Category Archives: Evolution

The decentralized currency Bitcoin has grown incredibly popular over of the past year. In parallel with this increased interest in cryptocurrency, the technology is also affecting pop culture and the art world. In 2017 there are a lot of artists incorporating the concept of bitcoin culture into their mediums.

Also read:The Curious Cases of the Alphabay Kingpin and Hansa Takedowns

Bitcoin is an incredible technology that has changed the way the world looks at money. The protocol has spawned lots of innovation and a revolutionary spirit among those who use the cryptocurrency. This spirit has invoked a lot of artists that are tethering the bitcoin concept into their creative activities. This week were going to look at a few designers bringing cryptocurrency to the visual arts.

Block Bills

The Los Angeles-based artist Matthias Drfelt has created a new type physical bitcoin that looks similar to the paper fiat notes people use every day. Drfelt uses the hashes from 64 random blocks and turns them into an eccentric design that was created by his own software. Further, Drfelt created his own symbols for the hexadecimal numbers that he uses along the bottom of every bill. There are numbers in a typeface that Drfelt generatedto represent the time the bitcoin was mined. The artist says every bill is created entirely with code except for the signature he signs that says Satoshi. In contrast to traditional fiat where theres a number that tells people how much the bill is worth, Drfelt uses the number of transfers stored in each block.

Each digital print is 5.9 X 3.3 inches, and Drfelt has created a series of 64 banknotes from the blockchain.

Satoshi Gallery

The artist Valentina Picozzi decided to bring cryptocurrency to the masses with Satoshi Gallery, a collection of crypto infused images and wearables. The Italian artist based out of London says that Bitcoin needed art and thats why Satoshi Gallery was created. Satoshi Gallerys work includes images of the most expensive slice of pizza, dollar bills saying oh no, and an iconographic landscape of other crypto-related subjects. We need to bridge the gap between technical developers, experts/insiders and everyday people Thats why we need art.

Art for Crypto

The well known visual artist, Vesa Kivinen, the founder of Artevo Contemporary has recently started a new cryptocurrency infused platform called ArtForCrypto.com. Vesas work uses various mediums such as digital photography mixed with oil and canvas paintings. The mixed media artists paintings consist of visual depictions of the bull and bear, Satoshi Nakamoto, and one called the Split among many others. Vesa also has a few altcoin paintings for tokens like ethereum, litecoin, and steemit. Additionally, the artist covers subjects like the Silk Road and the possible August 1 fork as well.

Phneep

Phneep is a popular crypto-artist that calls himself a pixel bender and is well-known among the bitcoin community for manipulating movie covers, logos, and other images from pop-culture with bitcoin-related imagery. The artist got into bitcoin in 2012,and in 2014 decided to focus on bitcoin satire because he wanted to contribute to the crypto-ecosystem but couldnt code. Phneep has worked with a lot of community members within the bitcoin economy including the host of the Youtube show Mad Bitcoins, Thomas Hunt.

As long as the core devs are kicking and making successful changes to the protocol itself, and as long as Hollywood keeps crapping out these blockbusters, then Im going to keep finding ways of mashing them together, explains Phneep.

Friends of Satoshi

Friends of Satoshi is a resource for bitcoin artists and creators that aimto empower a decentralized collective of individuals. The organization says that its focus is dedicated to promoting Bitcoin through media and art. Just recently on the 9th anniversary following Zimbabwes hyperinflation, five artists from five different countries collaborated on the Friends of Satoshi Zimnote. The crypto artists who helped with the project include Qrypto (India), Zoran Kutuzovi (Croatia), Satoshi Gallery (U.K), Crypto Imperator (Spain) and The Bitcoin Penny Co. (USA). The Zimnote series consists of ten notes hand painted or drawn, says Friends of Satoshi. Each note contains a fractional amount of Bitcoin, and only four notes will be publicly released, explains the artist collective.

The Rare Pepe Blockchain Community

The Rare Pepe blockchain trading card community is a very vibrant and energetic group of meme artists. Since last year the Rare Pepe community has created a large assortment of collectible cards that are tethered to the bitcoin blockchain. Only the dankest Pepes make the cut into the series, and the Rare Pepe Foundation votes on each entry. We were the first to link Pepes and cryptography to bring you the first truly Rare Pepes secured by the Bitcoin blockchain. The Rare Pepe community also has its own token called Pepe Cash which has a $9.9 million market cap.

Cryptograffiti

The artist Cryptograffiti is a well-known designer within the crypto-community that creates art through the lens of the blockchain challenging the status quo. Cryptograffiti is an early bitcoin adopter and was the first artist to utilize a public-facing cryptocurrency wallet to receive donations for street art. His work has been seen all over the crypto-circuit, shared by luminaries, and featured in online publications.

What do you think about the bitcoin artwork these crypto-artists create? Let us know in the comments below.

Images via Cryptograffiti, Art for Crypto, Block Bills, Phneep, the Rare Pepe blockchain, Satoshigallery, and Friends of Satoshi.

Show the world how cutting-edge you are with abitcoin T-shirt, hoodie, bag, key-ring, even a Trezor hardware wallet.Shipping all over the world, quality merchandise and, of course, a payment system that makes people say wow!

Follow this link:

The Evolution of Cryptocurrency Visuals, Memes, and Bitcoin Street ... - Bitcoin News (press release)

During his first practice at Penn State, tight end Mike Gesicki was told by his coach to get into a three-point stance. His reaction was one of confusion.

"I was kind of like, 'Uh, what?'" Gesicki recalled.

Twenty years ago, such an answer would have been absurd and likely met with a coach's profanity-filled order to run laps. But in the current era of college football, it's not unusual for an incoming tight end to be somewhat unfamiliar with the concept of blocking on the line of scrimmage. As offenses have evolved, so have tight ends.

It's an ever-changing position, which used to be largely considered an extension of the offensive line and now is among the most useful receiving threats in the game, even for spread offenses that once favored the four-wide-receiver formations.

Ask coaches what they recall from the tight ends of yesteryear and the answers are pretty common.

"It was a tackle, an extra tackle that you put in the game," SMU coach Chad Morris said.

Said Baylor co-offensive coordinator Jeff Nixon: "A typical tight end back then was a 6-5, 260-pound guy who was probably mainly a blocker."

That has changed. While their sizes are similar, perhaps slightly smaller, what today's tight ends are asked to do is dramatically different.

"Really, people are playing where their tight end is a big high school receiver," Penn State coach James Franklin said, referring to recruiting the position. "You're recruiting tight ends based on their size, their dimensions, their measurables and their skill set. You have to feel like you're going to be able to teach that aspect [blocking]."

The ideal size is still the same as it was a decade ago. The average tight end drafted into the NFL in 2007 was 6 feet 4, 256 pounds. In the 2017 draft, it was 6-4, 252 pounds, a sign that tight ends are still big but getting lighter.

James Casey, a former college and NFL tight end who is now coaching the position for the University of Houston, said it's difficult to find players who are big enough, fast enough and strong enough to do everything coaches ask of tight ends.

"You have to be able to block at the line of scrimmage," Casey said. "You have to know all the run game calls, some pass protection stuff, all the route concepts and have that mindset that's like an offensive lineman. You have to be that meathead, aggressive type guy, that kind of 'punk' almost, like a lot of really good offensive linemen are, but then you also have to be able to go out there and split out be in the slot and run all the routes."

The scarce nature of the perfect player for the position is why Washington State coach Mike Leach, one of the pioneers of the air raid offense that relies largely on four-wide-receiver sets, doesn't use tight ends. Over the past five years, no school in a Power 5 conference has used a tight end on fewer plays than the Cougars, who have employed one on only 2.5 percent of their offensive snaps since 2012.

"Tight ends are a blast if you have them," Leach said. "If you have a true tight end -- and I mean a true tight end -- then life is good. God didn't make very many true tight ends. Just go to the mall and the big long-armed guys you see at the mall -- you'll see a couple, but most of them can't run fast and those that can probably can't catch. So there's not very many of them."

Other coaches agree; bodies that make quality tight ends often make good defensive ends, too. Leach said he needs those defensive ends, thus, the players on his roster who fit the perfect tight end profile often end up on defense. The problem for others, Leach says, is some coaches want one so much that they're willing to compromise in order to work one into their offense.

"You desperately want that big-body guy that can block but also catch balls and is big enough that he's a mismatch on the strong safety but nifty enough that he's a better athlete than the linebacker," Leach said. "So you're constantly looking for those guys and the trouble is, as you're sitting there pushing it too far, pretty soon you end up playing the third-team guard that can sort of catch, but all he is the third-team guard. Well if he's the third-team guard, what business does he have playing tight end? In my opinion, none."

As Leach had success in his time at Texas Tech, it sprouted a generation of coaches who ran a similar offense and who eschew tight ends for the small, fast receiver. Now that trend seems to be changing.

Take Oklahoma State. According to ESPN Stats & Information, as the Cowboys developed what Mike Gundy calls their "Cowboy Backs" (a tight end/fullback hybrid), that use has increased dramatically. In 2015, they used a tight end on 43.2 percent of their offensive snaps. In 2016, they employed one 35.7 percent of the time.

"It's turned a full circle," Gundy said. "Years ago, you never saw an offense without one. Then, nobody was using one. You couldn't even find [high] schools in Texas [where you could] evaluate a tight end because they weren't even using them. And for us, now it's worked its way back in. We started using them in different ways."

The benefit, Gundy says, is "you have the ability to run a seven-man running play and a five-man passing play," with those players in the game. The Cowboys, like many others, use a tight end in the backfield where a fullback -- a position that has gone the way of the dodo bird -- used to be.

Texas A&M and West Virginia are also teams that, like Oklahoma State, rarely used tight ends five years ago but do so frequently now (the Aggies used one less than 10 percent of snaps in 2012 and 2013, but that rose to 32.8 percent of the time in 2016, while West Virginia has increased its rate tenfold in that span). The reason, West Virginia coach Dana Holgorsen said, is simply change.

"Because everybody was doing the same stuff religiously," he said. "I like the idea of having some of those guys to be able to scheme and change some things up a little bit."

It's a national trend, too. In 2012, Power 5 teams averaged 491 offensive snaps per season using at least one tight end. In 2016, that number was up to 500, per ESPN Stats & Information.

The result, in some offenses, is that the tight end has become basically a big receiver who plays in the slot and doesn't block as often as 20th century tight ends did. Speed is now more in demand at the position. In 2007, the average NFL scouting combine 40-yard dash times for drafted tight ends was 4.75 seconds. In 2017, that time was all the way down to 4.62 seconds.

Gesicki, who said he initially wanted to be recruited as a receiver out of high school, was advised by a recruiter to embrace tight end because "receivers come a dime a dozen, but if you can be a big, fast, athletic tight end, they don't come around as often so you can be extremely valuable." Last season, Gesicki led all Big Ten tight ends in receiving yards (679).

"It seems to me, in the last four or five years, that they're looking for that hybrid guy that they can flex out and get into different personnel looks," Texas defensive coordinator Todd Orlando said. If they're big and athletic, then the guys that they're running up the field on -- which are normally safeties -- they can get into them and create separation or they can just box them out and that becomes a pain in the butt."

If a coach finds the right guy -- basically someone like former Alabama tight end O.J. Howard or the New England Patriots' Rob Gronkowski, few of which exist -- it's a headache. But even lacking that kind of ability, players at the position can still create issues for defenses. A versatile tight end can allow an up-tempo offense to change formations without switching personnel, creating communication problems for defenses that aren't ready for it.

"There's different things we would call vs. four-receiver sets than we would three-receiver sets, Orlando said. "So when you make it either/or [with a tight end], it's kind of a crapshoot for us. That's why I think offenses do it all the time."

Nebraska coach Mike Riley noted that increased run-pass option plays have created another useful way to use tight ends.

"The old 'pop pass,' from years ago has become a new thing for the tight end because of the zone-read stuff that's going on," Riley said.

While the old-school blocking tight ends may seem like a relic of the past, they do exist. Take Kansas State's Dayton Valentine, who had the lowest reception-to-snap ratio of any tight end nationally (he started all 13 games but had only two receptions, catching the ball on 0.4 percent of his snaps).

Valentine joked that his friends ask why he doesn't request the ball more often, and he responds "because we're averaging 6 yards a carry." While receiving tight ends are en vogue, Valentine is happy to put get in a three-point stance and hit someone.

"It's an attitude," Valentine said. "I personally take a lot of pride in being one of those guys who as a tight end is willing to put my hand down and get in the trenches and block for my guys."

Read the original:

The evolution of the tight end in college football - ESPN.com - ESPN

The 80s were such a polarising decade, politically, culturally so its not surprising that the fashions still split the jury. In the week of Princes Williams and Harrysdocumentary about their mother Diana, the fault lines have clarified: those who look back on the decades clothes fondly tend not to have been around when it was actually unfolding.

Those who shudder at the clunky proportions, unsophisticated footwear and mullet-ant hair tendencies are generally those who had to live through them first hand. I hated fashion in the 80s and I still do. But that could just be me.

It does raise the question of what makes an era classic the 1950s and what leaves it in the dung-heap of curiosity. Time is a huge factor. In 1937, James Laver, the art historian and V&A curator, worked out a 150 year timeline for fashion. To prcis, he suggested that a design that was ten years ahead of its time is generally considered indecent, while ten years after its moment, its usually regarded as hideous. Twenty years after, its dismissed as ridiculous; 50 years makes it appear quaint, 70 years charming, 150 years, and its back to being beautiful

Laver was evidently onto something, even if his time line has itself, suffered from time warp. Revisions happen much faster now.

Original post:

Princess Diana's style evolution, and why some decades are just better at fashion than others - Telegraph.co.uk

Photo Courtesy: The South African Swim History Project

By Ailish Dougherty, Swimming World College Intern.

Lilly Kings world record-breaking performance in the womens 100-meter breaststroke this past week at the 2017 FINA World Championships in Budapest stunned many in the swimming world. Yet at the same time, it was so unsurprising it was only a matter of time beforeher confidence would drive her to the fastest swim in history.

Kinglowered Lithuanian Ruta Meilutytes previous world record of 1:04.35, set at the 2013 World Championships in Barcelona, to a 1:04.13. Kingsfirst 50 alone was the fifth fastest 50 breaststroke in history, and the second fastest ever (tied with Jessica Hardy) done by an American.

Kinghad her sights set on a world record, and she delivered. Lets take a look at how her performance made history as the fastest 100-meter breaststroke ever swum. Going all the way back to 1921, the first recorded 100-meter breaststroke world record was set at 1:37.60 by E. Van Den Bogaert of Belgium. Thetimes then dropped sharply every one or two years for the next 30 years, getting as fast as a 1:16.90 by Eva Szkely of Hungary in 1951. The next recorded world record was set in 1958 by Karin Beyer of Germany, and it marks a shift in the way breaststroke was regulated.

In 1933, breaststrokers realized that an over-the-water arm recovery was faster and more efficient than an underwater recovery. During thisyear, American Henry Myers became the first swimmer to racewith a breaststroke frog kick paired with what we now call butterfly arms. As you can see at around the 1:40-mark in the video below from 1936, competitors began to use this technique more frequently. In 1952, however, butterfly was established as an individual stroke by FINA, and breaststrokers were forced to go back to an underwater recovery. The archive of world recordsrestarted.

Thus, a new world record was set at 1:20.31 by Germanys Beyer in 1958. However, it didnt take long for breaststrokers to evolve with the stroke, and in the next four years the worlds best timedropped by three full seconds. In the new era,Claudia Kolb became the first American to set the 100 breaststroke world record. In 1964 she set the record with her time of 1:17.90. Agnes Geraghty had been the only other American to hold the world record before 1964. Even at the 1964 Olympics, however, breaststroke looked very different than it does today. As you can see in the video below, from Tokyo in 1964, the widely-held belief at the time was that the closerone held their head to the water, the lower onekeptto the surface, the faster shewould slice through the water.

Since 1964, otherrule changesanddevelopments in techniquehave further affected the evolutionof the stroke. Breaststroke has evolved to be more undulatingand powerfulthan ever. Fourmore American women have held the coveted title since Kolb. Most recently, it wasHardyin 2009. Germany hasheld the world record in the event the most times in history, while Australia and South Africa are also top contenders. Penelope Heyns of South Africa has held the world record five times, as she brought her own record down from 1:07.46 in 1996 to a 1:06.52 in 1999, untilAustralias Leisel Jones took over with a 1:06.37.

In the past 15 years, the world record has dropped from Joness1:06.37 in 1999, to a 1:06.20 by Hardy in 2005, to 1:05.09 by Jones in 2006. In 2009, American Rebecca Soni was the first woman under 1:05.00, swimming to a WR of 1:04.84 in 2009.However, she did not hold the title for long, as Hardy lowered it to 1:04.45 just 11 days later. Finally, Meilutytes 1:04.35 has held strong since 2013. Until now.

Photo Courtesy: Peter H. Bick

King is the seventh American woman to ever hold the world record in this event. Why? As we all have seen, Kings stroke rate is incredibly fast, which has been a common theme inrecent history. However, what King does differently is that she retains her energy remarkably throughout her races, allowing her to keep up her stroke count and out-pace her competition. She also gets incredible height during her pull, so that on the recovery, she can drive her hands forward with power getting more distance perstroke than ever before. Kings breakout speed is also incredibly quick, just as Hardys was. Her closing speed, though, is unmatched by any breaststroker.

Elite womens breaststroke has quicklybeen improving over the past century and its only going to get faster. When asked about Kings world-record breaking swim, Meilutyte (the only Lithuanian world record-holder in the event in history) said that she had been expecting it.

Photo Courtesy: NY Times // Womens 100M Breaststroke World Record Progression

Meilutytewas also very hopeful about the future, and her place in it,

Its amazing to see how much womens breaststroke is improving. I think were going to see a 1:03 one day, so its just a matter of time, really. I think withthe progress that the distance is going, its definitely possible. I will certainly do my best to be in the mix.

As for King, she has said that she is never completely satisfied with a swim, so shewill surely be looking to be the first woman in history under 1:04 flat. And when she sets her mind to something, she does it.

All commentaries are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Swimming World Magazine nor its staff.

Read this article:

The Evolution of the Women's 100-Meter Breaststroke World Record - Swimming World Magazine

MUMBAI: India has emerged strong, exhibiting a high potential in terms of digital payments and has been categorised under the "break out" segment among 60 countries, according to the Digital Evolution Index 2017.

The Fletcher School at Tufts University in partnership with Mastercard, unveiled the Digital Evolution Index 2017.

The Index is a comprehensive research that tracks the progress countries have made in developing their digital economies and integrating connectivity into the lives of billions.

The 'break out' segment refers to countries that have relatively lower absolute levels of digital advancement, yet remain poised for growth and are attractive to investors by virtue of their potential, a statement issued by Mastercard said.

"India has been experiencing rapid strides of progress with an evolving payments landscape, catalysed by the government's demonetisation decision," it said.

The government's endeavour to boost the acceptance infrastructure coupled with a host of other economic reforms have further hastened the momentum for the country's journey towards a cashless society, it added.

Adoption of digital payments has also witnessed a massive growth with a shift in behaviour change as more people adopt digital payments in daily life.

"With new players foraying into the market and an entire gamut of solutions for alternate payments, the India payment ecosystem is growing each day," Porush Singh, country corporate officer, India and Division President, South Asia, Mastercard said.

With nearly half of the world's population online, the research maps the development of 60 countries, demonstrating their competitiveness and market potential for further digital economic growth.

The Index measures four key drivers - supply, consumer demand, institutional environment, and innovation.

Go here to read the rest:

India among top nations with potential for digital payments: Digital Evolution Index - Economic Times

Your email was sent successfully.

Close

It was pretty much a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Earlier in July, a 2006 Mitsubishi Evolution MR was put up for sale, and the car was brand-spanking-new. As in, it was never even driven off of the dealership lot. It wasnt even registered.

With only nine miles on the odometer, the 2006 Evolution MR was put up for sale by a California-based dealership on eBay Motors. The auction is now over and the winning bid came in at a staggering $137,954.

When it was new, the rally-inspired sport sedan arrived with a $37,000 MSRP, but the biddersof which there were 80inflated the auction price past six figures. Heck, the price paid is almost double what the very last Evo ever made sold for.

The Evolution MR arrived with a 6-speed manual transmission over previous Evo's 5-speeders. It also had Bilstein shocks, BBS wheels, and MR badging to signify its "Mitsubishi Racing" roots. It was the top-dog of Evos more than 10 years ago.

So, how did a California dealership end up with this car? A Reddit commenter stated the dealershipSouth Coast Mitsubishiwas notorious after it bought up a bushel of Evolution IXsat the time of the car's launch. The dealer let the cars sit and sold them years later, likely to the tune of fat profits. This Evo IX MR maybe the icing atop the dealer's collector car treasure chest.

What this means for used Evolution MR values is uncertain, but there is clearly a demand for low-mileage Japanese performance cars. But more than $100,000 for an 11-year-old car? Ring us if and when an Evolution wagon surfaces for sale. In the meantime, there are a handful ofEvolution X Final Editions looking for loving owners at much lower prices.

Excerpt from:

Someone paid $138K for a brand-new 2006 Mitsubishi Evolution MR - Motor Authority

We all know the neo-Darwinian story: random mutations are naturally selected for fitness, leading to innovation over time. By this elegant process, bacteria over billions of years became humans. But when you eliminate the question-begging circular arguments, distracting definitions, and ideological assumptions, can evolutionists really demonstrate any unambiguous cases of innovation? To clear away clutter, heres what we mean by eliminating faulty answers:

Two classic cases of innovation claimed by evolutionists are the citrate story in Lenskis lab and the nylonase story. For the example of citrate metabolism, Michael Behe explained that it was a switch-on of a pre-existing function, not an innovation. Ditto for the nylonase story, which Ann Gauger recently revisited. Now, lets look into some recent papers for more examples of innovation by chance mutations. The papers promise them; do they deliver?

What better place to start than a paper edited by Richard Lenski himself? Lets search for innovation in their paper in PNAS, Hitchhiking and epistasis give rise to cohort dynamics in adapting populations. The opening sentence sounds promising: Beneficial mutations are the driving force of adaptive evolution. Indeed, this paper is full of the words beneficial mutations, adaptive, and fitness. Sounds like a good place to hunt, as we watch them tweak yeast genes to see if something novel, something innovative, arises by random chance. They will even consider mutations that might work in synergy to provide a new benefit. Heres the Abstract:

Beneficial mutations are the driving force of adaptive evolution. In asexual populations, the identification of beneficial alleles is confounded by the presence of genetically linked hitchhiker mutations. Parallel evolution experiments enable the recognition of common targets of selection; yet these targets are inherently enriched for genes of large target size and mutations of large effect. A comprehensive study of individual mutations is necessary to create a realistic picture of the evolutionarily significant spectrum of beneficial mutations. Here we use a bulk-segregant approach to identify the beneficial mutations across 11 lineages of experimentally evolved yeast populations. We report that nearly 80% of detected mutations have no discernible effects on fitness and less than 1% are deleterious. We determine the distribution of driver and hitchhiker mutations in 31 mutational cohorts, groups of mutations that arise synchronously from low frequency and track tightly with one another. Surprisingly, we find that one-third of cohorts lack identifiable driver mutations. In addition, we identify intracohort synergistic epistasis between alleles of hsl7 and kel1, which arose together in a low-frequency lineage. [Emphasis added.]

Their prime example of intracohort synergistic epistasis (e.g., two mutations that interact somehow) as a case of adaptive evolution fails tests #1 and #2. All they notice is that the alleles localize to the poles of the yeast cell somehow, but they dont know why. As expected, most of the mutations are neutral, or have effects that are so small as to get lost in the noise. Lets cut to the chase and look for innovation or novelty:

Deletion of HSL7 is deleterious under a wide range of conditions, including the rich glucose media used here; thus our data suggest that the evolved hsl7 allele bestows a novel function or alters an existing function. Extensive characterization of such rare beneficial mutations requires long-term high-replicate evolution experiments followed by comprehensive analysis linking genotype to phenotype. Likely due to their large target size, loss-of-function mutations dominate adaptive evolution experiments, though rare beneficial mutations and epistatic interactions may provide the raw material for molecular innovation in natural populations.

Do they identify a new function? No; they might have just found a mutation that alters an existing function. All they know is without it, the effects are deleterious somehow, but they dont know what the allele is doing. They tell us that beneficial mutations are rare, and that adaptive evolution experiments are dominated by loss-of-function mutations. Dont look for a new wing or eye emerging in this paper. Instead: rare beneficial mutations and epistatic interactions may provide the raw material for innovations in natural populations. Their lab culture, we notice too, is not a natural population.

So that was the only use of the word innovation in the paper: a lone suggestion that some beneficial mutation or interacting set of mutations may provide the raw material for innovation someday over the rainbow. And how did they measure the adaptive fitness of all those alleged beneficial mutations they talk about? Look in the Materials & Methods section: they measured it by survival. Tautological evolution rears its lovely head again.

We should briefly consider the possibility that survival might reduce fitness. Imagine a population of yeast cells that divides recklessly, like cancer. Say theres an organism in the natural environment that likes the taste of those mutated, rapidly dividing yeast cells and snacks on them. Youre not going to know that in the lab. Lenski and this team will just measure them out-competing other strains, and assume they are adaptive. What we are looking for is proof of a chance mutation that produces a new, useful, novel, innovative function. That is not in evidence here.

Lets try another paper. Phys.org tells about a research team that tried to re-create the Precambrian version of beta-lactamase. If that enzyme sounds familiar, its because Biologic Institute scientist Douglas Axe did work on beta lactamase to measure the tolerance of protein folds to mutation. These researchers approach the enzyme from an evolutionary angle, seeing if the supposed primitive form of beta-lactamase might have been capable of finding a new active site.

The first question should be, how can they resurrect an ancient protein? This is where the circular reasoning comes in. By comparing todays sequences to each other within an evolutionary framework, scientists can reasonably infer the sequence of an ancestral protein from which the modern versions descended using models of sequence evolution. So they will try to infer evolution within an evolutionary framework. Guess what they will find! Obviously, with different assumptions, one could come to completely different conclusions. If you compared the ignition from a Toyota, a Ford, a Cadillac, and a John Deere tractor within an evolutionary framework, how solid would your model of a Precambrian ignition be?

They announce that the Precambrian enzyme was more malleable (their word is promiscuous) than the modern beta lactamase enzymes, which they assume have become less tolerant to change as they became more specialized. So when they constructed the mythical Precambrian enzyme, lo and behold, it could find a new active site!

We have found that a minimalist design to introduce a de novo activity (catalysis of the Kemp elimination, a common benchmark in de novo enzyme design) fails when performed on modern -lactamases, but is highly successful when using the scaffolds of hyperstable/promiscuous Precambrian -lactamases, says Eric A. Gaucher from the Institute for Bioengineering and Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Well, thats great. We might expect our mythical Precambrian ignition could also tolerate more types of keys. Would that make it more innovative? Hardly; it would be less secure! The Kemp elimination reaction is only a test of whether the engineered enzyme can extract a proton from a carbon atom; it is a non-natural reaction that is unknown to biological organisms. Engineers use the test for rational enzyme design. Apparently, lack of a selective pressure to generate Kemp elimination activity during evolution indicates it is a useless activity for real living organisms. Notice that the paper in Nature Communications doesnt even mention innovation or novelty, but begins with a statement of Darwinian faith:

Protein engineering studies often suggest the emergence of completely new enzyme functionalities to be highly improbable. However, enzymes likely catalysed many different reactions already in the last universal common ancestor. Mechanisms for the emergence of completely new active sites must therefore either plausibly exist or at least have existed at the primordial protein stage.

The best part may be the opening two paragraphs. Notice that after all these years, nobody has a good case of an enzyme evolving a new active site. Watch them also call it a huge unsolved problem in molecular evolution, and admit that everybody knows that finding a new functional active site is highly improbable. Note lastly how much intelligent design has factored into their efforts to solve the problem:

Enzyme activity is determined by the structure of a particular region of a protein called the active site. The generation of completely new active sites capable of enzyme catalysis is, arguably, one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in molecular biology.

Rational and modern design approaches to this problem have been developed using complex computational methods, but without conclusive results. Indeed, protein engineering studies often suggest that the emergence of completely new enzyme active sites is highly improbable.

But in the actual paper, they do not demonstrate any new active site with a clear functional advantage certainly not by chance, since they inserted their engineering hands into the work:

Here, we use resurrected Precambrian proteins as scaffolds for protein engineering and demonstrate that a new active site can be generated through a single hydrophobic-to-ionizable amino acid replacement that generates a partially buried group with perturbed physico-chemical properties. We provide experimental and computational evidence that conformational flexibility can assist the emergence and subsequent evolution of new active sites by improving substrate and transition-state binding, through the sampling of many potentially productive conformations.

In essence, they engineered a mythical Precambrian enzyme by intelligent design, and found a way to make it promiscuous. That dog wont hunt. Instead, we find that Doug Axe is vindicated again; the team admits that finding a new active site is highly improbable. The only reason they believe they emerged by chance is because they exist. (See faulty answer #3 again.)

One more angle: the hunt for clear evidence of an innovation arising in the fossil record. David Klinghoffer just wrote about the Rangeomorph bang in the Ediacaran fossil record, the sudden appearance of large frond-like extinct organisms before the Cambrian explosion. Heres another Ediacaran critter called Cloudina (see our discussion in March of this simple creature). A paper in Nature Scientific Reports looks into Ecological interactions in Cloudina from the Ediacaran of Brazil: implications for the rise of animal biomineralization. The word innovation appears three times here, so lets look for a true chance innovation.

Unfortunately, all the talk of innovation here falls under the third fallacy we discussed in the opening: ideological assumptions. Their evidence boils down to, Its there, design is verboten, therefore it evolved.

These evolutionary novelties led to the escalation and systematic organization of food webs, guilds and niches during the Cambrian radiation. It was the dawn of animal life.

The Rhapsody in Blue performance was nice, but we came for the magic act. We were looking for a rabbit to emerge out of a hat without a magician. We found a pre-existing rabbit and a hat, but no connection between the two.

In summary, we went looking for evidence of true innovation by chance. Evolutionists desperately tried to provide examples, but each time vanished in a cloud of suggestions. All prospective examples fell into the three faulty answers that disqualify them as scientific.

What really impressed us were the frequent admissions that the emergence of novel function is highly improbable, and one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in molecular biology evolutionary molecular biology, that is.

Image credit: Courtesy of Illustra Media, from Origin: Design, Chance and the First Life on Earth.

Read more:

Desperately Seeking Evolutionary Innovation by Chance - Discovery Institute

New York, NY:Marketing Evolution, a real-time omnichannel marketing optimization service provider, today announced PlaceIQ, the location data and insights company, as a new certified partner inside the Marketing Evolution attribution platform. With the addition of PlaceIQ dataset into the Marketing Evolution ROI Brain, brands can easily identify how all their online and offline marketing touchpoints such as TV, digital, direct mail, and social drive physical world visitation outcomes.

This partnership connects PlaceIQ data with hundreds of omnichannel campaign data points to facilitate simple applications for Marketing Evolution customers to measure and maximize marketing ROI, and optimize campaigns in-flight to drive visitation and bottom line revenue. This integration creates a closed loop solution for customers with brick and mortar locations, such as retailers, restaurants, and automotive dealerships, to help brands and advertisers understand marketings effect on real world visitation. With PlaceIQ data, brands can also use location data to understand visitation trends on a market-by-market basis, identify key customer audiences based on their propensity to visit certain locations, connect campaigns to out of home (OOH) advertising, and gather additional insights that can inform end-to-end media decisions.

Location data continues to act as a truth set for brands to accurately measure ROI, learn from customers and effectively engage with them in new ways, said Duncan McCall, CEO and co-founder, PlaceIQ. Partnering with Marketing Evolution extends these benefits, as well as the value of our advanced location dataset, to their impressive roster of Fortune 500 customer brands for the first time. By aligning with a leader like Marketing Evolution, we continue to make good on our promise to make our dataset ubiquitous, in a way that lets brands realize the value of visitation data quickly. Our data in their platform allows marketers to optimize campaigns in-flight, which provides immediacy for optimizing media budgets and driving ROI.

Marketing Evolutions ROI Brain integrates hundreds of different data sets across thousands of variables at the person-level to evaluate how each marketing message motivates different types of brand perceptions and behaviors. In the ROI Brain, Marketing Evolution connects both proprietary brand specific data feeds and publicly available data sets at the person-level to provide forecasting for forward-looking budget optimizations. Brands measure and optimize everything in one platform: direct mail, email, display and video impressions across devices, TV, OOH, radio. The ROI Brain applies artificial intelligence over this integrated data set seeking predictive and prescriptive optimizations in the coming days, weeks and months to maximize the ROI of your media.

We are thrilled to bring this game-changing feature to our current customers and the broader market, said Christine Grammier, Head of Partners & Alliances, Marketing Evolution. By adding the location-based data leader, PlaceIQ, to the Marketing Evolution partner ecosystem, brands, both large and small, are now finding media and message optimizations that drive 25-35% more visits per marketing dollar spent. We are reducing friction for brands large and small to reap the bottom line benefits of this data.

Marketing Evolutions current customers are already realizing the benefits of this integration now and if you are a brand searching for the best way to leverage geolocation data, please reach out to Marketing Evolution.

Here is the original post:

Marketing Evolution and PlaceIQ Partner to Deliver Marketing Actionability - MarTech Advisor

July 26, 2017 Powerful new phylogenetic comparative methods can be applied to D-Place, a massive open-access database of places, language, culture and environment, and other databases in order to reconstruct the history of cultures and test theories about major transitions in human history. The map here shows the global distribution of independent vs. extended family living. Credit: Map taken from d-place.org

Over the past 10,000 years human cultures have expanded from small groups of hunter-gatherers to colossal and complexly organized societies. The secrets to how and why this major cultural transition occurred have largely remained elusive. In an article published on July 24 by Russell Gray and Joseph Watts in PNAS they outline how advances in computational methods and large cross-cultural datasets are beginning to reveal the broad patterns and processes underlying our cultural histories.

Ten thousand years ago most humans lived in small, kin based, relatively egalitarian groups. Today we live in colossal nation states with distantly related members, complex hierarchical organization, and huge social inequality. This change in size and structure of human social organization over this time represents a major transition in human's evolutionary history, one that we still know remarkably little about.

To date, most research on cultural evolution focuses on microevolution; changes that occur within cultural groups over relatively short periods of time. However, as Russell Gray, Director of the Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution at MPI-SHH points out "processes observed at the micro level do not necessarily explain the macroevolutionary patterns and major transitions we observed in deeper human history." In a new article by Russell Gray and Joseph Watts in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) present a "plea" for research on cultural macroevolution. The authors highlight the exciting potential to combined cutting edge statistical methods and comprehensive cross-cultural database to resolve longstanding debates about the major cultural transitions in human prehistory.

Recent years have seen the growth of large cross-cultural databases that document the features and diversity of human cultures. For example, the database called Lexibank contains data on 2,500 of languages, the Database of Religious History documents hundreds of different religious beliefs and practices, and D-Place documents our means of subsistence, kinship systems and a striking array of marital, sexual, and child-rearing norms. These databases are open access and allow anyone to visualize and download data on the diversity of human cultural systems.

Powerful new phylogenetic comparative methods can be applied to these databases in order to reconstruct the history of cultures and test theories about major transitions in human history. Gray, Watts and colleagues have begun to use these methods to reconstruct the ancestral history of Indo-European languages as well as test the role of Big Gods and human sacrifice in the evolution of large, complex societies. According to Watts "we're entering a new age of research in the humanities, one in which theories about the major transitions in human history are built and tested using powerful computational methods."

Explore further: Massive open-access database on human cultures created

More information: Russell D. Gray el al., "Cultural macroevolution matters," PNAS (2017). http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1620746114

Over the past 10,000 years human cultures have expanded from small groups of hunter-gatherers to colossal and complexly organized societies. The secrets to how and why this major cultural transition occurred have largely ...

Analysis of strontium isotopes in teeth from Neolithic cattle suggest that early Europeans used different specialized herding strategies, according to a study published July 26, 2017 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by ...

Using new methods to analyze stone projectile points crafted by North America's earliest human inhabitants, Smithsonian scientists have found that these tools show evidence of a shift toward more experimentation in their ...

The flexibility and ability to adapt to changing climates by employing various cultural innovations allowed communities of early humans to survive through a prolonged period of pronounced aridification.

A Bronze Age wooden container found in an ice patch at 2,650m in the Swiss Alps could help archaeologists shed new light on the spread and exploitation of cereal grains following a chance discovery.

Citizens depend on police to provide public safety while maintaining the trust of the community. How can democratic societies balance these two, often conflicting, aimsgiven citizens' often divergent views over basic tenets ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read more here:

Identifying major transitions in human cultural evolution - Phys.org - Phys.Org

Are you a dog person, or a cat person? The question is often treated as dichotomous: if you appreciate the solidity of a steadfast pooch, you cant also relish the coquettish companionship of a kitty. Recent studies suggest humankind could have been divided by their pet-preferences since the stone age. In evolutionary terms, however, the question is far from black and white. Cats and dogs belong together, related to one another by a common ancestor. They share this ancestry with a whole suite of other animals, large and small. One may as well ask: are you a badger person, or a hyaena-person? Do you prefer meerkats, or weasels?

Our beloved pets belong to the order Carnivora. This group includes bears, hyaenas, mongooses, civets, skunks, badgers and more, as well as marine members, the seals, walruses, and sea-lions. The name of the group is a little misleading: not all meat-chomping mammals are part of Carnivora, and not all members of Carnivora feast on flesh.

Carnivorans (animals belonging to the order Carnivora) share various features, but the key one is in their teeth. They all have blade-like carnassial teeth their fourth upper premolar and first lower molar which bite together to shear through food. This design is especially good for snipping flesh, and many carnivorans live a predatory lifestyle. Others are more omnivorous, such as the bears, which tackle huge ranges of food, but also bintourongs and red pandas, which thrive on a mostly plant-based diet. The so-called giant panda* has pushed the boat right out: becoming a fully-fledged, bamboo-specialist vegetarian (although it has been known to nom the occasional fish, egg or insect).

So what ancestral family photograph do all of these seemingly disparate animals have mounted on the wall at home? The ancestors of Carnivora are from a group of animals called miacids, once found across Eurasia and North America. They were small, long-bodied creatures, a little like a pine marten, and at home in the trees. The exact relationships among these miacids remains unclear, but we know they appeared only a few million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs, and persisted for over 25 million years. From among their slinky ranks, the earliest identifiable carnivorans emerged.

Carnivora havent always been the top-dogs when it comes to killing. Back in those heady days of mammal divergence after the asteroid had wiped the largest reptiles from the face of the earth, two other dominant mammal groups emerged with specialised shearing teeth to prey on animals.

The creodontans included the largest land mammal predators of all time. Their carnassial teeth comprised only molars (not premolars and molars, like the carnivorans). This suggests that they converged on the specialisation to hunt and eat flesh separately from Carnivora, and they did it across Eurasia, Africa and North America. The last known creodontan, Dissopsalis, only died out 8 million years ago, by which point carnivorans had taken over the predatory world.

Creodontans were not the only ones prowling the Palaeogene. An even stranger group of meat-eaters, hailing from Asia, spread across the northern hemisphere: the mesonychids. They didnt have carnassial teeth at all, but had their own unique shearing and crushing molars to process meat. While the earliest species walked on flat feet, some of the later ones walked on their toes like cats and dogs - except that they had hooves on each toe. Sharing many tooth and skull characteristics with whales and dolphins, scientists thought mesonychids may be these marine-mammals ancestors. More recent analysis suggests they are sister groups, sharing a common ancestor along with hippos.

Mesonychids and creodontans were the top-predators in their time, but both were replaced by Carnivora, one of the most successful animal groups on earth. Its unclear exactly why the carnivorans did so well at their cousins expense, but it has been suggested that a suite of unique adaptations including larger brains, more efficient locomotion, and more versatile teeth - gave them the ecological advantage, allowing them to replace their competitors.

There is a grain of truth in the cat versus dog question. Although they share a common ancestor, the Carnivora are split into two quite well-defined groups that are broadly dog-like, the caniformia, and broadly cat-like, the feliformia. This division has deep roots, around 43 million years.

The feliforms tend to be more specialised meat-eaters, have shorter faces and retractable claws. Many of them are ambush, pounce-predators, rather than runners (the cheetah is a notable exception). They include the carnivorans of Madagascar - such as the fossa - meerkats, mongooses, civets and genets (although some research suggests these may have split off from other carnivorans before the main feliformia/caniformia break up), as well as the larger true cats, and the hyaenas. Even a non-specialist can identify most of these animals as sharing a kitty-like demeanour. Now you know, its more than skin deep.

As you would expect, the caniformia includes the dogs, wolves and jackals, all of which split from their dog-like relatives early on. The rest of caniformia have a strikingly diverse profile: the bears are in there, another early split from the rest of the group. The marine carnivorans have really gone to town when it comes to physical specialisation, with their short flippered-limbs and rolls of fat. But the old slang name for seals, sea-dogs, suggests that even before the science of anatomy confirmed it, humankind could see a family resemblance. Perhaps less obvious, the skunks, weasels, badgers, otters, racoons and coatis are also part of this pooch-tastic branch of Carnivora.

So what of the loyal hound and humble puss? Recent research has been exploring the origins of our domesticated friends from their wild forebears. Dogs have received a lot of attention, tracing their origins to an ancestor shared with modern grey wolves. The first domestication (or domestications, it may have happened twice) of wolves occurred somewhere in Eurasia possibly even Europe - although there is still some disagreement. It took place perhaps by human design, or maybe by accident. The timing has also proven controversial, with a recent study in Nature Communications suggesting it may have occurred as long as 41,000 years ago.

It has even been suggested in another paper out this month, that first domesticated wolves suffered from a canine version of the developmental disorder Williams syndrome. This is caused by variations in the chromosome which, in humans, results in extremely friendly, trusting characteristics (hypersociability) and what are described as pixie-like facial features. The theory is that wolves with such a disorder may have readily interacted with humans due to their natural inclination to be mans best friend. More research is needed to explore this possibility, but one this is certain: weve been breeding dogs for friendliness ever since.

Kitties havent been studied as extensively, but its long been obvious their domestication took place later, and was less intense. Recently, an international team led by researchers at KU-Leuven University in Belgium, carried out DNA analyses on cats from across Europe, Asia and Africa, including modern cat samples, and ancient DNA from archaeological specimens. Their evidence suggests there have been crazy cat ladies since the Neolithic, with waves of cat appreciation starting in the near East and spreading across the old world during the Egyptian dynasties, via trade routes. Only after the Middle Ages did we begin breeding for more frivolous traits like coat colours, but weve long appreciated the usefulness of a dedicated mouser.

So, shall we pit the whole of dog-like Carnivora against the cat-like ones? Perhaps your preference for pooches extends to their cousins, and you find yourself naturally drawn to skunks over mongooses? Ill leave it to you to ponder your loyalties and pose your own who-would-win-in-a fight-between questions. But if you are a pet fence-sitter like me, youll know that there is much to appreciate in both branches of Carnivora. The huge diversity of cat and dog relatives pay testament to the successful evolutionary design shared by these two most popular pets.

* So-called, because the giant panda and red panda are not directly related. They belong to different branches of Carnivora; the giant panda is actually a bear (Ursidae), whereas the red panda is the only member of its own special branch, called Ailuridae. The red panda was first revealed to the western world in the 1820s, and almost 50 years later the giant panda was given its western-name and mistakenly thought to be related to it. So I ask you: are you a red-panda-person, or a giant-panda-person?

References

Flynn JJ, Finarelli JA, Zehr S, Hsu J, Nedbal MA. 2005. Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the Impact of Increased Sampling on Resolving Enigmatic Relationships. Journal of Systematic Biology 54:317-337.

Ottoni C, Neer WV, De Cupere B, Daligault J, Guimaraes S, Peters J, Spassov N, Prendergast ME, Boivin N, Morales-Muiz A, Blescu A, Becker C, Benecke N, Boroneant A, Buitenhuis H, Chahoud J, Crowther A, Llorente L, Manaseryan N, Monchot H, Onar V, Osypiska M, Putelat O, Quintana Morales EM, Studer J, Wierer U, Decorte R, Grange T, Geigl E-M. 2017. The palaeogenetics of cat dispersal in the ancient world. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:0139.

vonHoldt BM, Shuldiner E, Janowitz Koch I, Kartzinel RY, Hogan A, Brubaker L, Wanser S, Stahler D, Wynne CDL, Ostrander EA, Sinsheimer JS, Udell MAR. 2017. Structural variants in genes associated with human Williams-Beuren syndrome underlie stereotypical hypersociability in domestic dog. Science Advances 3:E1700398.

Read the original:

Cats vs dogs: in terms of evolution, are we barking up the wrong tree? - The Guardian