Sunderland won at Stamford Bridge in April 2014Kick-off: 3pm, Saturday 7 May 2016Referee: Mike Jones (Chester)Match in a nutshell: After deciding the title on Monday, Chelsea can have an influence on events at the bottom as they travel to relegation-threatened Sunderland. Newcastle and Norwich will have one eye on the result.Injuries and suspensionsSUNDERLANDRuled out: Billy Jones (hip).CHELSEARuled out: Kurt Zouma (knee), Loic Remy (groin). Possible line-upsSunderland: Mannone; Yedlin, Kone, Kaboul, Van Aanholt; Kirchhoff; Borini, M’Vila, Cattermole, Khazri; Defoe.Subs from: Pickford, Brown, O’Shea, Rodwell, Larsson, Lens, Whatmore, N’Doye, Toivonen.Chelsea: Courtois; Ivanovic, Cahill, Terry, Azpilicueta; Mikel, Fabregas; Pedro, Willian, Hazard; Costa. Subs from: Begovic, Amelia, Miazga, Clarke-Salter, Baba, Matic, Loftus-Cheek, Oscar, Kenedy, Falcao, Pato, Traore. Vital statisticsForm guide – last five league matchesSunderland total: D D W L D (6 points)Home: D L D D W (6 points)Chelsea total: D W L L W (7 points)Away: W L W W W (12 points)Top scorers – all competitionsSunderland: Defoe 17; Borini 4, Fletcher 4, Watmore 4; Lens 3, Van Aanholt 3; Johnson 2, Rodwell 2; Jones 1, Khazri 1, M’Vila 1, N’Doye 1, Toivonen 1.Chelsea: Costa 15; Willian 11; Oscar 8, Pedro 8; Fabregas 5, Hazard 5; Cahill 4, Traore 4; Ramires 3, Remy 3; Azpilicueta 2, Ivanovic 2, Kenedy 2, Loftus-Cheek 2, Zouma 2; Falcao 1, Matic 1, Mikel 1, Pato 1, Terry 1.Last five meetings19 December 2015: Chelsea 3 Sunderland 124 May 2015: Chelsea 3 Sunderland 129 November 2014: Sunderland 0 Chelsea 019 April 2014: Chelsea 1 Sunderland 217 December 2013: Sunderland 2 Chelsea 1Sunderland 2 wins, Chelsea 2 wins, 1 drawFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Creationists looked in what evolutionists called “junk DNA” and found gems. Evolutionists are still looking for their gems in junk mutations.Like gift wrapping, headlines of science articles do not always reveal what’s inside. Some people send dead flowers in pretty boxes to make a statement. Evolutionists are still looking for something beautiful in mutations, as evidenced by this title on PhysOrg: “Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.” As if to avoid embarrassment, the subtitle quickly added, “One of the more difficult aspects of evolution for some people to swallow is the notion that random copying errors in DNA can add up to anything useful.” That’s a clever parlay; the problem is yours, not Darwin’s! (see “Shifting the Burden of Proof” fallacy.)What did reporter Faye Flam offer as proof for this “notion”? Two papers that claim mutated copies of a gene allowed insects to avoid death when ingesting toxins called cardenolides (old news; see 7/25/2012). The “innovation,” therefore, is not a new organ or capability that didn’t exist before, but a reduced vulnerability. The article celebrated this as an “evolutionary trick” that produced “convergent evolution” in different insect lineages. Evolution, though, should produce new species (like Darwin titled his book, The Origin of Species). Flam could not claim that the varieties able to ingest the toxins were new species; in fact, the article confessed at the end, “The way new species are born is another longstanding puzzle in evolution that DNA is helping scientists to solve.” Come back later for the promised proof of innovation.Speaking of Darwin, another press release from the Vienna University of Evolutionary Medicine echoed on Science Daily promised to help Darwin out by showing “New Understandings of How Populations Change Over Time.” The article set the stage with a low drum roll portending disaster (note the ominous reference to “climate change”):Since 1859, when Darwin’s classic work “On the Origin of Species” was published, we have known that populations change over the course of time. The ability to adapt to changing surroundings is the basis for evolution and is crucial for animals and plants to come to terms with new environmental conditions, for example as a consequence of climate change. Despite the obvious importance of the process, however, we still do not understand the underlying mechanisms. It is clear that organisms change their DNA in response to selection pressures. But how?First off, readers may be puzzled why the “But how?” question has not been answered since 1859, since that was the main thing Darwin’s best-seller was supposed to have solved. And second, observers have known long before Darwin that populations change over time. But anyway, where’s the gem in this mutational junkpile? Has Christian Schlötterer rescued Darwin by showing how a random genetic change is linked to genetic changes?Well, yes and no. Schlötterer cruelly subjected fruit flies to cold temperatures and shouted “Evolve or perish!” so to speak. He did find some genetic changes, but didn’t associate them with adaptive benefits. “It will be intriguing to try to find out whether the two categories of gene affect distinct groups of traits,” he said.One of the biggest studies of gene duplication was reported in Science this week. The title is catchy: “Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence” (Näsvall et al., Science 19 October 2012: Vol. 338 no. 6105 pp. 384-387, DOI: 10.1126/science.1226521). There must be gems in this pile! Alas, Elisabeth Pennisi in her review in the same issue was not so sanguine, despite her hopeful title, “Evolution: Gene Duplication’s Role in Evolution Gets Richer, More Complex” (Science 19 October 2012: Vol. 338 no. 6105 pp. 316-317, DOI: 10.1126/science.338.6105.316). The phrase “More complex” is code for “harder to understand.” It’s not a simple victory for Darwin.She discussed Susumi Ohno’s 1970 theory that gene duplication lets the copy evolve, then Michael Lynch’s late-1990s theory that genes with two functions can duplicate and divide the work (subfunctionalization). Nice ideas, but they didn’t satisfy everyone, and are now seen as simplistic. And there were problems: “Given natural selection’s tendency to purge unnecessary genes, how would the gene copy stick around long enough to take on a new or subfunction?” Hold it; wasn’t that the claim behind junk DNA?The details about how Näsvall et al. coaxed a bacteria to make tryptophan from precursors when a gene for making it was disabled, and how it had to wait for the right mutation to arrive by promoting duplication, are described in Pennisi’s article. The point of the experiment, though was to show innovation, not just getting back to where the bacterium was before a gene was broken. The researchers stated that two mutations were required to produce the “innovation” (which was actually more like a “restoration” of a deleted function).Other scientists called this “a nice, elegant experimental system” (sounding like faint praise), but were not convinced it’s a general principle applicable outside the bacterial world. “No matter what, Näsvall’s experiment will encourage more experimental tests of gene-duplication scenarios,” someone said (translation: send more funding).Empty promises, endless promissory notes, why do we trust these guys? Where is the really big innovation attributable to mutations? Duplications are a form of mutation, but just because you get a second copy of a text message on your smartphone, it doesn’t mean the second one will evolve into a new, helpful message when cosmic rays hit it. This is all wishful thinking in dreamland, hyped by ideologues with power. Darwin was supposed to explain the big things– the trunk on the elephant, the wing on the bird, the brain in the Einstein. All we get are tiny, questionable instances of possible adaptive changes in bacteria (remember that bacteria can swap information through lateral gene transfer, and may have designed mechanisms to control their own mutations). These get wildly extrapolated into vast scenarios of evolution, completely unwarranted by the meager data that is often subject to interpretation. But they KNOW that there’s enough innovation in that junkpile of mistakes to explain elephants, birds and humans, why? Because EVOLUTION IS A FACT! Now you know why living in Darwinland is like being trapped in a cult compound. (Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Manjit Singh was a proud man after winning a historic gold medal for India at the Asian Games 2018 in Jakarta, Indonesia on Tuesday.Manjit Singh won gold while Jinson Johnson won silver in the men’s 800 metre race as Indian athletes continued to dominate the tracks in Indonesia.”Expected to win a gold. My preparations were good so expected to beat not just Jinson but others too. We are good friends, Jinson is a good athlete. It’s a gift for me and more importantly it’s for my country. I want to win gold in Olympics as well,” Manjit said.Manjit clocked 1:46.15 while Johnson clocked 1:46.35 to make it a memorable double for India.ASIAN GAMES DAY 10 WRAP | HIGHLIGHTSPlenty was expected from Majit and Johnson and they did not disappoint.ASIAN GAMES 2018 FULL COVERAGE | MEDALSThis is the third time India have won two medals in the men’s 800m race at the Asian Games.In 1951, Ranjit Singh had won gold while Kulwant Singh won silver. In 1962, Daljit Singh won a silver medal and Amrit Pal finished with a bronze.Asian Games 2018: India win silver in first ever Mixed 4x400m relayOverall, this was India’s sixth gold medal in the men’s 800m race.In June, Johnson ran one of the most memorable races in recent times as he smashed legendary Sriram Singh’s 42-year-old 800m record, the oldest one in Indian athletics, to steal the spotlight on the second day of the 58th National Inter State Senior Athletics Championships in Guwahati. His effort there had helped him book a ticket for the Asian Games as the qualification mark was 1:47.50.advertisement”Very happy with our performance to win gold and silver. We were targetting a podium finish. Manjit did very well, we wished each other to do well before the race,” Johnson said.
In an effort to improve the island’s Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (MSME) sector, the Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ) has partnered with two entities to assist them with implementing standards and/or quality systems within their organisations. To this end, two Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed on January 17, between the BSJ and the Jamaica Manufacturers’ Association (JMA); and the BSJ and the Jamaica Business Development Corporation (JBDC) at the Ministry of Industry, Investment and Commerce, in Kingston. The initiative falls under the BSJ partnership programme, which was conceptualised in 2010 and is designed to enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs in using standards. Speaking at the signing ceremony, Portfolio Minister, Hon. Anthony Hylton, said the undertaking signals a demonstration of the commitment of all the parties to improving Jamaica’s ability to trade, through the implementation of standards and quality systems. He said the BSJ will invest its resources in offering technical assistance to MSMEs to train them to implement standards/quality within their organisations. “Quality management system has become a buzz terminology in the business environment as the value of systems and procedures is recognised. The success of any quality system requires the total commitment of management and the entire organisation,” he emphasised. The Minister said it has long been established that MSMEs have been major contributors to economic growth in any developing country. “As Jamaica faces serious challenges in our trade deficit with our international partners, we must strengthen the ability of these MSMEs to engage in international trade. It is therefore fundamental that there is a greater level of partnership between private and public sector entities and increased collaboration within public sector entities,” Mr. Hylton argued. Meanwhile, Executive Director, BSJ, Yvonne Hall, said creating a level of awareness regarding the importance of standards is critical in building the island’s business sector. “We are mindful of the various challenges faced by the business sector and especially the MSMEs. We have committed to embarking on a more collaborative approach to overcoming these many challenges,” she added. For his part, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, JBDC, Harold Davis, said the knowledge and application of international quality standards for MSMEs cannot be overemphasised and is paramount to the success of the sector. “Ultimately, we hope that this MoU and the work that is to ensue from (it) will improve the quality of the offerings from the sector, facilitating increased trade, both locally and internationally, and (will) lead towards a sustained, competitive and growing MSME sector,” he said. In his remarks, President of the JMA, Brian Pengelley, said both parties have ensured that the two-year agreement is practical and will deliver results. “The JMA is in the process of identifying trainers to be trained from within the industry along with staff members from the JMA, who will deliver training to over 50 manufacturers,” he said. The BSJ is a statutory body established by the Standards Act of 1968 to promote and encourage standardization in relation to commodities, processes and practices. However, over the years, its role has been expanded to include the provision of services in relation to conformity assessment (certification, inspection and testing, and calibration) and metrology. Its main activities include: facilitating the development of standards and other requirements to which particular commodities, services, practices and processes must comply; monitoring for compliance; conducting tests and calibrating instruments; certifying products and management systems; providing industrial training; and promoting research and education in standardization.