Will 300 Units Of Insulin Kill Someone

Excerpt from introduction to 4 ("Evolution") manual Fundamentals of Psychobiology , by various authors, edited by Sanz y Torres and published in 2009:


In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace independently discovered the mechanism by which evolution occurs, natural selection. In 1859 Darwin published his work The Origin of Species, which laid the foundations for the current theory of evolution and thus, the scientific framework in which fall since all discoveries that expand and corroborate Darwin's explanation of why diversity and evolution of all living beings.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton revolutionized the way people think and see the world from the people of his time to make it clear that neither the Earth was the center of the universe, or that this was a static place and made to our measure. It was not until nearly two centuries to Charles Darwin deal the final blow to human vanity and his anthropocentric view of the world. The man, who seemed to stay out of both previous cosmological cataclysm, was also deposed to be proposed as a link in the evolutionary chain and worse for some was a descendant of the monkey! All this, of course, called into question to view human nature and deep convictions, so far, solid, eminently religious society, leading a host of criticisms and insults, some of which still survive.

But the transcendent idea of \u200b\u200blife and the special source that many people attribute to man, makes opponents of the theory of evolution continue wielding today, inconsistent, non-scientific arguments, since no empirical fact has refute or falsify the theory of evolution and support the development of an alternative scientific theory. One of the arguments against is that theory is not fully demonstrated. However, this argument makes no sense, because that is something that happens, not only the theory of evolution, but all scientific theories, because all are more or less to lack of corroboration in all space and time, but not lose its predictive value, explaining and applying the known universe. Another type of criticism are based on mere opinion that , as the case of creationism or its new version reprinted under the title of Intelligent Design , not supported by empirical facts but religious beliefs. For many people faith gives hope and transcendence human life, but those feelings and beliefs belong to the private and subjective. The views are used to the ideological debate but not for the scientist, in which only the objective facts, verifiable by observation and experimentation are what count.

Another source of criticism or misinterpretation of the theory of evolution is based on the simple ignorance of the meaning given in science to the terms evolution and theory. Thus, the term evolution, with extensive meanings (change, transformation, progress, growth, guidance, progress, direction or trend, etc.) leads to some people to give evolution a finalist misinterpretation. However, in the context of the theory of evolution, evolution is the term used to describe the change in diversity and adaptation of populations of organisms or the transformation of one species into another and never to reveal an idea of \u200b\u200bprogress , guidance, direction or purpose. Natural selection is pure opportunism.

The term theory is also misunderstood in this context that is given its ordinary meaning, ie the statements designating empirically unsubstantiated speculation (something similar to what science is known as a hypothesis). However, in the scientific context, a theory is a universal explanatory statement, supported by a set of scientific laws that serve to relate certain order of phenomena. In this context, the theory of evolution is a set of mathematical laws and functional which will serve to explain the diversity of living things and their causes. Naturally, like any scientific theory is subject to constant criticism and experimental and observational testing of their laws. As noted already in 1994 the biologist Francismo Ayala: "the evolutionary origin of organisms is now an established scientific conclusion with any degree of certainty comparable to other concepts certain scientists, such as the roundness of the earth, the rotation of the planets around the sun or the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt, is what biologists say when they say that evolution is a fact. The evolutionary origin of organisms is an accepted fact by biologists and informed everyone about it. "

Excerpt from the book

Louis Vuitton Laptop Skin

Learning from our past

The uselessness of suffering, of María Jesús Álava Reyes :

"Personally I have always been fortunate to work with great people, because they were not excellent, which also has been, simply do not have in my mind, and not occupying a minimum of my energy. However, had committed an unforgivable mistake if I had not extracted the useful lessons from these experiences. All persons are or have been useful in our lives because we could all learn something, and sometimes something as basic as not letting it eat the moral! and do not suffer unnecessarily for the simple fact that these people seem to have, as one mission, the purpose of life bitter.

The human being is as complex as exciting, but it's true that sometimes we would have felt happier if we had not had the privilege know, share or work with certain people. There will be few readers who have not been found in their lives with some of these people, and certainly have more than once cursed his bad luck to coincide with them. But the truth is we do not usually have the opportunity to elect the majority of our companions.

When someone chooses are students which school we go, and luck determines the type of students and teachers who accompany us in a key stage in our lives. Later in the work we do not have many options to select those who will be our fellow workers. Even when we can choose the kind of restaurant, cinema or theater that we go, we can hardly control the people who are around us in those sites. Could go on giving examples that showed us our little choice in relation to many of the people we encounter in our lives, but I'm sure by now most of us are aware of this reality, however, evidence shows, day by day, we insist on not accepting this fact and, instead of generating resources that make us feel good about ourselves, we engage in a struggle as futile as stressful: they change the people around us and make what we think they should do!

How many Sometimes we hear that so and so or Somebody's niece is very bad because he had very bad luck with peers who have touched? and instead to seek, within the so-and-turn, the solutions to this situation, we get lost in a string of endless arguments that justify the discomfort of this person. Valiente we are giving aid! Instead of him from that pit, we are saying that will still be falling, because it has no grip.

may seem too crude, that's what we do normally, and thereby fall into one of the most characteristic errors of our society believe that our welfare depends to a large extent, on the other. Fortunately, reality is very different, and humans can extract useful lessons from these situations, for it will serve his intelligence and experience, but instead of doing so is dumped to find arguments to justify their discomfort, will fall into a false determinism that vitiate and condition of his life. "

Catchy Clothing Shop Names

What is to be romantic? The tantrum homeopathic

Before moving to the next paragraph, make a simple experiment: elect five people around them and ask them what they consider, a priori, more romantic, including dinner in the garden with aromatic candles under the stars and moonlight, and a pair of greasy BigMac's the nearest McDonald's with the reconstituted powdered Coke, hopefully, with tap water of questionable potability. What sounds most romantic priori as a gift: a box of chocolates for good with a red bow-shaped heart, or a miniature collector vehicle AT-AT Star Wars and a box of condoms to put "I Will Not Be your father" ? Can write the answer and / or the results of the experiment in the comments.

predict that, statistically, people will look more romantic chocolates and flowers and figurines geeks and junk food. And this is because it is what we breathe, what we see in movies, both current romantic comedies and in such other period set in past centuries in which leaves a very handsome French nobleman who woos the lady treated to gifts, bowing to all the living Christ and reciting poems beautiful and deep blush to caste concubine. How romantic, right? But times have changed, and gestures that were once a symbol of love now seem a pretentious, that is ridiculous in the eyes of the majority, which is the one imposed in each historical period the concept of normality. A fun read with humor about romance understood in terms of sentimentality found in this old post satirical entitled "How be romantic " of The world is crazy.

But not everyone understands the concept of romance as in the previous paragraph, and there are those who consider it a quality of love itself proposing a personalized romance based on the tastes and needs, of each person. Being romantic, from this other point of view, is to know the preferences and needs and satisfy your partner. No more. Personally, I resist a little, not to know and meet the needs of a person, but to consider that is to be romantic because it raises some incosistencias derived from the identification of love with romance as if they were synonymous or had to give necessarily a causal relationship between them:

1) So almost everyone is romantic but not like, because if the only prerequisite to be considered romantic interest is to know the tastes and needs of a person and be willing to cover, only then would it not be romantic abusers and freeloaders.

2) That person may prefer to MacDonald's for dinner in the garden and the chocolate figurines geeks, and that is not typically considered a romantic activity, or does not sound very romantic ... To be romantic is to give flowers? What if the flowers do not like and prefer marzipan? Do marzipan is less romantic than flowers? Why Paris has to be the city of love? Why to be considered romantic in Venice is to take a gondola ride with your partner? Why play Parcheesi can not be romantic?

3) So do not be romantic is not a quality on the idiosyncrasies of people and a personality trait that may or may not, but an absolute disgrace. A person who does not love to be romantic to your partner, because it would be romantic, in these terms, your partner do not mind. And it does not accept it. Something is wrong with that definition.

does not seem reasonable to consider that romance is an expression of affection to dry, that is love, not romance. I believe that romance is more a matter of "style", a more or less specific among the many possible and also to varying degrees. Take good care of a person and not worry about it being romantic, it's just love her (which is a lot). Surely all people who want to know your partner well, who care about her, who care, and yet, by his nature, never say of them that are romantic, romantic simply because it is an adjective not applies to everyone and that says nothing about whether much or little they want their loved ones.

What do you think?

How To Tie Bed Roof Rack

recently is putting together a good stir with homeopathy, and no wonder. The mess was set up when she stopped being simply a pseudoscience like others, to end formally implemented in the English university, raising blood blisters among critics, skeptics and scientists. Was the University of Zaragoza which has recently established the Chair of Homeopathy , and whose teachings will be funded by Laboratoires Boiron, obviously dedicated to the development of homeopathic medicines and whose official website no advertise here (you can find it easily). According Newsletter of the University, one of its main goals is to publish the White Paper of homeopathy, was supposed to be something like the Bible in this discipline and a tool to disseminate it in society. Wait for the publication of that book and read it carefully, but do not think there's anything new. The principles on which homeopathy is based are well known. Scientific studies supporting them, however, are nonexistent. Here's the problem. Should we allow a discipline that, to date, has failed overcome the status of pseudoscience (can not even give the "prescience"), are formally taught at the University?

In my view, the problem is not that Homoeopathy is not a science. We all know that university is not scientific and no protest about it (Law, Philology, philosophy, even theology, etc). Are areas of knowledge, society and culture are also of interest. The problem is the intention and, above all, the brazenness with which these people it attempts to science and medicine, something that is neither one nor the other. And I have no personal interest in this, not being in fee collection against the formalization of Homeopathy. Moreover, I'm even open to the possibility that their theories may be true. Of course, I think the least we should demand is proven. And I think the correct order is: first show and then formalize it, not vice versa. It's like I am inventing a theory now, and before showing it, I think the university concerned. "To teach what? "Hypothesis? Today

digital daily 20minutes recorded the statement of Javier Lanuza, Professor of Pharmacology who will lead the department, who claimed that homeopathy "is a social reality it's there ". Yes, it certainly is there, but that is not sufficient criteria to make it a chair. A demand for something, although significant, does not mean you have to make graduate study. By this token, there is also demand for mediums, psychics and witchcraft groups, and we are not going to create the chair of Tarot to investigate the reality of astrological charts. I have the impression that if the tarot had the acceptance that is taking homeopathy, would end up going the same. Make a Chair of Homeopathy seems a very dangerous first step that leaves the door open to chaos. It is assumed that what should be taught University must be serious and rigorous whose veracity is established or is of genuine interest or social benefit, not because there are many people willing to buy pure water at the price of gold under the slogan "it works for me."

scientists, critics and skeptics have responded through their digital media to denounce this issue and explain in detail why homeopathy, at least for now, is not science and even why the principles on which it is based are scientifically very questionable, in addition to not being empirically validated. Serve as an example and summary entry "Why homeopathy is a hoax" ,'s blog Migui science and culture. Even more recently the web has created queeslahomeopatia.com with the firm intention to report in detail on the details of this fraud. Any reader who take some time to review these links, you will see that they are offered scientific arguments to refute the claims homeopaths. What do homeopaths? Do you also offer scientific arguments to prove his theories? No, limited to mourn, shouting or playing the victim of a conspiracy antihomeópata appealing to the reader's feelings, trying to move him to gain his confidence by playing dirty, as we read in this entry titled "Homeopathy and its critics" of ABC Homeopathy. Do not miss the comments. Clearly, if there is no scientific, double-blind experiments and stuff, there are no more resources than the tantrum.

• There is a campaign to collect signatures "by Free University of pseudoscience and obscurantism." You can read and if you're interested, sign the Manifesto here.
• If you have Facebook, you can also join the group interested "homeopathy, the healing power of absence" , where all members news and stuff we collected in follow-up of the subject and / or the more general "Our favorite magufos" .