(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.
Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games NGCP on security risk: Chinese just technical advisers Portugal’s Ines Henriques celebrates after winning the gold medal and setting a new world record in the women’s 50-kilometer race walk during the World Athletics Championships in London Sunday, Aug. 13, 2017. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)LONDON — The first women’s 50-kilometer walk at the world championships produced a world record.Ines Henriques of Portugal bettered her own mark on Sunday by finishing in 4 hours, 5 minutes, 56 seconds on the two-kilometer loop in central London.ADVERTISEMENT NATO’s aging eye in the sky to get a last overhaul Football, Netball, Water polo bets open PH bid Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong protesters LATEST STORIES The Frenchman’s time was the second fastest in history. Diniz set the world record of 3:32:33 in 2014.“A lot of training has gone into this – cycling, swimming – everything for this 50 (kilometer) walk,” Diniz said. “Last night I kept away from watching the TV because I did not want to get too excited. I went to bed at 9 because I knew it was going to be my day today.”Hirooki Arai was second in 3:41:17, two seconds ahead of Japanese teammate Kai Kobayashi in third.The 20-kilometer walks were also held Sunday. Yang Jiayu of China won the women’s event in a personal best time of 1:26:18. She beat Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez of Mexico by only 1 second.Antonella Palmisano of Italy was third in 1:26:36.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. DILG, PNP back suspension of classes during SEA Games Lyu Xiuzhi had been in line for bronze, but the Chinese walker was disqualified with about 50 meters to go.“In the last 100 (meters) I was in a hurry,” Lyu said. “I forgot that I already had a medal.”The men’s 20K was also close. Eider Arevalo beat 18-year-old Sergei Shirobokov of Russia by two seconds to win gold.The Colombian finished in 1:18:53. Caio Bonfim of Brazil was third in 1:19:04.Action will return to the Olympic Stadium later in the evening on the final day of the championships, and the United States is expected to add more to its medal haul in the 4×400-meter relays.American great Allyson Felix is favored to win a 16th world championship medal.Other finals are in the women’s 800, 5,000 and discus, and the men’s high jump and 1,500.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ View comments Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo “The last 5 (kilometers) were really tough,” said Henriques, whose previous world record was 4:08:26. “My goal was to go under 4 hours and 6 minutes.”Yin Hang was second in 4:08:58, followed by Chinese teammate Yang Shuqing in 4:20:49.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsOnly seven women started the race, which was being run at the worlds for the first time, and only four finished.In the men’s 50K, Yohann Diniz of France won in 3:33:12. At 39, Diniz is the oldest man to win a gold medal at the world championships. MOST READ Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side
Child diversion is a process of implementing measures for dealing with children who are alleged, accused or recognised to have infringed the penal law, without resorting to the formal judicial proceedings. Story Highlights Debate on the Child Diversion Bill began in the House of Representatives on Tuesday (January 30).The Bill seeks to enable the implementation of child diversion measures in dealing with children who come into conflict with the law.Minister of Justice, Hon. Delroy Chuck, in opening the debate, noted that among the main objectives of the Bill are: ensuring that every child in conflict with the law is treated in a manner that recognises and upholds human dignity and worth; diverting the child away from engaging in deviant and delinquent behaviours; and instilling in the child respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.The Bill will also see to the establishment of a Child Diversion office; Child Diversion Committees; and a Child Diversion Oversight Committee. It also addresses the structure of the Child Diversion programme, the circumstances under which a child is to be referred, among other things.Child diversion is a process of implementing measures for dealing with children who are alleged, accused or recognised to have infringed the penal law, without resorting to the formal judicial proceedings.“Gone are the days when we ignore a child’s circumstances and focus only on the wrong that he or she did,” Mr. Chuck said.He noted that research indicates that factors contributing to the number of children before the court include lack of adequate parental guidance, mental health issues and poverty, adding that it is therefore crucial that solutions are implemented to address the issues impacting these children and a holistic approach be taken towards addressing the underlying factors.“In most cases, diversion of children provide greater benefit to the offender, the victim, and the society than the formal criminal justice process. The challenges faced by children in conflict with the law in Jamaica has brought into sharp focus the necessity for legislation which recognises and upholds the basic human rights of children who face the prospect of being deprived of their liberty,” Mr. Chuck said.He added that as a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Jamaica has a duty to put measures in place to deal with children who are accused of breaking the law, as they have the right to legal help and fair treatment in the justice system.A National Child Diversion Policy was tabled in 2015 after consultation with all major stakeholders in Government, civil society and non-governmental organisations. Through this policy, a formal framework was established for dealing with children in conflict with the law throughout the criminal justice system and sought to ensure that detention of a child offender as punishment for anti-social behaviour was a measure of last resort.One key objective of the policy was to develop the mechanism to not only divert children who come into conflict with the law, but also to empower them to become responsible and productive citizens through the use of methodologies which are consistent with restorative justice practices. Debate on the Child Diversion Bill began in the House of Representatives on Tuesday (January 30). Minister of Justice, Hon. Delroy Chuck, in opening the debate, noted that among the main objectives of the Bill are: ensuring that every child in conflict with the law is treated in a manner that recognises and upholds human dignity and worth; diverting the child away from engaging in deviant and delinquent behaviours; and instilling in the child respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.