Category Archives: Evolution

Dublin, March 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Portugal Telecom Operators Country Intelligence Report" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Portugal Telecom Operators Country Intelligence Report provides an executive-level overview of the telecommunications market in Portugal today, with detailed forecasts of key indicators up to 2024.

Published annually, the report provides detailed analysis of the near-term opportunities, competitive dynamics and evolution of demand by service type and technology/platform across the fixed telephony, broadband, and mobile segments, as well as a review of key regulatory trends.

Telecom service revenue growth in Portugal through 2019-2024 will be mainly driven by growth in mobile data and fixed broadband segments. Mobile data will be fastest growing segment over 2019-2024. Growth will be driven by rise in data ARPS, growing consumption of mobile data services and spike in smartphone subscriptions. Fixed broadband revenue will grow at a CAGR of 3.1% over 2019-2024, supported by investment by the major telcos in expansion of fiber-optic broadband services in the country.

The Country Intelligence Report provides in-depth analysis of the following:

Reasons to Buy

Companies Mentioned

Key Topics Covered

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/mn3wlz

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

See the original post here:

Portugal Telecom Operators Market Study 2020 - Opportunities, Competitive Dynamics, Key Regulatory Trends, and Evolution of Demand by Service Type...

There are characters and dynamics from The Office that are frozen in our minds: Michael Scott as the dimwitted and insensitive boss, Jim and Pam as the fairytale couple, Jim and Dwight as mortal enemies. But there are also variations and an evolutionary path that carefully poked at and sometimes even broke down those crystalized versions of characters that we were first introduced to 15 years ago on Tuesday. And its those efforts that prove the greatness of the show and the guts of its creative team.

Im fascinated by the balancing act between artistic instinct and fan service. When I spoke with Schitts Creek star and showrunner Dan Levy about that shows upcoming finale a couple of months ago, he offered a take that really clicked with me: When it comes to telling stories, we dont think about our fan base because I dont think you could write based on other peoples expectations. Thats gotta be a really hard thing to do, especially when you go from being the little engine that could to something that a lot of people are talking about which describes Schitts Creeks unique mid-life, fan-bolstered ascent. It might be harder when youre working with characters that were popular and widely beloved from the jump.

The final few seasons of The Office dont get nearly as much love as the shows vaunted earlier seasons. New characters were introduced, providing an opportunity to try new things but most (Pete, Erin, Clark) felt like lesser versions of previously established characters and others (Robert California, Nellie, Jo, Gabe) werent always given enough room to run. What the show did do, however, was push familiar characters out of their comfort zones or, at least, out of the audiences comfort zones. This too came with mixed results. Andy Bernard, as a for instance, was asked to carry way too much weight, causing the show to suffer. But, truthfully, the concerted evolution of some characters had begun well before the show headed toward its final two seasons.

HR nightmare Michael Scott is really a prime example. At the start, Michael echoed Ricky Gervais David Brent from the original UK version of the show, speaking without thinking, thinking without reason apart from ill-advised attempts at comedy and bonding with people he assumed respected and even looked up to him. Like the UK version, The Office spun gold from the resulting awkwardness on display in those interactions, allowing the larger cast to react to the three-ring circus in front of them.

Over time, however, Michaels villainy got sanded down and he became slightly less cringe-y with the character appearing to be more of an overactive child with a toxic need to be liked than someone truly abhorrent (with a few exceptionally cancelable moments). Odd blips of wisdom popped up (like when he counseled Jim about his pursuit of Pam in the Booze Cruise episode), as did pitiable moments (pretty much the entire Jan affair) and small victories (testifying against Jan in The Deposition and standing up to Wallace and Charles Minor when negotiating a return to Dunder Mifflin in Broke). And by the end of Steve Carells run, Michael had morphed into someone worth rooting for as he worked toward realizing his life long goal of being not just loved but appreciated despite all his quirks and flaws once he met, courted, lost, and eventually refound Holly.

All of this was, of course, a lengthy transition necessitated by the size of the characters run (seven seasons and 139 episodes) and the inability for any character to successfully hold one note for that long. To try would have boxed Carell in and denied us the chance to see him and the writers develop Michaels humanity. And what a loss that would have been for fans of the show.

Dwight Schrute doesnt get the same level of reinvention as Michael does, but even he sees growth particularly toward the end of the show as his increasingly chaotic and dangerous feud with Jim Halpert fades to reveal grudging respect and the glimmer of friendship (that had been gently teased earlier in the shows run). This natural easing of tensions seemed to acknowledge that both characters had grown up to a degree and that, despite an epic run of inventiveness, their seemingly endless prank war had started to get tired.

There are, of course, other characters who grew across the shows run Oscar and Angelas surprising and uneasy alliance feels more forced than the Jim/Dwight detente, but its also a nice resolution for another pair of needlessly fierce office rivals. Even Andy adds some dimension, though that only brings a minor amount of improvement over the teeth gnashingly annoying Stamford days Andy Bernard.

Jim and Pam are, of course, the shows most enduring cultural contribution. Like Sam and Diane from Cheers and Ross and Rachel from Friends before them, they embody an entire generations definition for will they/wont they TV relationships. Theyre also the ideal of adorable coupledom for a lot of people. Which is why the season 9 turn away from the pairs seeming perfection still pisses people off, registering as some kind of betrayal.

Returning for the final season, initial show developer Greg Daniels clearly wanted to make a noise by exploring some of the often glossed-over imperfections with the Jim/Pam dynamic. Its also possible that Daniels wanted to acknowledge that real relationships suffer from peaks and valleys and that sometimes a scare can be beneficial.

Had The Office left Jim and Pam to continue going through the motions, it probably would have pleased many (if not most fans), but Id argue that the drama that consumed parts of season 9 ultimately led to a recommitment to the relationship and some of the final seasons most memorable and enriching moments with Jim and Pam emerging stronger and better for it. And Im not just talking about the teapot reveal and the highlight reel. Im talking about Jim getting out of that cab and telling Pam he wanted to stay and fight, blunting momentum that was leading him and Pam in different directions. It may seem inconsequential or get dismissed as a part of the displeasing marital trouble arc, but its also representative of one of the hardest things one can do when theyre in the middle of a bad stretch in a relationship make a hard turn and stop before things become unrecoverable. I cant think of a more powerful proof point of that couples love (or any couples love, really) than that they were able to get through hard times. Anyone can fall in love, not everyone can keep it going.

I know that its hard to fathom someone liking the near destruction of Jim and Pams fairytale or the end of the Jim/Dwight feud. Even the gentleification of Michael almost certainly has its detractors who preferred when the character had more edge. But these moves feel like some of the shows biggest and most impressive swings based on how easy it would have been to not take them and instead lean into the status quo. These choices are also a clear indication that The Office was not content to peter out after a dominant early run, drowning in fan service and swell intentions. Instead, they did what they had always done, trusting their guts even when it felt unpopular for the good of the characters, the show, and, eventually, the fans. Whether we realize it or not.

Here is the original post:

The Greatness Of 'The Office' Stemmed From Its Willingness To Evolve - UPROXX

Editors note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Lifes Origin. Below is an excerpt from the original introduction by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen.

Two monumental scientific reports appeared in 1953, both of which have subsequently received wide acceptance in the scientific community. One was the proposal by James Watson and Francis Crick of their double helical model for deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. According to their now-famous model, hereditary information is transmitted from one generation to the next by means of a simple code resident in the specific sequence of certain constituents of the DNA molecule. It had previously been held that the spectacular diversity of life was due in part to some corresponding diversity of nuclear material. The breakthrough by Crick and Watson was their discovery of the specific key to lifes diversity. It was the extraordinarily complex yet orderly architecture of the DNA molecule. They had discovered that there is in fact a code inscribed in this coil of life, bringing a major advance in our understanding of lifes remarkable structure.

Almost as if synchronized for the sake of irony, the other report in 1953, by Stanley Miller, offered experimental support for what has become an increasingly apparent contradiction. Miller offered his work in support of the neo-Darwinian theory of prebiotic evolution. This notion suggested that the fantastic complexity in the molecular organization of living cells might somehow have resulted from nothing more than simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean.

In 1953, few if any were troubled by the tension between the new insights of Crick and Watson on the one hand and Millers results on the other. Crick and Watson were concerned with lifes structure and Miller was concerned with lifes origin. Most observers had an unshakable confidence that these two investigative approaches would eventually converge. After all, young Millers announcement of experimental success was just what was anticipated according to the general theory of evolution. Regardless of whether the particular theory of evolution is Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or something else, an evolutionary preamble to the biological phase of evolution is clearly required. Chemical evolution, then, is the pre-biological phase of evolution in which the very earliest living things came into being. This monumental dawning of life occurred through the variation of natural forces acting on matter over long time spans, perhaps up to a thousand million years, or maybe longer.

In the decades since Millers and Crick and Watsons reports, however, there have been indications that all is not well in the halls of biology. We have gained a far deeper appreciation of the extremely complex macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. The enlarged understanding of these complexities has precipitated new suggestions that the DNA mechanism may be more complex and the molecular organization more intricate and information-filled than was previously thought.

The impressive complexities of proteins, nucleic acids, and other biological molecules are presently developed in nature only in living things. Unless it is assumed such complexity has always been present in an infinitely old universe, there must have been a time in the past when life appeared de novo out of lifeless, inert matter. How can the mere interaction of simple chemicals in the primordial ocean have produced life as it is presently understood? That is the question. The signs do not bode well for the standard answers given, and some investigators are suggesting that our two approaches will not converge.

Read the rest in The Mystery of Lifes Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.

Photo: (l. to r.) Roger Olsen, Charles Thaxton, and Walter Bradley signing books at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, by Chris Morgan.

Read more:

Crisis in the Chemistry of Origins - Discovery Institute

From the moment she took over our screens when Stranger Things first hit Netflix, Millie Bobby Browns hair has captured our attention. After the initial season aired, Brown shared a video on Instagram of the now infamous head shave. The Stranger Things co-creators Matt and Ross Duffer recorded the event on their phones and captured the very moment when Millie Bobby Brown transformed into Eleven. She spoke positively about shaving her head and displayed wisdom well beyond her years when she claimed she wanted to do it to show other young girls that we are more than our hair.

Since then, Brown has continued to showcase her hair transformation by sharing her hair journey with all of us on her Instagram profile. Were highlighting all of the lengths, colors, and styles the star has tried on as she continues to grow out her locks and embrace a new chapter of her life.

Here is the original post:

The Evolution of Millie Bobby Brown's Hair - Revelist

Lets start up with the current stock price of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE), which is $2.07 to be very precise. The Stock rose vividly during the last session to $2.2 after opening rate of $2.1 while the lowest price it went was recorded $2.05 before closing at $2.05.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. had a pretty Dodgy run when it comes to the market performance. The 1-year high price for the companys stock is recorded $5.76 on 03/26/19, with the lowest value was $1.39 for the same time period, recorded on 10/11/19.

Price records that include history of low and high prices in the period of 52 weeks can tell a lot about the stocks existing status and the future performance. Presently, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. shares are logging -64.06% during the 52-week period from high price, and 48.92% higher than the lowest price point for the same timeframe. The stocks price range for the 52-week period managed to maintain the performance between $1.39 and $5.76.

The companys shares, operating in the sector of healthcare managed to top a trading volume set approximately around 6.09 million for the day, which was evidently higher, when compared to the average daily volumes of the shares.

When it comes to the year-to-date metrics, the Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE) recorded performance in the market was -38.76%, having the revenues showcasing -38.94% on a quarterly basis in comparison with the same period year before. At the time of this writing, the total market value of the company is set at 329.23M, as it employees total of 310 workers.

During the last month, 1 analysts gave the Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. a BUY rating, 0 of the polled analysts branded the stock as an OVERWEIGHT, 0 analysts were recommending to HOLD this stock, 0 of them gave the stock UNDERWEIGHT rating, and 0 of the polled analysts provided SELL rating.

According to the data provided on Barchart.com, the moving average of the company in the 100-day period was set at 2.86, with a change in the price was noted +0.52. In a similar fashion, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. posted a movement of +33.55% for the period of last 100 days, recording 6,472,079 in trading volumes.

Total Debt to Equity Ratio (D/E) can also provide valuable insight into the companys financial health and market status. The debt to equity ratio can be calculated by dividing the present total liabilities of a company by shareholders equity. Debt to Equity thus makes a valuable metrics that describes the debt, company is using in order to support assets, correlating with the value of shareholders equity. The total Debt to Equity ratio for SRNE is recording 2.99 at the time of this writing. In addition, long term Debt to Equity ratio is set at 2.53.

Raw Stochastic average of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. in the period of last 50 days is set at 17.69%. The result represents downgrade in oppose to Raw Stochastic average for the period of the last 20 days, recording 55.91%. In the last 20 days, the companys Stochastic %K was 52.74% and its Stochastic %D was recorded 39.21%.

Considering, the past performance of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., multiple moving trends are noted. Year-to-date Price performance of the companys stock appears to be encouraging, given the fact the metric is recording -38.76%. Additionally, trading for the stock in the period of the last six months notably deteriorated by -7.17%, alongside a downfall of -61.45% for the period of the last 12 months. The shares increased approximately by 19.96% in the 7-day charts and went up by 16.95% in the period of the last 30 days. Common stock shares were lifted by -38.94% during last recorded quarter.

See the original post here:

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE) is primed for evolution with the beta value of 2.63 - The InvestChronicle

Posted by Shradhdha Das

Marvel struck gold with Iron Man and began to capitalize on the superhero genre in 2008. Pepper Potts was introduced in the first Iron Man as Tony Starks love interest she worries over his health and safety, later taking over Stark Industries. She exists completely in his context and never seems important to the plot.

The Black Widow movie was announced only after the character sacrificed herself in Endgame in 2019. DC and Warner Bros Wonder Woman was the definitive game changer that led to this move. Released in 2017, following a renewed feminist movement across the world in the face of right wing governments, Wonder Woman was an instant success. Feminists and film critics lauded the film for its portrayal of Diana Prince. The film is an origin story that explores how Diana is introduced to mans world and how she ultimately saves it from itself. She values her femininity and her mission to save the world is ultimately driven (and won) by empathy and kindness.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Taika Waititis Thor: Ragnarok introduced us to Valkyrie, whose only likeable trait was that she could kick ass in a fight. A complete opposite of Diana cynical instead of hopeful, a mercenary instead of a saviour, disillusioned instead of amazed at the world around her and yet, she is a superhero. Where Diana was perfect and good, Valkyrie is messy and selfish and its liberating to watch both of them have complete control over their stories on screen.

Where Diana was perfect and good, Valkyrie is messy and selfish and its liberating to watch both of them have complete control over their stories on screen.

In a bid to appeal to increasingly diverse global audiences, Marvel Studios announced Black Panther. The women of Black Panther were layered and multi-dimensional Shuri is a genius scientist/princess, Nakia is a radical secret agent, Ramonda is the grieving but strong queen and Okoye is the fiercely loyal chief of the kings guard. Their character arcs are never hindered by their respective relationships with the hero. Black Panther set a new benchmark for representation.

Brie Larsons political activism and Infinity Wars post credits scene leading into Captain Marvel, made the movie highly anticipated. When it finally released, the story it told was a distinctly female one. Carol Danvers is constantly told to rein her powers in, to not let her anger fuel her actions. She struggles with her emotions and instincts, not trusting them and believing that theyre getting in her way. This has never been the case with any of the male Avengers they simply acquire their powers and go trigger happy with them.

But Carol doesnt get this luxury, and its frustrating to watch. Where their anger is righteous and just, hers is dangerous and unwelcome. Shes the most powerful character in the MCU, and yet shes the only one forced to fight with one hand tied behind her back. Her memory is erased and shes then used as a weapon on the wrong side of the war her agency is stripped in a manner that is jarringly reflective of the world we live in. The definitive moment of the film is when she spares her mentor-turned-nemesis, but not out of the goodness of her heart.

Also read: Its About Time We Had A Female Indian Superhero!

I dont need to prove anything to you she says, rising above male validation, quite literally. The film is a remarkably brazen and timely rejection of the many ways in which male perspective shapes female lives. It made a billion dollars at the domestic box office, despite a targeted trolling effort which significantly reduced its score on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

DC made history with the highly entertaining and blessedly free of male gaze Birds of Prey. Harley Quinn has never been a superhero, let alone a feminist one, but Margot Robbies portrayal of her in Birds of Prey is hilarious, powerful and downright insane. It does away with all the unnecessary hyper-sexualisation and lets the characters be imperfect.

DC made history with the highly entertaining and blessedly free of male gaze Birds of Prey. Harley Quinn has never been a superhero, let alone a feminist one, but Margot Robbies portrayal of her in Birds of Prey is hilarious, powerful and downright insane. It does away with all the unnecessary hyper-sexualisation and lets the characters be imperfect. They are not glorified, a phenomenon that has become sort of an occupational hazard with strong female characters across genres.

While representation seems to be heading in the right direction, it has not been an easy ride. All of these movies have been heavily criticised by misogynists across the world. There are versions of Avengers: Endgame on YouTube in which all scenes featuring women have been edited out.The actresses have been ruthlessly trolled online, sat across sexist interviewers who are only interested in tight costumes and overtly sexualised by fans and filmmakers alike.

The world of superheroes has always been unfair to women, just like ours. The purpose of stories is to make a variety of audiences empathise with the protagonists and in turn, empathise with the people around them. For ages, these protagonists have been men.

Also read: Captain Marvel: The Female Superhero We Deserve

Its 2020 but people still dont seem to understand that empathising with a woman wont hurt anyone.

Shradhdha is a journalism student, pop culture lover and feminist-in-progress whos hated universally by cats. You can find her on Twitter and Instagram.

Featured Image Source: Mirror

Original post:

From Catsuits To Captains The Evolution Of Women In Superhero Films - Feminism in India

Lets start up with the current stock price of Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. (SBRA), which is $10.22 to be very precise. The Stock rose vividly during the last session to $10.35 after opening rate of $10.01 while the lowest price it went was recorded $9.48 before closing at $9.37.

Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. had a pretty Dodgy run when it comes to the market performance. The 1-year high price for the companys stock is recorded $24.95 on 10/31/19, with the lowest value was $5.55 for the same time period, recorded on 03/18/20.

Price records that include history of low and high prices in the period of 52 weeks can tell a lot about the stocks existing status and the future performance. Presently, Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. shares are logging -59.04% during the 52-week period from high price, and 84.31% higher than the lowest price point for the same timeframe. The stocks price range for the 52-week period managed to maintain the performance between $5.55 and $24.95.

The companys shares, operating in the sector of financial managed to top a trading volume set approximately around 4 million for the day, which was evidently higher, when compared to the average daily volumes of the shares.

When it comes to the year-to-date metrics, the Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. (SBRA) recorded performance in the market was -52.11%, having the revenues showcasing -52.18% on a quarterly basis in comparison with the same period year before. At the time of this writing, the total market value of the company is set at 1.55B, as it employees total of 34 workers.

During the last month, 3 analysts gave the Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. a BUY rating, 0 of the polled analysts branded the stock as an OVERWEIGHT, 9 analysts were recommending to HOLD this stock, 0 of them gave the stock UNDERWEIGHT rating, and 2 of the polled analysts provided SELL rating.

According to the data provided on Barchart.com, the moving average of the company in the 100-day period was set at 20.35, with a change in the price was noted -13.59. In a similar fashion, Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. posted a movement of -57.08% for the period of last 100 days, recording 2,562,886 in trading volumes.

Total Debt to Equity Ratio (D/E) can also provide valuable insight into the companys financial health and market status. The debt to equity ratio can be calculated by dividing the present total liabilities of a company by shareholders equity. Debt to Equity thus makes a valuable metrics that describes the debt, company is using in order to support assets, correlating with the value of shareholders equity. The total Debt to Equity ratio for SBRA is recording 0.69 at the time of this writing. In addition, long term Debt to Equity ratio is set at 0.69.

Raw Stochastic average of Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. in the period of last 50 days is set at 27.50%. The result represents downgrade in oppose to Raw Stochastic average for the period of the last 20 days, recording 28.88%. In the last 20 days, the companys Stochastic %K was 24.14% and its Stochastic %D was recorded 18.68%.

Bearing in mind the latest performance of Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., several moving trends are noted. Year-to-date Price performance of the companys stock appears to be encouraging, given the fact the metric is recording -52.11%. Additionally, trading for the stock in the period of the last six months notably deteriorated by -54.68%, alongside a downfall of -45.84% for the period of the last 12 months. The shares sunk approximately by in the 7-day charts and went up by 37.92% in the period of the last 30 days. Common stock shares were lifted by -52.18% during last recorded quarter.

Read more:

Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc. (SBRA) is primed for evolution with the beta value of 1.77 - The InvestChronicle

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that essentially states that species change over time. There are many different ways species change, but most of them can be described by the idea of natural selection. The theory of evolution through natural selection was the first scientific theory that put together evidence of change through time as well as a mechanism for how it happens.

The idea that traits are passed down from parents to offspring has been around since the ancient Greek philosophers' time. In the middle 1700s, Carolus Linnaeus came up with his taxonomic naming system, which grouped like species together and implied there was an evolutionary connection between species within the same group.

The late 1700s saw the first theories that species changed over time. Scientists like the Comte de Buffon and Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, both proposed that species changed over time, but neither man could explain how or why they changed. They also kept their ideas under wraps due to how controversial the thoughts were compared to accepted religious views at the time.

John Baptiste Lamarck, a student of the Comte de Buffon, was the first to publicly state species changed over time. However, part of his theory was incorrect. Lamarck proposed that acquired traits were passed down to offspring. Georges Cuvier was able to prove that part of the theory incorrect, but he also had evidence that there were once living species that had evolved and gone extinct.

Cuvier believed in catastrophism, meaning these changes and extinctions in nature happened suddenly and violently. James Hutton and Charles Lyell countered Cuvier's argument with the idea of uniformitarianism. This theory said changes happen slowly and accumulate over time.

Sometimes called "survival of the fittest," natural selection was most famously explained by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species. In the book, Darwin proposed that individuals with traits most suitable to their environments lived long enough to reproduce and passed down those desirable traits to their offspring. If an individual had less than favorable traits, they would die and not pass on those traits. Over time, only the "fittest" traits of the species survived. Eventually, after enough time passed, these small adaptations would add up to create new species. These changes are precisely what makes us human.

Darwin was not the only person to come up with this idea at that time. Alfred Russel Wallace also had evidence and came to the same conclusions as Darwin around the same time. They collaborated for a short time and jointly presented their findings. Armed with evidence from all over the world due to their various travels, Darwin and Wallace received favorable responses in the scientific community about their ideas. The partnership ended when Darwin published his book.

One very important part of the theory of evolution through natural selection is the understanding that individuals cannot evolve; they can only adapt to their environments. Those adaptations add up over time and, eventually, the entire species has evolved from what it was like earlier. This can lead to new species forming and sometimes extinction of older species.

There are many pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Darwin relied on the similar anatomies of species to link them. He also had some fossil evidence that showed slight changes in the body structure of the species over time, often leading to vestigial structures. Of course, the fossil record is incomplete and has "missing links." With today's technology, there are many other types of evidence for evolution. This includes similarities in the embryos of different species, the same DNA sequences found across all species, and an understanding of how DNA mutationswork in microevolution. More fossil evidence has also been found since Darwin's time, although there are still many gaps in the fossil record.

Today, the theory of evolution is often portrayed in the media as a controversial subject. Primate evolution and the idea that humans evolved from monkeys has been a major point of friction between scientific and religious communities. Politicians and court decisions have debated whether or not schools should teach evolution or if they should also teach alternate points of view like intelligent design or creationism.

The State of Tennessee v. Scopes, or the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, was a famous court battle over teaching evolution in the classroom. In 1925, a substitute teacher named John Scopes was arrested for illegally teaching evolution in a Tennessee science class. This was the first major court battle over evolution, and it brought attention to a formerly taboo subject.

The theory of evolution is often seen as the main overarching theme that ties all topics of biology together. It includes genetics, population biology, anatomy and physiology, and embryology, among others. While the theory has itself evolved and expanded over time, the principles laid out by Darwin in the 1800s still hold true today.

Read more here:

A Brief Explanation of Evolution

And while his seminal work laid the foundation for evolutionary biology, one major point of his was never proven.

Until now.

Nearly 140 years after his death, a University of Cambridge researcher has found strong evidence that one of Darwin's hypotheses is true. That hypothesis states that a species belonging to a larger genus should also include more subspecies.

The graduate student, Laura van Holstein, was able to prove this using a tool Darwin didn't have: Data modeling.

"I've just reported evidence in favor of a hunch of good old Darwin's," van Holstein, a biological anthropology PhD student at Cambridge and study lead author, told CNN. "I think this has big implications for evolutionary biology."

Darwin's subspecies theory

To understand the significance of this development, it's best to start with a refresher on the following taxonomy (or naming conventions): genus, species and subspecies.

Darwin predicted that species in a larger genus should also include more subspecies. But he never elaborated on why.

The evolutionary scientists who followed Darwin suggested that a subspecies represents an early stage of species formation. But that was difficult to prove. After all, evolution takes time.

She used a tool Darwin never did

Van Holstein, however, had what those scientists didn't: Data modeling software.

She wanted to show that the number of subspecies in a species is correlated to the number of species in a genus. If she could prove that, she'd have more evidence to suggest that subspecies are the "raw material" for a new species, she said.

She ran a few of the models: First, she devised a model using taxonomical information about different species to show that a genus with more species also has more subspecies to prove a relationship.

Then, she took it a step further than Darwin: She created models to show the relationship between species richness (the number of species in a genus) and subspecies richness is stronger in mammals that don't live on land -- namely bats and whales.

One more model found that the number of subspecies in a genus is predicted by the size of a species' range -- and in land mammals, a bigger range was linked to a higher number of subspecies in a genus.

Her findings show subspecies are early versions of species

Not only did van Holstein prove one of Darwin's points, but she expanded on his findings: The more species in a genus typically means more subspecies are in that genus, and the relationship between species and subspecies depends on whether the species live on land.

In species that live on land, environmental barriers impact how its species form. But in species that live in the air or the ocean, species formation depends more on population dynamics, she said.

"This is a different way of thinking about subspecies -- the (previously!) unglamorous units of evolutionary biology," she said. "Some people have made the case that they are merely nice but evolutionarily meaningless groupings, but we show here that they probably can be thought of as incipient species."

Next, van Holstein plans to use the same modeling to predict how quickly species form in both endangered species and species of least concern, findings that could be used to predict which biological factors predispose certain species to becoming endangered -- something even Darwin never did.

Here is the original post:

A PhD student proved one of Darwin's theories of evolution 140 years after his death - CNN

Personal interaction and client entertainment are traditions within any industry, and thats always been especially true of TV advertising. But,given the industrys massive, tectonic changes of recent years, is there still room for the process of large, extravagantly staged annual gatherings?

The coronavirus scourge already has disrupted the annual spring-season process of transacting major television advertising deals. All networks and other participants of course have canceled their in-person upfront presentations to advertisers, many programmers opting for virtual upfronts.

Combine the virus with the acceleration of cord-cutting, and the TV ad industry has some strong headwinds, to put it mildly. By contrast, the fast-growing digital ecosystem is already transacted on a real-time audience and impression basis. The coronavirus, in a perverse way, may hasten a re-thinking of the upfronts, at least as currently configured.

Could this crisis trigger a broader, lasting, even profound, change in the way TV advertising is transacted? Could it be the catalyst to accelerate the value of TV, by enabling the process of transacting TV advertising to catch up with the growth of digital advertising? Could this actually help offset any TV advertising losses in the short term?

In other words, some might see the upfronts, like the three-martini lunch, as an antiquated relic long since bypassed by the reality of lightning-speed digital transactions based at least as much on data as content and relationships.

Not to worry. Relationships and personal interaction will always matter in the TV advertising business. But in this data-driven world, clients will need their agency and media partners to be ready with metrics that support the relationship.

Ultimately, marketers will not care where their agency and media-buying partners find audiences for them, so long as it is on any piece of glass andto the extent possible as budgets permitin an impactful, TV brand-friendly environment.

Possibly the advanced TV consortium OpenAP offers an example of a roadmap. Partners including ViacomCBS, NBC Universal, Fox and Univision are collaborating on an audience-based buying platform enabling advertisers to leverage first-party data or defined audience segments to buy quickly across the companies properties and platformslinear TV, connected TV (CTV), set-top box, mobile or desktop.

There have been other efforts. Canoe (video-on-demand ad platform), Project OAR (addressable-ad platform), Simulmedia (TV ad management platform) and the cloud-based product QTTTM (bridging digital programmatic platforms with linear TV ad inventory in real time). None of these require the traditional TV upfronts.

Whether we like it or not, the process of selling video advertising has to evolveand we, as sellers, will be forced to innovate in order to participate inor be left behind bythat evolution.

The coronavirus is indeed frightening, and we all should take this time to care for our loved ones. And, as with so many medical crises throughout our history, we will get through the coronavirus chapter stronger, wiser, readier and healthier.We will survive coronavirus.The upfronts, and certain other aspects of legacy-thinking within the TV-advertising ecosystem, may not. And that may actually be ...healthy.

Excerpt from:

Opinion: How will the pandemic accelerate the evolution of the TV ad market? - AdAge.com