Daily Archives: May 14, 2020

Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period; for as all organic beings are striving to seize on each place in the economy of nature, if any one species does not become modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors, it will soon be exterminated. P. 79

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species.

In its purest form, Kyle Shanahans offense is extinct.

Shanahan doesnt use it anymore. He has evolved past the basic structure of the system he inherited from his father, Mike Shanahan.

The basic structure was a run-first attack that features zone blocking -- picture five offensive linemen running in the same direction, like a conga line. The scheme was simple, pared down, and it had a philosophy: Use the same few run plays over and over and master them.

This scheme worked for Mike Shanahan -- he won two Super Bowls as head coach of the Broncos. It worked for Kyle Shanahan when he was an offensive coordinator in Houston, Washington and Atlanta. And it worked for Sean McVay his first two seasons as the Rams head coach.

In 2018, McVays version of the Shanahans basic zone-blocking scheme propelled the Rams to the Super Bowl. They rushed for 2,231 that season -- third most in the NFL. Didnt matter who played running back -- Todd Gurley or C.J. Anderson -- opponents couldnt stop the Rams running game. Until the Super Bowl, when Patriots head coach Bill Belichick showed the entire league how to shut it down.

Defenses always catch up eventually. They evolve, too.

The league studied what Belichick did to the Rams, and essentially shut down the zone-blocking scheme in 2019. It didnt work for any team that featured it. Ask the Rams. Their running game ranked 26th, and they missed the playoffs. McVay couldnt evolve, or didnt see the need to. Perhaps hes not a Darwinist. Now the Rams are the Dodo birds of the NFL.

Meanwhile, Shanahan stayed one step ahead of his competitors.

Maybe Shanahan saw what Belichick did to the Rams in the Super Bowl and knew it was time to adapt. Or maybe Shanahan evolved simply to suit his personnel. Thats what good coaches do.

His quarterback, Jimmy Garoppolo, was coming off a torn ACL and hadnt played in a year. And his wide receivers werent helping him. During training camp, the starting receivers were Dante Pettis and Marquise Goodwin, and both struggled big time. The 49ers eventually benched them.

Shanahan must have known he needed to lean on his running game more than ever. And he couldnt call inside zone and outside zone repeatedly unless he wanted to suffer the Rams fate. Shanahan needed more volume in his scheme.

So he and his run-game coordinator, Mike McDaniel, developed the most diverse rushing attack in the NFC. Suddenly, the 49ers used Powers, Counters, Traps, Whams, Sweeps -- all kinds of old-school runs the 49ers ran in the 1980s when Bill Walsh was the coach. Plus, the 49ers used obscure, trick runs it seemed Shanahan stole from the Naval Academy, plus his fathers zone-blocking runs. The playbook contained every type of run imaginable, with blockers crisscrossing in the backfield. The offense looked like an elaborate game of Three Card Monty. Call it 11 Card Monty.

Its like the 49ers had gunpowder while the rest of the NFC merely had bows and arrows.

But because things constantly evolve -- ask Old Charlie Darwin -- that era is already over.

Defenses have spent the offseason studying Shanahans run game, just like they spent the previous offseason studying McVays. Meaning defenses will make it their business to slow down Shanahans cutting-edge ground attack.

How will Shanahan stay one step ahead in 2020? What is the next stage in the evolution of his offense?

Simple.

Any defense that sells out to stop the run leaves itself vulnerable to deep play-action passes. Shanahan called very few of those last season -- fewer than any other offensive coordinator -- partially because the run game worked so well. And partially because Garoppolo didnt seem comfortable throwing deep. Didnt rotate his hips enough or step into his long passes. Perhaps he was protecting his surgically-repaired left knee.

The knee is fine now. And this offseason, the 49ers spent a first-round pick on a wide receiver -- Brandon Aiyuk. It was the first time a Shanahan, father or son, had drafted a wide receiver in Round 1 since Mike took Ashley Lelie with the 19th pick in 2002.

Shanahan knows what to expect next season.

Opponents will crowd the line of scrimmage and dare Garoppolo to throw over the top, because the 49ers run game is so dangerous, and because he missed a crucial long throw in the Super Bowl.

Expect Garoppolo to practice and improve his deep throws this offseason. Expect him to connect downfield frequently with Aiyuk, George Kittle and Deebo Samuel during the regular season.

Expect the NFCs best rushing attack to evolve into the leagues best play-action passing game.

Natural selection will force the change -- and the fittest always survive.

Read more from the original source:

How the 49ers Offense will Evolve in 2020 - Sports Illustrated

For a batsman, zeroing in on the perfect bat is a meticulous process. The feel of the bat determines how every shot is played and so, a lot of thought goes into finding the right weight, balance and pickup. Often, the obsession doesnt end there. Batsmen can get quite quirky when it comes to bats. They could own ten bats of the highest quality, just to their liking, but still fixate on one particular piece of willow. Since that special bat brought them runs, they could perform every possible surgery on it to keep it going. Its an all-consuming relationship that batsmen share with their bats.

In terms of cricket bats used by top players, Indian manufacturers have always faced an uphill battle. Indian cricketers, just like players from across the world, preferred bats made in England for the longest time. Manufacturers like Gray-Nicolls, Gunn & More, Sykes and Duncan Fearnley enjoyed a monopoly of sorts in international cricket even as the game spread to different countries in the 20th century.

Relive epic moments, rare interviews and more from the world of sport.

Back in the day, through to the 1980s, Indian cricketers surely had a fascination for English bats, Jatin Sareen, Managing Director of SS, told Scroll.in.

Sanspareils Greenlands was, perhaps, the only Indian brand that managed to gain popularity, thanks to Sunil Gavaskars exploits in the 1970s and 80s. But that was about it as far as Indian bat manufacturers were concerned. It was only when Sachin Tendulkar burst onto the scene that things started to change.

Once the Tendulkar era began, Indian bats started picking up. He introduced a new shape to bats, the one with a big curve, said Sareen.

In these tough times, lift yourself up with inspiring stories from the world of sport.

While Tendulkars affinity with local brands triggered an upswing for the cricket equipment industry in India, manufacturers were soon faced with another big challenge the introduction of shorter formats. The rise of T20 International cricket brought along with it an unprecedented test of durability for bats.

Traditionally, players would spend a considerable amount of time preparing a bat before using it in a match. They would knock it in and oil it to ensure the grains opened up and the ball made a sweet sound off the wood.

Someone like Gavaskar would try to ensure he used just a couple of bats for an entire season. For any series or tour, Rahul Dravid would have a maximum of four bats in his kitbag at one time. He would say he gets confused if he has more bats.

However, that isnt the case anymore. With the volume of matches increasing consistently, players dont have the luxury of working on a new bat. Just a few hits in the nets and it has to be ready to use in a match. Furthermore, with batsmen getting more aggressive as the formats become shorter, the shelf life of bats has reduced drastically.

Away from the limelight, these heroes enrich our experience of following our favourite sport.

Were seeing a lot more bats breaking than we used to say 20 years ago, Paras Anand, Marketing Director of SG, told Scroll.in.

What we have started doing in recent years is making the bottom of the bat thicker. The bottom of every bat is compressed. It isnt just about T20 anymore. Across formats, cricketers use pretty much the same kind of bats. Players in the previous eras had the mindset of not hitting the ball too hard in the longer formats. But thats not what its like these days. If you look at players like Rohit Sharma and Hardik Pandya, if they are in the zone, they will go for their shots irrespective of the format. They are all stroke-players. They arent many Cheteshwar Pujaras.

Anand added: Earlier, if someone would bowl a yorker, you would try to defend it and not swing your bat hard to whack it. But now with formats like T20, where every ball counts, we have to ensure that the bottom of the bat can withstand the force. A lot of R&D goes into it, many advancements have been made in our processes, and we have strong quality control in place.

Shorter formats and the need for higher strike-rates have also led to a change in the weight and profile of bats. Essentially, a bat can be of two kinds one that has the maximum amount of weight at the bottom and the other that is bulky a little higher. While Tendulkar was famous for using a heavy bat, with Mahendra Singh Dhoni following in his footsteps later, most players gravitated towards lighter bats due to the demands of white-ball cricket.

Players like Tendulkar and Dhoni would want a bat that has the maximum amount of weight at the bottom. Their bats weighed 1,300 grams, said Anand. Then there are players like Dravid, Pujara and Virat Kohli, who want the maximum amount of wood a little higher on the bat. These days, even big hitters like Pandya use bats that weigh 1,180 grams. Rishabh Pant has bats that weigh 1,170 grams. Kohli, too, uses a very light bat, it weighs around 1,160 grams. So the weight has gone down, which means it is more challenging for the manufacturers to ensure that the bats dont break. The bat has to be durable without losing its punch.

Bats have come a long way. They are now manufactured on a large scale in almost every cricketing country. Their demand has seen a steady increase with more matches being played and more aggression being shown by batsmen. Despite all this, though, the biggest change that cricket bats have withstood is, perhaps, their personal relationship with the players. Obsessing over each bat is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

There has been a drastic change over the years, said Anand. Earlier, players werent as fussy about their bats as they are these days. Today, everyone sees the number of bats that a substitute brings out to the field if a player wants a replacement mid-innings. This is because of the amount of cricket that is being played and the nature of it. Earlier, perhaps, companies didnt have the production capacity to provide so many bats. But these days, some cricketers end up using 40-50 bats in a year.

Players know that its not like they have access to only a limited number of bats and they have to make sure each bat lasts an entire season. They ask for replacements all the time. Theyll simply pick up the phone and say bring me four more bats. The easiest players to satisfy were Dravid, Dhoni and Virender Sehwag. Nowadays, players know that they have access and that the sponsors will take care of them. Its a major change in the mindset.

Read more from the original source:

From Gavaskar to Kohli: The evolution of what Indias batsmen want from their bat - Scroll.in

When a mother gives birth to twins, the offspring are not always identical or even the same gender. Known as fraternal twins, they represent a longstanding evolutionary puzzle.

Identical twins arise from a single fertilised egg that accidentally splits in two, but fraternal twins arise when two eggs are released and fertilised. Why this would happen was the puzzle.

In research published today in Nature Ecology & Evolution we used computer simulations and modelling to try to explain why natural selection favours releasing two eggs, despite the low survival of twins and the risks of twin births for mothers.

Since Michael Bulmers landmark 1970 book on the biology of twinning in humans, biologists have questioned whether double ovulation was favoured by natural selection or, like identical twins, was the result of an accident.

Read more: Curious Kids: why are some twins identical and some not?

At first glance, this seems unlikely. The embryo splitting that produces identical twins is not heritable and the incidence of identical twinning does not vary with other aspects of human biology. It seems accidental in every sense of the word.

In contrast, the incidence of fraternal twinning changes with maternal age and is heritable.

Those do not sound like the characteristics of something accidental.

In human populations without access to medical care there seems little benefit to having twins. Twins are more likely to die in childhood than single births. Mothers of twins also have an increased risk of dying in childbirth.

In common with other great apes, women seem to be built to give birth to one child at a time. So if twinning is costly, why has evolution not removed it?

Paradoxically, in high-fertility populations, the mothers of twins often have more offspring by the end of their lives than other mothers. This suggests having twins might have an evolutionary benefit, at least for mothers.

But, if this is the case, why are twins so rare?

To resolve these questions, together with colleagues Bob Black and Rick Smock, we constructed simulations and mathematical models fed with data on maternal, child and fetal survival from real populations.

This allowed us to do something otherwise impossible: control in the simulations and modelling whether women ovulated one or two eggs during their cycles. We also modelled different strategies, where we switched women from ovulating one egg to ovulating two at different ages.

We could then compare the number of surviving children for women with different patterns of ovulation.

Women who switched from single to double ovulation in their mid-20s had the most children survive in our models more than those who always released a single egg, or always released two eggs.

This suggests natural selection favours an unconscious switch from single to double ovulation with increasing age.

The reason a switch is beneficial is fetal survival the chance that a fertilised egg will result in a liveborn child decreases rapidly as women age

So switching to releasing two eggs increases the chance at least one will result in a successful birth.

Read more: Same same but different: when identical twins are non-identical

But what about twinning? Is it a side effect of selection favouring fertility in older women? To answer this question, we ran the simulations again, except now when women double ovulated the simulation removed one offspring before birth.

In these simulations, women who double ovulated throughout their lives, but never gave birth to twins, had more children survive than those who did have twins and switched from single to double ovulating.

This suggests the ideal strategy would be to always double ovulate but never produce twins, so fraternal twins are an accidental side effect of a beneficial strategy of double ovulating.

Original post:

Not all twins are identical and that's been an evolutionary puzzle, until now - The Conversation AU

Three new titles to join the portfolio of first-person games by Evolution Gaming in a bid to expand innovation in the live iGaming segment.

Live casino game colossus Evolution Gaming has added three new games to its first-person table game collection. The announcement came today, May 14, when the company revealed three new entries: First-Person Baccarat, First-Person Dragon Tiger and First-Person Football Studio.

With this move Evolution Gaming is investing in the First-Person RNG games. Furthermore, the games have available the GO LIVE functionality. All three games are based on the highly successful live dealer table games by Evolution: Dragon Tiger and Baccarat, which are all-time casino classics. Meanwhile, Football Studio is a top card football themed game.

Starting in 2006, Evolution Gaming has proved to be one of the top casino game developers. Helping licensed operators grow and providing superb user experience, for Evolution Gaming the sky is the limit.

But here is what Evolution Gaming Chief Product Officer Todd Haushalter had to say about the three new titles:

Our goal when creating the First Person games was to make the worlds best RNG table games. When our first two games, First Person Roulette and Blackjack, were launched we agonised over ensuring that the 3D graphics and performance were perfect. We also included the GO LIVE button to take players to the live version of the same game. Those first two titles proved incredibly popular so we broadened our goal to include RNG versions of our game show games. Now were launching another trio of First Person games to add even more variety.

The first-person version of Baccarat places the player in a virtual game hall. Players are treated as VIP clients and can choose between 12 tables. Half of the tables are standard ones while the other half is No Commission tables. The player has the choice to shuffle the shoe, sort tables by streaks and also deal free hands on vacant tables to build trends.

The next title on the list, the Dragon Tiger also offers players a full control over the gameplay, more or less. The RNG game is really easy to play and the goal is to choose which card will be higher. Players bet on one of two cards Dragon or Tiger and upon revealing the outcome synchronized light effects are played to boost up the casino experience.

Last but not least, first-person Football Studio is a Top card RNG game. Similar to Dragon Tiger, the game is easy to play. Players get to choose one of two cards which are dealt face-up on a virtual football pitch table. The players can bet on either Home Win, Away Win or Draw, while at the same time monitoring live match updates.

Go here to read the rest:

Evolution Games Revealed Three New First-Person Table Games - GamblingNews.com

Thursday, June 11th, 2020 | 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm CT

Procedures and instrumentation to treat spine pathologies have evolved over decades to improve patient outcomes. The oblique lumbar interbody fusion or OLIF technique, combined with Camber Spines implants and instrumentation, specifically designed for this approach, uses a minimally invasive approach to create a lumbar spinal corridor anterior to the psoas muscle (oblique lateral) to achieve an optimal coronal and saggital lumbar interbody fusion as well as a maximized indirect decompression of the posterior neural elements.

OLIF can reduce hospital costs, operative time and disposables costs due to the ability to perform both the anterior and posterior operations in one session.

After sufficient training, a spine surgeon can perform an OLIF without the help of an access surgeon, as is common in ALIF procedures.

A reduction in OR time and time under anesthesia is beneficial to patients, especially those with co-morbidities or higher risk factors. Fewer surgical sessions and less invasiveness help to reduce overall length of stay, as well.

Join us for a webinar on using the OLIF approach to reconstruct the anterior column and address lumbar pathology with renowned spine surgeon Dr. John I. Williams. During this webinar, Dr. Williams will discuss patient selection, pre-op planning, positioning and OLIF technique as well as surgical outcomes.

In this webinar, you'll learn:

John I. Williams, MD

Spine Surgeon, SpineONE

John I. Williams, M.D., is a board certified and fellowship trained Orthopedic spine surgeon specializing in diseases and surgeries of the spine for SpineONE, a division of Ortho NorthEast, and has over 30 years of experience in the field of medicine. Dr. Williams is board certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and is a Diplomate of the National Board of Medical Examiners. He is a member of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the Indiana State Medical Society, the American Medical Association and the Fort Wayne Medical Society. Dr. Williams is a member of the Clinical Faculty, Department.

See the rest here:

Learn the latest in the evolution of minimally invasive spine surgery - Becker's Hospital Review

The concept of the crossover is not a new one, but the marketing term that gave birth to the segment is. The SUV came into its own in the late 1980s and early 1990s as, mostly, a more comfortable truck. SUVs were, and still are, brawny and capable in all conditions, and utility was the keyword in the Sport Utility Vehicle. Then, in the mid-1990s, the crossover as we know it now showed up.

There's no official definition for a crossover, but we've mostly come to know it as an SUV style vehicle based around a car's chassis. A crossover typically has the everyday practicality of an SUV but sacrifices off-road and towing ability, to varying degrees, to gain the road manners of a car. In the mid-1990s, automakers started building crossovers to be family-friendly and with enough ride height to take on rough surfaces. Most crossovers also either came standard with all-wheel-drive or as an option. However, the first genuine attempt a crossover showed up in the US in 1980, and that's where we'll start.

Read the original:

The Evolution Of The Crossover: 40 Years In The Making - CarBuzz

Robert F. Shedingers interesting post yesterday onLouis Agassizbrought to my mind some additional thoughts on this complex figure in the annals of American science. Shedinger is quite correct in highlighting Agassizs staunch opposition to Darwin and his creationist perspective. He is also correct in pointing out Agassizs tireless efforts at working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe. This, as he points out, includes his establishment of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard as well as his role in founding the National Academy of Sciences. These are indisputably notable achievements.

Agassiz had his demons, however, and Shedinger cites my article, Plato Meets Polygeny, that discusses his rather benighted racial views (available open access in theJournal of the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science). In fact, those views make Agassiz a problematic figure in the complex intellectual terrain of mid-19th century Anglo-America. (Since this essay is readily obtainable, Ill not belabor the details here.) But despite the significance of Agassizs scientific accomplishments, his heavy historical baggage cannot be lightly discarded or ignored.

First of all, his biblical exegesis of multiple Adams with its presumption of separate racial origins (and hierarchies) incurred the ire of the vast majority of the Christian community even inhis own day, with only Southern sympathizers rushing to its defense more for political than religious reasons. Orthodoxy was quickly cast aside by apologists for the Souths peculiar institution, a dubious alliance at best for a man of science like Agassiz.

But second, and more importantly, Agassizs racial views were not, in the final analysis, that far from Darwins own. Like Darwin, Agassiz was convinced that craniometry was an accurate measure of racial difference and mental capacity. Darwins approving references to the craniometric data of Paul Broca and Joseph Barnard Davis were matched by Agassizs embrace of Samuel George MortonsCrania Americana(1839) andCrania gyptiaca(1844). Despite Agassizs vocal opposition to Darwinian evolution, he ended up siding with Darwin on the race question. Thomas Henry Huxley largely echoed Darwins and Agassizs sentiments on race.

How could this be? It turns out Agassiz makes the same mistake Darwin did; he failed to make an all-important distinction between human and animal. Agassiz wrote, the differences existing between races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals; and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men, some even more so. Agassiz emphasized that this is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind. This is hardly different from Darwins own assertion in hisDescent of Man(1871) that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties. Whatever Agassizs creationist commitments, he (like Darwin) made a cardinal error: he rejected human exceptionalism, a foundational Judeo-Christian concept. In short, Agassiz practiced heterodox religion and bad science.

If I had to praise a contemporary of both Agassiz and Darwin who didnotshare these untenable notions it would be Richard Owen, an opponent of Darwin who defended racial equality on scientific grounds and held to a structuralist formulation of nature fully compatible with purpose and human exceptionalism. Owens courageous defense of racial equality and Huxleys disingenuous Darwinian racism is carefully examined in Christopher E. CosanssOwens Ape & Darwins Bulldog.

Whenever I think of Agassiz I can only recall his statue buried in the pavement in front of the Stanford zoology building following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, a tragicomic reminder of a once famous scientist who ended up irrelevant even to a fellow Darwin doubter like American science polymath James Dwight Dana. As I conclude in my essay, Agassiz became a lamentable figure lost in the murky shadows of his own Platonist forms. And there he will likely remain.

Photo: Statue of Agassiz buried in the pavement, 1906, Stanford University, by Frank Davey / Public domain.

Read the rest here:

Louis Agassiz: Some Additional Thoughts - Discovery Institute

BusinessEvolving health research could catalyse demand for high-end office space in Scotlands cities from the burgeoning life sciences sector, according to Knight Frank.

Tuesday, 12th May 2020, 4:45 pm

The UK Life Sciences report from the property consultancy which has offices in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Melrose has found that growing collaboration between companies in the industry and the wider tech sector, plus more computational science, will cause seismic shifts in the industrys property requirements.

As medical technology, biopharmaceutical, and digital health companies become more interdependent, property will need to reflect their growing need to cluster in new locations, according to the report. It also highlighted the 750 million expansion plans at Edinburghs BioQuarter and the establishment of the Medicines Manufacturing Centre in Renfrewshire as examples of the trend already taking hold in Scotland.

Knight Frank also said Edinburgh and Glasgow were among the top UK locations for investment in digital health, attracting 30m and 10.5m respectively.Scottish Development International says there are more than 750 life sciences organisations in Scotland, with the sector adding 2.4 billion to the economy, on track to reach turnover of 8bn by 2025.

Lee Elliott, Knight Franks global head of occupier research, said: Covid-19 has brought the growing importance of life science and health research companies to the fore. The needs of the NHS, and other health services, will likely cause an acceleration in the convergence of technology and life sciences, particularly around digital diagnostics and preventative medicine.

The restructuring of life sciences companies will bring a new wave of demand from the sector, particularly in Scotland where [small and medium-sized enterprises] make up the majority of the industry.

Indeed, landlords that are able to provide flexible, cost-effective space to accommodate the rapid growth these companies can achieve and help them track their investment will be well-positioned. So too will facilities that are future-proof and capable of manufacturing advanced therapeutics.

Occupier services partner Simon Capaldi said: The shift towards more computational [research and development] will see an increase in the need for more conventional office space in city-centre locations. It is perhaps no surprise that were seeing more demand from the sector in Edinburgh, which offers a deep pool of data science talent.

Tech, more broadly, has emerged over the past five years or so as a significant source of activity in Edinburghs office market, accounting for around one-third of city centre take-up.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit http://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Read the original:

Evolution of life sciences to spur need for high-end office space in Scots cities - The Scotsman

The video comes from Free Wheelie and covers 28 years of superbike development. It all started with the 1992 BMW R1100RS making 90 hp from its boxer engine and the motorcycle evolved into the track-focused superbikes like the limited edition HP4 Race and the latest generation S1000RR launched last year which makes 207hp and a top speed of 305 kph.

BMW R1100RS was fitted with a 1085cc air-cooled boxer engine making 90hp and 95 Nm (70 lb.-ft) of torque. Even the top speed was normal considering the modern-day track machines - 218 kph (135 mph). It weighed 239 kg (527 pounds) and featured a five-speed manual transmission with a shaft final drive.

The motorcycle was replaced in 98 with the R1100S model which came along with a slight increase in power and torque. It delivered 98 hp, 97 Nm ( 71 lb.-ft) of torque and reached a top speed of 227 kph (141 mph). The new model was slimmer with a weight of 208 kg (458 pounds) while the bodywork was more sport-focused.

Its bigger brother was launched in 2006 in the form of the R1200S. This time around the bike had an increase in engine size, a new 1170cc boxer making 122hp and 112Nm (82 lb.-ft) of torque. All this power was enough to help the bike reach a top speed of 241 kph (under 150 mph) while the weight sat at 198 kg (436 pounds).

Two years later, BMW introduced the HP2 Sport. Now, the 1170cc boxer engine developed 138 hp and a maximum torque level of 115 Nm (85 lb-ft). It was the third model of the HP range. The motorcycle had a top speed of 248 kph (154 mph) while the weight sat at 178 kg (392 pounds). These figures helped BMW to make a decision and develop the first generation of the S1000RR superbike.

Back in 2009, BMW launched the S1000RR model. Theyve ditched the boxer engine in favour of a 999cc inline-four configuration which had an output of 193 hp and a maximum torque of 112 Nm (82 lb-ft). The claimed top speed was 305 kph (just a slight under 190 mph). The motorcycle featured a dry weight of 183 kg (403 pounds) and it featured electronics like Race ABS, DTC, and a couple of rider aids.

Three years later, the model was upgraded and in 2015 a new generation was launched featuring 199hp, 310 kph (194 mph) top speed and a dry weight of 175 kg (386 pounds). Also, it had a new frame and geometry, pit lane limiter like a MotoGP bike, cruise control and launch control.

Moving two years later, BMW launched the track only HP4 Race boosting 212 hp, a top speed of 312 kph (195 mph) while the weight dropped to 146 kg (322 pounds). It has featured a carbon fibre frame, carbon wheels and a carbon fibre bodywork which made the bike lighter than the factory World Superbike Championship bikes. It was a limited edition of just 750 units.

Last year the German manufacturer unveiled the latest generation S1000RR. Its fitted with the 999cc inline-four, this time making 207 hp and 112 Nm (82 lb-ft) of torque. Top speed is set at 305 kph (190 mph).

The superbike features the new variable valve timing system based on the R1250 range Shiftcam technology which allows seamless adjustment of valve lift for enhanced efficiency and reduced emissions. Moreover, the bike is faster and easier to ride on track compared to its predecessor.

The S1000RR has a dry weight of 171 kg (377 pounds) while the electronic package includes partly-integral ABS as standard and has an option to be switched off, different riding modes, Gear Shift Assist Pro and an option to add the M package. This was the bike has track-focused electronic aids, such as DTC +/- Shift, ABS Settings, engine mappings, wheelie and slide control to name a few.

Continue reading here:

A Brief Insight on the Evolution of the BMW S1000RR - DriveMag Riders

Subrena SmithPhoto: University of New Hampshire

Its not often that a paperattempts to take down an entire field. Yet, this past January, thats precisely what University of New Hampshire assistant philosophy professorSubrena Smiths paper tried to do. Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible? describes a major issue with evolutionary psychology, called the matching problem.

The field of evolutionary psychology is no stranger to critiques, given its central idea: that human behaviors can be explained in evolutionary terms and that the core units governing our actions havent changed since the Stone Age. But Smiths paper garnered a particularly strong response after science journalist Adam Rutherford discussed it on Twitter and PZ Myers discussed it in his Pharyngula blog.

We at Gizmodo have long rolled our eyes at the often-nonsensical conclusions that some people come to when employing evolutionary psychology theory, so we were excited to chat with Smith about her work. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Gizmodo: Your papers main refutation of the field is something called the matching problem. Can you explain what that is?

Subrena Smith: Evolutionary psychologists thought is that, for at least some of our behaviors, they believe that we havedare I use this termhard-wired cognitive structures that are operating in all of us contemporary human beings the same way they did for our ancestors on the savannas. The idea is that, in the modern world, we have sort of modern skulls, but the wiringthe cognitive structure of the brain itselfis not being modified, because enough evolutionary time hasnt passed. This goes for evolutionary functions like mate selection, parental care, predator avoidancethat our brains were pretty much in the same state as our ancestors brains. The sameness in how our brains work is on account of genetic selection for particular modules that are still functional in our environment today. [Editors note: These modules refer to the idea that the brain can be divided up into discrete structures with specific functions.]

The matching problem is really the core issue that evolutionary psychologists have to show that they can meet: that there is really a match between our modules and the modules of the prehistoric ancestors; that theyre working the same way then as now; and that these modules are working the same way because they are descended from the same functional lineage or causal lineage. But I dont see any way that these charges can be answered.

Gizmodo: What inspired you to write this paper?

Smith: I talked about some of these issues in my dissertation, but the ideas got mature and seasoned since graduate school. I suppose the question is, why evolutionary psychology? I was associated roughly with that scene some years ago. I found the evolutionary psychology explanations of human behavior in themselves evocative but also puzzling, given what I understood of the theory of evolution, particularly the importance of variation. People have been talking about it for so long, saying that its not workable, its problematic. Ive never taken that attitude. Ive seen evolutionary psychologists as scientists trying to figure things out. My approach has been to think carefully about what theyre doing. I didnt have an attitude of, this is just ridiculous. I wanted to carefully try to articulate what seems to be a fatal problem with the framework and to put it out there.

Gizmodo: Can you give some examples of scenarios of the matching problem in action?

Smith: Heres the problem. With respect to human beings, we dont have the relevant evidence about how our ancestors behaved to make any substantiative claims. We can only use evidence of our behavior and evidence of the likely kinds of behaviors that they would have exhibited in the past. We know that ancient humans avoided predation, for instance. What exactly they did is something evolutionary psychologists have to show. Did our ancestors avoid predation because they were good at hiding in bushes or because they were running? Evolutionary psychologists would say that the better explanation is that they were running. But the fact that they ran to avoid predation and the fact that we have the disposition to run when were endangered still does not establish that theres a singular module doing both of those jobs.

Gizmodo: You flesh out another example, from a paper by Aaron Goetz and Kayla Causey about cuckoldry. Can you explain this?

Smith: The hypothesis is that, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, mate infidelity was costlier for males than it was for females. Presumably, its on accountof the fact that, if youre a man, you might end up taking care of someone elses child. So college students were asked how likely it is that theyd have sexual intercourse with someone other than their current partner. Now, one of my major charges with evolutionary psychologists is that they go to the ordinary folks, college students, and they ask them questions about such intimate things like their sexual behavior. We know that people are wanting to not be honest about such matters, and, of course, evolutionary psychologists are aware of this. The second issue is that the answers given to these sorts of questions are then generalized to humanity in general.

The thought is that we expect to find this particular behavior in the contemporary world, namely that respondents who answered these questions are apt to be vigilant around their mate; males in this context are inclined to be vigilant around their female partner. (The study authors didnt ask any questions about same-sex relationships, but lets set that aside). Evolutionary psychologists posit that, based on these questionnaire answers, mate guarding behavior is driven by a hard-wired, domain-specific cognitive module whose function is to procure and protect ones mate from extramarital relationships. But their evidence is nothing more than the responses given to these prying questions by contemporary college students. My worry is that it doesnt begin to be a scientific study. Theres no way to move from the contemporary case to the prehistoric case, which is a hypothesized case about how prehistoric males behaved with respect to their mates and cheating.

The hypothesis is: Were getting these reports from the U.S. context because theres a module they inherited from their ancestors. So were moving from a report of how people would behave in these situations to claims about how our ancestors did in fact behave. This is really deeply flawed. I dont think that this is good enough for the sorts of things that evolutionary psychologists want their theory to do. You need more than that.

Gizmodo: What are some of the potential harms of evolutionary psychology as a theory?

Smith: While I think that evolutionary theory is the only game in town to give us accounts of biological questions when were thinking about evolutionary history and claims about selection, I also think its grossly misappropriated. One of the things people tend to forget is that in On the Origin of Species, Darwin takes several chapters to talk about variations. And yet the impression one gets from evolutionary psychologists for uses of evolutionary theory is that, when were talking about human begins and our brains, evolution has given us this static system. That our brains are static. And in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Our brains are dynamic, our behaviors are dynamic, were imaginative, we generate novel behaviors in contexts that never exhibited themselves. That variation is one of the things about evolution we should be including more in our theories.

The evolutionary psychologists I engage with are not silly people. They are thoughtful and philosophical about these matters. However, the attractiveness of evolutionary theory coupled with peoples ideological biases forces them to not be as careful as they might be otherwise. I think that the consequences for our world when we misappropriate evolutionary accounts are really serious. People are saying that people of color have smaller brains, which is not true, or that women arent as great as men, which is not true... I think we have a special responsibility, when we say evolution made us that way, to recognize that people will read innate or hardwired as synonymous with evolution. We should be especially careful to not be making claims like these, which can have consequences.

If you say evolution made us so, then governments can rightly say you dont have the capacity to do something, so we wont use our resources to make you do stuff you cant do. This is about the science and politicsmaking sure that were not misappropriating the science to underwrite our politics in a way to suit interests, be they my interests or their interests. If I have interests inconsistent with what the science says, I dont think I should be given a pass. But my view is that I dont see the framework of evolutionary psychology as-is providing us with an explanation of human behavior that we can get behind.

Gizmodo: I know the paper made a big splash. Can you tell me what the response has been like?

Smith: I did a [post] of sort for this evolution blog, and I understand that someone responded to me. Im happy to have the intellectual conversation. Im not a tweeter and I dont have a Twitter account. My spouse is, and he tells me that there have been some not-so-nice things, as well as people who are championing my cause. Adam Rutherford, who I really like, a British broadcaster who was a geneticist, was one of the first people to pick up the paper and say the arguments were compelling and that evolutionary psychologists should be answering these arguments. But otherwise, I told my husband I dont want to hear stuff from Twitter, particularly if its a teaching day. Its fair to say that its been not very nice, and also people who have been thoughtful in their responses, plus lots of people asking me if I want to write something for them. Thats a good thing, but I dont have time.

Gizmodo: Whats your end goal? What do you want from evolutionary psychologists?

Smith: My little paper isnt going to stop this discipline. Its not going to cease departments where evolutionary psychology is thriving from existing. I do hope it gets a conversation going. I actually think that it is a worthy project to ask ourselves questions about how are we related to our prehistoric ancestors in such things as behaviors.

My view is that while we might talk about similarity and ancestry with respect to normal physical phenotypes, I am reluctant to go there with behaviors. For me, its really because of the flexibility that is needed in order for any organism to thrive in the environments that they find themselves... Long story short, what I hope this paper does is gets us all thinking a little bit deeper about what is it to talk about evolution and psychology and human behavior.

Read the original:

This Philosopher Is Challenging All of Evolutionary Psychology - Gizmodo