Category Archives: Darwinism

Image source: Discovery Institute.

One sign of a robust scientific theory is the quality of its most prominent proponents.

During its long history, Darwinian theory has had no shortage of gifted champions, starting with Charles Darwin himself.

Whatever else he was, Darwin was a masterful scientific communicator who collected and interpreted a vast array of observations from the natural world. One cant read his writings without being duly impressed. Darwins civil and measured tone was calculated to persuade. Darwin was especially impressive in taking objections to his theory seriously and seeking to answer them.

Throughout the decades, Darwinism has had many other able scientific advocates. In our own lifetimes, there were Harvard biologists such as Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.

And, of course, Oxford University boasted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. A convincing popularizer and polemicist, Dawkins at least started out as a serious scientist who raised some of the right questions.

But as the intelligent design movement gathered momentum in the 1990s, something interesting started to happen.

On the one hand, intelligent design scientists and philosophers started publishing a stream of increasingly sophisticated books and research critiquing modern Darwinism or arguing more generally for the detectability of purpose in nature. Think about books such asDarwins Black Box,The Design Inference,No Free Lunch,Icons of Evolution,What Darwin Didnt Know,Natures Destiny,The Privileged Planet,Debating Design,The Edge of Evolution,Signature in the Cell,andDarwins Doubt. Or think about the research byDouglas AxeandAnn Gaugerchallenging the evolvability of new functions in proteins through Darwinian means.

On the other hand, as the case against Darwin was growing, the proponents of Darwinism seemed to be shrinking in stature.

Consider Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, author of the anti-ID polemicFinding Darwins Godin 1999. Miller was a gifted debater, but his arguments all too often relied on citation bluffing andcritiquing straw-man versionsof the ideas of Michael Behe and others.

Francis Collins, in his bookThe Language of God, was even shallower in his critique. Indeed,if you read Collinss book today, youll find that many of his arguments, including junk DNA, have been increasingly thrown overboard by mainstream science.

So who was left to champion the old time religion of Darwinism?

Well, you had evolutionary biologistJerry Coyneat the University of Chicago, a loudmouth atheist (see here, here, and here) who has declared war on religion. At least he was at a prestigious academic institution, and he could muster an argument if he had to.

You also had biologist P. Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota Morris. He too could debate, although the quality of what you got was decidedly second rate. His preferred mode of discourse was invective. As heonce instructed his fellow evolutionists, they should screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. Its time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots by which he meant, of course, anyone who dared to criticize Darwins theory.

In short, serious defenders of Darwinism were getting scarcer.

The trend continued as more and more thoughtful intellectuals gave up their Darwinian faith.For example, in 2005 Nobel laureate physicist Robert Laughlin at Stanford University observed:Evolution by natural selection has lately come to function more as an anti-theory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong (Laughlin,A Different Universe, 168).

In 2012, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagelwrote a bookwithOxford University Press, the subtitle of which declared:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.Yale computer scientist David Gelernter wrote a piece in 2019 titledGiving Up Darwin.

Meanwhile, on the Darwinian side, one of the worlds most prestigious scientific organizations, the Royal Society in England, convened aninternational conference of scientists in 2016in search of some new theory of evolution, because of the growing understanding that traditional Darwinism didnt adequately explain the most important advances in the history of life.

The remaining public champions of old-line Darwinism kept dwindling and devolving. Post-COVID, they seem to have become a truly endangered species.

So who is the most prominent public advocate of Darwin in America today?

Probably Dave Farina, aka Professor Dave.

Except Professor Daveisnt actually a professor, and he doesnt even have a PhD in a science or any other discipline. He makes his money off of YouTube videos. And many of his arguments consist of copious four-letter words, and Im not speaking of the words atom, gene, or cell. Farinas method is to attack anyone who disagrees with him as evil or an idiot or both. More recently, Professor Dave has revealed himself to be avile anti-Semiteto boot.

Now people as nasty as non-Professor Dave can be rather depressing to deal with. But think about what it means that the most prominent defender of Darwin left is someone as small-minded and unserious as non-Professor Dave. What does it say when the most prominent defender in American society today is someone like THAT?

And what does it say when the prominent defenders of ID include people likeStephen Meyer,William Dembski,Casey Luskin,Winston Ewert,Michael Behe,Marcos Eberlin,Guillermo Gonzalez,Ann Gauger,Emily Reeves,Brian Miller,Jonathan McLatchie,Douglas Axe, and many others?

I think it says the future does not belong to Darwinian materialism.

So take heart! As we approach another birthday of Charles Darwin on February 12, Darwinists may be devolving, but intelligent design proponents are progressing.

Originally posted here:

Darwinists Devolve - Discovery Institute

Who has not heard of Charles Darwins (18091882) fateful doctrine of survival of the fittest? It is often emphasised that this dogma should not be understood as the survival of the fittest or most intelligent, but of the most adapted.

Many are convinced that todays biology would be unthinkable without Darwins theory of evolution. Nevertheless, after more than 150 years of Darwinism, we should recognise this: transferring Darwinism as an essential attitude into the economy, management theories, politics and indeed into human life as a whole, was fatal and catastrophic.

Darwins work, nature and evolution theories received acclaim as ground-breaking. But as a racist, he believed there were inferior and superior races of humans.

He thought women were necessary for reproduction, but attributed intelligence, innovation and creativity only to men, as a man attains a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than a woman can attain.

Another of Darwins fallacies was his belief that organisms can pass on characteristics which they have acquired in the course of their lives. Or that inheritance always runs vertically along the line of descent, i.e., from one generation to the next.

In the age of genetics, scientists have discovered that Darwins idea of the family tree of life is wrong. Evolution cannot be depicted as a tree, but at best, as a complex network.

Research has since established among countless other contradictions that Darwin, as a sexist, ignored the importance of female strategies or lust in sexual processes and overestimated beauty as a driving force in mate choice. This one-dimensional view meant Darwin preferred to sweep animal behaviour outside his preferences under the carpet.

One of the fundamental theories in business is that competition stimulates business. In a healthy context, this is undoubtedly often the case. However, todays understanding of competition has long since followed the Darwinian survival of the fittest. It is disastrous that Darwins theories declared war a permanent state in nature and thus the standard model. This is utter nonsense.

You must be the fittest because only then will you survive; only then will you prevail. The others, well, they wont make it; theyll be defeated, ousted, destroyed, disappear from the market and theyre out of luck. Its not enough to be committed and fit. You must be the fittest, the strongest and the best of all at the top of the pyramid. Only then will life give you a right to exist. The end justifies all means in the arduous struggle for survival.

Darwins theory is hazardous because it destroys the foundations of human life and its dignity. It leads to an entirely false understanding of human power and ruinous behaviour.

We are experiencing the extreme effects of Darwins theory more frequently in the digitalised business world. We see aggressive, almost belligerent disruptors appearing virtually out of nowhere, dominating new markets quickly, or driving long-established top dogs to ruin with radical business models without industry experience.

The attractiveness of a digital platform increases with the number of users. Once there is a significant number of users, the platform becomes increasingly attractive for users due to the so-called network effect of neoclassical economics. There is then hardly any room left for potential competitors to gain a foothold with an alternative offering. Not even if they were technologically better, more user-friendly, secure or otherwise more suitable and therefore, fitter.

Darwins survival of the fittest increasingly culminates in a ruthless market concentration by a few globally dominant players, the winner takes it all often more powerful than sovereign states.

The principle of survival of the fittest unjustifiably justifies the naturalness of brutal competition. Yet at least three irrefutable realities speak ultimately against this:

Firstly, at first glance, nature may resemble a theatre of war in places. But a closer, second look shows that nature is primarily a symbiotic system! Everything is interrelated because everything is connected to everything else: Every animal and plant also influences all other species and genera. Flora and fauna do not simply compete for habitat. On the contrary, they help and support each other, ensuring balance according to the principle together we are strong.

Secondly, there is also competition in nature. The stronger male defeats the rival. There is a trial of strength; there are power and territory struggles. And yes, sometimes even to the death. But it is a game with rules that uses only as much violence as necessary and as little violence as possible.

We are experiencing the extreme effects of Darwins theory more frequently

The superior stag does not chase the inferior one until it has killed it. He is superior; that is enough for him. The inferior deer accepts this, moves on, and develops elsewhere because there are enough alternatives and enough space. Thats the end of the matter; the conflict is over. Taking revenge, ruthlessly destroying the other, that does not exist in nature.

Thirdly, Darwins dogma completely contradicts human perception. If Darwins theory were correct, then war as a normal state would be a feel-good factor. But nobody feels comfortable in war. It is not experienced as a harmonious, natural state, but as a disruption of order, destructive and terrible.

The more one studies Darwinism, the more one wonders how the well-educated Charles Darwin could create his theories with so many contradictions, errors of reasoning and inconsistencies. After all, Darwinism is not coherent; it takes all kinds of twists and turns to hold on to it.

The answer to this crucial question lies in his CV. He had 10 children with his wife, Emma. The great stroke of fate came in 1851 when their 10-year-old daughter Anne died of tuberculosis. All prayers and hopes for a cure were in vain. Darwin was devastated and wrote in his notes: We have lost the joy of the household and the comfort of our old age. Annes death had also heralded the end of my Christianity.

Until then, the Cambridge-studied theologian had seen himself as a devout Christian, not profoundly religious, but firmly rooted in theology.

From then on, Darwin quarrelled with God and could not forgive him for not saving his favourite child. As a result, in his anger towards God, he became obsessed with the idea that there must be explanations for everything in life, in the universe, without God, without a spiritual authority. This can also be seen in the biography Annies Box, which was made into a film in 2009 under the title Creation and was written by Darwins great-great-grandson Randal Keynes (1948) based on old, original records.

You dont have to believe in God to see through Darwins inconsistencies. It is enough to ask yourself the question of an order in elementary conditions and the universe. Like the laws of nature, physics or the teleological argument of the watchmaker analogy, according to William Paley (17431805), which other researchers have also advocated since the time of the scientific revolution, including Sir Isaac Newton (16421726).

Darwins theories are neither conclusive nor fully provable. The Darwinian theory of evolution has by no means led to a definitive understanding of the world and nature. The opposite is the case. Darwins theory does not apply to nature, nor is it suitable as a general motto for entrepreneurship and the economy.

Darwins theories are not the ultimate truth, even though we are still being led to them today.

They should be banned from school textbooks, just as Turkey did in 2017 and India in 2023.

We must adopt a new worldview to live and let live, of together we are strong. We need a model of cooperation, an intelligent symbiosis, requiring fair rules in competition. Through millions of years of evolution, nature sets an example for us.

We should move away from the fittest mania. We should discard the greed for fast money and the unrestrained maximisation of profits that ignores a lot of collateral damage. Furthermore, we should abandon excessive competitive thinking, the permanent, excessive endeavour to outdo or eliminate competitors by any means necessary.

Today, the goal is not winning but achieving balance! We require a new, post-Darwinian corporate and economic culture based on a symbiotic system. This culture should focus on sustainable success, foresight, prudence and consideration, aligning with the sustainability principle: as much as necessary and as little as possible. It should aim to ensure the survival of as many as possible, ideally all. The Japanese Keiretsus mechanisms provide plenty of inspiration for this.

The most incredible fact about natures symbiosis is that our planet has no declared rubbish dump. In nature, everything cycles. Nothing remains leftover; nothing is useless or worthless. Everything recycles, reutilises and reuses.

The selfish survival of the fittest mentality leads the world into an abyss. Ultimately, it becomes not survival of the fittest, but victory belongs to the strongest, the most ruthless.

The dominance of the winner takes it all, and shareholder value, ultimately threatens our security, freedom and prosperity.

The consequences are an (economic) dictatorship, exploitation at the expense of the majority and the environment, and immense wealth only for the kleptocracy or oligarchy, the top 10,000.

Edzard Reuter, CEO of Daimler-Benz from 1987 to 1995, put it perfectly in a nutshell in a 2023 interview with the German business magazine Brand Eins: Stricter rules are the only way forward. It is unbearable if companies only pursue profit maximisation without regard for employees, the environment, the climate or tax justice.

Even Peter F. Drucker, the founder of modern management, understood: None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end by itself. Everyone is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. Business is no exception. Free enterprises cannot be justified as being good for business. They can be justified only as being good for society.

Reinhold M. Karner, FRSA, is an entrepreneurship and start-up evangelist, multiple chairman (e.g. AP Valletta), corporate philosopher, entrepreneur, author, university lecturer and fellowship connector of the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) for Malta and Austria. This article is a summary of a subchapter of his book Wahre Werte statt schnelles Geld (true values over fast money), published by GABAL Verlag, Germany, 2023.

Original post:

Darwin's fatal competition model - Times of Malta

Image source: Discovery Institute.

A few years ago, the brilliant Yale University polymath David Gelernter wrote an essay entitled Giving Up Darwin A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory, in which he made a stunning confession: Stephen Meyers thoughtful and meticulous convinced me that Darwin has failed.

Is Gelernter a creationist? No. Is he a proponent of intelligent design? No. Theres no reason, Gelernter wrote in the Claremont Review of Books, to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Gelernter summarizes: is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

That might sound like a scary thought. Some may not be willing to read Meyers book and risk losing their faith in the science weve been told is all settled. But dont you wonder why a brilliant guy like Professor Gelernter would give up Darwin? Read his true confession here.

Link:

David Gelernters Farewell to Darwinism - Discovery Institute

In his book Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, Thomas Woodward described how early detractors of Darwins theory criticized the way it personified nature. After all, according to Darwin, the origin of species, (the title of his book) occurred by means of natural selection. Who did the selecting? Nature.

Darwins argument relied on an analogy between animal husbandry and what nature does when she selects only the fittest to survive, thus driving evolution. However, this analogy conflated the intentionality of human breeders with natural processes, implying that nature has a will and is trying to get somewherewhich is precisely the sort of intelligent causation that Darwinism supposedly refutes.

The result is a theory that often sounds suspiciously circular. Yet there are even bigger gaps in the Darwinian view of nature. The most daunting is how an intention-free universe made the leap from non-living matter to living things in the first place. This is a crucial question because, in conventional Darwinian thinking, only living things are subject to natural selection and thus evolve. The question here isnt just how the fittest survived: Its how the fittest arrived.

But what if natural selection could operate on nonliving matter? What if, instead of a process limited only to biology, Darwinian evolution was promoted to a fundamental law governing all physical reality? Thats exactly what some scientists have tried to do, most recently in a much-heralded paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Entitled On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems, the paper proposes a new scientific principle called the Law of Increasing Functional Information, and its exactly what it sounds like. Lead author Robert Hazen of The Carnegie Institution for Science explains: We see evolution as a universal process that applies to numerous systems, both living and nonliving, that increase in diversity and patterning through time. In other words, everything evolves in a Darwinian manner, including atoms, minerals, planetary atmospheres, planets, stars and more.

How? According to the papers nine authors, nonliving systems evolve toward greater complexity if they are, 1) formed from many different components, such as atoms, molecules, or cells that can be rearranged, 2) are subject to natural processes that cause different arrangements to be formed, and 3) if only a small fraction of all these configurations survives or is selected for function.

Nonliving things, by definition, dont survive, which is the function nature supposedly selects for in biological evolution. So, what function could nature possibly select in an atom or a galaxy? Believe it or not, these authors argue that existence itself is a kind of function, and that systems that tend to go on existing will be selected by nature, and that we know this, in part, because those systems do, in fact, exist.

Hazen explains:

Imagine a system of atoms or molecules that can exist in countless trillions of different arrangements or configurations. Only a small fraction of all possible configurations will workthat is, they will have some useful degree of function. So, nature just prefers those functional configurations.

Writing at Evolution News, intelligent design advocate David Coppedge points out the flagrant personification happening here. Nature prefers functional configurations? It does no such thing, because at least according to Naturalism it has no goal, nor any notion of function.

In reality, the attempt to Darwinize the entire universe, as Coppedge puts it, is little more than a roundabout way of admitting how well-designed the universe is, and trying to come up with a force that allowed it to design itself. Its an admission that, despite nearly two centuries of claims to the contrary, the cosmos acts like it has an end in mind. Its asking us to assume a law that explains how everything came to be based only on the observation that things are. Set aside this circular reasoning for a moment and ask the real question: If theres a law, who is the lawgiver?

This theory gets us no closer to explaining the complexity, function, purpose, design, and beauty we see in the universe if theyre not the handiwork of a Creator. Does nature have a preference for the kind of universe we have? Maybe so. But if she does, then that preference, itself, needs an explanation. Scientists trying to turn evolution into a theory of everything might expect nature to answer, I am who I am. But theres only One who can truly say that. Why not give Him credit for a change?

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.

Visit link:

Darwinizing the Universe: A Theory That Explains Everything ... - BreakPoint.org

FRISCO, TX Don't look now, OK, I knew you'd look when I said that, but the Dallas Cowboys' offense is officially one of the most explosive in the entire NFL. The reasons for the evolution were hinted at by recent history, as I pointed out several weeks prior to it happening, but also rooted in several tweaks by Mike McCarthy and Dak Prescott that have gone unnoticed by most.

That is until now, because it's time to look into the Darwinism of it all.

Prescott and Lamb are both operating at an MVP level through Week 10, one hand washing the other, continually, with the former having now thrown for 12 passing TDs to only two interceptions in past four games for a robust 1,354 yards and a passer 125.2 rating; and he's also rushed for two touchdowns extended several drives with his mobility.

"I think, this past month, we're hitting on all cylinders." Mike McCarthy

In the previous five games (one additional game) combined for Prescott? Well, he threw for 293 fewer yards (1,061), eight fewer touchdowns (4) and had twice as many interceptions (4), owning a passer rating of 70.31.

So what the hell has gotten into Prescott and the Cowboys' offense lately?

The short answer to that question is: heaven.

Now let's take a stroll into the longer, more in-depth answer(s).

The demoralizing loss to the 49ers broke the Cowboys.

The good news is that, apparently, it was the right kind of fracture. Fact is, the offense was still trying to find its path toward explosiveness after having seen turnover at offensive coordinator, play-caller, running backs coach, offensive line coach and quarterbacks coach, and also the lead running back role; and McCarthy also admittedly needed to knock off some rust at turning the dials.

With so much change this offseason, I warned to give the unit a chance to begin firing on all cylinders, especially considering Prescott and other key offensive players hadn't played in the preseason (I'm good with that, by the way) and then the offensive line suffered multiple injuries that threw their five-man combinations into a merry-go-round of personnel placements.

Still, there was growth over the first four weeks, but it wasn't the right type of growth, and Dallas found that out the hard way. It was like a bone that wasn't healing correctly and needed to be medically fractured again to ensure it grew in the right direction. So yes, you hated it in the moment but, ultimately, Kyle Shanahan did the Cowboys a favor.

He medically fractured the bone and now it's growing, and quickly, how it should've in the first place.

Shanahan reminded McCarthy, for starters, just how lethal pre-snap motion can be. As it stands, the Cowboys have the second-highest rate of offensive explosiveness in Week 7 through Week 10, on plays that exceed 15 yards, second only to, you guessed it, Kyle Shanahan and the 49ers.

I say Shanahan reminded McCarthy because McCarthy already had an idea, but hadn't fully leaned into the idea to that point. But considering the quality of weapons in Dallas isn't much different from that in San Francisco, there should've been no reason for the latter to flat-out punish what is arguably the best defense in the NFL, then and now.

Pre-snap motion can be devastatingly unsettling to even the best of defenses, and McCarthy felt that burn firsthand at Levi's Stadium and, ever since, he's made sure the Cowboys are one of the teams in the league that utilize it the most.

*source material: Next Gen Stats

Pre-snap motion (Week 1 through Week 4):

The first thing that jumps out here is that McCarthy started the year ready to give the league a bout of motion sickness, giving the Giants all they could handle.

But when the offense struggled to get going, largely due to lack of preseason reps, the aforementioned changes and the weather, it feels like the Cowboys' play-caller scaled back for Week 2, and winning that game decisively didn't do much to change his mind regarding the use of pre-snap motion.

The offense was still sputtering, but it wasn't much different from the regular season opener, and then came the upset at the hand of the Cardinals in Week 3, the first real hint that (along with it being the worst defensive outing at the time) Prescott and the offense needed to make some schematic changes.

And, wouldn't you know it, for only the second time in the first four games, the Cowboys deployed pre-snap motion on more than half of their reps. The red-zone woes were still present, due to execution miscues, and that's why they were still not stacking touchdowns, but at least they were back on the right track, or so you would've believed.

Pre-snap motion (Week 5):

I believe McCarthy saw, again, the offense sputter despite using pre-snap motion more than half of the time and turned it down again here, and to a season-low, helping to lead to a season-worst showing by the offense; and the defensive play didn't help in delivering their hands-down worst showing of the season, blowing the Cardinals' film out of the water.

This brings me to the current state of affairs in Dallas, and it's a state that's so promising it might beat Puerto Rico to being the 51st in the Union.

Pre-snap motion (Week 6 through Week 10):

Outcome of each post-Week 5 contest:

Not unlike the first four games prior to the 49ers matchup, the Cowboys have gone 3-1 in this stretch following their trip to Levi's Stadium as well, and very nearly 4-0, if not for a knee, a toe, a false start and (yes, I'll say it) some downright nauseatingly ill-timed no-calls and/or unjustified penalties (but that's a story for another time).

That said, has the vast uptick in pre-snap motion made that much of a change in the outcome of the games? Well, yes, if you account for now simply the outcome but how they get there.

Offensive points per game (PATs/FGs excluded):

*Average: 8.4 offensive points per game

Now let's turn this up, once Prescott reignites his mobility against the Chargers to set the stage for the weeks to follow that contest, along with a frustrated Lamb growing horns to start looking like a GOAT (it really does all tie together).

*Average: 24 offensive points per game

They also had opportunities, as mentioned above, to add one to two more touchdowns to the board in Philadelphia to put them at 7-2 on the season and push the average offensive output that much higher over the past four weeks; but the overarching point here is rather clear.

While pre-snap motion, alongside execution, has the Cowboys in rare air right now, and there's no reason for them to turn back now.

The team as a whole had a decision to make after they were dragged out back and beaten to within an inch of their football lives by the 49ers, one that would determine the course of their season thereafter.

They could either get down on themselves, pout, throw a tantrum and spiral into a wasted season, or they could look at what Shanahan did and realize that same potential exists in Dallas, and with an experience play-caller, a revamped analytics department and one of the best QB-WR duos in all of professional football.

What's more is how feverishly they've leaned into their passing attack, partly due to the struggles in the run game but, more so, due to the belief in Prescott, Lamb and the other skill players who can destroy a defensive secondary.

They are passing nearly 10 percent more often than expected (+9.9%) in any given situation, and that's good enough for ... wait for it ... FIRST in the NFL in that category. Because of that, Dak Prescott leads the NFL in pass yards (1,082), TD (11) and EPA (+43.1) over that time frame.

"I'm one of The Ones. I'm [a] top receiver in this game. There's no question about it. If there is, I'll see you again next week." CeeDee Lamb

Outside of you tapping on that very obvious blue hyperlink to the left of this sentence to find out exactly just how ridiculous Prescott and Lamb have been even prior to Lamb going out and setting an NFL record a few days ago and Brandin Cooks gluing 170+ yards to Brian Dabolls forehead here are additionally tasty morsels for both the gray and white matter inside of that calcium helmet atop your neck.

Quarterback EPA (Expected Points Above Average)

I'll readily tell you one huge driver of Prescott's ascension this season, one that has to put him in the MVP conversation at the moment, is his marked improvement against man coverage. Don't let the national media feed you an inaccurate narrative when it comes to Prescott's ability to dissect zone coverage. He's had that scalpel in his bag for a very long time. Man coverage, however, has often been his Boogeyman, and it's what the 49ers used to ruin his day.

No one has since, though.

Again, thank you, San Francisco.

Pass splits vs. coverage looks (post-SF):

This is the definition of being forced to pick your poison. If you present Prescott with a zone look, the odds are in his favor. If you switch to a man look, the odds are, now, also in his favor, and it's due in part to his newfound comfort and command of the Texas Coast offense, as well as his willingness to threaten with his legs, and also the simple fact that his playmakers are

"When the ball comes your way, just go out there and make plays." Brandin Cooks

CeeDee Lamb has accumulated 975 receiving yards through nine games this season, and 351 of those are yards after the catch (36%). He has 221 more yards than expected (per route plus situation) and his catch rate is an inhumanly good 79.1 percent (vs. expected of 63.9%).

If the ball is thrown anywhere on the planet, Lamb might be the one to catch it.

The breakout season of Jake Ferguson simply makes Prescott and the offense that much more deadly, which was true before Cooks walked into the kitchen in Week 10 and lit a grease fire that the Giants kept trying to throw buckets of water on.

The rushing attack is still working through its process, but doesn't that make what Prescott, Lamb and McCarthy are doing that much more special? They're no longer trying to establish the run to set up the pass something many alleged McCarthy would attempt to do in the post-Kellen Moore era but they're instead using the pass to set up the run in DALLAS?

And so it goes, that there has been a very clear and evident offensive evolution this season. All of the dinosaurs are dead thanks to the extinction level event on Oct. 8, 2023.

Approximately 37 days later, it's starting to look like Blade Runner around here.

Follow this link:

Science Lab: Evolving Dak, McCarthy on the attack - DallasCowboys.com

I know of no more fascinating digital magazines than Aeon, which focuses on philosophical analysis of ideas and culture, and its twin, Psyche, which illuminates the human condition through psychology, philosophy and the arts.

The two digital publications are an example of how disciplines, in this case philosophy, are seeking to reach a broader audience. Aeon and Psyche are a bit like Contexts, a magazine that serves as the public face of sociology and which makes cutting-edge social science research accessible to general readers.

Where else could you find out what Pompeiis ruins say about its enslaved, prostituted women? Or an accessible and coherent explanation of entanglement in quantum mechanics? Or speculations among physicists and philosophers about the notion of multiple realities?

Most Popular

Among the most provocative recent articles Ive recently read in Aeon is Evolution Without Accidents, which questions the argument that natural selection is driven by random mutationsand which also identifies the process by which womens contributions to evolutionary theory have been marginalized. The essay is by James A. Shapiro, a University of Chicago microbiologist, who is a highly controversial figure in the study of evolution.

He argues that the neo-Darwinian view associated with the Modern Synthesisthat evolution is largely a result of random genetic mutations and natural selection that take place gradually over very long spans of timeis wrong, or, better put, incomplete. Instead, advances in molecular genetics indicate that random, gradual genetic variation is only one of many modes of evolutionary change.

Shapiros argument, were it correct, would call into question several ideas associated with Darwinian evolutionthat:

Due to his critique of the Modern Synthesis, Shapiro is sometimes considered a friend by the pseudoscientific advocates of intelligent designwho claim that the evolutionary process is not simply a product of chance and that the structures of biology are too complex to be explained by random genetic modifications and environmental fit.

I should note that Shapiro disavows any sympathies for intelligent design and the argument that evolution requires the existence of an intelligent higher power.

What, then, might be some alternate evolutionary mechanisms? Shapiro identifies several, and its noteworthy that a significant number of these pathways were uncovered by women.

Theres symbiogenesis, the acquisition of new genomes as a result of cell fusions; gene exchanges; DNA transfer from bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi and other environmental elements; and the symbiotic relationship between various species associated with the evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (who died in 2011).

Then there is genetic transposition, the movement or transfer of DNA sequences from one location on the genome to another. This discovery, first identified by Barbara McClintock, can result in genetic mutations, chromosome rearrangements and the suppression and expression of genetic information. McClintock also found that transposition was not necessarily random. Rather, certain stress conditions could initiate genetic transposition, genetic mutations and gene expression. Shapiro cites evidence that cells can cut and splice their own DNA modules and engineer the structure of proteins in response to various stressors and environmental challenges.

Interspecies hybridizationsexual reproduction or crossing between different species offers yet another vehicle for evolution and can contribute to rapid genome reorganization. Although the mule is the most famous example of hybrid speciation, such a process has also occurred in yeasts and among plants, including cotton, potatoes and rice.

Then, too, theres phenotypic and developmental plasticity. The theoretical biologist Mary Jane West-Eberhard of the Smithsonians Tropical Research Institute demonstrated that some species can rapidly adapt to changes in environment and that these rapid changes can contribute to speciation.

In addition, theres epigeneticsa concept introduced by the Scottish embryologist and geneticist Conrad Waddington in 1942. This concept describes changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code, which can also be triggered by environmental stressors.

And there is also the role of instruction, passed across generation, in evolution. Teaching isnt biological, but even among dolphins, it can exert a far-reaching multigenerational impact upon behavior.

Shapiro is certainly not the only serious scientist to ask whether we need a new theory of evolution. In 2014, Nature, the interdisciplinary science journal, published a forum addressing the question Does evolutionary theory needs a rethink? The contributors were divided, with some saying Yes, urgently while others replied, No, all is well. When, the next year, the Royal Society agreed to host a conference on New Trends in Evolution, 23 fellows signed a letter of protest.

In an article in The Guardian in 2022, Stephen Buranyi, a science journalist trained in molecular genetics and a researcher at Imperial College London, argued that the controversy was in part a struggle for professional recognition and status and partly a reaction to what critics saw as post-truth tendencies regarding science. But it was also about making sense of a host of stunning findings by molecular and developmental biologists and paleontologists: that cells mutate at a very high rate that has little to do with natural selection and that the fossil record reveals evolution occurring in short, concentrated bursts.

At stake, in the scientific controversy, was how the theory of evolution would take into account new discoveries involving plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, [and] cultural evolution. We do now know that some cells and organisms and species have the potential to adapt more rapidly and more radically than was once thought in the face of altered environments and contact with viruses, cells or other organisms.

I am, of course, wholly unequipped to evaluate this scientific debate. But as a social and cultural historian, I can say with some confidence that Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection was never simply a scientific framework for understanding the process of change in life forms. Nor were the debates over evolutionary theory only about natural selection or genetic mutations or heredity.

There was widespread agreement as early as the 1860s that evolutionary theory carried profound implications for social thought, religion and public policy. As Richard Hofstadter argued in his 1944 dissertation, Social Darwinism in American Thought, theorists such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner adopted the idea of the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest as justification for laissez-faire economics, while others, including William James and John Dewey, argued that human planning was needed to direct social development and improve upon the natural order.

The monkey trial of 1925 created the illusion that the debate over evolution was a straightforward contest between scientific authority and obscurantist religious fundamentalism and between the sophisticated urban progressives and the small-town booboisie and rural yokels. That conflict between science and religion continues, but the debate in 1925 was more complex than that implied in the stage play and movie Inherit the Wind.

As Edward Larson shows in his Pulitzer Prizewinning 2020 account of the Scopes trial, Summer of the Gods, the prosecuting attorney, William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic presidential candidate, regarded Darwinism as a cruel doctrine that served as the intellectual justification for a variety of barbarities, from imperialism to eugenics. Nor was he entirely wrong in holding this view. Grossly distorted and oversimplified forms of Darwinian thinking did underlie theories of racial hierarchy and provided a rationale for opposition to unions, workplace regulations and even the income tax.

The Great Commoner also believed in the right of the people, through the Legislature, to decide what should or shouldnt be taught in schools. His adversary, Clarence Darrow, was less interested in defending academic freedom or an education based on science than in discrediting religious fundamentalism. In other words, the trial had less to do with biology and the evolutionary process and teachers autonomy than with the 1920s cultural conflicts pitting modernists against traditionalists and urban ethnics against rural and small-town provincials.

In 1991, Carl Degler, also a Pulitzer Prize winner and a past president of both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association and a leading authority on race, the family and American womens history, published a book that is largely and regrettably forgotten today. Entitled In Search of Human Nature, it traced the rise, fall, and resurgence of biological and hereditarian (especially racial and gender-based) explanations of the variations in behavior and intelligence.

The book laid bare the ugly side of Darwins own thought, including his ideas about male superiority and his notion of lower races as intermediate creatures who lacked the full attributes of humanity and showed how Darwin himself left a legacy of racism, exclusionary immigration policies, eugenics and discrimination against women. To this list, one might add intelligence testing and involuntary sterilization.

After examining the culturalist critique of biological and hereditarian ideas by thinkers as diverse as Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, and John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, Degler looks at the revival of Darwinism, led first by ethologists such as Karl von Frisch, Nikolaas Tinbergen, Konrad Lorenz and Jane Goodallwho revealed clear parallels between animal and human behaviorand followed in varying degrees by such figures as Melvin Konner, Alice Rossi, Jerome Kagen and Edward O. Wilson as well as others in anthropology, political science and economics.

As the Degler book makes clear, the more recent studies of evolutionary genetics bear scant resemblance to the ideas of the 20th-century eugenicists. One reviewer put the point succinctly: The return to biology is not a return to Social Darwinism, as some have alleged, but an attempt to give biological and genetic factors their due. That is all to the good. Cultural explanationsfor example, David Landess cultural explanation of the wealth and poverty of nationscan possess their own biases and limitations.

Holistic understanding of human evolution, human behavior and human nature requires us to acknowledge the biological and physiological and the cultural and psychological, genetics and the mind. Unfortunately, in the contemporary university, C.P. Snows warning about a deep divide between the two cultures, one of science, the other of humanities and the arts, remains relevant. One symbol: Harvards new engineering and life sciences campus located four miles from Harvard Yard.

We need to bridge this gap, but many obstacles stand in the way, above all, academic specialization and intellectual fragmentation that make it more difficult for humanists, social scientists and engineers and scientists to speak intelligibly to one another. Overcoming the divide will require humanists and social scientists to acquire a deep understanding of science and show how their insights into history and philosophy of science and the sociology and politics of knowledge can make a genuine contribution to scientific understanding.

But what needs to be done on the undergraduate level?

Almost all colleges and universities require students to take two science courses, one with a lab. But this approach doesnt ensure scientific literacy. To produce the scientifically literate graduates our society needs, discipline-based introductory courses arent enough. We need to supplement the existing discipline based introductory courses with new learning experiences that:

Heres how:

To be well educated today requires scientific literacy. Just as college graduates should be able to read and understand a newspapers business section, they should also be able to read and evaluate scientific news. I dont think thats too much to ask.

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin.

Here is the original post:

How to ensure that all students have scientific literacy - Inside Higher Ed

GIVE ME A SOIGNA close look at the back and face of the Xiaomi Watch S1 Pro, a gentleman's smartwatch

Tesla, SpaceX, Meta, and Kendrick Lamarthese are words synonymous with the future.

We live in a world highly driven by the internet, artificial intelligence, and smart devices. The latter, for the uninitiated, are machines capable of multiple functions and could link with one another through a wireless network (Wi-Fi). A smart television, for instance, can automatically connect to your sound bar, gaming console, or whatever other smart gadgets you have at home. You could also directly stream videos and browse the internet with a smart TV.

Part of the price of admission to life is constant change. In technology there is what we call Accelerating Change, a phenomenon where innovations propel the next, creating a snowball of progress.

Whether its our thoughts, emotions, or relationships, nothing is exempt from change. Even the cells in our body are replenished daily. The simplest of things too, such as timekeeping, has evolved over the centuries.

People have had a long history with the tracking of time, from sundials to water clocks, to the first mechanical movement introduced in the 1200s. Clocks later became mobile with the first pocket watch invented by Peter Henlein in 1510 in Nuremberg, Germany. Three hundred years had passed when the first wristwatch was invented by Abraham-Louis Breguet, designing a repeater watch for bracelet for the Queen of Naples in 1810. The Guinness World Records, however, credit Patek Philippe as the progenitor of the wristwatch in 1868 for Countess Koscowicz of Hungary. The 1800s was the period wristwatches were treated as jewelry.

Fast forward to 1998, Steve Mann pioneered the first Linux wristwatch, the first-ever smartwatch in other words. Considered the father of wearable computing, Steves creation ushered in a new age for timepieces, which now serve as mini-computers, health accessories, and extensions to our phones.

The whirlwind of developments boosted the demand and utilization of technology, turning smartwatches from a want to a need. Seeing as a smartwatch is essentially a fitness tracker as well, its value increased due to the pandemic since people were forced to be more health conscious.

With several uses and features, the smartwatch is just as good an investment as any luxury mechanical watch out there. Because the digital timepiece is in vogue, there are so many brands and models to choose from today. Chinese electronic giant Xiaomi is currently among the leading contenders in the market for smartwatches in Asia. And for good reasons, first and most recent of which is the release of the Xiaomi Watch S1 Pro.

One of Xiaomis best smartwatches to date, the Watch S1 Pro had been turning a lot of heads with its sleek design, functionality, and practicality. I recently got my hands on a model to see if it lived up to all the clamor.

Inside the box are a multi-language user manual, a magnetic USB charging dock, and the unit. At a glance, the classic, circular silhouette calls attention. Judging from the Watch S1 Pros appearance alone, one could surmise that this is an exceptional timepiece. With a simple and elegant look, the watch could easily be worn on any occasion and with whatever outfit, from dungarees to tuxedos.

The Watch S1 Pro comes in two colorways, namely a silver steel case with a brown handpolished leather strap, and a black-on-black steel case and fluoro rubber. The bands are easily interchangeable, and both are equally dapper.

As for the make, the 46 mm body is made of stainless steel. On the upper right side is a single rotatable crown used for volume adjustments and for exploring the menu. When turned, the studded knob triggers haptic vibrations, a nuance that adds to the premium feel of the watch. Pressing the crown down leads to an application drawer that contains everything you could do with the watch. Below this is a button that activates the 100 workout modes.

At 48.5 grams, the watch is light enough that it does not hinder the arms from any physical activities, while also being sufficiently hefty, showing how well-built it is.

Another element of the Watch S1 Pro worth noting is its large 1.47-inch Amoled always-on display with sapphire crystal glass that boasts of ultra-narrow bezels. The thin bezels make the screen appear bigger, all the more impressive.

The screen has an anti-fingerprint coating, highly resistant to scratches and perfect for rough users such as me. It could reach up to 600 nits in brightness, meaning there wont be any problems looking at the watch face under the sun. Thanks to the 462 PPI (pixels per inch) display, images are incredibly crisp Id like to stream my Netflix programs on the screen, if only I knew how to hack my watch to do so. It is so clear, even the tiniest widgets are visible.

Touch response, moreover, is snappy and smooth without stutter or lags, thanks to the advanced 12nm chip process technology, supported by Xiaomis enhanced user interface (UI).

As with most smartwatches, you could take calls using the Watch S1 Pro. The microphone is on the left side, while the speakers are on the right.

With a 500 mAh battery life the Watch S1 Pro solves one of the common problems of smartwatches, which is the constant need to recharge. On a full charge and with moderate use, the watch lasts for two entire weeks, probably longer than most of your relationships.

The Watch S1 Pro is compatible with any phone running on either Android 6.0 or higher, and iOS11 or higher. The optimal device to pair the watch with is, of course, a Xiaomi handset. Luckily, my second phone is the 10T Pro 5G, which I bought three years ago on its first release. The watch connects to the phone via Bluetooth 5.2, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and WiFi. Get the most out of the watch by downloading the Mi Fitness application.

From the hardware alone, the Watch S1 Pro already wins big time. The software, however, is just as good, running on MIUI Watch OS. The watch has advanced health and workout tracking from heart rate to temperature measurements, oxygen saturation (SpO2) to stress monitoring, and sleep diary, to name a few.

There is also a built-in dual-band GPS with five satellite positioning systems as well as accurate records of training routes for more than 100 fitness modes including running, cycling, triathlon, elliptical training, rowing, and winter sports, not that we have any in the Philippines.

Mountaineers might also be interested in precise 3D distance monitoring, which adjusts and optimizes step count depending on altitude changes. Runners, on the other hand, will find a reliable personal trainer in the Watch S1 Pro, as it has 10 built-in running courses of different durations and intensities.

On preset, swiping left gives you access to Alexa, Amazons voice assistant. Swiping right, meanwhile, leads to customizable widgets. An up swipe reveals the quick access shortcuts, while a down swipe brings you to notifications.

Other standard smartwatch features include the remote shutter, so you could take photos using your phone from afar with a single tap on the watch; a clear water option for faster drying when the Watch S1 Pro gets wet; flashlight, which illuminates the watch face to act as a light source; and find the device that prompts your connected phone to ring to easier locate it.

The watch also supports near-field communication (NFC), online wallets, and contactless payments.

Overall, the Watch S1 Pro is among the hottest and most handsome smartwatches this year, which offers a great deal of dependability and value for money. It is highly recommended for first-time buyers, those looking to upgrade, and health buffs. Available in Xiaomi local stores.

See the original post:

The Darwinism of timepieces - Manila Bulletin

Evolution goes beyond the genetic code and the transformation of physical form, from land-mammal to whale or dinosaur to bird.

At the core of evolutionary science is a triad: variation, selection and replication, explains Binghamton University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences David Sloan Wilson, the founder of Binghamton University, State University of New York's Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) program. You can see this triad at work in culture as well, from economics and business, to engineering and the arts, and the functioning of society at all levels.

Knowing how cultural evolution happens also means we can harness it for the larger good, creating a more just and sustainable world. That's a topic of "Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical applications," a new article by Wilson recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

Co-authors include Binghamton alumnus Guru Madhavan, MBA '07, PhD '09, senior program director at the National Academy of Engineering; Michele J. Gelfand, professor of organizational behavior and psychology at Stanford University; University of Nevada Psychology Professor Steven C. Hayes, who developed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT); Paul W.B. Atkins, visiting associate professor of psychology with Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy and co-founder of the non-profit ProSocial World with Wilson; and microbiologist Rita R. Colwell, former director of the National Science Foundation.

The wide-ranging article explores the three hallmarks of cultural evolution: prosociality, or behavior oriented toward the welfare of others; social control, which enforces prosocial behavior and penalizes those who behave selfishly; and symbolic thought, which relies on a flexible inventory of symbols with shared meaning.

Humans have evolved to live in small, cooperative groups, not as disconnected individuals. To be effective, however, society also requires structure.

Otherwise, strategies that are beneficial on the individual or small-group level become maladaptive: Self-preservation becomes self-dealing, helping friends and family becomes nepotism and cronyism, and patriotism fuels international conflict, for example.

"We have to have the global good in mind and everything that we do in some sense has to be coordinated with the good of the whole," Wilson said.

A roadmap for evolution

Evolutionary concepts have been misused, however. Take social Darwinism, for example, which is often used to justify competition and harsh social inequities as "survival of the fittest," a misunderstanding and misapplication of Darwinian theory. "Social engineering" also has insidious implications, Wilson noted.

"We need to ask: Is there anything about evolutionary theory that is especially dangerous in that regard? Or is it the case that anything that can be used as a tool can also be used as a weapon?" Wilson asked. "I think it's the latter."

These concepts become weapons when they are used as means of control, with little to no input from the people they impact, he explained. When people decide to use evolutionary principles to shape their own actions and goals, however, these principles are largely benign.

Checks and balances are at the core of multilevel cultural evolution to avoid power imbalances, making it the opposite of social Darwinism, which portrayed social inequities as necessary and inevitable. Social Darwinism actually has little to do with Darwin or his theories, Wilson points out; it's a stigmatizing term associated with the moral justification for ruthless competition, and probably closer to the principles behind neoclassical economics.

But fields such as economics and business needn't define themselves with the neoclassical "greed is good" ethos of Milton Freidman. Wilson points to the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom, who proved that groups can self-manage common-pool resources -- avoiding the proverbial "tragedy of the commons" if they implement eight "core design principles."

Wilson collaborated with Ostrom to show that the core design principles can be generalized, providing a key to successful governance for nearly all forms of cooperative activity.

"To begin, you need to have a good, strong sense of identity and purpose; that's the first core design principle," Wilson said.

Other principles involve the equitable distribution of benefits and resources, inclusive decision-making, transparent behavior, and levels of response to helpful and unhelpful behavior, as well as fast and fair conflict resolution, local autonomy and authority, and relationships with other groups.

These principles not only build better workplaces, neighborhoods and nations, they can also heal the mind. As social mammals, our minds interpret social isolation as an emergency situation, the authors note, and social support is key for the treatment of such conditions as anxiety and depression.

The tools used in therapy -- particularly mindfulness -- are also applicable on a societal level, encouraging adaptability and cognitive flexibility, which helps individuals recover from adverse life events. That's true of groups as well, Wilson said.

Planting the seed

Creating a more prosocial world grounded in equity and cooperation isn't some unreachable pipe dream.

"There are practical applications," said Wilson, who established the nonprofit ProSocial World to plant these ideas outside of academia. "Right now, not in some far, distant future, we could be using these ideas to accomplish positive change."

It's important to avoid what Wilson calls the archipelago of knowledge and practice, consisting of "many islands with little communication." Otherwise, ideas and solutions may become trapped in separate silos.

In essence, the EvoS' speaker series functions that way for students, mingling lectures on bacteria with Neanderthals, morality, the arts and more. Students are exposed to ideas they may not have otherwise encountered, which introduces new paths and possibilities. The same can happen in the larger society, too.

While technological changes can spread from one culture to another over decades or centuries, Wilson hopes to spark societal change more quickly. He draws upon the concept of catalysis in chemistry: Added in small amounts, a catalytic molecule hastens the rate of change, he explains.

As catalytic agents, individuals may inspire changes that would otherwise take decades or not happen at all. And this catalysis can happen in ordinary ways, by leaning into the small-group community mindset that fuels our humanity.

Consider a community garden, for example: Reaching out to different community gardens and sharing knowledge can only benefit everyone involved, Wilson said. And those connections don't need to consist of dull meetings; they can involve social interactions such as parties and potlucks, which bring people together and encourage them to make connections.

"Imagine repeating that in every walk of life, in our schools or businesses, on every scale from small groups to cities," he explained.

Read more:

ProSocial World: How the principles of evolution can create lasting ... - Science Daily

JACKSON, Wyo. On April 27, the National Museum of Wildlife Art (NMWA) announced Survival of the Fittest: Envisioning Wildlife and Wilderness with the Big Four, Masterworks from the Rijksmuseum Twenthe and the National Museum of Wildlife Art,will open on May 27.

The exhibition will be on view through Aug. 20.

According to the NMWA press release, the exhibition title references Charles DarwinsOn the Origin of Species, which shaped how Western cultures envisioned human-animal relationships. After Darwin, a group of classically trained painters now known as the Big Four emerged and helped establish a vision of wildlife and nature that remains with Western cultures today.

The Big Four included German Richard Friese (18541918), the Big Fours elder, followed chronologically by Swede Bruno Liljefors (18601939), German Wilhelm Kuhnert (18651926) and German-American Carl Rungius (18691959).

The NMWA is one of only two museums in the world to hold masterpieces by each member of the Big Four. The other is the Rijksmuseum Twenthe in Enschede, Netherlands.

These four artists came at a point in Western history where they were able to travel into the field and study wildlife in its natural environment, says Grainger/Kerr Director of the Carl Rungius Catalogue Raisonn Adam Duncan Harris, Ph.D. Harris curated the new exhibit. Earlier artists didnt have that opportunity or the cultural impact of Darwins scientific work.

The press release states that Survival of the Fittestis the first major piece of scholarship to come out of the Museums multiyear Carl Rungius Catalogue Raisonn project. The exhibitionwill feature forty-five masterworks.

alternate ways of understanding can provide valuable insight when thinking about humanitys always-changing relationship with the wild.

Survival of the Fittestcontextualizes the work of the Big Four internationally within the frames of colonialism, Darwinism, art history, land and wildlife conservation and Indigenous peoples ways of seeing nature, Harris says. It addresses current conversations about large-scale land conservation, hunting, endangered species, wildlife-migration corridors, rewilding efforts, Indigenous visions of nature and how alternate ways of understanding can provide valuable insight when thinking about humanitys always-changing relationship with the wild.

After its premiere at the NMWA,Survival of the Fittestwill tour to five additional venues across the United States.

Related Posts

Read more:

New National Museum of Wildlife Art exhibition announced - Buckrail

The digital environment, argues Reading Rooms Rushell Clarke, is Darwinist: its evolve-or-die. Heres Clarkes field guide to continuous evolution.

In todays fast-paced, ever-evolving world, digital transformation is no longer just a buzzword. Its business critical. Organizations that remain rooted in outdated practices, relying on aging systems, are at risk of falling behind. Meanwhile, those who embrace change can adapt quickly and soar to new heights.

Welcome to the age of the future-fit phenomenon, where agility, adaptability and foresight are key to success.

Being future-fit trumps being future-ready. While future-ready tech may seem sufficient for now, it can limit organizations when new innovations emerge. At Reading Room, we champion a future-fit approach, crafting tech solutions designed for continual optimization and improvement as technology and user expectations advance.

A future-fit mindset empowers businesses to stay ahead of the curve, fostering innovation and growth. Instead of relying on static solutions, we help build dynamic digital ecosystems that adapt to the evolving technological landscape. This cultivates a culture of continuous improvement, setting your organization up for long-term success.

Being future-fit is more than just having cutting-edge technology; its about embracing change and championing ongoing optimization. This requires a curious and empathetic approach that acknowledges the challenges of change while embracing the opportunities it presents.

Its essential to invest in your organization's digital infrastructure, but its equally important to empower your team with the skills, mindsets, and resources to navigate ongoing change. By cultivating a workforce that's agile, adaptable, and ready for whatever the future holds, youll be better equipped to capitalize on emerging trends.

To thrive today, organizations must adopt a digital-first mindset. This means prioritizing digital channels, embracing digital tools, and leveraging data to create meaningful customer experiences. By putting digital at the heart of your operations, you'll stay ahead of the curve.

A digital-first doctrine empowers businesses to be proactive in addressing customer needs and staying relevant in a rapidly changing landscape. Through strategic investments in technology and innovation, you can unlock new efficiencies, optimize processes, and deliver more personalized experiences to your customers. The result? Increased customer satisfaction, stronger brand loyalty, and, ultimately, greater resilience and profitability.

For example, our digital-first work with UK Coaching delivered a 50% increase in web visits, a 14% increase in membership subscriptions, and a 3760% increase in e-learning courses from the previous year.

Embarking on a digital transformation journey can be daunting, but it needn't be an insurmountable challenge. With the right guidance and support, your organization can thrive, now and in the future.

First, its crucial to have a clear vision of digital objectives that are aligned to support broader business objectives and a roadmap to guide your transformation journey. This involves setting achievable goals, identifying potential roadblocks, and establishing metrics to measure progress. With a well-defined plan, you can ensure that your organization stays on track and maintains momentum throughout the change process.

Secondly, its important to foster a culture of experimentation and learning. Encourage your team to embrace new ideas, question the status quo, and take calculated risks. By creating an environment where innovation is rewarded, youll foster a culture of continuous improvement.

Finally, dont be afraid to ask for help. Progressing through your digital journey can be complex and overwhelming, but you dont have to go it alone. Partnering with digital transformation experts can provide the knowledge, skill, resources and support needed to guide your organization through the intricacies of change, from assessing your digital maturity to implementing cutting-edge solutions.

The journey to becoming a future-fit organization is not without challenges, but the rewards are well worth the effort. By embracing agility, adopting a digital-first mindset, and seeking the right future-fit guidance, your organization can digitally evolve and emerge as a leader. The key is to approach transformation with curiosity, empathy, and a forward-thinking attitude, equipping your team with the tools and mindset they need to adapt and thrive.

The digital landscape will continue to change, presenting challenges and opportunities along the way. By staying agile, adaptable and prepared for the technological advancements that shape our future, your organization will be well-positioned to seize new opportunities and achieve long-term success.

See the article here:

Digital Darwinism: How To Build Future-fit Foundations For Business ... - The Drum