Category Archives: Evolution

Sometimes the evolution of the power game stares you right in the face. That was the case during last summers PGA Championship at Baltusrol Golf Clubs Lower Course in Springfield, N.J., when players at the 505-yard, par-4 seventh hole confronted three bunkers down the inside of the dogleg right hole.

Here was a golf course designed by A.W. Tillinghast in 1922, toughened by Robert Trent Jones for the 1954 U.S. Open, and in recent years revised and refined by Rees Jones over more than two decades of enhancements.

And all the evidence one needed for this lineage could be found down the right side of the seventh in the form of three yawning fairway bunkers, each one placed where the fairway turns by an architect intent on challenging elite players of the era he occupied.

The bunkers on No. 7 at Baltusrol

The first bunker in the serial formation of three was placed by Tillinghast with a carry of 235 yards from the current back tee. The second bunker, by Trent Jones, demands a carry of 265 yards to cover. The third, by Rees Jones, is 300 yards to clear. Note two qualifying points about this example: Tillinghasts original back tee was considerably shorter than the one they used in the 2016 PGA, meaning that the bunker carry in his day was closer to 200 yards. And all three bunkers were rebuilt by Jones, though in this case left exactly in place.

We wanted to respect the tradition of architecture at Baltusrol, said Rees Jones. We could have eliminated it or moved it, but thought it important to recognize its place in the evolution of the golf course.

Distance evolves. Back in the 1920s, when Tillinghast and Donald Ross were at their most productive and creative, drives carrying 200 yards were considered prodigious. This was an era of wooden shafts and golf balls that were often off center in their rotation. And swings were more arms-oriented, with the focus on hitting the center of a driver whose head was about 175 cubic centimeters compared to todays drivers of 460 cubic centimeters.

At the 1920 U.S. Open at Inverness Club in Toledo, Ohio, long-hitting Ted Ray was considered a sensation for occasionally being able to fly the ball more than 275 yards and for driving the 320-yard, par-4 seventh hole twice during the U.S. Open. He birdied it all four rounds and won the title by one shot. He was the Jack Nicklaus of his day. Or John Daly. Or Tiger Woods.

Those pre-World War II turn points of 200 yards became 250 yards in the hands of Trent Jones who along the way lengthened and toughened such legendary championship layouts as Baltusrols Lower and Oakland

Hills Country Clubs South Course in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. At the same time he pushed fairway bunkers back and clustered them on the sides of the landing areas at lengths of 240-260 yards.

Pete Dye took those decisive points and in the 1980s pushed them back to 800 feet (267 yards). After watching Daly annihilate the turn points at Crooked Stick Golf Club in Carmel, Ind., during the 1991 PGA Championship, Dye went for 850 feet (283 yards). The whole industry followed, eventually adopting 300 yards.

Not that it proved enough for elite players. Today at Augusta (Ga.) National Golf Club, the set carry point for all fairway bunkers is 950 feet (317 yards) on level ground, adjusted a little shorter for uphill drives and a little longer for downhill drives.

All for good measure, as we know from PGA Tour statistics. Back in 1980, when the first comprehensive data set became available, the mean average measured drive on the PGA Tour was 256.7 yards and the longest driver (Dan Pohl) averaged 274.3 yards. In 2016, the mean average drive was 289.8 yards and the longest hitter (J.B. Holmes) averaged 314.5 yards.

Championship setups reflect this increase 12.9 percent on average drive and 14.7 percent on longest driver from 1980 to 2016. To take one example, the U.S. Open kept par 4s under 500 yards until 2006 at Winged Foots West Course in Mamaroneck, N.Y., when the ninth hole measured 514 yards. Since then, par 4s exceeding 500 yards have become standard at U.S. Opens.

A strong case can be made, however, that the growth of distance and power in the game is largely confined to elite players and that its not relevant to everyday golfers, whose skills vary widely if not wildly.

Thats essentially the view of architect Tom Doak, whose iconoclastic views on golf strategy and course setup the past 30 years as both a writer and a designer helped usher in a new, alternative perspective that emphasizes the ground game and shot-making, not sheer power.

Turn points are the most overrated discussion in golf course design, Doak said. We took down the poles when we were doing Pacific Dunes (at Bandon Dunes Golf Resort in Oregon). Were not building courses for touring pros, and when you watch people actually play golf, they are not there; they are 30 yards short or 20 yards right.

Besides, as he points out, even if you could get players from different tees to orient their drives to a common gathering point, theyre hitting very different clubs from there to the green. From 160 yards, its a 9-iron for a tour pro, a 5-iron for a mid-handicapper like myself and a 3-wood that wont even get there for the high-handicapper. So what you actually want to do is get the short hitter well past that point, not design from one point.

Doaks point is that simply designing for distance is self-defeating and only plays into the hands of the longest hitters. His own preference, one shared by a growing number of architects today, is to focus more on the short game, on angles and on interesting greens and surrounds.

Thats certainly been the case at recent U.S. Opens, such as Merion Golf Club, Pinehurst No. 2, Chambers Bay and Oakmont. For all the length of these courses, their main challenge has come in the form of diverse, sometimes maddening ground contours in and around the greens.

The rest is here:

Baltusrol bunkers on No. 7 provide proof of power game evolution - Golfweek.com

Tom Izzo and players liked what they saw in MSU's 78-51 win over Penn State in the second round of the Big Ten tournament Thursday, March 9 in Washington D.C. Video by Chris Solari, DFP.

Michigan State forward Miles Bridges celebrates after scoring against Penn State during MSU's 78-51 win in the Big Ten tournament at Verizon Center on March 9, 2017 in Washington, DC.(Photo: Rob Carr, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON Miles Bridges ran through the tunnel in the Verizon Center, sprinting ahead of Michigan State coach Tom Izzo.

Hey! Izzo yelled, after MSUs 78-51 victory over Penn State on Thursday in the Big Ten tournament.

Bridges froze.

He thought he was in trouble.

He turned and sprinted back to Izzo.

Good job! Izzo beamed.

They slapped hands and shared a quick hug.

I thought he was going to yell at me; he was giving me a compliment for the first time, Bridges said, cracking a joke. He just said, Good job, keep these guys together.

Related:

Tom Izzo says no one asked Michigan State to flip games with Michigan

Izzo kept walking down the hallway and reached a group of reporters.

Still probably on the bubble, Izzo said, in jest.

The Spartans improved to 19-13, and there should be no doubt they are headed for the NCAA tournament after this win.

We are taking it one game at a time, Bridges said. It would have been a bad loss, if we lost. But we won.

Miles of growth

Before the game, Bridges was excited. This is his first college postseason.

He was jacked before the game started, Izzo said. This means a lot to Miles, as it does our other guys.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

But he calmed down after the first defensive stop. Defending and rebounding, thats all we needed to do to win, Bridges said. We wanted to take the fight to them. We didnt want to give in. We didnt want to give them room to breathe.

Bridges had another impressive, all-around stat line: 15 points, nine rebounds, three assists, two blocks, one steal and one turnover.

But this game was an example of how much he has grown as a player in ways that cant be measured by stats.

Hes starting to understand when he has a shot, where he needs to get to get a shot, assistant Mike Garland said. Hes starting to understand his advantages over his opponents, how they are playing him.

2017 Big Ten basketball tournament results, schedule

Early in the game, Bridges was far more concerned getting others involved than scoring.

He knows once Nick (Ward) gets going, it makes it easier for him, Garland said. He was trying to get him the ball, and he was doing it in an intelligent way. He wasnt forcing it. He picked his opportunities to get it in there, or when to take the shot or drive the ball. That shows a lot of growth.

Bridges is a humble superstar, a guy who might even be too nice, if thats possible. Hes just such a good kid, Izzo said.

I dont know. You can get on him, and he doesnt waver. A couple times he didnt rebound well enough. A couple times he wasnt ready to shoot. You dont have to say, Miles, will you please do this? Pamper him like a superstar. You can coach him, talk to him, tell him.

Now, lets go back to that scene in the tunnel.

Izzo told Bridges to keep this team together, to keep it focused, and that is a lesson that goes beyond this season.

Hes growing with his leadership, too, Izzo said. I told him its going to be very important for his present, his future, his long-time future. You know, I felt good how he played. ... Miles is a special guy.

The Spartans will play Minnesota, a team they have beaten twice this season.

We arent satisfied, Bridges said. They are one of the hottest teams. They got two great guards, and they explode at any minute. We have to have the same defensive mentality and rebounding mentality.

It was a smart answer, from a smart young player, who just keeps getting smarter.

Michigan State sophomores three-pointers, defense aid cause

Couch: MSU takes notable step in thumping Penn State

Lansing State Journal sports columnist Graham Couch and Detroit Free Press / LSJ MSU beat writer Chris Solari break down the Spartans' 78-51 win over Penn State and look ahead to Friday's Big Ten quarterfinal against Minnesota. Graham Couch / Lansing State Journal

Contact Jeff Seidel: jseidel@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter@seideljeff. To read his recent columns, go tofreep.com/sports/jeff-seidel.

Read the rest here:

The evolution of Michigan State basketball's Miles Bridges - Detroit Free Press

While scientists have long been believed that the evolution of fins into limbs is the main reason organisms were first able to come out of the water and up onto land, a new study from researchers at Northwestern University suggests that better eyes may have been just as important.

All four-limbed vertebrates come from a group known as tetrapods. Tetrapods evolved from early fish that slowly came up out of the sea and onto land. However, they were not the first animals to make this transition. A wide range of invertebrates including arachnids, crustaceans, and insects accomplished this about 50 million years before our ancestors.

To explain this, the researchers have come up with the buenva vista theory, which states our early ancestors crawled onto land only after they evolved eyes that allowed them to see the numerous food sources existing out of the water.

Why did we come up onto land 385 million years ago? asked lead author Malcolm MacIver, professor of biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, in a statement. We are the first to think that vision might have something to do with it. We found a huge increase in visual capability in vertebrates just before the transition from water to land. Our hypothesis is that maybe it was seeing an unexploited cornucopia of food on land millipedes, centipedes, spiders and more that drove evolution to come up with limbs from fins.

The team came to this conclusion by looking at both the eye sockets and head length in 59 fossils dating back to the periods before, during, and after tetrapods evolved. They found that the average eye socket measured roughly 0.5 inches across before the shift and 1.4 inches after,New Atlasreports.

This is an important distinction because bigger eyes would have had no evolutionary advantage underwater. As a result, there must have been another reason the animals evolved that feature. Researchers tested this by running a number of simulations that showed larger eyes could see almost 70 times further through the air than they could in water.

In addition, eyes also moved up on the skull over time, placing them in an area where they see over the surface. This would have pushed natural selection in a way so the limbed animals that could access more food were favored.

Bigger eyes are almost worthless in water because vision is largely limited to whats directly in front of the animal, said study co-author Lars Schmitz, assistant professor of biology at the W.M. Keck Science Department. But larger eye size is very valuable when viewing through air. In evolution, it often comes down to a trade-off. Is it worth the metabolic toll to enlarge your eyes? Whats the point? Here we think the point was to be able to search out prey on land.

The team also found evidence that the transition onto land led to more developed brains. This is because, while fish have to react quickly as a result of their short visual range, better eyesight may have given land-dwelling tetrapods more ways to detect predators. Without having to spend as much time worrying about being hunted, they could have allocated more energy towards developing complex cognition.

The findingswerepublished in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Joseph Scalise is an experienced writer who has worked for many different online websites across many different mediums. While his background is mainly rooted in sports writing, he has also written and edited guides, ebooks, short stories and screenplays. In addition, he performs and writes poetry, and has won numerous contests. Joseph is a dedicated writer, sports lover and avid reader who covers all different topics, ranging from space exploration to his personal favorite science, microbiology.

See more here:

Optical evolution may have helped fish transition onto land - - Science Recorder

Subscribe & Review on iTunes, Soundcloud, Audioboom, Mixcloud & Acast, and join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter

On 24 November 1859, Charles Darwin published his seminal work On the Origin of Species, laying out what would later become the foundations of our understanding of evolution. Over 150 years later and many of Darwins ideas still underpin evolutionary theory. But a group of academics are beginning to challenge this with something they call the extended evolutionary synthesis. But is an update needed? And if so, why? More importantly, why have so many in the field branded the ideas of extended synthesis both unnecessary and counter-intuitive?

In search of answers, Nicola Davis speaks to one of key spokespeople for the extended synthesis theory, City College of New Yorks K.D. Irani professor of philosophy Massimo Pigluicci. We also hear about the potential similarities between learning theory and natural selection from the University of Southamptons Dr Richard Watson. Finally, evolutionary biologist Professor Joan Strassmann, the Charles Rebstock chair of biology at Washington University, St Louis, explains why she opposes this call for an update.

Read this article:

Is it time for an update to evolutionary theory? - Science Weekly podcast - The Guardian

March 9, 2017 Tanglegrams of rooted phylogenetic trees for each virus family. Credit: Geoghegan JL, et al. (2017)

On occasion, a virus may jump from one host species to another and adapt to the new host. Such cross-species transmission happens more often than expected, according to new research published in PLOS Pathogens, and it may play a much bigger role in virus evolution than previously thought.

Understanding how viruses evolve and how often they jump to new hosts is important for studying emerging viral diseases. Scientists have hypothesized that viruses usually co-diverge with their hosts, forming new viral species as their hosts evolve into new species. It has been assumed that cross-species jumps are relatively rare and contribute less to virus evolution.

To better understand how viruses evolve, Jemma Geoghegan of the University of Sydney, Australia, and colleagues compared the evolutionary histories of viruses and host species. Previous studies had focused on narrow groups of viruses; for a broader picture, Geoghegan's team studied 19 virus families that infect a variety of hosts, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants, and insects.

The researchers began with branching "tree" diagrams that illustrated the evolutionary history of each virus family and its host species. Like family trees, these evolutionary trees trace the lineage of species back through common ancestors that later evolved into new species.

The scientists then used a previously developed method to compare the evolutionary trees of viruses and hosts. The method measures similarity between trees; co-divergence results in host and virus trees with similar branching patterns, as the virus evolves alongside the host. Meanwhile, cross-species jumps result in dissimilar host and virus trees, as new viruses evolve and jump from host to host.

The scientists found that cross-species transmission has played a central role in evolution for all 19 virus families, while co-divergence is relatively rare. Cross-species jumps were especially frequent in virus families whose genetic material is encoded in RNA rather than DNA. The findings also revealed which virus families may be more likely to jump hosts and evolve to infect new species.

'An important implication from our work is that the more new viruses we discover, then the more examples of species jumping we are likely to see' said project leader Professor Edward Holmes from the University of Sydney. 'Jumping hosts is the way many RNA viruses live their life' he continued.

This research was performed at the level of virus families, and not for individual viral species. Further studies with larger datasets could help confirm the findings and provide further insight into virus evolution.

Explore further: Two major groups of rabies virus display distinct evolutionary trends

More information: Jemma L. Geoghegan et al, Comparative analysis estimates the relative frequencies of co-divergence and cross-species transmission within viral families, PLOS Pathogens (2017). DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006215

Using hundreds of viral genome sequences, scientists have shown that two major groups of rabies virus have unique evolutionary tendencies. Their findings are presented in a new study published in PLOS Pathogens.

Kent researchers have identified how few mutations it can take for Ebolaviruses to adapt to affect previously resistant species.

Few influenza viruses are as widespread and adaptable as avian influenza viruses, and scientists are not entirely sure why.

Virus multiplication continually generates new variants at a rate that is much faster than their hosts. One consequence of their higher mutation rate is that many viruses can rapidly adapt to new hosts. A study published ...

Humans have used Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast in baking, brewing and winemaking for millennia. New research from the University of Idaho and the University of Colorado Boulder reveals another way that yeast species can ...

When viruses such as influenza and Ebola jump from one species to another, their ability to cause harm can change dramatically, but research from the University of Cambridge shows that it may be possible to predict the virus's ...

A team of researchers with members from several institutions in India has found evidence of ostrich relatives living in India as far back as 25,000 years ago. In their paper uploaded to the open access site PLOS ONE, the ...

A global research team has built five new synthetic yeast chromosomes, meaning that 30 percent of a key organism's genetic material has now been swapped out for engineered replacements. This is one of several findings of ...

A new mathematical model could help clarify what drove the evolution of large brains in humans and other animals, according to a study published in PLOS Computational Biology.

Led by Tianjin University Professor Ying-Jin Yuan, TJU's synthetic biology team has completed the synthesis of redesigned yeast chromosomes synV and synX with the two studies published in Science on March 10, 2017.

A small fly the size of a grain of rice could be the Top Gun of the fly world, with a remarkable ability to detect and intercept its prey mid-air, changing direction mid-flight if necessary before sweeping round for the kill.

A specific protein inside cells senses threatening changes in its environment, such as heat or starvation, and triggers an adaptive response to help the cell continue to function and grow under stressful conditions, according ...

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

More here:

Cross-species jumps may play unexpectedly big role in virus evolution - Phys.Org

Dampened immunity during pregnancy promotes evolution of more virulent flu Science Daily To determine if pregnant women experience a similar evolution of influenza infection, Gabriel and Arck are planning to look for similar mutations in samples from pregnant women who suffered from influenza. Similar mutations have been seen in other ... and more »

Read this article:

Dampened immunity during pregnancy promotes evolution of more virulent flu - Science Daily

Marcus Bontempelli, Chad Wingard and Isaac Heeney appear on the game cover

THE FANS have spoken and Western Bulldogs premiership prodigy Marcus Bontempelli will appear on the cover of the yet-to-be-released AFL Evolution video game.

Following a fan poll on AFL.com.au late last year, Dogs club champion Bontempelli received 23 per cent of the 128,000 votes cast by fans.

'The Bont' will be joined on the cover of AFL Evolution by Port Adelaide star Chad Wingard and Sydney youngster Isaac Heeney.

The front cover design was revealed on Thursday today by AFL licensee Tru Blu Entertainment, which is working on the production in conjunction with Wicked Witch Software.

AFL Evolution, which is scheduled to be released in the first half of the 2017 season, will be available on next-generation consoles PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC Steam.

In December, the AFL's then commercial operations manager Darren Birch said: "AFL Evolution will deliver a unique experience for footy fans, taking them to the heart of the action in a virtual footy world."

As part of the formulation of AFL Evolution, players at all 18 clubs participated in photo shoots in which 24 cameras simultaneously photographed them to create highly detailed likenesses.

AFL Players' Association communications manager Rebecca Chitty said the players were thrilled to be involved in the project.

"This generation of AFL footballers grew up playing video games and this is an opportunity to feature in one thats sure to have footy fans highly engaged," Chitty said.

"Digital is an ever-evolving space and the players see this as just another way to grow the game by reaching out to new audiences and showcasing it on different platforms."

Continue reading here:

Bont covers himself in glory in AFL Evolution game - AFL.com.au

According to some scientists, it was vision, rather than mobility, that let fish evolve to land-dwelling creatures. A team of researchers examined old fossil data and are arguing that vision was the primary reason that fish made the jump to land hundreds of millions of years ago.

Researchers Malcolm A. MacIver of Northwestern University and Lars Schmitz of Claremont McKenna, Scripps, and Pitzer colleges analyzed fossilized fish before and after they made the transition to land. They found that the size of eyes nearly tripled prior to moving onto land, suggesting that eyesight played a strong role in this stage of evolution.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Their reasoning is that light can travel much further on land than in the water. Larger eyes would have been almost useless underwater, but the large increase in eye size suggests a significant evolutionary drive. MacIver and Schmitz account for this by suggesting that pre-terrestrial fish used their eyes to spot food on the shore.

Insects and other invertebrates made the jump to land around 50 million years before fish did, so for a prehistoric fish, the shores would have been teeming with food just out of reach. Over millions of years, many fish species evolved better eyes as well as limbs to reach more of it.

This increased vision may have also led to increased brain size. In the water, where vision is minimal, the majority of brainpower is devoted to quick reflexes. But on land, being able to see further lends itself well to planning and strategy, and could have fostered what is known as prospective cognition, the ability to consider multiple outcomes and plan for the future.

Source: Northwestern University

Excerpt from:

Vision Might Have Kickstarted Evolution on Land - Popular Mechanics

Discovery Institute

Vertebrates to Land Is an Evolutionary Transition Dripping with Teleology Discovery Institute Cornelius Hunter, among other observers, has pointed out the recurring need on the part of evolutionary thinking to resort to the language of teleology. Darwinian evolution is supposed to have done away with the need for purpose or will in driving the ... and more »

Originally posted here:

Vertebrates to Land Is an Evolutionary Transition Dripping with Teleology - Discovery Institute

During spring training this year, I noticed a different approach Cron was using when he walks up to the plate. At least I think its different since its hard to find much video of him from before a pitch is delivered. When Cron steps up to the plate, his legs are wide and he crouches down like hes doing a sideways deep knee bend before he comes back up to his ready stance. This got me thinking - what did Cron look like last year? How about in college? Or as a prospect? Enjoy this video journey into the evolution of C.J. Cron - the hitter.

Cron had a more narrow stance in the early days and seemed a little bit more rigid. He still had a pretty sweet swing and a lot of pop. There is a reason he was a #1 draft pick. He went to Orem in 2011 and slashed .308/.371/.629 with 13 home runs in just 34 games.

In 2012, Cron was leaning down a bit more but his stance didnt change all that much. He skipped over A ball and went right to A+ where he knocked out 27 home runs in 129 games. Rookie ball to A+ is a good jump and he seemed to handle it well.

By the time he reached AA ball and some more talented pitching, Cron looked more relaxed at the plate and opened up his stance a bit. His changes in approach at the plate from college to AA ball are pretty noticeable.

Cron had reasons to smile in his big league debut as he knocked in 3 hits and 2 RBIs during his May debut. Cron was pretty much here to stay at that point with just a few more short stints in Salt Lake. He was relaxed at the plate but still had a bit of over-eagerness.

Take a look at Crons body language here. He has a adjusted his approach at the plate at bit more and we probably wont see a lot more changes other than minor ones at this point. He looks really, really comfortable up there. Cron has 20-25 HR potential, though we havent seen it yet. Mostly because hes never had more than 116 games in one season. Crons AVG, OBP, and walks to K ratio have all improved over his 3 years in the majors. I guess the biggest question we will probably see answered this year is - has his evolution comes to its near peak - or will we see more out of him as a hitter in his age 27 season?

Follow this link:

The evolution of CJ Cron - the hitter - Halo's Heaven