View allAll Photos Tagged replicator
Guardando ed ammirando questi piccoli posti penso che la natura sia il vero dono materiale che abbiamo e che dobbiamo rispettare!
We're here is studying and exploring reflectionism and related
palindromic phenomena.
My idea was to show palindromes in genetics. Unfortunately my electron microscope is in the repair shop, so I had to use some ordinary kitchen forks to illustrate the concept.
Learn more about palindromes as substrates for multiple pathways of recombination in Escherichia coli.
Long DNA palindromes are sites of genome instability (deletions, amplification, and translocations) in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In Escherichia coli, genetic evidence has suggested that they are sites of DNA cleavage by the SbcCD complex that can be repaired by homologous recombination. Here we obtain in vivo physical evidence of an SbcCD-induced DNA double-strand break (DSB) at a palindromic sequence in the E. coli chromosome and show that both ends of the break stimulate recombination. Cleavage is dependent on DNA replication, but the observation of two ends at the break argues that cleavage does not occur at the replication fork. Genetic analysis shows repair of the break requires the RecBCD recombination pathway and PriA, suggesting a mechanism of bacterial DNA DSB repair involving the establishment of replication forks.
(Science Direct; SbcCD Causes a Double-Strand Break at a DNA Palindrome in the Escherichia coli Chromosome; John K.Eykelenboom, John K.Blackwood, EwaOkely, David R.F.Leach)
Replicated this painting found on the internet which I loved. Acrylic painting on a gallery canvas (10 x 12). Would like to do a series of other animals! Can't help but smile every time I look at this. SOLD
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.
Asiatic Lion Female with Cub from our recent visit of Sasan Gir on last Saturday.
#SensationalSasan #AsiticLion #MammalMania #HardikPala
Please add COMMENTS and FAVES. I hope to replicate as soon as possible!!! :)
More info about on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome
“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 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.”
Think I've done this shot before with a number of Scania Omnicitys but by 2023, they were largely gone. Daf SB200/Wright Pulsars like Arriva 1478 NK61CYP were much more common in Richmond market place.
Funny story behind this shot. I took it on my friends boat. Purposely waiting for the sun to glimpe and "star" behind the buoy. When he saw it, he turned the boat around and repeatedly went back and forth in an attempt to replicate my shot with his camera. Everytime just missing the "glimpse" moment. After about 4 attempts, he gave up. With all of us laughing heartedly at his disappointment.
He took many good shots that day. This was my lucky moment.
This bronze sculpture replicates the famous painting, Washington Crossing The Delaware by Emanuel Leutze. It depicts Gen. George Washington leading the Continental Army on a dangerous nighttime crossing of the Delaware River on December 25, 1776, to attack Hessian troops stationed at Trenton. His attack was a final, desperate effort to gain a victory after months of defeats had reduced the Army to a small, exhausted, and demoralized force. Washington’s success at Trenton reinvigorated the American cause and kept the Revolution alive.
The painting captures the drama, danger, and desperation of the river crossing, even though a number of details are historically inaccurate, such as the type of boat. The artist, Emanuel Leutze, grew up and was trained in Philadelphia, but created the painting in 1850 after he returned to his native Germany. The painting was a sensation when it was displayed in America the following year. ~ www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=106149
Day Trip, 4/6/2019, Philadelphia, PA
Panasonic DMC-GF2
LUMIX G VARIO 14-42/F3.5-5.6
ƒ/8.0 19.0 mm 1/60 160
FaceBook | Blogger | Twitter | Tumblr | Pinterest | Getty | Instagram | Lens Wide-Open
Camera club challenge a first quick iPhone attempt to prove the technique, www.moorecameraclub.org/Syllabus.php
troybooks.co.uk/a-witch's-natural-history.html
CHAPTER 7:
'ADDER'S FORK AND BLIND-WORM'S STING': THE MAGICAL REPTILE
It was one of those romantic and magical moments which, as one discovers later, it is impossible quite to replicate – but fear not. The cliché will have been subverted by the end of this paragraph. We had spent a blissful, mutually indulgent weekend in a thatched coaching inn, somewhere near to the heart of the Cotswolds. It was sunny beyond expectation, so we walked to the next village, admiring the crazy-eyed chickens which stood, cock-headed on a stone wall, as though expecting something importune, like the hatching of a Cockatrice. We poked around the church, shadowed at every window by suitably pagan yews, and then walked on by some bucolic alley which promised nothing in particular – only an idyll. At one side of it there was a stream, and at the other, another of those Cotswold walls, embedded in an earthen bank. The path led to an archetypal cottage of rough-hewn stone; wicker archways and roses in the garden. Ivy thrust wormlike roots through the crevices in the stone wall, creating dappled arbours suitable for those who dwelt within. This first warm day of spring, they were sluggish, absorbing the rays of the low sun, slow moving with a constant hiss, sliding viscerally through gaps in the stones. There was only one way to approach them: bare-footed, respectful, with wonder, and not fear. The adjoining stream was evidently their larder: here, frogs would conglomerate to mate, oozing frogspawn. The grass snakes would catch them by their toes, and gulp them down alive, so that the croak could still be heard within the gaping gullets. The struggle would continue awhile, within their guts. Later in the year, the grass snakes would feast on tadpoles, diving in the bubbling gushes, and gobbling them on lush grass. Their skins grown old, they would slide through twigs to slough them, their eyes glazed. The snakes live there to this day. We go back to see them sometimes, just for the sake of it.
You may have had any of a number of reactions to the paragraph above. It may have incited fear or disgust; if so, I pity you, and there is little more to be said. Indeed, I am surprised you started reading at all. Or perhaps you will opt for the Freudian interpretation: snakes have no limbs, and the more advanced species do not even possess pelvic girdles – hence they are phallic. Watson wasn’t being romantic at all – he was blinded by his lust, which he was hoping to satisfy behind the hedgerow around the corner. I fear that Freudians are secularised Christians who see a serpent coiled around every tree, and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is filled with semen. This is to oversimplify snakes, just as it is to over-exaggerate the difference between eros and agape. The real reason why snakes are intensely romantic creatures for me is that they are entwined with my past; my memories, including the one I have just recalled are all lovingly wrapped in serpentine coils.
Growing up in south-eastern Australia, my first encounters with snakes were characterised by one emotion alone: awe. The first snake I remember encountering (I might have been five) was a red-bellied black snake swimming across a pond. As it emerged, my father turned it gently with his walking stick, and the scales on the underside were like a streak of undulating blood in the tussocky grass. It was not stupendously venomous by Australian standards, but well enough equipped to kill a small child. I remember when an expert herpetologist visited our school, commanding our obedient silence as he milked a sinuous taipan, its venom drooling into a plastic phial as he pinched it behind the jaw. It produces more venom than any other snake in the world; enough to make any health and safety legislator blue in the face. My first death adder was encountered on the road to Forbes, the town in the semi-arid zone of New South Wales which was the centre for the daring exploits of the bushranger Ben Hall – a man who must have met innumerable snakes before his life terminated at the end of a rope. It lay flaccid at the side of the road, seemingly too fat to form coils, and too torpid to move as I crouched to photograph it, half camouflaged against the rust-red earth. The poison glands in its head could have killed ten children of my body mass, and then could have killed ten more, as fast as a man can moisten his mouth after he has spat himself dry. And then there was that delicious moment when I was a teenage volunteer at the R.S.P.C.A, and a worried-looking family brought something bulging like blancmange inside a pillow case. I took one look inside, let out a shout of triumph, and delved within, my arms entwined with loving twists of diamond python. Once, years later, I was wearing him around my neck when I answered the door to some Jehovah’s Witnesses: a more effective repellent of intinerant evangelists has never been discovered.
Britain has three snake species, and among these, only one is venomous, albeit comparatively mildly so. In common with that of rattlesnakes and other forms of viper, Adder venom is primarily a haemotoxin, attacking the red blood cells and causing haemorrhage, in contrast to the neurotoxic venom of elapid snakes. Adder bites rarely cause human deaths unless they have not bitten for some time, or unless the victim is already infirm, or very young, but these have been enough to gain the snake both notoriety and folkloric significance. Thomas Hardy’s Return of the Native incidentally records much of this folklore when Clym Yeobright finds his mother lying in the furze with an injured foot: “It was swollen and red. Even as they watched, the red began to assume a more livid colour, in the midst of which appeared a scarlet speck, smaller than a pea, which was found to consist of a drop of blood, which rose above the smooth flesh of her ankle in a hemisphere.” The immediate diagnosis, “She has been stung by an adder”, reflects the old country belief that the adder “stings” with its tongue. An adder’s fangs hinge backwards when not in use, and so are not immediately obvious in dead specimens, so that the “adder’s fork” used by the witches in Macbeth was long considered to be the origin of the poison. (Oddly, the Adder’s tongue fern, which was considered efficacious in the treatment of snakebites, is not forked at all, and the “blind worm” or slow worm, whose “sting” they also throw into the cauldron, is in fact a harmless, legless lizard.) Yeobright’s acquaintance Sam tells him, “There is only one way to cure it. You must rub the place with the fat of other adders, and the only way to get that is by frying them.” Sam accordingly goes out with his lantern, and returns with three adders hanging from his walking stick. Two of them are already dead, for – tellingly – he has killed them earlier that day whilst at work furze-cutting, and the third is still alive, for the fat is, apparently, only efficacious when fried from an adder which has just been killed. However, Sam is well-versed in adder lore, for he knows that the fat of the dead ones may still be potent: “as they don’t die till the sun goes down they can’t be very stale meat”. The assumption that adders cannot die until sunset is no doubt a reflection of the snake’s resilience, for a mortally wounded adder will often writhe and make its escape, dying some hours later. Another onlooker at Mrs Yeobright’s bedside, Christian Cantle, thinks that the serpent of the Garden of Eden lives on in the adder, and cries, “Look at his eye – for all the world like a villainous sort of black currant. ‘Tis to be hoped he can’t ill wish us! There’s folks on the heath who’ve been overlooked already. I will never kill another adder as long as I live.” In fact, whilst the grass snake and the smooth snake both have rounded pupils in their eyes, the adder’s pupils are elliptical, narrowing to slits in bright light. Elliptical pupils are normally characteristic of nocturnal creatures such as cats and geckoes, and therefore perhaps more suggestive of the Evil Eye. The three adders are duly chopped and fried, and their fat used to anoint the wound. When the doctor arrives, he affirms that the remedy is recommended by the medical experts, “Hoffman, Mead, and I think the Abbé Fontana”, but Mrs Yeobright dies in any case, the poor adder being deemed only partially responsible. Modern adder bites are treated with antihistamines and blood transfusions, although the affected area may also be treated with witch hazel – an update, perhaps, on the viper’s bugloss treatment recommended by Dioscorides in the first century.
Other aspects of adder-lore are similarly attributable to the doctrine of signatures: if an adder is poisonous, it must also be medically efficacious. Thus the shed skins of adders are sometimes tied around the forehead to relieve headaches. Further aspects of the folklore are probably inspired by flawed observation. Country folk have often maintained that baby adders will climb into their mother’s mouth and hide in her stomach when threatened. As adders bear their young alive, being ovo-viviparous, it is possible that this myth arose when heavily gravid females were killed and cut open to reveal the living young inside. Female adders do also form protective associations with their young, and it has been suggested that the disappearance of the young into the mother’s mouth is merely an optical illusion: they are in fact crawling underneath her belly and hiding themselves there whilst the mother’s mouth is open in self-defence.
An even older myth concerning the live-bearing adder was first recorded by Herodotus, and survived in a variety of forms into the medieval bestiaries: in the act of mating, the female was supposed to bite off the male’s head, only to be repaid in kind by her young, who eat their way out of her body, killing her. According to Pliny the coveted adder-stone of the druids was supposedly obtained when adders congregated and joined their heads together, and somehow extruded the stone encased in bubbles of froth. Adders do indeed meet and join their heads together; the beautiful “dance” of the adders is in fact a ritualised combat between two males for the possession of a mate, but the snakes do not froth at the mouth. Perhaps the dance of the adders was once observed on a coastal heath, and the cluster of bubbles was a whelk’s egg case which chanced to be blown there by the wind – a likely candidate, given that Pliny described the end result as pock-marked and cartilaginous. Another congregation of adders occurs when they entwine themselves together in clumps in order to hibernate. They sometimes remain intertwined when they emerge in spring, making them easy targets for the butt of a gamekeeper’s gun: perhaps this, too, gave rise to the idea that the snakes congregated in order to produce the adder-stone.
More difficult to explain is the insistence that adders can kill airborne skylarks by spitting at them and causing them to plummet to the ground; this, one fears, is an example of folklore inspired by pure malice. Never mind. The adder got his own back on human beings long ago, when he caused the battle of Camlann. Both Arthur and Mordred told their men not to charge unless a sword was drawn by the opposing side, but “Ryght so cam out an addir of a lytyll hethe-buysshe, and hit stange a knight in the foote. And so whan the knyght felte hym so stonge, he loked downe and saw the addir; and anone he drew his swerde to sle the addir, and thought none other harme.” The rest, of course, is history, or something very like it, and we leave Arthur and Mordred to assail each other with stings of their own. It was not, in any case, the adder’s first experience of battle. Hannibal had appreciated the martial potential of venomous snakes long before, and his method was absurdly simple: imprison them en-masse in earthenware jars, shake them up a bit, and throw them at the Romans.
The modern fear of snakes is a degenerate form of the awe with which they were once regarded: an awe which is admirably communicated in D.H. Lawrence’s poem, ‘Snake’, in which the serpent is recognised as “one of the lords/ Of life.” One of the adder’s greatest defenders, W.H. Hudson, suggested that the Judeo-Christian hatred of snakes was a reaction against polytheistic religions which invariably regarded them as sacred. The adder itself was a living mystical sigil, a writhing wyrm whose markings suggest written characters or ogham script. Occasionally one finds an adder whose underside is as plainly marked as the zigzag-patterned dorsal side, and it is said that these markings form the words: “If I could hear as well as see/ No man of life would master me”. Snake-handling goddesses are regarded with awe the world over, from the Babylonian Lamashtu, through the Aztec Coatlicue (Lady of the Skirt of Serpents) to the Hindu triple goddess Kali, whose hair was composed of snakes, like that of the Gorgon Medusa. Isis began her career as a snake-goddess – a cobra goddess to be precise – and her most eloquent convert, Apuleius, describes her rising out of the sea with the moon hanging above her forehead, and “Vipers arising from the left-hand and right-hand partings of her hair supported this disc”. Hecate carried two snakes, one symbolising healing, and the other sickness and death; perhaps it is her image – or one of her priestesses - that we see in the beautiful Cretan figurine of a woman, bare-breasted in a fashionable bodice and layered skirt, who holds two snakes in her upraised hands. According to Seneca, the much-maligned Medea, another beautiful priestess of Hecate, also bared her breasts and tossed her hair when she handled snakes, and in order to make her potion, which could either heal or kill, she evoked “everything snakelike”. It is a pity that her memory has been besmirched by Appolonius of Rhodes, who made her betray her people and the serpent-guardian of the golden fleece to that brazen pirate Jason, and by Euripides, who made her murder her own children in revenge for his subsequent faithlessness. Awe of venomous snakes, combined with a reckless handling of them, was characteristic of the Bacchic and Orphic mysteries immortalised by the murals of Pompeii; indeed, Orpheus’s descent into Hades was an attempt to retrieve his beloved, who had been killed by snakebite. Combat with snakes is also invariably imbued with religious significance: the lamentable ophidiophobia of St. George the dragon-slayer, and St. Patrick, who allegedly drove all of the snakes out of Ireland, has a more spiritually significant pedigree in the battle between Apollo and Python, and Thor’s wrestlings with the Midgard Serpent – conflicts which perhaps represent the overthrow of female deities by male ones. Even Moses was not averse to a bit of snake shamanism, for it was he who erected the brazen serpent, and following his example, Christian sects such as the Gnostics and the Ophists have depicted Christ crucified as a snake, and consecrated the Eucharist with live serpents. It comes as no surprise that they were soon condemned as heretical, although the caduceus, a serpent entwined around a staff associated with Asclepius, the god of healing, remains to this day a symbol of medicine. Asclepius himself carried two phials of blood from the gorgon Medusa: one to kill, and the other to resurrect – a pagan eucharist indeed.
Perhaps the most beautiful and most subtly erotic snake-myth of all is the story of Cadmus, described in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Cadmus once killed a gigantic serpent, and raised an army by sowing its teeth into the soil. Now, he has grown old, and wonders whether the gods are annoyed with him: “If this is what the gods are angry over, may I become a serpent, with a body stretched full-length forward.” The words have barely left his lips before he begins to transform. His legs are the first to disappear, and whilst he still possesses arms, he urgently embraces his wife. In her desperation, she pleads with the gods to transform her too, whilst Cadmus, now thoroughly ophidian, glides silkily between her breasts and entwines his body about her neck. She reaches to stroke her serpent husband’s scaly skin, and as she does so, she too is transformed, and they make for the woods before the horrified onlookers can beat their brains out or use their vital organs as ancient equivalents to Viagra. Touchingly, Cadmus and is wife are non-venomous; they are indeed “most gentle serpents” who never harm human beings. Perhaps they are pythons, retaining their vestigial pelvic girdles where their legs used to join their bodies. Would that all human beings were given the choice between advancing senility and an eternity as a loving serpent; I know which I would choose. Cleopatra must have been groping towards the same conclusion when she grasped the asp.
In any case, it is the snake’s own physiology which is the source of the religious awe it inspires. Anyone who has ever handled a snake knows that it is a creature of exceeding grace and dignity: its scales are smooth as polished jewels, and its undulating mode of locomotion is reminiscent of the movement of flowing water. This fluidity has made it the embodiment of a creator spirit. Even the spirit of Elohim, the creator in the book of Genesis, is first envisaged as moving on the face of the waters, as only a snake can do – an insight which was clearly understood by William Blake when he created his image of a serpent-bodied ‘Elohim Creating Adam’. Snakes can dislocate their jaws at will, enabling them to swallow prey which seems impossibly large: a creature which can engulf lesser beings in this way (anacondas have been known to swallow grown men), is bound to be regarded with awe. Snake venom is not only lethal; it also has psycho-active properties, although the reader is advised not to try this at home. It is amazingly durable: a stuffed snake is as venomous as a live one. Male snakes have a double penis, just like the devil, and female snakes have a paired clitoris – a notion which opens up all sorts of possibilities. A snake discards its skin when it has grown old; it even becomes blind and doddering like a geriatric when the scale which covers the eyeball turns opaque immediately prior to sloughing. It is therefore a metaphor for death and resurrection. When a snake strikes, it often does so with a speed undetectable to the human eye, so it is imbued with mystical power. If one approaches it in the right way, one may handle an adder without retribution – they have indeed been kept as pets by stalwart individuals – but one false move precipitates the lightning strike. Thus snakes are capricious, like the gods. Oviparous snakes like the grass snake, whose young do not hatch in the process of parturition, lay leathern eggs, and there is something mystical about these too; perhaps they, and not the whelk’s egg-case, are in fact the ovum anguinis of the druids.
Anguis is not, however, the generic name of a snake, but of the lowly slow-worm: not a venomous snake, but a legless lizard. Formerly, it was known as a blind-worm, presumably because its eyes, which have closable lids, are relatively smaller than those of snakes. It is quite harmless, and as its name suggests, rather sluggish in comparison to an adder or smooth snake energised by the sun. Its English relatives, the viviparous and sand lizards, are equally benign, and indeed frequently fall prey to our snakes. It is perhaps more difficult to ascribe magical significance to the Squamata, but the Romans seem to have done so, for they sculpted mystical hands out of bronze, with toads, snakes, tortoises and lizards crawling up towards the fingertips. No one knows their significance; perhaps they were fertility or healing charms, or wards against the evil eye. It is noteworthy, perhaps, that all of the animals depicted are cold blooded – but beyond that there is little to be said, save that the hands are clearly objects of power.
On the whole, however, if the snake’s biology makes it a likely metaphor for the divine, lizards are clearly earthy and mortal. With some notable warm-weather exceptions, they are not venomous; nor can they dislocate their jaws. They change their skins as snakes do, but slough them in flakes and ribbons rather than slipping them off like gloves. To the uninitiated, they seem altogether prosaic, but any inquisitive crow will tell you a different story. If you would capture a lizard, you must seize it by the head or the body. Grasp it by the tail, and the entire appendage will detach itself by splitting down the middle of one of the vertebrae, whilst the frenzied animal makes its escape through the undergrowth. More perplexing still, the severed tail will continue to undulate and squirm after it has been severed from the spinal column, as energised and frantic as one of Galvin’s frog-legs probed with an electrode. Your quarry is safe, and will soon grow a false tail – albeit one without vertebrae – and you have nothing to show for your pains but this threshing bit of scale and bone and gristle. In short, all of the English reptiles are object-lessons for the witch: the grass snake and the smooth snake are her images of occult beauty and erotic power; the adder is her psychopomp and her defense; but the lizard is her most practical guide of all, for he will provide her means of escape should the witch-finder seize her by the tail.
Out with Ectro testing out Dennis Calvert's circle machine style. Usually i can't do this, since i'm alone, but i convinced Ectro that we should try it out. The tunnel was so foggy from the temperature difference between the inside and outside that we had to use a air blower to keep the lens un-fogged each minute and a half or so. This was about the longest photo we could take at about a minute.
There is a question on replication of two of my doll bodies.
mCC. On this body a situation such. I touched all conceived characters on this body and found out that I at me am not molded on mCC only one by Lee Pace. At me even basic on this body is not present any more.
So it turns out that personally I need only one last circulation.
And that the question whether I need - seems, I cooled down to the character. However, he is a handsome man, and I just like that do not refuse handsome men. So my position on this body such: if I nevertheless want Lee, then all the same following circulation will be the last. And if I do not want, then the last was last.
What opinion on this occasion at you? How do many people need mCC? In the winter I thought that there are persons interested to get for minimee, but the situation on minimee changed so...
I offer in comments to write it is necessary/not necessary and when if it is necessary?
The other day I estimated the sequence of circulations and novelties, defined the place for the possible circulation of mCC approximately through 8 circulations.
And maybe, you will have ideas and offers?
wC. Here all is a little differently. I with confidence closed replication of this body for the same reason that now with mCC - exhausted characters on it, I have no more need and there is no demand for it.
Nevertheless, infrequently but there are interesting people. Generally, same question: it is necessary /not necessary and if it is necessary, then when?
I can tell that by my calculations to pay the minimum circulation to the caster, and it did not cost a pretty penny to customers, about 5 pieces of castings are necessary. The cost of accessories will pay off too. But on payment of my work here the reserve will not be any more therefore it would be desirable 1-2 castings more that it was not so annoying to spend time for preparation of master-model, processing/assembly/shipment of castings.
Generally, I wait for your opinions.
I have no idea how this light pattern got into my camera, other than I know I was in the car at night. It may me think--is a "true" abstract something that you could hope to produce on purpose, or reproduce? Is an abstract a unique moment in time and space captured in part by chance? It seems almost all of my "abstracts" started off as intentional shots and were degraded/upgraded to the "abstract" status after examination...
The 1981 Schooner Mycia was built to replicate gaff-rig schooners of earlier times. Here she is flying her decorative skysail. There is something odd about her; she is missing her bowsprit that was lost in an incident in the previous day’s schooner race. This photo was taken at the Sail By of the Port Townsend's Wooden Boat Festival: woodenboat.org/plan-your-visit
Someone mentioned on one of my Stargate Pics that they would love to see me make Replicators. This was the best i could do :P
Nature's miracle 81/116
For six word story.
Life's ability to reproduce itself and carry on its line is truly a miracle! In this image you can see the bud is putting out new leaves like those around it! So precious! So beautiful! So remarkable!
I'm reminded of a Lakota prayer ~
Let us give thanks for this beautiful day.
Let us give thanks for this life.
Let us give thanks for water
Without which life would not be possible.
Taken near The Regency, Laguna Woods, California. © 2015 All Rights Reserved.
My images are not to be used, copied, edited, or blogged without my explicit permission.
Please!! NO Glittery Awards or Large Graphics...Buddy Icons are OK. Thank You!
Many thanks for every kind comment, fave, your words of encouragement, and the inspiration of your fine photography,
my friends! You make my day every day!
Tried to replicate my first ever Explored image, but I couldn't quite manage the Christmas tree bokeh!
(Given that I'm recovering from a heart attack, you should see the candy cane heart as an ironic statement of sorts. Happy Christmas to all my Flickr Friends. This is one Christmas I didn't think I'd make!)
UPDATE: This photo made Explore December 25th, 2009. Highest position: 110. Thanks so much!
replicated from: photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5983/2048/1600/blog - kittenwar - my entry.jpg
, as leeching it seems to cut in and out
The very strange Villaggio Mall, replicating the canals of Venice and piazzas of Lucca - amongst others - in a very Doha-typical artificial-but-fascinating (can't help but look) manner.
---
Villaggio Mall is a shopping mall located in the Aspire Zone in the west end of Doha, the capital city of Qatar. It is located on Al Waab street between the Hyatt Plaza and Sports City and has over 200 stores, including many famous brands in the U.S., U.K., Italian and German markets.[2][3][4]
Inside, the interiors are Italianate-themed both as an Italian hill town, but also with a 150-meter long indoor canal with gondolas.[5]
The Mall was partially re-opened on September 20, 2012, after meeting strict safety standards following the May fire that resulted in 19 lost lives. Portions of the mall remain closed as a result however, the food court, ice rink, movie theater, Carrefour hypermarket, and many stores are open for business with more opening as they are able to restock their shelves.
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.
700,000 VIEWS....THANK YOU VERY MUCH.....
© All rights reserved. This image is copyrighted to Tim Wood; 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 at woodrot147@aol.com for express permission to use any of my photographs.
All of my images can be purchased...... Visit my website, coastal and countryside images at......
Facebook...
www.facebook.com/TimWoodPhotoGallery
Twitter......
My most popular photos on Flickr...
www.flickriver.com/photos/imagesofwales/popular-interesting/
My modification of Thoki Yenn’s DNA model. Folded from a long strip (1:8 or so) of metallic paper. Instructions for Thoki Yenn’s original DNA can be found in his Orikata book.
DNA replication is an important biological process in which the DNA double helix is unwound and each strand is used as a template to copy the other half.
This model can also be viewed as a an abstract structure, maybe a kind of figure with the two loose ends of the unwound helix resembling wings.
I could not replicate the shot exactly due to the re-landscaping and trees planted along the old railway line, now cycle path. Sad to see the miners Institute in such a bad condition.
The DMUs shot is definitely taken off the platform footbridge of ABERTRIDWR station to get the height. The colliery in the background is WINDSOR.
ABER Branch opened 1st February 1894
Abertridwr was the only intermediate passing place on single line branch 3 miles and 34 chains in length.
Station was originally named ABER but station master suggested it be renamed ABERTRIDWR after expanding local village in June 1899
UNIVERSAL colliery further up the valley was the Synghenydd disaster colliery 1913 when 439 men died. It closed in 1928 but was used for ventilation for WINDSOR until 1979 when shafts were filled.
Hence UNIVERSAL appears to be derelict in many 1950s photos but shafts were still open.
Windsor colliery was linked underground to Nantgarw in 1976 but closed on 6th November 1986. Coal was extracted at Nantgarw from 1976 so no coal trains required up branch after 1976. .
Last DMU passenger train on branch 13 June 1964
RCTS excursion to WINDSOR 18th March 1972
Last coal train 4th Dec 1976 to WINDSOR colliery.
Last train was 15 April 1977 when industrial loco 27655 was recovered from colliery to Radyr yard by a class 47.
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.
Have you been led up the garden path of lies?
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. Selection, natural or otherwise, doesn’t create any new, genetic information. It merely ‘selects’ from that which already exists.
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, 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,
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, because the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and a naturalistic ideology entirely 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.
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 ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) favoured 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 progress from microbes to human through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. It should be recognised as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
Sometimes people are confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that 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 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 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 existing variability of the gene pool. 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 things. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim. Micro evolution is an observable fact. Macro evolution is an invented mechanism based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
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 explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous 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 the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... an incredibly long, incremental line of mutations. Mutations built 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 that has ever lived was created by a long accumulation of mistakes ... mistakes added to previous mistakes. Mistakes of mistakes, of mistakes, billions of times over.
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, 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 mistakes.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES accumulated over many millions of years. Which means the complete genome of every living thing is one, MASSIVE MISTAKE. Wow! And they call that science?
What we are being 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. 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 (mistakes).
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 evolution story is an obvious, fairy tale, cynically presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism 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/
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)
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 and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example 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) 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.
Piltdown Man... 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 used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
_____________________________________________
A pig, a horse and a donkey!
The pig ....
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.
Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also presented as scientific evidence for human evolution.
The donkey ....
Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.
_________________________________________
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of 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 ..... admitted much later 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. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he 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, 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 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 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, 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 could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. 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.
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. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. 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
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.”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".
The real theory of everything
Taken 03/06/16; Many of the snaps I took on this year's Dorset Wildlife Trust boat trip replicate ones I took two years ago. However, these two are sufficiently different to upload.
Odontodactylus scyllarus, known as the peacock mantis shrimp, harlequin mantis shrimp, painted mantis shrimp, or clown mantis shrimp, is a large mantis shrimp native to the Indo-Pacific from Guam to East Africa. Their ability to see circularly polarised light has led to studies to determine if the mechanisms by which their eyes operate can be replicated for use in reading CDs and similar optical information storage devices.
O. scyllarus is a smasher, with club-shaped raptorial appendages. An active hunter, it prefers gastropods, crustaceans, and bivalves, and will repeatedly smash its prey until it can gain access to the soft tissue for consumption. It is reported to have a "punch" of over 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). This is the fastest recorded punch of any living animal. The acceleration is similar to that in a .22 caliber handgun, with 340 pounds-force (1,500 N) per strike.
This is my attempt at replicating the Pagani Zonda Cinque in LEGO bricks. The Zonda is one of my top 5 favorite cars, so I had to include one in my LEGO collection. This is actually my third attempt at building the Zonda (see my previous versions here and here). With this version, I think I've improved the overall shape of the car by increasing the width at the rear of the car to 17 studs (the front of the car is 16 studs wide).
As you can see, this creation was inspired by Firas Abu-Jaber's own Zonda. I tried to replicate the Zonda's shape using different methods from Firas' Zonda, but in the end some areas, such as the front simply could not be made better (Firas' version is near perfect).
Also, if anyone has a set of Ferrari FXX rims and is willing to sell, please let me know (prices on Bricklink are so high for this piece)! Those rims would look a lot better on this car than these silver ones I have.
Spent the last few days on a commercial set where they used a giant LED screen that wrapped around a small set. Similar to what The Mandalorian used to film a lot of the first few seasons, it's able to realistically duplicate elaborate backgrounds, both static and in motion.
The stage manager told me they do a lot of car commercials, but currently have to show the car above the wheels, can't fake that, yet...but they're building another set where they'll have a moving track, it'll perfectly replicate a car driving down a road, up a mountain, into a forest, on and on.
I spent a good amount of time talking to him about the jobs lost, the way the money will move upwards, away from workers, to bosses...but for us, here, all I can think about is the loss of experience.
Resting on the lip of the tub, the bathroom floor warm because I pressed a button, Hannah Rose soothed by the hot bathwater, everything luxurious and calm and fun.
We were on a trip. We were dazzled by an expensive room neither of us could normally afford. We were having a great time.
All of that into the stew that made the photos we brought back.
Not, "I had a computer put this together" or "I created a series of prompts that generated this image", but "we flew across the country, had adventures, ate delicious food, played around in decadently-designed showers, watched fireworks on a Brooklyn rooftop."
The water has a temperature. The bathtub has a texture. The light coming from the windows that's perfectly diffused by the weird not-drapes, that's a choice a designer made, as if they knew we'd one day show up and take pictures.
That look on Hannah Rose's face is a reflection of a feeling she is having at that very moment. This photo is a reflection of an experience.
What good the result without the process? What good is a thing without the experience?