Exquisito complemento para verano e invierno que  hará las delicias de nuestro invitados. La preparación es sencilla y variará un poco dependiendo de nuestros gustos y nuestras necesidades ya que podemos emplear azúcar, o como en mi caso, yo uso fructosa, para ahorrar unas calorías al cuerpo. Disolveremos unas dos o tres cucharadas soperas colmadas de azúcar o fructosa en un vaso de agua lleno a las ¾ partes, que previamente habremos puesto al fuego en un cazo y que removeremos a fuego medio durante unos 10 minutos para que se nos convierta en un jarabe dulce, retiraremos y dejaremos enfriar.

También según nuestros gustos personales, más o menos ácidos, exprimiremos tres o cuatro limones y añadiremos el jugo resultante al agua azucarada que previamente habremos enfriado, cambiándola de recipiente si hiciera falta.

En un recipiente de al menos 1 ½ litro de capacidad y a poder ser de acero inoxidable,  pondremos el jarabe, el jugo del limón y una botella de cava brut nature, a poder ser de nuestra elaboración, agitaremos con una cuchara y lo introduciremos en un congelador.

Pasada una ½ hora o algo mas dependiendo del congelador, sacaremos nuestro sorbete y comprobaremos que empieza a congelarse, cuando veamos que esto ocurre volveremos a agitar el producto y lo volveremos a introducir en el congelador. Esta operación la haremos unas dos o tres veces, después hago lo mismo pero con la batidora un par de veces mas y de esta manera conseguimos ir rompiendo los cristales de hielo que se forman y lograr una masa fina totalmente untuosa porque llega un momento que ya no congela mas. En uno de nuestros golpes de batidora añadiremos una pizca de sal que ayudará a formar más rápidamente los cristales. También cabe la posibilidad de montar dos claras de huevo a punto de nieve y añadirlas a la mezcla cuando estemos con el primer golpe de batidora  o dos láminas de gelatina para dar otro tipo de consistencia a la mezcla, podéis probar a vuestro antojo. Hay otras muchas variantes en donde se trituran con la mezcla unas hojas de menta o hierbabuena, se añaden unas ralladuras de piel de limón o naranja, unas gotas de ginebra o cualquier otra cosa que se os vaya ocurriendo y que dará definitivamente vuestro toque personal.

Ir probando cosas nuevas y veréis como la experiencia es enriquecedora

]]> http://fantasya.wordpress.com/?p=1058 Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:01:14 +0000 fantasya http://fantasya.wordpress.com/?p=1058 Suna telefonul lui Mark... e Clara. Mark insa doarme, la telefon raspunde Adriana. Clara auzind vocea acesteia inchise. Dar telefonul Clarei suna... si iar suna... afisand numarul Adrianei. Clara intr-un final raspunse:

- Nu-ti permit sa ma suni la ora asta, e 2 juma noaptea. N-ai de ce sa ma suni!

Curiozitatiile Adrianei incep sa se afiseze intr-o convorbire de 40 de min, in care Adriana a reusit sa afle despre Clara ca e doar o amica a lui Mark, iar Clara i-a explicat Adrianei ca nu-l iubeste suficient pe Mark si a ridicat problema casatoriei neexistente in ciuda relatiei lor ce dura de peste 8 ani. Nesigurantza Adrianei s-a simtit atunci cand a incercat sa-i paseze telefonul lui Mark: Hai vorbeste tu cu ea... Insa Mark stiind ca nu auzise toata discutia dintre fete si stiind ca nu o sa poata sa-i spuna nimic Clarei mai ales dupa ce plecase fara explicatie din viata ei, refuza sa auda vocea Clarei si pacatele ei.

Adriana : Nu vrea sa vorbeasca cu tine, crezi ca pentru ca sunt eu aici? Noi nu avem secrete, daca nu arata tuturor ca ma iubeste nu inseamna ca nu o face, ma iubeste...

Clara gandindu-se la ea si la Irene putea nega sentimentele lui Mark de iubire, dar n-a facut asta: Poate tu nu-l iubesti, tu nici macar nu ai incredere in el, esti isterica si paranoica de fiecare data cand el se uita la o femeie...

Adriana tacu ca si cum nici ea nu stia ce simte: Ce-ai vrea sa-ti spun eu acum?

Clara: Nu ma mai suna, nu trebuia sa ma suni... cred ca ar fi mai bine sa te duci in pat langa el (Clara stiind foarte bine cum ii place lui Mark sa fie tzinut in brate in timp ce doarme), el asta vrea, du-te langa el, nu are sens sa vorbesti cu mine...

Adriana: Poate ca ai dreptate, ma duc... papa

Clara: Noapte buna!

Adriana ramane aceea femeie inselata si atat, ramasa langa Mark si netraind iubirea adevarata...

Dar Clara stia mult mai bine ce-si dorea, ce simtea, ce ar fi putut sa dea, ce n-ar fi vrut sa dea...stia ca Mark nu se va mai intoarce la ea, stia ca se poate intoarce la viatza sa, la iubirile sale, la suferintele sale... stia ca suferintza ei din dragoste are mai multe sanse decat o aventura necurata si neortodoxa.

Speaking with Marx in mind, the progression of government under capitalism is purely economical. The democrat and the republican parties are corporate parties. Since the corporation was given "personhood" in 1886, (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) it achieved the same constitution rights that you and I share. This has corrupted our government beyond any measure, criminal wars, torture, economic depression, the list goes on and on.

To break away from corporate and political slavery, we will need to think and vote different this year. He's not the president we deserve but he's the president we need, vote Nader.

votenader.org

Woolite Color Protection son unas toallitas que absorven los tintes de la ropa durante el lavado. Creo que es una idea fantástica, se acabó el estar separando claro-oscuro porque, acabo de probarlas, ¡funcionan!.

Una forma de hacer que las cosas sean un poquito más sencillas, al menos para aquellos que como yo, a la hora de tener que poner alguna lavadora andan mirando las indicaciones de las etiquetas o de los detergentes y pensando que criterios seguirán para determinar qué punto de claridad-oscuridad define a la ropa clara u oscura y piensan que para cuatro cosas que tienen que lavar pasan de poner dos lavadoras y acaba jugándosela... parece una tontería, pero no creo que sea tan tontería. Y esto es un triunfo, en serio. Cargas la ropa en la lavadora, da igual la temperatura a la que pongas el agua y los tejidos... imagino que será para algodones y acrilicos porque lo sintético no deja color, echas una toallita de estas dentro y andando. Luego sale manchada, según si han soltado color o no, pero el resto de la ropa... fabuloso.

“It’s not so much whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it’s
more that you don’t know why you believe it.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.           
<!--[endif]-->Clara sees Socrates as she is going back home after
school.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.           
<!--[endif]-->Hi Socrates!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.           
<!--[endif]-->Hi Clara! How are you doing?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.           
<!--[endif]-->Fine, thank you! How about you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.           
<!--[endif]-->Great thanks. So did you learn anything new in school this
week?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.           
<!--[endif]-->Actually yes! I am not sure if I can call it learning
but the teacher definitely talked about a new theory in our biology class.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.           
<!--[endif]-->I think I know what it is...

<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.           
<!--[endif]-->Really? What do you think it is? And why do you have
that smirk on your face Socrates? What’s up?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->9.           
<!--[endif]-->Ha-ha! I just find it funny, it reminds me of a lot of
heated discussions that I had with people on this topic. If I am not mistaken,
you have just heard about the theory of evolution, is that right?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->10.       
<!--[endif]-->That’s exactly it!! How did you know?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->11.       
<!--[endif]-->From the way you said it, I know you’re smart girl and
you understand things pretty quickly. So if you didn’t understand it, I thought
maybe your biology teacher had just taught you something that you found hard to
understand, and there is nothing more far fetched than the theory of evolution,
as far as I am concerned.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->12.       
<!--[endif]-->So you don’t believe it, Socrates?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->13.       
<!--[endif]-->Ha-ha! You see, even you admit that it’s a matter of
belief, and there is no way to actually know whether it’s true or not. But I
won’t fall into that trap; I am going to show scientifically that the theory of
evolution is an absurdity and a propagated lie. The same kind of lie as the
“the Earth is flat” lie of the Middle-Ages. Think about that for a moment:
during the Middle-Ages there were people saying that the Earth was flat. Why
did they believe it? Why did they spread this lie? They were wrong, so what
made them think that they were right? So what I suggest we do is review what
your teacher has taught you, and see whether it’s true or not and in this way
you’ll understand why people sometimes say that things are true without having
any proofs. What do you say?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->14.       
<!--[endif]-->Great!! I have some things to clarify too; it’ll be a
good opportunity to do just that.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->15.       
<!--[endif]-->Perfect. So before starting I think we should define
what we mean by the theory of evolution. What did your teacher tell you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->16.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, he said that the theory of evolution is made up
of natural selection and speciation. He said that natural selection is the way
nature filters genes through successive generations inside a species, depending
on the environment. And speciation is the process by which new species are
created. I think that’s what it was.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->17.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok. So if I understand you clearly, natural selection
means that inside a species, the individuals better adapted to their environment
will have a higher chance of survival than their counterparts with a weaker
adaptation to the same environment. Is this right so far?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->18.       
<!--[endif]-->Yes, so far I agree.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->19.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok. And then natural selection tells us that because
genes code for the different traits of an individual, the individuals with
genes who give them traits less favorable to their environment will die sooner
and thus they will not pass their genetic material to successive generations.
To illustrate this point more clearly, let’s imagine two populations P_a
and P_b of a same species S₁ living in a common
environment E₁. Let’s take a gene G₁ as part of the DNA
of S₁, coding for a major trait, essential for the survival of S₁.
Let’s take two different versions of that gene, G_1a and G_1b.
Let P_a have exclusively the gene G_1a and let P_b
have exclusively the gene G_1b. Let’s say that the gene G_1b
is better adapted to the environment E₁ than the gene G_1a
is. So every individual of P_a has a higher chance of death than any
other individual in P_b, on average, because they have a less adapted
version of the gene G₁. Let’s imagine that G_1a is so
badly adapted to E₁ that it prevents greatly the individuals of P_a
to reproduce before dying. Meanwhile G_1b is so well adapted to E₁
that it enhances greatly the survival and reproduction of P_b. Now P_b
as a population will grow and take over the resources of the territory, while P_a
will shrink and eventually die out. So at a certain time, P_a will
not exist anymore, and only P_b will exist in E₁. Now
since P_a has died out, the gene G_1a has disappeared from
S₁ and G_1b is the only version of G₁ left.
This is natural selection. What do you say, Clara?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->20.       
<!--[endif]-->I would say that what you said is correct, and it makes
sense to me too. I think it is directly linked to the birds that Darwin observed in the Galapagos
Islands where nature had separated them in different environments according
to the shape of their beaks and the type of food available. This part that we just
talked about, I didn’t have too much trouble in understanding it, it’s more the
part with speciation that I didn’t get.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->21.       
<!--[endif]-->All right. We have agreed on the mechanism of natural
selection. Let’s look into speciation now then. Let’s start our inquiry by
answering this first, elementary question: what is speciation telling us?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->22.       
<!--[endif]-->It tells us that the higher forms of life share common
ancestors and that they come from lower, less advanced forms of life that have
been transformed. In other words, a species can transform and evolve, through
time, into a new more complex species.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->23.       
<!--[endif]-->Interesting, and how does that happen?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->24.       
<!--[endif]-->Wow! I have no idea!! I am not sure, but I think the
teacher said something about mutations. You know what we should do Socrates?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->25.       
<!--[endif]-->What?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->26.       
<!--[endif]-->I saw my professor in his office right before coming
here, we should go there together and discuss this with him, what do you say?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->27.       
<!--[endif]-->That’s a brilliant idea!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->28.       
<!--[endif]-->Clara and Socrates walk to the biology teacher’s
office. The door is open. He is sitting down, cleaning up his desk.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->29.       
<!--[endif]-->Hello professor!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->30.       
<!--[endif]-->Oh, hi Clara, how are you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->31.       
<!--[endif]-->Pretty good, thanks. I was just talking with my friend
Socrates about the theory of evolution, and we were wandering if you could help
us understand some aspect of it.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->32.       
<!--[endif]-->No problem, it would be a pleasure, please sit down.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->33.       
<!--[endif]-->Thank you professor, it’s a pleasure to meet you and I
am glad to see you showing such hospitality to us and such an open mind to our curiosity.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->34.       
<!--[endif]-->It’s my pleasure, Socrates. I’ve read some things about
you, but I can’t remember where. Anyway, please take a seat and make yourself
comfortable. How can I be of any help to you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->35.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, professor, we understood clearly what natural
selection is, but we wanted to understand better how speciation worked.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->36.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, what part of speciation exactly don’t you
understand?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->37.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, you see, before going further, I suggest we tell you
what we have understood so far so that you might have a better idea of what we
haven’t understand.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->38.       
<!--[endif]-->Go ahead.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->39.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, we understood speciation as the mechanism by
which new species are formed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->40.       
<!--[endif]-->That’s exactly what it is.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->41.       
<!--[endif]-->All right. Now, it says that lower forms of life evolve
into new and higher forms of life, and in this way every life on the planet comes
from the same first spark of life that evolved over time.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->42.       
<!--[endif]-->Yes. It seems to me like you understand speciation very
well, Socrates. I don’t see where your confusion lies.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->43.       
<!--[endif]-->My problem is very simple actually professor. It is the
simplest question of all, and I hope that with all of your education, your
experience and your extensive knowledge you will be able to shed some light upon
it.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->44.       
<!--[endif]-->I will do my best, I promise.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->45.       
<!--[endif]-->Great. I told you it is a very simple question, and it
might sound very naïve or childish, but please, accept it as an honest
willingness to understand on my part. So there it is: how?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->46.       
<!--[endif]-->What?!? How?!? How what?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->47.       
<!--[endif]-->How does a species transform into a new species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->48.       
<!--[endif]-->Oh! Ha-ha!! You scared me Socrates; I thought you were
going to ask me a very tough question to answer! This is very simple to
comprehend, Socrates, I am surprised that with your acuteness, you haven’t been
able to pierce through this problem already. But, let it be so, I will explain
it as best as I can to you and Clara. So the most common aspect of speciation
is called geographic or allopatric speciation. Basically it says that if you
have two populations of a same species that have evolved in different
environments for a certain number of generations, their genetic make up will
have varied so much, this is called genetic drift, that one group will not be
able to reproduce with another and thus they will have become two distinct
species.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->49.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok. Thank you professor because I think your short
description has been very precise, clear and simple to understand. However, I
think I see an important problem that I wish we will be able to solve together.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->50.       
<!--[endif]-->I’m listening...

<!--[if !supportLists]-->51.       
<!--[endif]-->All right. You said that because of the genetic drift,
the two populations, originally from the same species, will not be able to
reproduce. Now the question that I will ask is the following: when you say that
they will not be able to reproduce, do you mean that they will not attempt to reproduce, or that they cannot reproduce even if they tried?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->52.       
<!--[endif]-->No, they cannot reproduce between the two populations,
and they will not even try. Let me give one example to illustrate what I am
trying to explain. It is an experiment made by Diane Dodd. She took a number of
Drosophila, or fruit flies if you want, and separated them into two groups. She
isolated them and gave to one group starch-based food and the other
maltose-based food. She waited for more than eight generations and observed
several notorious morphological changes in both populations. Then she put the
two populations back together in the same environment, and realized that they
would not interbreed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->53.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok. You are a very reasonable professor, and a
scientist with a great reputation, and I hope that we can agree on an essential
principle of scientific rigor. You stated clearly, and I have read about Dodd’s
experiment, that the two populations did not interbreed or even attempt to
interbreed. Is this enough to conclude that they are two different species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->54.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, we should first agree on a definition of species:
we can say that a species is the group of individuals in which male individuals
are sexually compatible with female individuals and with whom they can produce
fertile offspring. So you can say that the two populations of fruit flies are
incompatible since they do not naturally interbreed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->55.       
<!--[endif]-->Oh, I think you are making a big mistake in your
reasoning professor. Let me give you this example: take the case of us, human
beings. Let’s imagine that you, professor, only like a certain type of women for
whatever reason. Now, imagine that I present to you a different woman,
beautiful but of a different type than the one you are used to. You will not
have any form of sexual attraction to her, and will not want to get to know her.
Does that mean that you and her belong to two different species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->56.       
<!--[endif]-->Of course not.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->57.       
<!--[endif]-->This is the same with fruit flies. The two populations
only had different traits. How can you say simply based on the fact that they
did not interbreed that consequently they can never interbreed? I think we need
to clarify the difference between sexual compatibility and the act of
interbreeding. The definition of species is totally independent of the act of
interbreeding. It states that two individuals of the opposite sex are from the
same species if they can interbreed. It only states that they need to be able
to interbreed, not that they actually do interbreed. Otherwise, you would have
to say that I only belong to the same species as the women with whom I had children,
which is obviously totally absurd. And native people of Canada would be from a different species than
native people of Kenya,
because they never interbreed with one another! This is not a comedy show, this
is a scientific investigation. The two populations of fruit flies did not
interbreed, which doesn’t mean that they cannot interbreed, and thus we cannot
conclude that they are two distinct species!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->58.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, but we didn’t prove that they could interbreed
neither!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->59.       
<!--[endif]-->Exactly, so we cannot conclude anything, neither that
they are still the same species, or different species, until we make an
experiment where we would, for example, artificially inseminate a fly of the
first group with a fly of the second group. Or we could simply look at their
respective DNA. But until then we cannot conclude anything, and this can never
be a proof of speciation!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->60.       
<!--[endif]-->But, Socrates, look at all the studies that have been
made throughout the years, I can name you thousands of papers written on that
subject.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->61.       
<!--[endif]-->If they have the same scientific rigor as the fruit
flies experiment, I will not pollute my mind with it. I am sorry professor.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->62.       
<!--[endif]-->Socrates, you are the only person that I know who is
challenging the validity of that theory! Every biologist believes it! There is
too much evidence to deny it! Let me instruct you about the study made by Nancy
Knowlton: it is another classic example of how speciation works.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->63.       
<!--[endif]-->Before you go further professor: do you acknowledge the
fact that Dodd’s experiment with the fruit flies is totally inconclusive
concerning the creation of a new species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->64.       
<!--[endif]-->I don’t know. It still seems plausible to me that
speciation occurs in that way, by geographical separation inside a species.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->65.       
<!--[endif]-->Ha-ha! You are not answering my question professor. I
am not asking you if you still believe in the theory of speciation!! I am
asking you, as a scientist, if you find that the Dodd’s experiment is enough to
conclude, in that particular case that the first population of fruit flies and
the second do not belong to the same species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->66.       
<!--[endif]-->I don’t know if they belong to the same species, like
you said we would have to make a DNA test to be sure, but they surely did not
interbreed, so I think it is a pretty strong indication that they will not be
of the same species.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->67.       
<!--[endif]-->Again professor, you are escaping reality. I am not
asking you to evaluate the statistical possibility that they will be or not
from the same species. As a scientist, you cannot say that because something
did not happen there is a stronger chance that it can never happen under any
circumstances. I did not scream yet. Based on that fact, you cannot say that
there is a stronger chance that I cannot scream than that I can scream. It is
the same thing with the two populations of fruit flies: you cannot say that just
because individuals from the first population did not interbreed with the
individuals of the second population, they are two different species. We cannot
say neither that there is a higher chance that they belong or not to the same
species. We cannot conclude anything on their sexual compatibility! Otherwise,
this is not science, it’s an infantile reasoning. “I like this, so this is
true.” Based on what argument? “Oh, I just like it more. It seems more plausible to me, so I just say that it’s the way
things work.” Again professor, with scientific rigor, please, is the Dodd’s
experiment enough to conclude with assurance that the first population of fruit
flies does not belong to the same species as the second one?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->68.       
<!--[endif]-->Well...it seems to be the case that they do not belong
to the same species. And I mean, that’s what I was taught in school, and that’s
what a lot of the top biologists believe.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->69.       
<!--[endif]-->Professor!! Stop evading reality! I am not asking you
to give me the judgment that other biologists have on this experiment, I am
asking you to give me your own judgment, and use your own rational capability,
your own criteria for truth, in answering this very simple question.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->70.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, Socrates. But I mean to me it seems more plausible
that they do not belong to the same species, especially when I take into
consideration all of the other research made through the years on that subject.
But if you ask objectively, well then I would say that you are right in saying
that we would need to make an additional experiment to be sure if in that
particular experiment, the two populations of flies are of different species or
not.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->71.       
<!--[endif]-->Thank you professor. I think it is very courageous of
you to say that and also very smart, because now you are really answering with
both your head and your heart and not only with your feelings and your desires
like earlier. Now, if we continue logically our search for truth, would you
agree with me in saying that in an effort to explain the functioning of
speciation, this experiment could not be used as a truthful experiment because
its conclusion is unreachable?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->72.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, yes I agree with you. If we cannot conclude that
they are rigorously two distinct species, we cannot use this example to explain
how speciation works because we don’t know whether it has occurred or not in
that case particularly. Nevertheless, Socrates, there are numerous other
examples that I can refer to promote the validity of that theory. For example,
look at the study made by Nancy Knowlton on shrimps living on either side of
the Isthmus of Panama. We know that this
isthmus closed about 3 million years ago, so that before that, the sea in which
the shrimps were living was the same and the shrimps belonged to the same
species. After that, however, the population of shrimps was separated
geographical on either side of the isthmus. Now, Knowlton took the two
populations of shrimps and put them together in the same water, and she realized
that the males and females from the two populations would fight each other off
instead of courting. So they never did interbreed! You see, just as with the
flies, the same thing happens with the shrimps, you are not going to say that
it is simply a coincidence, Socrates!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->73.       
<!--[endif]-->Ha-ha! Professor, you are making the same mistake
again, and another one for the first time. And to reassure you, I have heard of
that example also, because it is one of the most recurrent proofs that evolutionists
come up with. Just like with the flies, the shrimps did not interbreed. Does
that mean, again, that they cannot interbreed? If something does not happen,
does it mean that it cannot happen?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->74.       
<!--[endif]-->No, but you don’t understand, it’s the same example yes,
but you see that the same thing has happened with a different population. That
can’t be a coincidence, Socrates! You were talking about scientific rigor; you have
to admit that the chance that these two things are a coincidence is almost
impossible.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->75.       
<!--[endif]-->Ha-ha! Let’s be clear again on what we accept as true
and what we cannot judge. I am going to ask you the same question than before:
is this study enough to conclude, based on the fact that the two populations of
shrimps did not interbreed, that they are of two different species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->76.       
<!--[endif]-->No, but Socrates...

<!--[if !supportLists]-->77.       
<!--[endif]-->No, professor, you have to answer this question. It is
essential to our investigation.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->78.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, the answer is no, like before, because it is the
same situation as with the fruit flies. They did not interbreed, and we would
have to have another test to judge if they are or not the same species. But
what I am trying to tell you Socrates is that although we cannot conclude
rigorously on their species, the same thing happened as before with the fruit
flies: they did not interbreed. And this again has happened naturally! The
theory certainly has to be true if we can observe it more than once with
different populations!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->79.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, just before continuing, I want to be sure on your
answer to the question. Do we agree that this study does not permit us, just as
with the previous experiment, to conclude with certainty on the species of the
two populations? Again, professor, that is all I am asking, please answer
without drifting to another subject.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->80.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok, Socrates, I don’t see why you are obsessed with
that. But, as you wish, I will answer that question: we cannot conclude with
certainty on the species of the two populations of shrimps.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->81.       
<!--[endif]-->All right, so we agree on that and you have
acknowledged it twice so far. Now, we have resolved the first mistake that you
have made when you said: “If two populations cannot interbreed, then they are
from different species.” The new mistake you are making is the following: “Two
populations of fruit flies separated geographically for several generations,
when put together again do not interbreed. The exact same thing happened with
two populations of shrimps. I cannot conclude anything on their species.
However, two experiments with the same setting showed clearly the same
conclusion, so the chance of their incapability to interbreed must be higher.”
Basically, in resume, what you are saying is the following: “Something did not
happen in a specific setting with someone. The same thing did not happen in the
same setting, with someone else. Then I can conclude that this thing cannot
happen!” Let me give you this example to illustrate my point better: you smile
to a woman in the street, and that woman does not smile back. You smile to a
different woman and she doesn’t smile back neither. You smile again at another
woman, somewhere else, and the same thing happens. Can you conclude that women
cannot smile back at you? Do you think because three women haven’t smiled back
at you, there is a higher chance that they cannot smile back at you than if
only one hadn’t smiled back?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->82.       
<!--[endif]-->In the case of a woman, the reasoning is clearly
absurd. And I guess I would have to smile at all the women that exist to know
if they indeed cannot smile back.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->83.       
<!--[endif]-->Then again, maybe they were all in a bad mood the same
day you tried. So you would have to try the following day!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->84.       
<!--[endif]-->It’s true, and the following day, etc. What’s your
point?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->85.       
<!--[endif]-->So how is this different from the study of the flies
and the shrimps? Both did not interbreed when the same thing happened to them,
can we conclude that they cannot interbreed, and that they belong to two
different species?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->86.       
<!--[endif]-->No, we can’t. But again, it seems more probable that
they can’t interbreed. And there are hundreds more examples where in the same
situation two populations separated for a long time have not interbred. And
when I say hundreds, there may even be thousands of examples of this
phenomenon. The more cases like this, the more you believe that they actually
cannot interbreed, don’t you think Socrates?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->87.       
<!--[endif]-->Professor, professor, I didn’t know you confused your
desires so much with reality. There are some things that as much as you wish
for them to be different, their truth and their existence are totally
independent of you. And this is one of these cases right now. No matter how
much you say: “I want nature to be this way, and not that way”, it will never
change simply because you want it to change. So you are saying that because
hundreds or even thousands of studies have shown that in the same situation,
two separated populations, when put back together do not interbreed, you are
leaning more towards the possibility that they cannot interbreed. The first
question that I have to ask you is the following: were any DNA tests or
artificial insemination done to verify if there were indeed two different
species in the studies that you have in mind?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->88.       
<!--[endif]-->You mean like in the case of the fruit flies, or the
shrimps?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->89.       
<!--[endif]-->Yes, exactly. In these two examples, no test was done.
So I’m asking you if in the other studies that you have in mind, any test was
done.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->90.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, not that I can remember.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->91.       
<!--[endif]-->All right. So from the hundreds or thousands of studies
that you have in mind, not one is more conclusive than the other in determining
the belonging of species of the two populations studied?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->92.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, if we say that just like with the fruit flies and
the shrimps, we cannot reach a definite conclusion because we didn’t do any
test, then yes you are right.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->93.       
<!--[endif]-->All right. Now, going back to the examples of you
smiling at some women. When you smiled at the first one and she didn’t smile
back, you didn’t reach any conclusion as to the capacity of women to smile back
at you. Now, after the second woman didn’t smile back, were you able to reach
any conclusion then?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->94.       
<!--[endif]-->I mean, no, of course not. It’s only two women.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->95.       
<!--[endif]-->All right, and after three, were you able to reach any
conclusion?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->96.       
<!--[endif]-->Well, no, I couldn’t.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->97.       
<!--[endif]-->And what about after four women who didn’t smile back
at you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->98.       
<!--[endif]-->Even after four, it’s not enough, I don’t know if one
day one woman will smile back at me.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->99.       
<!--[endif]-->Ok. How many women would you have to smile at to know
that they cannot smile back at you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->100.    <!--[endif]-->Ha-ha!
Socrates, what kind of question is that?! Like we said earlier, I would have to
try with every woman, forever to know whether they can or cannot smile back at
me.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->101.    <!--[endif]-->So
it’s an ever-ending process! You can never reach a conclusion!!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->102.    <!--[endif]-->I
guess you are right, since the experiment never ends, I can never have a
definite conclusion. I don’t see the point though.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->103.    <!--[endif]-->It
is the same thing with all the studies that claim to prove the validity of allopatric
speciation. You have one experiment where they did not interbreed, just like
the first woman did not smile back at you. Then you have a second different
experiment where two other populations did not interbreed, just like with the
second woman you smiled at. And you have hundreds or thousands of experiments
where they did not interbreed, just like you may have smiled at hundreds or
thousands of women, and they did not smile back. You cannot conclude that they
cannot interbreed just like you cannot conclude that women cannot smile back at
you!!!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->104.    <!--[endif]-->No,
it’s true, but the more experiments I have, the closer I get to reach the
conclusion that they cannot interbreed. It’s just like with women!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->105.    <!--[endif]-->So
you are saying that the more women don’t smile back at you, the closer you get
to the conclusion that they cannot smile back at you?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->106.    <!--[endif]-->Yes
and the same thing is true with the experiments of geographic speciation. The
more experiments show that the populations don’t interbreed, the closer we get
to the conclusion that they cannot interbreed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->107.    <!--[endif]-->But
we agreed that the experiment never ends, yes?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->108.    <!--[endif]-->Yes,
we agreed on that because we would have to smile at every woman forever.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->109.    <!--[endif]-->So
we can never reach a conclusion?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->110.    <!--[endif]-->No,
because the experiments are infinite.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->111.    <!--[endif]-->All
right. So we never get closer to the conclusion, because the conclusion doesn’t
exist!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->112.    <!--[endif]-->Ha-ha,
actually what you are saying is true Socrates. I never thought about it that
way. So you are saying that we never get closer to the conclusion no matter how
many studies have been made or no matter how many women I have smiled at?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->113.    <!--[endif]-->Exactly,
don’t you agree?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->114.    <!--[endif]-->Actually,
yes. Ok, I think I understand, so no matter how many examples we have of
something not happening, we never get closer to the conclusion that it cannot happen.
We would only need one example of it happening to reach the opposite
conclusion.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->115.    <!--[endif]-->Exactly!
I knew you would understand that professor. So no matter how many experiments
show the same thing as with the fruit flies or the shrimps studies, we never
get closer to reaching the conclusion that this is how different species are
formed.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->116.    <!--[endif]-->If
we want to be consistent with ourselves, I would say that you are right.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->117.    <!--[endif]-->So
this is not a proof of how speciation happens. Allopatric speciation might be
true, but it has never been rigorously observed, only botched studies have been
made so far. So we cannot say that allopatric speciation is true. In fact until
it is rigorously proven to happen, which after all these years doesn’t seem to
be the case, we should consider it as un-assessable. But I am sure professor
that with all your experience, there are other theories – because that’s only
what they are, theories and not principles – that explain how speciation occurs.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->118.    <!--[endif]-->Of
course. There is another process called sympatric speciation. Have you heard of
it Socrates?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->119.    <!--[endif]-->Yes
I have, but I would like you to explain it again so that there is no confusion
between us and we understand the same thing.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->120.    <!--[endif]-->All
right. So sympatric speciation is the creation of new species by what is called
polyploidy. Polyploidy is simply the condition of cells containing more than one
set of homologous chromosomes. So because of different reasons, cells can go
from having two sets of homologous chromosomes, which is called diploid, to
three, four, five or more sets of homologous chromosomes during their division.
So you can see that because there is a change in the number of sets of
homologous chromosomes of the cells, there is also a change of species.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->121.    <!--[endif]-->I
agree, because they shouldn’t be able to reproduce. Can you tell me professor,
where this phenomenon has been observed?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->122.    <!--[endif]-->Oh
yes. There are many examples: in coffee plants, in wheat, watermelons, shrimps,
moths and killies.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->123.    <!--[endif]-->What
do all of these living things that you enumerated have in common: coffee plant,
wheat, watermelon, shrimps, moths and killies?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->124.    <!--[endif]-->I
don’t understand what you are asking Socrates...

<!--[if !supportLists]-->125.    <!--[endif]-->What
is their mode of reproduction?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->126.    <!--[endif]-->Ah...well
they reproduce asexually or self-fertilize. That’s one of the main reasons why
they can actually increase their number of sets of homologous chromosomes.
Biologists generally agree that half of flowering plants have originated this
way.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->127.    <!--[endif]-->Ok.
But what about other animals who do not reproduce asexually or self-fertilize?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->128.    <!--[endif]-->Actually,
I think that polyploidy has been observed in humans, but the individuals never
survived to birth.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->129.    <!--[endif]-->So
it is not conclusive in the case of humans, and just because of that we should
refute all of your theory. Because for sympatric speciation to be true, it
would have to be true for every form of life on Earth. Allopatric speciation is
a myth, and now you are suggesting that sympatric speciation is the way
speciation works but it doesn’t work for humans. But anyhow, I will continue to
show you how absurd your arguments are. Do you have an example where it has
been observed in a species that reproduces sexually and that cannot
self-fertilize?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->130.    <!--[endif]-->Not
that I can think of but I don’t see why it is important Socrates. Sympatric
speciation has been observed over and over with plants, with self-fertilizing
protozoa, shrimps, moths, and even with the killifish. Isn’t that enough?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->131.    <!--[endif]-->No
it’s not. Your claim is to say that speciation occurs in this way. If it is
true, then it has to occur for every form of life that exists to be a truthful
principle. But the only thing you are saying is that sympatric speciation works
for this plant, for that animal. My question is does it occur for every living
thing? We know that allopatric speciation is a lie. Now your new affirmation is
the following: speciation occurs through a change in the number of set of
homologous chromosomes inside cells. Ok, this might be true. But if it is true,
it would have to be the case for every living thing on Earth, otherwise sympatric
speciation would only be true until a certain point in the evolutionary line of
species, and speciation would have to work in a different manner after that
point. It could be true, but again, this is not what you are claiming. You are
claiming that it always happens. So there is obviously no proof that sympatric
speciation occurs for the other forms of life, and all the studies are totally
incomplete and inconclusive.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->132.    <!--[endif]-->…

<!--[if !supportLists]-->133.    <!--[endif]-->I
will ask you a new question professor, that will show you furthermore how
sympatric speciation is absurd: if you say that sympatric speciation increases
the number of sets of homologous chromosomes inside the cells of an individual,
then shouldn’t we as human beings have the highest number of chromosomes since
we are the most evolved and most complex form of life on this planet? But as
humans we are diploid animals and the peanut is tetraploid. How do you resolve
that problem? Not only that, but the difference between species doesn’t only
lie in their polyploidy, it also lies in the number of chromosomes they have,
and on their internal structure, their information so to speak. Sympatric
speciation doesn’t change the nature of the chromosome: it only creates cells
with more sets of homologous chromosomes. It doesn’t create new and different
chromosomes. But what we observe in nature between species is a difference in
their number of chromosomes, in their structure, their genes and their polyploidy.
Sympatric speciation only deals with polyploidy, so how do you explain the
other differences?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->134.    <!--[endif]-->Well...Socrates,
to tell you the truth, I don’t have sufficient knowledge in that area to answer,
I am sorry.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->135.    <!--[endif]-->But
do you still believe in sympatric speciation?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->136.    <!--[endif]-->Well,
yes. Why shouldn’t I?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->137.    <!--[endif]-->Oh,
professor, I overestimated your intelligence. You believe in something but you
cannot prove it! And I have just showed you how inconsistent and unsound the theory
of sympatric speciation is. You realized that you didn’t have enough proof to
back up your statement and you still believe it? Why?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->138.    <!--[endif]-->…

<!--[if !supportLists]-->139.    <!--[endif]-->We
agreed that the allopatric speciation experiments that were made were
inconclusive and you agreed with me in saying that we shouldn’t believe this
theory until it was rigorously proven to be true. That’s how science works: we
start with what we know to be true, not by what seems to be true, or what we
suspect to be true. Now, you said that you still believed that speciation
occurred, and you said it occurred by sympatric speciation. You acknowledged
the fact that it has only been observed in certain forms of life. I showed you
several contradictions in your reasoning: firstly, in order to justify the
validity of sympatric speciation, it would have to be true for every form of
life on Earth, something which has clearly not been proven. Then, I showed you
that polyploidy increases the number of sets of chromosomes in the cell but
doesn’t change the chromosomes themselves, yet species have different
chromosomes and different number of chromosomes. Sympatric speciation doesn’t
resolve that problem. And I asked you if you could resolve that contradiction
and you said that you didn’t have enough knowledge to answer that question.
Maybe a lack of knowledge is not the issue here, but rather a lack of honesty
and common sense: maybe there is no way to resolve that contradiction, and thus
sympatric speciation could be totally false! But you don’t want to envisage
that possibility: this is the way you have been reasoning since the beginning
of our meeting. You always started in saying that speciation is a fact. I have
showed you continuously the absurdity and falsehood of your arguments, but all
you have said is “well, yes your arguments are true, but there must be
something I don’t know which shows that speciation is true.” Why should it be
the case? You claim to be a scientist? Your behavior is close-minded and
stubborn. You shouldn’t be so much attached to this speciation theory; it is
not a matter of life or death! It’s like the day you learned Santa Claus did
not exist: it didn’t kill you. It certainly upset you. But then after having
wept for some time, you asked yourself the following question: “where do all my
gifts at Christmas come from?” And you found out that it was your parents who
gave you all these gifts! Didn’t that fill your heart with joy? “My parents
love me!” Even if speciation was true, you have shown that you don’t know why
it is true, so why should you believe it? The world is not going to end if you
simply say that you don’t know whether it’s true or not.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->140.    <!--[endif]-->At
this moment, another professor enters the office, looking strangely at
Socrates.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->141.    <!--[endif]-->What
is going on here?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->142.    <!--[endif]-->Oh
hi Dick, let me introduce you to Socrates, a friend of Clara, with whom I’m
discussing the theory of evolution.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->143.    <!--[endif]-->Hi
Socrates. Are you the one who’s been arguing for an hour about the theory of
evolution?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->144.    <!--[endif]-->Yes.
And you are?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->145.    <!--[endif]-->I’m
a part-time professor of biology here. My office is next door. I’ve heard much
of your arguments, and I must say that despite your exuberance you seem to have
a keen sense of analysis. However, I must tell you that during all this time you
have exposed beyond any shred of a doubt your lack of knowledge on the subject.
You lack a lot of information. Out of curiosity, what kind of diploma do you
hold?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->146.    <!--[endif]-->Ha-ha
there goes the baby-boomer syndrome!! I don’t see how important that is, but I
hold a diploma in quantum physics.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->147.    <!--[endif]-->(Clara:
You never told me that Socrates!)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->148.    <!--[endif]-->There
are more things that you don’t know in life than things you know, Clara!

<!--[if !supportLists]-->149.    <!--[endif]-->Really?
Interesting. Can I ask from what university?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->150.    <!--[endif]-->Certainly.
From Oxford
university. And can I ask the same question to you, professor?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->151.    <!--[endif]-