Another day of woeful batting by the Jamaica Scorpions yesterday have them staring defeat in the face against Trinidad and Tobago Red Force, in the WICB First-Class League action at Sabina Park.Resuming the day on 13 without loss in their second innings – an overall lead of 22 runs – the Scorpions lost their way in the morning and early post-lunch sessions and were bowled out for 155 in their second innings.This resulted in the Red Force, which made 206 in their first innings in response to 225 made by the Scorpions, being set a comfortable victory target of 175.At the close of the third day, they were 113 for three – 62 runs adrift.”Advantage Trinidad; needing 60-odd runs and we need to get nine wickets to win,” said new Jamaica captain, Campbell, who in addition to eight made in the first innings, scored 23 in the second.”Having said that, (however), their batting order has been struggling, (especially) their middle order and if we come tomorrow morning and get two quick wickets, I think we could make a match of it.”Starting out with openers John Campbell, on eight, and Shacaya Thomas, five, the Scorpions capitulated on the back of some fine offspin from new sensation Jon-Russ Jagessar. Playing in his second first-class match, he finished with eight for 58, his maiden five-wicket haul.The diminutive Jagessar, a revelation for Trinidad on their way to capturing the regional one-day title last month, utilised variations of pace and spin to add to his first innings collection of three for 53, to also claim his first 10-wicket haul.In the end, none of the top six Jamaica batsmen were able to pass 25. Thomas made 19, Kirk Edwards 16, Jermaine Blackwood five, and Devon Thomas eight.LAST-WICKET STANDIt took a defiant 47 last-wicket stand between spinner Nikita Miller, who was last man out for 28, and fast bowler Marquino Mindley, 23 not out, to bring some level of respectability to their score.However, thanks to enterprising batting from fast-rising opener, Evin Lewis, who closed on 66 not out, the Red Force went on to take control of the match.The 24-year-old, who recently returned from the Bangladesh Premier League Twenty20 and who scored an attractive 87 in the first innings, also expressed pleasure with his team’s showing.”We have only lost one wicket and we are on top,” he said. “It’s (now) important that we come out tomorrow, keep going as a team and get the remaining runs.”The left-hander, who looked at consummate ease while batting in each innings, also gave credit to Jagessar, who was recently selected in the Caribbean Premier League Twenty20 draft.”It was an excellent bowling performance by Jon-Russ,” he said. “We had a plan to bowl to the right handers and he went out there and did it and we are happy for it.SCOREBOARDSCORPIONS 1st Innings 225RED FORCE 1st Innings 206SCORPIONS 2nd Innings(overnight 13 without loss)S Thomas lbw b Jagessar 19*J Campbell st Katwaroo b Jagessar 23K Edwards c Lewis b Jagessar 10A McCarthy c Lewis b Jagessar 16J Blackwood lbw b Jagessar 5D Thomas b Jagessar 8+C Walton c Richards b Jagessar 4N Miller c Mohammed b Khan 28D Jacobs c Cariah b Jagessar 1S Cottrell lbw b Jagessar 8M Mindley not out 23Extras (b8, lb2) 10TOTAL (all out, 48.2 overs) 155Fall of wickets: 1-41, 2-58, 3-61, 4-79, 5-79, 6-91, 7-92, 8-96, 9-108, 10-155.Bowling: Emrit 9-4-11-0, Richards 13-4-35-1, Jagessar 24-4-58-8, Mohammed 3-1-6-0, Imran Khan 16.2-2-31-1, Ottley 3-1-4-0.RED FORCE 2nd Innings (target: 175 runs)E Lewis not out 66J Solozano c Miller b Campbell 19K Hope not out 14Extras ((lb11, w1, nb2) 14TOTAL (1 wkt, 38 overs) 113Fall of wicket: 1-66.Bowling: Cottrell 5-0-19-0 (nb1), Mindley 3-0-15-0 (w2), Miller 15-4-32-0, Campbell 8-3-26-1, Jacobs 7-3-10-0.Position: Red Force require a further 62 runs for victory with nine wickets intact.Toss: Scorpions.Umpires: V Smith, L Reifer.
(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Evolution is one of the most carelessly-used words in science, as several recent articles show. Not all change is evolution the way Darwin meant it.Roaches check in, and they also check out: Those omnivorous pests have outsmarted engineers again. Even though they like sugar in the wild, they have learned to avoid sugary-tasting poison in roach traps. Sure enough, you can watch the smarter bugs in a video clip on Live Science. Stephanie Pappas headlined the story, “Yikes! Cockroaches Evolved to Avoid Sugary Baits.” The authors of the paper in Science claimed that the German cockroaches “rapidly evolved an adaptive behavioral aversion to glucose.” They spoke of glucose aversion as a “gain of function adaptation” that “emerged” in their study population.The scientists did not state, though, if the glucose-averse roaches represent a new species. Darwinian evolution is not just about changes of adaptive behavior within a species, but the arrival of new species. If the glucose-averse roaches are interfertile with the wild type, no evolution has occurred. In the Live Science article, furthermore, one of the paper’s authors admitted that glucose avoidance could have been an ancient trait that surfaced under the new environmental condition of encountering man-made bait traps. “Some plants produce toxic bittersweet compounds that roaches would have needed to avoid before humans came around.”Even worse, the glucose-avoiding roaches may be less healthy. In Science Daily, that same co-author admitted they grow more slowly in the lab without the environmental stress. “Cockroaches have to adapt to a varied and unreliable food supply, and glucose-aversion places an additional restriction on obtaining adequate nutrition.” In any case, this is certainly not a case supporting Darwinian evolution—universal common ancestry via natural selection.Name it and claim it: Just claiming something evolved does not make it so. Asking why some flowers close at night, Elizabeth Palermo on Live Science credited evolution. Those plants are “highly evolved,” she said. That’s no better than ridiculing another human as being less evolved than you are. Then she admitted, “scientists are not quite sure why some plants, particularly flowers, evolved this way.” You can’t just say that the trait might be a “highly evolved defense mechanism against a plant’s nocturnal predators.” Without an explanation based on mutation and natural selection, this is mere speculation. For all Palermo knows, plants were designed that way.Negative selection: Some developmental processes involve killing of cells that are not needed in the finished adult form. It happens in the developing thymus, for instance; in PLoS Biology, Caitlin Sedgwick wrote, “To prevent autoimmunity, developing T cells undergo a process called negative selection, wherein strongly ‘self-reactive’ T cells are provoked to undergo apoptosis (cellular suicide) before they leave the thymus.” This is not evolution, either, even though she boasted of “Bringing You Negative Selection, Alive and In Color.” The word “selection” might cause one to think this is about Darwinian evolution. It’s not; the only evolution here is the “evolution [i.e., unfolding] of apoptotic events.”Not everything Darwin said is evolution: Charles Darwin wrote about a lot of things, not all of which support his idea of universal common ancestry via unguided natural processes. A story on PhysOrg is a case in point; “research proves Darwin prediction,” the headline reads, but the principle at issue is whether “productivity increases with species diversity.” Creationists would accept a substantial amount of variation within created kinds. Although the researcher mentioned “evolutionary distance,” the distance doesn’t have to be evolutionary. Creationists acknowledge a lot of morphological distance between a zebra and a zebrafish. Even critics of Darwin recognized he was right about some things. Nothing in the data of this story necessarily supports Darwin’s most famous notion, that zebras are descendants of microbes.Guided variation is not evolution: It’s like a pesky urban legend that won’t die: artificial selection is not evolution. It’s intelligent design, even if the engineers use random variation in the process. Another example appeared on Live Science, where Wynn Parry wrote, “Evolution May Help Build Better Robots.” Then he transferred the design from the engineers to the robots themselves, claiming, “In the real world, animals have evolved the ability to get from point A to B by galloping, crawling and jumping. Now, robots in the virtual world have accomplished something similar.”Turtle embryonic development is not evolution: On Science Daily, the word “evolution” was used in connection with observations of turtle development from the embryo. First, the article said that turtles are “not primitive reptiles as previously thought, but are related to the group comprising birds and crocodilians, which also includes extinct dinosaurs.” Whether that relationship illustrates common ancestry or not, the statement argues against a simple-to-complex process. Then the article confused embryonic development with evolution. Here again, though, was a conundrum: “The study also reveals that despite their unique anatomy, turtles follow the basic embryonic pattern during development.” Even if the shell arrives late in the process, when limb development normally occurs, the highly complex process of development can hardly be used to support the notion that “turtle shell evolved by recruiting part of the genetic program used for the limbs.” Evolution is not a recruiter. That’s the personification fallacy. Yet based on this, one of the researchers stated, “The work not only provides insight into how turtles evolved, but also gives hints as to how the vertebrate developmental programs can be changed to produce major evolutionary novelties“—all that after admitting that these “evolutionary monsters” are unique in the animal kingdom.Data points within natural variation of a species are not evolution: The Chinese found another “new hominin” in a cave based on its teeth. But then, the article on PhysOrg admits, “the size of these teeth all falls [sic] into the tooth size variation of Chinese modern humans.” How, then, are these teeth assumed to be from a different ancestral species? As usual, when the data are unconvincing, more research is needed: “Our excavation shows the cave has great potential perspectives,” the researcher said. “Further excavation and laboratory study of cave development, filling sequence, hominin teeth morphology, dating, and environmental change from the Fuyan Cave as well as some adjacent caves will help better understand the human evolution and adaptive behavior in Southwest Hunan, east Guangxi, and north Guangdong.”This is how scientists get away with claims that evolution is essential to biology, and is supported by mountains of evidence. Why, look at all the scientific papers and articles about it! How can Darwin skeptics claim it is unscientific? Well, we can, and we just showed you why. Ask them for evidence supporting universal common ancestry of all life by unguided natural processes, and this is the kind of fluff you get. They accuse their critics of being people of faith, but Darwinians are people of fluff. Point that out to them, and they become people of froth. There’s nothing as pitiable as people of froth supporting their fluff by faith.
(Image: Pixabay)Johannesburg, Monday 11 April 2016 – South Africans want to be “constantly informed about current affairs within their communities and country,” finds Brand South Africa’s 2015/16 Domestic Perceptions study.The study further suggests that citizens want easy accessible information provided to them, with the most reliable and trusted sources being family, friends/colleagues, followed by mainstream media sources like television and news radio broadcasts.In order to understand the extent to which South Africans trust sources of information, respondents were asked to rate the various information sources available at their disposal. Family, friends & colleagues; television news; and radio news are the top three trusted sources of information. Online social networking and related sources of information are the least trusted of all possible sources.Of 2,536 respondents who participated in the survey, over 60% said that they have access to the internet. Of these, 80% use the web for social media, 61% for research purposes, 37% for applications and 33% for access to current affairs and news.Other media consumption factors from the study included that 92% of respondents own a cell phone, 30% use laptops and 9% use tablets. Just over half the respondents indicated that they listen to radio everyday with Metro FM, Lesedi FM and Umhlobo Wenene being among the most popular radio stations.A quarter of the population read newspapers every day, with the most commonly read publications being the Daily Sun at 34%, Isolozwe at 8%, the Sunday Times at 5%, Beeld at 4%, Sowetan at 4% and The Citizen at 3%.There is consensus that the media portrays more negative than positive information and stories about South Africa, with over 62% of respondents indicating that the media in South Africa is too negative about the country.Brand South Africa’s CEO Mr Kingsley Makhubela, reflecting on the outcomes of the study, said: “It is encouraging that freedom of media, speech and access to information remains one of the greatest successes of our 22 years of democracy. The right to information is a pillar of any free society and South Africans must continue to embrace this fundamental freedom in our country.”Follow the conversation on @Brand_SA #SANationBrand