MELBOURNE, Australia >> On a day when shade was a valuable commodity in the searing heat at Melbourne Park, Roger Federer played it cool at the Australian Open.Six-time champion Novak Djokovic, however, complained about the brutal conditions during his second-round win over Gael Monfils, when the temperature peaked at 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).Djokovic urged tennis organizers to be more flexible about the rules for drink breaks, time between points and suspension of play …
(Visited 437 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Darwin gets credit for more things than his theory deserves, which is very little to begin with.The name “Darwin” and the phrase “natural selection” appear frequently in the science news, even when the observations reported either have nothing to do with them, or even contradict them. The media seem utterly incapable of thinking critically about the mismatch. It points to a strong bias to maintain the reputation of a man who kicked intelligent design out of biology.Biologists shed new light on the diversity of natural selection (Phys.org). This article begins with evidence seemingly contrary to natural selection, only to wind up rescuing it.For nearly 100 years, biologists have argued about how exactly natural selection can possibly work. If nature selects the individuals with the best genes, then why aren’t all organisms the same? What maintains the genetic variation that natural selection acts upon, the genetic variation that has ultimately led to the spectacular diversity of life on Earth today? Recent findings made at Uppsala University suggest that the answer could be sex.It “could” be sex, which implies it might not be. Frequently we have criticized the notion of natural selection for this very reason: if it were a law of nature, everyone would end up the same. Do these Uppsala scientists have a theory rescue device? They do; readers can get into the weeds of “sex-specific dominance reversal for fitness” in the article, but should note that the idea “met with early skepticism” from other evolutionists, and is being promoted by two Darwinians claiming to have “the first evidence” for it – this, mind you, 159 years after Darwin wrote his book. Even if their idea has merit, it doesn’t account for variability in asexual species. And it doesn’t account for why some sexes display strong dimorphism (e.g., peacocks), and others have very little (e.g., “all ravens are black”).Fossils key to fulfilling Darwin’s 160-year-old prediction (Phys.org). Darwin be praised! Big Science and Big Media love to say that. What was this prediction? “The time will come I believe when we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of nature,” Darwin wrote in a letter to Huxley. Again, this article begins with a contradiction in Darwinism:Lead author Dr. Robin Beck, said: “For mammals, there are some quite major disagreements about how they are related to each other, depending on whether you use anatomical or genomic data. This has led some people to suggest that anatomy is fundamentally unreliable for working out the evolutionary relationships of mammals, and perhaps of other groups as well.”For example, molecular data indicates that rhinos are more closely related to hedgehogs than they are to elephants. The anatomical similarities between rhinos and elephants are the result of convergent evolution.Convergent evolution, we know, results from use of Darwin Flubber in the explanation. So who are you going to believe, Darwin or your elephant eyes? Beck and Baillie, to solve the problem and rescue Darwin, use their own lyin’ eyes to lionize Darwin. They imagine the ancestors that should have been there, but aren’t! This is an amazing trick. Watch the high perhapsimaybecouldness index, and the reliance on futureware, in this Darwin-of-the-gaps explanation:Beck and Baillie’s study shows that new fossil discoveries might be able to bridge the large anatomical “gap” between rhinos and hedgehogs and so help correctly determine their evolutionary relationships.”To test this, Beck and his co-author, Ph.D. student Charles Baillie, invented a new method where they first predicted the anatomical features of fossil ancestors that should have existed if the genome-based phylogeny is correct, and then investigated the effect of adding these predicted ancestors into anatomy-based analyses.Beck added: “We were quite surprised to find that predicted ancestors led to the anatomical analyses matching the genomic phylogeny almost exactly. So, it doesn’t look like there’s anything inherently unreliable about anatomical data – in principle at least.“It may just be a case of going out and finding enough fossils!”This is exactly the trick Darwin himself used when confronted with gaps in the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion (hear Stephen Meyer talk about that on ID the Future). Darwin thought that further discoveries would fill in the gaps, but millions of fossil finds later, the gaps are still there – some of them even wider now. Beck and Baillie’s trick is even worse, because they are only finding the missing ancestors in their imaginations, knowing that they are still missing long after Darwin played his futureware card (a favorite in his house of cards). The futureware card is a credit card, because Darwinists hope you will trust them to come up with the missing fossils in another 160 years or more. By then we will be dead and won’t be able to sue them for not paying up.Transformed: The plant whose sex life fascinated Charles Darwin (Science Daily). Lots of people like primulas, so why does Darwin get trucked into this story? The press release from the John Innes Centre brings up a fancy word for a characteristic of some flowering plants: “Heteromorphy (or heterostyly) is a phenomenon in which plants exhibit two or three distinct forms of flowers based on the position of the male and female sex organs.” The phenomenon “enthralled Darwin,” we are told, but it worried him, too, because it left secrets that eluded him. It also worried famous evolutionists William Bateson and JBS Haldane. To the rescue! Now, with the gene editing tool CRISPR/Cas9, his current priesthood can hold up a divination tool in order to look authoritative.Now, some of the secrets that eluded Darwin could be revealed following the biotechnological success announced by researchers from the John Innes Centre, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Earlham Institute….Co-author Mark Smedley, of the John Innes Centre says: “It is not every day you get to work on a paper that references Darwin. This is a fundamental story that scientists have been trying to unravel for 200 years.”…It’s a piece of research that would have excited Darwin….Let’s try to understand this Darwin worship service. Heteromorphy has nothing to do with Darwinism. It’s an observation, not an explanation. If Darwinism explained it, it would not have eluded Darwin, nor would it have taken 200 years for his disciples to figure it out. The article attempts this explanation:Darwin, in a landmark paper of 1862, worked out the functional significance of the different anatomical formations: they made the plants self-incompatible. This is Nature’s way of promoting cross-pollination to maintain genetic variation in the population, driving natural selection.Heteromorphy is thus an intelligent design. It has functional significance. It promotes cross-pollination (which would cause extinction, not innovation). Saying that Darwinism has something to do with it is false: it’s basically saying, “It exists; therefore it evolved.” There is no origin of species here. There is no random mutation leading to the functional design. Capitalizing “Nature” makes the embedded wisdom in the flower seem like a kind of god or intelligently-directing agent. And there is no connection between said “Nature” and natural selection, Darwin’s baby: if this were a law of nature, there would not be so many exceptions to it. Many plants do not have heteromorphy; are they “fit” in the battle for survival? The only thing these scientists have explained is their own inebriation with Darwine.These ‘useless’ quirks of evolution are actually evidence for the theory (The Conversation). Here’s another Darwin-only disciple, Ben Garrod, out to do a magic show to top David Copperfield. He sets up the impossibility that should kill Darwinism, before standing up to do a miracle and raise it from the dead:Evolution is a fascinating field but can be rife with misunderstanding. One misconception is that evolution has some innate sense of direction or purpose. In reality, evolution is a mindless, plan-free phenomenon, driven into endless possibilities by random mutations, the most successful of which win out.People also often think that every aspect of every living creature has a function, that it helps the organism survive in some small way. But there are some areas of evolutionary biology where benefits are murkier and, in some instances, where traits seem to make no sense at all. This is the realm of sexual selection, vestigial traits and evolutionary spandrels.As important as the concept of survival of the fittest is to evolution, there are many examples that seem to undermine this idea. In fact, various aspects of evolutionary biology may seem counterintuitive and could even be seen as a reason to reject evolution as a whole. In fact, they strengthen our understanding rather than diminish it. Here’s how.With this opening flourish, admitting as he does that evolution amounts to chance and is mindless and plan-free, he’s going to pre-empt anyone in the audience from becoming a creationist. But his answers are all tired, worn-out Darwin-only talking points, never subjected to critical analysis: Sexual selection supports Darwinism (except when it doesn’t). Vestigial organs are leftovers of evolution (except when we discover they had a function after all). Your chin is a spandrel, a byproduct of evolutionary forces for diet that had nothing to do with evolving a chin (except for every other animal that had to eat).You should ask for your money back.Christmas Shoppers, beware! Do not buy Darwin Flubber for your children. It’s toxic!
17 August 2005The R98-million Brickfields project in Newtown, Johannesburg – the largest ever public-private housing partnership in South Africa – was officially launched by President Thabo Mbeki on Friday 12 August.Brickfields, an initiative overseen by the Johannesburg Housing Company, offers 650 one- to three-bedroom flats catering for a range of income groups. The development will also provide retail facilities for occupants.The project is one of the first Presidential Job Summit pilot projects, announced by the minister of housing in 2001.“When we came out of the Presidential Job Summit we said there should be housing and security for people. We are very excited about today’s launch,” Mbeki said.“We need to have more of these initiatives so that we ensure that people have better houses and their lives are improved. We hope that Brickfields will inspire more public-private partnerships.”Swift transformationSituated at the foot of the Mandela Bridge, the new Brickfields buildings grace the Newtown skyline, a distinct reminder of the swift transformation of this once dilapidated area into a vibrant cultural and tourism centre.The residential units are expected to have a social impact on the area, and creches are being planned to cater for children living in the complex. Support services such as information technology rooms will also be provided.The project is a joint venture between the Gauteng government and the private sector, and is the first such residential development in the inner city of Johannesburg in 30 years.Funding for the first and second phase of the project came from an initial investment of R35-million by the Gauteng Housing Department and the Gauteng Partnership Fund. The National Housing Finance Corporation injected R25-million into the development, while the City of Johannesburg provided land.The private sector came to the party with R70-million combined from Anglo American, Absa and AngloGold.From Brickfields to NewtownHistorically, Newtown has always been a multicultural and multiracial area, a settlement that served the nearby emerging mining village. It grew up in the later part of the 19th century and became known as Brickfields because the local clays along the Fordsburg Spruit were used to make bricks in the early days.An aerial view of Brickfields under construction. (Photo: Johannesburg Housing Company)By 1890 Brickfields was a full-blown shantytown where residents and their families found shelter alongside immigrants from Europe and elsewhere, including Chinese, Cape Malays, Indians and local Africans.In an attempt to destroy the settlement, Brickfields was razed to the ground, acquired by the local council and renamed Newtown.This site was later used for the construction of the city’s abattoir, then bought by the Post Office. Development never occurred and it was left empty for many years. The new Brickfields development has rising from this vacant site in Newtown to form a new, multicultural residential development.‘Newtown rocks’The first 300 tenants moved into the block on 1 July.“I’m excited to be a tenant here at Brickfields,” says Thabiso Phinda. “The night life in Newtown rocks. I’ll also be able to walk to work and to the Johannesburg University.”According to Dombolo Masilela of the Johannesburg Housing Company, Brickfields is a key part of the rejuvenation of downtown Johannesburg.“The influx of residents into Newtown will breathe new life into the inner city,” Masilela says, “and will contribute to this area growing into a major shopping, entertainment, business, retail and residential hub.”The company, established in 1995, has so far invested R112-million in 1 756 housing units in the inner city, R22-million of that in the form of direct housing subsidies. In doing so it has added 5% to the city’s housing stock.Enoch Shishenge, an artist and another Brickfields resident, says that now he is living in Newtown he will meet fellow artists more often.“Newtown is the place to be. I know what people talk about when they talk about Newtown. This is also going to be a wonderful experience because of the different cultures here at Brickfields.”Land clearing for the second phase of the development has already started, and work on the top structures is expected to start as soon as funding is available. The second phase will see a further 350 to 400 housing units being built at a cost of about R100-million.Source: City of Johannesburg Want to use this article in your publication or on your website?See: Using SAinfo material
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest This “Cab Cam” took The Ohio Ag Net’s Ty Higgins to Lebanon, Ohio in Warren County where he joined Lutmer Farms. Chris and Mike Lutmer are just about wrapped up with corn planting and now getting soybean planting in full swing. Chris says things are coming along nicely so far this year, but a rain in the near term would certainly be welcomed.