, also called 'irreducible complexity', came about. A very simple example of this can be illustrated by the clotting of blood in all warm-blooded creatures. It has been discovered that the clotting of blood is a very complicated chain of processes involving 8 separate chemical reactions. If one reaction does not occur, or if a specific enzyme or other organic factor is not present, blood will not clot. An evolutionary explanation would require us to believe that the first warm-blooded creature had possessed this extremely complex ability, or it would not have survived, and it would then have needed to pass this ability on as an inherited mutation to its offspring.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 'The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought'

Oftentimes, highly touted bone-fragment finds are disingenuously portrayed through the media and in textbooks as representing the 'part animal, part man' ancestors of humans. However, when the fragmented skeletal remains of these purported 'ape-men' are examined by experts in blind studies (when they have no prior knowledge of what they are examining), scientific consensus consistently and virtually always identifies them as representing either the remains of extinct apes, or as in the case of so-called 'Neanderthal Man', of a human with an advanced bone disease. When impressive artistic and digital renderings of these peculiar looking creatures as well as the evolutionary stages they supposedly transitioned through are graphically depicted in textbooks, TV programs and magazines, it is on the basis of pure speculation, imagination and wishful thinking. The strongest 'evidence' that evolutionists have in attempting to prove that there was once an ape that walked on two feet is a very short span of the imbedded hind prints of an ape without accompanying fore prints located at the site of an ancient volcanic lava flow in Tanzania, Africa; so that this site is world famous among evolutionists. Insofar as several animals including apes can be witnessed running on their hind legs for short distances today, and given the fact of the lava being extremely hot at the time the ape was there producing the prints, does this constitute proof? Note - evolutionists will admit it is the strongest proof they have!

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen, belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." Dr. Arthur N. Field.

Why would an 'ape-man' that represented an improvement over a mere ape go extinct, while its inferior predecessor would not? How is it that flowering plants evolved the necessity of being pollinated by honeybees, therefore requiring a flower, when the atmospheric dispersion method used by most non-flowering plants is much more efficient, and why so many different types and colors of flowers when pollinating insects are for the most part attracted to one flower just as well as any other, and are insensitive to color? Should we expect an ape to possess the highest level of intelligence and reasoning ability in the animal world, as an evolutionary model would suggest? However in many specific aspects this is definitely not the case, and an ape is no more intelligent overall than many other animals. In its evolutionary progression toward becoming a reptile, did a fish undergo the thousands of changes necessary in order to evolve the ability to breath without gills (no small feat), concurrently with evolving the thousands of changes that would have been necessary before its fins became reptilian legs? Did the changes that occurred before the fins became usable as legs or the gills became usable as lungs render the fish a survivability advantage, or were many thousands of useless mutations retained and passed on?

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge...The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Dr. Albert Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

Evolutionists once tried to say that humans possessed hundreds of useless organs that were carry-overs from previous evolutionary stages, what they called 'vestigial organs'. This was prominently cited as a proof of evolution in the past and it was taught as such in school textbooks, but now it is medically recognized that there are no vestigial organs in humans, none at all. It was once thought by many evolutionists (and taught in some textbooks), that the human embryo mimicked many stages of its evolutionary past while developing in the womb, including one stage where an attempt was made by the fetus to develop fish gills. This is now acknowledged by medical science to be complete, ridiculous nonsense. Evolutionists like to flaunt the fact that there are species of plants and animals living on the Galapagos Chain of islands that exist nowhere else (located off the coast of Ecuador, the Galapagos is where Darwin formulated many of his ideas on evolution). However this is insignificant in terms of even suggesting evolution, as those referred to species are closely related to and inter-fertile with their parent families that do exist on the mainland of Ecuador, so that this represents nothing more than another example of horizontal adaptation. In the book "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins reveals great imaginary talents in illustrating a purely conjectural explanation of the evolutionary process, while offering absolutely no proof of it (and by his own admission the simplest living organism contains at least enough structured information to completely fill all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica!)

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings... I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." Dr. H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin (1980).

While it's true that the ages of some organic specimens are often erroneously reported as being millions or billions of years old, these ages are arrived at 1) through the use of radiometric dating techniques that are admittedly highly suspect, and acknowledged to be unreliable due to many factors and variables especially as one goes further back in time, but primarily 2) through forcing the age of the specimen to fit into an estimate that 'seems' reasonable according to an arbitrary evolutionary time-frame. The practice of arriving at age estimates in this latter way is widely criticized as an example of what is referred to as the '*circular reasoning' of so much of what constitutes evolutionary logic; the presumption that since evolution is true, therefore this is how old it is, this is how it must have happened, etc-a way of thinking that is becoming increasingly ostracized for its lack of scientific soundness. Variables that call into question the validity of radiometric dating methods include ozone layer consistency over time, magnetic field disruption, the very imprecise science of accurately measuring rates of decay (resulting in great disparity of age estimates produced by different laboratories taken from the same sample, or even from the same sample at the same lab), and most fundamentally the extremely flawed assumption that isotopic samples represented a state of zero radioactive decay when first formed. In fact, the trend in science today is to dismiss the validity of ages arrived at through radiometric dating for ages over a few thousand years.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result [evolution] is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, 1982.

For many people, objections against considering the possibility of creation are based on a very narrow, artificial definition of science, which states that only observable physical phenomenon belong within the appropriate realm of science to consider. Since creation would require acknowledging the existence of an unseen creator, it is a concept they say exists outside of the proper boundaries of science to evaluate. Yet this violates the true spirit of science which is after all a pursuit of uncovering that which is true, and is tantamount to saying that truth cannot be acknowledged. It is true that an intelligent creator cannot be seen, but many of the most noted scientists of world history-Copernicus, Confucius, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin, Von Braun and many, many more did not doubt the reality of a higher intelligence behind the existence of the universe.

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971).




Rockland L. Zeiler Writing as Lai-En Xyler

Lai-En received his degree in anthropology from the University of Wyoming in 1981. Over the past 5 years he's been living and working in China where he's started two small, successful businesses and learned Chinese. During his time in China he's come to know many foreign and Chinese business persons, government officials and ordinary people. He's always been fascinated with China, loves living there, and would direct readers to his friend's website: [http://www.dreamsofchina.com] where if so inclined they can meet a Chinese friend, and to his school website: [http://www.goeduchina.com] where he makes it easy for anyone to learn Chinese. Contact him at floralchina@hotmail.com

Intention and Faith

I have learned the greatest lessons about giving from animals & nature. In fact, for human beings to truly evolve into our next phase of evolution, we must re-learn how to give from our original nature.

Somewhere along the path, we forgot our connection with everything and began to believe that we are our form and that everything outside of our bodies is not us. This fundamental error is behind most of the suffering in the world. How this error in thinking came about is easily explained... thinking itself, created the problem! Forms have a strong gravitational pull. When I say forms, I also include thoughts into the equation. Just try an experiment; look around you wherever you are... what do you notice? If you're inside you may notice a room, chairs, lamps, table, this page, etc. If outside... trees, houses, cars, grass etc... right? Now look again and take notice of the space, the nothingness around all of these objects, where does this space end? All of the objects, "forms" you sense are suspended and surrounded by space and on a subatomic level are made up of space itself. Quantum Physics has proven to us that the space between atoms and molecules is vast and the space within the atom is just as vast. You could compare the distance from an atomic nucleus to its' closest electron shell to that of the distance between the sun and its' surrounding planets. That's a lot of space! Go deeper yet, and the sub-atomic particles will get smaller and smaller, disappearing into nothingness and re-appearing into form like some kind of quantum dance!

So while these forms seem to divide us, the space that you're ultimately made of is the unifying non-substance that we have in common. The same can be said about thoughts. All thoughts are cerebral, mostly a frontal lobe process. They also have a gravitational pull that makes us associate with them; in reality, all thoughts arise from and are suspended in a baseline of non thought. This silent awareness, non-thought is the equivalence of the outward space that we can sense, and is our true nature. When all forms and thoughts dissolve, we are left with the pure aware alert silent being; that we really are. This being "our true nature" is within and without all forms and is the common and unifying demonstrator of all you sense, and its qualities are universal; it is tolerant, truthful, & compassionate. The mother of all creations, "Love", itself!

When we are associated with forms we believe that the greatest gifts we can give are other forms... flowers, rings and things. All of these things ultimately dissolve back into nothingness and are impermanent.

In reality, the greatest gift we can give ourselves and the "illusory others" in our lives is the gift of our presence.

When we show up as our true, authentic selves, a grateful non thinking feeling being, fully present, in the moment, it opens up the flow of our true nature and love is allowed to pour out all around us and into everything we do. This is the greatest gift we give to the world. Animals are masters of this! My dog Lola Shmola, has the IQ of a brick. She has never bought me flowers or a car. In fact the only physical present she has left for me is poop on my oriental rug. Lola however has shared her being with me in the form of unconditional love, companionship; her antics make me laugh hysterically. Many times while watching her play I have experienced long periods where my mind has stopped and I experienced bliss in the moment. During these times I have felt intense gratitude because I have been given the opportunity to love her. Humans often get this love thing all wrong! Everyone is very concerned and preoccupied with being loved. The real gift is that we are allowed to express the love that we are at our core, unconditionally and without attachment to an outcome, just like an animal or an infant loves. When you express your love from a state of a quiet mind like an animal or an infant does it is space itself that does the loving. This loving space is directed towards the space in another which is essentially the same space within you. There is only one space and ultimately only one self. From this perspective there is no "other" all space is you, and all love is self love. And all gifts that you give are ultimately gifts you give yourself.

Namaste




Albert Nunez, DVM, CVA practices at Animal Hospital of Lake Mary, 3609 Lake Emma Road in Lake Mary (407) 833-8868 and at Animal Hospital at Baldwin Park, 946 Lake Baldwin Lane, Orlando (407) 897-8555. Visit Animal Hospital's website: http://www.integratedveterinarymedicine.com/

Albert Nunez is also medical director for AGAN Therapeutics molecular hypothermia, Oncology and Neuro research. Visit: http://www.agantherapeutics.com/

The Animal and the Human

Recent DNA analyses have revealed that humans share a majority of our genetic makeup with other animals. Physically speaking, our similarities with our fellow beings far outweigh our differences. In the Western mindset, however, a sharp line is drawn between human beings and other animals. Because they do not communicate in our language, it is thought, we do not have much in common beyond physical structure. For Westerners, only humans have a soul, a wide range of emotions, and the unique capacities of reason, imagination, and the changing of our environment on a grand scale to meet our needs. Despite the division in our thinking, we still have intimate relationships with the animals closest to us and cannot seem to resist anthropomorphizing them. There are several societies whose conception of humans' place in the animal world is far different from ours.

Although these kinds of belief systems are widely varied, many see us as more
closely related to other creatures, both physically and spiritually. Here, I will
examine a few of these non-Western ideologies and compare their conceptions of
the human-animal relationship to each other and to Western ideas.

Several cultures which hold traditionally animistic religious beliefs share the concept
of a time long ago during which humans were animals and vice versa. In this
"Distant Time," "Dreamtime" or "Mythtime," as it is variously referred to, animals
were able to take human form. Most animals, it is believed, once possessed human
souls, and some cultures think that they still do, although the average person is now
unable to perceive them. Folklorist Charles L. Edwards hints that this idea may have
evolved out of a memory of a much earlier period in the evolution of the human
species, when the common ancestor of both humans and apes roamed the earth.
This apelike being lived no differently from the other predatory mammals who
shared his environment. Some of his offspring later began the process of change
and adaptation that would produce our species. "In outwitting his foes, instead of
throttling them the diverging elementary man began to make plans of strategy." As
their thought process grew more complex, Edwards argues, early humans expanded
their thinking beyond their immediate surroundings and contemplated the unseen
forces that governed their world. "[T]hese forces took form in the gods who dwelt
beyond the clouds, and the myths of cosmogony and transformation arose." Now,
when people belonging to animistic traditions look for ways of explaining the
phenomena around them and of connecting their rituals to the greater processes of
continuing cyclical transformation, they recall the time when myths were formed,
when humans were much closer to other animals than we are today.

Edwards connects the deep sense of spiritual communion with other beings out of
which myth and belief in the supernatural arise to the formative period in the
development of each human being known as childhood. He relates a story of his
own childhood and the time he spent watching ants in his backyard, inventing
stories to match the escapades of "the ant-people." He envisions them as soldiers
engaged in various industries at peacetime, but in wartime displaying "remarkable
valor and extraordinary strategy." This depth of imagination, which is now the
exclusive domain of children, is the fertile ground from which spring "the miracles
of transformation" and the deeper sense of connection through the
anthropomorphism of playful storymaking. "So we see in the child, as in primitive
people [sic], the projection of his own fancies born of fear, or love, or desire, into
the things about him which then become personified."

For many non-Westerners, the rituals associated with storytelling and traditional
practice comprise an extension and evolution of childhood, where the wonder and
intimacy in the natural world they experienced as children develops into a greater
understanding of ourselves and other forms of life. Most Western adults are, on the
surface, all too eager to put childhood behind them. Our deep longing to connect
to the wider life community manifests itself in other ways, though, such as our
feelings towards our companion animals.

The Distant Time stories of the Koyukon people, who inhabit the boreal forests of
central Alaska, show another instance of the interrelatedness of humans and other
animals in a non-Western culture. Once again, the time when human-animal
transformations occurred is seen as a dreamlike phase in the formation of the earth
and cosmos:

During this age [Distant Time] 'the animals were human'--that is,
they had human form, they lived in a human society, and they spoke human
(Koyukon) language. At some point in the Distant Time certain humans died and
were transformed into animal or plant beings [...] These dreamlike metamorphoses
left a residue of human qualities and personality traits in the north-woods
creatures.

Distant Time stories account for natural features and occurrences, as well as for the
physical forms and personalities of the animals. The myths also dictate how they
must be treated. Since the animals were once human, the Koyukon believe, they can
understand and are aware of human actions, words and thoughts. Although the
spirits of some animals are more potent than others, it is important to treat all
animals with respect because they can cause grief and bad luck for those who do
otherwise. Because Koyukon people were no different from other animals in Distant
Time and because of the awareness and power of animal spirits, it may appear that
they do not conceive of a separation between human and animal realms. However,
the Koyukon believe that only humans possess a soul which is different from the
animals' spirits. But because they accept that humans were created by a human-
animal (the Raven), the distinction is less sharp than in Western cultures. The
similarities between us and other animals derive not as much from the animal
nature of humans as from the human nature of animals, having been human in
Distant Time.

The relative absence of a boundary between the human and animal realms figures
widely in the mythology of the Inuit and Eskimo. Their stories of a similar time long
ago explain the way they see their world and also guide their traditional
observances, rituals and overall lifestyle, much as the Distant Time stories do for
the Koyukon. Just as the myths account for such things as the shape of the land,
the cycles of sun, moon and seasons and the generation of all life forms, they also
dictate how each person is to play his or her role in society. Tom Lowenstein
investigates this phenomenon amongst the Inuit of Tikigaq Peninsula in
northwestern Alaska in a poetic book entitled Ancient Land, Sacred Whale.
For these people, the annual whale hunt and the elaborate preparations for it
reenact a mythic cycle. The rituals surrounding the whale hunt represent a complex
interplay between them and the spirit of the whale, whose power is seen as greater
than that of humans. Their belief system comprehends the union of many
opposites, including the human and animal. "Just as Raven Man had the double
character of bird and human, and the uliuaqtaq [unmarried woman who marries
Raven Man in the story] was a double creative/destructive presence , so the whale
was perceived in terms of two main elements: animal and land." By reenacting the
ages-old epic every spring, the Tikigaq Inuit play an essential role in keeping the
forces of nature in balance, thereby ensuring their survival and livelihood.

A central aspect of the religious traditions of several Eskimo tribes of northeastern
Canada and Greenland is the existence of the Sea Mother, who is both as a real
creature living on the ocean floor and a spirit residing within sea creatures (as well
as land creatures, according to some tribes). The ancient story of her coming to be
the spiritual ruler of the submarine world is similar across these cultures and it
serves to bind the animal and human worlds together. According to one version of
the story, the Sea Mother (who goes by different names, Sedna being one of the
most recognized) was once a young woman living with her father. She had refused
to marry, but a sea bird disguised as a man succeeds in winning her hand and
whisks her across the sea. Her life with him is miserable, and eventually her father
comes and takes her with him in his boat. The bird-man is furious, so he causes a
windstorm which capsizes the boat. The woman is left hanging on by her fingertips.
In anger and desperation, her father decides to amputate her fingers, each of which
becomes a sea creature as it drops into the water. Once the last finger is cut, the
woman sinks to the sea floor, where she becomes the Sea Mother, having dominion
over the souls of the creatures made from her fingers.

Since the Eskimo depend on sea creatures for most of their food supply, keeping the
Sea Mother happy is an important aspect of their endeavors. She is seen as having
control of the souls of many creatures, which are able to take either animal or
human form, and as a union of opposites. Her power is respected as greater than
the human because people are utterly dependent on other creatures for survival.
However, she is also scorned because of her refusal to join human society (which is
indicated by her refusal to marry) and her insistence on living in a dream world. The
human/animal boundary is central to the Sea Mother's status both as an abject
outcast and as a great power to be feared and obeyed. The people's lukewarm
relationship with her is indicative of their respect for and struggle with the animals
and the natural world, with which they must maintain the proper balance in order to
ensure survival and sustainability.

In "Witches' Transformations into Animals," M. A. Murray investigates an example of
human-animal transformation in a Western setting which took place among witches
in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England and France, as well as in colonial
New England. These witches carried on pre-Christian traditions. Each witch's
transformation ability was limited to one or two animals, usually a cat or a hare, but
occasionally a dog, mouse, crow, rock or bee. Transformation was accomplished
"by being invested with the skin of the creature, by the utterance of magical words,
the making of magical gestures, the wearing of a magical object [amulet], or the
performance of magical ceremonies." These methods appear as motifs in many
cultures. "Distant Time" stories tell of humans becoming animals by doing any of
these things, and shamans continue this practice in several places. Another
common belief which Murray argues is a corollary to zoomorphism is that wounds a
person receives while in the shape of an animal remain on the body after a return to
the human form. Witches saw taking on the form of their particular species as a
way of becoming one with that animal's spirit, as shamans use ritual objects made
of animal parts to communicate with the spirit world.

Jean Buxton examines animal and human identities in the traditional culture of the
Mandari people of southern Sudan in "Animal Identity and Human Peril." For these
people, the physical location where an animal lives relative to the human homestead
and village determines its cultural and spiritual status. Like many Westerners, the
Mandari draw a sharp line between the animals of the home (dogs and other
domesticated animals), the animals of the village (cattle and other farmed animals),
and animals of the three tiers of the wild, separated according to distance from the
village.

Dogs are by far the most important animals, and are the closest to people physically
and emotionally. Mandari mythology contains stories of ancient people who had
dogs with horns that were featured in rain rituals. Owners of "horned" dogs had
higher stature than those with "hornless" dogs. The Mandari also believe that
primal dogs could speak and warn people of impending danger, and that it was the
dog who taught humans the use of fire, enabling them to become more social
beings. In short, the dog "is represented as needed and liked, and as reciprocating
these attitudes." Cattle also have an important role considering their appearance in
myth, their long-standing ties with people, and their economic and social
importance. They do not, however, enjoy the same emotional attachment to the
Mandari that dogs have. Although chickens are also considered animals of the
homestead, their dual classification as "birds of the above" causes them to lack
innate dignity. Therefore, it is permissible to slaughter them with impunity.

Contrarily, wild animals who inhabit homesteads, though categorized as "wild
nature," are often given immunity from human-induced harm because of their
location in the homestead. Just outside the village lies the realm of semi-domestic
and scavenger animals, and further beyond lies the habitat of game and predator
animals. It is here where the line between human and animal solidifies. While dogs
and cattle are given the "dignity and integrity of 'psyche'," game animals and those
capable of killing people are not seen as deserving of any respect. One notable
exception is the leopard, which is seen as more "like a person" and is given
elaborate death rites. "Mandari are quite clear about the basic separation between
man and animal, and of the fact that while man is a part of the animal world, an
animal is never a man."

Although the concept of the boundary between humans and animals varies between
cultures, there are few examples of people for whom humans are absolutely no
different from the other creatures with whom we share our world. In the cultures
examined here, the existence of well-defined roles for each species, which are
generally learned through myths that describe how each animal got its place in the
living community, defines the way animals are regarded and what spiritual
significance they are given. The grand variability of ideas about the human/animal
division is indicative of our species' multifaceted relationship with other species.
The fact that humans are almost universally seen as unique may, in some respects,
serve to qualify the uniqueness of nonhuman animal species. Certainly, for non-
Western cultures especially, our exceptionality does not always make us the most
powerful or important species. It only serves to define our place in the natural
world and, in many cases, to deepen our connection to other species.




Malcolm Kenton is a sophomore and full-time student at Guilford College in North Carolina, where he is majoring in Environmental Studies and Political Science. His interests include activism on behalf of animal protection and the environment, politics, computers, music and reading and writing. He resides in Greensboro, North Carolina. He was the editor of his high school newspaper and has had op-ed pieces published in the Greensboro News and Record.

The Evolution of Running in Humans - Why We Are Among the Best Endurance Runners on the Planet

If you have been running for any length of time, you've probably received derisive comments and odd looks from friends/family regarding your running habit. "You're going to ruin your knees" is a common one, "humans aren't built to run long distances" is another. Fortunately for runners, these sometimes scornful comments couldn't be further off-the-mark. Read on, and I'll attempt to explain why it is that humans are among the premier long-distance runners among mammals, how we got to where we are atop this podium, and why sitting on the couch is really what is most unnatural for us as a species.

Ever since I started to run in earnest, I've had a sense that running is something natural, something that we as humans are supposed to do. To a certain extent, this probably arises from my training as an anatomist/physiologist and evolutionary biologist. If you think about human history, our human body evolved under a very different set of conditions than it is exposed to today. Our bodies did not evolve in an environment where obtaining food simply required a drive to the nearest supermarket or fast-food restaurant. Rather, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors in an environment where food generally had to be either gathered, scavenged, or hunted, and thus physical traits that enhanced the ability to accomplish these food-gathering behaviors were critical to our survival as a species. Of these physical traits, being able to run is hypothesized by some scientists and anthropologists to have been exceptionally important - our ancestors had to be able to catch prey on the run and get to carcasses before they were scavenged by other animals.

Indeed, endurance running is still a tradition in some native cultures, such as among the Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico. The Tarahumara are widely admired for their endurance running capabilities, and a hunting tradition in the tribe is to chase a wild animal like a deer until it collapses from exhaustion, at which point it can be caught and killed. This type of hunting, called "persistence hunting," is also practiced by some Kalahari bushmen in Africa, and was described in detail in one of my favorite episodes of NPR's This American Life (Episode 80). In this episode, titled "Running After Antelope," Scott Carrier recounts his story of trying to catch a pronghorn antelope by running it down on foot. There was something raw and emotional in Carrier's story that really struck a chord with me, and if you're a runner of any kind it's a must listen. The book "Why We Run: A Natural History," by Bernd Heinrich, also describes persistence hunting (as part of the larger story of why he, and we, run), and is probably the most enjoyable running book that I have read.

Before I explain the evolutionary hypotheses in more detail, let me start by emphasizing that we humans are darned good endurance runners. In fact, we may just be the best among all mammals when it comes to endurance running. What we lack in speed, we more than make up for in our ability to run long distances at a slow, sustained pace. For this reason, we are one of the few species on earth that can actually complete a marathon. Take dogs for example - I frequently run with my black lab Jack. In a flat out sprint, Jack would blow me away (he spotted a deer behind our house one afternoon, and his sprint through the woods was a thing to behold).

However, when I'm marathon training, I'm careful not to take him much more than 6-7 miles since he burns out after about that distance. Even in winter, there are times when we return from a run and he has to roll around in the snow just to cool down. Keep in mind, dogs are pretty good endurance runners as animals go, but we humans blow them away when it comes to running long distance. As another example, most people would hold horses up as a prime example of an animal designed to go the distance. However, during the annual Man versus Horse Marathon in Wales, humans have defeated the fastest horse in the race on at least two recent occasions, demonstrating that when it comes to endurance among mammals, we are right there at the top. Indeed, in a 2007 article in the journal Sports Medicine titled "The Evolution of Marathon Running," authors Daniel Lieberman (Harvard) and Dennis Bramble (University of Utah) report that "for marathon-length distances, humans can outrun almost all other mammals and can sometimes outrun even horses, especially when it is hot."

So lets look at the the data supporting the hypothesis that humans evolved to be runners in a bit more detail. The logic according to the 2007 article by Lieberman and Bramble goes something like this:

1. Our primate ancestors are not good runners. The reason for this is that their anatomy is more suited to life in the trees, and whereas chimps can sprint, they cannot do so for much more than 100m.

2. Fossil evidence shows that about 2 million years ago, our already bipedal ancestors began to exhibit anatomical traits that make for more efficient running (see list below, also see a 2004 Nature article by Bramble and Lieberman titled "Endurance Running and the Evolution of Homo").

3. These anatomical changes appeared in association with the invasion of a new habitat and the appearance of new food-gathering tactics (i.e., a new niche in ecological parlance). Human ancestors were moving from the trees onto the ground, and we were becoming daytime hunters, with a penchant for eating meat. Fossil evidence (e.g., tooth characteristics) suggests that human ancestors began incorporating meat to a larger degree about 2.5 million years ago (this is not to say that chimps don't eat some meat - they do). In order to get meat into the diet, we had to hunt and scavenge (and keep in mind that our earliest ancestors didn't have stone-tipped spears, bows, or high-powered rifles and shotguns).

Lieberman and Bramble (2007) cite a 2006 paper by John J. Shea from the Journal of Archaeological Science (citation provided below) that indicates that stone-tipped spears didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago, whereas bows have been around for only about the last 50,000 years. Thus, to kill an animal, we had to do it at close range, which means either ambushing them (which can be dangerous to the hunter) or chasing them down. We also had to compete with other carnivores and scavengers (think lions and hyenas) for limited resources in a hot, arid environment. This placed high emphasis on speed and endurance, as well as efficient heat regulation. End result = we as humans evolved to be outstanding runners, and what's more, we can run efficiently for long distances in environmental conditions that would rapidly exhaust or could potentially even kill most other mammals.

So what is it about humans that makes us such good distance runners? What are the traits that separate us from our nearest relatives? Bramble and Lieberman (2004) and Lieberman and Bramble (2007) suggest the following:

1. Energetics - Humans have springy ligaments in the legs and feet (e.g., the Achilles tendon and the Iliotibial Tract are examples) that allow us to store energy during each down-step and then release that energy like a spring on the up-step. Conversely, in apes these tendons/ligaments are more poorly-developed or absent.

2. Stabilization - It is harder to stabilize the body while running than it is to do so while walking, especially in bipeds. Humans have unique anatomical characteristics that confer much greater stability while running. Among other things, these traits include a well-developed gluteus maximus that is mostly active while running (yes, big butts!), a narrow waist, mobile torso, and improvements in the inner ear that help us to better maintain balance.

3. Thermoregulation - As any runner knows, physical exertion generates body-heat. Because running is muscle-intensive, it generates much more heat than walking, and if we don't get rid of that heat we can get into trouble (i.e., hyperthermia). One of the reasons why many mammals can't go the distance is that they don't have specializations to offload all of the heat produced while running. This is why my dog, Jack, can't join me for a 20-mile marathon training run in the spring or summer. Humans, on the other hand, can run long in the heat (like on the African plains, or in the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon) because we are expert sweaters. We have no fur (well, most of us) to heat us up, and our sweat glands are densely and widely dispersed across the surface of our bodies. When we run, we sweat, often profusely. When we sweat, we cool down. The trade off here is that we humans lose a lot of salt and fluid when we're active, which is why companies like Gatorade stay in business.

To summarize the logic of what's above, I offer the following: We humans evolved to be hunters. To hunt without bows and guns we needed to run. In order to become more efficient hunters, we evolved anatomical and physiological traits that made us better runners. Now that hunting is no longer a necessity, our species for the most part has stopped running, but that absolutely does not mean that running is unnatural or dangerous. Rather, I would argue (strongly) that running is completely natural for humans, and that not running is in fact what is aberrant. Think about it for a minute or two and see if you agree.

Let me finish with a few thoughts. First - the next time someone tells you that running is unnatural, refer them to this article or to the work of the scientists cited here. Simply stated, we as humans evolved to run, and there is nothing more natural that we could do. Does this mean that running marathons every day is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that running a race like the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that running everyday on asphalt and concrete is natural? Probably not. What it does mean is that the next time you lace up your shoes for a run, you are simply celebrating our evolutionary history as a species, and doing something that we have been doing effectively for millions of years. In short, you are being a good animal, a good human. To look at this in one last way, I'll quote the final paragraph of Lieberman and Bramble's excellent 2007 article:

"In short, the human ability to run long distances, such as a marathon, is neither a simple byproduct of the ability to walk bipedally, nor a biologically aberrant behaviour. Instead, running has deep evolutionary roots. Although humans no longer need to run, the capacity and proclivity to run marathons is the modern manifestation of a uniquely human trait that helps make humans the way we are."

How's that for motivation.




The author of this article, Peter Larson, writes a blog, Runblogger, that provides thoughts and tips on running, blogging, and living an active life.

A complete version of this article with images and links can be found at: http://www.runblogger.com/2009/04/evolution-of-running-in-humans-why-we.html

วันพุธที่ 23 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

The Big Plush Dog and the Dogs Evolution

Owning a big plush dog does not require the same amount of responsibility as owning the real thing. While it's true a big plush dog needs loads of love and attention, when it comes to food and walks, there is of course, no requirement at all.

If history is right, in that there is at least a 15,000 year relationship between humans and canines, then the first animal to be domesticated was quite likely the dog. Over these many years, dogs have played different roles and been involved in various types of jobs but one thing remains the same: despite their numerous shapes and sizes, dogs are all one species and have one history.

Dogs are members of a family of carniverous mammals and Canids are part of a bigger group called Carnivora; this group also includes cats, bears, and seals. According to fossil evidence, 40 million years ago, these mammals split away from their common ancestor, Carnivora. Thus, for approximately, 15 million years, carniverous mammals have been spit into three sub-groups: wolf-like animals (wolves, coyotes, and jackals), fox-like animals, and South American canids (like the crab eating fox).

Scientist Charles Darwin thought that dogs were descendants of different types of wild canids, however, with today's modern DNA analysis, we know for a fact that dogs are only descended from wolves. Despite this evidence, how exactly that evolution came about, is far less evident. Both fiction and non-fiction alike, represent the fact that it was prehistoric people who took wolf pups from their dens and went on to raise them so they would think of humans as their "pack." While living with people these tame wolves went on to reproduce. Eventually, they were selectively bred until the diversity of the dogs we know today was created.

There are those in the scientific community who believe there are holes in the above mentioned theory. If it's true that the traits of wolves shifted to the traits of dogs, then it only could have taken place very slowly and over a long period of time - thousands or millions of years to be able to obtain such diversity in the species. However, according to fossil evidence, the appearance of dogs was not that long ago. Per DNA results, it has been suggested that dogs split from wolves 100,000 years ago which in terms of evolution, is quite recent. But, in dogs, there are some of the most extreme physical differences of any species of mammal; in dogs we find more varieties of color, size, coat texture, and other types of appearance differences than can be found in all other members of the canid family.

There have been some more recent, even controversial theories as to how the dog evolved from the wolf; authors of the book Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution, Raymond and Lorna Coppinger, suggest that some wolves became tame on their own. "When humans went from mobile hunter/gatherer societies to sedentary villagers, they created a new ecological niche for neighboring wolves. The traditional niche for wolves is a forest predator of herbivores (plant-eaters) such as deer and elk. This niche requires wolves to be large, strong, innovative and able to learn by example."

No matter how the dog evolved, it's here to stay now. And with it, comes the best compliment it can ever be given: the design of the big plush dog representing the real thing in all its glory.

Copyright Shelley Vassall, 2010.




big plush dog

big plush dog

วันอังคารที่ 22 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

Why Animals Cannot Talk

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God (John 1:1). The Word was the Language of the Lord found in all Creations through which Creation is and came into being. A faint reflection of this Word is the human word which forms a means of communications between human beings. This formation of words is an advanced form of production of sound which even animals possess.

How did the human word come into being? To answer this question we go back to Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution. Man, according to him, evolved from anthropoid apes (Humorist Mark Twain will disagree and say its the other way round-and with good reasons too). These apes develop into human beings or develop into us. But all experiments to make apes talk or form words and sentences have never yielded any positive result because the fundamental issues is not taken into considerations-the structure of the larynx or voice box.

The natural happening in its simplicity is as follows: When a particular specie of apes have evolved to the highest they can ever evolve, the human souls were at the beginning of their incarnation while the animals were at the point of evolutionary decline. This was at the middle of the evolution of the earth. It was also at the middle of pregnancy for the apes.

With the entrance of the spirit, the apes gradually started to stand erect. They also started making efforts to translate their intuitive radiations into tangible sounds. This resulted in the development and fine tuning of the vocal organs. With further evolution of the body, the larynx gradually sank down, in contradistinction to the apes that, because of the animal soul inherent in them,remained static. This evolution also affected the shape of the mouth and nose. Thus concepts arose, specific sounds were made and joined together to to form sentences. In the Bible, Genesis stated that, at that point the human beings were able to give animals names. (Genesis 2:19-20)

These words formed have a releasing effect on the primordial creation's powers that humanity is yet to tap in its full potentials, but misuse has already done much havoc.

At the initial stage everything was swinging in the laws of creation. But when man started to neglect the creation's laws and concentrate on the material only through the enthronement of intellectual sagacity over the intuition, the result was devastating on the language evolution. Before, the various languages were pure and geared towards levels of spiritual maturity of the people. Now, conceit, falsehood and arrogance that led men to think of building an intellectual empire whose culmination reaches to the heavens in order to make names for themselves. This resulted in the allegory of the tower of babel (Genesis 11:1-9).

Today languages have so declined that floods of words are permeated with mostly evil radiation, resulting in the so called slang, abbreviations and downright distortion of words.

It is not the environment that forms the language,but the language forms the environment. Thus a ponderous language forms a ponderous people, an elevated language forms an elevated people. Thus, for example, the different between the Briton and an American is a reflection of how both people speak and pronounce words of the same language-English.

The power of language can be seen in curses and blessings,which, imbued with strong intuition, can even last through various incarnations before the effect can be lived through. That is also why incantation works for those who know how to align their volition with their words, which as at present are found more among the so called primitive people.

It is also true that after the tribulation many languages will become extinct, while the few remaining will be elevated to maturity. And there will emerge only one leading language of the world, as once Latin was called in the transition era of Christianity.



The Dinosaur That Never Went Extinct

The tuatara (Sphendon punctatus) is a spectacular reptile that only lives in New Zealand. Often called the living dinosaur, the tuatara has resisted both extinction and change. The tuatara is the only survivor of the reptilian order Sphehodontia. Evolutionary biologists believe that it lived together with early dinosaurs in the Upper Triassic some 200 million years ago.

Recently, researchers found an interesting detail about the tuatara. David Lambert and his colleagues at the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution analysed DNA sequences they found in the bones of tuatara estimated to be 8000 years old.

They published their findings in the journal Trends in Genetics. As reported by EurekAlert and LiveScience, their discoveries were astounding: they found that the tuatara is the fastest evolving animal. "What we found was that the tuatara has the highest molecular evolutionary rate anyone has measured," professor Lambert says according to EurekAlert. Lambert's study suggests that the tuatara has been evolving faster that animals like the cave bear, lion, ox or horse.

So how can an animal that has shown no signs of change for aeons be changing faster than many others? Professor Lambert says, "the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution." In other words, inner change or change at the molecular level does not correspond to what we see on the outside.

Yet evolutionary theory predicted that slow change or no change would have corresponded to slow change or no change at the molecular level. Far from supporting the neo-Darwinian theory of molecules-to-man evolution, the "living dinosaur" shows that there are grave problems with the view.

Like other living fossils such as the crocodile, army ant, cockroach, Coelacanth and horseshoe crab, the tuatara is evidence for resistance to the type of change that Darwinian evolution desperately needs.

Some animal species have a history of incredible change. The dog (Canis lupus familiaris), which according to Linnean classification belongs to the same species as the gray wolf (Canis lupus), is capable of an enormous amount of variety, brought about by artificial selection. But this is not the kind of change that evolution in its neo-Darwinian sense requires.

And neither is the variety evident in the DNA of a reptile that has resisted change for a very long time.




Joel Kontinen is a translator and novelist currently living in Finland. His background includes an MA in translation studies and a BA in Bible and Theology. He likes to keep up-to-date on science news and often comments on creation/evolution and origins issues.

Blog: http://joelkontinen.weebly.com/

Animal Testing - More Common Than You Think

I once received a pamphlet from a friend when I was in college. He told me to read it and pass it on. The pamphlet contained information about animal testing. It listed the companies that still use it, and those that did not. I felt sad when I saw that many of the companies that did it were the companies that make many of the things that I use in my home. As a result, I threw out most of those stuff when I got home. I then tried to decide on what products I could use. I always try my best to get the right products, although I can't say that I am perfect about buying the right ones.

Do you know that animal testing has been around for a long time? I prefer to hear that it is being done for medical research, even if I still think that it should not be condoned for any reason. I feel disgusted whenever I hear that animal testing is done for things like shampoos and conditioners. Of course, I understand that a company has to know if their product will harm a person when they use it. However, I think that they should find another way to test their products other than using it on those poor animals.

A lot of other people are also bothered with the issue of animal testing. Animals should have a long, love-filled life as a pet. They should not be used to test products for beauty reasons. We should not see these animals as things that we can use for whatever we think we need to do. The thought of animals suffering from chemicals slathered on their skin, locked away in cages, knowing nothing but pain is unbearable for me.

Animal testing that is used for medications is not any better, but at least that is used to save lives. I can deal with frizzy hair if it means that there is less animal testing going on. I live with giving up my favorite conditioner for this cause. In fact, I have found something that works even better. The best thing is that it is not tested on animals. It may take you some time to find the right stuff if you really want to boycott companies that use animal testing. However, the time and effort spent in finding these products is worth it.




Morgan Hamilton offers expert advice and great tips regarding all aspects concerning Animal Testing. Visit our site for more helpful information about Animal Testing and other similar topics.

วันจันทร์ที่ 21 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

Human Thought and Emotion- Is it Different than Any Other Animal?

Are human thought, reasoning and abilities of the mind so vastly superior to animals we observe in the wild and as pets that they deserve a separate classification from that of the animal kingdom? Human beings maintain a wide set of emotional states, thoughts and abilities, which we see in animals. Yet, seldom do we see all of these in all animals or at all times? One think tanker in an online think tank challenged a commenter with regards to emotion of "Empathy" as to whether humans and animals were all that different. Indeed the think tanker brought up some excellent points of contention, which do indeed require further thought and review.

The think tanker stated; "We could expand this further by considering the complexities of networked human characteristics in opposition to isolated ones. It is also important to keep in mind that as a species, humans are the quintessential element on this planet, and seem to have been since the beginning of recorded history."

Indeed and humans without competition and with the use of those social characteristics developed it makes sense that humans would remain so, having now controlled many larger complex life forms on the surface of the planet. Also with the kill off rates of human's next nearest competitor species (large complex life) it would seem that humans have had a good run and should continue this run, that is if they do not kill off them selves thru believing that they are invincible to other threats or do not cause issues of war or destruction of their eco-system needed to sustain the huge population bases. And in your statement we must also realize that there are top of the food chain ocean species, insects, viruses, bacteria, reptiles, birds and other smaller mammals, which are doing fine on their own and adapting to human control of the surface of the planet. As well as those species, which are being pushed to extinction due to the rapid expansion of the human domain.

Excellent points to consider and the think tanker takes this one step further and states: "I think we can use our own sense of judgment to determine that we are not rivaled in any way by other living thing on this planet. Even though some animals may demonstrate phenomenal abilities in some areas, the most magisterial example of our greatness is demonstrated by our superior abilities to study, construct and surpass that which we have observed."

I agree that observations trump religious dogma and that humans do possess many very good uses of such traits and have evolved that way for a reason. Yet, the animal instincts humans possess, we sweep under the carpets and deny seem all too often come out at in-opportune times and if we fail to recognize these, as we tout our own human self-aggrandizement; we also fail to understand our place in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. When you speak of humans in such a wonderful light, we fail to share the truth about over half of the human population, which cannot think themselves out of a paper bag. Indeed we have most all of the African Continent at an IQ level of 85. Only 20-25 points above chimpanzees we have trained. So, as an observer of the human race, indeed it is an interesting species, but as far as being impressed? Well for me, that would be rarely.

We see birds, animals of prey and social mammals think, problem solve and adapt. They use their genetic abilities to their fullest, where as many humans piss theirs away. If an animal or organism's mission is to live, procreate and die; then one could say that the animals often fulfill that mission better and do so using complex thought, problem solving and strategic thinking. Empathy is one social emotional trait, which can be seen in almost all complex life, which has adapted to live in social groupings.

I would not mind seeing your experiment carried out, although agree in observation that humans are a cut above, only in my estimation only a slight cut above and that there are some humans that are a big jump above the rest. The difference between actual humans in my opinion is greater than the leap from a Dog to the lowest human. That is to say IQ wise. With dogs being 20-30; the lowest humans (not developing children or retarded) at 70 IQ, as we see some humans at over 140 IQ. And when looking at the masses, it seems to me that it is hard to debate that much of the human population simply is not using all it has available and/or is not trying. Worse off that particular group seems to be re-producing faster than the rest. This is not good for the on-going future of human evolution. This is a rather interesting subject for a think tank and perhaps you have some thoughts on this subject of your own and if so, consider this in 2006.




"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Habitat Restoration is Becoming a Government Issue

A habitat is the natural environment in which the plant species exists, and it comprises of complex interactions between the plants and animals, and their physical environment. The evolution of habitat for a particular species takes a long time, even ranging to thousands of years. This makes it imperative for us to preserve the existing habitats and balance the ecosystem. Restoration is the only option in case of habitats where losses or damage has already occurred. Habitat restoration would firstly require the disturbed habitats to be identified and then restoring of the native flora and fauna. Restoration of a habitat is difficult and a long-term process that involves re-generating the conditions that are essential for a particular habitat to exist. Many problems are encountered, like managing exotic and invasive species, problematic soils and variations in population.

Before getting on to the task of habitat restoration one has to have a complete understanding of the ecological requirements of the species involved, of the history of the land-use patterns and a clear picture of what the perfect habitat should look like. This process requires good amount of time, energy and money. Looking at the gravity and the immenseness of the issue, the government is giving financial and technical assistance to individuals to repair the habitat and is providing with information of the habitat needs of the wildlife species, publications on improving the habitat and the process to establish native grasses. Various restoration projects and programs have been initiated by the government through its agencies and departments. Some of the restoration projects and programs are the farm wildlife habitat program, landowner's incentive program to protect and enhance the rare species habitats, wildlife resources foundation programs and stream mitigation program to improve water quality and riparian habitat of the aquatic resources, forestry programs to increase public awareness about wise forest use and management, fish & wildlife service programs to restore, improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat, cooperative partnerships, agriculture programs to establish a soil-conserving vegetative cover on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive lands, wetlands reserve programs to restore wetlands on private or tribal property through acquisition of conservation agreements, and grasslands reserve programs to maintain healthy grazing lands and protect them from development.

Restoration of native plants is essential as they provide food, shelter and cover for many kinds of wildlife. They also enrich the soil, and their roots help reduce soil erosion and filter out the pollutants from the rain water before it reaches to the fishes in the streams and lakes. These native plants have over the time developed a relation with other surrounding plants, animals and microorganisms and they all have adapted to similar soil, moisture and weather conditions. Habitat restoration is also possible individually by landscaping and developing gardens of native plants purchased from a nursery. This way it is possible not only to save on water, make the soil fertile, reduce pesticides use and but also enrich the garden with all kinds of beautiful flora and fauna.




To receive a quote on a wholesale tree or plant purchase, visit our online tree nursery at http://tnnursery.net Where possible, we answer all bid requests the day they are received. We will never be undersold when it comes to quality specimen trees.

Large and trailer-load quantities of wholesale trees and plants are always given excellent discounts. Our minimum wholesale order requirement is $250.00 for all orders placed online.

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 20 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2554

Animals Inspire Human Development

Humans are at the top of the evolutionary chain. At least that's what most of us like to believe. To believe anything else would jeopardise our claim as planetary rulers and do tremendous damage to many fragile egos. We may have learnt to walk on two legs, use our opposable thumbs, and develop writing systems, but that doesn't make us the pinnacle of existence. The truth is that no matter how advanced we think we are, we look to animals for inspiration when thinking up many new technologies.

Dolphins, like humans, need to be conscious or maintain a certain level of awareness to breathe. Both species also need to rest their brains by entering into an unconscious state. Humans simply go to sleep, but if dolphins switched off completely as we do, they would drown. In the interests of self-preservation, they have evolved the ability to shut down one half of their brain at a time. This ensures that they maintain enough awareness to tend to their physical needs, while getting much needed rest.

Being able to function on half a brain while letting the other half rest would be an invaluable ability in many professions. Military personnel could stay awake and alert in dangerous situations, and doctors would be able handle their demanding shift schedules. This raises the question of capability. Dolphins use the ability to maintain basic functioning. Doctors and members of the military need higher levels of functioning, as they are responsible for other lives. Would you trust a neurosurgeon with half of his or her brain asleep? Nevertheless, efforts are being made to manufacture stimulants that would allow people to mimic dolphins and maintain awareness for over sixty hours.

Pit Vipers can differentiate between the heat given off by possible prey and the heat emanating from its surrounding rocky environment. This ability comes from granules in their nostrils that are sensitive to changes in heat within a perimeter that extends beyond its striking distance. Scientists mimicked this ability and used it in the creation of thermal imaging technology. Thermal imaging is used in detecting volcanic activity, to track the effects and pace of global warming, and by police and the military in locating body heat.

An application with more functionality for general public use is the study of tree frogs to improve the stickiness and re usability of stick tape. The Indian Institute of Technology studied tree frogs, and their toe pads in particular, to determine how they managed to adhere to various surfaces. They discovered that the footpads had tiny channels on them, which enhanced frogs' sticking ability. This breakthrough led to the design of an adhesive layer of elastic tiers with channels for air or water. The upshot was reusable tape with 30 times the stickiness of current adhesive tape.

The influence of animals can be seen everywhere: the construction of birds' wings helped refine wings on aeroplanes. The ability of hummingbirds to hover was instrumental in the design of helicopters. And the construction of buildings is now being adapted along the lines of termite mounds to conserve energy. We may consider ourselves the epitome of evolution, but our continued borrowing from lower life forms lends itself to the conclusion that our pride in our abilities is severely misguided.

Recommended sites:

http://frontierindia.net/hi-tek-military-devices-inspired-by-animal-biology

[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0],2933,301246,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience

http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog/archive/2004_01_24_zblogarchive.html




Sandra wrote this article for the online marketers Outlook SGE specialists in South African safaris one of the most successful companies organising safaris, catering especially to smaller groups.

Where Did Morals Come From?

According to Webster dictionary, "morals" is defined as: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. To simplify, Morals is what dictates "wrong" or "right". We live by this permeable force found in individuals and society as a whole everyday and its undeniable but have you ever wondered where they came from and are they a universal absolute, meaning that it is an intrinsic fundamental truth in which we all abide by? Or are morals relative; dependent on time and culture? I would like to shed light on this topic through my discoveries to open new possibilities of thought. First and foremost, I would like to elaborate about what morals entails and I assume that everyone has some sort of understanding of it. We know morals exists because our reactions. We would never say "that's not fair", "that's not right", or "that's not just". Our reactions help us identify what justice is. We would never believe that the attacks on 9/11 were "wrong" and the holocaust was "evil". "Good", "bad", "right", wrong" and "fair" are descriptive words relating to morals. Without morals there would be no basis for human rights. Also without morals there would be no way to measure the difference.When we evaluate the the behavior of Hitler and Gandhi, we are using morals. Without it, statements like "racism is wrong", "murder is evil", "child abuse is bad"would have no objective meaning and it would be a matter of opinion like "chocolate taste better than vanilla". A matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers even thought that morals existed by stating in the US Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident". If morals didn't exists then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it. So from these arguments, we can see that morals do in fact exists.

With that established, I would like to continue next by discussing the first topic on where morals derived from. Some evolutionists claim that that morals are a product due to evolution. To review, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next through mutation, migration, or horizontal gene transfer. Morals, which determines what's right or wrong, as I previously discussed, is needed in order to benefit the species. Without morals, the species wouldn't survive because detrimental and destructive activities would put an end to it. In other words, as humans, we must develop morals to be good to one another for the mere reason of survival. This seems to be a rather legitimate stance to others right? I disagree somewhat so let's take a look more into this. First of all, evolutionist are materialist meaning that everything consist of material such as atoms and molecules. If that is the case, then there should be a way to physically measure morals. How much does the "hate molecule" weigh? What's the chemical composition of love? That is absurd on how materials are responsible for a non-material thing such as morals. If materialist and evolutionist are correct then we shouldn't blame Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden for their actions because they just has a few bad molecules in them and it was inevitable due to their genes. Obviously, Hitler himself supported the Darwinist view by eliminating the Jews, in which he though was an inferior race. But we all can agree that he was wrong, right? Should we blame evolution? Of course not! Furthermore, one can say that morals are needed for the "good" of the species. Well that statement itself is self defeating because how can the word "good" be used if it regards morals in itself.

By who's definition are we using when we define something to be "good" or "bad" anyways? Who is to say what is "good" for the species and assume that survival is "good" to begin with? And, to whom is it good for? Is this moral reciprocity for the individual species or for the group? Who has the right to be right? How could such a process determine what "right" or "wrong" is initially and at what point did evolution know what "right" or wrong" was? In other words, how could something have the impulse to take the "right" course of action if there was no "right" or wrong" to begin with? Morals could not have been the source of itself. If morals were the product of evolution then why should the strong cooperate with the weak when its all about "survival of the fittest"? Why should we feel compassion for the weak, unable, and retarded people? If evolution strives to ultimately aim for survival then how can it explain why people commit suicide, engaged in destructive behavior with substance abuse, or take noble risk of their lives for others? If one group of species were in direct competition to their equal counter parts but were more moral, does that mean that they would out do their competition? But that wouldn't be considered good would it?C.S. Lewis adds another perspective in this topic:

When you see someone being mugged and calling for help, our stronger instinct tells us to be safe by running away as oppose to our weaker instinct telling us to help. However, there is a third thing that suppress the stronger one and encourages the weaker one that we ought to help and that itself can not be instinct.

And if everything can be explained in terms of evolution then our curiosity to seek truth and understand morals is due to hard wiring in itself in which we have no control of. All in all, I must say that evolution fails to provide a biological explanation to man's moral faculties and stating that evolution is responsible for morals faces grave difficulties. It faces what I call a 2 point dilemma:

1. If morals had a natural source through genetics, then it is not objective or absolute, there is no right or wrong, and our values are equivalent to that in which we came from, slime, since we have no grounds to say we are morally better; The only reason why you are understanding about morals is because you are genetically engineered to do so.

2. Even if morals were genetically subjective, then we shouldn't blame people for murder, rape, and stealing because they were hard wired like that. Its permissible. It would just be one's opinion over the other so get over it and stop whining and complaining!!

To me, evolution serves no justice when answering where morality came from.If morals did not come from evolution then where did it come from? We must then seek other avenues to possibly answer that question. But what about society and culture? Could society play an important role in the development of morals? I believe so, however I don't agree that it was the cause of morals. But that too faces another challenge. Where did that society get their morals from? From the generation before them? And where did that society get their morals from? It would be a never ending question without a satisfying answer. Some can distinguish the difference between morals in different countries but fail to look at the similarities. For example, Hindus revere their cows but Americans eat their cows so morals must be different. But the reasoning behind why Hindus don't eat their cows is because they believe that their ancestors live in them but Americans don't. If Americans shared the same beliefs then they too would probably not eat their grandmother. The underlying truth is that murder is wrong. The belief might be different but the morals are still the same.

Well what about the abortion issue? Some say that people have different morals when pertaining to that. The reason why its up for debate is because no one can determine at what point its actually a human. No mother would murder their own child for the sake of murdering or the knowledge of it being wrong. If everyone knew at what point it was then there wouldn't be such a huge disagreement. Even Ronald Regan pointed out that if everyone had to go back to their mothers womb, they would be anti abortionist. When regarding abortion, there is a huge controversy and divisions between pro choice and pro life, which some address that it demonstrates that morals are relative. The belief of when its actually a human may be different the the morals that murder is wrong is still shared. While morals indicate what "ought" to be done, different cultures have values and beliefs of "how" it should be done. For example, we all know that when we meet someone we "ought" to express some sort of hello and acknowledge the individual. However different cultures express them in different ways from a kiss, waving a hand, shaking hands, hug, etc. Also, some may see the differences but what about the similarities? Do you think any country or civilization,no matter what time period, would honor a coward? Would praise a man that killed his own parents and raped his kids? Of course not!! That is ridiculous to believe that.

If anyone, regardless of age, race, background, sex, culture, (including notorious murderers) saw a baby on the edge of a well, potentially endangered by plunging down to its death, I can guarantee that compassion and concern would be expressed to its highest degree. That implies a universal moral we all share. Well , what about tribes that eat others and sacrifice their own people? Isn't that sufficient reasoning that morals are based on time era and culture? Not necessarily, because the only reason why they practice cannibalism is because they don't think that they are humans. They still know that murder is wrong or else they wouldn't perform ceremonial, spiritual rituals before a sacrifice to relive themselves before the act because they know its wrong. Even Hitler knew murder was wrong or else he wouldn't have dehumanized the Jews in order to rationalize killing them. Murderers know that killing is wrong its just that they don't have remorse. There is also another confusion about one's position on morality. I often hear the statement, " Morals did not come from God because I'm atheist/agnostic and I have morals/ or understand them". That doesn't necessarily prove that God doesn't exists and that morals didn't come from God just because atheist have morals. Christians believe that God was the source of morals but why do they sometimes do immoral things? Some Christians claim that since atheist do not believe in God, therefore they do not have morals. That itself is not true. Atheist or Christians have innate knowledge of what right or wrong is. Everyone has. Religion may play an influence but is not the source of morals. Religion is not necessary for people to live a moral and ethical life. It could be stated that even that the animal kingdom exhibits some set of morals. I believe that there is confusion between instinct and morals. Animals don't have morals in a sense that they can think over the result before acting on it and judging whether its right or wrong. Animals do kill each other but its always for the mere reason of territorial gains, defense, power, or food. I can hardly imagine an animal killing for the sake of killing, committing rape, and plotting wars. It would be hard to imagine conditioning a monkey to express compassion when another steals from its friend.

To summarize, evolution and nurture leaves inconclusive answers to where the source of morals came from. My indications show that absolute moral laws do in fact exists. We don't invent it but only discover it.But, if the morals laws were embedded in us, then it would require a law giver!