mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
_[1]homepage o [2]e-mail_

_ _

Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs

what is wrong with the evolution theory?

a summary of arguments

The following is a summary of the main arguments against Darwinism,
almost exclusively based on the work of Richard Milton. Please note
that the idea of biological evolution _in general_ is not condemned,
but merely the opinion that the mechanism of evolution must have been
natural selection and survival of the fittest combined with mutations
occurring at very slow rates. The interest of the rejection of
Darwinism for the purposes of this website is the conclusion that only
_catastrophic forces_ could have formed the geological column and,
likely, have stimulated and perhaps originated the evolution of life
forms.

_dating and geology_

_no slow deposit of the geological column: contra uniformitarianism_

o       If the geological column takes millions of years to form, why
do we find trees, forty feet tall, in the vertical position of growth
in coal-seams? A fossilised tree, in position of growth, was found in
the coal measures at Blackrod in Lancashire. The original tree must
have been surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before
the bulk of the tree decomposed, so that the cavity vacated by the
trunk could be occupied by new sediment which formed the cast. _This
implies a rapid rate of sedimentation around the original tree._[3][1]

o       There are 'graveyards' of millions of land-dwelling creatures
who suffered death simultaneously, indicating that many fossils were
formed during catastrophes.[4][2]

o       The best evidence that pressure rather than time is the cause
of coalification comes from examining the rank of coal in relation to
the depth of its deposit.[5][3]

o       There is a substantial body of evidence pointing to rapid
mountain-building occurring in the recent past, thousands rather than
millions of years ago.[6][4] Remains of human habitation at
extraordinary heights, such as in the Andes, indicate that these areas
were lower at the time.[7][5]

o       The only realistic model so far proposed for the break-up and
drift of the continents _is the ice-cap rupture model of Cook, which
entails sudden explosive processes and which involves an ancient
Arctic being dissipated as recently as 10,000 years ago._ In Cook's
model _Pangaea stretched from pole to pole. Build-up of ice at one or
both poles finally snapped the crust and the corresponding pressure at
the other pole helped determine the direction of the main fracture.
_There is evidence that the Wisconsin ice-cap suddenly disappeared
roughly 10,000 years ago and the 'relaxation' time of the earth's
crust is less than 10,000 years. Independent evidence confirms that
the earth's crust in this region began to rapidly uplift at the same
time as the ice disappeared, some 10,000 years ago. The forces
required to crack the earth's crust must have been cataclysmic.
Alternative theories for the break-up of the crust were tidal forces;
expansion of the earth; convection currents in the semi-fluid mantle;
and successive loading and unloading of the crust, by glaciers for
instance, but none of these theories are capable of providing the
required energies.[8][6]

o       conclusion: Only a catastrophist model of development can
account for important earth structures and processes such as
continental drift and most fossil-bearing rock formations.[9][7]

_does not happen in our time: contra uniformitarianism_

o       Observations of modern geological processes show that nowhere
today are there rocks being formed anything like those in the
geological column.[10][8]

o       There is no sediment known to be forming on the modern
sea-bottom which compares with the composition of historical
chalk.[11][9] If the material comprising the chalk did not have an
organic origin, it must have precipitated out of the sea water itself,
which would require sudden and cataclysmic changes in the temperature
and acid-alkaline balance of huge areas of chemically saturated sea
water. Nothing of this kind can be observed anywhere today.[12][10]

o       Nowhere today are any fossiliferous rocks forming. _This
finding is hardly surprising when one considers the conditions that
must exist in order for any dead creature to become fossilised. First
and most important, it must be rapidly buried with sediment to prevent
decay by bacteria or attack by predators, wave action, or weather.
This sediment must be of considerable depth - certainly inches or even
feet - to prevent the remains simply being dispersed by natural
processes._ The detail and completeness with which many fossil
specimens were preserved indicate that _the creatures were rapidly
buried under considerable depths of sediment. The very size of some
specimens, such as the larger land-living dinosaurs, makes it
ludicrous to suppose that they could have been preserved in a few
millimetres of sediment._[13][11]

_artificiality of the geological column_

o       The geological column is nowhere to be found in nature. _It is
an imaginary structure that has been synthesised from comparing a
stratum of rock in one part of the world with a similar looking
stratum in another part of the world ..._[14][12]

o       When you compare the supposed duration of the Cretaceous,
Silurian, Ordovician, Devonian, Carboniferous and other geological
periods with the thickness of deposit, it appears that geologists have
used a standard deposition rate of 0.2 millimetres a year. This is
'too uniformitarian'.[15][13]

_internal contradictions_

o       The various methods of dating commonly produce discordant ages
for the same rock deposit. _Where this occurs, a 'harmonisation' of
discordant dates is carried out - in other words, the figures are
adjusted until they seem right._[16][14]

o       If the first surface waters formed 3,800 million years ago and
the first microorganisms came into existence 3,800 million years ago,
then there was zero time available for the spontaneous appearance of
life[17][15]

_wrong objects dated_

o       _The entire geological column of sedimentary rock strata ...
is dated not by radioactive decay or any other method of direct
measurement, but by relative methods. These methods include
principally the dating of intrusions of primary volcanic rock and ash
(often by the potassium-argon method of Hawaiian fame) and estimates
based on assumptions concerning rates of sedimentation and rates of
evolution of fossil species._[18][16]The geological column consists of
sedimentary rocks, rocks formed from sediments laid down on the beds
of ancient seas and composed of particles of the primary, volcanic
rocks. Radioactive dating techniques can only be applied to volcanic
rocks which contain some radioactive mineral. Any age determination
made using these particles will be the same as that of the primary
rocks from which they were derived. In some common sedimentary rocks
there are not even particles of the primary rock present and so
radioactive dating cannot be used at all. _It turns out that what has
been dated by radioactive decay methods is not the sedimentary rocks
themselves but the isolated intrusion into them of igneous or primary
rocks, usually as volcanic material._[19][17]

_circular argument_

o       _Fossils were used to date rocks: rocks were used to date
fossils._[20][18]

_fallacies in the radioactive dating methods: general_

o       It is not enough to have a process to measure. _To measure
elapsed time accurately we must be sure that the process does in fact
remain constant, even when we are not watching to check up. You must
know the starting value of the clock ... And you must be sure that
some external factor cannot interfere with the process while it is
carrying on ..._[21][19] When certain external factors intervene the
atomic clock can be speeded up considerably. The concentration of
highly energetic neutrino particles caused by cosmic radiation from
outside the Earth is such a factor. A supernova of a nearby star and a
reversal of the earth's magnetic field would both produce showers of
neutrinos that would greatly increase the rate of radioactive decay in
the rocks they penetrated, and both are known to have taken place many
times. _Being so close, the anisotropic neutrino flux of the
super-explosion must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting
all our atomic clocks. This would knock our carbon-14, potassium-argon
and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat. The age of
prehistoric artefacts, the age of the Earth, and that of the universe
would be thrown into doubt_ (Frederick Jueneman).[22][20]

_uranium-lead method_

o       Common lead can also be transmuted into a form which on assay
will be indistinguishable from 'radiogenic' lead through the capture
of free neutrons, to be found in a radioactive ore deposit such as
uranium, where they occur spontaneously through radioactive decay _...
the very process being measured can be, as it were, moonlighting at
another job. As well as spontaneously decaying into radiogenic lead,
it is also making available a supply of particles which are
simultaneously converting common lead into another isotope which, on
being assayed, will be indistinguishable from a radiogenic product of
alpha decay._[23][21]

o       Uranium naturally occurs not in metallic form but as uranium
oxide, which is highly soluble in water _and is known to be moved away
from its original deposit in large quantities by ground
waters._[24][22]

o       _So viewed overall, uranium-lead decay fails to fulfil any of
the criteria required of a reliable method of geochronometry
..._[25][23]

o       If the uranium-lead dating technique were reliable, the amount
of radiogenic helium in the atmosphere would yield a date for the
earth's age consonant with that yielded by measuring the amount of
radiogenic lead in the crust, but the dates are
irreconcilable.[26][24]

_potassium-argon method_

o       Modern volcanic lavas formed in recent historical times have
been dated as up to 3 billion years old by the potassium-argon
method.[27][25]

_radiocarbon method_

o       The radiocarbon method works only if the 'standard' mix of
radiocarbon to ordinary carbon in the terrestrial reservoir has always
been the same throughout the lifetime of the test subject and in the
years since its death. Had there been much less radiocarbon around
during the lifetime of an object, then the reading would appear
falsely diminished and the object would appear very much
older.[28][26]

o       _The tendency of volcanoes (including that on Thera now) to
produce falsely old readings by the outgassing of old carbon is well
documented and has long been known._[29][27]

o       ... _either the atmosphere is for one reason or another in a
transient build up stage as regards Carbon 14 ... or else something is
wrong in one or another of the basic postulates of the radiocarbon
dating method_ (Melvin Cook). 30,000 years are required for the
atmosphere to reach equilibrium.[30][28]

o       The fallacy of the radiocarbon method is proven by the
discovery that some living shellfish with very little radiocarbon in
their shells were dated as having lived 2,300 years ago. Likewise,
modern rock-paintings, whose date of production was known, were dated
to 1,200 years old.[31][29]

_dendrochronology_

o       Pitfalls have been discovered in tree-ring analysis.
_Sometimes, as in a very severe season, a growth ring may not form. In
certain latitudes, the tree ring's growth correlates with moisture,
but in others it may be correlated with temperature_ (R. W.
Fairbridge). It is also possible for two tree rings to grow in a
single year, when growth begins in spring but is later arrested by a
period of unseasonal frosts and later still starts again.[32][30]

_alternative findings_

o       conclusion: Existing methods of geochronometry, such as
uranium-lead decay and radiocarbon assay, are deeply flawed and
unreliable.[33][31]

o       If you apply the radioactive dating technique to the measured
amount of helium 4 in the atmosphere, the calculation yields an age
for the earth of around 175,000 years. This figure is even too high,
because uranium decay has probably been accelerated by an unknown
amount in the past and the possible acquisition of helium 4 from
outside upsets the process.[34][32] _If we take the measured amount of
radiogenic helium at its face value, and make the conservative
assumption that the atmosphere, to begin with, contained no radiogenic
helium, then the Earth's age comes out at about 175,000 years. The
major sources of uncertainty about this dating method are, first, that
there may have been some helium 4 present to begin with; second that
radiogenic helium may well be entering the atmosphere from the Sun;
and third that alpha decay may have been speeded up by outside
factors. In each case the figure of 175,000 years is inaccurate in
that it would be too great._[35][33]

o       If you date the earth's own atmosphere with the radiocarbon
method, the age of the atmosphere is around 10,000 years.[36][34]

o       The earth's magnetic field has been reversed many times,
leaving alternating magnetic 'stripes' frozen as a permanent record in
the continuously extruded once-molten rock as it o       The earth's
magnetic field has been reversed many times, leaving alternating
magnetic 'stripes' frozen as a permanent record in the continuously
extruded once-molten rock as it spreads over the sea floor.[37][35]

o       The strength of the earth's magnetic field appears to be
decaying exponentially with a half-life of around 1400 years. This
_places a limit on the possible age range which may be considered for
life no Earth and limits that range to something in the order of
10,000 years or less. Beyond this the flux density of the Earth's
magnetic field would have been impossibly great._[38][36]

o       There are still comets circling the sun, whereas these should
have dissipated in only tens of thousands of years after the earth's
formation.[39][37]

o       Thus the age of the earth is estimated to be less than 175,000
years according to the radiogenic helium in atmosphere method, less
than 100,000 years according to the Poynting-Robertson effect, less
than 100,000 years according to the persistence of interplanetary
dust, less than 30,000 years according to the non-equilibrium of
carbon 14, less than 10,000 years according to the persistence of
short-period comets, less than 10,000 years according to the magnetic
field decay method, less than 9,000 years according to the dissolved
nickel in oceans method, and 'recent' according to the meteoric dust
in the atmosphere method and life must be recent according to the
ice-cap rupture model of continental drift.[40][38]

In sum, there is much evidence that the geological column was formed
rapidly under catastrophic circumstances; and that all methods used to
date the age of the earth or of life are contaminated and therefore
unreliable, particularly if there would have been cosmic radiation
from outside the earth at times or if the earth were flooded
sometimes.

_principles of evolution_

_micro-evolution_

o       The extent of genetic change by selection has been found
experimentally to be finite: _The natural limit on the amount of
variation that can be induced in a species is merely the expression of
the fact that nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a
species that is capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded
by evolution theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different
environments and different modes of life._[41][39]

o       Genetic variation of the ordinary kind is not capable of
explaining the appearance of entirely novel characteristics, such as
the appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. _For the
genetic inheritance mechanism is merely one of re-shuffling and
re-combination of characteristics already represented in what
Dobzhansky called the 'gene-pool' of that species._[42][40]

_missing links_

o       Transitional species are not merely unusual; they are missing
entirely.[43][41]

_survival of the fittest and natural selection_

o       Attributes of behaviour assumed to be aggressive often turn
out on detailed observation to be nothing of the kind. This violates
the theory of survival of the fittest.[44][42]

o       The so-called ecological advantage assisting survival is an
illusion. Giraffes who have developed longer necks have no advantage
over their predecessors with shorter necks because the old ones will
continue to feed successfully on what they can find at their
heights.[45][43]

o       In evolution theory it is necessary to suppose that species
are somehow pre-adapted before the environmental change occurs that
makes the novelty a requirement for survival. This is a timing
problem, because all developments in species will have to have been
preadapted in that manner. _The improbability of the precise
adaptation either occurring at the right moment, or being an existing
adaptation that can luckily be further extended, has led
neo-Darwinists to look for other explanations._ The unused portions of
the DNA may provide the answer. However, we never see such mutations
emergence spontaneously. _Because mutations are not observed, we are
entitled to conclude that the unused 90 per cent of the DNA molecule
is not the home of beneficial mutations._[46][44]

o       _... it is not the fittest which survives but the luckiest - a
quality which is not usually thought of as inheritable._[47][45]

o       All that matters for evolution is who leaves more descendants
over the generations. _Natural selection favours fitness only if you
define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do
define it that way, which may be confusing to others. To a geneticist,
fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks or
anything but effectiveness in breeding_ (George Simpson).[48][46]

o       _The modern position therefore is that natural selection and
the survival of the fittest are no more than harmless tautologies,
while the struggle for survival plays no important part in
evolution._[49][47]_ To summarise, the modern position of the
synthetic theory is: the struggle for existence plays no part in
evolution. The direction of evolution is determined solely by the
characteristics of those animals and plants which are successful
breeders ... Thus 'survival of the fittest', or 'natural selection',
or 'differential reproduction', sheds no light on the mechanism of
evolution and is only another way of saying some animals live and
breed while others die out._[50][48] The ordinary mechanisms of
evolution would be luck and fertility.

_mutation rate_

o       Darwinists believe that only germinal mutation, the mutation
of sexual cells in the male sperm or female egg, can result in
inheritable variation,[51][49] which makes the chance for successful
random mutations negligible.

o       Synthetic evolutionists pretend many more mutations occur than
actually take place, by including fatal genetic defects, and they
pretend that splitting up the overall evolution process of a complex
organ like the eye somehow reduces the improbability of those separate
steps coming about by accident in the correct sequence.[52][50]

_rudiments and embryology_

o       The supposed vestigial characters of rudimentary organs in the
body has been adduced as evidence of evolution in action. Upon closer
investigation, however, it appears that many of those organs do have a
function.[53][51]

o       The biogenetic law - the idea that the developing embryo
passes through or recapitulates stages in the evolution of its entire
phylum - is no longer taken seriously by embryologists. The order in
which events occur superficially resembles the order of supposed
evolution, but is actually different. Sometimes a complex structure
reverts to a simpler structure and re-develops again.[54][52]

_order of evolution_

o       The fossils of complex animals are sometimes succeeded in the
rocks by remains of simpler creatures, and then complicated again.
Darwinists claimed that the simpler creatures were merely degenerate
recapitulations of the ancestral ones,[55][53] but this seems to be an
_ad hoc_ solution.

o       Viruses are not representative of the first forms of
self-reproducing life, because they _lack the ability to replicate
unless they inhabit a host cell - a fully functioning cell with its
own genetic replication mechanisms. So the first virus must have come
_after _the first cell, not before in a satisfyingly Darwinian
progression._[56][54]

_genetics_

o       The discovery that the species share amounts of DNA enabling
us to classify them in categories of closer and less close similarity
does not explain how those structures came into being or prove that
those organisms share a common ancestor.[57][55]

o       _But in any case, even if studies of the similarity of
cytochrome c should provide strong circumstantial evidence that all
animals are genetically related, or even strong circumstantial
evidence that animals have evolved from a common ancestor, what they
do not prove is that the mechanism of that evolution was genetic
mutation coupled with natural selection - the synthetic or
neo-Darwinian model._[58][56]

_conclusion_

o       _... virtually every apparent scientific discovery that
stimulated the theory _[of Darwinism; MAS] _in the first place and
later assisted with its development has now been found to be false.
The variation Darwin observed in the Galapagos was no more than
sub-specific variation of the common kind, incapable of leading to
novelty; his 'natural selection' is now seen to explain nothing except
in the trivial sense that the fit survive and those who survive are
fit; the fossil record in the 'areas most likely to afford remains'
have been thoroughly searched and palaeontologists have found no
fossil evidence linking mankind with extinct apes. There are no fossil
'missing links' in the geological record. Even de Vries's discovery of
'mutations' was a mistake, since the plant he observed turned out to
be a freak; Dobzhansky's attempts to significantly alter the genetic
structure of _Drosophila _were a failure; all attempts to discover and
examine a beneficial mutation have met with failure, the only
mutations observed are fatal defects; so-called 'industrial melanism'
in moths turns out to be not 'natural selection' but an ordinary
population shift; so-called orthogenesis in fossil horses turns out
not to be an example of evolution but a group of disconnected species.
The Earth is probably not billions of years old and may only be
thousands; sedimentary rocks do not take millions of years to form,
but hours to lithify. And so on, and on, and on._[59][57]

_alternative mechanisms of evolution_

_failed or irrelevant alternatives_

o       Goldschmidt proposed that evolution may have proceeded by
large jumps or saltations. But even if viable macromutations would
occur - there being no evidence for them - then most of them would
still be disadvantageous to their carriers. The fossil record would
then be littered with the bodies of one-off macromutations that did
not work.[60][58]

o       Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed a theory of
punctuated equilibrium in order to account for the lack of fossil
remains of transitional species. The periods of evolutionary change
would have lasted shortly. This theory is wholly speculative.[61][59]

o       Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe proposed that life had
an extra-terrestrial origin, and was transmitted to earth on occasion
of a collision with a comet at some time in the past; living spores
can be driven through space by the pressure of light from the stars.
Although this would relieve neo-Darwinists of accounting for the
spontaneous synthesis of self-replicating molecules on earth, it would
still have to explain how life emerged on the planet of
origin.[62][60]

_the viable alternative: externally-driven evolution_

o       _However unlikely it seems and however difficult it proves to
obtain experimental confirmation, it looks increasingly probable that
in some unknown way, individuals can not only adapt to their
environment or way of life but can also sometimes pass on that
adaptation to their offspring._[63][61]

o       _The specific reason that Darwinian geneticists reject any
form of Lamarckism is their belief that the genes are unalterably
separate from the cells of the body and that there is no route by
which changes could be communicated to them from outside._ But Temin
discovered that _viruses can transport genetic material into host
cells and embed it in the host DNA where it will later replicate
itself using the host cell's factory facilities for synthesising
proteins ... Having found a two-way channel of communication between
the genes and the outside world, science still lacked a mechanism by
which the demands of the environment could directly affect the germ
cells ... Steele proposed that mutations could occur in body cells, be
copied to other body cells by viruses and finally be transmitted by
viruses to the germ cells of the sperm in men or egg in women, and so
become inheritable._[64][62]

o       Purely psychological factors might be able to translate into
both somatic and ultimately genetic factors: _the content of an
individual consciousness could affect his or her body and the bodies
of any offspring._[65][63]

o       _In attempting to gather the strands of evidence from the
natural world that might point the way to an alternative view of
evolution, there seem to me to be three key kinds of observation,
three persistently recurring themes that are crying for answers: the
unerring accuracy of nature, her lack of trial and error; the presence
of a systematic programme above the cellular level, controlling
somatic development; and the overwhelming probability that
environmental factors can in some unknown way directly affect the
genetic structure of the individual._[66][64]

o       It has been found in quantum theory that merely observing an
event causes changes to occur at the atomic level. If genetic coding
is controlled by atomic structures, _can genetic mutation be caused by
direct influence at the quantum mechanical level?_[67][65]

These speculations seem very promising. The upshot is that the
evolution of life by means of natural selection and survival of the
fittest is to be dismissed as a useful hypothesis, although the
genetic relationship of all forms of life through a process of
evolution still seems likely.
_______________________

[68][1] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 10, 81f.

[69][2] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 27

[70][3] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 81

[71][4] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 84

[72][5] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 85

[73][6] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 54, 61ff.

[74][7] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 4

[75][8] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 71ff.

[76][9] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 73

[77][10] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 73

[78][11] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 76

[79][12] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 21

[80][13] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 23

[81][14] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 48

[82][15] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 19

[83][16] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 49

[84][17] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 20f.

[85][18] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 28

[86][19] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 38

[87][20] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 41

[88][21] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 43

[89][22] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 44

[90][23] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 44

[91][24] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 45

[92][25] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 47

[93][26] R. Milton, _The facts of life; shattering the myth of
Darwinism_, Fourth Estate, London, 1992: 31

References

1. http://mythopedia.info/synthesis.htm
2. mailto:mythopedia at hotmail.com
3. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn1
4. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn2
5. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn3
6. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn4
7. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn5
8. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn6
9. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn7
10. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn8
11. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn9
12. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn10
13. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn11
14. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn12
15. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn13
16. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn14
17. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn15
18. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn16
19. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn17
20. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn18
21. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn19
22. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn20
23. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn21
24. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn22
25. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn23
26. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn24
27. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn25
28. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn26
29. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn27
30. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn28
31. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn29
32. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn30
33. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn31
34. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn32
35. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn33
36. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn34
37. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn35
38. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn36
39. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn37
40. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn38
41. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn39
42. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn40
43. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn41
44. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn42
45. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn43
46. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn44
47. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn45
48. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn46
49. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn47
50. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn48
51. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn49
52. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn50
53. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn51
54. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn52
55. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn53
56. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn54
57. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn55
58. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn56
59. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn57
60. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn58
61. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn59
62. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn60
63. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn61
64. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn62
65. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn63
66. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn64
67. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftn65
68. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref1
69. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref2
70. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref3
71. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref4
72. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref5
73. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref6
74. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref7
75. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref8
76. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref9
77. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref10
78. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref11
79. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref12
80. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref13
81. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref14
82. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref15
83. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref16
84. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref17
85. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref18
86. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref19
87. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref20
88. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref21
89. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref22
90. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref23
91. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref24
92. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref25
93. file://localhost/www/sat/files/new/evolution.htm#_ftnref26