NAGPUR, India (AP): New Zealand’s spinners inflicted a shock 47-run defeat on tournament favourites India in the first game of the Super 10 stage at the ICC World Twenty20 yesterday. Left-arm spinner Mitchell Santner grabbed 4-11, leg-spinner Ish Sodhi took 3-18 and off-spinner Nathan McCullum added 2-15 on a helpful pitch as India were bowled out for 79 in 18.1 overs. New Zealand had earlier reached 126-7 in the Group Two match. Captain Kane Williamson’s decision to go in with three spinners paid off as India, which came into the tournament with 10 wins in 11 previous T20 games, failed to come to terms with the slow pitch. New Zealand have now beaten India in all five T20 games between the two teams, including two times at the World Twenty20. India had beaten South Africa inside three days in a Test here last year, but the turn on offer this time proved detrimental. Sodhi struck first ball as the in-form Virat Kohli (23) edged one to the wicketkeeper, at which stage India were 39-5. Captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni tried to rally his team, but his knock of 30 was of little use. “It was a low-scoring wicket,” Dhoni said. “I thought we restricted them to a good total, but the batting let us down. The shot selection kept putting pressure on the batsmen coming in. “They bowled well and exploited the conditions, but we lacked adaptability. We could have applied ourselves more.” Earlier, India restricted New Zealand to a moderate total with left-hander Corey Anderson holding the innings together. He scored 34 before being dismissed by pace bowler Jasprit Bumrah while trying to scoop the ball towards fine leg. Luke Ronchi got an unbeaten 21 off 11 balls down the order. “It was a tough surface,” Williamson said. “Any score was going to be tough here, but we would have liked to have a few more. We went in with this bowling attack after we had a look at the conditions.”
1/2 cup sour cream1 cup salsa roja1 Preheat the grill to medium-high and lightly oil the grill grates.2 Slit the hot dogs lengthwise, halfway through, and grill them for 6 to 8 minutes, turning … 1 recipe taco sauce1/2 head iceberg lettuce, shredded2 cups pico de gallo8 ounces cheddar cheese, shredded1/2 cup sliced pickled jalapenos This recipe for Tex-Mex taco dogs is from The Nolan Ryan Beef & Barbecue Cookbook.8 All-beef hot dogs8 hot dog buns8 hard taco shells
Arcata >> The McKinleyville Panthers softball team scored 10 runs on 11 hits and took advantage of six Arcata errors to beat the Tigers 10-4 on Thursday at Arcata High School.Tied at two in the top of the third inning, McKinleyville scored three runs — highlighted by back-to-back doubles from Lily Thiesfeld and Ashley Stockwell — giving Mack a 5-2 lead.The Panthers offense didn’t stop there, as Mack scored five runs in the sixth inning, including an inside-the-park home run by Theisfeld, who …
PHOENIX — A day after one Orioles castoff homered and singled in a late Giants rally, San Francisco added another former Orioles outfielder to their depth chart.The Giants announced Friday that they have claimed outfielder Joey Rickard on waivers and optioned the 28-year-old to Triple-A Sacramento. To clear space for Rickard on the team’s 40-man roster, the Giants transferred reliever Nick Vincent from the 10-day injured list to the 60-day injured list.Vincent has been sidelined since May …
If evolution is true, the number of species coming and going should track the number of rock layers in which they are fossilized, at least roughly. The more sediments per unit time, the more new genera should arise within them. Shanan E. Peters (U of Michigan) decided to test this “novel” approach with marine fossils (the most abundant in the fossil record) over most of the geologic column, from Cambrian to Pliocene, and did indeed find a correlation. He wrote his conclusions in PNAS.1 Peters compared two databases: one that counted genera of marine organisms in the worldwide geologic column, and one that counted rock sections in the geologic column in the USA. (A section is a record of continuous sedimentation bounded by gaps, or unconformities.) First, he graphed genus richness against rock quantity; these measurements correlated well until the Cretaceous, when they diverged sharply. The divergence, he explained, could have been a statistical artifact of sampling called the “pull of the recent”; i.e., the tendency for recent epochs to be better represented than ancient ones. That’s OK, he explained; one would expect the correlations to be seen better at macro rather than micro scales. Second, he graphed first and last appearances of genera against the bottoms and tops of rock sections. These correlated fairly well for extinctions (r=0.75), but not as well for originations of genera (r=0.54 or less). “This finding means,” he tells us, “that the average longevity of a genus in the fossil record is comparable with the average duration of a sedimentary section. In fact, the entire frequency distribution of genus longevities is remarkably similar to that of section durations.” Third, he compared genus turnover with section turnover and also found similar positive correlation, though with some data points as prominent outliers. In his concluding discussion, he tried to explain what these correlations mean.These results demonstrate that the temporal distribution of genus first and last occurrences in the marine animal fossil record is intimately related to the temporal continuity and quantity of sedimentary rock. Determining why this result is the case is more challenging than demonstrating that it is so. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Since the two databases (genus counts and section counts) were presumed “as independent as two data sets that share the same timescale could possibly be,” he felt the correlations, rough as they were, indicated something significant. Either the results were artifacts of preservation bias (the luck of the fossilization process), or had a common-cause relationship. The former, he argued, seems unlikely: “Thus, if stratigraphic correlation and the shared timescale are the only reasons for statistical similarity, then virtually all temporal patterns derived from the geologic record must be little more than methodological artifacts of binning and correlation. This possibility seems extremely unlikely (although quantifying the magnitudes of the statistical contributions of these factors is very important).” That being agreed, which explanation – selection bias or common cause – best explains the data?Assuming that macroevolutionary patterns derived from genus first and last occurrences have the potential to be meaningful in a biological sense, the task then becomes to explain why patterns in the genus fossil record are closely duplicated by analogous patterns in the sedimentary rock record. As discussed above, there are two possibilities, (i) preservation bias and (ii) shared forcing mechanisms (common cause).He showed that the latter possibility makes better predictions, but does admit one caveat: “because only unconformity and rock quantity biases are being measured here, it is possible that facies biases and/or asymmetries in environmental preservation within sedimentary sequences are causing the stronger section-genus extinction correlation”; i.e., the beginning and end of the story don’t always reveal what happened in the middle. Nevertheless, he felt confident that taxonomists and geologists had not conspired to bias the conclusions: “it seems unlikely that the work of hundreds of taxonomists has been so nonrandom as to render the survivorship patterns of >32,000 genera from across the tree of life little more than a quantification of the structure of the sedimentary rock record.” Why, however, would the genus extinction count correlate with the end of the rock section better than the origination count correlate with the beginning? Aha, the common-cause hypothesis predicted it would. The answer is in the way evolution works:Under the common-cause hypothesis, however, genera are expected to originate early in a sedimentary basin’s history as new habitats and environments expand and to go extinct abruptly when environmental changes eliminate the basin environments altogether. Thus, similar average durations for sections and genera as well as corresponding peaks and troughs in rates of origination and extinction are expected. Interestingly, the common-cause hypothesis also predicts that the genus-section extinction correlation should be stronger than the genus-section origination correlation because genus extinction can match the timing of rapid environmental shifts that result in section truncation, whereas genus origination may not be capable of responding instantly to the macroevolutionary opportunities afforded by basin expansion. This possibility is sensitive to choice of timescale, but it is supported by analyses that find less empirical support for pulsed genus origination [i.e., punctuated equilibria] than for pulsed genus extinction at the same level of temporal resolution in the Phanerozoic.The remainder of Peters’ discussion delved into the meaning of these correlations for theories of environmental forcing of macroevolution and timing of mass extinctions. He favored gradualism over saltation for origination of species, and discounted the need for major catastrophes to explain extinction rates. He defended the challenging concept that “much of the macroevolutionary history of marine animals is driven by processes related to the formation and destruction of sedimentary basins.” If some evolutionists believe that extinctions and explosions of biological diversity can be forced by a meteorite impact, for instance, why not consider the possibility that macroevolutionary change can also be forced by slower geological changes? Thus, “it would seem prudent to revisit some of the classic unifying hypotheses that are grounded in the effects of continually operating processes and to reevaluate seriously the extent to which unusual or episodic events are required to explain the macroevolutionary history of marine animals.” In conclusion, he admitted that more work will need to be done to rule out taxonomic biases. These “remain a potential obfuscator of macroevolutionary patterns in all global taxonomic databases,” he says; though he has shown some correlation, he is not trying to push his point too far. “Further quantifying the relationships between the large-scale temporal and spatial structure of the geologic record and the distribution of fossil occurrences within this structure will be important,” he ended, “in overcoming persistent sampling biases and in testing the extent to which common-cause mechanisms have dominated the macroevolutionary history of marine animals.”1Shanan E. Peters, “Geological constraints on the macroevolutionary history of marine animals, “ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, August 30, 2005, vol. 102, no. 35, 12326-12331, published online before print August 16, 2005, 10.1073/pnas.0502616102.This lengthy entry is exhibited here to show how evolutionists can fool themselves into thinking the observations support Charlie’s tall tale. In the first place, he used evolutionary assumptions to calibrate evolutionary assumptions: the “common timescale” of both databases is the geologic column, a theoretical arrangement of global sediments built on the assumption of evolution and millions of years. This is reminiscent of the joke about the church bell ringer who set his watch by the clock tower on the parliament building, only to find out that the clock tower maintenance man set his clock by the church bell. Second, the correlations are only marginally significant. His charts show severe outliers. Sometimes the anomalous data points have an important story to tell. Third, his use of gap-bound rock sections only concentrates on the beginning and ending of continuously-deposited sediments. In the old Dr. Seuss book The Cat in the Hat, the first and last pages of the book, showing the children contentedly at ease in a clean living room, belies all the chaos and commotion that occurred in the middle. Last, Peters trusted in the “if you build it, they will come” theory of evolution. He didn’t explain how new genera of marine organisms would “emerge” when the sea level rose or fell; he just assumed that whenever organisms are given a safe haven, presto! macroevolution happens. In short, the evolutionary story rigged, controlled, operated and guaranteed the outcome of the entire analysis. Evolution is a self-fulfilling prophecy. For a side dish, consider what EurekAlert recently reported: most scientific papers are wrong. Whether from financial interest, prejudice, unseen biases, conflict of interest, peer pressure or the desire to prove relationships that don’t exist (false positives), “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.” Iain Murray, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute, reflected on what this means – much authoritative-sounding science talk is inconclusive and, frankly, politically or selfishly motivated. The paper by Peters, reviewed here, fits the description. For all its graphs and jargon, it is trying to prove something that isn’t necessarily true, built on a bias for a certain brand of Darwinian evolution. Even if there were a correlation between sediment counts and genus counts, could there be a non-evolutionary explanation? Naturally. In a flood scenario, for instance, more genera are likely to be buried in sediments corresponding to the volume of the material. The first appearance of a genus would either represent the chance placement in the layers or a mechanical artifact of the burial process, such as liquefaction or hydrodynamic sorting. Extinction would occur, but not origination by evolution. No great time periods need transpire. Since Peters’ radar screen was not tuned to this possibility, he missed it.(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Ohio’s Environmental Professionals Network (EPN) is holding its next monthly breakfast program March 7 in Columbus, and as the film title goes, a river runs through it.Called “We All Need Healthy Rivers,” the event is a joint meeting with the Water Management Association of Ohio.In all, Ohio has more than 29,000 miles of rivers, and organizers say their health is key to the health of the state’s citizens and environment.The Ohio River, for example, supplies drinking water to more than 5 million people in six states including Ohio, the Ohio River Foundation says. But reports based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data have said the Ohio has more industrial pollution than any other river in the nation.Meanwhile, only about 213 miles, or less than 1%, of Ohio’s rivers — including parts of the Big and Little Darby creeks near Columbus — are designated wild and scenic, according to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Fifth Harmony’s Camila Cabello has teamed up with Save the Children to design a limited-edition T-shirt to shine a light on girls around the world.Fifth Harmony’s Camila Cabello has teamed up with Save the Children to design a limited-edition T-shirtThe special Love Only collaboration, which launches ahead of International Day of the Girl, is available starting today through Oct. 18, with 100 percent of the net proceeds going to Save the Children. The Love Only collaboration will be available at represent.com/camila.On Oct. 11, Save the Children will celebrate International Day of the Girl, a day dedicated to highlighting the barriers girls face globally and to empowering girls to reach their full potential. The Love Only tee will help support the charity’s efforts to raise awareness of these issues and to ensure a world where girls get equal access to education, health care and opportunities to succeed. The Love Only collaboration for Save the Children is Camila Cabello’s first-ever charity tee.“Love Only is an important concept to me – it’s all about uplifting ourselves and supporting others,” Camila Cabello, a Save the Children Celebrity Cabinet member, said. “I am so inspired by what Save the Children is doing to give girls around the world a brighter future. So I wanted to support this amazing cause by designing this special Love Only tee and hoodie.”The limited-edition T-shirt is selling for $24.99. A hoodie sweatshirt is also offered for $39.99. Both styles are available for purchase worldwide.Camila Cabello and Save the Children invite supporters and influencers to get involved, take a photo in the T-shirt and spread the campaign on social media using #LoveOnlyTee.