View allAll Photos Tagged evolution
Design, grafics and realization:
Exhibition about the evolution at the Museum for Natural Sciences Bolzano within the Darwin year 2009.
Adwin Hoondert and Ruud Koole drifting in their Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X during the 3rd special stage of the Vechtdal Rally '13
Car: Mitsubishi
Type: Lancer Evolution X
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: Canon 70-200mm F/4.0 L USM
Exposure: 1/320
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 172mm
Facebook: www.facebook.com/AutosportMedia
Website: www.autosport-media.nl
Twitter: @autosport_media
Contact: Info@autosport-media.nl
THE YEAR IS 2066 AND UPON THE EVOLUTION - NOSTROMOS WAS ONLY 2 SURVIVORS LEFT, HERSELF AND HER HUSBAND, WELL WHAT WAS LEFT OF HIM ANYWAYS.. FOR HE HAD TRANSFORMED INTO SOMEONE WHO DID NOT REMEMBER HER.. AND SHE FOUND HERSELF RUNNING FOR HER LIFE INTO THE ONLY WAY OF ESCAPE.. IF ONLY SHE COULD MAKE IT TO DUBAI AND SAVE HIM SHE THOUGHT AS THE FIRST HATCH OPENED WITH A HISSING CRASH AND SHE TURNED BACK ONE LAST TIME AS HE WAS UPON HER, SETTING THE REALIZATION THAT SAVING HIM WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,
AS HER HAND SLAMMED DOWN ON THE SECOND BUTTON TO OPEN THE FINAL HATCH AND SHE FOUND HERSELF LOOKING OUT INTO THE VAST DEEP SPACE AS HE CLOSED IN ON HER.. "DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!!" SHE SNAPPED AS SHE HURLED AROUND AND TRIED USING HER DOMINANCE TO GAIN SOME SORT OF LEVERAGE.. BUT SHE CAME DOWN WITH A CRASH, ANYWAYS ONTO THE FLOOR AS HE SLUNG HER WITH EASE.. SHE COULD JUST FEEL HER RIBS AND BACK CRACK AS SHE FOUGHT FOR AIR TO FUMBLE FOR HER GUN AS SHE POINTED IT AT HIS HEAD.. BUT SHE WAS FROZEN, AND COULDN'T BRING HERSELF TO DO IT, EVEN IF HE WAS THIS IN-HUMAN KILLER.. "PLEASE IT'S ME, ALI, YOUR WIFE!!!" SHE SAID IN DESPERATION, AS IF THAT LAST CRY OUT FOR MERCY WAS GOING TO MATTER, SHE KNEW SHE HAD TO END HIS LIFE, BUT AS HER HAND STARTED TO SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER SHE REMEMBERED THEIR PROMISE TO ONE ANOTHER MANY YEARS AGO AS THEY BOARDED THIS HUB CALLED THE EVOLUTION - NOSTROMOS... "TO THE END, WE WILL SURVIVE OR DIE TOGETHER".. PLAYED THRU HER HEAD AS SHE COULD ALMOST HEAR HIS SOFT VOICE AS SHE FELT TEARS SWELL IN HER EYES AND SHE TOOK A DEEP BREATH
AND SHE DID WHAT SHE NEEDED TO, BECAUSE LIVING WITHOUT HIM WOULD BE FAR WORSE THAN ANYTHING SHE COULD EVER DEAL WITH.. SO IN ONE SWIFT MOVEMENT, SHE CLOSED HER EYES AND BEGAN TO LET HERSELF FALL WITH ONE SWEEP UNDER HIS LEGS AS HE BEGAN TO FALL WITH HER... TIL THE END SHE WHISPERED TO HERSELF AS THEY BOTH FLOATED OFF IN SPACE... TO THE END.. I LOVE YOU SHE SAID ONE FINAL TIME TO HIM AND WATCHED HIM DRIFT AWAY.
WRITTEN BY ALI REIGNN
BLOG CREDITS:
Did you know the human eye is able to differentiate more shades of green than any other colour? The belief behind this is one of evolution and survival when our early ancestors relied on being able to find food, water and life. We are reassured and feel safe when seeing green.
positive psychological qualities of green
When we see green our eye requires no adjustment. This is because it is at the centre of the colour spectrum, making green very restful, creating balance and harmony. It provides reassurance, restorative and refreshing. In nature the bright light fresh green represents new life and new growth.
It is the colour that represents universal peace and universal love, that of mother earth and the environment.
negative psychological qualities of green
Green, like any colour also has negative traits. Too much green or being surrounded by the wrong shade of green can bring up the feelings of boredom, lack of life and stagnation. It can also communicate rot and decay.
“Absolute green is the most restful color, lacking any undertone of joy, grief, or passion.
50 shades of green
There are so many shades of green from the bright yellow chartreuse, lime, cool jade green, emerald, forest, bottle, to the olive and khaki greens just to name a few.
“All things may be impermanent, but some things are more permanent than others.” – from the title page of this 2020 paperback. The Canadian author has been a Buddhist meditator and professor of ecology for over 30 years.
Meditating on the summit plateau of Mt. Lamarck with a view of the glorious Evolution Peaks. In the foreground are Mt. Darwin and Mt. Mendel. Our elevation was ~13,400' above sea level.
Sierra Nevada, California
Built: 1970, rebuild 2005
Dimensions: 192 feet length/ 29 feet beam/ 10.5 feet draft
Class: Luxury Class
Type: Motor Vessel/ cruise
Capacity: 32 passengers
Crew: 18 crew members + 2 naturalist guides
Accommodation: 16 cabins with private bathroom, climate controls, safe-boxes and ample space to hang and store clothing
Facilities: lounge with a bar and facilities for lectures, slide shows and films, library with a wide range of books, movies and games, Inside and Al Fresco Dinning Areas, sundeck with rattan furniture, small hot tub on bow with sun chairs and ample outside deck space
Activities: walks & hikes, snorkeling, kayaking, dinghy rides
Safety and navigation: Complete navigation and safety equipment
Specific feature: Small hot tub with lounge chairs, extensive outside areas, sea kayaks, snorkeling gear and wetsuits, kids club
(Evolution of my latest painting..)
I did this in one night! Of course I might work a bit more on it in the near future. Here is the progress so far. :)
This classic machine who was very common back then is rare now! This nice rollover can be found in Marseille, about 120 Km from home. I'm very pleased to have the chance to film his one! The Wesumat Evolution is my first car wash memory, I was in infant car seat !
I have no idea when this car wash was installed, maybe in late 90's, early 2000?
I did a video: youtu.be/JmvrMHxHy94
Google maps link: www.google.com/maps/place/bp/@43.352196,5.4364508,20z/dat...
The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IV drifting on the tarmac during the Hellendoorn rally '12
Car: Mitsubishi
Type: Lancer Evolution IV
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: Canon 70-200mm F/4.0 L USM with B&W polarisation filter
Exposure: 1/160
Aperture: f/5.0
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 138mm
Facebook: www.facebook.com/AutosportMedia
Website: www.autosport-media.nl
Twitter: @autosport_media
Contact: Info@autosport-media.nl
The more science discovers, the more detailed the picture becomes. Funny how God's word couldn't describe creation as eloquently as Mr Darwin.
The same display can be seen on several other airports. At Copenhagen the desktop was a PC instead of a Mac - I was wondering when I took the picture whether they could get enough old Macs (or typewriters, for that matter) for the other displays.
The conditions for evolution are, according to Darwin, "descent with modification" (Darwin, 1859 see Cousins, 2014, p.202) Lifeforms change as they are reproduced and the more adaptive modifications become more populous. This principle has been extended to chemicals, (Pross, 2011) such as single, chemical RNA molecules.
However, Darwin who was originally a geologist, " in a now famous letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker written in March 1863, Darwin wrote: "...it is mere rubbish thinking at present of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter" [9]" (Pross, 2011). What did Darwin mean?
It seems to me that decent in the sense of replication is not necessary. Inanimate, proto-evolution is also possible and occurring now. Certainly it is replicative evolution that we see in animals, and in the chemical evolution discussed by Pross (2011). But a principle like evolution is at work at a deeper level in hard matter, such as mountains and rocks, or even as the basis for the formation of all entities in space-time.
Space time, or our sensations of it, are in a constant flux. Clouds form and blow away, animals breed and die, and mountains rise and are weathered to dust. Nonetheless we consider that there are animate and inanimate entities: species and things. In the animal world we recognised species that have adapted to their environment and do not notice the mutations that disappear as soon as they are born or last one generation. Species, and all entities descend in the sense of being "derived from something remote in time, especially through continuous transmission"; entities are that which persist.
While inanimate matter does persist in the same way, we recognise in it entities that persist. Inanimate RNA repeats itself, but a mountain is there the next day. An igneous mountain was once a flow of lava, changing second by second, which even if we had seen it would have appeared to be in flux, indistinguishable from the lava around it. Arriving out of the ground some of that lava may have exploded as dust washed away by streams. Some lava harden into rock formations that eroded and disappeared, but others solidified into into a massive lump, forming a mountain, which 'descends' through time and persists long enough to be felt to be an entity to exist, and be named.
Some of the lava washed away in streams out to sea, drifting like lava at one with its environment. Other dust mingled with the dust of weathered mountains at the base of rivers and was compacted to become sedimentary rock, which once again persists long enough for be noticed and even carried to the top of a mountain. (There was a pile of rocks possibly of various types on top of the mountain where I was standing supporting the mountain name post, pictured right )
The lava, the dust, are all being modified. Sometimes these modifications persist long enough to become an entity. Animate descent, as replication, is not a condition of evolution. All that is needed is "descent" in general through time.
Space time our sensations has non-dual, and yet dual aspect, it is advaita, not one. The sensible world is extended and it changes. The extended can not be separated from the change (as things in themselves?) nor the change (as "time"?) be separated from the extended. But we do see things in the world, which are spaces which "descend" or persist through and with modification.
However, I think that perhaps this "inanimate evolution," of this persistent kind, draws attention to the possibility that the way in which evolution in general "creates," species or things, involves the interaction of a spectator. Mountains are in no absolute way any different from lava. They are flowing, just more slowly. Wolves and coyotes are not essentially different from each other either, sometimes they even mate. Evolution is the process by which things change and persist, or "descend with modification", for long enough and or in enough numbers, as to be seen, named, and noticed. It is perhaps therefore, the seeing and naming that does the hard act of creation - Oh no! - or at least they do it together.
So, does this mean that there is creation in nature, absent of a spectator? On first blush it would seem so. Nature throws up, vomits forth, persistence and change, and those things that are persistent (descendant through time) might seem to be "created."
Various observers may deem various "descending," unchanging things as entities. A botanist may notice areas of deciduous trees in the image above left. A meteorologist might notice the altocumulus clouds. Thus a specators may apply various narratives to the natural environment. Since Heraclitus, through Yahew and Bloor, it may seem as if the persisent is noticable to the logos, and it is only the logos that creates; that which persists can be named and exists.
Contra this logocentrism, Latour argues that no, there is stability within nature, it is not only the word that creates entities. Nature contains persistants, entities which descend through time, so nature is doing the creation, the stabilization also.
It seems to me that there is no creation in nature but there are two types of creation as spectation; two types of spectator. Persistence is perhaps a condition of nameability, but spectators do not always name. Entitivity is not always the result of nameability.
Mach, genius that he was, starts by pointing out that in large part things are deemed to be entites due to the fact that they are associated with words. But he then also goes on to say, calling our attention to ancient and childhood art, that the visual apparatus sees entities even prior to naming. He points out that ancient art, and the drawings of children finds re-representables, faces, noses, feet, in nature and represents them from iconic perspectives. Feet and noses in Egyptian art are shown from the side, torsoes are shown from the front. Similar iconicity is found in the art of Aztecs and children. Mach points out that not only words, the logos, but also visual apparatus creates entities.
Given that vision, as well as words, create entites too, visual perception also creates entitivity out of randoms non persistent sights. To Yaweh, Adam or any other namer, a view has entities by virtue of having regularity. But to a bird of prey, a bamboo forest, with all its regularity, its lines, is a distraction to its attempt to catch vermin, whereas a random barren heath, or rocky beach, discloses the movements of edibles. The randomness of an area of land can be more visually 'noticable' -- a good place to prey -- as any with regularity. A city, with all its regularity, can be less beautiful, less noticable than a field, which is beautiful if unameably so, not inspite of but because of all its randomness. A lack of persistence can be a element of visual entitivity.
Thus, while nature presents descedants/persitance, that is noticable to namers and scientist, it also presents randomness and change that may be beautiful to viewers and artists.
Nature as evolution, that "blooming and buzzing" thing, with modification and persistance and creates nothing at all.
Consider a Jackson Pollock painting. Pollock splashed paint randomly. But that randomness was not his art. During all that splashing he looked and liked, and then, when he liked then he created. His creation occured when he looked and liked certain visual things, visual things that are utterly unamable.
www.google.co.jp/search?q=Jackson+Pollock&hl=en&s...
Nature unfolds with various degrees of regularity and randomness. Created entities are in the eye and ear, or dscussion, of the beholders.
Cousins, S. D. (2014). The semiotic coevolution of mind and culture. Culture & Psychology, 20(2), 160–191. Retrieved from cap.sagepub.com/content/20/2/160.short
Pross, A. (2011). Toward a general theory of evolution: extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter. J. Syst. Chem, 2(1), 1-1. www.jsystchem.com/content/2/1/1