Special Report
The Party's Over
Darwin Year is drawing to a close -- just in time.
The party's over, it's time to call it a day.
They've burst your pretty balloon and taken the moon away.
It's time to wind up the masquerade.
Just make your mind up -- the piper must be paid.
The party's over, the candles flicker and
dim.
You danced and dreamed through the night, it seemed to be
right just being with him.
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end.
Take off
your make up, the party's over. It's all over, my friend.
-- "The
Party's Over"
(Words by Betty Comden and Adolph
Green; music by Jule Styne; performed by Nat King
Cole)
Darwin Year is drawing to a close.
The festivities went into full swing on February 12 (Darwin's 200th birthday), with parties at hundreds of locations in scores of countries. There were birthday cakes galore. At least two (in Wagga Wagga, Australia and Sopot, Poland) boasted 200 candles; one cake (in Pune, India) was shaped like a finch. At two parties, guests were served "primordial soup."
In Arcata, California, the Department of Biological Sciences at Humboldt State University invited partygoers to bring ornaments representing their favorite organisms to put on the "tree of life," and it offered a prize to those who came dressed as Darwin. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy sponsored "the largest party in town," including birthday cake, 200 free drinks, and "science-themed student rock bands."
The New York State Museum in Albany not only served birthday cake in Darwin's honor, but also presented four cooking demonstrations by local chefs paired with biologists, each demonstration to "focus on a different branch of the Tree of Life: vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and fungi."
For those wanting to honor Darwin online, New York-based Internet consultant Phil Terry set up a "Join Darwin on Facebook" site where well-wishers could record videos, pen poems, draw pictures, and otherwise wish the Father of Evolution a happy 200th. According to Kendall Crolius, who assisted Terry, volunteers working on the project referred to themselves as "proud monkeys."
For those wanting souvenirs, the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution in England sold "limited edition Darwin and Beyond mugs" for £7.50 each. The American Association for the Advancement of Science offered "Viva la Evolución" T-Shirts, with Darwin wearing a Che Guevara-style beret.
Celebrations continued throughout the year. In England, the Rambert Dance Company put on a show that was "a distillation of Darwinian ideas about evolution, particularly sexual selection." The Linnean Society of London [15] hosted Kelley Swain, who was inspired by the works of Charles Darwin to write a book of poetry, Darwin's Microscope, and read selections from it in a talk titled "The Poetry of Science." Tea was served in the library, followed by a wine reception.
The list goes on. And on. And on. And on.
FESTIVITIES BUILT TO A CLIMAX until November 24 (the 150th anniversary of Darwin's Origin of Species). The University of Binghamton in upstate New York hosted a performance of "The Rap Guide to Evolution" by hip-hop artist Baba Brinkman. "In the real world the most important ideas are communicated through art, and fusing science and art is extremely important and interesting," said David Sloan Wilson, a professor in the Evolutionary Studies Program. Jim DeVona, project coordinator for the program, called Brinkman's rap "an example of how evolutionary thinking can inform our understanding of humanity itself, not just the rest of the animal kingdom, but humanity as well."
At Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, the Theatre Workshop in Science and Technology Studies (TWISTS) performed a play, Living Darwin, while the School of Visual Arts sponsored Singing Darwin: A New Media Exhibition that included a vocal rendition of the entire text of The Origin of Species. The performance took twenty-four hours.
The Darwin Year delirium reached such an extreme that even evolutionists grew weary of it.
Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris wrote in Current Biology, "More than one of my colleagues has cast her eye around the packed conference room and then murmured sotte voce that, well, she was suffering a little from Darwin fatigue." Conway Morris wondered whether the "obsession" with Darwin and the "endless cycle" of centennial celebrations reflected "a loss of way, an eclipse of confidence," and he criticized those who "caper around the Darwinian totem" while ignoring the contributions of others.
University of Florida biologist Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis wrote in Science, "Just when it looked like the 'ultra-Darwinists' were winning the 'year of Darwin' with their interminable love-fests, triumphalist narratives, and self-serving revisionist histories; when we were starting to think that Darwin was the only evolutionist to have lived in the past 150 years; and when we might conclude that nearly the entire evolutionary community had drunk the Kool-Aid of antiquarian Darwinism," David Prindle published a book on Stephen Jay Gould that "would likely challenge much of the ultra-orthodoxy passing as reflective history and science written expressly for the year of Darwin." Smocovitis concluded: "Darwin is dead. Long live evolution."
Letter to the Editor View all comments (149) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/22/the-partys-over
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Barney Shuffles Off
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 12.22.09 @ 7:08AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The Party's Over [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lawrence Boccardi| 12.22.09 @ 7:37AM
My grand-daughter asked a question of me, last week, that I could not answer convincingly. The question "if man evolved from monkeys and apes, how come there are still monkeys and apes?" Didn't find the answer here, either.
Melvin| 12.22.09 @ 8:54AM
A good retort to your grand-daughter would be. "My dear, thats because all the monkeys and apes go to Washington D.C. to live."
Mats| 1.1.10 @ 1:32PM
hahaha
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 12:52PM
Just explain to her that the ecological niches that other primates are still in existance and humans or other animals have not out competed for those particulaar niches. But with humanity's ongoing efforts soon many of those other primates will disappear and the question will be moot.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:33PM
Tell her the truth. ~"Honey, you are one smart cookie! That's because they are teaching you a lie." Then show her the account of Creation by God in Genesis. School teachers "not withstanding!"
Irenaeus| 12.26.09 @ 12:48AM
Hello Margie,
Are you certain there is only one creation account in Genesis? If so, please explain your certainty? Thank you.
Irenaeus
Margie| 12.27.09 @ 8:40PM
Do you wish to try and take me round in circles?
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:22AM
Darwin replaced the Lamarckian "evolutionary ladder" (in which evolution was seen as a progression from simpler forms towards a single goal -- humanity) with the "evolutionary tree," in which different species evolve to adapt to different lifestyles in different environments.
Humans didn't evolve from any living monkey or ape species; rather, the monkeys that gave rise to us also gave rise to other sorts of monkeys that adapted to different environments that didn't favor radical change from the ancestral monkey form. Others evolved into apes, some of which evolved into us and some of which evolved into gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and various extinct species.
Hugh| 12.27.09 @ 5:30PM
Totally unproven. Another Darwinian fantasy!
Shannon| 12.28.09 @ 1:52AM
Sorry, Steve.
Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors BS to me--kind of like "GLOBAL WARMING!!!"
Nice try but no cigar. Take your 'hockey stick' and shove it!
michigander_sandusky| 12.22.09 @ 8:06AM
It is a sad commentary that these folks failed to celebrate the birth of the real hero born on February 12, 1809...Abraham Lincoln!
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:17PM
I couldn't agree more. The Left has successfully demonized him and relegated him to the politically correct "President's Day"~~ no,no, we must not celebrate this great man any longer for his individual personhood assigned by God to help free the slaves. No, in fact along with our Founding Fathers children are now taught in schools that they were nothing more than racists, and we are all descended from apes!
Crusader| 12.22.09 @ 1:46PM
Is this a joke? Lincoln should be reviled by anyone who considers themselves a conservative. Lincoln literally raped the Constitution in his unprovoked attack on the sovereign CSA. Lincoln couildn't give a rat's a$$ about slaves and said as much--for my money John Wilkes Booth was a couple years late in his heroic execution of this vile, vile man.
Lincoln set the stage for every quasi-wannabe dictator we've had masquerading as "president," culminating with the kenyan usurper we have now.
Big Leo| 12.22.09 @ 2:48PM
Can it, you Confederate twit. Don't make us come down there and squash you again. We won't be so lenient the second time around.
Crusader| 12.23.09 @ 8:21PM
Come on down big fat ass leo. This time there will be men down here, not the women and children Sherman terrorized on his march through the South.
What part of Lincoln attacked a sovereign nation is wrong? Please explain.
Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 3:03AM
It's true: Lincoln greatly consolidated and centralized federal governmental power to our detriment.
I do not admire the man like I used to.
mac| 12.27.09 @ 1:18AM
When the South was never a soverign nation because they got their a$$es kicked. Lincoln was a great man to did what the constitution allowed a wartime president to do - practically anything necessary to hold the United States together. I believe Bush was also honorable though misguided - mainly in how he fights war, not chose war - but the powers Lincoln exercised would be scary indeed in the hands of naive, puppet Kenyan who now holds the office.
Brooke| 12.28.09 @ 1:48AM
The Constitution never allowed Lincoln to centralize so much power in the Federal government. States' rights were trampled because of Lincoln, and it's only gotten worse since.
Lincoln's unlawful actions are largely responsible for the mess we're in with Obama today.
Open your eyes!
Art| 12.24.09 @ 2:47AM
It was Lincoln after all who wrote one of the first reviews of Darwin's Origin of Species:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time...."
Otis my man!| 12.22.09 @ 8:45AM
The 200 year jubilee! Such festivities! Such religious fervor! Sounds like the ultimate revival meeting to me.
Louis Jenkins| 12.22.09 @ 8:46AM
Heard a statement the other day about evolution: "It's like having a whirlwind in a print shop, and a completed bound dictionary is the result."
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:23AM
No, it's really not very much like that at all.
Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 1:47AM
Evolution is Liberals' religion, Darwin is their god and abortion is their primary sacrament.
They're such garbage. Godless morons.
mac| 12.27.09 @ 1:20AM
I though Global Warming was Liberal's religion? I know it used to "multi culturalism" (how's that workin' for ya, Europe?). I wonder what it will be next year, Socialism?
Daisy| 12.28.09 @ 1:35AM
As long as there is no God in it, liberals will be happy to worship it.
Hugh| 12.27.09 @ 5:35PM
The version I heard was: a hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a Boeing 747! The whole concept of explaining the complexity of life through evolution by chance, change and accident is a fairy story!
Margie| 12.27.09 @ 8:42PM
Ah yes.. but it's so much easier to believe in a fairy tale than have to deal with an all powerful God.
Bram| 12.22.09 @ 8:48AM
According to Darwin, we share a common ancestor with other primates. Due to natural selection and specialization we separated relatively recently.
So, we should at least have the same chromosome count as the other primates, right? But humans have 46, chimps 48, new world monkeys 54.
Last I checked, a human with too many or two few chromosomes was never viable in the survival of the fittest world of Darwin evolution. Yet somehow in the past, at least two individuals with a different chromosome number not only survived, they found each other and reproduced - pretty long odds there.
Nobody has explained to me how this happened (except Greg Bear's fiction). Evolution of higher organisms is still just a theory. We have only the vaguest idea how it actually works.
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 1:08PM
Chromosomal duplication is well known and explained, ie down's syndrome. While usually deleterious, particularly for mammals, such duplications can fertile and reach reproductive viability. Some duplications can even produce odd advantages, see Williams syndrome.
Bram| 12.22.09 @ 1:32PM
The problems caused by Williams’s syndrome far outweigh the advantages. Williams’s syndrome occurs once in 7,500 live births. Let’s assume it was advantageous, not lethal, in a survival of the fittest Stone Age environment. What are the chances of a male and female of about the same age both carrying these genes meeting each other and mating? Then their offspring mating with similar people?
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 2:37PM
The additional chromosome will be passed on to half of the offspring. Assuming that the additional chromosome confers benifits, analogous hybrid vigor, then the concentration of individuals with the chromosome abnormality will rapidly increase. The rare individuals with the most benifits will reproduce and normal meiosis /fusion processes will standardize the chromosome into pairs.
WSmom| 1.1.10 @ 3:40PM
For what it is worth, Williams Syndrome is not a chromosomal duplication. It is a deletion of genes on the 7th chromosome. An individual with WS has a 50% chance of passing it on to his/her offspring. However, the deletion also occurs spontaneously during egg/sperm development when neither parent has the deletion itself.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:51PM
Introduction to Fossil Man:
"The study of early man is known as paleoanthropology and, although scientific techniques are used, this discipline deals with non-repeatable and non-observable events of the past and by definition cannot be considered as a science. The exercise begins by assuming that man evolved from the animal Kingdom then looking for evidence that would confirm it. This is not the scientific method or method of induction. The object is always to find the perfect hominid commonly referred to as ape-man or missing link. This would be marvelous confirmation of the theory of evolution worthy of much kudos. Although there are superficial similarities between the ape and man, the differences are actually much greater. The ape has a cranial capacity of about 500 cc whereas the man has about 1450cc; the ape has large canine incisors and a U-shaped dental arcade, man has small incisors with no diastema and a parabola-shaped dental arcade. The ape has 48 chromosomes, man has 46; the ape has a bacculun, man does not, etc. Fossil bones that appear human or near human are not common and are almost always found as small pieces which must be reassembled. The distribution in terms of parts found are: teeth 100, jaws 22, femurs 11, tibias 6 and any other bones have a smaller number. Complete skeletons are very seldom found."
From:
http://www.creationmoments.com.....le.php?a=7
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 2:57AM
Chromosomes can fuse or split (one chromosome splitting into two when a new individual is conceived, or two chromosomes fusing into one) without affecting the genes on the chromosomes. A mutant individual with a different chromosome count can still mate with other individuals with normal counts: e.g. the fused chromosome can pair up with the corresponding two chromosomes from another individual.
Indeed, among okapis -- a species of short-necked giraffes -- there are some individuals with 44 chromosomes, some with 46, and some with 45 (meaning that one chromosome from one parent is matched with two from another).
Among horses, the wild Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes while domestic horses have only 64, but not only can they interbreed but the offspring are fertile. Again, presumably among the horse population that gave rise to both subspecies there were individuals with 64, 65, and 66 chromosomes.
Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two different chromosomes that remain unfused in chimpanzees and gorillas, similar to the situation with Przewalski's and domestic horses.
Over time, more likely by sheer chance ("genetic drift") than by natural selection, one chromosome count in such a population can become more common until everyone has it, so that chromosome number can change over time. Note, again, that this is a different matter from the number of genes in the genome changing over time (which can also happen: genes can be duplicated and subsequently modified by mutation, or deleted or disabled by different mutations).
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 2:59AM
One additional point: note that fused or split chromosomes are different from duplicated chromosomes, such as are seen in trisomy-21 (Down's syndrome). A Down's syndrome child has three copies of each gene on chromosome 21, which for some genes is one copy too many, causing various developmental abnormalities. Chromosome fusion or splitting by itself does not alter gene numbers.
Kelly Staples| 12.22.09 @ 9:28AM
This holiday season, give yourself the gift of reason. . . please evolve.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 11:35AM
Love it!
Conan the Grammarian| 12.22.09 @ 12:03PM
I do not know if this is a flippant comment intended to be snarky toward infidels of materialistic evolution, but let's take it at face value. Just how are we supposed to evolve? According to evolutionists, evolution is blind and random, and takes a considerable amount of time . . . or so we are told. We have no power to evolve. So, give yourself the gift of reason . . . please think.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:01PM
Quoting Foghorn Leghorn : "It's a joke, son."
Wee Willie| 12.22.09 @ 9:39AM
Darwin mad a major, useful contribution to biology. However, Darwin would be unworthy to carry the jockstrap of Louis Pasteur whom made discovered racemic compounds, made the first vaccines, saved the French wine industry and greatly reduced TB with pasteurization, saved the French silk industry, and so forth. However, he has one grave fault which has caused him to be eclipsed by Darwin. He was a devout believing Catholic.
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 1:15PM
Yes Pasteur was also a great scientist and I fully support your efforts to organize an international Pasteur day.
If more accolades and renown were given to important scientists maybe children would be more interested in studying science. Unfortunately our society is much more interested in celebrating and rewarding unsavory performers and swindlers.
Truth to Power| 12.22.09 @ 3:46PM
"Unfortunately our society is much more interested in celebrating and rewarding unsavory performers and swindlers. "
Don't be so hard on global warming scientists.
DaveS| 12.22.09 @ 5:49PM
You forgot to mention that Pasteur thought the theory of evolution phooey. But, in Darwin's defense, Darwin recognized several weaknesses that would crash the whole thing to the ground: a recognition his so-called followers did not have. The weaknesses: lack of intermediate forms, and the pre-Cambrian explosion. In his time pretty much all you had was empirical observation. Reasonable theory, but doesn't hold up.
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:18AM
Fossil evidence is not the only evidence for evolutionary theory. It is not even the most important evidence. Darwin himself stressed the evidence of comparative anatomy; in modern times, comparative genomics has supplemented this (e.g. shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, or in whales and even-toed hoofed mammals like cows and hippos).
There are quite a few intermediate forms in the fossil record: skulls that straddle boundaries between humans and apes (creationists can insist that they are all fully-formed humans or fully-formed apes, although they cannot agree on which category, e.g. Java man or skull ER1470 "obviously" belongs in), fossil whales with small heads and hind limbs, fossil theropod dinosaurs with downy or feathery plumage, etc. Darwin knew of few of these; the fossil record was less known in his own day. He did worry about the Cambrian explosion, but in more recent times fossil animals from before the Cambrian have turned up.
mac| 12.27.09 @ 1:26AM
Yes - but Pasteur (as well as Newton, Einstein, and the other listed) did not create a religion for those who don't believe in God. That's what they're celebrating him for.
C. Michael| 12.22.09 @ 9:41AM
The bicentennial of another great man was celebrated this year: Louis Braille, born January 4th, 1809. His raised dot code, invented when he was age 15, enables blind people to read and write in a way analogous to the way sighted people read and write. Braille thus made literacy feasible for the blind--in any language. As his biographer, I have traveled thousands of miles worldwide to join blind and sighted people in celebrating this great benefactor.
chaynes| 12.22.09 @ 9:44AM
More than the party's over. the ballgame is over. Please Google this
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? Eugene V. Koonin Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, 473-475
The author says that the modern synthesis of evolution is "broken beyond repair". Random mutaion, natural selection and the tree of life are no longer tenable, in light of horizontal gene transfer etc.
Also nn a 2007 paper, the author stated that teh primordal soup narrative was becoming indefensible due to improbablility. He did rescue materialism by postualting an infinite number of universes to explain the improbable origin of life.
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:32AM
Evolutionary theory does not depend on any particular account for the origin of life. Indeed, evolutionary theory is not, of itself, intended to account for the origin of life, any more than a history of the American Civil War is intended to explain why there were English-speaking people in North America. Any origin of life, from spontaneous abiogenesis in alkaline vents on the ocean floor to panspermia from space to miraculous creation of primordial single-celled organisms, is compatible with subsequent multiplication, diversification, and modification by natural selection of those primordial life forms.
I don't, though, know of anyone besides creationsists who still talks about "primordial soup;" recently, the talk has all been about Jack Szostak's "RNA world" and, as noted above, the chemistry of alkaline vents.
Horizontal gene transfer does nothing to make random mutation or natural selection less tenable; it simply adds another mechanism to mutation for generating new variation in populations, and complicates the tree of life by allowing occasional connections between distant branches. Just as you can still construct a tree of languages (with English in the Germanic family) despite English's large borrowings from French), you can still construct a tree of life despite endosymbiosis between different ancestral prokaryotes.
Surely that infinite universe conjecture was used to explain the "fine-tuning" of the universe rather than abiogenesis, though?
Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 1:53AM
Yes, but WHO started it all and why? Salient questions that no one can answer.
I take all scientists and their theories with a HUGE grain of salt. The recent global warming debacle BS just solidifies my suspicions.
I remain a skeptic.
Hugh| 12.27.09 @ 5:39PM
So do I!
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 10:35AM
Darwin, like his atheistic contempararies Marx and Engels, was a moron. He was an anti-Christ moron. He was an evil moron. Or moronically evil, take your pick.
The proof is that he made no great discoveries or scientific breakthroughs which one must adhere to be a biologist.
Unlike Volta, Ohm, Faraday, and Tesla, one can completely ignore Darwin's fantasies and the biological evolution hypothesis altogether, and still do great biological reasearch.
We still use the discoveries of true scientists, like the ones I listed, to learn about electricity. Just as we do with the ancient discovery that two plus two always equals four. That is the mark of a true scientific discovery.
Darwin's version of materialistic religion caught on quickly. That is why 50+ years after "Origins", his diciples were perpetrating frauds to try to prove they were right.
Look up the following:
Peking man- FRAUD
Nebraska man- FRAUD
Lucy- FRAUD
And my favorite, Piltdown man.
Piltdown man, the "Missing Link", was considered a true scientific discovery for 40 years, until 1953. Why? Because atheistic scientists wanted it to be true.
Vern Crisler| 12.22.09 @ 11:15AM
Er, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to skepticism about Darwinism, but Peking man and Lucy are not "frauds" -- overinterpreted perhaps, but not frauds. Only Piltdown was a fraud; Nebraska man egregious over-interpretation.
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 12:12PM
Mr. Crisler,
I concede your point on Peking man.
Maybe it was Java man I was thinking about, I will have to look that up.
But the claim about Lucy was based on finding parts of a skeleton and a knee joint over a mile apart and 200 feet lower in the ground.
And Nebraska man was based on the tooth of a pig from Paraguay. That is over-interpretation?
I call them both deceit.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 12:54PM
Here you go:
"Peking Man. The Chinese drug stores in Peking (Now Beijing) and even in downtown Toronto, sell "dragon bones" (often fossil dinosaur bones) that are used in a decoction to cure insomnia. In the early 1920's a human-like tooth was discovered in a draw full of these fossils and thus began a hunt for the elusive ape-man at Chou K'ou Tien, the source of all "dragon bones" in that area. The Canadian physician, Davidson Black, was the first to arrive and in 1927, just as the finances for the operation were running out, he unearthed a tooth. He claimed this as Sinanthropus pekinensis and effectively used it as leverage to pry loose more funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. Hundreds of workers were employed and after two years of digging an incomplete skull was freed from the surrounding rock. This was the prize and became the S. pekinensis shown in reconstruction in every museum and textbook. In 1934 Black died aged 49 and the work was taken over by Franz Weidenreich who renamed the precious tooth Gigantopithecus blacki in memory of Black. Weidenreich's reconstruction of the skulls claimed it had a capacity of 1000 cc, just midway between ape and man, but almost every other expert has since considered it to be smaller and relegated it to that of an ape. Textbooks never reveal the actual size by scale or comparison but it was, in fact, about the size of a large orange. Unfortunately, this partial skull and a series of fourteen others represented by pieces together with some jaw bones and teeth all disappeared during World War II. Text books usually refer to "traces of fire" found at the site indicating man's first use of fire but the facts are "traces" turn out to be a furnace seven meters deep together with stone tools indicating an extensive human "industry." The honest conclusion drawn from all the facts in this tangled web is that Peking Man was nothing more than the remains of ape skulls from which the brains had been extracted by human activity. It has been reclassified as Homo erectus."
~Want more? Go here:
http://www.creationmoments.com.....le.php?a=7
Vern Crisler| 12.22.09 @ 2:10PM
No Margie, most informed creationists now regard H. erectus as fully human. See the Answers in Genesis site, for instance. The older interpretation of the 60s & 70s was based on earlier Darwinian descriptions which tended to dehumanize H. erectus. It would be better to say that, like the classic Neanderthal people, H. erectus morphology was adapted to extreme environmental conditions.
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 1:32PM
Nebraska and piltdown man are excellent examples of the robustness of the scientific method. With incessant peer review and reexamination frauds and misinterpretations are rapidly exposed and expunged leaving valuable evidence that will fit into a coherent and useful structure.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:39PM
"Nebraska Man. In 1922 Harold Cook discovered a single tooth in a river bed in Nebraska. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History, declared it to be from a pithecanthropoid and named it Hesperopithecus harold cooki, thus America now had their own ape-man. England's prestigious Illustrated London News having a worldwide distribution, published a full reconstruction of the ape-man and his wife based upon this tooth. The ACLU was prepared to use this tooth as prime evidence in the famous Scopes trial in July 1925. By 1928 it was discovered that the tooth actually belonged to an extinct peccary or pig. This embarrassment was compounded in 1972 when living herds of this same pig (Catagonus wagneri) were discovered in Paraguay and thus it was not even extinct!"
"Piltdown Man. The discoveries of so-called ape-men during the nineteenth century in Europe may have left the British feeling that they had no ancestors of their own. Between 1908 and 1912 a series of discoveries were made at a gravel pit in Piltdown, a village just south of London and not far from Charles Darwin's home. Parts of a human skull together with most of the jaw and teeth of an ape had been stained to look aged and placed in the Piltdown gravels known to be frequented by Charles Dawson, an avid fossil hunter. Sure enough, the precious parts found their way to a team of Britain's most distinguished experts. In 1912 they declared this to be Eoanthropus dawsoni, later known popularly as Piltdown Man. It was a diabolically clever forgery, the condyles were missing so fitting the jaw to the skull had to be by guesswork. The skull had pieces missing so the capacity of the reconstruction was again by guesswork. The canine teeth were filed to make them closer to human teeth but the file marks were evident. a fact pointed out by a dental anatomist in 1916 but ignored by the experts who were later knighted and became Sir Arthur Keith, Sir Arthur Woodward and Sir Grafton Elliot Smith. In 1953 during some routine fluorine tests it became evident that the bones were quite recent and the hoax was exposed but by this time most of the principal characters were dead."
Want more? Go to:
http://www.creationmoments.com.....le.php?a=7
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 2:23PM
From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 11:15PM
cdc,
Reminds one of the Great Global Warming Hoax, does it not?
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 11:11PM
cdc,
Sitting 40 years in a museum as the "Missing Link" is what you call being RAPIDLY exposed?
Vern Crisler| 12.22.09 @ 6:51PM
Hi Nick, both Peking man and Java man fall under the Homo erectus category, along with other fossils. I agree with most creationist that H. erectus people were true humans, even if morphologically eccentric.
Lucy is an Australopithecine, which creationists regard as extinct apes. Darwinists regard Lucy as on the way to man. It's hard for non-specialists to judge. Depends on whether those pebble tools were made by the Australo's, or were unrelated. Probably unrelated....
Nebraska man was not a fraud, but over-interpretation. I think getting a man out of a pig tooth can fairly be said to be an over-interpretation, no?
Darwinism is deceit, yes. But only because it is self-deception. Piltdown was conscious deception -- directed toward Darwinists as much as creationists. It's in a category by itself.
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 11:07PM
Mr. Crisler,
I concede again. I was making a flip remark. You are more well versed on the subject than I. It's been a while since I've read up on the falacies of Darwinian evolution.
For Nebraska man to be a "fraud", the guy who declared him a "missing link" would've had to know it was a pig's tooth. Something I couldn't possibly know. I should have chosen my words more carefully, thanks for showing me my errors.
My main point was that someone could be a top biologist without believing in Darwinism or materialistic macro-evolution. They could discover a cure for cancer or an antibiotic drug without believing one iota of what the Darwinists preach.
Thanks again, Mr. Crisler.
Vern Crisler| 12.23.09 @ 12:02AM
I agree....Wells has a section in one of his books where he discusses how little Darwinism contributed to science.
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:08AM
"Nebraska man" was based on the tooth of a pig from, oddly enough, Nebraska. Note that it was originally interpreted as simply an ape tooth (apes and pigs are both omnivores and their molars appear much alike); it was the Sunday supplements that turned it into a possible human ancestor.
If you look a photos of Lucy's bones, you will notice that she doesn't have a knee cap. The knee cap is part of a different individual. There are many different specimens of _Australopithecus afarensis_; Lucy is merely the most famous (I'm not sure she's even the most complete; there is a baby australopith that may be more complete).
Java man (the Trinil skullcap) is likewise quite authentic, whether or not the nearby femur belongs to the same individual. It is one of a number of specimens of _Homo erectus_ known from Asia; the skulls, with their prominent brow ridges and brain cases intermediate between modern humans and nonhuman apes in size, are splendidly transitional. "Peking man" is the same species; the original specimens were destroyed when the ship carrying them was sunk, but casts remain and further specimens have been discovered in China.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 11:56AM
Thank you, Nick. And all the "proof" I will ever need that Mankind is created by God is his:
"Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Gen. 1:26.
The rest of the book of Genesis tells how God created everything else as well.
Darwin was a rebel and called himself an agnostic. But he was a believer in his earlier years and used to read from the Bible to his shipmates so that they would hear the truth. He had problems in his life and turned bitter toward God, and consciously set out on a quest against him.
Thus this complete and utter lie that has been taught to millions of school children for decades. Thanks to this one reprobate.
Nick| 12.22.09 @ 11:18PM
Margie,
Amen!
Hope you and Victor have a Glorious and Merry Christmas.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.23.09 @ 4:33PM
Nick,
So very nice to "know" you. :^)
God bless you and yours, and a wonderful Christmas too.
Victor & Margie
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:11AM
Darwin worked out the basics of evolution and natural selection in 1838, shortly before he married. He had a rich family, a lovely wife, a nice house, and a successful scientific career. Later, a couple of his children (including his favorite daughter) died, which has been interpreted by some people as his reason for abandoning faith in God ... but by that time, he'd already been an evolutionist for a decade or more.
Tony in Central PA| 12.22.09 @ 11:41AM
This is perhaps the most richly ironic article I have ever read on this site. People who insist religion is primitive and silly nonetheless attempt to create their own, new religion. The irony of ironies is that the societies that are fostering this new belief are themselves disappearing via the theory popularized by the patriarch of their beliefs.
cdc| 12.22.09 @ 1:22PM
It is also entertainingly ironic that people who insist that religios belief is the one true way of knowing the universe try so desperately to produce a shred of scientific support for their beliefs and try to attack theories using pseudo-scientific gibberish.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 1:26PM
We'll all find out in the end, won't we?
What you call "pseudo-scientific evidence" is God
Your argument is with Him, then.
Brian| 12.23.09 @ 9:05AM
It is all about Faith! Taste and see that the Lord is Good!
james wilson| 12.22.09 @ 12:29PM
Henry Adams assisted his father, who was the Ambassodor to England during the Civil War. After the war, Adams wrote this about himself and his meetings with Darwin--
"[I] felt, like nine men in ten, an instinctive belief in Evolution, but felt no more concern in Natural than in unnatural Selection...
Natural Selection led back to Natural Evolution, and at last to Natural Uniformity. This was a vast stride. Unbroken Evolution under uniform conditions pleased every one–except curates and bishops; it was the very best substitute for religion; a safe, conservative, practical, thoroughly Common Law deity. Such a working system for the universe suited a young man who had just helped to waste five or ten thousand million dollars and a million lives, more or less, to enforce unity and uniformity on people who objected to it; the idea was only too seductive in its perfection; it had the charm of art. Unity and Uniformity were the whole motive of philosophy, and if Darwin, like a true Englishman, preferred to back into it.... the difference of method taught only the moral that the best way of reaching unity was to unite. Any road was good that arrived.
Steady, uniform, unbroken evolution from lower to higher seemed easy.
So, one day when Sir Charles came to the Legation to inquire about getting his “Principles” properly noticed in America, young Adams found nothing simpler than to suggest that he could do it himself if Sir Charles would tell him what to say.
Ponder over it as he might, Adams could see nothing in the theory of Sir Charles but pure inference...He could detect no more evolution in life since the Pteraspis than he could detect it in architecture since the Abbey. All he could prove was change.
All this seemed trivial to the true Darwinian, and to Sir Charles it was mere defect in the geological record. Sir Charles labored only to heap up the evidences of evolution; to cumulate them till the mass became irresistible. With that purpose, Adams gladly studied and tried to help Sir Charles, but, behind the lesson of the day, he was conscious that, in geology as in theology, he could prove only Evolution that did not evolve; uniformity that was not uniform; and Selection that did not select. To other Darwinians–except Darwin–Natural Selection seemed a dogma to be put in the place of the Athanasian creed; it was a form of religious hope; a promise of ultimate perfection. Adams wished no better, he warmly sympathized in the object; but when he came to ask himself what he truly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that whenever the next new hobby should be brought out, he should surely drop off the Darwinism like a monkey from a perch. "
Darin| 12.22.09 @ 1:47PM
Darwin thought the cell was a very simple structure. The microscopes of the day did not allow for viewing what we now know is an extremely complex creation, not to mention the associated DNA, RNA, and so forth.
In 150 years, there is ZERO proof of Darwin's theory. Evidence of microevolution (adapting to the environment, like becoming more tolerant to cold) is frequently brought up to support macroevolution (changing from one species to another), but the two are dramatically different. Microevolution is even taught by the Bible when it refers to "kinds." The first dog microevolved into the vast numbers of kinds of dogs we have today. Likewise cats, horses, etc.
When you hear someone say they support evolution, insist they define what they mean. Often, they will mean macro- while use proofs of micro- to support their claim.
Big Leo| 12.22.09 @ 2:51PM
Has everyone else noticed that most of the people who defend Darwin have no idea of what he actually said? Me too.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 3:06PM
Yep. They refuse to read what he himself actually said. That's because they choose to blindly hang on to the "Anything but God" philosophy. This in in fact what Darwin did. Purposely set out to pay God back for his miserable life. There is so much information out there that there is no excuse anymore.
Margie| 12.22.09 @ 3:11PM
For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rms. 1:18-20.
JO| 12.22.09 @ 3:23PM
Fear not, if evolution is a reality then you can bet your cotton socks is was created by God.
WRJonas| 12.22.09 @ 4:24PM
What an absolute thrill I get observing the ongoing collapse of the house of lies known as evolution . Oops,macro-evolution , Darin. Great point
Nevertheless , the DNA conundrum and irreducible complexity evidence have rendered Darwinists into hopeless screaming babble. The counter arguments and evidence accrue and all they can do is try to defend an indefensible crumbling theory.
How Great is God and how true is His Word !
jd| 12.22.09 @ 4:33PM
Correct, WRJonas,
From irreducible compexity, to the second law of thermodynamics, to mathematics and probability, to the recent discoveries of molecular biology proving the complexity of the cell and DNA, advances in science ARE proving that the theory of evolution as an explanation for how life arose is scientifically not plausible.
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:45AM
DNA has provided abundant evidence for common ancestry of humans and other species: take, for example, the identically-disabled GULO pseudogenes (sequences of DNA extremely similar to those used, in many species, to help make vitamin C, but unable to do so in old world anthropoids) in humans, apes, and old world monkeys.
Presumably, though, you meant by "DNA conundrum" the lack of a detailed theory for its origin. Biochemists are working on that; if lack of a detailed naturalistic theory for something meant that we should abandon research and attribute it to a miracle, we'd still be explaining lightning as Thor tossing his hammer at his foes.
Oh, and "irreducible complexity" was explained, as a consequence of mutation and natural selection, by the geneticist Hermann Mueller seventy years before Michael Behe offered it as a refutation of "Darwinism." Behe's argument assumes that [a] mutations can only add components to a complex system, not modify or delete components, and that [b] the system as a whole and all its components must serve the same function throughout its evolution. Neither assumption is reasonable.
The first assumes that the proteins of a molecular system cannot be modified so that, e.g. they become better at one function while losing another function (so that if you originally have two proteins that can do each other's jobs weakly -- redundant complexity -- you end up with two proteins each of which can do one job well and no redundancy -- irreducible complexity).
The second is especially strange: Behe does not dispute, e.g. that birds are descended from ancient lobe-finned fish (he simply assumes it took miracles for this to happen), so he must accept that a modern bird's wing has changed functions many times in the course of its evolution (from swimming fin to walking limb to grasping limb to wing); why should the same not happen with many molecular systems or their individual proteins?
Pingback| 12.23.09 @ 12:04AM
The American Spectator : The Party's Over tuition university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
TQ| 12.23.09 @ 1:18AM
"the power of natural selection (which has never been shown capable of producing anything more than minor changes within existing species); the origin of species (which remains an unsolved problem);"
Neither of these claims is even remotely true. We've done macro-evolution in experiments and speciation.
Anti-evolutionism is the same sort of intellectual self-deception and laziness that we see in global warming science. It is amusing that those on the right are skeptical except to when it comes to ridiculous claims about the falsity of evolution. But whatever, you people can believe in your own stupidity. Meanwhile scientists will continue to use experimental evolution to do useful things like, oh gee, bring new drugs and biofuels to the market.
Evolution happens, period. Just like gravity happens. Maybe both are caused by magic fairies. But since we don't need to invoke magic to explain either process, well, what's the point?
And yeah, the Darwin stuff was over the top--Wallace never gets any credit, although I thought his paper on natural selection summed up The Origin of Species in about 1/100th the words, and he also developed Island Biogeography. But he was just a poor, working class boy, so of course we can't give him any credit.
Anyway, you primitives can go back to patting yourselves on the back for being so smart and believing in magic.
Margie| 12.23.09 @ 3:24PM
Actually, believing in magic would be actually believing that all of Creation magically appeared by itself, wouldn't it? And that somehow, magically man evolved from the ape. Now that's magic!
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:48AM
Evolutionary theory does not deal with "all of creation;" the Big Bang, for example, is a separate theory and neither depends on the other. Evolutionary theory does not even depend on any particular theory of how life arose (abiogenesis or archaeobiopoesis).
There is nothing magical about reproduction, or inheritance, or mutation, or natural selection and genetic drift, or speciation, or adaption through natural selection. All have been observed. To suppose that humans (along with modern apes) could not have evolved from some ancestral ape species would require a magical barrier to how far mutation and natural selection can modify a population from its ancestral form.
Margie| 12.24.09 @ 1:55PM
Magic is fake.
Supernatural is what God does. His Word is Truth, and by Him was everything created, that has been created. (Jn. 1:1-2.)
The truth is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever for evolution. All the scientific gobelty goop explaining in the world can't change the Truth of God.
Trackback| 12.23.09 @ 2:01AM
credit repair massachusetts, on credit repair massachusetts, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lee Bowman| 12.23.09 @ 3:24AM
@ TQ
" ... natural selection ... has never been shown capable of producing anything more than minor changes within existing species ... "
"Neither of these claims is even remotely true. We've done macro-evolution in experiments and speciation."
Dream on. True speciation, not Ernst Mayr's concoction of geographic and sexual isolation (allopatric, sympatric, parapatric) and hybridization, has never been empirically demonstrated. Talkorigin's '29+ Evidences for Macroevolution', often cited as hard evidence of speciation, is based on the above classifications. Moving the goal posts to redefine microevolutionary events does nothing to ameliorate 'Darwin's dilemma'.
"Anti-evolutionism is the same sort of intellectual self-deception and laziness that we see in global warming science. It is amusing that those on the right are skeptical except to when it comes to ridiculous claims about the falsity of evolution."
It's not a question of left or right, liberal or conservative, or support (or not) of science. It's a matter of objective analysis of the data, which does not in any way verify the prediction of natural causation. It has effectively been falsified.
"But whatever, you people can believe in your own stupidity. Meanwhile scientists will continue to use experimental evolution to do useful things like, oh gee, bring new drugs and biofuels to the market."
And just what do those technological advances have to do with speciation (as presently delineated and defined). Absolutely nothing. Genetic research embraces both, but one doen't hinge off of the other.
"Evolution happens, period. Just like gravity happens."
So said Darwin in his concluding sentence, " ... whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity ... endless forms most beautiful ... " And we've never heard the end of evolutionary theory being compared to gravitational theory, one easily demonstrable and quantifiable, the other based on obscure forensic evidences, and molecular analyses which have multiple and varied interpretations. One easily defined, the other complex and enigmatic. The term itself is too 'all encompassing' to be taken at it's word.
"Maybe both are caused by magic fairies. But since we don't need to invoke magic to explain either process, well, what's the point?"
Do you mean magic in the colloquial sense of a deceptive maneuver? Or supernaturality? Magic, a nebulous term, has no place here. The formation of the cosmos could be considered 'magic', since matter from nothing makes no sense to the human mind. But regarding origins, a simpler and more viable hypothesis for cooperative biologic systems is intelligent design. Although those on the extreme left and right (an over simplification, I admit) tend to oppose the concept ("Omniscience is above that", or "there is no higher authority"), I feel that a middle ground holds more viability. In short, design theorists don't claim ID as proven fact; but as valid science, based on design inferences, and ubiquitous within nature.
"Anyway, you primitives can go back to patting yourselves on the back for being so smart and believing in magic."
I gave you the last word.
Steven J.| 12.24.09 @ 3:53AM
It's regrettable that you give your opponents the last word, as I'd like to ask you what you mean by "true speciation." _Melanogaster paulistorum_ is a "true species" distinct from the common _M. drosophilia_ by criteria used by Ray and Linnaeaus before evolutionary theory was thought of. If, as I suppose is likely, you mean by "true speciation" something more dramatic, like the appearance of a novel genus, family, or order, there is no reason to expect such a thing to happen fast enough to be observed in a single human lifetime, or even a single civilization's lifetime. But the same sort of genetic comparisons used and trusted in paternity tests establish our genetic relationship with other species, genera, families, and orders on this planet.
SoCon| 12.26.09 @ 2:22AM
You either believe or you don't, Steven--the rest is just details. You can't quantify faith.
I've got nothing to lose. I figure the odds are 50-50: If I'm right I'll be welcomed into the love, sweet perfection and joy of my Lord and Savior; if I'm wrong, what does it matter?
Either way I win. Can you say the same?
Pingback| 12.23.09 @ 5:17AM
The American Spectator : The Party's Over capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.23.09 @ 6:59AM
American Fluorescent BBF313SAEC Bilbao Flushmount Ceiling Light, Satin Aluminum Finis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.23.09 @ 7:42AM
The American Spectator : The Party's Over Book university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
KyMouse| 12.23.09 @ 11:57AM
Anyone who believes that humans are soulless animals shouldn't complain when they behave like soulless animals.
Pingback| 12.23.09 @ 2:13PM
Darwiniana » The Party’s over: for Darwinism, and ID links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Motown Mike| 12.24.09 @ 12:23AM
Darwinism? It's kind of like the study of climate change but without the ethics or science.
Margie| 12.24.09 @ 1:49PM
Perfect!
Trackback| 12.24.09 @ 2:11AM
ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.24.09 @ 8:36AM
Discovery Institute: Waiting For Dark « The Sensuous Curmudgeon links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 12.25.09 @ 6:19PM
Motown Mike:
Quite a concise statement of description of "Darwinism." Bravo.
paul| 12.25.09 @ 7:38PM
Sad Sad People so afraid ! Afraid of change, afraid of what you don't fully understand... And using your christian "Get out of Jail Free" card for all of it =(
Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 2:08AM
We're not afraid, paul, we're skeptics--look it up, it might do you some good.
What we 'fully understand' is how very sad that morons like you have been hoodwinked by global warming science baloney and the money grubbing global warming clowns who've promulgated it.
You look so pathetic; how embarrassing for you. Your fraudulent leaders should be prosecuted--no 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for them!
Pingback| 12.26.09 @ 6:49AM
Male Brazilian Wax Stories Friend Upset Girlfriend Got A Brazilian … | Waxing Beauty links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 12.28.09 @ 2:10PM
For anyone who's interested, here's a great book about Darwin~ "Ben Wiker brilliantly demonstrates that Darwinism (which is not the same as 'evolution') is atheism masquerading as science. And like its intellectual cousin, Marxism, Darwinism has deeply corrupted our civilization." --Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....1596980974
Pingback| 12.28.09 @ 9:27PM
Faith and The Law » Blog Archive » PBS: Pushing Bad Science links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian| 12.31.09 @ 3:09PM
Here's a great book! http://www.amazon.com/Limitati.....t_ep_dpi_1
MikeM| 1.13.10 @ 1:53PM
There is a little known fact about Darwin that also may have affected his thinking.
He was a sadistic animal and bird killer, I believe the Captain of the Beagle complained.
Survival of the fittest justified his behaviour....
lay123| 4.1.10 @ 10:48PM
Looking back on all of the famous inventors or the wrist watch, it makes you happy to know that the item located on your wrist is truly a miracle and wonder of the world. From
the first watch with its round face to the tiny ring watches discount watches that sit delicately on your finger, they are truly a
piece of history.Dating back to the 1800s up until now, watches have constantly have been moving forward and keeping us in time with the rest of the world. If you are looking to
find out more about the history of the watch cheap watches
d| 4.2.10 @ 4:00AM
d
karen| 4.2.10 @ 4:15AM
For men always fit the occasion if there is any doubt about what a man should wear. Sometimes an invitation is not very specific about the www.herveleger-outlet.com
; or it’s a place you are not familiar with so you don’t know what the dress code for the venue is likely to be. www.us-chaneloutlet.comIt’s very embarrassing to be asked to put on something more suitable or to ‘up’ one’s dress standards before being allowed to enter a restaurant or nightclub.
http://www.51ghd.com| 4.3.10 @ 2:48AM
The ghdhair styler is one of the hottest beauty products on the market. From the UK, Australia and United States, GHD hair straighteners get rave reviews from consumers who are looking for something better than cheap, quick-fix straighteners.
Thousands of companies now offer the GHD IV around the world; how do you know if you’re buying the real thing? Follow our checklist to authenticate your cheap ghd straightener:
Buy from a respected retailer – Products sold from overseas or “second-hand” sites are frequently counterfeit because there is no accountability. Buy from a reputable merchant located in your home country.
ghdmanufactoryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:44AM
dsfd
sunglass| 4.4.10 @ 3:48AM
safd
paulsmithoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:58AM
sfadsf
burberryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 4:01AM
sfdf
asdfasd| 4.7.10 @ 9:26PM
iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.
jingle| 4.7.10 @ 9:45PM
Vivienne Westwood bracelet
Vivienne Westwood earrings
jingle| 4.7.10 @ 9:46PM
Vivienne Westwood charm
Vivienne Westwood necklace
jingle| 4.7.10 @ 9:48PM
Vivienne Westwood replica
Thomas Sabo jewelry
jingle| 4.7.10 @ 10:06PM
Thomas Sabo charms
Thomas Sabo earrings
jingle| 4.7.10 @ 10:07PM
Thomas Sabo necklace
Thomas Sabo replica
Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 9:57PM
Then, kids enter Poptropica , a virtual world dotted with individual islands. Each island has its own theme, and its own adventure for players to complete. For example, "Time-Tangled Island" is a time-traveling adventure in which players must return objects and characters to their historically accurate periods, while "Spy Island" is a comical thriller with lots of futuristic gadgets. Each has a distinct storyline that is not related to those of the other islands.
Besides the single-player adventure, each island features common rooms, in which Poptropica players can play standalone games against other people. These are primarily short, simple, reflex-based games, such as a skydiving competition in which the first person to touch the ground safely wins, or a basketball shooting competition in which the hoop is rising and falling. Players are given a star ranking based on their win-loss record.
thomas sabo bracelet| 10.28.10 @ 10:47PM
Particularly like your home, hope to have time to talk to you, thank you, bye!