LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Phil Mickelson left the PGA Championship as a runner-up in a major for the ninth time in his career, though this one at least kept alive one streak involving the Ryder Cup and another involving the FedEx Cup. Mickelson qualified for his 10th straight Ryder Cup team, extending his American record. He picked up enough FedEx Cup points to move from No. 84 to No. 42, giving him the best opportunity of three players who have never missed the Tour Championship. Only the top 30 after the BMW Championship get into the FedEx Cup finale at East Lake. The others who have never missed the Tour Championship are Hunter Mahan and Steve Stricker. Stricker, playing a part-time schedule for the second year, was on the bubble for The Barclays until he tied for seventh at Valhalla. That moved him up to No. 99. The next question is how much he plays over the next month, more by choice than by qualification. He has an elk hunting trip planned for September. Mahan is having his worst year since 2006. He had four top 10s through Doral until tweaking his back on the eve of the final round at Bay Hill. Mahan did not have another top 10 all year until a 65-67 weekend at Valhalla to tie for seventh. He only moved up to No. 59. Mahan will have to play well at either The Barclays or the Deutsche Bank Championship to sew up a spot in Denver for the third playoff event. Also at stake the next two weeks is auditioning for Tom Watson as a Ryder Cup pick. Five players have never missed the FedEx Cup playoffs since the series began in 2007. All of them – J.J. Henry, Brian Gay, John Merrick, Charlie Wi and John Rollins – are in Greensboro, N.C., for the Wyndham Championship, the final event of the regular season. Henry is at No. 130 and would only need something around 20th place to get into The Barclays. Rollins is at No. 164 would need to finish third. It’s also a big week for Robert Allenby at No. 122. He used a one-time exemption as top 25 on the tour’s career money list to keep his card this year. STICKING WITH WHAT HE HAS: Tiger Woods has won 14 majors with three swings – the original swing he brought to tour under Butch Harmon, the overhaul with Harmon that produced seven majors in 11 starts, and a new swing with Hank Haney that brought six majors and made him the only player in history to win multiple majors in back-to-back seasons. Don’t expect Rory McIlroy to go down that road. ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That’s my motto,” McIlroy said after winning the PGA Championship. ”I’ve always been that way. I feel like the work that I’ve put into my golf swing from the age of 15 to 20 is going to see me throughout my career.” McIlroy hasn’t really changed his swing since he was a kid. Nor has he ever changed his coach. ”There’s no reason why I should look to try and swing the club differently,” he said. ”Whether it’s to try and get even better or for a new challenge or whatever it is. I’ve worked with Michael Bannon my whole life, and I’ll continue to do so and it works well at the minute. And there’s no reason for me to change.” MAJOR CUTS: For the third year in a row, Adam Scott was on the short list of players who made the cut in every major. Scott has not missed the cut in a major since the 2011 U.S. Open at Congressional. Also making the cut in all four majors: Rickie Fowler, Rory McIlroy, Kevin Stadler, Jimmy Walker, Jim Furyk, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson, Jason Day, Bill Haas, Louis Oosthuizen, Brandt Snedeker and Francesco Molinari. Scott, Day, Snedeker and Stenson all made the cut in all four majors last year. On the flip side was Roberto Castro, eligible for all four majors for the first time in his career. Castro never made it to the weekend in any of them. WELCOME TO THE ’60s: Rory McIlroy became the first player since Tiger Woods at Medinah to win the PGA Championship with all four rounds in the 60s. And he had plenty of company. Phil Mickelson, Rickie Fowler, Mikko Ilonen and Steve Stricker each broke 70 every day. The five players with every round in the 60s matched a PGA Championship record set at Riviera in 1995. It also was the fourth time in PGA Championship history that three leading players were in the 60s all four rounds. The other times were at Atlanta Athletic Club in 2001 (David Toms, Mickelson, Steve Lowery); Riviera (Steve Elkington, Colin Montgomerie, Bob Estes); and Inverness in 1993 (Paul Azinger, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo). McIlroy became the sixth PGA champion with all four rounds in the 60s. That has happened only three times at the British Open and three times at the U.S. Open. It has never happened at the Masters. And it’s a short list of players to win two majors with all four rounds in the 60s – McIlroy (2011 U.S. Open, 2014 PGA), Woods (2000 British Open, 2006 PGA) and Lee Trevino (1968 U.S. Open, 1984 PGA). MAJOR FIELDS: Bernd Wiesberger tumbled down the leaderboard with a 74 on Sunday, though the Austrian at least stayed in the top 15 at Valhalla. That assures him a return to the PGA Championship next year as being among the top 15 and ties. Others who earned a spot in the field next year at Whistling Straits were Marc Warren of Scotland and Brooks Koepka. The Masters is more concerned with keeping its field under 100 players. Augusta National invites the top four from the other three majors. Because of ties, five players earned spots from the U.S. Open. And because of pedigree, the top four from the PGA Championship already were in the Masters. DIVOTS: U.S. Women’s Amateur champion Kristen Gillman and Curtis Cup players Emma Talley and Alison Lee have been selected to the U.S. team for the Women’s World Amateur Team Championship on Sept. 3-6 in Japan. … Bridgestone will be the title sponsor of the inaugural America’s Golf Cup, a team format featuring members of the PGA Tour and PGA Tour Latinoamerica. Tiger Woods is expected to play for the U.S. team on Oct. 23-26. … Rory McIlroy has shot par or better in his last 14 rounds dating to Friday in the Scottish Open. … The 2016 Ryder Cup at Hazeltine will be Sept. 30-Oct. 2. … Rory McIlroy has had at least a share of the lead in 17 rounds (including the final round) in the majors since his first one as a pro in 2009. No one else has more than five rounds with at least a share of the lead. STAT OF THE WEEK: Rory McIlroy became only the fourth player to win a major as No. 1 in the world since the ranking began, and the first since Tiger Woods at Torrey Pines in the 2008 U.S. Open. Woods won 11 of his 14 majors as No. 1. FINAL WORD: ”You never know what you’re going to get with Phil. But you know one thing – it’s going to be exciting, and many times it’s going to be spectacular.” – Tom Watson on Phil Mickelson, whose first top 10 of the year was a runner-up finish at the PGA Championship.
ATZENBRUGG, Austria – Gregory Bourdy of France carded a bogey-free 7-under 65 to take a two-stroke lead on a warm and sunny opening day of the Lyoness Open on Thursday. Bourdy, who missed just one green, had four birdies on the front nine and seven in total to go two strokes clear of a group of four: England’s Chris Wood and Robert Dinwiddie, Spain’s Carlos Del Moral and Germany’s Maximilian Kiefer. Former champion Bernd Wiesberger, at 37 the highest-ranked player in the field, had a disappointing 7-over 79. The Austrian, who was beaten for last year’s title by Mikael Lundberg of Sweden in a playoff, had a round without a birdie for the first time this year. Defending champion Lundberg dropped three strokes on his first three holes but finished on par.
GAUTENG, South Africa – Jaco van Zyl shot a 7-under 65 Thursday to top a South African-dominated leaderboard in the first round of the South African Open, the European Tour’s first event of 2016. Van Zyl maintained the form that put him in ties for eighth and 13th at the season-opening Alfred Dunhill Championship and Nedbank Golf Challenge before Christmas, making six birdies and an eagle. Shaun Norris was alone in second place after a 66, and Jbe Kruger and Keith Horne were tied for third at 5 under at Glendower Golf Club as South Africans filled the top four places. Two more were in a six-way tie at 4 under – Justin Walters and 2006 winner Retief Goosen. Defending champion Andy Sullivan of England shot 3 over and was 10 strokes off the pace. Play was suspended for the day because of the threat of lightning, with 33 players still to finish their rounds. Nicolas Colsaerts (shoulder) and Richard Finch (Achilles) retired in the first round. Van Zyl has 13 victories on South Africa’s Sunshine Tour but is yet to win on the European Tour, with the most recent of his four runner-up finishes coming at the Turkish Airlines Open in November. ”I’ve had a couple of weeks off, spending time with the family,” Van Zyl said. ”I’ve had my fair share of whisky and Christmas pudding so it was really nice to get off to a good start.” Starting at No. 10, Van Zyl picked up four shots on his front nine, and moved to 7 under after an eagle 3 at the par-5 second hole. He made up for his only bogey of the round, on No. 7, by making a birdie from three feet on the next hole.
Phil Mickelson highlights this week’s edition as he steps in to become the face of golf in the Coachella Valley and returns to the PGA Tour poised to “hit bombs.” Made Cut Expressly improved. Since Bob Hope passed in 2003 the comedian’s namesake stop on Tour has had four different sponsors and four different hosts, but officials finally have a reason to be optimistic. This week’s event marks the debut for a new host, Mickelson, and a new sponsor, American Express, and the high-profile duo delivers two things the tournament has desperately needed – cachet and stability. “To take on the host role and have a partner as such a global icon as American Express helping to get this tournament to elite status again is something I’m very excited to be a part of,” Mickelson said. Tournament director Jeff Sanders has also proven himself adept at creating a fan experience around tournaments, but the scheduling challenge remains the same for the event that is wedged between the Hawaiian swing and Torrey Pines. Most of the game’s top players will make their annual debuts next week at the Farmers Insurance Open and the pro-am format is a tough sell to the modern professional. But if Phil and Co. can turn things around in the desert it will be one of the greatest recoveries of Lefty’s career. What’s Left? Speaking of the host with the most, Mickelson begins his 28th full season on Tour this week and the soon-to-be 50-year-old doesn’t appear to have any interest in slowing down. “When I stop hitting bombs I’ll play the Champions Tour, but I’m hitting some crazy bombs right now,” joked Mickelson, who hits the mid-century mark in June. “No, I still have speed, there’s no reason I couldn’t play out here. I hit the ball every bit as far.” News & Opinion As 50 approaches, Phil isn’t riding off into the sunset BY Rex Hoggard — January 15, 2020 at 3:15 PM Phil Mickelson isn’t riding off into the sunset as he approaches his 50th birthday. Like Tom Brady or Vince Carter, Mickelson is displaying ageless brilliance as he enters a new chapter. Late last year Mickelson shed 15 pounds with a new diet and arrived at The American Express with a bullish outlook for the new season, with his sights set on this fall’s Ryder Cup and June’s U.S. Open at Winged Foot, where he infamously finished runner-up in 2006. Lefty also changed the long-standing narrative with his transition to his best self and appears to have become a paradigm of fitness on Tour. “Seeing all these guys who are older than me in the gym and I’m like, why am I not? I mean, if they’re working that hard, you see Phil and them, and so I had to turn that around to feel better about myself, first and foremost, and then my game will never be that far off,” said first-round co-leader Grayson Murray. Yep, that’s a thing that happened: Phil Mickelson cited as an example of fitness on Tour. Take that, Tiger Woods. Tweet of the week: On Day 1 Merritt was paired with Laurent Hurtubise who was born with one arm and he had a front-row seat to the amateur’s hole in one on the fourth hole at the PGA West’s Stadium Course. Made Cut-Did Not Finish (MDF) A new pace. The Tour unveiled its new pace-of-play policy this week and if exit polling is any indication the rules are, at least in theory, a step in the right direction. Among the highlights of the new plan, which begins in April, the Tour has shifted the focus of its pace-of-play efforts to individuals, specifically the individuals who have become chronically slow. The circuit will create an observation list for players who average 45 seconds or more per shot according to ShotLink. Those players, which are currently about 10 percent of the Tour, will be subject to special monitoring during rounds. News & Opinion Tour’s new pace-of-play policy a step in right direction BY Rex Hoggard — January 14, 2020 at 2:45 PM The PGA Tour’s new pace-of-play policy is not the final answer to fix slow play, but it’s a start, and for those who have watched the issue ebb and flow its way through the decades it’s a reason to be optimistic. “This new policy is going to be interesting for the bottom 10 percent who start off on the clock Thursday morning,” Charles Howell III said. “When you’re in one of those first couple of groups it already has your attention because you know there’s nobody in front of you and the officials are out there [to time groups]. With this new rule I think it could make a pretty big impact. If you’re in one of those first few groups and you’re on that list, you could see guys turning really fast.” But any improvements will depend on the Tour’s will to enforce the new rules and that hasn’t seemed to be the case since the circuit started policing pace of play in 1994. “There’s already rules in place for how many seconds you get to play a shot, so it seems to me that if the current rules that are already in place are enforced then we don’t have a problem,” Howell said. Tour officials now have a way to speed things up, but it remains to be seen if they have the will. Poking the bear. If we’ve learned anything about Brooks Koepka the last few years it’s that he will take any slight, be it real or perceived, and channel it into championship-winning performances. Knowing this is the case, it’s curious why Bryson DeChambeau decided to – even playfully – tempt fate. DeChambeau joked this week in a Fortnite Twitch stream that he actually weighs more than Koepka following some intense off-season gym time and that, “I don’t know if [Koepka’s] genetics even make him look good. Did you see the [ESPN]Body Issue? He didn’t have any abs. I have abs.” Grill Room Brooks to Bryson: I’m 2 majors shy of a 6-pack BY Nick Menta — January 16, 2020 at 9:15 AM In response to Bryson DeChambeau abdominal comments, Brooks Koepka conceded that he is indeed two majors short of a six-pack. Per the status quo in recent years, Koepka scored the last punch, opening with a 66 at the Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship to clip DeChambeau by six strokes and then piled on with a social media haymaker: “You were right [DeChambeau] I am 2 short of a 6 pack.” Missed Cut Freedom of speech. The lingering Patrick Reed controversy took a new turn this week when Australian Golf Digest reported that Cameron Smith had been issued a warning from the Tour following the Australian’s comments prior to last month’s Presidents Cup. Smith was asked about Reed’s penalty at December’s Hero World Challenge for moving sand behind his ball and offered a strong take: “If you make a mistake maybe once, you could understand but to give it a bit of a bulls— response like camera angle … that’s pretty up there [inexcusable],” Smith said. Morning Drive: What to make of report Tour warned Smith over Reed comments? According to the most recent report in Australian Golf Digest, “an official from the PGA Tour spoke to Smith about the remarks, essentially issuing a warning that he would be fined in the future if he made similar statements.” The Tour does have a rule that requires players to “refrain from making comments that unreasonably attack or disparage others,” but we’d leave it to a constitutional expert to decide if Smith’s comments meet that threshold. If the report is accurate, what Reed might have done in the Bahamas certainly assaults the competitive senses, but the Tour’s attempt to suppress free speech is truly egregious.
AUGUSTA, Ga. – It’s a testament to the strange days of 2020 that Justin Thomas’ news conference on Tuesday at Augusta National included four questions about Bryson DeChambeau and the Mad Scientist’s pursuit of pure, unapologetic power and just two – which were positioned well toward the end of his media Q&A – about Tiger Woods. You remember Tiger, right? He’s the defending champion this week, which you might not have noticed if you waded through recent social media posts about clubhead speed and headlines about 48-inch shafted drivers. Last year was Tiger’s fifth victory at the Masters, pulling him to within a single green jacket of all-time champion Jack Nicklaus, and his 15th major championship. It was a magical Sunday filled with drama and emotion and the kind of redemptive subtext that makes sports so entertaining. Even , some 19 months removed from that victory, Woods, whose stoic demeanor is as much a part of his persona as wearing red and black on Sundays, still allows himself to get caught up in that moment. “I’m getting chills just thinking about it,” he started before launching into a rare depth of emotional range. “Coming up 18, and knowing that all I have to do is just two-putt that little 15-footer and to see my family there and my mom and my kids and all of the people that helped support me or were there for me in the tough times, and I was walking up there trying not to lose it.” In the grand tale of 82 PGA Tour victories picking a favorite is silly, but for Tiger, the 2019 Masters will always stand apart from the others – with the lone exception being his triumph in ’97 at Augusta National. That was historic. That was providence and impossible to compare or forget, just like last year’s victory. Or at least it was until, well, 2020. 84th Masters Tournament: Full-field tee times | Full coverage Perhaps it’s the first November Masters played without patrons that’s made this such an odd afterthought. These are, after all, conversations and celebrations golf should have had six months ago, before the pandemic changed the world. There’ll be no patrons to cheer for Tiger this week. There won’t even be a full contingent of family to celebrate his return. It’s just his girlfriend, Erica Herman, and confidant, Rob McNamara, along for the victory lap. No daughter, Sam, or son, Charlie, who completed the moment last year as his father walked off the 18th green and the two embraced. “It’s not how I wanted to retain the jacket, for this long,” Woods admitted. “This has been an unprecedented circumstance we’re all dealing with. It’s been incredible to have the jacket and to have it around the house and to share with people, but to have it this long, it’s not the way I want to have it. I wanted to earn it back in April, but obviously we didn’t have that.” There will be the traditional Champions Dinner on Tuesday night, but the venue was moved to allow for more social distancing and Woods suggested last month that attendance will likely be down considering the circumstances. Tiger’s game is well short of where it was 19 months ago when he arrived at Augusta National, which has prompted some to overlook him this week. That’s always dangerous with Tiger, but the results paint a poor picture. Golf Central Tiger hoping to ‘put it all together’ at Masters BY Ryan Lavner — November 10, 2020 at 1:54 PM Tiger Woods could use another breakthrough moment at the Masters after entering this year’s event in pedestrian form. Heading into the ’19 Masters, Woods had played five times and posted three top-20 finishes. He managed just six total starts during the Tour’s pandemic-impacted season and posted just a single top-10 finish, way back in January. Maybe there’s something to Bryson’s grand plan. During a practice round on Monday, after hitting a monster drive at the par-4 11th hole that left him just a pitching wedge into the green, Dr. Stranger Than Fiction asked Tiger, “What did you hit in ’97?” Woods told him pitching wedge. “I’m like, ‘That’s cool, all right,’” DeChambeau said. Or maybe all this distance fuss is simply the tail wagging the dog. Either way, it’s created a strange subset of priorities at what in any other universe would have revolved around Tiger and his return to the scene of arguably the most iconic moment in a career filled with iconic moments. Maybe DeChambau will win five green jackets and revolutionize the game with his science-driven brand of golf. Or maybe six months from now, when the golf world returns to Augusta National, the conversation will have drifted to the next experiment. What will not have changed is Tiger’s place in the tournament’s history. There is no shortage of reasons why Tiger’s return to Augusta National has been relatively overshadowed. This celebration was supposed to happen in the spring framed by azaleas and cheered by thousands. Instead we have the early vestiges of fall in the trees and deafening silence. Tiger is still the defending champion. He’s still the engine that drives the game. He’s still the guy who made last year’s Masters so magical. And it’s still 2020.
Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Often in the debate about biological origins, about the mind, and more, we find ourselves tangling with critics who, in their capacity for thoughtful disagreement, leave something to be desired. So neuroscientist Michael Egnor was happy to discover a valid critical response from a viewer of Episode 2 of Science Uprising. The episode counters the materialist idea equating the mind with the brain. In it, Egnor cites a range of research that weighs against that idea.Joshua Veltman, a commenter on YouTube, writes:I don’t necessarily hold to materialism, but, while I find these examples fascinating, they’re not very convincing to me. There are plausible alternative explanations that would still need to be ruled out. For example, although higher thought is not localizable to one region of the brain, it may be distributed to neurons throughout the brain; it doesn’t have to be the result of something immaterial.Science Doesn’t Work That WayEgnor grants that this is possible, as he says over at Mind Matters. The question, though, isn’t whether materialism or its alternative can be “proven” as a matter of science (rather than philosophy). The real issue is which view provides the better explanation:Veltman points out that the non-localization may also be due to a distribution of neurons that mediate abstract thought throughout the brain. It’s a valid objection. My point was that there is an immaterial, as well as a material, perspective on the research and that the immaterial perspective also has considerable explanatory power. In some cases, the immaterial explanation has greater explanatory power than the material explanation.Experimental science does not prove anything. Interpretation of experiments depends upon inferential reasoning, not (primarily) on deductive reasoning. But when you look carefully at the inferential reasoning and the neuroscience, you can make a lot of sense out of a lot of neuroscience by assuming that abstract thought is in immaterial power of the mind. There may indeed be material explanations (at least from the perspective of neuroscience) but the simplest and most convincing explanation for the results of many experiments is that abstract thought is an immaterial power, not a material power, of the mind.That makes sense. It’s only the insistence on materialism that, for no very good reason, sets up a roadblock to considering the “simplest and most convincing explanation.” The search for the truth about nature is the definition of science by any reasonable standard. We should be permitted, as the dictum goes, variously attributed to Plato and Neil deGrasse Tyson, to “follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”Read the rest at Mind Matters. And find Episode 2 here: Photo: Michael Egnor, Stony Brook University, in a scene from Episode 2, Science Uprising. Tagsabstract thoughtbraincriticshigher thoughtJoshua VeltmanmaterialismMichael EgnormindMind MattersnatureNeil deGrasse TysonneurosciencephilosophyPlatoscienceScience UprisingStony Brook Universitytruth,Trending Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Share Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Recommended Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Neuroscience & Mind Science Uprising — Michael Egnor Responds to a (Thoughtful) CriticDavid [email protected]_klinghofferJune 25, 2019, 5:07 PM A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All
Editor’s note: The staff of Evolution News wish you a Happy New Year! We are counting down our top ten stories of 2019. If you haven’t done so yet, please take a moment now to contribute to our work in bringing you news and analysis about evolution, intelligent design, and more every day of the year. There is no other voice, no other source of information, like ours. Thank you for your friendship and your support!The following article was originally published here on November 25, 2019.Yesterday’s conversation between David Berlinski and Ben Shapiro, an hour long thanks to the generous medium of Shapiro’s Sunday Special, is so full of treasures, it’s hard to distill it down to an essence. But I’ll try. One theme, which Dr. Berlinski expands on in his new book Human Nature, is the unexpected return of the primitive in modern life. By modern he means from about 1914 on, in areas ranging from warfare to science to personal adornment and beyond. “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Recommended Culture & Ethics David points to the sudden collapse of Enlightenment values in the face of barbarism in the 20th century that, in 1912, no informed man or woman could ever have predicted. He would ask Steven Pinker and other boosters of the Enlightenment: If those values were powerless to stop the horrors of the First World War, of Nazism, of Communism, and more, what good are they? A Primitive Theory of OriginsBerlinski points to the intellectual primitivism of evolutionary biology, in contrast with the great structures of science (mathematics, physics). How about personal adornment? He comments on tattoos: once they were regarded as Neanderthal and a signifier of low social status. Now those associations have flipped. He delightfully invokes his own seniority (age 77) and memories of Columbia University in the late 1960s, the student rebellion and the precipitous “collapse of institutional authority” that put foolish young people in charge instead of scholars and administrators, with a predictable turn toward adolescent chaos. That collapse continues, even accelerating, today. Ben Shapiro mentions that, just the night before they recorded the interview, he was at Stanford University where the now expected mob of rabid children tried to shout him down. Speaking of which, David comments on the “rabidity” of the contemporary social and political scene with its “synthetic anger,” reminiscent of France prior to the Revolution, just before the horror, the bloodletting, the earnest experimentation with genocide got underway.You Must Watch ThisI can’t do David Berlinski, or Ben Shapiro, justice as communicators. Aptly, David mentions at one point that evolutionary theory has only the most primitive explanation of human speech. We can speak. A few of us, vanishingly few, can speak like David Berlinski. As Berlinski asks of speech, beyond the most primitive grunting: Where did that come from? Most of us take its existence for granted. Laughably, evolutionists claim that speech, like other human endowments, is just the fruit of a struggle to compete sexually with your neighbor. Can they really believe such a foolish thing?You must watch this. The hour goes by very quickly. And consider subscribing to The Daily Wire just to hear Berlinski’s answer to the bonus question at the end where Shapiro invites him to comment on “vulgar politics” of the moment. But I’m not going to say more on that, as this is a non-political website where such topics are, like tattoos in former days, themselves taboo. TagsbarbarismBen ShapiroColumbia UniversityCommunismDavid BerlinskiEnlightenmentevolutionFirst World WarFrench RevolutiongenocideHuman Nature (book)human speechinstitutional authoritymodern lifeNazismNeanderthalsprimitivismrabiditysexual competitionsocial statusStanford UniversitySteven PinkerSunday Specialtaboostattooing,Trending Evolution #5 of Our Top Stories of 2019: Shapiro, Berlinski on the Reversion to the Primitive in Modern LifeDavid KlinghofferDecember 28, 2019, 4:38 AM Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Share Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Education
Evolution Are Galápagos Finches “Evolution in Action”?Wolf-Ekkehard LönnigNovember 17, 2020, 9:34 AM “A Particularly Compelling Example” Recommended The generally used term “Darwin’s finches” is a paradigm of a misnomer. See: Frank J. Sulloway (1982): Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend. Journal of the History of Biology 15: 1-53. In contrast, the more rarely used but definitely apt term “Galapagos finches” is correct as, for example, the Hawaiian honeycreepers. “The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.” “Attractive in presentation and authoritative in content, Science and Creationism will be useful to anyone concerned about America’s scientific literacy: education policymakers, school boards and administrators, curriculum designers, librarians, teachers, parents, and students.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230204/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/ Already in its title the book confuses creationism with intelligent-design theory. For a longer review of the 1999 edition see http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1131. See also Behe, https://evolutionnews.org/2016/10/philosophical_o/.National Academies Press (17 November 2017).http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/tssp/Science,%20Evolution,%20amd%20Creationism.pdfhttps://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/school-enrollment.htmlhttps://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/resources, https://ncse.ngo/review-science-evolution-and-creationismhttps://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1#vii (all chapters available), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/figure/mmm00010/?report=objectonly, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/figure/mmm00010/?report=objectonlyB. K. Halland B. Hallgrimsson (2014): Strickberger’s Evolution. Fifth Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Burlington.https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.1089: “Whereas Darwin thought that a new species would take a considerable amount of time to appear, Keller says that this paper “shows how rapidly reproductive isolation can develop.” The Grants aren’t yet ready to call 5110’s lineage a new species, a term fraught with difficulty for evolutionary biologists. “There is no non-arbitrary answer to the question of how many generations should elapse before we declare the reproductively isolated lineage to be a new species,” they say. “For the present it is functioning as a [separate] species because its members are breeding only with each other.”https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421145759.htm. Sangeet Lamichhaney, Fan Han, Jonas Berglund, Chao Wang, Markus Sällman Almén, Matthew T. Webster, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, Leif Andersson. A beak size locus in Darwin’s finches facilitated character displacement during a drought. Science, 2016 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad8786. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share In the second edition, the Galápagos finches (aka, Darwin’s finches) are addressed as follows (1999, pp. 10/11): Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis An accompanying figure seeks to convince the students ad oculus with the note: “The different species of finches on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches, have different-sized beaks that have evolved to take advantage of distinct food sources.”7 A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. [Emphasis added.] TagsDarwin’s finchesGalápagos finchesGalápagos Finches seriesGalápagos IslandsHarvard UniversityNational Academy of SciencesNature (journal)Peter and Rosemary GrantSangeet LamichhaneyScience and Creationismspeciation,Trending Let us emphasize especially, as quoted above: “The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.” Hall and Hallgrimsson comment in their textbook (2014, p. 411): “By documenting evolution in action in natural populations, the work of the Grants has made profound contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process”8 (emphasis added). Image: Darwin’s finches, via Wikimedia Commons.Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches1 “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts starting today, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here. Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Twenty-one years ago the National Academy of Sciences2 published the second edition of a book called Science and Creationism. This and the following revised editions of 2008 and 20173 are now called Science, Evolution and Creationism.4 The book is widely accepted as an up-to-date guide providing excellent information on the modern theory of evolution, defending it as the absolutely true and only scientific and realistic answer on the origin of species. That is not only for the “76 million students enrolled in U.S. schools”5 in 2020. It is also thought to provide valuable information on the topic for the English-speaking public in general.6 Share Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share In the words of Cressey in a Nature article of 2009: “Darwin’s finches” were “tracked to reveal evolution in action.”9 Or again: “Evolution in action detected in Darwin’s finches.”10 Or Sangeet Lamichhaney of Harvard University (2020): “The results indicated that diversity in HMGA2 gene allowed for a rapid evolution of smaller beak size in medium ground finch, thereby providing an evidence of a gene behind ‘evolution in action’ recorded in real time.”11 For more such examples, simply google the phrases “Galápagos finches” and “Evolution in action.” You will receive many relevant hits. Notes Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Next, “Galápagos Finches and a Surprising Deletion.” Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All
Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup. Sign up for our newsletter and get the best of the Beacon delivered every day to your inbox. A new report says Montana has one of the highest high school dropout rates in the country.The new Kids Count report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation says 9 percent of Montana teens ages 16 to 19 had dropped out of high school, putting Montana in a tie for 44th worst among the states. Montana’s dropout rate in 2000 was 7 percent.Nationally, the dropout rate has fallen from 11 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2008.Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau says her office will take a proposal to the 2011 Legislature to require students to stay in school until they are 18, or until they graduate. Students can now legally drop out when they are 16.She says it’s important for state policy to create an expectation that students graduate from high school. Email