Log Me In
|Written by Samuel J. Alibrando|
|Saturday, 02 January 2010 04:14|
There are more than100 articles in the book. Some are 1 or more articles that were merged for the book format. Here is a sample of just 2 of those articles.
Movies are much scarier now but as a kid, those talking trees in the Wizard of Oz scared me. Not as scary, is the discovery of communication between trees. It is not entirely new. Even in encyclopedias published in the late 70’s research was being published.
Incredibly, the trees can synthesize them on the spot, in hours or days.
Communication between trees may also help coordinate simultaneous flowering for fast cross-pollination. Why would trees benefit from flowering at the same time? There are a couple reasons. One, the flowers attract insects that can cross pollinate. If they are all flowering at the same time the insects will be attracted in bigger numbers and available to pollinate all the flowers while they are there instead of making a separate trip for one or 2 trees. Secondly, when the fruit grows at the same time, the entire generation of fresh fruit is shorter. Otherwise, if one tree is beginning to have rotten fruit and attracting flies and maggots, the maggots can destroy the other trees that are just beginning to bear fruit before they rot. By having simultaneous flowering and maturity, maggots don’t have as much time to reproduce and devastate the crop.
“OK everybody, on three. One-two-three- BLOOM!”
There is certainly more I could tell you but I want you to ponder the complexity and organization of such fine design in the trees all around us. The greatest minds of science are still scratching their heads trying to figure out this communication that is so beneficial and impressive. Do you really think this communication between trees could be a random mistake that was never designed? Or do you think it is not a mistake and that these designs are intentional? Evolution calls it lucky accidents. What do you think?
EVERY TIME YOU SEE ICE
We are more water than anything else.
Another principle studied in liquids is how they freeze. The colder liquid gets, the dense r it becomes. That means the same weight of liquid takes less space as it gets cooler. This is why brake fluid, coolant, or transmission fluid in your car has hot and cold levels. When fluids are hot, the measuring gauge shows a higher notch. This is because liquids expand when heated. There is more space in the molecules. Of course, when the liquid is cold it is denser. It actually takes up less space.
If water did not have this particular quality, much of life as we know it would be entirely different. You see, if ice was heavier than water, no one could have ever skated on a frozen lake unless it was 100% frozen.from top to bottom. The ice would first form on the bottom of the lake. The lake would freeze from the bottom up. The water on top would become more and more shallow until we would be able to see the dead starved fish in the remaining shallow water from all the vegetation at the bottom of the lake would be cut off from the fish by ice.
In addition to the articles, throughout the book we have "IN THE KITCHEN". While the articles are like friendly talks "on the porch" with company visiting. "In the Kitchen" is like saying goodnight to our company and then we go inside to the kitchen where some more direct points are made. They are called "ALIBRANDO's LAWS".
There are 18 of this type of article in the book. Below is a sample.
ALIBRANDO'S LAW #5
Un-provable Notion: Prehistoric, extinct species are all ancestors of modern creatures.
Sensible Fact: When a creature becomes extinct it is gone, not evolving.
Technical Wording: The extinction of a species is not a species mutation.
Explaining the Law:
Ironically, we have many laws protecting endangered species. No one considers it strange that scientists who believe the evolutionary theory are also zealous to protect these endangered species. Here is a clue rarely observed: It is because they have ZERO confidence in that species’ ability to simply evolve.
Folks, there is no scientific (meaning proof, not theory) basis for the assumption that any extinct species was necessarily an ancestor of any other species.
Also included in the book in the appendix are 7 Rules. This is a brief discussion on the need to monitor conduct, even though in a more perfect world, monitoring would not be necessary. Here is one example:
Favor the Weight of Evidence
For: Scientists & researchers (good rule for anyone)
Beneficiaries: Everyone with an affection for common sense.
This rule is about common sense and honesty.
It applies to scientists, teacher, publishers, jurors and all of us making a decision based on the facts.
How many times have I learned a favorite theory from a professor or teacher and later found that there were other theories with possibly more evidence I didnt even hear about?
Lets say there are twenty pieces of equal evidence. After reviewing all the twenty pieces of real evidence, not one but two theories emerge about what that evidence proves. The theories contradict each other. They cannot both be true. If eighteen pieces of evidence point one way and only two to the other theory, the one with greater evidence is more likely to be correct?
Why would anyone favor the theory with less evidence? Why would anyone say, "I know these two pieces of evidence are right but I dont quite understand those eighteen pieces of evidence."?
I am not talking about circumstantial evidence, but real evidence. I could add weights to the evidence. If each EQUAL piece of evidence were put on a balance scale with A on the left side and B on the right. If there were eighteen on A and two on B, wouldnt the honest question be "We need to look more closely at the TWO EXCEPTIONS. Maybe they will support A after we review them more carefully.
Inversely, would it not be a suspicious declaration "We need to review those EIGHTEEN EXCEPTIONS that contradict the evidence of the two"? Therefore, I present this as a rule for all honest analysts. Whether they are scientists, jurors, detectives, theologians, or any seeker of the truth:
RULE #4 The Weight of Evidence Rule
Favor the Weight of Evidence
When there is significantly more evidence to one theory than the other, the one with greater evidence is more likely to be correct.
If EVIDENCE presents itself and the weight shifts to the opposite theory it is abundantly clear the honest response would be to favor the theory with the weight of evidence.
For more excerpts and goodies, download the sampling Adobe file for free viewing.
|Last Updated on Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:08|
Copyright © 2006 Samuel J Alibrando. All Rights Reserved. Designed & Maintain by Jamyl Marc Cruz