How did bats evolve the ability to fly? Evolution helped them out by providing them with higher energy. After all, “Flight is among the most energy-consuming activities” in the animal kingdom, said a team of Chinese and Canadian scientists reporting in PNAS,1 so it’s obvious that evolution must have provided the genes to get the job done. So they looked at the genes of bats compared to other mammals, and sure enough, they found evidence of natural selection at work. “Both mitochondrial and nuclear-encoded OXPHOS [oxidative phosphorylation, a process of metabolism] genes display evidence of adaptive evolution along the common ancestral branch of bats, supporting our hypothesis that genes involved in energy metabolism were targets of natural selection and allowed adaptation to the huge change in energy demand that were required during the origin of flight.” The team looked into the mitochondrial genes and nuclear genes of the two bats whose draft genomes have been published, and compared the genes for metabolism with several other mammals. They came up with statistics that indicated a 25% signature of “positive selection” in the mitochondrial genes and close to 5% for the nuclear genes (they claimed that “Positive selection and gene duplication are two major mechanisms of adaptive evolution”). They acknowledged, though, that identifying positive selection is tricky business:2 Typically, positive selection will act on only a few sites and for a short period of evolutionary time; thus the signal for positive selection usually is swamped by the continuous negative selection that occurs on most sites in a gene sequence. Even after a short period of positive selection, this is commonly followed by a long period of purifying selection, which would obscure the selective processes. These processes explain why it has been so difficult to detect positive selection in mtDNA, despite extensive studies.Nevertheless, they defended several independent tests, such as branch-site models, to try to weed out and distinguish other signals, and thus support their identification of positive selection. Now surely, they must realize there has to be more to it than that, right? Well, but of course. Their paper ends with this paragraph:Bats are unique in being the only mammals capable of powered flapping flight. As in birds, bat flight is a highly energetically expensive form of locomotion. However, it is also a very efficient mode of transport and assists flyers in feeding and breeding as well as avoidance of predators. The evolution of flight in bats was a major factor leading to the success of this amazing group of mammals, although the evolution of this ability has required complex changes in the anatomy of these animals. In addition to other important factors, such as changes in bone density and development of the wings, bat flight also requires a significantly higher metabolic rate, a rate well above the maximum capable by other similar-sized terrestrial mammals during exercise. Aerobic metabolism by mitochondria plays a vital role as the energy production centers of cells The OXPHOS pathway of mitochondria has adaptively evolved to meet the demands of changing environmental and physiological conditions. Because the mitochondrial respiratory chain has a dual genetic foundation (mitochondria and nuclear genomes), here we examined both genomes to obtain insights into the evolution of flight by mammals. Both mitochondrial genes and nuclear-encoded OXPHOS genes showed greater evidence for adaptive evolution; this result supports our hypothesis that energy metabolism genes were targets of natural selection that included a balancing cytonuclear coevolutionary constraint, which allowed adaptive changes in energy demands and thus played a crucial role in attainment of flight by bats.1. Yong-Yi Shen, Lu Liang, Zhou-Hai Zhu, Wei-Ping Zhou, David M. Irwin, and Ya-Ping Zhang, “Adaptive evolution of energy metabolism genes and the origin of flight in bats,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published online before print April 26, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912613107.2. For more on the pitfalls of measuring positive selection, or tying it to adaptive fitness, see 09/05/2008, 01/13/2010 bullet 6, and 02/17/2010 bullet 4.We will have to call this the Mighty Mouse theory of bat evolution. It’s about as credible as the character who always managed to fly in for the rescue at the last moment (Wikipedia), and about as cartoony, too. Papers like this are another reason we really, really need to end the one-party rule in science. The Darwin Party is so corrupt, its members have convinced themselves that this kind of research constitutes evidence for evolution. Undoubtedly, the leaders of the regime will stack this paper on top of their growing pile of propaganda to intimidate doubters by showing them the mounds of scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s theory. But this paper makes no sense at all unless one already is a member of the Darwin Party, has pledged allegiance to Darwin, and already vowed to interpret everything in the light of common descent by random mutations and natural selection. Then the reasoning is deductive: since we already know as axiomatic truth that bats evolved from rodents, then “this result supports our hypothesis that energy metabolism genes were targets of natural selection that included a balancing cytonuclear coevolutionary constraint, which allowed adaptive changes in energy demands and thus played a crucial role in attainment of flight by bats.” The fogma is so thick they can’t see it. Only those outside of it can see what is going on. Simply put, adding energy to a mouse will not make it fly. Adding piecemeal goals to a Darwinian story will not make Darwinian theory fly, either. Darwinians need to think consistently with their theory. They cannot look in retrospect and say, Because bat flight evolved, this or that modification must have contributed to the overall complex trait. Bat flight is a package deal. As fossils have shown, bats appear abruptly in the record fully capable of flight and probably capable of sonar. More importantly, there is no “target of selection” in terms of an overall complex trait. Think of a cow. What will it take to help Bessie evolve flight? Well, a high metabolism will surely be among the requirements. So let’s say that Tinker Bell comes along with her mutation wand and starts zapping poor Bessie in the gonads. Among the calves that don’t die as embryos, maybe there will be one some day that survives with a slightly higher metabolic rate. Are we getting warmer? Are we on the way to evolving flight in Bessie’s descendents? It’s not necessary to press the point to see how absurd this tale is already, and we haven’t even tried to talk Bessie into the advantages of how nice it will be for her descendents with wings some golden day, millions of years from now, to be able to efficiently escape their human predators that are trying to hunt them down for hamburger. (Don’t tell her that the human predators by then will have co-evolved into fearsome fighters flying at Mach 2.) Darwin’s theory demands that every beneficial mutation confer survival advantage right now, not millions of years in the future. It has no goals, no targets, no visions, no plans. A mouse in its hole has no desire to sprout wings and become a bat, no matter how nice it might be for feeding, breeding, and avoidance of predators. Once again, we see how the Darwin supernaturalists conceal their miracles with misdirection and euphemisms. Everyone believes in miracles, you realize; and everyone is a supernaturalist. Darwinists only pretend to be naturalists. Their slip is showing every time they use logic and reason, which are not made of particles and forces. Look for the miracle-talk in this sentence: “The evolution of flight in bats was a major factor leading to the success of this amazing group of mammals, although the evolution of this ability has required complex changes in the anatomy of these animals.” OK, students, barrage the teacher with your questions. But teacher, how did this evolution occur? How can a Darwinian process be factored? – that sounds like algebra, a form of intelligent design. What do you mean by success – survival? The mice seemed to be pretty successful, because they still survive today and are more numerous than bats. How did the complex changes in the anatomy of bats occur simultaneously with the metabolic changes? How were they coordinated and tuned? You talked about changes in bone density and “the development of wings” – Wow! Isn’t that a giant leap for batkind? Didn’t Darwin say that nature takes no giant leaps, but only slight, successive modifications? What were the modifications, and how did they confer survival value? What do you mean by a “target” of natural selection? That sounds like anthropomorphism. Who will ask these and other questions, if not creationists, the intelligent design movement, or at least critics of neo-Darwinism? Scientists need critics to keep them in line. When it comes to Darwinism, though, the whole regime is corrupt. Don’t look for critical thinking from the NAS, the NIH, NASA, the NSF, or the major secular journals. The news media aren’t holding them accountable, either (02/18/2010), except for independent sources like CEH. Many individual scientists have their heads on straight but those who try to buck the establishment risk marginalization or expulsion. Totalitarian regimes typically become so corrupt that they become caricatures of themselves – fodder for political cartoons. That is certainly the case with the Darwin Party today. The rank and file largely ignore the ideology. They go along with it and repeat the party line on cue to stay out of trouble. No one dares speak out against it, even though an elementary course in baloney detecting could expose its nonsensical fables. The folly of theory-incestuous papers like this one shows that a thorough housecleaning is long overdue. Open the castle doors, DODO* bigots, and answer the challenge! Your mental health depends on lively and open debate. Listen to your founder: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” – Charles Darwin.(Visited 65 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Luis Moraes joined the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University on December 15, 2016. He grew up in Brazil where his family owns and manages a beef cattle operation.Moraes has been always involved with agriculture through his family business and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Agronomic Engineering from the University of Sao Paulo at the ESALQ campus. Following his graduation, heLuis Moraesmoved to California where he received two Master of Science degrees, one in Animal Biology and one in Statistics, and a PhD in Animal Biology, all from the University of California-Davis. He worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the UC Davis in the Department of Animal Science until he joined the faculty at Ohio State as an Assistant Professor.His research focuses on the application of statistics, mathematics, and economics to the animal sciences. He is particularly interested in the use of economic optimization models for dairy management. While at UC Davis, he developed linear and goal programming models that simultaneously minimized diet costs and methane emissions.He has also worked on the application of statistical methods for describing nutrient utilization in cattle. For instance, multivariate mixed models, nonparametric growth curves, and Bayesian methods are examples of techniques that he has used to better understand energy and protein metabolism in growing and lactating cattle. At OSU, his research plans are to develop mathematical models that incorporate nutrient management information into diet optimization. Further, he will continue to develop and apply statistical modeling techniques for the extraction of meaningful information from animal science data and for the improved understanding of biological processes.
By Robyn DiPietro-WellsMFLN Family Development is featuring this blog written by Robyn DiPietro-Wells. Robyn is one of MFLN Family Development’s Anchored. podcast guest speakers and the Social Media and Webinar Coordination Specialist for MFLN FD Early Intervention. Robyn will be speaking more about her personal experience of parenting children with special needs in the Anchored. Episode 4| Early Intervention Matters: A Parent’s Perspective. Be sure to check out her podcast being featured this Summer on Anchored.When I became pregnant with my first child I was full of hopes and dreams. I dreamt of all she would do, become, and accomplish. I envisioned her entire future and wondered which parent she might take after. Would she love cheerleading and dance like me? Or would she take after her dad and play sports all her life? Maybe she’d play an instrument or be an artist. I dreamt dreams of all kinds. The future looked bright and I was excited. And isn’t that how a lot of moms feel during pregnancy?Photo Credit: Robyn DiPietro-Wells, August 7, 2005Lily was born full term and was presented to me as a picture of health. However, when she was about five months old I noticed she was a bit behind on several of her motor milestones. She wasn’t rolling over yet. She favored her left hand and never really used her right hand. She wasn’t sitting up…not even when I helped support her. I used some of my background as an elementary school teacher to informally assess her. I knew developmentally what she should be doing…and in some areas she was behind.I initially went to our medical providers for help. I sought out a referral to a pediatric occupational (OT) and physical therapists (PT). At our very first assessment of Lily the PT and OT told me that Lily presented with symptoms typically found in infants who have had a stroke. It was as if all the air went out of the room. Never in all my life did I expect that! This was not a part of my dreams!An MRI and a visit to a pediatric neurologist resulted in an official diagnosis of cerebral palsy due to a stroke in utero. At that time, the best piece of advice I received was from our pediatric neurologists. They stressed the importance of starting therapy early due to the neuroplasticity of the infant brain. They never said what she wouldn’t be able to do. They simply pointed me in the direction of therapies and information! They gave me back my hope and dreams for Lily’s future by stressing the importance of early treatment and intervention.In the first three years of Lily’s life we utilized both private therapists through our medical insurance, but also Part C Early Interventionists with the state of Virginia. Once Lily aged out of the Part C portion, at 3 years of age, we had her evaluated for Part B Special Education with our local school district. While she did not qualify for Part B, she continued to receive therapies through our medical insurance. She also participated in numerous special projects and programs at the Monroe Carrell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt in their STEP Clinic.Photo Credit: Robyn DiPietro-Wells April 24, 2015Today Lily is almost 10 years old. This spring she ran her first 5K and she loves to climb the rock wall at our local YMCA! She is a top-notch student at school and participates in nearly all of the same activities as her typically developing peers. I attribute all that Lily has accomplished to two things: One, her intense hard work and perseverance and, two, early intervention, both formal Part C Early Intervention, but also starting therapies of all kinds at an early age.It wasn’t easy. My husband was active duty Army until November 2012 and worked 125-140 hours a week. We have three children younger than Lily, one who also has special needs. I know the challenges of being both a military spouse and the mother of children with special needs. I know how hard it is to persevere with Tricare (military medical insurance) and to advocate for your child’s needs. I want MFLN readers to know that there are answers for parents, there are ways to help the children with which you work, there are ways to support the parents, and that ANYTHING is possible. Great things can happen. Great things happen when children with developmental delays receive help, therapy, and treatment early through both Part C Early Intervention and private medical insurance.The entire MFLN Family Development Early Intervention team is here to enable service providers to help military families with children with special needs reach their highest potential. We are dedicated to, not only your success as a provider, but also the success of the families with which you work. Please feel free to reach out to us (MFLNFDEarlyIntervention@gmail.com) and utilize the resources found within the MFLN Family Development webpage.This post was written by Robyn DiPietro-Wells, & Michaelene M. Ostrosky, PhD, members of the MFLN FD Early Intervention team, which aims to support the development of professionals working with military families. Find out more about the Military Families Learning Network FD concentration on our website, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on YouTube.
Molly C. HerndonThe Personal Finance team will be presenting at the AFCPE Symposium on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 17. We hope you’ll make plans to attend our session Best Practices for Conducting Web Conferences and Facilitated Discussion Thursday in Salon 7 at 4:30 p.m.ET.National eXtension Conference, 2016: From left: Dr. Martie Gillen, Dr. Barbara O’Neill & Molly HerndonDuring this presentation, we’ll cover the steps we take to prepare for our monthly webinars, and share best practices and lessons learned so that practitioners and educators can replicate our efforts in their educational outreach. We are also eager to hear your tips. What have you learned when producing webinars or streaming educational content? What has worked well? What hasn’t worked as well?Social Media Specialist Molly Herndon will introduce the project and the presentation. Outreach Coordinator and veteran webinar presenter Dr. Barbara O’Neill, will begin the discussion about process of creating a webinar. Project Investigator Dr. Martie Gillen will continue the discussion on engaging webinar participants and fostering discussion. Practitioner Consultant Jerry Buchko will wrap up the presentation by taking a look at the technical details of producing a webinar.AFCPE Symposium, 2015. From left: Jerry Buchko, Molly Herndon, Dr. Barbara O’Neill & Dr. Michael GutterCan’t make it to our presentation on Thursday? That’s ok – stop by our table where we’ll have copies of the presentation, an archived webinar handout and a technical webinar how-to guide.Can’t make it to the AFCPE Symposium this year? Check out all the materials we’ll be sharing:Presentation SlidesArchived Webinar HandoutWebinar Technical How-To HandoutContinuing Education MFLN-Personal Finance Course (register, then search for “MFLN”)
Kevin Pietersen scored a double ton helping England to a commanding 474/8 despite Praveen Kumar’s fiver on the second day of the first Test against India at Lord’s on Friday. Watch KP’s 200 and MSD bowl | Score At stumps, India were 17/0 in 6 overs with openers Gautam Gambhir and Abhinav Mukund at the crease.Though KP’s ton and Praveen Kumar’s five-wicket haul were the highlight of the day, it was India captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who managed to grab the maximum eyeballs.And it wasn’t his keeping, but his bowling that hit the limelight – yes, the India skipper, and one of the most successful wicketkeepers that India has produced, bowled on the day.Soon after the lunch when a few overs were left for the new ball to be taken, Dhoni pulled off his gloves and took to bowling to fill the void left by Zaheer Khan, who pulled his hamstring on Thursday.The change also saw Rahul Dravid keeping wickets. And Dhoni could have sent Pietersen back into the pavilion if the DRS hadn’t ruled otherwise. On-field umpire Billy Bowden had given him out when the ball seemed to have nicked off his bat on to the keeper Rahul Dravid. But the reviews ruled against it and Pietersen went on to complete his ton.England started with the overnight score of 127/2 with Pietersen and Jonathan Trott in the middle.The clear and sunny sky aided the batsmen as the ball seemed to come on to the bat unlike Day 1 when the ball was swinging a lot more with the nip in the air following the morning showers.advertisementJonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen were going strongly against India and the duo had put on 98 runs for the third wicket when Praveen Kumar struck.And it was the swing, albeit only a little, that did the trick. The ball kept low moved in and struck against Trott’s pads. He fell for 70 and India got the crucial third wicket on 160.Post Trott’s dismissal, Pietersen took up the challenge and went ahead consolidating the innings. At lunch England were cruising at 217/3 with Pietersen and Ian Bell in the middle.The second session saw Kumar strike again and this was post Dhoni’s cameo with the ball and Pietersen’s 18th Test ton.Kumar couldn’t get Pietersen, but he got rid of his partner Ian Bell with a ball that took the edge of his bat to land in keeper Dhoni’s gloves behind the stumps at 270/4. Bell scored 45.But Kumar’s over was far from over and two balls later he got England’s fifth wicket with new man Eoin Morgan walking back on a duck. From 270/3 England were down to 270/5, but they still had a good batsman in Matt Prior.At tea, England were sitting pretty on 305/5 with Pietersen and Matt Prior at the crease.The third session too was dominated by Pietersen even though Prior scored a fine 71 before going down to Kumar, who finished with a five-wicket haul with Stuart Broad being his last victim on the day.Kumar did take up the challenge in the absence of senior pro Zaheer Khan and claimed his maiden five-wicket haul at Lord’s, yet the Indians were missing their pace-spearhead.No wonder it had prompted ‘Captain Courageous’ to shun his gloves and take to bowling.
The Indian contingent is still awaiting a communication from the Olympic Games organisers on how an unidentified lady was allowed to gatecrash into the team’s march past at the Opening Ceremony even as media reports claimed to have identified the “mystery woman”.The Indians have submitted a letter on this embarrassing issue to the organisers on Saturday night and acting Chef-de-Mission Brig P K Muralidharan Raja said that no response has come yet.”We have submitted the letter expressing our strong resentment on the matter to the organisers last night. We are still waiting for their response,” Raja said.A day after photos of the ‘mystery woman’ appeared in newspapers and went viral on social networking sites, a newspaper claimed to have identified the young lady as Madhura Honey, a post-graduate from Bangalore.Deccan Chronicle, quoting sources, said that her friend from the college was also baffled seeing her with the Indian contingent. She has been living in London and before she went with the Indian team, she had displayed her Olympic passes on her Facebook account. But once this became an issue, she had deactivated her Facebook account.The Indian contingent, however, was willing to wait for an official confirmation about the identity of the person.”I am also aware of these reports. But I can’t comment on newspaper reports. We want something from the organisers,” Raja said.The young lady in red shirt and blue trouser was seen leading the Indian contingent in the march past alongside Beijing Games bronze medallist Sushil Kumar and her unwanted presence has not gone down well with the Indians, who had no clue as to who she was.advertisement
1 dead, 3 injured in Quezon road crash Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Lacson backs proposal to elect president and vice president in tandem PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Azkals manager Dan Palami said the road to Qatar begins with a weeklong training camp in Bangkok starting March 18.Palami said there will be 42 players in the pool with the majority of them newcomers to the Azkals pool.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption charges“The camp gives us an opportunity to really take a closer look at new players who can represent not just the senior team, but also the Under-22 team for the Southeast Asian Games,” said Palami. Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Hong Kong tunnel reopens, campus siege nears end View comments LATEST STORIES MOST READ Japan ace tows Southwoods to first-round interclub lead Trump campaign, GOP groups attack Google’s new ad policy SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Raring to continue its improvement, the Philippines will expand its talent pool as it prepares for the next cycle of World Cup qualifying beginning in September.After losing all three matches against higher-ranked opponents in their first AFC Asian Cup appearance in January in the United Arab Emirates, the Azkals are now setting their sights on making a strong push for qualification to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.ADVERTISEMENT