Category Archives: Evolution

Netflix execs Brian Wright and Bela Bajaria and YA talent and creators Kaling, Jonathan Entwistle, Robia Rashid and Jessica Marie Garcia took part in a panel breaking down increasing diversity in the space and competing with Disney+.

Led by breakouts like the To All The Boys I've Loved Beforefranchise, Netflix is zeroing in on young adult content and trying to change the industry perception where vp YA and family originals Brian Wright says. "there was a little bit of snobbiness toward YA."

At a Tuesday brunch event hosted by Netflix at West Hollywood's The London Hotel, Wright and vp local language originals Bela Bajaria joined some of their top YA talent and creators, including Mindy Kaling, I Am Not Okay With This co-creator Jonathan Entwistle, Atypical creator Robia Rashid and On My Block actressJessica Marie Garcia to break down their programming and strategy in a time of increasing diversity in the space.

Kaling, who exec produced upcoming series Never Have I Ever "a show about an Indian family with an Indian teenager just hasn't been done before" said that in addition to stories with people of color, she also fights for the "evolution of the nerd."

"Judd [Apatow] did such a great job with Superbad and Booksmart, but we haven't seen an ethnic nerd, and seeing that nerds aren't always the wallflowers or the quiet ones we're ambitious with obnoxious personalities sometimes and we want to have sex and dreams like all the other kids, but we're often portrayed as stuttering kids on the spectrum," she said.

Kaling, who found her lead actress,Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, through a worldwide open casting call of 15,000 people, also noted that "a huge issue in our community and other communities is colorism, you see a certain kind of Indian actor in almost everything our show is about a Tamil Indian family who are typically South Indians and are dark-skinned. Within our community is a big deal to see a dark-skinned Indian family."

Rashid, as showrunner of a series centered on a teen on the autism spectrum, said the definition of diversity has changed for her as she's taken on a greater responsibility in casting. As casting directors have sent her actors that satisfy only gender and racial diversity, "I had to ask for every character, even if they're not written as having a disability, I'll say, 'Let's see some disabled actors for this role.' I think that's our responsibility as creators to think about that, because otherwise they're not getting brought in and they're there."

Entwistle added that while shooting his show in Pittsburgh, they were surrounded by different classes of people and worked to bring in locals as extras in some of their big scenes to bring in a greater range of class diversity.

At a time when the streaming wars are reaching their peak and rival Disney+ has a sole focus on family and young adult content, Netflix says the competition has done little to impact its strategy.

"We think of Disney+ as being very in the family space, and how we define YA I wouldn't say they're quite as much in the YA space," Wright told The Hollywood Reporter. "If you think about the more provocative side of YA I'd say that's not Disney+'s sweet spot, they're a little more on the younger end of that. So it hasn't impacted our strategy, but on the family entertainment side of things it's definitely made us double down our efforts and say 'This is a really important state for people who want to enjoy stuff as a family,' so we're all in on that."

Bajaria added, "in our YA shows we don't talk down or soften, we tackle edgy and interesting topics and the writers really want to explore that in an authentic way. We don't need to try to make it into a general or family audience, so for us it's been continue to back the vision and don't try to over-manufacture or go into a different lane. It's being aware of what they're doing and it's an amazing brand that they have, but ours has really been backing the writers' vision and the tone of how we do YA," to which Wright chimed in, "I would say of the shows profiled here today, I don't think you'd find any of them on Disney+. There'd probably be a little bit too much authenticity."

Read this article:

Mindy Kaling on Tackling YA for Netflix and the "Evolution of the Nerd" - Hollywood Reporter

Most of Luka Doncics answers to reporters questions after games are repetitive.

Hes either happy to win or upset the Mavericks lost. He accepts the latest praise from teammates, followers and opponents and appears unfazed by milestones and recognition.

But after the Mavericks 139-123 win Monday over the Timberwolves, Doncic strayed from his usual reserved interview demeanor to gush on one topic in particular:

Tim Hardaway Jr.

Hes probably one of the best catch-and-shoot guys in the league right now and hes really going underrated, Doncic said. Not a lot of media talks about him, but he should be. Hes really underrated.

Doncic wasnt the only Maverick pleased with Hardaways team-leading 23 points on Monday and his ascent from salary-dump trade inclusion to Dallas reserve to a key factor in the Mavericks leadership, especially while Doncic has struggled with right ankle injuries.

I just love the way he plays, Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle said. He goes hard, he cares about winning, and he is one of our leaders. Tim is about the right stuff. He is a culture guy, he gets onto teammates, and he cares. Guys like him arent growing on trees.

A year ago, it seemed unlikely Hardaway would be central to the Mavericks maintaining the NBAs highest rated offense scoring 116.5 points per 100 possessions, 2.8 points higher than second-place Houston.

Or that Hardaway would at times guard the opponents best player, as he did Monday against DAngelo Russell.

The Knicks included Hardaway last winter in the multi-player trade of Kristaps Porzingis to shed his salary ($18.15 million in 2019-20) in their now-failed pursuit of adding Kevin Durant and other notable free agents last summer.

Hardaway averaged 15.5 points in 19 games (17 starts) in a piecemeal lineup during the back-third of that lost Mavericks season before suffering a stress reaction in his left tibia and requiring season-ending surgery.

That contributed to why Hardaway didnt enter this campaign with expectations in the same soaring realm as Doncic and Porzingis. Hardaway played with the second unit for the first 13 games of the season and joined the starting lineup Nov. 20 only because Seth Curry was sick.

Perhaps thats all for the better now that the Mavericks are in position to clinch a postseason spot in the final 24 games of the season.

On the court, Hardaway understands his role as a starter: to make [Doncics] life easier [and] make KPs life easier. And when rotation patterns dictate Doncic and Porzingis sub at different times than Hardaway, Hardaway falls back in a rhythm with his original second-team running mates.

The transition has been especially helpful as Doncic has missed eight of the Mavericks last 11 games with a right ankle sprain and subsequent swelling. In the Mavericks last nine outings, Hardaway has averaged 21.8 points including twice recording 33 while shooting 50% from the floor and 47.1% from three.

And his veteran presence has been helpful in guiding the young Mavericks core toward the franchises first playoff berth since 2016. Hes vocal on defense, he directs players to the correct spots on offense and if guys dont feel like theyre getting enough touches or whatever the case may be, Hardaway offers this advice.

Get another stop on defense and you know you never know what happens on the offensive end. Next play down.

Those traits he learned in college at Michigan and honed in New York dont show in value through salary or in box scores.

Being a vocal guy out there on the floor, knocking down my shots once theyre given to me, Hardaway said, once Im doing that, everything else takes care of itself.

+++

Subscribe now and get 1 month free with the code: CALLIEC

Sign up for our FREE HS newsletter

+++

Find more Mavericks stories from The Dallas Morning News here.

View original post here:

The evolution of Tim Hardaway Jr. from trade throw-in to a 'culture guy' and leader for the Mavericks - The Dallas Morning News

On January 29, 2020, I arrived in Warsaw, Poland, in the middle of a blizzard. Fortunately, most of the snow had cleared away by January 31, when I lectured at an event celebrating the release of a new Polish translation of my book, Icons of Evolution.

The event was organized by Fundacja En Arche (the En Arche Foundation, or roughly, the Origins Foundation). Although its critics call it a creationist organization, Fundacja En Arche is not about biblical creationism (whether young Earth or old Earth). Instead, it focuses on the scientific and philosophical issues of Darwinism and intelligent design. I told the staff that the foundation reminded me of Discovery Institute twenty years ago.

A major part of En Arches work so far has been translating into Polish books such as Phillip Johnsons Darwin on Trial, Michael Dentons Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Behes Darwins Black Box, and Stephen Meyers Signature in the Cell. To celebrate their translation of my book, the foundation rented a room at the University of Warsaw. But they knew that the event could generate controversy, so they were careful not to publicize it. Only invited guests would be allowed to attend.

Word of the event leaked out anyway. In what has become a familiar phenomenon, local Darwinists bullied the university into cancelling it. So Fundacja En Arche moved the event to a nearby hotel.

In addition to me, three other people were scheduled to speak. Dr. Andrzej Myc (PhD in biology, and a friend of Discovery Institute) spoke on the ups and downs of scientific dogmas, and why the scientific consensus is unreliable. Dr. Adam Cenian (PhD in physics) addressed the origin of life, and why it is Darwinisms blind spot. Dr. Grzegorz Malec (PhD in philosophy) talked about what is, and what is not, the theory of intelligent design.

About 160 people attended, all of them friendly as far as I could tell. I spoke in English and my lecture was translated into Polish, while the other lectures were in Polish. In the photo above, I am at the lectern on the right, flanked by a man (the MC) and a woman (the translator). The other three speakers are on the stage at the left.

A long and lively question-and-answer session followed the lectures. The questions included: Are the icons still used in the U.S.? What has changed since your book was first published? What made you doubt the theory of evolution in the first place? Can ID be tested in science? Do ID proponents believe every structure in biology is designed? The speakers and I took turns answering these and other questions.

Afterwards people lined up to have me sign their copy of my book. Beforehand I had practiced writing Best wishes in Polish, but I quickly defaulted to just my signature when I saw how long the line was. I signed well over a hundred books that day.

After the event, the organizers treated the speakers and a few special guests to a gourmet meal at a restaurant named Vodka. While some restaurants feature wine pairings with their food, this place (not surprisingly) features vodka pairings and there were scores of specialty vodkas on the shelves. Several of the guests ordered one of Polands favorite entres: steak tartare paired, of course, with the appropriate vodka.

The next day I had a small private discussion with the organizers and a few guests at the En Arche offices. Several of them pointed out that Darwinism permeates universities and education so much that it is used outside of science to talk about morals and behavior. One person (a student) talked about a professor who gave advice about marriage and relationships based on Darwinism (namely, you shouldnt commit to a long term relationship; just keep searching for better partners). Several mentioned the connections between Darwinism, Marxism, slavery, and eugenics.

They were surprised to learn that a theory can rely on so many misconceptions and misinformation (e.g., the icons of evolution) and still be widely accepted. Several were shocked to hear about the persecution of critics, and they appreciated learning how Discovery Institute works to help young scientists.

After the discussion, Andrzej Myc (mentioned above) took me on a walk through Old Town Warsaw. During World War II the city was mostly destroyed, but the indomitable Polish people cleared away the rubble and rebuilt the city on the same spot. In the photo below I am standing in the center of Old Town. Behind Andrzej (holding the camera) is an ice-skating rink. Behind me are new houses built in the old style.

Image credit: Top two photos, Fundacja En Arche; bottom, by Andrzej Myc.

More here:

Darwinism and Intelligent Design in Poland - Discovery Institute

The perpetual topic of Russia-Europe relations was one of the centralthemes at the recently concluded annual Munich Security Conference. It is nosecret that these relations have, for a long time, been in a state of profoundcrisis. This was not only caused by the events in Ukraine, even though theirsignificance and consequences for both Russia and Europe should by no means beunderstated. The roots are more profound, related to both parties beingunprepared to develop optimal forms of their current interaction.

Nonetheless, speeches and discussions at the Conference showed signs thatthe involved parties are demonstrating a certain readiness to develop anoptimal model for relations. In his opening speech, Germanys PresidentFrank-Walter Steinmeier clearly said, Europe should notput up with the ever-greater alienation of Russia. We need other, betterEU-Russia relations. Most European leaders speaking at the Conference agreed,in one way or the other, with the notion that the current state of relationsbetween Moscow and its western neighbours is unreasonable and needs to berevised. As always, it boils down to the matter of what specific, mutuallyacceptable parameters new relations could have.

For nearly five decades, I happened to be directly involved in thepractical issues of developing cooperation first between the USSR and Europe,and then between Russia and Europe. Over this lengthy historical period, theparties consecutively tested three interaction models, yet none of themultimately withstood the test of time.

The first model, that of controlled confrontation, emerged during theCold War when the USSR and Europe were divided by unsurmountable ideological,political, military and strategic barriers. Back then, the main task was toprevent a direct military engagement between the sides through reliance on thefundamental documents of the postwar world order. Where possible, the partiesstrove to resolve conflicts through dialogue and simultaneously build mutuallyadvantageous cooperation. The Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security inEurope and an entire package of treaties and agreements in arms control andconfidence measures are among the starkest examples of such policy.

It should be said that, while being far from perfect, this policy made itpossible to guarantee peace in Europe in the second half of the 20thcentury. In some way, back then, the situation in Europe was more stable andpredictable than it is today. The rules of the game were acceptable for theopposite party, and dangerous red lines in the West and East weremore evident than they are now.

The second model, that of a Greater Europe, was tested afterthe fall of the Soviet Union and the consequent collapse of the entiresocialist bloc and its institutions. The Charter of Paris for a New Europesigned in November 1990 by the heads of state and government of the OSCEdeclared that the era of confrontation and division of Europe has endedand a new era of democracy, peace and unity of Europe has started. The Charterfor European Security signed in November 1999 in Istanbul was intended tocontribute to the formation of a common and indivisible security space on theEuropean continent. This document, as well as many others, signed by Russia,the European Union, NATO and other parties, was the foundation for establishingfar-reaching plans to build a Greater Europe, a Common space stretching fromVladivostok to Lisbon and shared spaces in various cooperation areas, etc.

These developments transpired in front of our very eyes and, to ourprofound regret, never materialized. Today, after some time, we can objectivelyassess the steps of Russia and Europe after the Cold War to establishcooperation within the framework of a new reality. Without attempting to shiftthe blame on the other party, we can confidently say that the differentinterpretation of both the unfolding historical events and the future directionof the development of our relations constituted the key problem of ourpartnership.

Without focusing on the details, perhaps failures in implementinglarge-scale projects of building a new Europe stemmed from conceptualdifferences between Russia and Europe in their understanding of the fundamentalprinciples of building such a European space, and not from craftiness andmalicious intent (which also cannot be ruled out entirely). These differencesbecame apparent and began to gain momentum as political agreements were beingput into practice. Europe viewed the shaping of common spaces as the process ofintegrating Russia into the existing European bodies. At the same time, Russiasaw it as the parties being equal participants in developing new mechanismsthat accounted for new realities and the parties legitimate interests. Suchirreconcilable stances were bound to turn into conflict sooner or later, whichis precisely what happened.

The third relations model emerged after the acute stage of the 2014Russia-West crisis. Subsequently, the European Union labelled it selectiveengagement, and this wording was included in Federica Mogherinis fiveguiding principles. The idea was of Europe interacting with Russia where itsuited Brussels interests, and opposing Russia where the interests of Moscowand Brussels diverged. On the whole, this concept was in line with Russiansentiment. It appeared that selective engagement would delineate mutuallyacceptable parameters of the new normalcy for a long time to come.

However, the new model appeared to have shown its deficiency as well, atleast because the European Union still failed to form a united opinion on whatdegree of engagement in relations with Moscow was necessary. A newalgorithm of interaction with Russia has never been elaborated in a single EUdocument. Additionally, the interests and capabilities of Moscow and Brusselsare clearly asymmetrical; therefore, finding a mutually acceptable balance ofinterests in every specific area appears to be exceedingly difficult.

We believe, though, it to be far more critical that selectiveengagement essentially reduces the positive interaction between Brusselsand Moscow exclusively to tactical, situational cooperation pertaining tocurrent problems and specific, rigidly delineated areas. However, thechallenges Moscow and Brussels face today are not only tactical andsituational, but also strategic and long-term, and the responses, therefore,should also be strategic and long-term.

Unless they want to continue repeating old mistakes, both historians andpoliticians should focus their attention on past experiences. What conclusionscan we draw from the past 30 years of Russia-EU relations?

Our relations should be primarily based on pragmatic assessments of currentopportunities and limitations, and not on emotions. As a result of diverginghistory, culture, religion, and lifestyle traditions, Russia and the EuropeanUnion are not ready to create common spaces in the principal areas of theiractivity (apart from shared spaces, say, in the humanitarian, cultural, oreducational areas). Swept by the euphoria induced by the end of the Cold War,we were clearly too hasty in declaring the prospect of creating a GreaterEurope. No matter how attractive this goal appears, we will not comeclose to implementing it soon.

In the current state, Russia and the European Union are tackling variousdevelopment tasks that are sometimes far from being identical and can evencontradict each other. This applies to politics, economy, and security. Anycooperation mechanisms will be workable only if they account for both sharedinterests and objectively existing diverging interests. This means that bycooperation we should imply combining common or coincidinginterests, as well as minimizing expenses and costs stemming from inevitablerivalry and even elements of confrontation.

If this is the case, pragmatism should form the foundation of Russia-Europerelations. However, pragmatism alone is not sufficient for building stablerelations. The selective engagement model claimed to build upon thepragmatic dialogue between Brussels and Moscow. However, the experience of thepast six years demonstrated that bare pragmatism is barely different fromopportunism and attempts to outmanoeuvre the partner somehow using onesrelative advantage in a particular area.

Therefore, the concept of pragmatism should be supplemented with theidea of responsible interaction. Responsibility here entailsprimarily the parties ability and readiness to account both for theirimmediate situational interests and their long-term strategic interests. Onedoes not need to be Nostradamus to arrive at the obvious conclusion that thefurther into the future we look, the more areas of coinciding Russian andEuropean interests we see. We should not allow the sentiment and emotions ofthe current moment to block the view of long-term prospects.

Additionally, responsibility entails accounting not only forones own interests, for also for those of ones partner, as well as thebroader interests of the entire international system. Both the future ofRussia-Europe bilateral relations and largely the future of the world orderdepend on Russia and Europe today. As we think of interaction in areas such asglobal and regional stability, nuclear non-proliferation, combatinginternational terrorism, managing climate and migration flow, we need to alwayskeep our collective responsibility for the emerging world order in mind. Wesimply do not have the right to think that a game without rules or a war ofall against all is the historically inevitable new world order.

Combining pragmatism and responsibility will require significantintellectual and political efforts of both parties. At first, Russia and Europeshould embark on building such interaction mechanisms, including cooperation atthe highest political level, that would promote better understanding and openup opportunities for fruitful cooperation. Naturally, such an effort should bebolstered by persistent work on all other levels and in all other venues,including joint work of officials, diplomats, military personnel, experts, andcivil society activists.

From ourpartner RIAC

Related

Read the original:

The Name of the Rose: De-evolution of Europe - Modern Diplomacy

OTTAWA -- He may live in the middle of the nowhere, but David Clendinings creations are everywhere.

Around downtown Ottawa, the West Quebec artists bronze sculptures and plaques adorn the Centennial Flame, the National War Memorial, the Animals in War Memorial, and Canadas Confederation Boulevard.

Clendining fashions his pieces in a remote studio in Lac-des-Loups, but theyre showcased in some of the most prestigious museums in the world, including the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.

Quite honestly I was thrilled. The Smithsonians a big deal, as we all know, he says. There are so many great artists they could have chosen. Why they chose me, I dont know. Im thrilled that they did. I was quite honoured.

The museum asked Clendining if he might be interested in sculpting a life-size statue of a young Charles Darwin, the naturalist, biologist and geologist best known for his theory of evolution.

I said Yes, of course. Charles Darwin has been a hero of mine since I was a kid. I started learning about Darwin and his Galapagos travels when I was a young boy and I envied him. I really wanted to have such a life myself.

The bold, courageous moves he made at the time to disregard creationism and discuss evolution, to do all that research in the field in very adverse conditions, well, the guys courageous. Hes an amazing man, so I was very happy to be doing a statue of him all these years later.

After a rather extensive interview process, curators at the Smithsonian agreed Clendining was the sculptor for the job.

They said, Yes, youre the one we want to do this, we like your sense of action.

The drawings, carvings and moulds would consume Clendening for much of the year.

All in all, it was probably eight months, from start to actually delivery date, bronze cast and actual installation.

The sculpture is in the Smithsonians Deep Time Hall. Clendining was moved when he viewed his finished work for the first time.

This is his ah-hah; moment. Hes reading an inscription on a wall thats twenty feet up, twenty feet away and thats his theory of evolution.

When I saw the whole thing come togethernot just the statuebut the whole presentation, it was awesome. Beautiful, beautiful design work. A very difficult job but the difficult jobs are often the best jobs, too.

In his Lac-des-Loups workshop, nestled in the snow-covered trees of the Gatineau Hills, Clendining is now sculpting a local legend and world-famous flying ace.

Roy Brown was a World War 1 aviator, from Carleton Place, as it turns out. He was the one credited with shooting down the Red Baron, he said.

And the 65-year-old artist is excited to see what future projects are in his sights.

Oh, Im having a blast. Lifes such an adventure. Every day I wake up and say Yippee, what am I going to do today? What could be better than that?

Continue reading here:

The art of evolution: A West Quebec artist sculpts Darwin for the Smithsonian - CTV News

This article is inThe Spectators February 2020 US edition. Subscribe here.

Putney, Vermont

Ahoy, polloi. While I am a fan of the Reformation, I take a circumspect view of change. This old salt has a soft spot for tradition, yes, but he was taught from an early age that the vagaries of life are best met by suppressing doubt and feeling with industriousness and booze. Mostly booze. Mine not to reason why. Nevertheless, I persisted.

Things change, of course. For instance, Ive taken up residence in Vermont for a few weeks with a gal pal I dated between wife number two and wife number three (who is also wife number one, but thats a story for another time).

Ive wintered here all my life and during that time Vermont has, like old Digbys marital status, seen three permutations. In my boyhood, it was a poor but charming backwater, chockablock with flinty, taciturn Yankees. By bright college years, hippies were making goat-milk ice cream and the cities were run by sex maniacs and communists. Now, Vermonts resorts are as gauche as Saddams bathrooms, half the tourists dont ski and one of the sex-maniac communists aspires to lead the free world.

The permanent things endure, of course. The Green Mountains are still beautiful and Im told they still work them like dogs at the Putney School. Still, I have my doubts. Vermont has never been much for schools and still isnt; consistency, I suppose. But you cant have a student kicked by a mule in the Y of Our L 2020. The damn lawyers wont have it.

Even the skiing has changed. Last year we got the best snow in ages, but the season is indisputably shrinking. Whatever the causes, and I wont pretend to know a damned thing about them, the climate is changing. As a devoted conservationist, Ive done my part. The four-door I keep at my summer cottage carries a Preserve the Sound plate.

Which brings me, naturally, to Greta Thunberg, the Swedish sailor-girl who crossed the Atlantic last year in a sporty carbon-fiber vessel. Poor Greta seems angry, frightened and utterly convinced of our ability to change the world on a dime. Thats an uncommon attitude for a sailor, accustomed as we are to bargaining with weather, wind and tide. Tack carelessly and youll find yourself in irons or, worse, all wet.

Say what you will, she appears to be a competent sailor, especially for her age. Some will attribute Gretas certainty to Aspergers, but I think not. Youth is a more likely explanation. When I strode through Phelps Gate and onto the Street in 89, I was full of vim and vigor, with big, bold plans to bend the world of junk bonds to my will. Those went the way of my waistline and slackened over time. Thats why God invented pleated pants.

As the gal pal clears away lunch and I watch the sun set over the woods, I think about young Greta, about my marriages, my career and all the vaporous dreams of youth, these last evanescent as a retreating shoreline. The world will be fine long after were gone. Plot your course and keep it. Steer the bow into the wave and dont leave any rigging loose. Beat on, with or against the current doesnt really matter. Hand on the tiller, Digby, eyes ahead.

The people behind Greta have their hands on the tiller. Her family are actors and singers, and the crown of Monaco floated her boat. The Monegasque royals havent made it this far by being any more profligate than you have to be to keep up appearances. To wit, an old friend, after a solid run at chemin de fer, was greeted en suite by two ladies sent compliments of the principality. He had the good sense to ask what they thought compliments meant and it was indeed lost in translation. Tighter than a tick with a dime, those Grimaldis. My friend swears he sent them packing, but thats not for me to say.

The snow has picked up outside and the aprs-ski is making me wax poetic. You know, they buried old Bob Frost in Vermont, even though he was a Granite Stater. He of two roads diverging and the path less traveled by sleeps beneath the stony soil of a state where he hardly wrote a stanza. And that strikes me as a decent metaphor for this whole business.

Were not choosing two paths in the woods. Were wandering half blind through the implacable passage of time under an obstinately silent sky that doesnt change even as we do. Best to view the whole thing as a highly successful charade, a well-honed marketing endeavor with nothing of substance at its core. Like Dartmouth.

This article is inThe Spectators February 2020 US edition. Subscribe here.

See more here:

The evolution of Vermont - The Spectator USA

The regular season is over two-thirds finished, and the playoffs start in 53 days.

Unsurprisingly, the front of the Defensive Player of the Year race has remained largely stagnant as 2019-20 enters its final stretch. But theres ample time for movement among the obvious top-four candidates, with factors like injuries, lineup changes and even overall team performance poised to play a large part in the inevitable shuffle.

Heres where Defensive Player of the Year watch stands as spring quickly dawns.

Robert Covington Houston Rockets

The leagues stingiest small-ball lineups have never played all that small.

The bygone Golden State Warriors, at least before adding Kevin Durant, routinely doled out crunch-time lineups absent a defender taller than 6-foot-8. The length and physicality of Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Harrison Barnes and Klay Thompson allowed the Warriors to switch across positions with near impunity.

But a quartet of like-sized defenders didnt give the Death Lineup its name or defensive effectiveness. Golden States ability to compensate for limitations provided by the presence of Stephen Curry and a collective lack of height is what made the teams closing five special, a reality best explained by the off-ball genius of all-time defenders like Green and Iguodala.

The Houston Rockets, embracing small-ball like no team ever before, dont possess a single defender at that exalted level of historical greatness. Just two of Mike DAntonis top-eight players, in fact, are considered an objective plus on that side of the ball irrespective of surrounding circumstances. But the Rockets downsized defense has held up well thus far regardless, and Robert Covingtons rare, all-court impact as a help defender is arguably the biggest reason why.

Covington, 11th in deflections per game this season, was credited with three blocks in his new teams convincing road win over the Utah Jazz on Saturday. The film reveals just how large those blocks loomed to the games outcome and how unlikely they would have been for most any other 6-foot-8 wing challenging Rudy Gobert at the rim.

Covington is often mislabeled as a traditional stopper. Hes certainly a better option checking superstar alpha dogs than an average wing and boasts the versatility to guard pretty much anyone without being consistently exploited.

The real scope of Covingtons influence extends to All-Defense levels, though, because of his imminent penchant for disrupting action away from the offenses initial point of attack. Thats a trait especially valuable for a team like Houston, whose switch-heavy scheme inevitably lends itself to double-teams and a losing numbers game on the backside of the play.

Through six games, the Rockets defensive rating with Covington on the floor is a team-best 102.5, a hair worse than the Milwaukee Bucks league-leading mark. Theyre allowing nearly 20 points per 100 possessions more when he sits, easily the highest discrepancy on the roster.

Those numbers portray Covington as a more valuable defender than is realistic. Not even basketballs best rim-protectors make that big a singular difference all by themselves. Still, theyre telling of Covingtons unique defensive worth to Houston and indicative of the game-changing off-ball plays whether highlight-reel or barely-noticed he makes on a nightly basis for basketballs smallest defense.

The Philadelphia 76ers New Rotation

Good on Brett Brown for making the necessary change that confirms Philadelphias odd-ball offseason was a mistake.

There might be a world in which Joel Embiid and Al Horford thrive playing together, owning the paint on both ends, exploiting mismatches from the inside out and affording ball handlers ample space to operate with canny screens and dribble hand-offs. But this one definitely isnt it, not with Ben Simmons cramping the floor by refusing to shoot outside the paint and Horfords three-ball falling at a rate well below career norms.

The theoretical silver lining, even if its one you have to squint to see, is that the Sixers arent taking anything off the table by moving one of their best players to the bench. Embiid is almost a top-five defense unto himself. The hope is that negative fallout defensively from replacing Horford with a wing like Furkan Korkmaz or Glenn Robinson III proves minimal, while additional spacing and off-dribble dynamism on the other end juices an offense thats lagged far behind its talent level all season long.

Fortunately for Philadelphia, theres ample evidence supporting the viability of those assumptions. The Sixers have defended at a league-best level with Embiid on the court whether Horford plays next to him or not, surrendering equal effective field goal percentages of 50.2. Their offensive rating spikes from a putrid 98.9 to an average 108.8 when Embiid mans the middle sans Horford, with the formers true shooting percentage bumping nearly four points to just below the hallowed 60 percent threshold. Philadelphia remains elite defensively with Horford at center, too, surrendering 104.8 points per 100 possessions, a number that would rank third in the league overall.

Obviously, the real test for the Sixers revamped rotation which is still very much in flux even before accounting for Simmons back injury, by the way will come in the playoffs. But this team was always built more for the postseason than 82-game grind, and Philadelphia proved last spring that its more than comfortable knocking jaws in a half-court series.

Should that prove the case again, dont be surprised if Brown reverts to relying on units featuring both Embiid and Horford. Either way, what a luxury that the Sixers in-season about-face prompts little to no concern about their ability to hold up defensively.

Giannis Antetokounmpo Milwaukee Bucks

The Bucks dont play a single negative defender.

Eric Bledsoe and Brook Lopez deserve All-Defense consideration. No team in the East has a better collection of versatile, experienced wing defenders than Khris Middleton, Wesley Matthews and Marvin Williams. The defensive bona fides of George Hill, Robin Lopez and Ersan Ilyasova need no explanation. Donte DiVincenzo has quietly become one of the most disruptive perimeter defenders in the league. Pat Connaughtons 2.5 percent block rate this season ranks sixth among all guards since 2010.

Mike Budenholzer and his staff deserve immense credit. No defense in the NBA is more connected than Milwaukees, moving in perfect sync on the flight of the ball and letting questionable shooters launch wide-open from deep while protecting the rim at all costs.

But the above personnels unrelenting symbiosis and commitment to scheme isnt what takes the Bucks defense from the top of the league to historical greatness. Giannis Antetokounmpo, of course, owns that distinction all by himself.

Its not always easy for the naked eye to deduce Antetokounmpos defensive value. Hes rarely tasked with shutting down his teams top offensive threat, instead primarily used as an omnipresent deterrent away from the ball. But no matter who Antetokounmpo is guarding, theyre noticeably hesitant to attack him.

Gobert leads the NBA in contested shots per game with 20.5, while Pascal Siakam ranks 20th by averaging 14.4 contested field goal attempts. Jonathan Isaac, another multi-positional defensive monster, is 52nd in that category. Antetokounmpo, by contrast, finds himself outside the top-100 in contested shots per game.

Dont be fooled by his lackluster standing there relative to other dominant defenders, though. As the New Orleans Pelicans young franchise players learned earlier this month, going at Antetokounmpo is such a losing proposition that its best avoided altogether.

Is any other player in basketball capable of meeting Zion Williamson at the mountaintop and coming down left standing, let alone completely swallowing Brandon Ingram one-on-one in the same game? No way.

Antetokounmpo is a shoo-in for his second consecutive MVP. The case for his first Defensive Player of the Year award is nearly as strong, even if its much less discussed.

5. Ben Simmons, Philadelphia 76ers

4. Anthony Davis, Los Angeles Lakers

3. Rudy Gobert, Utah Jazz

2. Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo, Milwaukee Bucks

Honorable Mention: Kawhi Leonard, LA Clippers; Jayson Tatum, Boston Celtics; Robert Covington, Houston Rockets; P.J. Tucker, Houston Rockets; Bam Adebayo, Miami HEAT; Toronto Raptors Pascal Siakam, Kyle Lowry, O.G. Anunoby

See the original post here:

NBA Daily: The Evolution of Championship Teams - Basketball Insiders

At first glance, Quebec and Texas might not seem like the most natural partners. La Belle Province and the Lone Star State dont appear, on the surface, to have much in common, other than a uniquely distinctive culture and outlook, one that often sets them apart from their near neighbors, let alone those from another country. But the two do share a proud aviation history, and each is, today, home to a flourishing aerospace hub: in the Montreal and Dallas-Fort Worth regions, respectively.

There are several companies with a foot in each one, but perhaps none have done so quite as successfully as Bell. Established by Larry Bell in the border city of Buffalo, New York, in 1935, the company made the move to Texas in 1951.

After decades of success as one of the industrys original airframe manufacturers, Bell established its presence in Mirabel on Sept. 29, 1986, following an agreement with the Quebec and Canadian governments for financial support. It was a manufacturing facility at the time, spanning 436,000 square feet (40,500 square meters) on 151 acres of land.

The facility has gradually expanded over the years to now cover over 650,000 square feet alongside Mirabel airport, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of downtown Montreal. Such is the flow of helicopter traffic at the facility that it has its own control tower that looks out over its flight line of 17 helipads and two runways.

Over the past 34 years, more than 5,000 helicopters have rolled off its production lines, and today, it contains the final assembly lines (FALs) for the light single 505 Jet Ranger X, intermediate 407, light twin 429, and medium 412. This represents the entirety of Bells current in-production commercial product line. The facility also performs customization, engineering, type certification flights, support and services, and composite manufacturing.

Its the only site where almost everything is vertically integrated, said Steeve Lavoie, who has been CEO and president of the Mirabel facility since May 2019. From design, to manufacture, production, customization, painting, and delivery, everything can be done here. Its the only [Bell] site that can do all this. We have a broad spectrum of capabilities.

The facility was initially slated to produce variants of the Model 400 TwinRanger (a twin-engine version of the 206L LongRanger), but benefitted from Bells decision to split its helicopter business in 1986. Production of all its commercial lines was to be moved to Mirabel, while the manufacture of its military products would remain in Texas.

The first helicopter assembled at Mirabel was a 206B JetRanger, which was the best-selling light single-engine helicopter in the world at the time. Other notable first builds over the following years included the 206L-3 LongRanger (1987), 212 (1988), and 412 (1989).

Annual production grew above 200 for the first time in 1991, and the following year, Bell secured a huge contract from the Canadian government for 100 CH-146 Griffon helicopters (based on the 412EP) for the Canadian Armed Forces.

In March 1992, the facility recorded its first type certificate approval, with Transport Canada certifying the 230 a light twin-engine aircraft developed from the Bell 222.

The 1,000th Canadian-built Bell helicopter rolled off the Mirabel production line in 1994, and by this point, the facility was producing about one-third of the commercial turbine helicopters being sold worldwide. The year also saw the launch of two new types: the 407 and the 430.

The 407 is a derivative of the 206L-4 LongRanger, bringing that airframe together with the four-bladed soft-in-plane main rotor developed for the U.S. Armys OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The aircraft was designed, developed, tested and certified in Mirabel; it recorded its first flight at the plant in June 1995, gained certification from Transport Canada in February 1996 (Federal Aviation Administration approval followed later that month); and the first of the type was delivered later in the year. The 407 has proven to be a huge success for Bell, with over 1,500 delivered since 1996.

The 430, a four-bladed evolution of the 230, also went through the various stages of its development in Mirabel, receiving certification from Transport Canada shortly after the 407 in February 1996.

Another notable aircraft developed at the facility was the 427 (a twin-engine aircraft based on the 407), which would later give way to the 429 GlobalRanger. The latter, originally envisioned as a stretched version of the 427, ultimately employed a clean-sheet approach, with a modular airframe concept, extensive use of composites, a large cabin with clamshell doors, advanced rotor blade design, a glass cockpit, and was certified for single pilot instrument flight rules (IFR) operation.

The 429 first flew at Mirabel in February 2007, and received certification from Transport Canada and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in July 2009. The first delivery took place almost immediately following certification, with Air Methods (for Mercy One) taking receipt of the landmark aircraft.

Today, the 429 is one of four types produced at the Mirabel facility, along with the 407GXi and 412EPI (the latest versions of the storied types), and Bells new light single 505 Jet Ranger X.

Bell first revealed the 412EPI at Heli-Expo 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The aircraft features enhanced performance with Pratt & Whitney PT6-9 Twin Pac engines, and has upgraded avionics in the form of the integrated Bell BasiX Pro, which provides single-pilot IFR capabilities and incorporates the Garmin GTN 750 touchscreen navigators with four 10.4-inch (26.4-centimeter) LCD displays. Deliveries of the new variant began in 2013.

Another evolution of the 412 the 412EPX has been launched in partnership with Subaru, and will be the platform for the new utility helicopter for the Japanese Ministry of Defence. The aircraft features a more robust main rotor gearbox dry run capability, an increased internal maximum gross weight, and increased mast torque output below 60 knots.

The 407GXi was announced in 2018, with first deliveries beginning later that year. An evolution of the 407GXP, which provided enhanced hot and high performance, the GXi has upgraded Rolls-Royce M250-C47E/4 engines with dual channel FADEC, providing enhanced redundancy and improved range and fuel consumption. It also features Garmins G1000H NXi integrated flight deck for cutting-edge avionics.

The newest entrant to the Bell production fleet is the 505, which was announced in low-key fashion during the Paris Airshow in June 2013. Powered by a single Safran Helicopter Engines Arrius 2R engine, the 505 fills the void in Bells product line that was created when the Bell 206B JetRanger ceased production in 2010. The 505 has a useful load of 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms), a range of 340 nautical miles (630 kilometers), and has been certified at a maximum cruise speed of 126 knots.

It features the Garmin G1000H integrated avionics suite withdual 10.4-inch displays, and uses the same rotor system as the 206L-4 LongRanger retaining that types autorotational characteristics.

The five-seat aircraft, which aims to build off the legacy of success established by the Bell 206B JetRanger in the lightsingle-engine market segment, was originally to be producted in a brand new 82,000-square-foot facility in Lafayette, Louisiana. However, in May 2016, less than a year after it opened, Bell decided to bring production of the short light single up to Mirabel.

The move came at a time when the general industry downturn had forced Bell to make sweeping cuts to its workforce around the world. There were around 2,200 people working at the facility in Mirabel in 2010, but by 2016, just 900 remained.

I saw people crying [when the 505 production move was announced] because they were so happy to have good news about something, said Francis Tessier, senior manager of manufacturing. But it came with a lot of challenges, because they decided they would transfer the line right away.

The facility was already intimately familiar with the type, having been the base for its development and testing; the 505 had completed its first flight in Mirabel in November 2014, and the aircraft received type certification from Transport Canada in December 2016. This was followed by production certification in February 2017, with the first customer delivery to private operator Scott Urschel, based in Chandler, Arizona in March at HAI Heli-Expo 2017 in Dallas. FAA approval followed in June 2017.

The challenge we were having with the 505 was the [required] pace of production, said Tessier, noting the over 300 letters of intent the aircraft had received before it was certified. We were still in the industrialization phase, in the learning curve, and we had to ramp up pretty fast. Last year we were able to produce an aircraft every 1.5 days. It was amazing to see how we did that in less than two years.

The global 505 fleet passed 20,000 flight hours in August 2019, with more than 215 deliveries completed to customers around the globe.

While all Bells current production helicopters are built in Mirabel, that will change once its upcoming 525 Relentless super medium is certified. Unveiled at Heli-Expo 2012 in Dallas, the 20,500-lb. (9,300-kg) gross weight 525 Relentless will become the first commercial fly-by-wire helicopter when it is certified, competing against the likes of the Airbus H175 and Leonardo AW189 in the super medium category. The engine powering the aircraft the General Electric CT7-2F1 was certified by the FAA in March 2019, but Bell has not released a date for anticipated regulatory approval of the aircraft itself (see p.32).

The Mirabel facility has been involved in the aircrafts development, with the structure designed by its engineers, as well as providing composite parts for the first prototype aircraft and hosting flight tests.

Practical reasons lay behind the decision to locate the 525s production line in Amarillo, Texas, explained Tessier. The 525 doesnt fit in this facility we would have to expand our building to be able to produce it. In Amarillo they have the room for it.

The manufacturing work in Mirabel is split into three divisions: final assembly and flight tests; customization work; and composite creation.

The FALs sit either side of a wide central aisle, with the workflow bringing the aircraft towards the center as they are completed. They are then taken down the aisle to the completions section of the facility next door.

All the different products have different strategies in terms of how they are manufactured, Luc Bachant, director of manufacturing in Mirabel, told Vertical during a recent visit to the facility. The 412, for example, is the only product that still has its structural assembly completed in Mirabel. The aircrafts various components are first spliced together in a large fixture, and then other elements, such as the wiring harness, are installed at each subsequent station. It requires about 4,000 hours of work to bring a basic 412 through the FAL and to complete flight operations at Mirabel, he said a workload that could be doubled with particularly complex completions, such as that required for the Canadian Coast Guards new fleet of seven 412EPIs.

The 505, on the other hand, arrives at the plant in the form of a complete cabin structure from an external supplier. It follows a U-shaped production line, and Bell has the ability to install some kits into the aircraft as it is assembled, making its progress to delivery that much more efficient. Each aircraft typically spends a month on the FAL, said Bachant, with one aircraft finished every 1.5 days.

In terms of manufacturing, Bachant said the biggest challenge was the flow of components from suppliers. The flow of parts sometimes can be an issue because some suppliers have some capacity constraints, especially as the industry is picking up, he said. We have a base of close to 800 different suppliers. When you are creating an aircraft with so many different components, a delay with just one can stop everything.

Customers have the option of having their aircraft completed in Mirabel, which has similar capabilities to Bells completion center in Piney Flats, Tennessee. The company offers kits produced by Textron sister company Able Aerospace, as well those produced by third parties, such as DART Aerospace. These can range from air conditioning, to high skids, float installation, and mission-specific offerings like medical interiors, hoists, and cameras. Mirabels engineers can also create a customized solution to meet a customers requirements.

The facility has extensive paint capabilities, allowing it to provide liveries ranging from the basic one-color finish to intricate designs, completed in one of its five paint booths.

About 40 percent of Bells commercial deliveries are performed in Mirabel, with most of the rest in Piney Flats.

The plants composite work has increased dramatically over the last couple of years, said Bachant, driven by a desire to bring previously outsourced work in-house, and a general growth in the market.

Typically people know the site here for the assembly of the commercial products, but they might not know that the composite center is close to half the operations we do here internally, he said.

The team now makes over 600 composite parts, ranging from vertical fins, to the 429s cabin, to the 525s beany the disc that sits on the center of the main rotor head.

While the vast majority of Bells military work is completed in Texas, Canadian programs are managed in Mirabel.

In 2019, Bell began work on a major new project to upgrade and extend the operating life of the Canadian Armed Forces 85 CH-146 Griffons, known as the Griffon Limited Life Extension (GLLE) program. The Griffons, which entered service with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) between 1995 and 1997, provide a number of functions as a multi-purpose utility helicopter, providing tactical troop transport, reconnaissance, escort and surveillance, casualty evacuation, disaster relief, special operations aviation support, and search-and-rescue. In terms of aircraft numbers, the Griffons represent about 60 percent of the Canadian Department of National Defences rotary-winged fleet.

Under the GLLE program, the aircraft will receive upgraded avionics, engines, and sensor systems, with the aim of keeping the aircraft operating until at least 2031. Bell is currently in the definition phase of the program, which could ultimately be worth about $800 million. According to Francis LeBlanc, director for global fleet services at Bell, the company is working in conjunction with the Canadian government to develop a solution, with three prototypes expected within three years.

Itll be a new Bell 412 heavily based on the EPI/EPX model, said LeBLanc. Itll be an EPI base with some of the EPX features and added military equipment, such as a defense suite, satcoms and other things.

The company already supports the CH-146 fleet, which is spread over 10 bases, as part of a $100 million-a-year contract. This support spans program management, engineering, parts, and maintenance.

A high-profile military acquisition south of the border could also provide a huge boost to production in Mirabel; Bells submission for the U.S. Navys new helicopter trainer is the 407GXi, which received FAA certification for IFR flight (a Navy requirement) in August 2019. The Navy is expected to soon announce the award of the contract for 130 aircraft, with the entire fleet to be delivered by 2023. As commercially-based aircraft, they would be initially produced in Mirabel, before being shipped for final completion in Ozark, Alabama.

At the time of Verticals visit at the end of November, Bell was clearing space in its production line to accommodate the anticipated contract award first deliveries by the end of 2020 necessitated the advance planning, said Bachant.

We have contingency plans to make sure when we win it, we are going to be ready to deliver, he said.

The draft request for proposals for another military rotary-wing training program the Canadian Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) program is due later in 2020, and Bell plans to submit the Bell 429 for this. While currently undefined, the program is likely to require more than 20 aircraft.

When Mitch Snyder unveiled the FCX-001 concept aircraft at Heli-Expo 2017 in Dallas, it wasnt to reveal an aircraft that would be rolling off Bells production line any time soon it was to give an idea of the companys roadmap for technological development. It was also a clear announcement of Bells renewed focus on innovation.

The mockup at the show included a fan-driven anti-torque system, hybridized propulsion, morphing main rotor blade tips, an extensive use of glass in the fuselage, gull-wing doors, and the use of augmented reality in the cockpit to control the aircraft.

The announcement of the FCX accompanied the launch of parallel innovation teams in Mirabel and Fort Worth. The two largely work on the same projects, with the division of responsibilities driven by which location has the best match in terms of skills, capability and external funding.

The team in Mirabel has quickly grown from four to 30 people over the last three years. Based in a large open-plan mezzanine that overlooks the final assembly lines on the production floor, the team also works across two secretive labs surrounded by frosted panels (a third lab is being completed). Vertical was allowed entry to one of them during our visit. Two large islands were in the center of room; each one was topped by an unmanned technology demonstrator, with a group of workers gathered around one Bells Autonomous Pod Transport (APT) multicopter making adjustments. At the far end of the room, two 3D printing machines were busily working away; one making plastic parts, the other composites.

They run seven days a week, 24 hours a day, said Michel Dion, manager of innovation at Mirabel. Here, theres people working every day on unmanned vehicles.

But developing unmanned aircraft is just one aspect of the extremely broad mandate for the innovation team, which takes on projects as varied as air taxis, new propulsion systems, advanced flight controls and energy harvesting.

When Mitch unveiled the FCX at HAI, he talked about six things: energy management, advanced anti-torque, advanced fly by wire, autonomous flight and situational awareness, alternate propulsion system, and morphing rotor blades, said Dion. So FCX basically drove the scope of the work that we do. And now were taking those work packages and making sure that also they can support the Nexus and APT programs.

The development of the Nexus, Bells futuristic hybrid-powered air taxi, has been led by the team in Fort Worth, but the team in Mirabel has also been involved. Last year, they built a full-scale version of one of the aircrafts six ducted fans to evaluate its aerodynamic and acoustic performance in a customized wind tunnel at the National Research Councils aerospace facility in Ottawa, Ontario.

If we want to have air taxis in the future being part of our transportation system, social acceptance will be key, and external noise will obviously be a part of that, said Dion, adding that the results of the tests are still being evaluated.

The Mirabel team is also working with Nexus partner Thales on flight controls as part of a five-year government-supported technology demonstration program (TDP).

The TDP is funding various threads of research that see Bell working with 17 partners, from suppliers such as Pratt & Whitney Canada and CMC to universities and research centers. One of these threads is energy management more specifically, Bell is looking into energy harvesting.

When we have an aircraft that is vibrating and were trying to kill the vibration with [vibration control systems], were just basically dissipating free energy in the air, explained Dion. So can we go and harvest that energy back into the batteries?

Exploration of advanced anti-torque and alternative propulsion systems is also being performed under the TDP.

In addition to the various technology elements for larger aircraft, the Mirabel innovation team has been working on smaller unmanned programs: APT and HYDRA (Hybrid Drive Train Research Aircraft).

It has led Bells efforts with the latter an electric 12-motor 55-lb. (25-kg) ring-wing aircraft designed to test and develop electric and distributed propulsion systems. Like APT, HYDRA has the ability to takeoff and land vertically, and transition to airplane mode for forward flight.

Weve been flying in high-wind conditions, just to push the aircraft to its maximum in terms of controllability, and it performed really well, said Dion. The testing will never be complete. Its a research aircraft well always make updates and upgrades to it, for new technologies or to try new configurations of motors and blades.

With such a focus on new and exciting forms of future flight, how does the team balance developing technology for conventional rotorcraft versus newer forms of vertical lift?

Were trying as much as possible to develop technologies in such a way that we could retrofit [them] back into a helicopter program, said Dion. We will continue to make helicopters into the future there will always be missions for which the helicopter is the best solution. I think Nexus or APT are not replacing the helicopter, theyre just an addition to what exists today. They are basically two new transportation systems that we are developing.

For years, Bell has prided itself on the level of its customer support and services. Its product support team sits on the second floor of its facility in Mirabel, and these rooms are staffed 24/7. Youre not getting a voicemail and someone calls you back two days later, you should be getting somebody on the phone right away, said Jason Moir, regional sales manager, Canada. Its very much a family mentality so when customers call, they know who they are getting, [and] theyre on a first-name basis. . . . When you have that familiarity with someone, when youre looking for information, it makes the problem that much easier to solve.

In addition to the centrally-located expertise for customers to contact at the end of the phone, Bell has customer service engineers (CSEs) located regionally around the world.

Support and services has always been our strength, said Moir. The bar has been set by Bell for years in terms of industry standards. We continue to keep that mentality and focus.

The vast experience of the customer support team is reflected throughout the facility. Although Bachant has been with Bell for almost 10 years, he said he is considered new in terms of longevity at Mirabel. People tend to stay a long time which is a good sign! The average seniority in the plant is 21 years, he said, with many people having been there since it opened its doors in 1986. This number is trending down, however, as the staff numbers begin to grow with new hires.

Today, there are about 1,200 employees at the plant, following a hiring surge in 2019. Lavoie said he expects that to continue into 2020, at a rate of about 15 to 20 percent.

A growth in demand is fueling the need for this, he added. The demand is picking up on many models, he said, highlighting the 407 and 429 in particular, with Asia and the U.S. driving this trend.

With that in mind, Bell has accelerated the 407 and 429 production lines, and plans to build 70 407s and 40 429s in 2020.

In an aerospace hub like the Montreal region, Bell is somewhat spoiled in terms of the resources at its fingertips, with nearby schools and universities producing aerospace specialists, and a huge pool of existing aviation specialists working at neighboring companies such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney Canada, CAE, Rolls-Royce and Thales. But it also means Bell has serious competition for talent.

Over the coming years, Lavoie hopes to increase Bells brand awareness within the region and across Canada to highlight the capabilities and achievements of the Mirabel facility.

We are in the process of launching a marketing plan to rebrand and reintroduce Bell to the Canadian and Quebec market, said Lavoie. The history of Bell Mirabel is not well known by the average population, and this is something we are working on.

As well as potentially opening up new business opportunities, he said it would also be useful in helping to attract new talent. The facilitys appeal will be enhanced with the potential addition of new products that will guarantee its success into the future.

In a speech at the Canadian Aerospace Summit in Ottawa, Ontario, in November 2016 just over a year after he became Bells president, Snyder said Mirabel would be the base for flight test, certification and final assembly for Bells next new commercial helicopter program.

Lavoie said the strong working relationship the company had built with Transport Canada, having now certified several aircraft with the agency over the years, is part of the appeal for attracting future work from its parent company. And the facilitys broad range of capabilities and expertise make him confident of future growth at the company.

We are very capable and we have a wide range of skillsets here that makes it attractive for Bell to bring new products to Mirabel, he said. We are rethinking the future of vertical lift, and the role of Mirabel is very present in this.

View post:

Thirty years of evolution for Bell in Mirabel - Vertical Magazine

Published: 2/24/2020 4:45:25 PM

GREENFIELD The Sustainable Greenfield Implementation Committee will celebrate the past five years of accomplishments from the master plan and look ahead to the next five years during a panel discussion at Hawks & Reed Performing Arts Center on Thursday.

Mayor Roxann Wedegartner will provide an introduction at 5:30 p.m., followed by a panel of local players active in the evolution of downtown Greenfield through 7 p.m. According to an event press release, the event, called A Deliberate Downtown: Growing by Design, will focus especially on parts of the master plan that impact downtown.

Through the event, the Sustainable Greenfield Implementation Committee hopes to reinvigorate the communitys awareness of the master plan by introducing a downtown-focused subset of the master plan that can be used by groups, offices, organizations and individuals working around the trajectory of Greenfields downtown, according to the release. This downtown framework can both inform current efforts and act as an impetus for future planning.

The panel will also provide residents with an opportunity to hear from those working on the revitalization of Greenfields downtown, and share ideas for the next five years.

Panelists include:

Bill Baker, president of the Greenfield Business Association and owner of Baker Office Supply;

Michelle Barthelemy, chair of the Business and Information Technology Department at Greenfield Community College;

Rachael Katz, owner of the Greenfield Gallery and co-founder of the Progress Partnership;

Jeff Sauser, co-founder of Greenspace CoWork;

and Otis Wheeler, co-founder of the Greenfield Downtown Neighborhood Association and vice president of the City Council.

An RSVP for the event is not required, but is appreciated by the group: bit.ly/3c16xES.

View original post here:

Panelists to discuss downtown Greenfield's evolution Thursday - The Recorder

When law professor Phillip E. Johnson1 was asked whether he wouldnt be a bit out of [his] element writing about evolution, neo-Darwinism,2 and intelligent design, he gave the following intriguing answer. It is acutely relevant for all readers and researchers who are interested in the origin of man but who are not paleoanthropologists:

Well, if I am out of my element then Charles Darwin must also have been out of his element because his training was in medicine and theology3 although he was, in fact, a very good scientist, self-taught, a gentlemen amateur like others of his time. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was a lawyer. But you know, the thing about Darwinian evolution today is that it is a general philosophical concept that connects many disparate fields of science. So that you see, a molecular biologist [is] relying on fossil experts, paleontologists, and vice versa. And they are all relying on geneticists and each one of these groups of scientists outside their own element is just a generalist, is just a layman like anyone else. So there arent really any specialists in evolution. Its a generalists country.

He could have mentioned as well the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel4, often called the father of genetics, and many others in biology up to the present5. A further statement by Johnson is all the more relevant for the general reader, as well as for any philosopher, scientist, or other researcher:

The other thing to be said about the outsider is that every one of the great authorities of Darwinism, from Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley at the beginning, through Dobzhansky, Simpson, Julian Huxley a generation ago, to Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins and so on today, is that every one of those authorities wrote books for the general public. They addressed the general public and not a single one of them ever said this evidence is inaccessible to you. Dont try to figure it out because you cant understand it. Indeed, the implied premise of all the books was, its easily understood and anyone who isnt completely prejudiced or ignorant can see that its obviously true. So, I like to think of myself as the reader for whom all those books were intended and Im speaking back to the authors and explaining to them what they overlooked, that, in fact, their books are not convincing because theyre assuming at the beginning of the inquiry the point that they claim to have demonstrated at the end and so there is a thinking flaw. [Emphasis added.]6

Simply put, the proponents of the ruling theory tell us that we are all undoubtedly intelligent enough to fully grasp their theory, as long as we concur with it. But we are nothing but totally unqualified outsiders if we raise critical questions concerning any of its basic tenets, or if we come to the conclusion that it is mostly wrong. Applying this method to Johnson himself, an evolutionist wrote in Wikipedia: Despite having no formal background in biology, he felt that he could add insight into the premises and arguments.7 Nevertheless, if an intelligent outsider has honestly and painstakingly checked an argument and raises fundamental questions and objections, he should also be taken seriously.

So, lets reject this self-contradictory yardstick of neo-Darwinism, and reassess the theory. In particular, let us check and investigate some important points on the origin of humans.

According to todays dominant theory of evolution neo-Darwinism, also called the synthetic theory of evolution or the modern synthesis humans have evolved gradually from extinct apes. This process occurred through natural selection of an almost endless array of mutations with slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype (in the words of Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis), or phenotypically, exactly as in Darwins formulations of his theory between 1859 and 1882 by innumerable slight variations, extremely slight variations, and infinitesimally small inherited variations.8

This key point of the theory, its bottom line, core, and essence, even the same yesterday, and today and forever9 gradualism in combination with omnipotent natural selection10 can hardly be overemphasized. Thus I would like to continue to point out that Darwin correspondingly imagined the origin of species (and, in fact, of all life forms) by selection of infinitesimally small changes, infinitesimally slight variations, and slow degrees. He hence imagined steps not greater than those separating fine varieties, insensibly fine steps and insensibly fine gradations, for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps, or the transition [between species] could, according to my theory, be effected only by numberless small gradations11 (emphasis added). Virtually the same is said by neo-Darwinists today.12

How many transitional links are then required on the assumed evolutionary road to humans? How many, in fact, must actually and historically have existed during the last approximately 17 million years of geologic time, as stipulated for the last common ancestor of humans and great apes?13

Well, on the basis of the ruling theory: Certainly millions! In Darwins own words in the Origin (which are yet fully up-to-date) the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous, and the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. And of these millions of links, a few suggestive representatives have been shown by a popular image like the following one14 (presented with small variations almost worldwide). It is a faulty caricature, which is nevertheless thought to be sufficient to convey to the uninformed reader ad oculus the gradual origin of humans:

However, the unavoidable implication of the theory is, of course, that not only truly enormous and inconceivably great numbers of transitional links must have existed for the postulated continuum, but also infinite numbers of intermediate links on the extinct side branches. This is hinted by the only illustration in Darwins Origin of Species (1859, pp. 116-117), below:

Yet, this propagandist oversimplification can almost be set aside compared with the iconic images basic scientific faults and misconceptions, which Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, has designated an illusion:

There is a popular image of human evolution that youll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture theres an ape . On the right, a man Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. Its such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.15

Carefully analyzing and scientifically testing the icon shown above reveals that it is, in fact, an illusion on several levels.

First: Apart from connotations to orthogenesis, the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or driving force16 (a concept emphatically denied by all protagonists of the modern synthesis), I would like to point out that even on the neo-Darwinian presuppositions of evolution by mutation and selection, it has not been possible to document and prove the essentially assumed gradual process of mans origin. This is in spite of enormous efforts and copious financial expenditure. Quite the opposite: the discoveries made by paleoanthropology during the last some 150 years proved to be neither smooth nor tidy. That observation is briefly documented by the following clear statements of several of todays leading paleoanthropologists (generally accepted as insiders):

Ian Tattersall (Professor and Head of the anthropological department of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City from 1971 to 2010; now curator emeritus):

We differ from our closest known relatives in numerous features of the skull and of the postcranial skeleton, in important features of brain growth, and almost certainly in critical features of internal brain organization as well. These differences exist on an unusual scale. At least to the human eye, most primate species dont differ very much from their closest relatives. Differences tend to be largely in external features such as coat color, or ear size, or even just in vocalizations; and variations in bony structure tend to be minor. In contrast, and even allowing for the poor record we have of our closest extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented. Still, we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently: There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense. [Emphasis added.]17

The aforementioned Bernard Wood:

Even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive.18

Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pittsburg, past President of World Academy of Art and Science):

[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.19

Professors John D. Hawks, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, Milford Wolpoff (see the endnote for their universities and academic positions20):

no gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional. This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species.

We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary australopithecines21 in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.

Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated and reflect a bottleneck that was created because of the isolation of a small group from a parent australopithecine species. In this small population, a combination of drift and selection resulted in a radical transformation of allele frequencies, fundamentally shifting the adaptive complex (Wright 1942); in other words, a genetic revolution (Mayr 1954 ; Templeton 1980). [Emphasis added.]

For further documentations, see the excellent scientific expositions of paleontologist Gnter Bechly (2017 to 2019)22 and biologists Christopher Rupe and John Sanford (2019).23

To repeat the key points quoted above, we may emphasize that

Evolutionary biologists have further designated the origin of humans as an explosion and an abrupt evolutionary emergence.24 Correspondingly, one may agree with a commentary by Diane Swanbrow, ISR Director of Communications, Lead Public Relations Representative of the University of Michigan, speaking of a big bang theory of human evolution.25

However, one should keep in mind that the vocabulary used by many evolutionary biologists is sometimes not identical with that of common/normal language usage. Very recently, for example, can mean one hundred thousand years and more. Even so, the terminology of the abrupt appearance of man is all the more revealing since no creationist nor (as far as I know) intelligent design hypothesis is implied by the statements of the evolutionary paleoanthropologists quoted above. Thus, it seems that these researchers were driven by paleontologic and anatomic facts and findings alone to choose a vocabulary starkly at odds with gradualism.

On the other hand, there is no question that there are many further authors who, almost totally focusing on similarities between humans and apes, prefer to overlook the enormous differences between humans and the problematic ape-like links. They even go so far as to speak as if there were hardly any notable distinctions and dissimilarities between them at all.

Yet, as paleoanthropologist Jonathan M. Marks so clearly and convincingly stated:

It is not that difficult to tell a human from an ape, after all. The human is the one walking, talking, sweating, praying, building, reading, trading, crying, dancing, writing, cooking, joking, working, decorating, shaving, driving a car, or playing football. Quite literally, from the top of our head (where the hair is continually growing, unlike gorillas) to the tips of our toes (the stoutest of which is non-opposable), one can tell the human part from the ape part quite readily if one knows what to look for. Our eye-whites, small canine teeth, evaporative heat loss, short arms and long legs, breasts, knees, and of course, our cognitive communication abilities and the productive anatomies of our tongue and throat are all dead giveaways.26

And one may go on with Ann Gauger, emphasizing the following points (some overlapping with those mentioned by Marks, yet written from another perspective, and adding other important observations):

We write motets, we calculate equations that take us into space, we write jazz songs about flying to the moon and sing them at age 7, we plan ways to terraform Mars (no chimp does that!) and study Greek plays by people long dead.

We use voice dictation software that others of us have made, that is sometimes almost poetic in its interpretation of what we just said, in fact, so poetic that we cant tell what it was supposed to be. No chimp does that.

We build incredible cities. We do horrible things well beyond what animals are capable of to each other. We have language, that wonderful, marvelous, treacherous gift. We have music, that powerful, glorious, dangerous gift. And we have art, that beautiful, transcendent, painful gift. All these gifts are things that animals dont have. They are qualitatively, not just quantitatively, different, and they are well past anything that could have evolved.27

According to Ian Tattersall, the reason for what others have called the big bang of mans origin probably was a short-term event of major developmental reorganization, driven by a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level. This has been my answer to this hypothesis:

Nonetheless, a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (distinctive and unprecedented) from his supposed animal ancestor, our closest extinct kin, not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28

This does not include most of the further points referred to above by Marks and Gauger. So here we are, after more than two centuries of materialistic speculations (starting with Lamarck in 1809). Apart from the dominant neo-Darwinian theory, these hypotheses include neo-Lamarckism (Jablonka), punctuated equilibrium (Gould and Eldredge), neutral evolution (Kimura), evolution without (any) selection (Lima de Faria), cybernetic evolution (Schmidt), evolution by transposons (McClintock), saltational evolution (Goldschmidt), and more. None of these has ever produced a satisfactory explanation of the origin of species in general or of humans in particular. The question may then be raised: Why should we not be allowed to include intelligent design in our theories? (Please see below.)

Second: One of the many implications of the Darwinian icon shown above is the idea that man was not planned. This is somewhat in line with the basic premise of materialism that nothing made everything for no reason and made life from non-life for no reason and made meat robots who think they have purposes but dont for no reason.29

Or as George Gaylord Simpson, who established the modern synthesis in paleontology, emphatically stated:

Man is the result of a purposeless and material process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates.Man was certainly not the goal of evolution, which evidently had no goal. He was not planned, in an operation wholly planless.30

Now, the questions may be raised: How did Simpson like the large majority of evolutionary biologists today know all this? And how can such statements be scientifically tested? In the words of Stephen Jay Gould and other biologists, the process of evolution is utterly unpredictable and quite unrepeatable.31 As far as I can understand it, the assertion of the purposeless and material process of the origin of man seems to be entirely beyond any rigorous scientific testability. Or in stronger words: It appears to be nothing but a doubtful part of an essentially unverifiable, non-falsifiable, and unquantifiable theory. In that theory, chance (from random mutations to historical contingency) occupies an important place. As integral parts of its teaching structure, it includes to underline Goulds key points the principal non-reproducibility of the main events and results postulated (macroevolution) as well as the unpredictability of future macroevolution. Thus the theory falls largely outside the realm of science. It eventually constitutes nothing but a seductive mirage of the materialist worldview, not only without any real substance but also convenient to divert truth-seekers from essential biological and philosophical questions, as for example whether A single-couple human origin is possible.32

Third: There is an awkward tendency among the proponents of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution to deny the utmost importance of chance for their theory. Richard Dawkins, for example, comments:

Where did this ridiculous idea come from that evolution has something to do with randomness?The statement that evolution refers to the unproven belief that random undirected forces [produced a world of living things] is not only unproven itself, it is stupid. No rational person could believe that random forces could produce a world of living things.33

He admits after the first sentence quoted above that The theory of evolution by natural selection has a random element mutation. Yet he tries to downplay this admission by saying by far the most important part of the theory of evolution is non-random: natural selection.

So, the first question may be whether natural selection really has nothing to do with randomness. Theodosius Dobzhansky commented in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (often viewed to be the crystallization point for the origin and growth of the modern synthesis):

With consummate mastery Darwin shows natural selection to be a direct consequence of the appallingly great reproductive powers of living beings. A single individual of the fungus Lycoperdon bovista produces 7 x 1011 spores; Sisymbrium sophia and Nicotiana tabacum, respectively, 730,000 and 360,000 seed [orchid Cycnoches 3,751,000 per ovary, i.e. in case of some 30 flowers per plant 112,530,000 seed], salmon, 28,000,000 eggs per season [cod 6,500,000, turbot 9,000,000]; and the American oyster up to 114,000,000 eggs in a single spawning. Even the slowest breeding forms produce more offspring than can survive if the population is to remain numerically fairly stationary. Death and destruction of a majority of the individuals produced undoubtedly takes place. If, then, the population is composed of a mixture of hereditary types, some of which are more and others less well adapted to the environment, a greater proportion of the former than of the latter would be expected to survive. In modern language this means that, among the survivors, a greater frequency of carriers of certain genes or chromosome structures would be present than among the ancestors34 [Species in square brackets added.]

However, especially from the 1950s onward, French biologists, such as Cunot, Ttry, and Chauvin, who did not follow the modern synthesis, raised the following objection to this kind of reasoning (according to Litynski):

Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather as Cuenot said that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?35

I commented in an encyclopedia article that similar questions may be raised about the 700 billion spores of Lycoperdon, the 114 million eggs multiplied with the number of spawning seasons of the American oyster, for the 28 million eggs of salmon and so on. King Solomon wrote around 1000 BC: I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, [] but time and chance happeneth to all of them (KJV 1611).

Further, if only a few out of millions and even billions of individuals are to survive and reproduce, then there is some difficulty believing that it should really be the fittest who would do so. Strongly different abilities and varying environmental conditions can turn up during different phases of ontogenesis. Hiding places of predator and prey, the distances between them, local differences of biotopes and geographical circumstances, weather conditions and microclimates all belong to the repertoire of infinitely varying parameters. Coincidences, accidents, and chance occurrences are strongly significant in the lives of all individuals and species. Moreover, the effects of modifications, which are nonheritable by definition, may be much more powerful than the effects of mutations which have only slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype, specifying that kind of mutational effects most strongly favored for natural selection and evolution by the neo-Darwinian school. Confronting the enormous numbers of descendants and the never-ending changes of various environmental parameters, it seems to be much more probable that instead of the very rare fittest of the mutants or recombinants, the average ones will survive and reproduce.

So, can there be the least doubt that also in natural selection there is a strong element of chance and randomness?

Indeed, this conclusion is corroborated by population genetics. Most of these slight phenomena belong to the neutral range of genetic differences, which remain virtually unrecognized by natural selection. Even mutants with a selective advantage of 1 percent have according to population genetics to occur at least 50 times independently of each other in order to have a chance to spread in a population.

Moreover, survival in natural selection is clearly build on the functionality of all the structures and organs of the organisms: A hare is assumed to run faster, a lion to jump farther, a zebra senses a carnivore better, an eagle spots prey at a greater distance, a chimp responds more effectively than his or her conspecifics. Why? Because according to the neo-Darwinian doctrine the chance events of mutation have equipped them as needed, with all structures originating until then as well as the newly gained improvements. All this is assumed to occur in a continuous process of evolution by innumerable slight variations, extremely slight variations, and infinitesimally small inherited variations. Thus, chance events determine everything in evolution: form and function of all structures dominating natural selection in the struggle for life and hence the entire phylogeny of plants and animals.

So, Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod was right in characterizing the modern synthesis by affirming that Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.36 And Dawkins is absolutely right in saying that No rational person could believe that random forces could produce a world of living things.

Fourth: In my experience with countless discussions, in which I present a series of biological facts that my neo-Darwinian interlocutors cannot explain under their theory, the frustrated scientist (or whatever he or she may be) eventually appeals to the enormous amount of geological time: But consider the millions of years. Everything was possible by mutation and selection within such a time frame, things that we cannot explain with our theory today.

However, Sanford et al. have shown that any time frame offered so far is definitely too short for mutations and natural selection to transform apes into man:

To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive.

Some of the subsequent papers have been critical. Yet even those papers show that establishing just two specific co-dependent mutations within a hominin population of 10,000 can require waiting times that exceed 100 million years (see discussion). So, there is little debate that waiting time can be a serious problem, and can be a limiting factor in macroevolution.37

Thus, the necessary hundreds of coordinated mutations would not occur even in a time frame of billions of years of random mutagenesis.

Fifth: Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lnnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts.

Now evolutionary biologists in general and paleoanthropologists in particular have also produced an array of phylogenies on the origin of man. But these clearly contradict each other on basic questions (including those researchers honestly admitting larger numbers of question marks for all the fossils, of which they cannot assign a scientifically testable sure place in their evolutionary schemata), thus showing the insufficiency of the answers presently given. For a detailed discussion of such contradictory phylogenies, please see The Evolution of Man: What do We Really Know? Testing the Theories of Gradualism, Saltationism and Intelligent Design.

Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner? Key answer: The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent (our minimum lower bound)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). We are beginning to see that there are profound ape/human differences that transcend DNA sequences. These includes many epigenetic systems such as differential nucleosome formation, 3-D DNA structure, DNA methylation, transcription, RNA splicing, RNA editing, protein translation, and protein glycosylation.40

Richard G. Delisle, evolutionary paleoanthropologist and philosopher at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, has published a series of captivating observations in his article The Deceiving Search for Missing Links in Human Evolution, 1860-2010: Do Paleoanthropologists Always Work in the Best Interests of Their Discipline? I would like to direct the reader to some points under his subheading, What Makes Paleoanthropologists Tick?41

He calls it a common paleoanthropological practice: namely, the twofold strategy of claiming that ones discovery is likely a direct evolutionary link to living humans, and of displacing other specimens from this position (if necessary).

Why? Well, scientific fame is at stake. Without doubt, the discovery of a claimed missing link attracts more attention than discovering a specimen that is deemed an evolutionary dead end. Indeed, the pursuit of recognition within and beyond the boundaries of ones discipline is a common feature of scientific endeavors, paleoanthropology being one.

Media attention is of utmost importance: for example, radio, television, documentaries, popular science magazines, semipopular books, and even high-impact scholarly magazines and journals are likely to cover an event announcing the discovery of a new missing link, especially if it impacts views of human evolution. This is so even at the risk of distorting the scientific message in order to attract public attention. (See several references for these statements in the original article.)

Funding imperatives play a role: Funding agencies are usually more generous when significant discoveries, such as those dealing with missing links, are involved. He continues: Unfortunately, given increasingly limited financial resources, funding agencies are forced to weigh the potential impact of the research projects they subsidize. Consequently, the search for potential missing links is intrinsically more appealing than adding another specimen to a known fossil record, especially if this merely corroborates the identity of evolutionary dead ends.

Further points are discussed in the article. To sum up: (1) scientists in human evolution are often driven by extra-scientific considerations, including fame, media attention, funding, and being lucky (along with a few other reasons); and (2), much of this is due more to the sociology of the sciences than to scientific or epistemic rigor. That discoverers repeatedly claim to find missing links, even though most of them will be wrong as they themselves probably suspect is troubling, and it reveals paleoanthropologys lack of rigor and scientific maturity.

A series of comprehensive books and articles has been published on this topic in recent decades. The authors include Axe, Behe, Bethell, Dembski, Denton, Johnson, Leisola, Lnnig, Meyer, Moreland et al. (eds.), ReMine, Sanford, Scherer, Sewell, Swift, Wells, and many others. What I can do in this article is hardly more than give a few hints and invite the reader to consult the authors publications, which can easily be found on Google (usually just by searching the names of a respective author plus intelligent design).42

Perhaps just one additional observation, though, from cell physiologist Siegfried Strugger: The cell is the most perfect cybernetic system43on Earth [consisting of thousands of spatio-temporally precisely matched gene functions, gene interactions, cascades and pathways in a steady-state network of ingeniously complex physiological processes characterized by specified as well as (often) irreducible complexity including an abundance of information probably in the gigabyte to terabyte range and more]. All the automation of human technology is, in comparison to the cell, only a primitive beginning of man in principle to arrive at a biotechnology.44

Consider, please: Conscious action, imagination, perception, intelligence, intellect, wisdom, mental concepts, spirit, and mind were already absolutely necessary at the primitive beginning. How much more is an inference to design demanded by the origin of the infinitely more complex cybernetic systems of lifes45endless forms most beautiful and wonderful.46That includes, of course, all of biologys specified and irreducibly complex47structures!

In my view, only ingenious design rather than randomness and the materialistic philosophy that nothing made everything for no reason can adequately explain the big bang of the origin of man. Gradualism is an illusion. Mutation and selection have been weighed and found wanting. All evolutionary time frames offered are too short for the tasks to be met. Contradictory phylogenies and diametrically opposed interpretations of almost all the supposed links have shown that Even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive. I would add for the evolutionary origin of Homo remains elusive. The 98.5 percent DNA identity of chimps and man has been revealed as a propagandistically effective delusion. And this leaves aside the fact that scientists in human evolution are often driven by extra-scientific considerations, including fame, media attention, funding, and being lucky (along with a few other reasons).

The evidence is overwhelming: for human uniqueness as well as for the staggering complexities of synorganized structures on all organismic levels, from DNA, RNA, cellular and tissue systems perfectly fine-tuned into organs and coordinated organ networks, integrated into whole organisms and species to biocenoses and vice versa involving the origin of enormous magnitudes of information for generating their necessary specificity and irreducibility. All this, I hope, invites the non-dogmatic reader to seriously consider the theory of intelligent design in his or her further scientific studies.

Photo: An artist imagines Australopithecus afarensis, Hall of Human Origins, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History;reconstruction by John Gurche; photographed by Tim Evanson / CC BY-SA.

See the original post:

Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man's Origin - Discovery Institute