This image is the copyright of © Neil Holman. Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws. Please contact me for permission to use any of my photographs.

Acrylic marker and ink on paper 4.75" x 6.75" 2.12.2025. www.saatchiart.com/en-jp/art/Drawing-Self-replicating-Sur...

Experimenting with some of my old photos

Mutations = genetic, copying mistakes.

 

The progressive, evolution story

is one huge MISTAKE

which, ironically,

depends on MISTAKES

as its mechanism ...

Mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

So that the entire, human genome

is created from billions of mistakes.

 

If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.

  

EVOLUTION .....

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

 

Put simply ...

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the transformation of the first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.

 

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from what is available, i.e. what is already in the gene pool.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.

But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.

 

Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

 

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

 

Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.

If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....

Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!

 

Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.

Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.

If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.

Incredible!

I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.

 

It is understandable that people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really is a fact.

It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool (existing, genetic information). Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.

 

To clarify further ...

Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and on - and on.

 

In other words ...

Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes added to previous, random mistakes.

 

If we look at the whole picture ...

we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, complementary sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.

 

This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -

It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).

Consider this ...

If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.

 

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Utterly incredible!

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations.

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils...

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So, it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

What about the idea that radiometric dating confirms vast ages for the fossil record:

Carbon dating cannot be used for the claimed, long timescale assigned to fossils by evolutionists as the maximum age it can be used for is less than 50.000 years. Sedimentary rocks also cannot be dated radiometrically. Evolutionists have to rely on the odd occasion where there is an igneous rock intrusion into a sedimentary deposit to which they apply radiometric dating. However, the dates obtained this way are not reliable, for the reason outlined below:

"As regards radiometric dating, I refer to Prof. Aubouin, who says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."

Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.

Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

The Piltdown Man fake... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was claimed as irrefutable, scientific evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

A pig, a horse and a donkey saga...

The pig ...

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and highly imaginative, artist's impressions of an complete, ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.

 

The horse ....

South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also proclaimed as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.

 

The donkey ...

The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!

But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor - A so-called, feathered dinosaur from the Chinese, fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man - Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... eventually admitted that it was actually a giant gibbon. However, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it. So, evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it and still maintained it was a human ancestor. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient, limestone burning, industrial site, where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So, that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series - fossils of unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth - moths were glued to trees in order to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing, gene pool, is NOT progressive evolution. It is just an example of normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material, and even plant seeds, were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis), which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there. And hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.

 

'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief, based primarily on preconceptions.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

DNA.

The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

 

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

 

Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.

However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

 

Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

 

Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

 

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

 

It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.

 

For example:

1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.

 

2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.

 

3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.

 

4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.

 

5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.

 

6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.

 

7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).

 

8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.

 

9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.

 

10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.

 

11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.

 

There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.

It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.

 

Evolutionism is not science.

Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...

 

We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.

That is another great MISTAKE!

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

Replicating a skull desk lamp found in MS Merchandising.

 

[low quality phone camera image]

 

Castle Towers, Sydney

objective- replicate a master photographer

subject- sandy

approach- Brought back most of the lights. wanted to make this look like a portrait. had the model look serious. Her head tilted and downwards.

Replicating a late 1950's photo of how tight Ranelagh Bridge Service Depot was, here a couple of GW's Express Loco's are squeezed in between the Sub Station on the right, with the Mews to the left.

 

Towering over it all is GW's Records Office.

In OO gauge I've had to truncate it's width but it slides in nicely to finish off that corner.

 

The fire escape was made using 'H' section plastic strip coupled with the cut down step sections from an ancient Hornby Footbridge I bought at a rail show. Unfortunately, the hand rails from the kit won't work as they are made from a 'poly' type plastic that won't take superglue, so it's back to the drawing board until I find another option

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes”

Theeyeofthemoment21@gmail.com

www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws.”

  

This was a view which replicated all over Birmingham during the Inner Ring clearance in the 1960's. A street of condemned houses and shops, empty, with corrugated iron roughly nailed in place and somewhere in the mayhem one business clinging to the wreckage.

In this case it was Mr C F. Mason, Hairdresser of 113 Heath Street, a street which connects Dudley Road and Cranford Street. Mr Mason had been there since 1935, his shop front had received a makeover in the 1950s with new signage and the (then) trendy wood fascia, he had an electric barbers pole* which rotated and was also illuminated. His business catered for ladies permanent waves, colouring and bleaching as well as gents haircut's, generally a short back 'n' sides in the 1950's. The shop next door was C.A. Charleton, Electrical engineer at 115 and Chatwin's, boot repairers at 117.

Heath Street is still there today but a glance at Google Earth shows that poor Mr Mason eventually gave up, nothing recognisable now remains of the street he once knew.

*The traditional barbers pole with the red spiral on white represents a stylised slashed neck, dating from the "cut throat" razor era, charming!

Peter Shoesmith Circa 1963.

Copyright Geoff Dowling & John Whitehouse: All rights reserved

Replication of the work produced by Irving Penn

 

Trying to replicate Navia’s plastic hat in felt! I happened to have the perfect color of felt and I went ahead and used her plastic hat as a hat mold.

My version is still a little large, and I haven’t finished stiffening it yet. I can’t decide if I want to cut all the edges to match the jagged leaf style of Navia’s har, or leave it smooth and petal like. I also can’t decide if I want to try to continue the embroidery, or just skip it.

 

I am almost about to set this aside and start a different hat in purple. Something that more closely resembles a flapper cloche hat, and do some real embroidery and beading on it?? (I don’t think I have the right bead colors so maybe this all goes in the unfinished pile with the other projects that need pink and purple beads.)

At Biggin Hill Memorial Museum with a replicate of Spitfire QJ-K, the machine flown by Geoffrey Wellum in The Battle of Britain.

 

Geoffrey Wellum was born on 4th August 1921 and joined the RAF on a short service commission in August 1939. When his training was completed in May 1940 he was posted to No 92 (East India) Squadron, where his age and youthful looks earned him the nickname ‘Boy’.

 

During the Battle of Britain Geoffrey was officially credited with three enemy aircraft destroyed, four probably destroyed and several damaged.

 

He was awarded the DFC in July 1941 and in August was posted to 52 OTU, Aston Down, as an instructor. In March 1942 he became a Flight Commander with 65 Squadron at Debden and flew numerous fighter sweeps over enemy territory.

 

He was posted to Malta in August 1942, leading eight Spitfires off HMS Furious to Luqa. After arriving in Malta he suffered severe combat fatigue resulting in emotional and physical breakdown. He was still only 21 years old.

 

After returning to the UK and recovering, he became a test pilot at Gloster Aircraft, testing Hawker Typhoons, and later became a gunnery instructor until the end of the war. He retired from the RAF in 1961, as a Squadron Leader, to take up a position with a firm of commodity brokers in the City of London, until his retirement to Cornwall where he lived until his death, 18th July 2018.

I tried to replicate the colors of my Eastern Veil Nebula photo from last summer (minus the RGB stars), which is another part of the Cygnus Loop that Pickering's Triangle is in. Other than some misshapen stars I'm pretty satisfied with this image. Captured on May 30, June 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, July 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16th, 2020 from a Bortle 6 zone.

 

---

 

**[Equipment:](i.imgur.com/6T8QNsv.jpg)**

 

* TPO 6" F/4 Imaging Newtonian

 

* Orion Sirius EQ-G

 

* ZWO ASI1600MM-Pro

 

* Skywatcher Quattro Coma Corrector

 

* ZWO EFW 8x1.25"/31mm

 

* Astronomik LRGB+CLS Filters- 31mm

 

* Astrodon 31mm Ha 5nm, Oiii 3nm, Sii 5nm

 

* Agena 50mm Deluxe Straight-Through Guide Scope

 

* ZWO ASI-120MC for guiding

 

* Moonlite Autofocuser

 

**Acquisition:** 17 hours 40 minutes (Camera at Unity Gain, -15°C)

 

* Ha- 56x600"

 

* Oiii- 50x600"

 

* Darks- 30

 

* Flats- 30 per filter

  

**Capture Software:**

 

* Captured using [N.I.N.A.](nighttime-imaging.eu/) and PHD2 for guiding and dithering.

 

**PixInsight Processing:**

 

* BatchPreProcessing

 

* SubframeSelector

 

* StarAlignment

 

* [Blink](youtu.be/sJeuWZNWImE?t=40)

 

* ImageIntegration

 

* DrizzleIntegration (2x, VarK=1.5

 

* DynamicCrop

 

* AutomaticBackgroundExtraction

 

* Deconvolution (EZ decon star mask used with self made lum mask)

 

* EZ denoise

 

* EZ soft stretch per channel

 

* ChannelCombination to combine Ha and Oiii (HOO > RGB)

 

* AutomaticBackgroundEXtraction

 

* Extract L > LRGBCombination (chrominance noise reduction

 

* [Curves](i.imgur.com/YcKQRqM.jpg)Transformations for lightness, hue and saturation

 

* ACDNR

 

* MMT noise reductiom

 

* LocalHistogramEqualization

 

* EZ Star reduction 2x

 

* HDRMultiscaleTransform (masked to apply to the brightest parts of the nebula)

 

* More curves

 

* Resample to 80%

 

* Annotation

Replicating the efforts of Stratford Depot, the GreaterAnglia 90 has been decorated with Union Flag, Silver Roof, and named 'Diamond Jubilee'.

 

Seen underneath the canopy at Liverpool Street, the formation will work the 12:00 to Norwich, with a Mk3b DVT on the far end.

 

The application of the Union Flag on the Great Eastern started with Stratford decorating two Class 47s for the Silver Jubilee (when I was only very young!!), and Anglia / CrownPoint continued the tradition with 86227 for the Golden Jubilee ( www.flickr.com/photos/steam60163/5554778131/in/set-721576... ).

In replicating this fifth-gen stealth fighter, I was aiming for:

– Smooth: nearly studless in form.

– Integrated: packing in a host of features.

– Fresh: incorporating new pieces and techniques.

and of course, purist! (at least, for now; I may experiment with designing some Marine Corps liveries on waterslide decals for mere aesthetic decoration that denotes the squadron affiliation…)

 

The 1:40 scale replica includes:

– Opening cockpit that holds pilot, control panel, and joystick

– Hidden weapon bays in fuselage for stealth missions

– Optional exterior loadout for air-to-ground attacks

– Retracting landing gear that supports the model

– Opening flaps, rotating fan blades, and tilting vector nozzle for VTOL

– Stable Technic display stand and brick-built name plaque.

 

This is the first MOC I’ve finished in about five years (during which I completed my university degree, got my full-time career job, moved out, got married, and a few other things), after working on it off-and-on for at least three years. [The real-life aircraft has suffered from its own extensive delays in design / production, so I guess it could be worse where my LEGO one is concerned. XD]

 

A big thank-you to everyone who has inspired me along the way, including special acknowledgements to AFOL friends like the Chiles family and Eli Willsea for helping rekindle my joy in the hobby; Brickmania, for showing me a few new hinge techniques that I incorporated during these last few months of the design process; and especially my lovely wife Natalie who, bless her heart, has allowed the dining room of our tiny apartment to serve as my building studio and encouraged me to use it more often as such!

 

Let me know what you guys think!

Acrylic marker and ink on paper 4.75" x 6.75" March 6, 2025. www.saatchiart.com/en-jp/art/Drawing-Self-replicating-Sur...

Highsmith, Carol M.,, 1946-, photographer.

 

American photographer Carol M. Highsmith, replicating, as well as possible, a pose at Yellowstone National Park in northwestern Wyoming by pioneer photographer Frances Benjamin Johnston, who inspired Highsmith's career

 

2015-09-14.

 

1 photograph : digital, tiff file, color.

 

Notes:

Title, date and keywords based on information provided by the photographer.

Though best known for her images of antebellum mansions and other scenes of the American South, Johnston had visited Yellowstone Park, where where posed below a rock outcropping for a photo (see LC-USZ62-120449), likely taken by her chauffeur; Johnston never learned to drive. With the help of National Park Service rangers on her own photo expedition to the park in 2015, Highsmith found the exact spot of the Johnston portrait and, in tribute, stopped to replicate the photo beneath the same outcropping. The ledge on which Johnston had posed had long ago been removed to make room for the steep wooden staircase down to the Lower Falls of the Yellowstone River.

Credit line: Gates Frontiers Fund Wyoming Collection within the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

Gift; Gates Frontiers Fund; 2015; (DLC/PP-2015:069).

Forms part of: Gates Frontiers Fund Wyoming Collection within the Carol M. Highsmith Archive.

 

Subjects:

America--Frances Benjamin Johnston

United States--Wyoming--Yellowstone National Park.

 

Format: Digital photographs--Color--2010-2020.

 

Rights Info: No known restrictions on publication.

 

Repository: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

 

Part Of: Highsmith, Carol M., 1946- Carol M. Highsmith Archive. (DLC) 00650024

 

Higher resolution image is available (Persistent URL): hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/highsm.35394

 

Call Number: LC-DIG-highsm- 35394

 

This photograph shows part of the lovely hotel we stayed in on Boa Vista, Cape Verde on our recent holiday.

 

View Awards Count

 

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws as well as contract laws.”

  

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws.” www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment

 

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes” nrhodesphotos@yahoo.com

 

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes”

“Theeyeofthemoment21@gmail.com”

“www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment”

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws.”

 

Lady Of The Wood, 2009 David Walker

 

Lady of the wood was inspired by a gift- a pile of wood veneer from which the first draft was made. The goal was to see how a garment made only of wood could replicate a 17th-century ball gown.

 

The lacewood bodice is made from an original pattern modified to fit the material. The Mahogany sleeves were bent with steam and finished with a lacewood cuff. The skirt is an oval pannier made with two cedar hoops supported from a mahogany belt which is covered with 52 stripped mahogany and maple veneer strips.

 

MOPOP (Museum Of Pop Culture in Seattle, WA) had this and 31 other garments on display as part of the WOW (World Of Wearable art) Exhibition.

 

WOW is now being packed up and will be heading to the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA opening Feb 18th.

 

From the official WOW website:

 

One of New Zealand’s cultural success stories over the past 28 years is the spectacular World of WearableArt® or WOW®. At the core of WOW® is an international design competition that attracts hundreds of entries from all over the world. The annual Awards Show presents the finalist garments in a theatrical extravaganza that collides at the intersection of fashion and art.

 

This unique event draws an audience to Wellington of 55,000 people every year and has encouraged an explosion of creative activity, inspiring a wide range of fashion designers, artists, costume-makers and other to enter the World of WearableArt® Awards.

 

The range of garments produced for the event is simply breath-taking, as the rules of competition mean that anything that is in any way wearable can find a place on stage, as long as it is original, beautifully designed and well-made. This also results in garments that are constructed from an extraordinary array of materials.

 

WOW®, in partnership with the New Zealand Government, is presenting an international touring exhibition that showcases the very best of the WOW® permanent collection.

 

Part of my Anything Goes Saturday's.

A replication in metal sculpture. It was all covered in sand at the time, there was no grass. You can see the rail, which was there runway. Orville is flying the plane, lying on the lower wing.

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws as well as contract laws.”

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes”

nrhodesphotos@yahoo.com

www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment

 

Prospect Park’s Rose Garden — which has not seen a rose in bloom since the 1800s — will soon be full of flowers, except these flowers will be made of pinwheels, which in turn will be made from writing and images expressing love for the park and reflecting on its long history. From July 7 to 17, 7,000 pinwheels will be on display as part of an art installation called the Connective Project, presented by the Prospect Park Alliance in collaboration with AREA4 and Reddymade Architecture + Design. The installation will commemorate the garden’s legacy and will celebrate the launch of its next chapter. (untappedcities.com/2017/06/06/a-rose-garden-made-of-pinwh...)

The Suchi Reddy-designed pinwheel installation at Prospect Park is up, and we now have photos of the massive art piece. Comprised of 7,000 pinwheels, many of which feature artwork created by emerging artists and local residents, the installation will live at the park’s Rose Garden. Scroll down to checkout all the photos.

Nearly two years after it was first announced, the Prospect Park Alliance is moving forward with its plan to renovate some of the neglected portions of Prospect Park including the Rose Garden and the Vale of Cashmere.

To mark this progress, and to celebrate the Park’s ongoing 150th anniversary celebrations, the Alliance commissioned architect Suchi Reddy and her firm, Reddymade Architecture + Design, and marketing firm Area4 to create an installation for the Rose Garden.

The Connective Project, as this piece is known will be a massive installation comprised of 7,000 pinwheels made with weather-resistent, biodegradable paper made from stone dust. This wave-like pinwheel installation will stretch 2.5-acres and go on display starting July 7. And until then, the public will also have a chance to have their work showcased as part of this installation. (published by NY.Curbed.Com 2017)

 

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes”

“Theeyeofthemoment21@gmail.com”

“www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment”

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws.”

 

The Cloud Forest replicates the cool moist conditions found in tropical mountain regions between 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) above sea level, found in South-East Asia, Middle- and South America. It features a 42-metre (138 ft) "Cloud Mountain", accessible by an elevator, and visitors will be able to descend the mountain via a circular path where a 35-metre (115 ft) waterfall provides visitors with refreshing cool air.

 

The "cloud mountain" itself is an intricate structure completely clad in epiphytes such as orchids, ferns, peacock ferns, spike- and clubmosses, bromeliads and anthuriums. It consists of a number of levels, each with a different theme.

Little wonders on hidden street reveal different sided of a replicate piece of design. Interesting, and yet we just cross by it every day without realizing it's true beauty.

Our land is different than yours. Your up is our right and your down is our left. Where time is told by the number of lives, not by the amount of hours in a day. Survival is only possible if you have the ability to replicate.

Through replication, you will survive.

 

Today had nothing about it that was right. I am not sure what happened to this photo.

But hey, it's been 7 days and I've not slipped. I guess that is an accomplishment? The two other concepts failed miserably. I looked like a Chippendale in one. Hopefully I will have a better idea for tomorrow.

 

|Facebook|

Can't go to Liverpool without doing a report on The Cavern & Mathew Street & all things Beatlesque, can I? Mathew Street, location of both the original Cavern Club & its replicated version on the opposite side of the narrow street is, of course, a primary tourist destination. The original, the cellar of a warehouse at 10 Mathew Street, was closed down way back in the '70's. For 2 decades the only way in or out of this music haven was a very narrow very steep staircase down into the low-ceilinged concrete cellar. In its hey-day, there would be 100's of people down there, smoking allowed, a fire trap if ever there was one. No way out except that one narrow staircase.

 

While I was still living in Liverpool, a young teenager dancing in The Cavern, the original Beatles (no Ringo yet) were the houseband. They got to play when there was no guest band booked, Nobody took much notice really. Brian Epstein hadn't walked down those stairs yet. Hadn't started the wheel of destiny turning for a bunch of talented young Liverpool lads in blue jeans & leather jackets. That it came to pass that there's hardly a corner of the earth that hasn't heard of them has always been mind-boggling to one who was there at the very beginning.

 

image : this life-sized bronze statue of John ( longshot below) stands on Mathew Street, as if quietly contemplating where it all began across the way. People just love to have their pic taken beside John mimicking his pose. Strangely, this beautiful work has no artist's credit...not on or near the piece itself nor have I been able to find reference to the artist in any of the many google searches I've done. Some flickr posts have given credit to Liverpool sculptor Arthur Dooley but there is no statement of that fact in his biography or anywhere else (Dooley does have another small bronze piece of the Four Lads, with credit, on the wall above the Cavern's original location.) It's a puzzle! My current 'guess' is that Yoko Ono donated it......but with the proviso that she remain anonymous. Well, why not ? She is a mysterious one after all. *~*

  

Apox

Replicating a night owl in its intensity and ferocity. OK, maybe not the ferocity bit.

 

We're Here looks at Night Owls today.

www.saatchiart.com/art/Drawing-Self-replicating-Autonomou...

This huge and amazing display is an artistic representation of the Northern Lights, also known as the aurora borealis, that spans the entire 5 story height of the Glenbow Museum.

 

Every 30 minutes, a 4 minute light show comes on, with rainbow lights shimmering and shining up and down the huge length of the structure in ever-shifting patterns, accompanied by atmospheric sounds and music.

 

Seriously, 5 stories high, weighing in at just over 2 tons...it's pretty big!

 

It is very cool to watch, especially from the very bottom looking up along its length, a view I tried to replicate in this shot. Once again, I only wish my camera could do this huge and majestic piece of art the proper justice!

In replicating this fifth-gen stealth fighter, I was aiming for:

– Smooth: nearly studless in form.

– Integrated: packing in a host of features.

– Fresh: incorporating new pieces and techniques.

and of course, purist! (at least, for now; I may experiment with designing some Marine Corps liveries on waterslide decals for mere aesthetic decoration that denotes the squadron affiliation…)

 

The 1:40 scale replica includes:

– Opening cockpit that holds pilot, control panel, and joystick

– Hidden weapon bays in fuselage for stealth missions

– Optional exterior loadout for air-to-ground attacks

– Retracting landing gear that supports the model

– Opening flaps, rotating fan blades, and tilting vector nozzle for VTOL

– Stable Technic display stand and brick-built name plaque.

 

This is the first MOC I’ve finished in about five years (during which I completed my university degree, got my full-time career job, moved out, got married, and a few other things), after working on it off-and-on for at least three years. [The real-life aircraft has suffered from its own extensive delays in design / production, so I guess it could be worse where my LEGO one is concerned. XD]

 

A big thank-you to everyone who has inspired me along the way, including special acknowledgements to AFOL friends like the Chiles family and Eli Willsea for helping rekindle my joy in the hobby; Brickmania, for showing me a few new hinge techniques that I incorporated during these last few months of the design process; and especially my lovely wife Natalie who, bless her heart, has allowed the dining room of our tiny apartment to serve as my building studio and encouraged me to use it more often as such!

 

Let me know what you guys think!

Lightroom 5 replication to get the Kodak Ultramax Look

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operator: Cavite Batangas Transport Service Cooperative

Fleet No.: 8317

Type of Service: Public Utility Bus - Provincial Operation

Route: Alfonso - Manila

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGINE

Maker: Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

Model: 6D22

 

CHASSIS

Maker: Hyundai Motor Co.

Model: KMJTA18VPY

 

COACH

Coachbuilder:

Model: "FX212"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

captured at Plaza Lawton, Manila

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Errors may be evident with this description. Corrections will be done once verified.

  

Avatar costumes replicated by Alpha Auer for the project "Russian Avant-garde" in sl.

LM: slurl.com/secondlife/LEA8/22/102/56

 

El Lissitzky (Russian artist and graphic designer, 1890 - 1941) created his series of architectonic figures after seeing a production of “Victory Over the Sun”, the futuristic Russian opera with music by Mikhail Matyushin (Russian painter and composer, 1861 – 1934) and costumes/stage designed by Kasimir Malevich (Russian painter and art theoretician, 1879 – 1935). Paired up with Malevich’s set design and costumes, this pro-technological phonosemantic opera inspired Lissitzky to recreate figures of the opera’s main protagonists as suprematist automatons.

 

Replicating Batman from the 90s cartoon is a bit more difficult than you'd think because of his colors. I mean, sometimes his cape and cowl are black, sometimes they have dark blue highlights. The inside lining of his cape is definably blue, though. This pic shows the weirdness of his colors. So, would this minifig here make the best BTAS Batman, or should it just stay all blue?

Experimenting with some of my old photos

Probably my favorite colored turn out

//sooc

Replicating a scene from the 1990s, LSL's 87002 'Royal Sovereign' leads a full Intercity Mk3 set over Docker Viaduct, working 1Z87 London Euston - Glasgow Central 'The Electric Scot'. DVT 82139 was on the rear.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article is about the group of viruses. For the disease involved in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, see Coronavirus disease 2019. For the virus that causes this disease, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Orthocoronavirinae

Coronaviruses 004 lores.jpg

Transmission electron micrograph (TEM) of avian infectious bronchitis virus

SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Illustration of the morphology of coronaviruses; the club-shaped viral spike peplomers, colored red, create the look of a corona surrounding the virion when observed with an electron microscope.

Virus classification e

(unranked):Virus

Realm:Riboviria

Phylum:incertae sedis

Order:Nidovirales

Family:Coronaviridae

Subfamily:Orthocoronavirinae

Genera[1]

Alphacoronavirus

Betacoronavirus

Gammacoronavirus

Deltacoronavirus

Synonyms[2][3][4]

Coronavirinae

Coronaviruses are a group of related viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds. In humans, coronaviruses cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal. Mild illnesses include some cases of the common cold (which has other possible causes, predominantly rhinoviruses), while more lethal varieties can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Symptoms in other species vary: in chickens, they cause an upper respiratory tract disease, while in cows and pigs they cause diarrhea. There are yet to be vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

 

Coronaviruses constitute the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, in the family Coronaviridae, order Nidovirales, and realm Riboviria.[5][6] They are enveloped viruses with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome and a nucleocapsid of helical symmetry. The genome size of coronaviruses ranges from approximately 26 to 32 kilobases, one of the largest among RNA viruses.[7] They have characteristic club-shaped spikes that project from their surface, which in electron micrographs create an image reminiscent of the solar corona from which their name derives.[8]

  

Contents

1Discovery

2Etymology

3Morphology

4Genome

5Life cycle

5.1Entry

5.2Replication

5.3Release

6Transmission

7Taxonomy

8Evolution

9Human coronaviruses

10Outbreaks of coronavirus diseases

10.1Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

10.2Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)

10.3Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

11Other animals

11.1Diseases caused

11.2Domestic animals

12Genomic cis-acting elements

13Genome packaging

14See also

15References

16Further reading

Discovery

Coronaviruses were first discovered in the 1930s when an acute respiratory infection of domesticated chickens was shown to be caused by infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). In the 1940s, two more animal coronaviruses, mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), were isolated.[9]

 

Human coronaviruses were discovered in the 1960s.[10] The earliest ones studied were from human patients with the common cold, which were later named human coronavirus 229E and human coronavirus OC43.[11] Other human coronaviruses have since been identified, including SARS-CoV in 2003, HCoV NL63 in 2004, HKU1 in 2005, MERS-CoV in 2012, and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Most of these have involved serious respiratory tract infections.

 

Etymology

The name "coronavirus" is derived from Latin corona, meaning "crown" or "wreath", itself a borrowing from Greek κορώνη korṓnē, "garland, wreath". The name refers to the characteristic appearance of virions (the infective form of the virus) by electron microscopy, which have a fringe of large, bulbous surface projections creating an image reminiscent of a crown or of a solar corona. This morphology is created by the viral spike peplomers, which are proteins on the surface of the virus.[8][12]

 

Morphology

Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus

Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus

Coronaviruses are large pleomorphic spherical particles with bulbous surface projections.[13] The average diameter of the virus particles is around 120 nm (.12 μm). The diameter of the envelope is ~80 nm (.08 μm) and the spikes are ~20 nm (.02 μm) long. The envelope of the virus in electron micrographs appears as a distinct pair of electron dense shells.[14][15]

 

The viral envelope consists of a lipid bilayer where the membrane (M), envelope (E) and spike (S) structural proteins are anchored.[16] A subset of coronaviruses (specifically the members of betacoronavirus subgroup A) also have a shorter spike-like surface protein called hemagglutinin esterase (HE).[5]

 

Inside the envelope, there is the nucleocapsid, which is formed from multiple copies of the nucleocapsid (N) protein, which are bound to the positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome in a continuous beads-on-a-string type conformation.[15][17] The lipid bilayer envelope, membrane proteins, and nucleocapsid protect the virus when it is outside the host cell.[18]

 

Genome

See also: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus § Genome

 

Schematic representation of the genome organization and functional domains of S protein for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV

Coronaviruses contain a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA genome. The genome size for coronaviruses ranges from 26.4 to 31.7 kilobases.[7] The genome size is one of the largest among RNA viruses. The genome has a 5′ methylated cap and a 3′ polyadenylated tail.[15]

 

The genome organization for a coronavirus is 5′-leader-UTR-replicase/transcriptase-spike (S)-envelope (E)-membrane (M)-nucleocapsid (N)-3′UTR-poly (A) tail. The open reading frames 1a and 1b, which occupy the first two-thirds of the genome, encode the replicase/transcriptase polyprotein. The replicase/transcriptase polyprotein self cleaves to form nonstructural proteins.[15]

 

The later reading frames encode the four major structural proteins: spike, envelope, membrane, and nucleocapsid.[19] Interspersed between these reading frames are the reading frames for the accessory proteins. The number of accessory proteins and their function is unique depending on the specific coronavirus.[15]

 

Life cycle

Entry

 

The life cycle of a coronavirus

Infection begins when the viral spike (S) glycoprotein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor. After attachment, a protease of the host cell cleaves and activates the receptor-attached spike protein. Depending on the host cell protease available, cleavage and activation allows the virus to enter the host cell by endocytosis or direct fusion of the viral envelop with the host membrane.[20]

 

On entry into the host cell, the virus particle is uncoated, and its genome enters the cell cytoplasm.[15] The coronavirus RNA genome has a 5′ methylated cap and a 3′ polyadenylated tail, which allows the RNA to attach to the host cell's ribosome for translation.[15] The host ribosome translates the initial overlapping open reading frame of the virus genome and forms a long polyprotein. The polyprotein has its own proteases which cleave the polyprotein into multiple nonstructural proteins.[15]

 

Replication

A number of the nonstructural proteins coalesce to form a multi-protein replicase-transcriptase complex (RTC). The main replicase-transcriptase protein is the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). It is directly involved in the replication and transcription of RNA from an RNA strand. The other nonstructural proteins in the complex assist in the replication and transcription process. The exoribonuclease nonstructural protein, for instance, provides extra fidelity to replication by providing a proofreading function which the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase lacks.[21]

 

One of the main functions of the complex is to replicate the viral genome. RdRp directly mediates the synthesis of negative-sense genomic RNA from the positive-sense genomic RNA. This is followed by the replication of positive-sense genomic RNA from the negative-sense genomic RNA.[15] The other important function of the complex is to transcribe the viral genome. RdRp directly mediates the synthesis of negative-sense subgenomic RNA molecules from the positive-sense genomic RNA. This is followed by the transcription of these negative-sense subgenomic RNA molecules to their corresponding positive-sense mRNAs.[15]

 

Release

The replicated positive-sense genomic RNA becomes the genome of the progeny viruses. The mRNAs are gene transcripts of the last third of the virus genome after the initial overlapping reading frame. These mRNAs are translated by the host's ribosomes into the structural proteins and a number of accessory proteins.[15] RNA translation occurs inside the endoplasmic reticulum. The viral structural proteins S, E, and M move along the secretory pathway into the Golgi intermediate compartment. There, the M proteins direct most protein-protein interactions required for assembly of viruses following its binding to the nucleocapsid.[22] Progeny viruses are then released from the host cell by exocytosis through secretory vesicles.[22]

 

Transmission

The interaction of the coronavirus spike protein with its complement host cell receptor is central in determining the tissue tropism, infectivity, and species range of the virus.[23][24] The SARS coronavirus, for example, infects human cells by attaching to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor.[25]

 

Taxonomy

For a more detailed list of members, see Coronaviridae.

 

Phylogenetic tree of coronaviruses

The scientific name for coronavirus is Orthocoronavirinae or Coronavirinae.[2][3][4] Coronavirus belongs to the family of Coronaviridae.

 

Genus: Alphacoronavirus

Species: Human coronavirus 229E, Human coronavirus NL63, Miniopterus bat coronavirus 1, Miniopterus bat coronavirus HKU8, Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, Rhinolophus bat coronavirus HKU2, Scotophilus bat coronavirus 512

Genus Betacoronavirus; type species: Murine coronavirus

Species: Betacoronavirus 1 (Human coronavirus OC43), Human coronavirus HKU1, Murine coronavirus, Pipistrellus bat coronavirus HKU5, Rousettus bat coronavirus HKU9, Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2), Tylonycteris bat coronavirus HKU4, Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, Hedgehog coronavirus 1 (EriCoV)

Genus Gammacoronavirus; type species: Infectious bronchitis virus

Species: Beluga whale coronavirus SW1, Infectious bronchitis virus

Genus Deltacoronavirus; type species: Bulbul coronavirus HKU11

Species: Bulbul coronavirus HKU11, Porcine coronavirus HKU15

Evolution

The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses has been estimated to have existed as recently as 8000 BCE, though some models place the MRCA as far back as 55 million years or more, implying long term coevolution with bats.[26] The MRCAs of the alphacoronavirus line has been placed at about 2400 BCE, the betacoronavirus line at 3300 BCE, the gammacoronavirus line at 2800 BCE, and the deltacoronavirus line at about 3000 BCE. It appears that bats and birds, as warm-blooded flying vertebrates, are ideal hosts for the coronavirus gene source (with bats for alphacoronavirus and betacoronavirus, and birds for gammacoronavirus and deltacoronavirus) to fuel coronavirus evolution and dissemination.[27]

 

Bovine coronavirus and canine respiratory coronaviruses diverged from a common ancestor recently (~ 1950).[28] Bovine coronavirus and human coronavirus OC43 diverged around the 1890s. Bovine coronavirus diverged from the equine coronavirus species at the end of the 18th century.[29]

 

The MRCA of human coronavirus OC43 has been dated to the 1950s.[30]

 

MERS-CoV, although related to several bat coronavirus species, appears to have diverged from these several centuries ago.[31] The human coronavirus NL63 and a bat coronavirus shared an MRCA 563–822 years ago.[32]

 

The most closely related bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV diverged in 1986.[33] A path of evolution of the SARS virus and keen relationship with bats have been proposed. The authors suggest that the coronaviruses have been coevolved with bats for a long time and the ancestors of SARS-CoV first infected the species of the genus Hipposideridae, subsequently spread to species of the Rhinolophidae and then to civets, and finally to humans.[34][35]

 

Alpaca coronavirus and human coronavirus 229E diverged before 1960.[36]

 

Human coronaviruses

 

Illustration of SARSr-CoV virion

Coronaviruses vary significantly in risk factor. Some can kill more than 30% of those infected (such as MERS-CoV), and some are relatively harmless, such as the common cold.[15] Coronaviruses cause colds with major symptoms, such as fever, and a sore throat from swollen adenoids, occurring primarily in the winter and early spring seasons.[37] Coronaviruses can cause pneumonia (either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia) and bronchitis (either direct viral bronchitis or secondary bacterial bronchitis).[38] The human coronavirus discovered in 2003, SARS-CoV, which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has a unique pathogenesis because it causes both upper and lower respiratory tract infections.[38]

 

Six species of human coronaviruses are known, with one species subdivided into two different strains, making seven strains of human coronaviruses altogether. Four of these strains produce the generally mild symptoms of the common cold:

 

Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43), of the genus β-CoV

Human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1), β-CoV, its genome has 75% similarity to OC43[39]

Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E), α-CoV

Human coronavirus NL63 (HCoV-NL63), α-CoV

Three strains (two species) produce symptoms that are potentially severe; all three of these are β-CoV strains:

 

Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

The coronaviruses HCoV-229E, -NL63, -OC43, and -HKU1 continually circulate in the human population and cause respiratory infections in adults and children worldwide.[40]

 

Outbreaks of coronavirus diseases

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

Main article: Severe acute respiratory syndrome

Characteristics of human coronavirus strains

MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2,

and related diseases

MERS-CoVSARS-CoVSARS-CoV-2

DiseaseMERSSARSCOVID-19

Outbreaks2012, 2015,

20182002–20042019–2020

pandemic

Epidemiology

Date of first

identified caseJune

2012November

2002December

2019[41]

Location of first

identified caseJeddah,

Saudi ArabiaShunde,

ChinaWuhan,

China

Age average5644[42][a]56[43]

Sex ratio3.3:10.8:1[44]1.6:1[43]

Confirmed cases24948096[45]1,601,018[46][b]

Deaths858774[45]95,718[46][b]

Case fatality rate37%9.2%6.0%[46]

Symptoms

Fever98%99–100%87.9%[47]

Dry cough47%29–75%67.7%[47]

Dyspnea72%40–42%18.6%[47]

Diarrhea26%20–25%3.7%[47]

Sore throat21%13–25%13.9%[47]

Ventilatory support24.5%[48]14–20%4.1%[49]

Notes

^ Based on data from Hong Kong.

^ Jump up to: a b Data as of 10 April 2020.

vte

In 2003, following the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) which had begun the prior year in Asia, and secondary cases elsewhere in the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release stating that a novel coronavirus identified by a number of laboratories was the causative agent for SARS. The virus was officially named the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). More than 8,000 people were infected, about ten percent of whom died.[25]

 

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)

Main article: Middle East respiratory syndrome

In September 2012, a new type of coronavirus was identified, initially called Novel Coronavirus 2012, and now officially named Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).[50][51] The World Health Organization issued a global alert soon after.[52] The WHO update on 28 September 2012 said the virus did not seem to pass easily from person to person.[53] However, on 12 May 2013, a case of human-to-human transmission in France was confirmed by the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.[54] In addition, cases of human-to-human transmission were reported by the Ministry of Health in Tunisia. Two confirmed cases involved people who seemed to have caught the disease from their late father, who became ill after a visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Despite this, it appears the virus had trouble spreading from human to human, as most individuals who are infected do not transmit the virus.[55] By 30 October 2013, there were 124 cases and 52 deaths in Saudi Arabia.[56]

 

After the Dutch Erasmus Medical Centre sequenced the virus, the virus was given a new name, Human Coronavirus—Erasmus Medical Centre (HCoV-EMC). The final name for the virus is Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). The only U.S. cases (both survived) were recorded in May 2014.[57]

 

In May 2015, an outbreak of MERS-CoV occurred in the Republic of Korea, when a man who had traveled to the Middle East, visited four hospitals in the Seoul area to treat his illness. This caused one of the largest outbreaks of MERS-CoV outside the Middle East.[58] As of December 2019, 2,468 cases of MERS-CoV infection had been confirmed by laboratory tests, 851 of which were fatal, a mortality rate of approximately 34.5%.[59]

 

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Main article: Coronavirus disease 2019

In December 2019, a pneumonia outbreak was reported in Wuhan, China.[60] On 31 December 2019, the outbreak was traced to a novel strain of coronavirus,[61] which was given the interim name 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization (WHO),[62][63][64] later renamed SARS-CoV-2 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Some researchers have suggested the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market may not be the original source of viral transmission to humans.[65][66]

 

As of 10 April 2020, there have been at least 95,718[46] confirmed deaths and more than 1,601,018[46] confirmed cases in the coronavirus pneumonia pandemic. The Wuhan strain has been identified as a new strain of Betacoronavirus from group 2B with approximately 70% genetic similarity to the SARS-CoV.[67] The virus has a 96% similarity to a bat coronavirus, so it is widely suspected to originate from bats as well.[65][68] The pandemic has resulted in travel restrictions and nationwide lockdowns in several countries.

 

Other animals

Coronaviruses have been recognized as causing pathological conditions in veterinary medicine since the 1930s.[9] Except for avian infectious bronchitis, the major related diseases have mainly an intestinal location.[69]

 

Diseases caused

Coronaviruses primarily infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract of mammals and birds. They also cause a range of diseases in farm animals and domesticated pets, some of which can be serious and are a threat to the farming industry. In chickens, the infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), a coronavirus, targets not only the respiratory tract but also the urogenital tract. The virus can spread to different organs throughout the chicken.[70] Economically significant coronaviruses of farm animals include porcine coronavirus (transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus, TGE) and bovine coronavirus, which both result in diarrhea in young animals. Feline coronavirus: two forms, feline enteric coronavirus is a pathogen of minor clinical significance, but spontaneous mutation of this virus can result in feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), a disease associated with high mortality. Similarly, there are two types of coronavirus that infect ferrets: Ferret enteric coronavirus causes a gastrointestinal syndrome known as epizootic catarrhal enteritis (ECE), and a more lethal systemic version of the virus (like FIP in cats) known as ferret systemic coronavirus (FSC).[71] There are two types of canine coronavirus (CCoV), one that causes mild gastrointestinal disease and one that has been found to cause respiratory disease. Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) is a coronavirus that causes an epidemic murine illness with high mortality, especially among colonies of laboratory mice.[72] Sialodacryoadenitis virus (SDAV) is highly infectious coronavirus of laboratory rats, which can be transmitted between individuals by direct contact and indirectly by aerosol. Acute infections have high morbidity and tropism for the salivary, lachrymal and harderian glands.[73]

 

A HKU2-related bat coronavirus called swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus (SADS-CoV) causes diarrhea in pigs.[74]

 

Prior to the discovery of SARS-CoV, MHV had been the best-studied coronavirus both in vivo and in vitro as well as at the molecular level. Some strains of MHV cause a progressive demyelinating encephalitis in mice which has been used as a murine model for multiple sclerosis. Significant research efforts have been focused on elucidating the viral pathogenesis of these animal coronaviruses, especially by virologists interested in veterinary and zoonotic diseases.[75]

 

Domestic animals

Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) causes avian infectious bronchitis.

Porcine coronavirus (transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus of pigs, TGEV).[76][77]

Bovine coronavirus (BCV), responsible for severe profuse enteritis in of young calves.

Feline coronavirus (FCoV) causes mild enteritis in cats as well as severe Feline infectious peritonitis (other variants of the same virus).

the two types of canine coronavirus (CCoV) (one causing enteritis, the other found in respiratory diseases).

Turkey coronavirus (TCV) causes enteritis in turkeys.

Ferret enteric coronavirus causes epizootic catarrhal enteritis in ferrets.

Ferret systemic coronavirus causes FIP-like systemic syndrome in ferrets.[78]

Pantropic canine coronavirus.

Rabbit enteric coronavirus causes acute gastrointestinal disease and diarrhea in young European rabbits. Mortality rates are high.[79]

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PED or PEDV), has emerged around the world.[80]

Genomic cis-acting elements

In common with the genomes of all other RNA viruses, coronavirus genomes contain cis-acting RNA elements that ensure the specific replication of viral RNA by a virally encoded RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The embedded cis-acting elements devoted to coronavirus replication constitute a small fraction of the total genome, but this is presumed to be a reflection of the fact that coronaviruses have the largest genomes of all RNA viruses. The boundaries of cis-acting elements essential to replication are fairly well-defined, and the RNA secondary structures of these regions are understood. However, how these cis-acting structures and sequences interact with the viral replicase and host cell components to allow RNA synthesis is not well understood.[81][5]

 

Genome packaging

The assembly of infectious coronavirus particles requires the selection of viral genomic RNA from a cellular pool that contains an abundant excess of non-viral and viral RNAs. Among the seven to ten specific viral mRNAs synthesized in virus-infected cells, only the full-length genomic RNA is packaged efficiently into coronavirus particles. Studies have revealed cis-acting elements and trans-acting viral factors involved in the coronavirus genome encapsidation and packaging. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of genome selection and packaging is critical for developing antiviral strategies and viral expression vectors based on the coronavirus genome.[81][5]

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

Nature's attempt to replicate the "Wavy." OK maybe not, but it does make me think about my pattern selections!

 

Shot with: Nikkor 55mm MICRO w/27.5mm Extension Tube. From one side of the frame to the other is about 0.5 inches.

“The Eye Moment photos by Nolan H. Rhodes”

“Theeyeofthemoment21@gmail.com”

“www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment”

“Any users, found to replicate, reproduce, circulate, distribute, download, manipulate or otherwise use my images without my written consent will be in breach of copyright laws

 

This is my 1:16 scale LEGO model of the Lamborghini SC18 Alston. It's been many years since I last built a Lamborghini; so I thought the SC18 Alston, a one-off road legal car based on the Aventador platform, would be a great way to mix in a raging bull with my many prancing horses.

 

The angular design of the the SC18 Alston is very stunning in my opinion and presented a nice challenge to replicate with LEGO bricks. It took me many attempts to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the front end, although I'm still not entirely happy with the result. Similar to my other recent hypercar builds, it's 16 studs wide at the front but gradually increases to 17 studs at the rear.

 

This model features opening doors and engine cover. It was difficult to find many detailed photos of this one-off car, so I had to guess how the engine cover opens based on the panel gaps.

 

YouTube video: youtu.be/fKoCnuNmrnc

Instagram: @noahl.lego