text:
Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory, is it then a science or faith?" *L. H. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. x xi (1971 edition).
"So now we can see the full extent of the doubts. The transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally unnecessary for good taxonomy; at the same time they are unconvinced by the Darwinian explanation of how new species arise. To them, therefore, the history of life is still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian penchant for explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection is largely empty rhetoric
"For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology. Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." *H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
The study of similarities is the study of likenesses between various types of creatures. For example, both man and a number of other animals have livers, intestines, and appendixes. Therefore, according to the evolutionary theory of similarities, they all descended from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use the term "homology" to describe these similar structures, and consider them to be an important evidence of evolution.
If you compare a human arm with the front leg of an alligator or horse, or the flipper of a whale or a bat's skin-covered wing -you will find they ail have a similar arrangement and number of bones.
Although similarities are considered by Darwinists to be an important evidence of evolution, in this chapter we will find that the subject really proves nothing at all.
SIMILAR STRUCTURES The proof that Darwinists really need is evolutionary change, not similarity of structure or function. Lacking evidence of actual evolving of species from one type into another, the attempt to prove the point by appearance is shallow at best. The problem is that evolution is not occurring now, and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.
Yet there are many similarities common to different kinds of plants, and various animals which are alike in a number of ways. Since these similarities do exist, let us consider them briefly.
Such physical similarities can have two possible meanings:
(1) They either indicate that those creatures which are similar are closely related, or (2) they show that creatures with similarities were made by a single Designer that had immense intelligence, power, and ability.
Here is how an evolutionist explains similarities, also called homologies:
"Homo means 'the same.' The seven bones in the human neck correspond with the same seven, much larger, neckbones in the giraffe: They are homologues. The number of cervical vertebrae is a trait [evolutionists believe are] shared by creatures descended from a common ancestor. Related species share corresponding structures, though they may be modified in various ways." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990). P- 218.
Stepping into a kitchen, you will find forks, knives, and spoons. Close examination will reveal that there are big spoons, little spoons, and even serving ladles, as well as five or six types of knives. Does this prove that the large spoons descended from the little spoons, or does it show that someone intelligent made them all? The spoons were made to hold liquids, and the knives were made to cut solids. Someone designed each of them to do a special work. They are the result of a planner and maker.
The above illustration focuses our attention on purposeful design, and on an intelligent designer. (1) There are similarities in the structure, the outward appearance, of the spoons, because of the purpose they must fulfill. (2) The spoons did not make themselves by accident, nor are they the result of s chance arrangement of molecules. They were designed by someone intelligent, and then made by someone intelligent. Even if they were made by machinery, that machinery was also produced by someone very intelligent.
Whether it be similarities of spoons, similarities of eyes, or similarities of arms, the answer is creation according to a common design. That is why Datsons and Volvos are more alike than Datsons and yachts. Automobiles have many features in common because they were all designed to roll down highways, powered by engines. Sailboats are also very similar to one another because they were designed to travel by wind power over the surface of the water.
Turning our attention from man-made things to living organisms, it is equally obvious that similarity of structure follows purposeful design here also. Neither haphazard random activity nor accidents can produce useful organs.
DIFFERENT STRUCTURES Not only do different animals have certain similar structures, they have different ones also! If they did not, they would all look alike! So there are differences as well as similarities. For example, consider dogs and cats: There are a number of similarities between the cat and dog family. But look at all the differences! There are so many of them.
As we consider those differences, the idea of s common ancestry fades out, especially when there is no evidence in the past or present that one animal and plant type ever changes into another.
So then the differences emphasize the factor of a common Designer, just as the similarities do.
Examining these differences more closely, we find that each species, or basic type of plant or animal, has unique qualities that the others do not have. Yet even those differences were purposively designed. The world is filled with species having unusual and unique structures that exactly help them, each in a special way. Intelligent research is required merely to uncover these design factors; think of the intelligence and power it took to make them. Everywhere we turn, no structure is useless, none are purposeless. Studying natural history, we find one intricately planned characteristic after another.
There are even amazing functional structures in non-living things. For example, consider the exact specifications found in the orbiting of nuclear particles in the various elements. View the exquisite formations that various chemicals make as they crystallize. Each chemical always crystallizes in just a certain way.
SHOWING DESCENT? But let us now return to the similarities. All kinds of diverse creatures share similarities. According to the evolutionists, the similarities prove they are descended from one another, yet closer examination reveals they are not.
Here are some examples of similarities which disprove evolution:
1- Lysozyme. Lysozyme is the enzyme in tears that bites holes in the cell walls of bacteria so that they explode. This same enzyme is also in egg white, and protects baby chicks from infection. Neither human eyes nor baby chicks become infected easily. But does this mean that man is descended from baby chicks? Does it mean they are closely related?
One researcher, *Richard E. Dickerson, wanted to locate the exact point at which humans branched off the family tree. He decided, after comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, that we are the direct descendants of chickens, for in this one respect, people are more closely related to chickens than they are to any living creature.
2 - Eye of the Octopus. The octopus has an eye which is very similar to the one that humans have. In contrast the eyes of fish are totally different than the eyes of an octopus. Are we then descended from the octopus? I thought Dickerson said we were the offspring of baby chicks?
3 - Specific Gravity of Blood. When certain specific gravity tests were run on the blood of various land animals, it was found that snakes and frogs are more closely related to people, than people are to apes and monkeys. So certain evolutionists would say that our grandpa, somewhere in the not too distant past, was a snake, not a monkey.
4 - Rat Disease. The plague (Pasteurella pestis) which killed millions in Europe in the Dark Ages, only attacks people and Norway rats. Does this prove that we are descended from rats?
5 Calcium/phosphorus Ratios. One scientist, trying to figure out who we were descended from, did a test on various calcium/phosphorus ratios in bone structures. He discovered that we are directly related to turtles and elephants. But you need not be discouraged over this news: he also found that the monkey came from the goose (or vita versa), and the dog was related not to the cat but to the horse.
8 - Brain Weights. The situation looks still worse when we compare brain weights. The weight of the brain in proportion to the body is greater in the dwarf monkey (the cottontop and golden marmoset) of South America, than in you and me. One scientist suggested that this made us their ancestors!
7 - Cytochrome C. Brilliant research was done in comparing people with animals on the basis of the amino acid sequence in Cytochrome C, a coenzyme found in most organisms. It was discovered that man is more closely related to turtles, than turtles are to rattlesnakes. But the researcher also decided that people are more closely related to bread mold than sunflowers are.
The scientists say that these close relationships reveal our origins. In reality, the similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.
CONVERGENCE Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees, even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants had the intelligence to make the decision themselves, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that way.
We already mentioned the close similarity of the human eye to the eye of the octopus. How can a person have an eye that is so similar to that eight-Legged creature, and yet be entirely different in every other way?
Convergence disproves Evolution, but reveals an intelligent Designer that made us all.
Evolutionists theorize that the whale descended from a land animal who decided to crawl into the water and make itself flippers. That land animal, in turn, is supposed to have come from a water animal who thought it best to crawl out of the water and manufacture its own legs and feet. That water animal originated from a bacteria on land who was born in an ancient rainstorm, grew up a little bit, and then crawled into the water and became a fish.
Surely, now, is that not a complicated way to explain the origin of life?
Evolutionists also explain that the wing was independently invented by animals four times, as, over the centuries, they invented their various body parts. One day an insect decided to grow wings and fly about. That was supposed to have been the first invention of flying. As we already learned in earlier chapters, that lowly insect had to design the complete wing in one generation to make it work, and in the process he had to retool his entire DNA code! It surely was an intelligent insect. Millennia later, a reptile (now extinct) kept falling over cliffs and decided that wings would be the solution. Ages later, a reptile turned its scales into feathers and reshaped its arms. Later on, while other small creatures were crawling around a cave eating worms or whatever they could find, one did it up right! He got tired of the grubby life of his nocturnal brothers so the little thing grew wings and became a bat! But, outside in the dark, he quickly found that he needed more than eyes, so he restructured his mouth and ears and developed a radar (sonar) system.
Each of the above four, according to evolution, came from a non-winged ancestor, and developed their wings totally independently of any inheritance or outside help.
Did you ever study a wing? It is one of the most complicated of structures. It combines astounding folding and unfolding structures, with special aeronautical principles that provide the needed lift.
What about the eye? Evolutionists cannot figure out hour eyes evolved, or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it "convergent evolution," as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen! But calling an impossibility "evolution," does not change it into a possibility. Similarities in such different creatures, that could not have descended from one another, continue to be a nagging puzzle to the evolutionists.
At the same time the Darwinists had to live with the opposite problem, so they tried to solve it by classifying it as another type of "evolution!"
DIVERGENCE "Divergences" occurs when there arc very different--diverse--features in plants or animals which ought to be very "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution, " but it causes just as many problems for them, for it means wide differences in creatures that should be closely related.
Have you ever looked into the face of a fly? On each side is a compound eye; which means that each one consists of thousands of separate eyes. The result is multiple images on the retina of each eye, instead of one image as we have. But there are other insects which have compound-eyes structured in totally different ways! These various eyes could not possibly have evolved from one another. They are simply too complex and too perfect.
Deep in the ocean there are some little shrimp-like creatures with very complicated compound eyes. Their thousands-of-eyes-within-an-eye all come to a focus at one point, just as ours do! Well, the scientist that discovered that mystery did a little further study and came up with even more astounding facts: (1) He found that some of those deep-sea shrimp have "lens cylinders" which bend the light smoothly (because of smoothly-varied refractive surfaces) to focus on that one point! (2) And then he discovered that others use a "mirror system"! This includes a double-comer bounce which is complicated in the extreme!
And a shrimp is supposed to have figured that out? With abilities such as that, NASA ought to hire some of them to help design better telemetry systems in moon rockets.
We have here the work of a Designer who used complicated mathematics to figure out the angles, and then designed the structure, using equally-complicated physics and chemistry.
How did those eyes evolve? Until they worked perfectly, they would not work at all. That is a basic fact that is worth thinking about awhile. Did the shrimp design its own eyes? Until it developed them fully and perfectly, it could not see and would be caught by all its enemies. So it is another one-generation situation again. A proof is needed for that statement? We will cite that cardinal point of Darwin: "survival of the fittest." Blind shrimp bumping into their enemies are not fit enough to survive very long.
MIMICRY Then there is what the scientists call Mimicry. This is the scientific name for the theory that one almost-mindless creature carefully watches another awhile-and then invents structures in his own body which are similar to those which his neighbor has.
For example, the Monarch butterfly is poisonous, so birds avoid it. But the Viceroy looks just like it, so birds tend to leave it alone for that reason. Evolutionists say that the Viceroy "copied" the markings of the Monarch in order to protect itself!
Some people would like darker hair on their heads; others would like hair on their heads! Some would like to be taller, others thinner, still others would like blue eyes instead of brown. Some would like perpetually sun-tanned skin, while others would prefer whiter skin. But no one knows how to orchestrate the necessary genetic changes.
If you and I do not have the brains to redesign our bodies, how can we expect a butterfly to do it!
Thousands of other examples of so-called "mimicry" could be given. They are examples, not of almost mindless creatures copying other almost mindless ones, but of a Creator of high-tech intelligence providing for the needs of His creatures.
Evolutionary theory is mired in real problems, for it teaches that everything made itself by purest chance. It cannot even explain the design factors in butterflies. Yet if both of those butterflies had the same Master Designer who created them, then there is no problem.
Could it be that there is a super-intelligent and powerful Creator who made everything? Just look at DNA! Since all living creatures have it; the same One made them all. It was all designed by the same Being! Yes, the similarities do point to similarity of origin: God made us all.
PROTEIN SIMILARITIES One researcher finally hit on an excellent way to tell which creatures were descended from which: He decided to analyze the similarities and differences in their blood protein. That was a shrewd decision, for if one animal is descended from another, it ought to have similar blood.
Carefully investigating this, he discovered that hemoglobin (red blood cells), for instance, is found among vertebrates, and is also scattered, some here and some there, among a variety of animals without backbones!
No definite pattern was found that could explain which creatures were descended from--or even related to--which. Hemoglobin is in the blood of most backboned animals, but it is scattered among some worms, starfish, clams, and insects, while not in others. It was even found in some bacteria!
"When it comes to comparing similarities among amino acids in alpha hemoglobin sequences, crocodiles have much more in common with chickens; (17.59b) than with vipers (5.69b), their fellow reptiles. Myoglobin sequences do show one reptile/reptile pair (lizard/crocodile) with greater similarity (10.59b to 8.5%) than the reptile/bird (crocodile/chicken) pair, but it also puts the lizard as close to the chicken (10.59b) as to its fellow reptile . . The greatest similarity is between the crocodiles and chickens." Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 59-80.
Research studies to identify protein similarities, produced these comments:
"The difference between turtle and rattlesnake of 21 amino add residues per 100 codons is notably larger than many differences between representatives of widely separated classes, for example, 17 between chicken and lamprey, or 16 between horse and dogfish, or even 15 between dog and screw worm fly in two different phyla." *T Jukes and *R. Holmquist, "Evolutionary Clock: Nonconsistency of Rate in Different Species," in Science 177 (1972), p. 530.
"It is hard to see a common line of descent snaking in so unsystematic a way through so many different phyla." *Richard E. Dickerson and *Irving Geis, The Structure and Action of Proteins, 1989.
"There is simply no way of explaining how a uniform rate of evolution could have occurred in any family of homologous proteins by either chance or selection; and even ff we could advance an explanation for one particular protein family, we would still be left with the mystifying problem of explaining why other protein families should have evolved at different rates." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 305.
"The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chess in evolutionary thought. . [As a result] the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered." *Op. cit, p. 308.
"This new era of comparative biology illustrates just how erroneous is the assumption that advances in biological knowledge are continually confirming the traditional evolutionary story. There is no avoiding the serious nature of the challenge to the whole evolutionary framework implicit in these findings." *Op. Cit., p. 291.
To *Schwabe, the situation appears hopeless.
"One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information." *C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, " Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.
DEFINITIONS AND HOPES Lacking evidence of evolution in every aspect of nature, whether it be ancient fossils or modern wildlife, the evolutionists have pinned great hopes on indirect factors, such as "similarities." In order to make this supposed "evidence of evolution" sound more scientific, evolutionists have given a special name to these similarities; they call them "homologies. " Here is one definition of homologies, by the man who coined the term:
"[A homology is a] correspondence of a part or organ determined by its relative position and connections with a part a organ in a different animal, the determination of which homology indicates that such animals are constructed on a common type." *Sir Richard Owen, "Report on the Archtype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton, in Reports of the British Association for the advancement of Science (1846), pp. 169-340.
Evolutionists have consistently given the term an evolutionary flavor:
"By definition, this similarity is due to an inheritance from a common ancestor." *C.A. Ville, et. al., General Zoology (1978).
"Similarity [is] due to common ancestry." *Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 189.
"[These are] characters that resemble each other because they are descended from a common ancestor." *F.J. Ayala, and *J.W. Valentine, Evolving: the Theory and Process of Organic Evolution (1979).
*Darwin maintained that similar structures could only show ancestry and nothing else. He had something of a pathologic fear of the thought of intelligent design in plants and animals. To admit that, would be to admit a super-intelligent and powerful Designer.
"On any other view the similarity of pattern . . is utterly inexplicable." *Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex, Vol. 1(1871).
A learned entomology journal comments on the circularity of the argument from similarities.
"When Professor Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology." *"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
*Blackwalder, a leading scientist, recognized the lack of a logical or scientific basis for the evolutionary claims made for similarities. He was at a loss to explain it otherwise. He tacitly recognized that if similarities do not imply ancestrythen they must provide evidence of a Creator who made everything.
"Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology. . they cannon at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity in the evolution of animals." *R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and Reference Book (1967).
THE PENTADACTYL LIMB The most common similarity pointed to by evolutionists is called the "pentadactyl limb." This is the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (there are actually more bones than that, but the pattern is simplified to upper arm, two-boned lower arm, wrist "bone," and hand "bone.") Why would all vertebrate arms and legs be composed of five principal sections of bones?
Consider your arm for a moment.
Bone 1: Swing your upper arm; it can go around in a wide circle. Without that upper arm (the humerus bone) attached by a ball-and-socket joint to the shoulder (the clavicle), you could not have such a large range of motion. The length of the upper arm enables you to reach out a distance, and its connection by a hinge joint to the upper arm enables you to bend your elbow in the only direction you need: forward.
Bone 2 and 3: Feel your forearm; it is composed of two bones (the radius and the ulna below it). Without moving your wrist, turn your hand in a circle. It can be done because the radius moves per the ulna. Excellent craftsmanship! The length of the forearm gives you more "reach-out" ability.
"Bone" 4: You have 8 bones in your wrist. They enable you to bend your hand not only down but sideways as well.
"Bone" 5: You have 19 bones in your hand. Keeping your wrist stiff, wiggle your hand and fingers around. It is truly astounding what you can do with your hand!
Including the shoulder blade (scapula) and collar bone (clavicle), you have 64 bones in both upper limbs. Another 62 are in your lower limbs. That totals more than half of the 206 bones in your body!
Seriously now, what does your arm and hand tell you? It proclaims loudly that you were created by God! Random molecules surely did not make it. What about the fact that all other vertebrates have the very same basic "pentadactyl limb" pattern, even the flippers of whales and seals? It tells you that (1) there is no better way to design a simpler limb with such a wide range of movement, and (2) the same Master Craftsman made them also.
The fact that all land animals with backbones have the basic pattern of "five-boned" arms and legs is considered a most marvelous evidence of evolutionary theory. But this surely is not much in the way of evidence. Each species is different from each other species in thousands of different ways, and all those differences exquisitely fit its peculiar needs.
We could also say that all land vertebrates have a common origin because they all have two eyes. But what kind of evidence would that be? It actually is a far more powerful evidence that a Creator of highest intelligence, not only made those marvelously functioning eyes, but that He also knew that without two of them those creatures could not have binocular vision, and be able to differentiate distance.
Actually, that which taxonomists (the men who classify plants and animals) do, is to look for such similarities and then use them to classify life forms in groups with one another. For example, all creatures with wings and feathers are called birds; other animals with certain features in common are called rodents. All creatures which nurse their young are placed with the mammals. But these similarities do not indicate common descent. Often the creatures in a certain category have very little in common. Whales, rats, giraffes, platypuses, kangaroos, and man all nurse their young, but that does not mean they have a lot else in common. Pigeons and certain fish nurse their young with milk secretions also.
Man tries to simplify things so his mind can grasp the topic, and he ends up oversimplifying. Because whales, zebras, and mice all have the "pentadactyl limb," they are said to come from a common ancestor. Never mind the impossibilities imposed by the DNA barrier; just ignore that. The "pentadactyl limb" proves all; they "evolved".
The truth is that evolutionary theory is based on the shallow scientific knowledge of the mid19th century. About all they had back then was arms and legs to examine. Now they have a vast number of additional biological discoveries and research techniques. But the evolutionists cling to arms and legs as a primary evidence of evolution, because 20th century science has provided no additional evidence that is any better.
"A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the early decades of this century." *G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in Experimental Biology (1976).
THE ARM AND HAND OF A BAT One of the supposed best evidences of evolution is the fact that the bones in your arm and hand are similar to those of other mammals. Well, for a moment, let us examine the bones in the arm and hand of the bat. Look at the illustration closely. Do the bones in the bat look similar to those in your own arm and hand?
THE AORTIC ARCH Although evolutionists point to the arm and leg as evidence of ancestry, they avoid mentioning the aortic arch. This is the arrangement of the blood-vessel tubing as it takes blood out of the heart. The aorta is the largest artery in the body. (Arteries carry blood away from the heart; veins return the blood to the heart.) The aorta arises out of the top of the heart, turns to the right (when you look at a diagram of it, but to the left within your body), and then curves downward, forming an "arch." At one, two, or three places in the top of this arch (according to the animal it is in), arteries lead out of it carrying blood upward. One of those five aortic arch patterns is found in all vertebrates and certain other creatures.
Just for a moment, look at the aortic arch diagram study it. This diagram, and its accompanying explanation, will help explain the five basic types of mammalian aortic arches.
With hardly an exception. all mammals have one of five different aortic arch arrangements. The chart below illustrates each of these five patterns.
(11 Each arrangement !s actually strikingly different than all the others, there is no possibility that one could have evolved from another type. Imagine trying to tinker with your house plumbing and change its arrangement while the water pressure is on! You would flood your house! How could an animal change the shape of its aortic arch from one of these five patterns to another, all the while its blood was still flowing under pressure from the heart? It simply could not be done.
(21 Each arrangement has certain remarkable similarities to the others; random selection (which is all that "natural selection" is) would never have produced an arch over each one. It was the hand of the Creator which produced that thoughtful pattern. Thoughtful? in what way? Indeed, why is there a need for an arch?
It is supple enough: If you have ever seen a living heart in action, you will understand. It shakes back and forth wildly. If the aorta did not go out from it in a semicircle, that pounding action would quickly wear through the side of the aorta! Yet the descending aorta must go down past the heart, it was designed to first go out in a wide arch and then separate into two branches, one going upward and the other downward.
As usual, perfect planning by the Master Designer.
Now, if evolution be true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, that fact is loudly proclaimed by the evolutionists:
"The only postulate the evolutionist needs is no more a less than [this] . . The degree of structural resemblance runs essentially parallel with closeness of relationship. Most biologists would say that this is not merely a postulate, but one of the best established laws of life . . If we cannot rely upon this postulate . . we can make no sure progress in any attempt to establish the validity of the principle of evolution." *Horatio Hockett Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics (1932), p. 53
That last sentence says this: If we are denied making the homology assumption (that similarity of structure evidences common ancestry), then we are NOT able to make other assumptions which "establish the validity" of evolution. Thus, evolutionary theory is built solely on assumptions, which in turn are built on other assumptions. The eminent *Thomas Hunt Morgan repeated the same fear about losing evolution's wobbly foundations:
"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity a even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the while argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins." *Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," in Scientific Monthly 18(3):237 (1923).
So then it is clear that, if evolutionary theory be true, all life forms sharing the same type of aortic arch evolved from a common creature which bequeathed to its descendants their various features:
"The most important kind of evidence is that based on a comparative study of the structure and development of various groups. The use of such evidence is based on the assumption that the more closely the body plans of two phyla [taxa) resemble each other, the closer their relationship and the more recent their common ancestor." *Ralph Buchsbaum, Animals without Backbones (1948), p. 335.
That is simple enough: the closer the structural similarity, the closer the relationship, according to the evolutionist.
Now, on the basis of similarities, let us consider our ancestors. Here is a sampling of the five groups:
Those animals which share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.
Those animals which share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.
Those animals which share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.
Those animals which share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.
Those animals which share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.
Study the diagram above. It is truly incredible. All the blood which flows OUT from the heart first enters the aortic arch. From there some of it flows upward through ascending arteries, while the rest flows downward through the aorta, the largest artery in the body. The blood flowing upward branches off into one of four major arteries: the right carotid (RC), left carotid ILCJ, right subclavian (RS), and left subclavian as). It is the way those four arteries branch off that produce five different aortic arch patterns. There is no way one pattern could evolve from one into another, while the animal was alive. And dead animals, with the blood pump turned off, do not evolve into anything!
Does all that make sense? No it does not. Any number of other structural, chemical or other comparisons could be cited (several are in this chapter) which would yield totally different groupings. But the simple fact, that each such grouping of similarities is always vastly different than all the other similarity groupings, falsifies the usefulness of similarities as an evidence favoring evolution.
But there is more to the story: Note that there are only five types of aortic arches. This points us to a single Planner; a highly-intelligent Being who made all those various living creatures. He gave each of them an aortic arch because they needed them, but only five variant arrangements were needed.
THE GENE BARRIER In spite of efforts to see similarities in structures of various animals, the DNA barrier continues to defy the evolutionists. Even the genes themselves are totally different in mankind than in other animals, each of which has unique gene arrangements.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless." *Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem, (1971).
*De Beer then asks a penetrating question:
"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered." *Op. cit., p. 18.
Thus, according to 'De Beer, since it is the genes that control structure, function, and appearance how can different animal types have similar appearance when they have different genes?
This point is extremely important!
The entire matter is a great mystery which evolutionists cannot fathom. How can there be similarities among life forms with different genesdifferent DNA codes? In desperation, *S.C. Harland, in Biological Reviews (11:8311936), suggests an answer from fantasyland: As an example, he discussed the eye. Harland says that, yes, it is true that genes are different for each creature, but for some mysterious reason many of their eyes are still very much alike! The solution is obvious, he explains: When each species evolved into new species, its genes changed but its eye structures did not change! It has eyes that are different than what its genes say they should be!
Harland is here theorizing that genes do not control the inheritance of characteristics! The science of genetics began when Gregor Menders 1866 research was discovered in 1900. By 1907, Columbia University scientists had established that the genes controlled heredity. Yet, after decades of fruit fly and other genetic experiments, Harland says it cannot be true, for if it were, it would destroy evolutionary theory! With every speculation they offer, evolutionists get themselves more deeply into trouble. Thus it has been for over a hundred years. But, fortunately, there are open-minded scientists who are willing to face the facts:
"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin.
"Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down." *Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.
PERFECT DIVERSITY *Michael Denton's 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis is a powerful attack on evolutionary theory. You will find the previously-mentioned studies comparing Cytochrome C, hemoglobin, etc., in the chapter, "A Biological Echo of Typology," in Denton's book. At one point he says this:
"There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly, man is closer to lamprey [in his hemoglobin] than are fish!" *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).
Everything in nature is organized but it is organized in the midst of intertwined diversity! One chemical test will fit one sequence, and another will fit another. Everywhere in nature is to be found carefully arranged DIVERSITY! Everything is different, but perfectly so. Denton concludes the chapter with the following scathing comment:
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies." *Ibid.
Homologies (similarities) are desperately needed by evolutionists, since they have little else on which to base species evolution. But homologies are just not scientific! Here is a frank admission by a well-known British scientist:
"The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory." *Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1985), p. 211.
MORE SIMILARITIES WHICH DISPROVE EVOLUTION Here are additional similarities which disprove evolutionary theory:
The anatomy of the EYE Man and OCTOPUS are very similar
The anatomy of the HEART Man and PIG are very similar
The pronator quadratus MUSCLE Man and Japanese SALAMANDER are very similar
The black PLAGUE Man and Norway RAT are very similar
The aoetylcholine-histamine Man and PLANTS are very similar
The concentration of RED BLOOD cells Man and FISH are very similar
The specific gravity of BLOOD Man and FROG are very similar
The structure of HEMOGLOBIN Man and ROOT NODULES are very similar
The ABO and BLOOD FACTORS HUMAN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN are very DIS-similar
CALCIUM-PHOSPHORUS-CARBONATE compound Man and TURTLE are very similar But dog and cat are very DIS-similar
The cytochrome C in the CELL Man and SUNFLOWER are very similar But mold and sunflower are very DIS-similar
The cytochrome C in the CELL Man and BULLFROG are very similar But rattlesnake and frog are very DIS-similar
MOLECULAR SIMILARITIES Major advances have been made in molecular biology. Some of the most devastating new scientific information falsifying evolutionary theory comes from this field. In his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, *Michael Denton presents several points. Some have been mentioned earlier in this chapter. Here are more:
From the founding of biology in the 1700s until the 1960s, the only way biologists could compare and classify organisms was at the gross morphological level; that is, shape and structure. But in the 19509, DNA and amino acid discoveries were made. DNA sequences were compared. RNA was discovered. A host of new insights about the cell were uncovered.
Evolutionists had hoped that discoveries in molecular biology would provide homologies (similarities) that would vindicate evolutionary theory. But this hope was soon shattered.
"However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature [from amoeba through its "descendants" on to man] but were going to reaffirm the view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence of evolution is emphatically absent Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have predicted." *M. Denton, Evolution. A Theory in Crisis (1985), chapter entitled, "A Biochemical Echo of Typology."
(Taxonomists, also called Typologists, are the scientists who classify plants and animals by grouping them into genus and species on the basis of their more obvious structural similarities and differences. Cladists are the taxonomists who maintain that the true species are totally unrelated to each other, and did not descend from one another; in other words, they have given up on evolution. Their studies into plant and animal species provide no indication of evolutionary relationships or descent. Each species is distinctly different from the others.)
Such topics as Cytochrome C research (mentioned earlier in this chapter) have been intensively analyzed. Summarizing the data, Denton says that it annihilates traditional evolutionary theory:
"Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from members of another group. Transitional or intermediate losses are completely absent from the matrix." 'Ibid.
BLOOD PROTEIN COMPARISONS Here are some of those sequences. You will note that there is simply no way to say that any two species are closely related to another species. It is all just one big jumble.'
According to evolutionary theory, bacteria should be closely related to yeast, silk moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse, in that order. Comparing Cytochrome C differences, a bacterium is closest to the following species, in this sequence of closeness of relationships: horse, pigeon, tuna, silk moth, wheat, yeast. That would mean that bacteria are more closely related to horses than they are to yeast! Commenting on this discovery, Denton says:
"Considering the enormous variation of eucariotic species [those containing a cell nucleus] from unicelled organisms like yeasts to multicellular organisms, such as mammals, . . this must be considered one of the most astonishing findings of modem science!" *Ibid.
The jawless fishes are supposed to be very ancient and the earliest vertebrates. Evolutionary theory would dictate that it would be the closest to carp, frogs, chicken and kangaroo, and humans, in that approximate order. How does the jawless lamprey compare with those vertebrates? It is closest in hemoglobin similarities to humans, carp, kangaroo, frog, and chicken. Figure that one out. We quoted *Denton's comment on this earlier:
"There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish!" Ibid.
Next we will compare fish with terrestrial vertebrates. The carp should, according to evolutionists, be closest to bullfrog, turtle, chicken and rabbit, horse, in that approximate order. Cytochrome C differences places the carp as equally related to horse, rabbit, turtle, and bullfrog, and less closely related to the chicken.
"One of the moat remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seems to correspond with the predictions of typology. With very few exceptions the members of each defined taxa are always equally divergent whenever an outgroup comparison is made." *Ibid.
SERUM COMPARISONS You may recall how, in chapter 7, Dating Methods, and chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, it was disclosed that, out of hundreds of thousands of radio-dating tests on rock strata, only three were found to be in agreement with the 19th century dating theory of rock strata which continues to dominate the fields of geology and paleontology. In regard to confirming classical stratigraphy and fossil dating, the three were retained and the hundreds of thousands of other uranium and thorium tests were thrown out. It was then stated in textbooks that "radio-dating substantiates geological column dating."
Well, evolutionary scientists are doing the same with the new molecular discoveries as they relate to similarities. One type of test appears to agree with evolutionary theory, so that ONE is trumpeted in the textbooks and the others are ignored. This is the serum test for antibodies. Serological tests made with non-human blood serum give varying percentages of precipitation: Tests run on a wide variety of animals reveal that a few provide an ascending stepladder up to man. At the bottom is the kangaroo, 0.0 percent; at the top is man with 100 percent. That sounds great for evolution, but what does it actually prove when one stops to think about it? According to this evolutionary "proof," man descended from apes, which descended from sheep, which descended from deer, which descended from horses, which descended from kangaroos, which descended from nothing. (There is nothing below kangaroos in the line of descent, since it registers 0.0 percent).
But the findings from large numbers of other molecular tests are totally ignored. The public is not told about them.
CHROMOSOME COMPARISONS As mentioned earlier, homology is the name given to the effort of science to prove evolutionary theory on the basis of shallow physical similarities between various creatures. ("Shallow," that is, because "five bones" in the arm and hand are emphasized, while crucial factors, such as chromosome counts, are ignored.)
But the creatures thought to be more closely related have been found, in fact, to be totally different in a number of ways, when exacting 20th century molecular comparisons have been made. We have already considered several examples of that.
If you wanted to really KNOW which species were the closest to each other, what method would you use? If you stop to think about it, the very best way would be to compare chromosome counts. What genetic factor could be more basic than chromosomes and its DNA?
Each species has a specific number of chromosomes in each cell in its body. Human beings, for example, have 46 chromosomes in each body cell, while in their reproductive cells (the egg and the sperm) there are only half that number (23). In this way, when the sperm and egg unite, the full number of 46 will be made up again.
Is there any factor more basic to a species than its chromosome count? Knowledgeable scientists seriously doubt it.
Several chromosome count lists are available in scientific books. A comparison of them would provide us with the very best "similarities" analysis that we could possibly hove!
Let us now consider this matter of chromosome count "similarities." John N. Moore has done a great service for us all. He took chromosome counts for various species, and then placed them into a "family tree" arrangement, such as evolutionists like to display in school textbooks. (John N. Moore, "On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1972, pp. 159-171.)
The result is not numerical similarities in each "family branch," but rather something of a confusion of numbers on all levels! Keeping in mind that one of the most important factors in any given species is its chromosome court, this lack of numerical similarity is highly revealing. It is clear that there cannot possibly be any relationship between the various species, even those supposed to be "closely related."
To say it again: Chromosomes contain the genes which themselves are the DNA spirals. It would be impossible to change the chromosome count of a species, or an individual in that species, without totally destroying that species or that individual No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one or several chromosomes, a new species would be produced. That could not be, for the gene factors containing the millions of DNA codes are to be found all along those chromosome strings. To remove even one chromosome would be to remove millions of vital body factors.
"Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification." *Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.
Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect that the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes, and there is a tendency in this direction, but even in this there are striking exceptions as will be seen below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes, and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800, whereas human beings only have 46.)
Here is part of Moore's findings. (In all the following, the duplex or double chromosome count [2n [found in most body cells is given; exceptions will be marked "n = "[1 n].) When several different numbers are listed, each is for a separate species.
First, we will look at the chromosome counts of several branches of the PLANT KINGDOM:
At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: What similarity do you find in any of these numbers? Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chorda, 56 / Cladophora, 22,24 / Closterium, (n =194) l Cosmarium, 40,120-140/ Cystophyllum, 32-48 / Laminaria, 62 / Nitella, (n = 9,18) l Spirogyra, (n =16,32,50).
Just up the trunk from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria, (n=8) /Escherichia, 1 / Neurospora, (n =7) / Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyces, 30.45,60.
Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60,120,116 / Diphasium, 46 / Diplazium, 82,123 / Dryopteris, 82,123 / Elaphoglossum, 82 / Isoetes, 33,44 / Ophioglossum. 960,1100 / Polypodium, 72,111,148 / Polystichum, 82,164 / Pallotum, 208 / Lycopodium, 46,340,528 / Pteria, 58,76,87,115 / Selaginella, 20,36 / Thelypteris, (n = 29,36,62,72).
At the top of the imaginary tree of plant evolution are the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18,20 / Chrysanthemum, 18,36,56,138,198 / Clematis, 16 / Helianthus, 34 l Phaseolus, 22 / Primula, 16,22,36 / Ranunculus, 16,32,48 / Rumex, 20,40,60 / Salix, 40,63 / Sedium, 20,44,54,68 / Petunia, 14 / Raphanus, 16,18,20,38.
Now we go to the second of the two trees: It is called the ANIMAL KINGDOM. Moving upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its branches:
PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria, (over 800) /Amoeba, 30-40.
NEMATHELMINTHES: Ascaris, 2,4,22,48-50 / Echinorthynous, 8.
PORIFERA: Grantia, 8,26 / Sycandra, 16.
ARACHNIDA: Argas, 26 / Agalena, 44 / Heptathela, 80 / Euscpious, 70-84 / Tityus, 6,10,20.
CRUSTACEA: Artemia, 84 / Daphnia, 8,20 / Cambarus, 208 / Cypris, 24 / Notodromas, 16.
INSECTA: Acrida, 23 / Aphid, 5,6,8,12 / Musca, 12 / Lethocerus, 8,30 / Cimex, 29-24 / Lysandra, 380 / Bombyx, 50-71 I Cicindela, 20-24 / Calliphora, 12 / Drosophila, 8-12 / Metapodius, 22-26.
PICES: Salmo, 80-96 / Coregonus, 80 / Mollienisia, 36-48 / Lepidosiren, 360 / Nicorhynchus, 74 / Betta, 42 / Cyprinus, 99.
AMPHIBIA: Rana, 16,24,26,39 / Salamandra, 24 / Cryptobranchus, 56,62 / Bufo, 22 / Triton, 18-24.
REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 / Lacerta, 36,38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36,44.
AVES: Rhea, 42-68 / Passer, 40-48,54-60 / Melopstittacus, 50-60 / Gallus, 12-44 / Anas, 43-49,80 / Columba, 50,31-62 / Larus, 60.
MAMMALIA: Omithorhynchus, 70 / Didelphys, 1722 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyacus, 48,52 / Microtus, 42.46.50 / Apoademus, 46,48,50 l Mus, 40,44 / Ratus, 46,62 / Cania, 50,64,73 / Felis, 35,38 / Bos, 16,20,60 / Capra, 60 / Ovis, 33,48,54.60 / Sus, 18,38,40 / Equus, 60,66 / Rhesus, 42,48 / Homo, 46.
CHROMOSOME COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is but a jumbled maze of chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence. What about size of organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even here we do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the fewest chromosomes, and the largest ought to have the largest. That would be a fact which would encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:
Aulacantha (protozoa): 1600 / garden pea: 14 / maize: 20 / alfalfa: 40 / Barley: 14 / oats: 42 / trillium: 10 / tomato: 24 / mouse: 40 / copepode-crab: 6 / man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 / striped skunk: 50 / mink: 30 / dog: 78 / fox: 34 / pig: 38 / donkey: 62 / small monkey (Maraca rhesus): 42 / cow: 60 / gorilla: 48 / Gypsy moth: 62.
That list may have some relation to size, but actually not very much. Thus, analyzing the number of chromosomes a creature has, in relation to the size of that creature, provides no tangible help in ascertaining evolutionary descent. Just below, we will learn that DNA count in relation to size is equally meaningless, as far as helping to establish evolutionary theory.
DNA COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE Before concluding this section, let us consider estimated DNA counts for various creatures. As you know, it is the DNA within the cell which contains all the codes needed for all structures and functions within each organism.
"It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But in fact measurements of total DNA content are quite confusing. While the mammalian cell seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (to take an example) have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to 100,000 times as much DNA as a bacterium!" *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 174.
The following sample listing will begin with those creatures having the smallest amount of DNA, and will progressively move on up to those with the most. You will note that man is only about 2/3s up the list, yet he should be at the top!
bacterophage-0X174: 0.000,003,6 / bacteriophageT2: 0.000,2 / colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 / chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 / man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protopterus: 50 / amphiuma: 84.
Here is what *Dobzhansky had to say about that table!
"More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma [an apode amphibian], Propterus [a lungfish], and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle." *Theodosius Dobraransky, Genefts of the Evolutionary Process (1970), p. 17-18.
It appears that the Designer of everything arranged matters so that, on not one single point, could man say, "I am smart enough to be able to fully understand and explain it."
PATTERSON'S CONCLUSION Colin Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum. He is an expert in fossil species, and has spent most of his lifetime comparing them with living species. Throughout all those years of research, he has tried to figure out this imaginary evolutionary "family tree" of who-was-descended-from-whom. In an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he expressed regret that he had been asked to speak on the topic, "Creation and Evolution," for, he said, he had become so puzzled over his findings that he was ready to give up evolution. He said that after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that proved evolutionary theory. When he had asked other leading evolutionists for solutions, they glibly told him, "Oh, its just convergence; convergence is everywhere," as if that answered the evolutionary problem: Different creatures, totally unrelated to one another, having features in common--which it should be impossible for them to have! The problem is then solved by calling it "merely another form of evolution," and a disproof is magically changed into a proof.
Patterson concluded his talk by saying that evolution was an "anti-theory" that produced "anti-knowledge. " He elaborated on this by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the impression that they explain everything. Something that produces "anti-knowledge," really produces ignorance. And surely we do not want that!
You have just completed
Chapter 21 Similarities: Next :


text:
It looks like you've lost connection to our server. Please check your internet connection or reload this page.
log in
scroll to top
Incorporating Student Excitement Into Educational Philosophy
Page 1 of 2
Continue for 1 more page →
Read full document
← View the full, formatted essay now!
Download this essay
Print this essay
Read full document
Get full access to this
document and many more!
Document details:
Words: 457
Similar Essays:
pedagogical approaches to student involvement
educational philosophy
student attention span

subset: commoncrawl


text:
School Mission Statement
The mission of Valley Crest Elementary School is to provide equal educational opportunities in a safe environment to all students. This mission includes developing academic, technological, and social skills, and preparing students for lifelong learning in a global society. Valley Crest is a Community of Caring school where the universal values of Caring, Trust, Respect, Responsibility, and Family are lived and taught.
School Background
Valley Crest is located in the northwest area of Granite School District. It was built in 1985 to serve the growing population of West Valley City. The school boundaries are 4600 West to 5600 West, and 2100 South to 3500 South.
Valley Crest Elementary school serves students with widely diversified cultural backgrounds, including Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, African American, and American Indian.
Computers and Technology
All classrooms have internet access as well as projectors that enable students to view a variety of connections to the CORE Curriculum on a large screen. Classrooms are also equipped with an enhanced microphone system that allows for teachers and students to be easily heard within the classroom.
For two days each week, Valley Crest has a School Technology Specialist (STS) to help teachers with technology and to maintain the computer network. Our computer labs are used for testing to provide immediate feedback to students and teachers. Valley Crest also uses the testing lab for end of the year testing in third through sixth grades. Students and teachers have computers with internet access in each classroom.
Our School is committed following the District Bullying Policy. Click here to view the district policy.
School Calendar
Granite District Traditional calendar
Student Promotion
Students promoted from this school will attend West Lake or Hunter Junior High and Granger High School or Hunter High School.
School registration is continuous during the regular school hours.
Have concerns or comments? Contact us by using the following form, or phone the school at 385-646-5061.


text:
About TimesLIVE, The Times and the Sunday Times
TimesLIVE – South Africa's second-biggest news website, published by Tiso Blackstar Group – is the online home for the group's Sunday Times and The Times newspapers, providing breaking news, analysis, sport, entertainment and lifestyle seven days a week. It is edited by Kate Henry.
Our website has a responsive design, making it easy to read on mobile devices. We offer quality reporting throughout the day, breaking the news with stories, email newsletters, and multimedia.
All TimesLIVE content is free to read, except for most articles in the Sunday Times website housed within TimesLIVE, which is reserved for subscribers.
Readers who register on the TimesLIVE or Sunday Times website – it's quick and free – can comment on selected articles and subscribe to a range of email newsletters.
Readers who subscribe to the Sunday Times have access to all premium Sunday Times content online, which includes in-depth investigative reporting, news, analysis and the best of our columnists, as well as lifestyle, sport and entertainment. There are several subscription packages to choose from, including a day pass for 24 hours' access.
Sunday Times
The Sunday Times is South Africa's biggest Sunday newspaper. It is distributed all over South Africa and in neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland.
First published on February 4 1906, the Paper for the People has become an institution in South Africa and an essential weekend read throughout the country. It has earned a reputation for producing hard-hitting, relevant, independent, well-written and authoritative news, particularly on the political front.
Known for its in-depth investigative journalism, the Sunday Times covers all major national and international news, and publishes influential columnists, analysis, lifestyle content, sport and entertainment. Based in Parktown, Johannesburg, it is edited by Bongani Siqoko and published by Tiso Blackstar Group.
View our Sunday Times subscription options.
The Times
The Times is a national daily newspaper in South Africa, published from Monday to Friday and also available as an e-edition (a digital replica of the print edition).
Based in Parktown, Johannesburg, it is edited by Andrew Trench.
TshisaLIVE, the digital identity of the TimesLIVE entertainment section, is Mzansi's number-one entertainment news destination. Breaking news, in-depth interviews and all the inside goss – if it's not on Tshisa, it didn't happen. It is edited by Jessica Levitt.


text:
Complete Ant Kit
Buy Now
Roger writes,
Why do ants keep returning to one location?
I am using your Complete Ant Kit. After treatment (three days), the ants are gone, and there has not been any activity for two to three weeks. They returned back one day in large amounts. This is the fourth time. Three other locations in house took one treatment and never returned.
Ant baits will get rid of the ant colony that is currently in the area, but they will not prevent new ant colonies from moving in. We recommend treating around the outside of your home with a residual insecticide such Talstar P to help eliminate new ant colonies as they try to move into the old ant colonies territory.
Answer last updated on: 07/17/2010
6 of 6 people found this answer helpful. Was it helpful to you? Yes No


text:
- Filter:
- Most Recent
- Greatest
- Orphans
Why wouldn't it be a given that the conversations between a President and the head of FBI gets taped since it's not personal conversation?Asked by flo | 12 responses
If we're hard-wired to assess every stranger for threat level, what are we asking ourselves?Asked by Jeruba | 32 responses
What if we discover a threatening alien civilization that lives 1,500 light years away?Asked by filmfann | 39 responses
What makes the movie The Interview not a satirical movie?Asked by flo | 17 responses
What would you do, save a life maybe or protect your own safety?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 15 responses
Guys, based off the latest commentary on fears women have, do you find that it causes you anxiety when considering giving a woman a compliment?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 25 responses
Sentient automatons create one of their own who is dangerous, do humans have the right to destroy it for their own safety?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 52 responses
How would you save what little rights you had left if by fear of threat or attack, you allow the government to chip away at your freedom, rights, and liberty?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 145 responses
What is the deciding factor for you to report someone for harrassment or assault?Asked by wildpotato | 49 responses
Grandpa scammed into giving computer access, how to lock him down again?Asked by metadog | 15 responses
At what point does vandalism become a threat?Asked by flo | 17 responses
Do you still believe "mom warnings" even when you know they aren't true?Asked by Blueroses | 32 responses
Which pressure is worse in getting people to do or not do something; money or force?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 7 responses
Have you ever been in this type of situation? (details inside)Asked by MilkyWay | 63 responses
[NSFW] Is this invasion of privacy with a sex tape? [Details within]?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 5 responses
A serious overheard threat, play it off a pissed off venting or do you do something?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 27 responses
Terrorist? Do we really need to worry THAT much?Asked by Hypocrisy_Central | 26 responses
How likely is the intentional, hostile deployment of a significant nuclear device within the next 20 years?Asked by mattbrowne | 22 responses
What about you threatens others?Asked by Simone_De_Beauvoir | 94 responses
Apart from the UK who else in the World likes America?Asked by oasis | 21 responses


text:
Five-star Hornets sting Sky Blues
By Paul Higham
Last Updated: 01/01/70 1:00am
The hosts were rampant with their pace and movement proving too adroit for the flat-footed Sky Blues defence.
First half goals from Stephen Glass, Tommy Smith and Danny Webber were allied to second half strikes from Allan Nielsen and Paul Robinson but a brace of late Coventry goals painted a slightly rosier picture of the visitors' display.
Young striker Webber, on loan from Manchester United, demonstrated his Premiership quality with an intelligent display and was instrumental in Watford's crushing success.
The Hornets were ahead after just five minutes when Webber teed up Glass to slide the ball home.
Smith should have doubled the advantage but skewed his shot wide while Morten Hyldegaard kept out Robinson's close ranger header.
The closest the visitors came to snatching a goal was when player-manager Gary McAllister's free-kick was headed off the line by Neil Cox.
Watford finally increased their lead on 35 minutes when Webber's sublime pass sent Smith scampering away, and this time the forward made no mistake.
Webber grabbed a deserved goal for himself five minutes before the break after a neat exchange of passes.
He turned sharply in the box and expertly curled the ball beyond Hyldegaard.
It remained largely one-way traffic after the interval with Nielsen fluffing a great chance to make it four.
The Danish midfielder made amends on 64 minutes with a composed finish after Robinson's cross found its way into the box.
Robinson then turned from provider to scorer by snaffling the fifth goal to complete the rout and leave McAllister contemplating his first defeat as a manager.
Substitute Gary McSheffrey did plunder a late consolation for The Sky Blues when he planted a header into the corner of the net.
Sky Blues midfielder John Eustace added a further touch of respectability to the scoreline when latching on to a threaded through ball, rounding the keeper and slotting into an empty net.
Click below for a match summary:
Watford 5-2 Coventry


text:
Simple Man
- Artist: Larry Bradford
- Genre: Gospel
- Release Date: 7/20/2004
There could not be a more appropriate title for Larry Bradford's first album than Simple Man. While it is the name of one of his songs, it describes Larry's philosophy on making music as well. He's drawn to simple melodies, the harmony created with the blending of voices, and straightforward lyrics inspired by his faith and everyday life. The common thread running through Simple Man is Larry's attention to the details and memories of his life. Larry sings of his relationship with his wife, Cindy in 'Choice I Made' and recalls his grandparent's hometown in the gentle 'Crooked Oak'. Musically, the album includes everything from delicate, rolling ballads like the album closing 'Moonlight' to more uptempo tunes like 'Perfect Plan' and a rousing arrangement of 'Talk About Suffering'. Producer, Brent Rader added some top musicians from Nashville including violin/mandolin/dolbro player Wanda Vick. The majority of the songs on the album speak of Larry's faith as in his signature song 'Simple Man'. 'The scripture Simple Man came from speaks about God using the simple things to confound the wise and mighty'; Larry says. He'll take things that are nothing and use them to overcome things that are great. It's very encouraging to me. People say today, What can I do? They think they can't make a difference. We can't, but the one, true living God can.' Song lyrics and melodies remind Larry of the goodness and faithfulness of God in his everyday experiences. In the end, Larry hopes people who hear Simple Man or see him perform will hear a lyric or recall a memory that stays with them after the music fades. 'I'm just playing simple tunes. I don't want it to be too complicated, and I'm not trying to dazzle anyone with chords and guitar work. I just want them to listen to the words. I hope it will be something they'll remember.' -Hunter Kelly June 25, 2004.
|Simple Man
|Larry Bradford
|CD Baby
|Release Date:
|Product Type:
|Item #:
|This product is a special order


text:
Udyr Build Guide by
Not Updated For Current Season
This guide has not yet been updated for the current season. Please keep this in mind while reading. You can see the most recently updated guides on the browse guides page.
Thank You!
Your votes and comments encourage our guide authors to continue
creating helpful guides for the League of Legends community.
Let The Animal Inside You Be F
Udyr Build
Ability Sequence
Not Updated For Current Season
The masteries shown here are not yet updated for the current season, the guide author needs to set up the new masteries. As such, they will be different than the masteries you see in-game.
Wild Man
Hi Guys !
I'll be introducing My udyr jungle Build.
This is actually my first guide on Mobafire.
The Only thing I'm sure about is that this Guide Will make you carry all your games.
Pros :
-High Mobility
-Clearing jungle fast
-High Damage/Burst
-Tanky as hell.
-Haz an Ultimate Skin ♥
Cons :
-Squishy Early
-CC can make udyr useless
-Champs with too much cc are hard to gank (Ex : Lux,Morganna,Lulu,etc...)
Why Two Jungle Items ?
As You all probally know.
Udyr Uses a lot of mana,Especially when It comes to changing stances.
Basically,What you wanna do Is to buy a spirit stone for the "vamp/lifesteal" But Also for the mana regen.
And at the same time Madred's for feral.
Wich means You don't have to back everytime you don't have a blue buff.
You can jungle 24/7 !
Summoner spells
I'd rather take Ghost instead of flash.
Ghost Is really usefull when it comes to chasing someone but also escaping !


text: Franck Dubosc Daily updated news, gossip, rumors, pictures, videos and more about Franck Dubosc.TranslationsFrançaisEspañolDeutschItalianoPortuguês中文 Tweeter ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Franck Dubosc54-year-old comedianFranck Dubosc is a 54-year-old French comedian and actor, best known for his roles in Disco or Camping.Quick FactsName: Franck DuboscOccupation: comedian, actorAge: 54Born: November, 7 1963 in Petit-QuevillyCitizenship: FranceSelected FilmographyAs actor :2014: Fiston (Pascal Bourdiaux): Antoine2011: Welcome on Board (Éric Lavaine): Rémy Pasquier2008: Disco (Fabien Onteniente): Didier Graindorge2008: Asterix at the Olympic Games (Frédéric Forestier & Thomas Langmann): Cacofonix2006: Camping (Fabien Onteniente): Patrick ChiracOther :2010: The Perfect Date (screenwriter)The latest Franck Dubosc newsFranck DuboscFranck Dubosc named "Sexiest Comedian Alive"AMP™, 21-11-2017 | Franck Dubosc, 54, has been dubbed "the Sexiest Comedian Alive" by Glamour's magazine in its December 2017 issue out this week. For the second year in a row, our gorgeous hottie beat out some other equally hot men for the number one spot!Read It »Franck DuboscShocker: Comedian Nude Photos Leaked OnlineAMP™, 21-11-2017 | Franck Dubosc has reportedly become the latest celebrity to fall victim to apparent leaked nude photos scandal. Highly personal and private photographs from his mobile phone were posted on several celebrity gossip websites yesterday.See all pictures here »Franck DuboscComedian to announce shock retirement, at age 54AMP™, 21-11-2017 | Sad news for Dubosc fans as speculation had been rife that the French comedian is about to announce his retirement from comedy, at age 54, with immediate effect.Read It »Franck DuboscHighest-Paid Comedian in the WorldAMP™, 21-11-2017 | It's been a rough year for the comedian, but at least he has his millions of dollars to ease the pain. 54-year-old Franck Dubosc has taken the No. 1 spot on People With Money's highest-paid celebrity list for 2017.Read It »Franck Dubosc54-year-old Comedian to Be a Dad?AMP™, 21-11-2017 | Speculation is rampant that Franck Dubosc is expecting a baby after long-time partner was spotted with a prominent stomach bulge on Monday evening, during romantic dinner date. Is the 54-year-old comedian about to be a dad to a little boy or girl?Read It »Franck DuboscDeath Hoax says "Comedian Dies at 54"AMP™, 17-11-2017 | Franck Dubosc was reported as dead earlier this week, causing concern among fans across the world. However, the November 2017 news has now been confirmed as a complete hoax and just the latest in a string of fake celebrity death reports.Read It »Franck DuboscDid he just Get Engaged?AMP™, 21-11-2017 | On Sunday morning the Sun-Times reported the 54-year-old comedian Franck Dubosc and his girlfriend, to be shopping for engagement rings. Naturally, the article sent the Facebook and Twitter into a frenzy.Read It »Franck Dubosc'Welcome on Board' named Best Film of All TimeAMP™, 21-11-2017 | According to the latest Watch and Listen magazine poll just out yesterday (Monday, November 20), 'Welcome on Board' is now considered to be the Greatest Film in the History of Cinema.Read It »Franck DuboscSplit Rumors: Is the 54-year-old Comedian Single Again?AMP™, 21-11-2017 | Earlier this week news reports surfaced that Franck Dubosc, 54, and his partner had split up. Is the French comedian really single again?Read It »Franck DuboscFranck Dubosc goes 'Gangnam Style'AMP™, 21-11-2017 | The 54-year-old comedian is said to have been secretly practising 'Gangnam Style' steps, after singer PSY has invited him to join in the famous dance earlier this year.Read It »Franck DuboscThe Next James Bond?AMP™, 20-11-2017 | Is Dubosc, 54, set to be the next James Bond? Rumors that the producers are looking for someone slightly different to play James Bond emerged in October 2017. One of the names who keeps cropping up is Franck Dubosc.Read It »Franck DuboscDid he get married over the weekend?AMP™, 21-11-2017 | Reports from the Daily News yesterday (November 20, 2017), suggest the 54-year-old comedian has secretly got hitched to hist long-term relationship. Sorry ladies, Franck Dubosc seems to be off the market.Read It »Franck DuboscTime magazine's Person of the Year for 2017?AMP™, 21-11-2017 | According to a credible source, Franck Dubosc is leading the race to become Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2017. But while the comedian's fans are thrilled with the news, many people hold a very different opinion.Read It »Franck DuboscHis Beloved Dog Recovering from SurgeryAMP™, 17-11-2017 | Franck Dubosc's adored labrador retriever "Spinee" has undergone a risky surgery on Sunday and is luckily beginning the slow process of recovery. The 54-year-old comedian has received waves and waves and support for Spinee, as he offered his Twitter followers an update on pooch's status regularly.Read It »


text: hello i like to add and get some advice before i tackle this project. The nearside body strip was ripped back due to the strong winds last year. i am planning to replace it with aluminium panels on both sides. I think this is the best option or if anyone know where to get polocarbonate panels that is used for motorhomes/caravans please let me know. many thanks The burlstar


text:
Paedo claims 'God forgave him' for abusing 10-year-old girl and wiped his memory
A PAEDO caught decades after he abused a 10-year-old girl said he had forgotten the attack because God had forgiven him and "wiped his memory".
John Whittle, 74, sobbed loudly in the dock while the prosecution outlined the charges against him and the suffering his victim had endured.
Prosecutor John Probert struggled to make himself heard through Whittle's crying.
But the judge ordered Probert to continue because the defendant "was going to have to listen to it".
Sentencing him to nine years behind bars, recorder Mark Powell QC told him: "I find it hard to see you are remorseful.
"You have broken down in court but I think that's more about the shame of being caught than any genuine empathy with her.
"Your perverted approach towards a pre-pubescent girl destroyed her adolescence.
"Your perverted approach towards a pre-pubescent girl destroyed her adolescence"Mark Powell QC
"Then you seemed to have clothed your behaviour under a cloak of religious respectability."
Cardiff Crown Court heard the victim had tried to tell someone many years ago but was not believed at the time. She then felt unable to speak to police about it until this year.
"I wish I had had the courage when I was younger," she wrote in a victim impact statement read out to the court.
She added that she had attempted suicide several times throughout her teens as "a cry for help for all the pain I was suffering".
The victim added that although she felt relieved to have reported him, she still suffered panic attacks, lost interest in her family and home and found herself struggling with everyday life.
Defence barrister Ruth Smith said Whittle was sorry and hoped his admission of guilt would "free" the woman from her torment.
But the judge told him: "You could so easily have destroyed her life".
He also applied a Sexual Harm Prevention Order to keep Whittle away from families with young children, and put him on the sex offenders register for life.
Whittle pleaded guilty to indecent assault, indecency with a child and having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old.


text:
Photo: IBJJF
Written by BJJ black belt Nick 'Chewy' Albin of chewjitsu.net
Getting back after injuries in BJJ is tough. And for some, the thought of returning to BJJ competitions is even more difficult.
This is the situation our friend finds himself in BJJ following back to back injuries.
Our friend Stu was out of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu training for nearly 2 years with a series of injuries. A meniscus tear and a double hernia.
He's been back for about 5 months and is struggling with the idea of competition because he lost a lot of the abilities he had before he was out
His question is whether or not he should compete in a BJJ tournament because as a Blue Belt he is getting beat by a lot of his training partners at the same level and even some that are a little lower.
In the video I share the idea of using BJJ tournaments and BJJ competitions as well as other BJJ goals to push you forward.
I know that from me. BJJ competitions are an excellent way to propel me forward. They push me to improve because there is a sort of deadline or goal associated with it.
Likewise, after coming back from injuries. Having an upcoming BJJ competition can be just the thing to get me going again.
I hope this video is helpful to you if you're in a similar situation!


text:
Skip to Top Navigation
Skip to Left Navigation
Skip to Main Content
Skip to Main Content
Contact Us
BCYF Home
About BCYF
BCYF History
BCYF Graphic Illustration
BCYF Members
BCYF Staff
News and Events
Impact News
Projects in Development
Current Activities
New Project Announcement
Upcoming Events
All Areas of Our Work
Prenatal and Infancy
Early and Middle Childhood
Young Adulthood
BCYF Brochure
BCYF Reports
Report Briefs/Highlights
Work With Us
Our Study Process
Study Process Brochure
Getting to Know the Committee Process
Overview for Sponsors
Guide for Study Sponsors
Recent and Current Projects
The Forum on Promoting Children's Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Health
Fostering Healthy Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral (MEB) Development Among Children and Youth
Committee on Reducing Child Poverty
Financing Early Care and Education with a Highly Qualified Workforce
Funding Landscape for Preschool with a Highly Qualified Workforce: Expert Meeting
The Committee on Supporting the Parents of Young Children
Workshop on Summertime Opportunities to Improve Child and Adolescent Education and Health Outcomes
Communication Products
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001 | T. 202.334.2000
Copyright © 2017. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
BOHSI Home
BOSE Home
C-CAB Home
BECS Home
BCYF Home
TAC Home
BOTA Home
CPOP Home
CNSTAT Home
CLAJ Home
BBCSS Home
About BOSE
BOSE Mission
BOSE Members
BOSE Staff
Our Sponsors
Visiting our Buildings
About BBCSS
BBCSS History
BBCSS Members
BBCSS Staff
Our Sponsors
About CPOP
CPOP Mission
CPOP Members
CPOP Staff
About TAC
TAC History
TAC Members
TAC Associates by State
TAC Staff
About CNSTAT
CNSTAT Members
CNSTAT Staff
CNSTAT Mission
Other Sites of Interest
About BOTA
BOTA Mission
BOTA Members
BOTA Staff
Visiting Our Buildings
About CLAJ
CLAJ Mission
CLAJ Members
CLAJ Staff
Other Sites of Interest
About BECS
BECS in Brief
BECS Brochure
BECS Statement of Task
BECS Members
BECS Staff
About BCYF
BCYF History
BCYF Graphic Illustration
BCYF Members
BCYF Staff
About BOHSI
BOHSI History
BOHSI Members
BOHSI Staff
Our Sponsors
left image
text caption
center image


text:
Gustafson Brothers Service Center
ReScore Reviews™ (2)
99% Would Recommend
Latest Review 4 days ago
Review for Gustafson Brothers Service Center
Hans D. on 07/13/2013
Hans said he is new to the business and he is usually skeptical about going somewhere new. The prices were reasonable and the service was fast. The personnel were very professional. Jose was complete and thorough in answering his questions. The business could serve him better by offering a shuttle service. He appreciated that he changed his back blinker without telling him.
Category: Service
Review Created: 07/13/2013
This review was collected via phone interview by Customer Research Inc.


text:
The Ash Tree Trailer (1975)
01 January 1975 35 mins
Man of leisure Sir Richard (Edward Petherbridge) receives notification that his Uncle has died, bequeathing him his stately country manor and all its lands. On his return to England he immediately sets about taking stock of all legal matters concerning his new property, but during these dealings Sir Richard seems to be more than a little distracted, he hears strange noises from the ash tree outside his bedroom window.
Watch the official The Ash Tree 1975 trailer in HD below or find more The Ash Tree videos on Vidimovie.


text:
— lifestyle —
7 Things I love about periods
Hey guys! *clears cobwebs Been a minute here, I'm sorry. Really. Project has been getting in the way and your girl was down with Typhoid & Malaria, is it just me or is malaria getting to be the order of the day? Just me? The topic of my post is probably shocking to my… Read More 7 Things I love about periods


text:
Anyone Know Where To Get This Emblem?
1 Attachment(s)
I have been looking around but can't seem to find these Wrangler emblems that go on the sides here. Anyone got any ideas? The one circled in red below.
Check eBay... there were a ton last time I was looking.
Ah, good idea, thanks.
Salvage/Junk yard or ebay are probably your best bet. I haven't found any place that reproduces those emblems yet.
Yea, even having trouble on eBay right now. Not sure why these are so hard to find lol
I'm really confused by the substructure under that jeep.
Ask away, I'll help you. =) Keep in mind, this Jeep is going on 42 swamper TSL's, and will have about 18" of overall lift. This is made for the Florida swamps, but it's a 4/3 link setup.
First entry after typing Wrangler Decals...
2 Attachment(s)
The decals are easy to find but the emblems is what the OP is looking for which were only found on the older YJs.
Just went through your build thread mindhunter, great work! Very jealous of your shop
Emblem? I thought for sure it was the decal that says "WRANGLER"... Hmmmm....
Look for CJ badges
Off topic :: Pretty intense pinion angle in that pic too. Any plans for getting fluid to the outer pinion bearing?
^ Actually, it hasn't been an issue. These here are actually decent angles then what we have had in the past, so I'm not expecting any problems. My old setup as a YJ on 44's with 22" of lift, it didn't have that issue either, and those angles were really bad lol
Thanks grandboost98. Yea the shop is great, even tall enough for the monsters we build lol. We have a lot of swamp around here, the lift height and tire size are really important.
|The time now is 02:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


text:
$ 7,200.00
18Kt Gold Birds Ring with approximately 1.86ctw of Diamonds.
This ring is not sold as a set, the bottom ring is the size equivalent to this ring, the midi ring is Midi Sakarya Ring
Prices may vary according to color.
This product may not be in stock. In the case it is custom please allow 2-3 weeks for production and shipment, possibly sooner. We will send a confirmation of the order email to make sure of the details.


text:
I talk about dream homes all the time... I've got about 10 of them.
But I've found the one ... the search is over.
It's the home of retired Naval Officer Admiral Boom and his wife, and their ex-pirate assistant Binnacle, on Cherry Tree Lane, London.
I am amazed I didn't remember this from my childhood because I would have seen Mary Poppins countless times! G Barb can attest to us wearing out her tape!
It's perfect in every way.
Such a pretty blue ...
And what an amazingly fantastic roof top with all those ship-shape details!
Happily, my loft is pretty nautical already, but it is more like a lighthouse than a ship ...
But I could add a Captain's wheel to the front deck of course, always room for more props!
See the full Admiral Boom montage here
(Please excuse the blurry screen shots taken from the movie!)
(Please excuse the blurry screen shots taken from the movie!)


text:
On 8-3-1970 Andrea Parker (nickname: Andrea) was born in Monterey County, California, United States. The actress is in 2017 famous for Dream On, Starting Under, Red Band Society. Andrea Parker's starsign is Pisces and she is now 47 years of age.
- 10 incredible celebrity houses & cars
Who is Andrea Nicole Parker dating in 2017?
Will the marriage of American actress Andrea Parker and current Husband, Michael Birnbaum survive 2017? Vote!
[purple_heart_rating] Must read: 2017's Hottest celebrity wives and girlfriends!
Does Andrea Parker have official Social Media profiles?
Discuss the latest gossip and rumors (Plastic surgery, Scandals etc) and post the latest photo's and video's of Andrea Parker here:
Facts & TriviaWhere does Andrea Parker live? And how much money does Andrea Parker earn?
|Birth date
|Religion - believes in god?
|She lives together in a house in Los Angeles, California, United States
|Estimated Net worth
|5 million Dollar 2017's Top 20 richest actresses!
|Yearly Salary
|N/A Salaries of TV's best paid actors
- Sponsored links -
Possessions, fortune & earningsCurrently no houses listed on Taddlr Currently no cars listed on Taddlr
- 10 incredible celebrity houses & cars
Love, Family & Friends
|Relationship status
|Married (Since 2007)
|Current Husband of Andrea Parker
|Michael Birnbaum
|Ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands
|James Powers
|More info
|Was previously married and divorced
|Expecting a baby
|She is not pregnant
|Has any kids?
Body Measurements & HealthThis cool friendly fun actress originating from Monterey County, California, United States has a slim body & oval face type.
|178 cm
|Hair color
|Regular brown
|Eye color
|Dark Blue
|58 kilo
|Does Andrea Parker smoke?
|Yes, on occasion Read: 20 Celebrities you did not expect to be smokers
|Does Andrea Parker have a tattoo?
|No- Read: 20 Craziest celeb tattoos!
Gossip, Rumors & Social MediaRead: What celebs really look like: 20 shocking pictures without make-up
Does Andrea Parker have official Social Media profiles?
Discuss the latest gossip and rumors (Plastic surgery, Scandals etc) and post the latest photo's and video's of Andrea Parker here:
- Sponsored links -
On Taddlr you can find the 2017 boyfriend, husband, lover or kids of celebs. Also biography info and trivia about the ancestry and origin, age, height, weight, bra-size, hair style, diet, fitness routine & tips or whether she smokes (cigarettes or weed) or has a tattoo. And read about her net worth, salary, house and car. Has a couple broken up or gotten a divorce? Or does someone earn more salary this year? Sometimes we are forced to speculate. (May 11, 2015)


text:
* maximilian attems <firstname.lastname@example.com> [Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 05:06:27PM +0200]: > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010, Michael Prokop wrote: > > How about giving people the chance to disable generation of initrds > > through e.g. /etc/default/initramfs-tools? > well that would assume that you want *none* anywhere, which is often > not the case as you may very well have a "mixed" setup. Good point, thanks. What about a configuration variable to completely disable it (as mentioned above) and another one to white- or blacklist specific kernels? regards, -mika-
Description: Digital signature


text:
Ashwini-Ivanov in French Open Super Series main draw
Paris: India's champion doubles shuttler Ashwini Ponnappa and her Russian partner Vladimir Ivanov qualified for the main draw of the mixed doubles event at the USD 275,000 French Open Super Series, here yesterday.
Ashwini and Ivanov first defeated the local pair of Vincent Espen and Manon Krieger 21-9 21-7 in 20 minutes before getting a walkover from the Dutch pair of Robin Tabeling and Iris Tabeling in their next qualifying round match at the Stade Pierre de Coubertin.
Ashwini Ponnappa


text:
Hematology Analyzers Market Research Report covers the present scenario and the growth prospects of the Hematology Analyzers Industry for 2016-2020. Hematology Analyzers Market, has been prepared based on an in-depth market analysis with inputs from industry experts. The report covers the market landscape and its growth prospects over the coming years and discussion of the key vendors effective in this market. To calculate the market size, the report considers the revenue generated from the sales of Hematology Analyzers globally.
For further information on this report, please visit- http://www.marketreportsworld.com/10278594
The Hematology Analyzers Market report contains a comprehensive market and vendor landscape in addition to a SWOT analysis of the key vendors. The study was conducted using an objective combination of primary and secondary information including inputs from key participants in the industry.
Following Companies Are Key Players of the Hematology Analyzers Market:
- Abbott Diagnostics
- Beckman Coulter
- Sysmex
Other Prominent Vendors of Hematology Analyzers Market Are:
- Abaxis
- Bio-Rad Laboratories
- Boule Diagnostics
- CellaVision
- Diagnostica Stago
- Drucker Diagnostics
- Mindray Medical International
"The growing the popularity of flow cytometry in hematology testing helps physicians to analyze blood samples and examine the detailed morphology of cells. Fluorescent and laser flow cytometry are popular techniques that are used to visualize platelets and nucleated red blood cells (RBCs)."
Ask Sample PDF of Hematology Analyzers Market Report @ http://www.marketreportsworld.com/enquiry/request-sample/10278594
According to the Hematology Analyzers Market report, age-related chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases create a need for regular monitoring and early diagnosis, thereby increasing the demand for hematology analyzers for blood sample analysis. Increase in blood donations in developing and developed countries, technological advances, and emergence of personalized treatment are other factors contributing to market growth.
Report also presents Geographical Segmentation analysis of Hematology Analyzers Market of Americas, APAC, EMEA region.
For Any Query, Contact Our Expert @ http://www.marketreportsworld.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/10278594
Further, the Hematology Analyzers Market report states that high cost of hematology analyzers is one of the major issues faced by vendors as many end-users such as small reference laboratories and research laboratories cannot afford maintenance and service costs of hematology analyzers.
Key questions answered in Hematology Analyzers market report:
- What will the Hematology Analyzers market size be in 2020 and what will the growth rate be?
- What are the key market trends?
- What is driving Hematology Analyzers market?
- What are the challenges to Hematology Analyzers market growth?
- Who are the key vendors in Hematology Analyzers market space?
- What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the key vendors?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the key vendors?
No of Pages: 53
Price of Report: $ 2500 (Single User License)
Purchase Report @ http://www.marketreportsworld.com/purchase/10278594
About Market Reports World:
Market Reports World is the credible source for gaining the market research reports that will exponentially accelerate your business. We are among the leading report resellers in the business world committed towards optimizing your business. The reports we provide are based on a research that covers a magnitude of factors such as technological evolution, economic shifts and a detailed study of market segments.
Mr. Ameya Pingaley
Market Reports World
+1 408 520 9750
Email – email@example.com


text:
If you have been searching for a studio that will cater to yoga near Milton, you may have seen how many there actually are right now. In fact, with the rate that they are going, the number of yoga studios will continue to rise with the competition getting heavier and stiffer by the minute.
How will you know if you found a good studio for you to practice in? There are a lot of cues which can tell you. Here are the top three points that should show you if you got a good studio to practice in.
First, have you seen the reviews? This is one of the most important things you have to look up for. These reviews are written and penned by people who have experienced the whole thing first hand so you can trust them.
Second, get into forums within the locality. There are many of these in the internet, look them up and sign up. Ask for recommendations and ask them about particular studios. If you like the reviews, you can come and ask for a tour.
These are just some things you can do. Most of the studios will offer a trial period which you can use to your advantage to try their facilities and eventually see if you like the whole place.


text:
NC State's strong connections to the Team Takeover traveling team program and Washington, D.C., area high schools could pay off with one commitment and could lead to more in the future.
Premium Content
Subscribe today to read the full article and get everything Rivals has to offer.
- Member-only message boards
- Exclusive highlights and recruiting interviews
- Exclusive coverage of Rivals Camp Series
- Breaking recruiting news