Fulham duo Ashkan Dejagah and Mladen Petric will miss Sunday’s trip to Newcastle with injuries.Dejagah sprained his ankle against QPR on Monday night and was substituted in the 38th minute.Petric, meanwhile, is struggling with an abductor muscle problem.Whites boss Martin Jol said: “Dejagah needs at least another week. His ankle was sprained so he won’t play against Newcastle.“Petric has got a problem with his left abductor so he won’t be involved either.”Fulham will also be without the suspended Steve Sidwell after an appeal against his red card in the win over QPR was rejected.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 Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Similar features show up in evolutionary-unrelated groups. What does this mean?Stephen Jay Gould famously asked what what happen in evolution if one could “replay the tape of life” and start over. Would humans result, or would the products of natural selection be unrecognizable? Gould strongly defended the latter position. He even doubted that intelligence or consciousness would emerge. This view is called contingency: so many unpredictable factors influence the direction of evolution, it is impossible to predict what would happen. Supporters of contingency can find plenty of examples of highly divergent organisms evolving in the same environment.Other evolutionists disagree that natural selection is governed completely by chance. They think that the environment channels mutation and selection toward particular outcomes. While the details might differ, the forms of organisms would be constrained by environmental factors. This view is called determinism; it lends a certain degree of predictability to evolution. One of its defenders is paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, who can draw on a multitude of examples of convergent evolution, some of them quite remarkable. A recent paper in PNAS, for instance, argues that similar structures have arisen independently three times in fungus-farming ants. It seems to these evolutionists that the environment somehow channels natural selection toward similar designs or solutions to problems (but see 3 Oct 2015).In its extreme form, the anti-contingency view is called structuralism. Proposed by D’Arcy Thompson, author of the influential book On Growth and Form, this view suggests that properties of the universe drive biology toward particular kinds of organisms. Michael Denton, who defends this view in Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016), points out numerous examples of patterns in nature that persist despite being non-adaptive. Even though he believes in universal common descent, Denton argues that the patterns defy natural selection. Extreme structuralism borders on Platonism: the idea that particular organisms are reflections of ideal forms beyond our experience. Theistic evolutionists might be attracted to this view.These differing views boil down to the role of chance in biological evolution. A new article from Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), “Replaying the tape of life: Is it possible?” weighs in on this debate.How predictable is evolution? The answer long has been debated by biologists grappling with the extent to which history affects the repeatability of evolution.A review published in the Nov. 9 issue of Science explores the complexity of evolution’s predictability in extraordinary detail. In it, researchers from Kenyon College, Michigan State University and Washington University in St. Louis closely examine evidence from a number of empirical studies of evolutionary repeatability and contingency in an effort to fully interrogate ideas about contingency’s role in evolution.The paper in Science was co-authored by Zachary Blount, Richard Lenski and Jonathan Losos. Lenski has run the longest biological experiment on evolution, called the Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). For 30 years, he has transferred test tubes of E. coli to new cultures over 65,000 generations to see what evolution comes up with. Ever since Gould wrote his thought experiment on “replaying the tape of life” in his 1989 book about the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, other attempts have been made to determine the role of contingency in evolution. What is the thinking of current Darwinians, almost 30 years since Gould?In WUSTL’s press release, Blount wrongly ascribes directionality to natural selection:“How history plays out isn’t really predictable. Historical outcomes are contingent on long chains of events loaded with tiny little details,” said Zachary Blount, senior research associate at Michigan State and a visiting assistant professor of biology at Kenyon, and lead author of the review. “Unlike history, though, evolution has the deterministic force of natural selection, but that determinism is always in tension with the chanciness. How does that tension affect what evolves? Which is more important: contingency on details of history, or determinism?”The statement errs on two points: natural selection is not a force, and it is not deterministic: otherwise, all organisms in the same environment would end up the same. A third problem, even more severe, is that natural selection has never been observed to create a new, functional, complex organ or system. It cannot operate on anything until it’s already there. It has no creative power; it is passive; and it is utterly blind and aimless, caring nothing what what heppens.At the end of the paper, though, the authors cannot decide which view, determinism or contingency, is more important:Where to now? Clearly, evolution can be both contingent and deterministic, and often in complicated and fascinating ways. Recognizing this mixed nature will allow future research to investigate how contingency and determinism interact. Many questions remain to be addressed; for example, what circumstances promote contingent and deterministic outcomes, how does the extent of prior genetic divergence affect the propensity for future parallelism versus contingency, what types of divergence—say, a few mutations of large effect versus the accumulation of minor variants over long periods—lead to which outcomes, and what circumstances allow convergence even in distantly related taxa? Theory and experiments show that the structure of the adaptive landscape plays a critical role in determining the potential for contingent outcomes. Therefore, a deeper understanding of adaptive landscapes will be important for understanding evolutionary contingency. In short, there’s no shortage of work to do, and interesting outcomes to be discovered and quantified. Gould would be pleased that the field he inspired has such bright prospects, as the tape of life plays on.They’re basically thinking that they can have their cake and eat it, too.Are these evolutionists really seeing patterns in nature emerging by Darwin’s theory? A press release from Uppsala University warns, “Well established theories on patterns in evolution might be wrong.” The top illustration is the “march of man” icon. In the article, Graham Budd and Richard Mann argue that many of the famous patterns and trends evolutionists claim to see in the fossil record, including instances of diversification and extinction, are artifacts of their own biases.This makes no sense except to those drunk on Darwine. Think about it: we’ve shown that natural selection is merely a restatement of the Stuff Happens Law (SHL, see 13 Oct 2018). It’s the absence of a law of nature. It’s the absence of scientific explanation. It’s the abdication of science, merely concluding, “stuff happens.” How can a blind, aimless, purposeless process be anything else? This doesn’t mean that the SHL is incapable of keeping scientists busy. For analogy, imagine these same scientists studying Brownian motion. They ask themselves, “If we replay the tape of Brownian motion, can we predict what will happen?” For years, they make measurements and charts of paths that particles take under Brownian “forces” (although it is not a force, either, but an effect of blind, aimless, purposeless chance events). For decades, they debate whether the tape of Brownian motion is deterministic or contingent. Sometimes the particle seems to make progress in one direction. Other times, it goes nowhere. Sometimes, two paths appear to ‘converge’ on the same direction. Now, picture the government throwing money to these scientists to keep them busy. Finally, after a lot of wasted effort, they conclude, ‘Clearly, Brownian motion can be both contingent and deterministic, and often in complicated and fascinating ways.’ Is humanity better off for knowing this? Is it a good example of scientific progress?Someone will complain that the analogy is flawed, because natural selection has a goal – fitness! If an organism does not survive, it drops out of the gene pool, unlike particles under Brownian motion. Such a criticism errs, because fitness is just as vacuous as the SHL. It can mean anything, as we showed in “The Story of Evolution” (13 Oct 2018). Evolution can move up, down, backward, forward or sideways. Natural selection doesn’t care. If the organism goes extinct, so what? It’s like the particle under Brownian motion dropping off the slide. Brownian motion doesn’t care, and neither does natural selection. The analogy holds. No matter what happens – good, bad or indifferent – evolutionists are all too content to say, “It evolved,” and claim their work has produced “understanding.”Do you see why we call Darwinian evolution “job security for storytellers”? (25 June 2014). These Darwine-oholics need to sober up and unlock the door. (Visited 320 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Rate changes lead to a petition driveAmong the changes SCE made, Gray says, was to shorten the summer season from seven to five months, and shift peak hours from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.“Whether a wild coincidence or not, these changes will drastically impact existing solar owners as our systems will only earn a fraction of the credits we have earned in the past,” Gray writes at the website. “SEC has figured out a way to stop paying us for our solar generation, at present rates, at a time when most of us have only recently made our solar investments in good faith and with no knowledge that these rate changes were about to occur.”Gray argues the TOU-D-TEV plan should be grandfathered. The website includes links to local state representatives, the Public Utilities Commission, and the governor’s office as well as an online petition to roll back the decision.For its part, SEC told Gray in a letter he would be transitioned to a new rate plan in February that would actually work to his advantage.“These new rate options may help to reduce your electric vehicle charging costs because they offer a longer off-peak period when electricity prices are the lowest, and a shorter on-peak period when electricity prices are the highest,” SEC told him. Some electric vehicle owners in California think they’ve been sideswiped by changes to a utility rate plan that helped them pay for their photovoltaic (PV) systems.Vehicle owners like Joseph Gray are critical of a decision by the California Public Utilities Commission allowing Southern California Edison to alter a time-of-day rate structure and make it harder for them to recoup the cost of photovoltaic systems installed to keep their vehicles charged, Greentech Media reported.Gray bought his first electric vehicle, a Chevy Volt, in 2011 and then spent another $68,000 out of pocket for a PV system to keep it charged, Gray says at a website called ProtectOurRates. The size of the system and payback calculations were based on a rate plan from Southern California Edison (SCE) called TOU-D-TEV.“When you produce your own solar during peak, and send it back to SCE, they would give you a credit equal to what they would have charged you for the same energy,” Gray says. “Also, because I shifted a lot of my energy use to super off peak, I was banking a lot of credit during the day which more than covered my usage in other dayparts. “Gray modeled his system to break even in 6 1/2 years, and actually finished his first year with PV with a $300 surplus. The SCE rate changes threw those calculations out the window.
Apple has reportedly been in talks with suppliers to test prototype augmented reality glasses, according to Bloomberg.Citing sources familiar with the matter, the report states that the executive team are “weighing an expansion” into digital glasses.See Also: Apple picks Blackberry talent for driverless car OSThe prototype device connects to an iPhone wirelessly and shows snippets of information from the smartphone in the wearer’s field of vision. We assume it would be similar to Google Glass, but with less clutter on the screen.The firm has not made a decision on the glasses, but CEO Tim Cook has been hinting at an entry into the market in interviews over the past six months.The augmented reality glasses could be an extension of the iPhone experience, similar to how the Apple Watch provides quick access to notifications and more access to fitness details.Google Glass muddied the waters of augmented reality (AR) for a few years, but startups like Magic Leap are making AR sound cool again.The earliest Apple will enter the market is 2018, according to Bloomberg, but there doesn’t seem to be any manufacturer contracts at the present time.Apple not always in a hurryApple often takes a step back and lets the market stew before entering, as they did with the iPhone and Watch. It may be different this time, as most augmented reality projects are still in alpha or beta.That’s assuming they launch in 2018, which has not been confirmed. It may take a few more years before entering they enter the AR space, especially if it gets bogged down in its self-driving car project.Augmented reality has many applicable fields, Magic Leap appears to be aiming for the gaming market, while Microsoft has sent its HoloLens AR headset to NASA for testing on the International Space Station.We expect Apple’s augmented reality headset to target the consumer space, picking on the same customers that are likely to purchase iPhones and iPads. Tags:#Apple#AR#Augmented Reality#Google Glass#Internet of Things#IoT#Magic Leap David Curry Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… Follow the Puck Related Posts Small Business Cybersecurity Threats and How to…
SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. LATEST STORIES Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Body first, ranking later says Rafael Nadal after ankle surgery Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting LOOK: Joyce Pring goes public with engagement to Juancho Triviño Is Luis Manzano planning to propose to Jessy Mendiola? View comments PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH 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 Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss CEO of ONE Championship Chatri Sityodtong talks to the media during the ONE Championship press conference at Marina Bay in Singapore. INQUIRER PHOTO/ Sherwin VardeleonMANILA, Philippines—It’s going to be another big year for ONE Championship.The mixed martial arts promotion announced that it would have a total of 45 events scheduled to take place in 2019.ADVERTISEMENT BREAKING: Corrections officer shot dead in front of Bilibid The Folayang-Aoki fight, which is a rematch more than two years in the making, is just one of three World title fights in the card with ONE Women’s World atomweight champion Angela Lee moving up in weight to challenge ONE Women’s World strawweight champion Xiong Jin Nan.Rounding out the three title fights is the bout between Aung La N Sang, the ONE World light heavyweight and middleweight champion, will put his 204-lb title against Ken Hasegawa.New signings, and former UFC World champions, Eddie Alvarez and Demetrous Johnson would also make their debuts for the promotion in Tokyo.ADVERTISEMENT Hotel management clarifies SEAG footballers’ kikiam breakfast issue TS Kammuri to enter PAR possibly a day after SEA Games opening SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion Twenty four ONE Championship events (fight cards), 12 ONE Hero Series, six ONE Warrior Series, and three ONE ESports events are lined up for the year, according to ONE Championship chairman Chatri Sityodtong.Fight cards have all been set in terms of dates and venues.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionONE Championship’s biggest card in 2019 is the A New Era event on March 31 at Ryogoku Kokugikan in Tokyo.A New Era will be ONE Championship’s first card in Japan with ONE World lightweight champion Eduard Folayang defending his belt against Shinya Aoki in the main event. MOST READ