Category Archives: Darwinism

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Today, nationwide, and also in our hometown, activists marched for science and against ignorance.And well they should have!However, these activists have an ignorant and virulent corruption in their own midst.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Jennifer Jones 10:56 a.m. ET April 27, 2017

Letter to the editor(Photo: File photo)

Last week, nationwide, and also in our hometown, activists marched for science and against ignorance.

And well they should have!

However, these activists have an ignorant and virulent corruption in their own midst. It's called social darwinism, and with it, people in the STEM fields can justify granting and withholding scientific and medical advancements to their adherents.

The social darwinist STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) crowd should fight back against the anti-intellectual wave sweeping our nation. But the same crowd should also take a close look at their own, very visible enemy, Donald Trump, and also at everyone and everything else that has permitted his rise to power.

STEM social darwinists: Don't you approve? Aren't you pleased? Trump and his ilk are the epitome of everything many of you embrace. Born rich, recipient of family wealth, Trump is the poster-child of social darwinism. For who deserves more in our society than the children of the successful oligarchs? Is he not what you requested? Is he not magnificient? Is he not the flower of natural selection?

No?

Well then, perhaps you'd better second guess more than the Bible-thumping religious right!

Jennifer Jones

Greer

Read or Share this story: http://grnol.co/2qaoIQw

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the article here:

LETTER: Trump and social darwinism - Greenville News

In college, Paul Roebber reveled in the interdisciplinary aspects of meteorology. This was a sign to come, as Roebber, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, would go on to apply biological aspects in his research as he became one of the foremost experts in meteorology forecasting.

Ten years ago, Roebber designed weather forecast simulations that were organized like networks of neurons in the brain. The computer programs formed a system of interconnected processing units that could be activated or deactivated. This artificial neural network tool proved especially proficient at predicting scenarios with large data gaps and reams of variables. It significantly advanced snowfall prediction effortsso much so that the artificial neural network is now used by the National Weather Service.

For me, creativity comes from being open to broad interests, said Roebber in a release from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Recently, that broad interest extended to Charles Darwins evolution theory based on the finches of the Galapagos Islandsspurring Roebbers next big weather innovation.

Metrology meets biology

Currently, weather forecasters use ensemble modeling, which predicts the weather based on the average of many weather models combined. But, ensemble modeling isnt always accurate as each model is so similar, they end up agreeing with each other, rather than the actual weather. Essentially, more data diversity is needed to distinguish relevant variables from irrelevant ones. However, its expensive to obtain and add new data.

The importance of a weather forecast goes beyond you bringing an umbrella to work, or planning to host a party outdoors. In fact, an estimated 40 percent of the U.S. economy is somehow dependent on weather prediction. Even a small improvement in the accuracy of forecasts could save millions of dollars annually for the industries that are affected mostnotably agribusiness and construction.

So, if the key to improving ensemble modeling is data diversityhow do you do it without first collecting new data?

Roebber found the answer in nature.

In 1835, Darwin observed what came to be known as natural selection in a population of finches inhabiting the Galapagos Islands. The birds divided into smaller groups, each residing in different locations around the islands. Over time, they adapted to their specific habitat, making each group distinct from the othersand all different from the original finches.

Applying this to weather prediction models, Roebber devised a mathematical method in which one computer program sorts 10,000 other ones, improving itself over time using strategies such as heredity, mutation andof coursenatural selection. The professor began by subdividing existing variables into conditional scenarios: the value of a variable would be set one way under one condition, but be set differently under another condition.

Then, his computer program picks out the variables that best accomplish the goal and recombines them. This means the offspring weather prediction models improve in accuracy because they block more of the unhelpful attributesjust as Darwin observed all those years ago.

One difference between this and biology is, I wanted to force the next generation [of models] to be better in some absolute sense, not just survive, Roebber said in a UWM press release.

He is already using the evolutionary methodology to forecast minimum and maximum temperatures for seven days out, and the technique is outperforming models used by the National Weather Service. In particular, Roebbers new model works well on long-range forecasts and extreme events, when an accurate forecast is most needed.

More here:

Meteorology Pioneer Borrows from Darwinism for Latest Forecast Innovation - Laboratory Equipment

HARTFORD, Conn. U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes its the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me, said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality. That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth, Himes said.

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year.

Such proposals, however, dont get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who dont call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking up the legislation, which only expresses the Houses support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earths people.

Darwin, who was a religious person, didnt let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. Thats a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but theres an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence, Holt said. Its really to Jims credit that hes speaking up for this. Its harder for a non-scientist to do that.

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a universally respected scientist to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause, Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being.

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe humans and other living things have evolved over time, while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesnt see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

No science can explain why human beings evolved, he said. But we shouldnt argue with the fact that they did evolve.

Read more:

Meet the congressman who is pushing for a Charles Darwin Day ... - Tulsa World

HARTFORD >> U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes its the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me, said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality. That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth, Himes said.

Advertisement

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states, South Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma, have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year. Such proposals, however, dont get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who dont call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking on the legislation, which only expresses the Houses support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earths people.

Darwin, who was a religious person, didnt let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. Thats a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but theres an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence, Holt said. Its really to Jims credit that hes speaking up for this. Its harder for a non-scientist to do that.

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a universally respected scientist to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause, Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being.

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe humans and other living things have evolved over time, while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesnt see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

No science can explain why human beings evolved, he said. But we shouldnt argue with the fact that they did evolve.

Visit link:

Connecticut congressman pushing for a Charles Darwin Day - New Haven Register

Wild Horizons/UIG via Getty

The shape of this chambered nautilus is one of many biological features that DArcy Thompson used maths to explain.

This year marks the centenary of what seems now to be an extraordinary event in publishing: the time when a UK local newspaper reviewed a dense, nearly 800-page treatise on mathematical biology that sought to place physical constraints on the processes of Darwinism.

And whats more, the Dundee Advertiser loved the book and recommended it to readers. When the author, it noted, wrote of maths, he never fails to translate his mathematics into English; and he is one of the relatively few men of science who can write in flawless English and who never grudge the effort to make every sentence balanced and good.

The Dundee Advertiser is still going, although it has changed identity: a decade after the review was published, it merged with The Courier, and that is how most people refer to it today. The book is still going, too. If anything, its title alongside its balanced and good sentences has become more iconic and recognized as the years have ticked by.

The book is On Growth and Form by DArcy Thompson. This week, Nature offers its own appreciation, with a series of articles in print and online that celebrate the books impact, ideas and lasting legacy.

Still in print, On Growth and Form was more than a decade in the planning. Thompson would regularly tell colleagues and studentshe taught at what is now the University of Dundee, hence the local media interestabout his big idea before he wrote it all down. In part, he was reacting against one of the biggest ideas in scientific history. Thompson used his book to argue that Charles Darwins natural selection was not the only major influence on the origin and development of species and their unique forms: In general no organic forms exist save such as are in conformity with physical and mathematical laws.

Biological response to physical forces remains a live topic for research. In a research paper, for example, researchers report how physical stresses generated at defects in the structures of epithelial cell layers cause excess cells to be extruded.

In a separate online publication (K. Kawaguchi et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22321; 2017), other scientists show that topological defects have a role in cell dynamics, as a result of the balance of forces. In high-density cultures of neural progenitor cells, the direction in which cells travel around defects affects whether cells become more densely packed (leading to pile-ups) or spread out (leading to a cellular fast-lane where travel speeds up).

A Technology Feature investigates in depth the innovative methods developed to detect and measure forces generated by cells and proteins. Such techniques help researchers to understand how force is translated into biological function.

Thompsons influence also flourishes in other active areas of interdisciplinary research. A research paper offers a mathematical explanation for the colour changes that appear in the scales of ocellated lizards (Timon lepidus) during development (also featured on this weeks cover). It suggests that the patterns are generated by a system called a hexagonal cellular automaton, and that such a discrete system can emerge from the continuous reaction-diffusion framework developed by mathematician Alan Turing to explain the distinctive patterning on animals, such as spots and stripes. (Some of the research findings are explored in detail in the News and Views section.) To complete the link to Thompson, Turing cited On Growth and Form in his original work on reaction-diffusion theory in living systems.

Finally, we have also prepared an online collection of research and comment from Nature and the Nature research journals in support of the centenary, some of which we have made freely available to view for one month.

Nature is far from the only organization to recognize the centenary of Thompsons book. A full programme of events will run this year around the world, and at the DArcy Thompson Zoology Museum in Dundee, skulls and other specimens are being scanned to create digital 3D models. Late last month, this work was featured in The Courier. One hundred years on, Thompsons story has some way to run yet.

See the rest here:

The 100-year-old challenge to Darwin that is still making waves in research - Nature.com

by SUSAN HAIGH/Associated Press

In this photo taken March 20, 2017, House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., questions FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers on Capitol Hill in Washington, during the committee's hearing regarding allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Jim Himes has taken on the role of promoting Darwinism in the House of Representatives, saying he believes it's the type of legislation his southwestern Connecticut constituents want him to pursue at a time when skepticism surrounds science.

"I represent one of the most educated districts in the country. And so, I think my constituents expect this of me," said Himes, who took over proposing the perennial longshot legislation commemorating the birth date of Charles Darwin from former New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a research physicist who is now chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Himes said he has championed the legislation for several years because "science and truth remarkably always need advocacy against the forces of nostalgia and fear and irrationality." That message, he said, is especially important now in light of statements from President Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, who has alarmed scientists by saying he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"At the end of the day, policy has to be guided by facts and truth," Himes said.

The legislation comes as lawmakers in at least three states, South Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma, have weighed bills this year allowing teachers to decide how much skepticism to work into lessons on contentious scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, according to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, proposed a similar bill in the Senate this year. Such proposals, however, don't get very far. Branch said the legislation is typically defeated in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by ideologically conservative Republicans who don't call a hearing on the bill.

The bill is unlikely to ever pass Congress, given that Darwin, who developed the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, was British.

But Holt praises Himes, a former investment banker, for taking on the legislation, which only expresses the House's support in designating Feb. 12 as Darwin Day, recognizing him as "a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's people."

Darwin, who was a religious person, didn't let personal bias interfere with him looking at evidence, Holt said. That's a stance worth celebrating at a time when ideology and opinion are crowding out evidence, he said.

"Of course, the Darwin Day legislation is more symbolic than practical, but there's an important lesson there that public issues should be informed by the best publicly available scientific evidence," Holt said. "It's really to Jim's credit that he's speaking up for this. It's harder for a non-scientist to do that."

Himes has taken other pro-science stances recently, including signing a congressional letter in December to Trump, urging the president to appoint a "universally respected scientist" to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology within his first 100 days in office -- an appointment that has not yet been made. The president has not responded.

Himes drew some criticism during his last re-election campaign for proposing the legislation. His Republican opponent, former Rep. John Shaban, called it a political stunt and a waste of time and resources.

"Indeed, I believe in both evolution and that we must pursue balanced polices to address global climate change, but passive-aggressive resolutions do little to advance the cause," Shaban wrote on his campaign website.

For decades, there have been efforts to recognize Darwin and his theory of evolution, both nationally and internationally. The American Humanist Society promotes International Darwin Day each year, calling it a "day of celebration, activism and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being."

A 2013 analysis by the Pew Research Center determined that 60 percent of Americans believe "humans and other living things have evolved over time," while a third reject the idea of evolution. Pew also found about 24 percent of Americans believe that a "supreme being guided the evolution of living things" for the purpose of creating human beings.

Himes, an elder in his Presbyterian church, said he doesn't see his faith as being at odds with the Darwin Day bill.

"No science can explain why human beings evolved," he said. "But we shouldn't argue with the fact that they did evolve."

Read more here:

Meet the congressman who is pushing for a Charles Darwin Day ... - WJLA

Some stunning upsets in conventional thinking about evolution have hit the news in rapid succession, threatening Darwins famous tree icon.

Under the rules of neo-Darwinism, mutations must be random, providing fodder for the blind processes of natural selection. But heres a case where animals defy their own neo-Darwinism. Luke Dunning writes at The Conversation:

Are octopuses so clever because they ignore their genetic programming? Research has shown that octopuses and other cephalopods edit the messages sent from their DNA instead of following them almost exactly like most living things usually do.

Previously, scientists thought this process of molecular Chinese whispers was largely insignificant in animal evolution. But a new study published in the journal Cell shows this is certainly not true for these tentacled ocean dwellers.

It suggests that genetic editing may directly contribute to cephalopods remarkable intelligence, which enables them to solve complicated puzzles and visually communicate by changing their skin colour, making them the smartest of all invertebrates. However, the ability to alter genetic messages may come at a price, potentially reducing other more common forms of adaptive evolution. [Emphasis added.]

Lets translate the evo-speak into plain English. Neo-Darwinism did not make cephalopods what they are. These highly intelligent and well-adapted animals edited their own genes, so what possible need do they have for other forms of adaptive evolution presumably the blind, random, unguided kind? What does editing imply?

News from the University of Chicagos Marine Biological Laboratory implies that cephalopods were wise to choose the RNA editing bargain. Mutation is usually thought of as the currency of natural selection, and these animals are suppressing that to maintain recoding flexibility at the RNA level, says biologist Joshua Rosenthal. The lab identified tens of thousands of evolutionarily conserved RNA recoding sites in this class of cephalopods, called coleoid. Evolutionarily conserved is a euphemism for stability for non-evolution over long periods of time. Those squid are smart, all right: they seem to be able to prevent Darwinian evolution!

So far, news sources such as New Scientist are just calling this a special kind of evolution based on RNA editing instead of DNA mutations. Theyre restricting the phenomenon to squid, octopuses and cuttlefish. But usually when a new process is discovered in one group, scientists now alerted to it start finding it in other groups, too.

The implications for Darwins tree of life are clear. If animals are able to defy genetics central dogma (Phys.org) and take evolution into their own hands, no wonder the tree managers are scrambling.

Check out this talking point: Cephalopods probably chose to take this RNA bargain over genome evolution, and maybe vertebrates made the other choice they preferred genome evolution over editing. They chose? That sounds like intelligent design by the spirits of cephalopods, playing their own evolutionary strategy against the rules of the game established by Darwin. A better model would be pre-programmed software for stability in a dynamic environment.

Photo: California two-spot octopus, by Tom Kleindinst via Marine Biological Laboratory.

Originally posted here:

Octopus Genetic Editing Animals Defy Their Own Neo-Darwinism - Discovery Institute

We might as well just give up control over the planet right now. In recently published research, scientists detail a set of experiments in which robots real, physical machines improved themselves through a kind of digital Darwinism. The bots, each drawing from a collective "gene pool," competed with one another over multiple generations, gradually swapping genetic material in a process akin to sexual reproduction. The research articleappearedin the journalFrontiers in Robotics and AI. While this kind ofevolutionary roboticsresearch has been around a while, the new study presents an important step forward in assessing the evolutionary dynamics of physically embodied robots and it suggests that we're mashing the fast-forward button on the impending robotic revolution. Researchers from Vassar College set up an experiment in which 10 small-wheeled robots all of them a model of the Ana BBot, manufactured by Johuco Ltd. were issued the same task: to gather beams of light while avoiding certain obstacles. Each bot was also issued its own set of "genes" a specific pattern of wires connected to pins on a circuit board.

Ana BBot, a mobile robot that is programmable using jumper wires to connect sensors and motors.

RELATED: Stopping Killer Robots at the Source (Code) It turns out that the experiment didn't reveal anything particularly dramatic. The robots didn't evolve better light-capturing or object-avoidance skills. But the experiment did reveal the importance of tracking the developmental factor in evolutionary robotics. "It is important to note that our goal was not to show adaptive evolution per se, but rather to test the hypothesis that epigenetic factors can alter the evolutionary dynamics of a population of physically embodied robots," wrote Brawer and Hill. Notably, all the bots had lost mobility entirely by the end of the experiment, since the mating algorithm allowed low-fitness individuals to remain in the gene pool and reproduce. So maybe there's still hope for us after all.

Originally published on Seeker.

Read the original:

'Mating' Robots Take a Fast-Forward Leap in Digital Darwinism - Live Science

We might as well just give up control over the planet right now. In recently published research, scientists detail a set of experiments in which robots real, physical machines improved themselves through a kind of digital Darwinism. The bots, each drawing from a collective gene pool, competed with one another over multiple generations, gradually swapping genetic material in a process akin to sexual reproduction. The research article appeared in the journal Frontiers in Robotics and AI. While this kind of evolutionary robotics research has been around a while, the new study presents an important step forward in assessing the evolutionary dynamics of physically embodied robots and it suggests that we're mashing the fast-forward button on the impending robotic revolution. Researchers from Vassar College set up an experiment in which 10 small-wheeled robots all of them a model of the Ana BBot, manufactured by Johuco Ltd. were issued the same task: to gather beams of light while avoiding certain obstacles. Each bot was also issued its own set of genes a specific pattern of wires connected to pins on a circuit board.

After each robot completed its tasks, pairs of individual bots were sorted into five ranks by order of fitness. From there, a randomized mating algorithm was used to determine which parental genomes would be combined to produce the next generation of robots. In this case, the genomes consisted of binary code that allowed for different possible wiring of the bot's hardware setup. The emerging phenotype the physical expression of the gene was modified in each generation by altering their wiring in accordance with the new genetic information. The process was repeated until 10 generations of robots had been created and ranked by fitness. RELATED: Killer Machines and Sex Robots: Unraveling the Ethics of AI The researchers threw in another twist as well, based on a particular aspect of evolutionary theory. In living organisms, genomes are affected by development as well as evolution. In this context, development refers to events during a single lifetime that lead to epigenetic changes. This interplay between evolution and development is sometimes referred to as evo-devo, and it represents a discrete field of study in evolutionary developmental biology. It gets complicated, but the upshot is that the Vassar experiment was the first to introduce developmental variations in an experiment with physical robots, according to the researchers. The core idea was to study how genetic (evolutionary) and epigenetic (developmental) factors interact in robotic evolution. Similar studies have been applied in the field of artificial intelligence and neural networks, but the Vassar team was interested in the potential future of physically embodied robots. "For roboticists, the evo-devo challenge is to create physically embodied systems that incorporate the three scales of time and the processes inherent in each: behavior, development, and evolution, wrote project leads Jake Brawer and Aaron Hill, who authored the report with four other colleagues. Because of the complexity of building and evolving physical robots, this is a daunting challenge in the quest for the 'evolution of things.' As an initial step toward this goal, in this paper we create a physically embodied system that allows us to examine systematically how developmental and evolutionary processes interact.

RELATED: Stopping Killer Robots at the Source (Code) It turns out that the experiment didn't reveal anything particularly dramatic. The robots didnt evolve better light-capturing or object-avoidance skills. But the experiment did reveal the importance of tracking the developmental factor in evolutionary robotics. "It is important to note that our goal was not to show adaptive evolution per se, but rather to test the hypothesis that epigenetic factors can alter the evolutionary dynamics of a population of physically embodied robots, wrote Brawer and Hill. Notably, all the bots had lost mobility entirely by the end of the experiment, since the mating algorithm allowed low-fitness individuals to remain in the gene pool and reproduce. So maybe theres still hope for us after all.

WATCH: Heart Cells Are Bringing Robots to Life

The rest is here:

'Mating' Robots Take a Fast-Forward Leap in Digital Darwinism - Seeker

In early 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Speciespublished in Britain in November 1859became a topic of conversation among a number of New England intellectuals. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau read the Origin. So did Bronson Alcott, the father of Louisa Alcott, and Charles Loring Brace, the founder of the Children's Aid Society. Two leading scientists also read the Origin: the botanist Asa Gray, who defended Darwin, and the zoologist Louis Agassiz, who attacked Darwin. Now, in The Book That Changed America, Randall Fuller declares that "the Origin did what few books ever do: alter the conversation a society is having about itself."

Did Darwin's theory of evolution really "ignite a nation"? It's hard to say from the evidence Fuller provides in this lucid book because he writes mainly about New England intellectuals. (Indeed, my only quibble with Fuller is that occasionally he adds novelistic touches that are not warranted.) Yet perhaps the subtitle is accurate, for Darwin wrote to Asa Gray: "I assure you I am astonished at the impression my Book has made on many minds."

The Origin only marginally altered the conversation about slavery. Darwin's theory that every living creature is descended from one prototype undermined the argument for polygenesisthe notion that God created blacks as a separate species. Yet many writers who agreed with Darwin that there was a common origin for all human beings nevertheless argued that blacks were at a lower stage of development than whites, somewhere between apes and humans. This view was widespread among Southern apologists for slaverycartoonists often depicted Abraham Lincoln as a man/apebut this view was also commonplace in the North. The Origin did not change anyone's mind about slavery; it just gave writers for and against slavery different arguments to support their positions. Darwinism, Fuller says, "could be used to support just about any social or political claim one wanted to make."

Like all the New England intellectuals, Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray condemned slavery, yet Agassiz insisted that blacks were a different species. Opposing miscegenationit was called "amalgamation"Agassiz believed that people of African descent should return to Africa. Gray said that it was impossible for blacks to be a different species: Different species cannot interbreed, yet slaveholders often mated with slaves. Polygenists argued that biracial children were infertile, but there was no evidence to support this claim. Charles Loring Brace agreed with Agassiz that it would be best if blacks emigrated: The United States, he argued, was a great nation because its leaders were Anglo-Saxons. He worried (Fuller writes) "that one day America might not be a white nation at all." Brace, however, disagreed with Agassiz about Darwin: He admired the Origin and made use of Darwin's theory in his Races of the Old World, which Fuller calls "a sprawling, ramshackle work ... deeply marred by a series of internal contradictions."

The Origin had a greater impact on the conversation about science and religion. Many Americans rejected the notion that the diversity of species was a result of chance. They agreed with Agassiz, who conducted a public campaign against Darwin, calling the theory of natural selection "fanciful." Agassiz said that God had created immutable species: "What," he asked, "has the whale in the arctic regions to do with the lion or the tiger in the tropical Indies?" Agassiz always invoked God as an explanation for the diversity of the animal kingdom: "There is a design according to which they were built, which must have been conceived before they were called into existence." (Gray argued that Agassiz's view "was theistic to excess." By referring the origin and distribution of species "directly to the Divine will," he said, Agassiz was removing the study of organic life from "the domain of inductive science.")

Bronson Alcott rejected any theory of species diversity that left out God. He offered his own odd take on evolutionarguing, in Fuller's words, that "all creatures had begun as humans, as part of a Universal Spirit. ... The lower the animal in the chain of being, the further that particular animal had fallen from its true spiritual state." Humans came first! Alcott was the most woolly-minded of the New England intellectuals, yet even the astute Gray was reluctant to give up the notion of design. He wrote to Darwin to say that design must have played some part in evolution; how else can one explain the extraordinary nature of the human eye? "I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about design," Darwin replied. "I cannot think the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design." Darwin maintained that "the notion of design must after all rest mostly on faith." But he did not think his theory should affect people's religious beliefs: "I had no intention to write atheistically." Gray, a devout Presbyterian, concluded that God chose natural selection as the method for creation: "A fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable," he said. "The alternative is a designed Cosmos."

Fuller points out that, by 1876, "a large swath of the liberal clergy" agreed with Asa Gray that natural selection was a mechanism employed by God. Yet, to this day, many Americans do not accept Darwin's theory: According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Group, "34 percent of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

The Origin also affected the conversation Americans were having about politics. Should capitalism be regulated? Adam Smith thought that it should, but Social Darwinists warned that regulating capitalism was misguided because it was against nature. Capitalism should be understood as a Darwinian struggle where the "fittest" thrived; why help the "unfit" when it was clear from nature that they were doomed to fail? So argued Yale social scientist William Graham Sumner:

A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and tendency of things. Nature has set upon him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness.

A good gloss on Sumner's thought is a remark Gray made to Brace: "When you unscientific people take up a scientific principle, you are apt to make too much of it, to push it to conclusions beyond what is warranted by the facts."

Fuller begins and ends this book with Thoreau, who admired Darwin's detailed observation of the natural world in both The Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species. Thoreau was a budding natural scientist who took thousands of pages of notes about local flora. "What he intended to do with all this data," Fuller says, "is still not entirely clear." Fuller speculates that Thoreau may have "had difficulty organizing his material into a coherent project. ... He had adopted the methods of science without the benefit of a scientific theory."

The strongest evidence that Darwin influenced Thoreau comes from Thoreau's notebooks. In the last year of his life (Thoreau died in 1862) he embarked on a project to record the innumerable ways in which local forest trees propagated and thrived in a constantly changing environment. And in his notebook, he offers a hypothesis about what he has observed: "The development theory implies a greater vital force in nature, because it is more flexible and accommodating, and equivalent to a sort of constant new creation." Thoreau, Fuller contends, "no longer relies upon divinity to explain the natural world." Fuller supports his contention with another sentence from Thoreau's notebooks: "Thus we should say that oak forests are produced by a kind of accident."

Of course, the notion of "accident" would have been rejected by Bronson Alcott, who was a close friend of Thoreau's. Alcott visited Thoreau on the day he died, reporting that his friend was "lying patiently & cheerfully on the bed he would never leave again." Another visitor, an aunt, asked Thoreau: "Have you made your peace with God?"

"We never quarreled," Thoreau replied.

Stephen Miller is the author, most recently, of Walking New York: Reflections of American Writers from Walt Whitman to Teju Cole.

Read more:

How Charles Darwin Got New England Talking - The Weekly Standard