(Visited 31 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Darwinists should support bullying, but not rely on sexual selection.Bully pulpit for survivalShould Darwinists promote bullying? An article from the AAAS news site Science Now, “Better Health through Bullying,” says that bullies grow up to be stronger, while their victims grow up sicker.Bullying casts a long shadow. Children who are bullied are more prone to depression and suicidal tendencies even when they grow up; they’re also more likely to get sick and have headaches and stomach troubles, researchers have discovered. A new study may have found the underlying cause: A specific indicator of illness, called C-reactive protein (CRP), is higher than normal in bullying victims, even when they get older. In contrast, the bullies, by the same gauge, seem to be healthier.Clearly, the AAAS cannot go on record as supporting bullying, so the article goes on to say that bullies “should find better ways to enhance their status” without wreaking havoc on others. But why should they? Isn’t a healthy bully more likely to pass on its genes? Isn’t that what drives evolution? Bullies may not even be able to control themselves, because the article implies that bullying and victimization are related to chemicals and epigenetic factors.The article tried to dismiss conclusions that bullying improves Darwinian fitness:Despite the implied health benefits [i.e., fitness] of bullying, [William] Copeland [of Duke University] doesn’t advocate picking on people to better your health. The advantage probably doesn’t lie in the aggression itself, but rather in the heightened control, power, and social status that bullies enjoy, he believes.Surely this is quibbling over terms. If fitness is related to control, power, and social status, Darwinism couldn’t care less how the fit person attains those things. The goal is survival of the fittest, not survival of the nicest. Moreover, the article says that bullies attain their greatest fitness at the age of reproduction, right when their victims are suffering the most. On what moral grounds can Copeland say anyone “should” achieve power in “better ways” than bullying? He’s trying to moralize away something that should be a prime example of natural selection at work.Sexual selection vs. the origin of speciesSexual selection theory is under scrutiny again, this time from a North Carolina biologist and her mathematician friend from Vienna. Publishing in an open-access paper in PNAS entitled, “The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation,” Maria R. Servedio announces her amazement at a counterintuitive finding: sexual selection does not lead to speciation—it erases it!Sexual selection is generally considered to be an important force in the maintenance of species differentiation. Using population genetic models, we show that when isolated in its purest form of Fisherian sexual selection, sexual selection inhibits rather than assists species maintenance and speciation when isolated populations begin to exchange migrants. The stronger this type of sexual selection becomes, the more it erases any effects of local adaptation that drive trait divergence. Furthermore, if the strength of Fisherian sexual selection itself is allowed to evolve, sexual selection is lost. These results emphasize that additional complications have to be added to sexual selection scenarios for sexual selection to contribute to divergence; Fisherian sexual selection alone has the opposite effect.Fisherian sexual selection, “probably the most celebrated argument in evolutionary biology” according to A. W. F. Edwards, refers to the normal form Darwin talked about in his second book, The Descent of Man, that was later elaborated on mathematically in 1930 by Ronald Fisher or perhaps others (see Wikipedia). It’s the “intuitive” kind that Darwinists subscribe to, Servedio says:By “Fisherian sexual selection” we are referring to sexual selection in what can be considered its most basic form, in which a genetically encoded female preference imposes differential mating success with regard to a male trait. This nonrandom mating generates linkage disequilibrium, so that evolution by sexual selection on the male trait leads to concomitant evolution of the preference itself (ref. 12, pp. 136–137). To isolate the role of Fisherian sexual selection in species maintenance we primarily consider selectively neutral female preferences. Neutrality of preferences follows the classic scenario considered in early and influential sexual selection models (4, 12, 13) and is viewed as a null model for sexual selection in its simplest form (14). In particular, this is the form of sexual selection used in the model by Lande (4) that arguably first popularized the idea of sexual selection promoting speciation and is still widely cited for this today.Too bad it doesn’t work after all that reliance on it. The falsification could hardly be more harsh, according to Servedio: it does the opposite of what was expected!Speculation on the role of sexual selection in driving speciation and species maintenance traces back to the beginning of the explosion in sexual selection research seen in the past few decades (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 22, and 28). The more that this putative relationship is explored, however, the more tenuous it appears to be (e.g., refs. 10 and 11). Here we show that when sexual selection is isolated in a pure Fisherian form, it inhibits species maintenance in one of the situations in which its role seemed clearest, when the trait under sexual selection is also locally adapted. Furthermore, sexual selection is lost in this Fisherian system if preference strengths themselves are allowed to evolve.It only seems fair to let preference strengths evolve, if this is an evolving world. If you let it happen in the classical models, though, sexual selection vanishes away.What are we to make of this overturn of a fundamental tenet Darwin himself promoted? What explains the peacock’s tail? In her Discussion section, Servedio admits she doesn’t know. Scientists are going to have to look for more complicated selection scenarios. She offers some alternative views, including one in which gender traits diverge apart from any selection pressure at all. Whatever is going on, she claims that her findings are not alone: “The finding of an inhibitory role for Fisherian sexual selection on species maintenance in our situation of geographically isolated populations exchanging migrants, although counterintuitive, falls in line with a growing body of literature that casts doubt upon the common perception of a positive contribution of sexual selection to speciation.”Description vs. explanationWhat is the point of spotting sex differences if science cannot explain them? That’s not our question; it was asked on The Conversation by Saray Ayala-Lopez (MIT) and Nadya Vasilyeva (Brandeis University). Their point is that it accomplishes little to just catalog differences between the sexes if no explanation for them is available. One of the leading explanations, according to Servedio and her colleague Reinhard Burger – sexual selection – is so counterintuitive, it destroys itself.These are not just humdrum conundrums. They reveal that Darwinian theory is not only wrong; it’s harmful. It doesn’t work, and it promotes bullying. Can we kick this dead speculation out the door now? Do you hear us, NCSE? Can we cite these papers at the next school board meeting? Can we let people know that Darwin’s quaint Victorian myth is bad for society? Since when are falsehoods and incitements to violence things we should promote in school? You don’t want the teachers rooting for the bullies now, do you? How about a little biomimetics in the curriculum instead?
13 May 2016At WEF Africa 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, Ugandan journalist Nancy Kacungira asked the audience just how many of the cars, clothes or coffees they drink has a label that says “Made in Africa”. Not many.There may be one-billion people living in Africa but its production output is just 1.5%. She said leaders are trying to change this with some success, but there are some challenges.Kacungira speaks to Namibian entrepreneur Ally Angula, Dutch businessman Johan C. Aurik and the CEO of the Industrial Development Corporation in South Africa, Geoffrey Qhena, on the future of production in Africa.They address the way new technologies are transforming the world’s manufacturing systems, how governments can facilitate home-grown innovation and what Africa’s role will be in the fourth industrial revolution.South Africa.info reporter
Two army commanders allegedly colluded with a private developer to hand him seven acres of prime defence land worth Rs 25.50 crore in Pune. A confidential Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) report, a copy of which is with india today, notes that Lt General (retd) B.S. Thakker and Lt General Nobel Thamburaj regularised unauthorised constructions on military land. The report also holds a director in the Directorate General of Defence Estates guilty of passing decisions that helped the developer continue commercial exploitation of defence land. Lt General Thamburaj succeeded Lt General Thakker as the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C), Southern Army Command, in 2006.Residency Club, formerly a residential bungalow, built on defence landThe Army recently court-martialled Lt General P.K. Rath for issuing a no-objection certificate to a private developer at the Sukna military station in West Bengal. There was, however, no transfer of defence land in Sukna. In the Pune cantonment, this alleged nexus between the Defence Estates department and the Army virtually gifted away prime defence land to Ramkumar Agarwal, a private developer and chairman of Citizen Sports and Recreation Club Pvt Ltd. Leased as a private residence, the plot has been turned into a commercial venture, the Residency Club, violating cantonment rules.The area goc-in-c heads the local government in every one of the 62 cantonments across India. Three crucial decisions that virtually legitimised the club’s occupation of defence land in Pune, one of the Army’s most important cantonments, were issued days before the incumbents either retired or moved out of office. Ved Prakash, the director of Defence Estates Organisation (DEO), set aside all notices against the club a month before his retirement in November 2006. Lt General Thakker regularised unauthorised constructions by the club just a day before he retired on January 31, 2006. On December 29, 2008, Lt General Thamburaj admitted an appeal by the private developer against the government notice for unauthorised construction. He took this decision two days before he relinquished his appointment as southern army commander and moved to Delhi as Vice-Chief of Army Staff. These decisions were taken on the case which was subjudice, the report notes.Lt General Thamburaj”The club was in existence for over a decade before I was posted in Pune. They had erected a few temporary structures for sports facilities. Proper procedures were followed and these decisions were not taken on a spur of the moment,” said Lt General Thamburaj. “The club did not monetarily benefit from my decision.” Agarwal, the owner of Residency Club, denied ever having met any of the three officials. “They have nothing to do with the club. They haven’t done me any favours,” he says.The CAG report suggests otherwise. The ‘old grant bungalow’, or a private residence built on defence land, was built in 1940. In 1986, Zarir Cooper, the Holder of Occupancy Rights (HOR), informed the army about a proposal to transfer the land to Agarwal. This was not granted. In August 1987, the HOR once again applied for permission to start a club in the premises, which was once again rejected by the deo. Defence land rules expressly stipulate that the bungalow can be used only for residential purposes. The Government can resume ownership of the land after paying the occupant the cost of the building. In 1999, however, the Director General, Defence Estates overruled the deo’s objection and okayed the transfer of the property to the private party. The main condition for the transfer was that the Government would hold the title to the land and that the bungalow would be used for residential purposes only. The developer challenged the Government’s title over the land in the civil court and began redeveloping the bungalow as a recreation club. The court confirmed the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) title on the land but restrained the Government from interfering with its use as a club. The case remained pending in court.Armed with the court order, the developer converted the bungalow into the Residency Club and made extensive alterations on the land. As none of these constructions were approved by the Cantonment Board, Pune, notices were issued on Agarwal by the board between 1992 and 2006. The builder appealed against the notices. In January 2005, he agreed to pay the MoD an annual lease rent. The Defence Estates Department assessed the rent at Rs 79 lakh per year. “Interestingly, no progress was made in this regard by the MoD,” the report notes. This inaction cost the Government over Rs 10 crore-Rs 7.91 crore in a one-time premium and Rs 3.8 crore in annual rent since 2005.The case then went to the appellate authority, Ved Prakash, then director of Defence Estates. Prakash set aside all the notices and stopped the removal of unauthorised constructions. In 2006, then goc-in-c Lt General Thakker regularised the unauthorised constructions on the deposit of a meagre Rs 8.33 lakh. He did this a few days before he retired.Lt General Thakker”No army commander can pass orders to regularise unauthorised constructions; it is Defence Estates officers who do that. Moreover, if the club has already been around for a decade before I took over them, how does the army commander come into the picture?” says Lt General Thakker.In 2006, the Pune Cantonment Board filed a suit in the Bombay High Court against Prakash’s decision stopping unauthorised constructions.In December the same year, a new Cantonment Act passed by Parliament came into force. The Act transferred appellate powers from the Defence Estates Officer to the goc-in-c. In 2007, a notice for unauthorised construction was served on the club. The developer filed an appeal before the goc-in-c Southern Command. This appeal was allowed by Lt General Thamburaj on December 30, 2008, a day prior to relinquishing charge. This decision taken despite the matter being subjudice, virtually regularised the club’s illegal constructions.The report severely indicts the army and Directorate General of Defence Estates (DGDE) for failing to protect Government property. Despite being aware of the builder’s intent in utilising the bungalow as a club, the DGDE sanctioned the property transfer. Defence Estates authorities failed to pursue the court case: no hearing was held since 1997. This soft-pedalling only loosened the Government’s hold on the land. Despite a decade, the local military authorities failed to finalise the board proceedings that were convened in 1999.Defence ministry officials say the Pune case is symptomatic of the malaise afflicting cantonments in Lucknow, Delhi and Meerut. “Most of the corruption in these cantonment areas revolves around Old Grant Bungalows,” says one official. “Even when leases expire, no effort is made to resume leases on these bungalows,” he adds. In several cases, either the land is illegally sold or the usage is changed from residential to commercial with nobody to check.A CAG report says that three crucial decisions that virtually legitimised the Residency Club’s occupation of defence land were issued just a few days before the incumbents either retired or moved out of office.Bungalow owners allege discrimination by the ‘pick and choose’ policy of lease renewal adopted by the local army commander, cantonment ceo and Defence Estate officer. “Frequent land scams take place because of the flawed land records kept by a single authority, the Defence Estates Department,” says Raghavinder Dass, president of the All-India Cantonment Bungalow Owners’ Association.This new scam to tumble out of the ministry’s closet once again highlights the dangers to prime defence land. Last year, the Defence Estates was severely criticised by a Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) report. The report said that the DGDE, custodian of 17,000 acres of defence land worth Rs 20 lakh crore, had failed in all its primary tasks of audit, accounting, acquisition of land and financial management. The department has been unable to punish its black sheep. One of its officers, A.S. Rajgopal, was promoted twice despite being chargesheeted a few years ago. He retired as principal director of Defence Estates last year. The cda recommended closing down the DGDE. The Government is yet to take any action.Defence Minister A.K. Antony recently told Parliament that 11,000 acres of defence land were being illegally occupied all over the country. Antony said that he had asked for computerisation of the DGDE’s records. “This is preposterous. Computerisation is being held out as a panacea for corruption,” says a senior Ministry of Defence official. Computerisation of the DGDE’s land records has been on for the past five years but the organisation is nowhere near realising a central database. The DGDE has been unable to respond to even basic RTI queries on the size of defence land holdings. With no reform or accountability in sight, defence land scams will continue to stain officers of the armed forces.advertisementadvertisementadvertisement
Manoj said that he will file a case in the Punjab and Haryana High CourtFeeling “insulted” after his name was not added to this year’s list of Arjuna awardees, boxer Manoj Kumar today said he would sue the Sports Ministry for the “injustice” meted out to him.The controversial recommendation of boxer Jai Bhagwan for the prestigious Arjuna Awards stands after the selection committee yesterday decided not to make any changes in the original 15-athlete list.Sports Authority of India Director General Jiji Thomson, who was part of the Awards committee, said the panel discussed seven athletes in the review meeting but it was unanimously agreed that no changes were needed.Manoj said that he had been assured by the sports secretary and Thomson himself that his name would be added in yesterday’s meeting and their backtracking was a “betrayal”.”When my elder brother met the Sports Secretary on August 13, the Sports Secretary had admitted that there was a mistake on the part of the ministry by mistakenly thinking that I was involved in a dope offence. Mr Ajit Sharan had told my brother that my name will be added in the review meeting,” Manoj, who is in the national camp at the NIS, said.”The SAI DG himself called me up the next day (August 14) that my case will be considered and no injustice would be done to me. He assured me that my name will be added in the Arjuna list. But all these turned out to be false promises and they have backtracked now. I have a trial for the Asian Games next week and I am in severe mental stress,” he said.advertisement”First, they tarnished my image by mistakenly calling me a dope offender and then betrayed me by backtracking on what they had promised. It’s an insult and betrayal,” a dejected Manoj, who won a gold in 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games, said.Manoj’s elder brother and coach Rajesh Kumar said that he will file a case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.”This is an injustice to my brother. What motivation an athlete will have to bring laurels for the country if he was treated like this. I will file a case at the High Court in Chandigarh very soon.”I will file an RTI to the government tomorrow first and then the case at the High Court. I will ask for the points Manoj has got under the marking system used by the selection panel and the points earned by the 15 recommended athletes. That information will be used as evidence in the High Court case,” said Rajesh.Rajesh also wondered how Thomson can claim that Manoj has time with him and he can get the award later on. “How can it be? He (Manoj) won a gold in the 2010 Commonwealth Games and this achievement will not be considered for next year’s Arjuna Award as only four-year achievement is counted. Next year’s Arjuna will start counting achievements from 2011 onwards,” he said.”Otherwise, what is the point of waiting. If a person is deserving, then he is deserving. Many a times in the past, two athletes from the same sport were given Arjuna.”Rajesh said Sports Minister Sarbananda Sonowal had also assured, through his personal secretary, that the case of Manoj will be addressed and those officials who committed the mistake of taking him as a dope offender will be taken to task.”I sought a meeting with the sports minister on August 13 and I waited for him late on that day. The Minister returned to office around 9:30pm after some work. The Minister sent his PS to tell me that Manoj’s case will be reconsidered in the selection committee meeting.”The PS also told me that the officials who placed Manoj’s name as a dope offender before the selection panel will also be taken to task. But now it turned out that all these were just talk in the air,” he said.