Information

15.10: Why It Matters- Theory of Evolution - Biology

15.10: Why It Matters- Theory of Evolution - Biology


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Why explain the theory of evolution, which documents the change in the genetic makeup of a biological population over time?

Have you ever wondered why doctors say you should get a new flu shot every year? It’s just the same old flu virus right? How much could it change from year to year?

Unfortunately, it’s not just the same old flu virus—and it often changes a lot from year to year. When the flu vaccine does its work, killing the current iteration of the flu, it typically does a good job and saves its host from illness. However, as it wipes out the majority of flu viruses, the only ones that are left are those that are resistant to the current virus, which means the overall make up of the population of flu viruses has changed: the population has evolved to become resistant to one anti-viral treatment, so another must be found.

Of course, while the theory of evolution can be applied to viruses, it is more often discussed in the context of living things: bacteria, plants, animals, and even humans. The theory of evolution began as a revolutionary idea, but it remains central to the study of biology. Evolution is the unifying concept in biology. This theory documents the change in the genetic makeup of a biological population over time. Evolution helps us understand the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and other parasitic organisms. The following are just a few of the antibiotic resistant “bugs” plaguing humans.

  • Antibiotic-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB)
  • Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
  • Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE)
  • Multidrug-Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Gonorrhea)

While evolution is easiest to see in bacteria due to their short life cycles, every living population experiences evolution of one kind or another. Let’s see just how the world we live in has guided the evolutionary process.

Learning Outcomes

  • Describe the work of Charles Darwin in the Galapagos Islands, especially his discovery of natural selection in finch populations
  • Describe how the theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by evidence
  • Recognize that mutations are the basis of microevolution; and that adaptations enhance the survival and reproduction of individuals in a population
  • Read and analyze a phylogenetic tree that documents evolutionary relationships

Biogeography: Studying the Distribution of Species Across Space

00:00:07.06 Hi.
00:00:08.06 My name is Uma Ramakrishnan and I'm an associate professor at the National Centre for Biological
00:00:12.22 Sciences in Bangalore, India.
00:00:15.18 This is a research institute where we study biology, and I've come all the way from there
00:00:20.17 to tell you a little bit about biogeography and the work that we do on understanding biodiversity
00:00:27.12 in the Indian subcontinent.
00:00:29.13 So, anywhere you live, if you look outside your window, you'll see many different species.
00:00:35.06 This is biodiversity.
00:00:36.06 And as humans we're fascinated by biodiversity.
00:00:40.16 And biogeography actually is a field which studies the distribution of species and biodiversity
00:00:47.03 across space.
00:00:48.10 And, you know. you know immediately, even as a child, that certain places have more
00:00:56.10 species than others, the species in a particular place seem to be similar, and so on.
00:01:01.05 You observe these things almost naturally.
00:01:04.05 And this is basically how we measure biodiversity and how we study it.
00:01:08.09 We try and quantify biodiversity and look at why places have more biodiversity than
00:01:14.08 do others.
00:01:15.15 So, how do we quantify biodiversity?
00:01:18.11 How do we actually use mathematical ways to study patterns of biodiversity, statistical
00:01:24.19 ways, across the world?
00:01:27.09 So, the first thing we do is we actually count the number of species, right?
00:01:33.09 This is something which has often been controversial in biology.
00:01:36.11 How do we know what is a species?
00:01:38.05 A taxonomist. as humans, we have this desire to put things in boxes and say, this is one
00:01:44.19 species, this is another. and in some cases this might be relatively easy.
00:01:49.03 For example, with apes, you know, the gibbon. gibbons look very different from gorillas
00:01:55.20 and chimpanzees and modern humans.
00:01:57.15 And when we look at their DNA there are several of these differences which are reflected,
00:02:03.01 allowing us to build a phylogenetic tree.
00:02:05.08 We heard about this also, for example, in Scott Edwards' talk.
00:02:09.21 So, this allows us to understand that there are multiple species of apes which look different
00:02:16.24 and are genetically different, distinct, as well.
00:02:20.10 This may not always be the case.
00:02:22.14 For example, this really beautiful examples of a ring species, salamanders in California.
00:02:30.03 It shows you, here, that across their distribution these different salamanders look slightly
00:02:36.08 different and yet similar, right?
00:02:38.04 So, here, speciation or these different species are along a continuum, right?
00:02:44.05 They look slightly different. one looks slightly different from the other and so on.
00:02:48.19 So, it's not always easy to classify species, but, overall, we use various tools: morphology,
00:02:55.19 how species and individuals. how individuals in a population look genetics, how different
00:03:00.20 or similar their DNA is and it could be several other forms of behavior -- do they have similar
00:03:06.12 songs, if they're birds, and so on -- and we use all of these bits of information to
00:03:11.19 make an informed guess about whether we think sets of individuals are distinct species or
00:03:17.10 not.
00:03:18.10 For the sake of correctness, I should tell you that the biological species concept proposed
00:03:23.06 by Ernst.
00:03:24.06 Ernst Mayr is what we accept, and this suggests that a species is a group of individuals that
00:03:29.14 can and do interbreed with each other in nature.
00:03:32.11 So, not if you put them together in a zoo, but in nature you do find them interbreeding.
00:03:38.10 And, as we said, species could look similar or different, but at some point we take a
00:03:44.14 call and we say, okay, this is a species and these two populations are not distinct enough
00:03:49.08 to be a species.
00:03:50.17 So, once we have catalogued species -- that's the first thing we have to do, these are our
00:03:55.07 primary data -- we measure biodiversity in units of species.
00:04:00.23 So, how do species actually evolve?
00:04:04.03 I mean, we said, okay, they look different or, you know, they're genetically different.
00:04:09.06 Well, this has also been a field of extensive study in evolutionary biology and you made
00:04:13.16 have seen a talk as part of this series by Hopi Hoekstra, who's actually trying to understand
00:04:18.01 how these differences between how species look/evolve from a genetic perspective, right?
00:04:24.03 Adaptation from a DNA level.
00:04:26.19 But this picture, here, shows you a really simple kind of theoretical idea of speciation.
00:04:33.09 So, the most basic is allopatry, over here, where you can see that there's two pop.
00:04:39.03 there's a population and suddenly, potentially, there's a barrier between two parts of this
00:04:45.03 population, maybe a road came up or there was a. a. a, you know, a rift or something
00:04:50.01 like that, a river.
00:04:52.00 And now, individuals on either side of this barrier develop different adaptations or they
00:04:59.16 become different.
00:05:01.13 And so, when they meet again, say, when this barrier disappears, they don't interbreed
00:05:05.23 with each other.
00:05:06.23 So, this has now resulted in the creation of two species from what was a single population,
00:05:12.24 right?
00:05:13.24 So, this is a case of allopatric speciation, and often what we see most commonly in nature.
00:05:21.13 On the other hand, speciation could theoretically also be sympatric, where you have a new, for
00:05:27.14 some reason, change.
00:05:30.12 ecological change, maybe, or adaptation. of some individuals in one of this. in this
00:05:35.16 population, and this results in differentiation and, over time, these differences became.
00:05:42.05 become so large that these two populations do not interbreed.
00:05:47.06 An example for this is the [unknown] flies, or the apple flies, and the Hawthorn flies,
00:05:53.00 which lay their eggs on different fruits.
00:05:55.23 Apple and Hawthorn [flies] are just coexisting, so they're sympatric, these flies, and yet,
00:06:02.11 you know, they do become. could become different species.
00:06:05.01 There are kinds of shades and grades of these two examples, where you could have speciation
00:06:10.13 in peripatry or parapatry, a creation of a new niche or a certain kind of budding off
00:06:16.24 of a set of individuals and so on, a range expansion.
00:06:21.06 But, basically, the mechanisms are somewhere between sympatry and allopatry.
00:06:26.21 While these are nice examples from a theoretical, hot perspective, what do we know about speciation?
00:06:34.06 So, early on, Dodd did experiments with Drosophila where, you know, different populations of
00:06:41.00 flies were given two different kinds of food and, over time, these two flies. fly populations
00:06:49.23 became differentiated and then they developed mating preferences, so flies from population
00:06:56.16 1 didn't want to mate with flies from population 2 and vice versa.
00:07:00.23 So, this is very important because it shows that not only did they become different, they
00:07:06.17 developed reproductive preferences and, potentially, reproductive isolation -- what's most important
00:07:13.04 for the lack of gene flow of mating, in the end, between two species.
00:07:18.00 So, now I'll go. we go back to biogeography, which is basically the distribution of species
00:07:26.14 on our planet, right?
00:07:28.08 So, how do we actually study this?
00:07:30.17 In a sense, it's one of those. the most basic things.
00:07:34.04 Even before people thought about DNA or evolution, a lot of naturalists walked all over the world
00:07:41.19 and did surveys and catalogued interesting things about biodiversity.
00:07:47.17 Alexander von Humboldt was one of these people and he basically did a lot of explorations
00:07:54.10 and studies in South America, and this beautiful illustration he has of this mountain, Chimborazo,
00:08:02.13 in South America, which is a volcanic mountain, which goes really high -- 6200 or so meters
00:08:09.03 -- he shows that, actually, as you go up the mountain, the ecological environment changes
00:08:14.15 dramatically.
00:08:15.15 So, you can see, for example, at the top of this mountain, you have snow, right?
00:08:19.20 And that's not there at the bottom of the mountain it doesn't seem to be covered with
00:08:24.06 snow at all.
00:08:25.11 So, what Humboldt did was he also catalogued the plants at the. along this mountain.
00:08:32.13 He was a botanist and he said, well, it seems to be that there are very different species,
00:08:37.09 very different sets of species, which occur across this mountain, and this famous and
00:08:41.20 really beautiful illustration he made kind of shows this, shows the community of plants
00:08:46.24 associated with these environmental gradients.
00:08:50.17 And so, Humboldt thought early on that ecology, or differences in habitat, might be important
00:08:57.06 to determine where species are distributed.
00:09:02.03 The father of evolutionary biology, Darwin, also had contributions to thinking about biogeography.
00:09:08.01 So, Darwin, as you know, went on this really long voyage across the world on the Beagle.
00:09:15.21 And he. while he was going on this voyage, he thought about all the species present along
00:09:21.11 this route.
00:09:22.11 And he actually happened to go to South America and then later to the Galapagos Islands, and
00:09:28.21 when he did that he noticed something really interesting.
00:09:31.17 He saw many birds on the Galapagos Islands.
00:09:34.08 They look similar to the ones he'd seen on the mainland and yet different, right?
00:09:39.06 So, Darwin realized that, potentially, the species that occur in a location may be there
00:09:45.16 because of history, because they're colonizing from somewhere close by, and so the finches
00:09:51.19 are similar to those on the mainland and yet they're different.
00:09:59.04 Most interestingly, also, Alfred Russel Wallace, around the same time as Darwin. he was a
00:10:05.03 codiscoverer of the theory of natural selection with Darwin, they chanced upon the idea together,
00:10:10.01 in the same ti. not together, but the same. at similar times. was also a very avid explorer
00:10:16.13 and he also studied distributions of species across the world.
00:10:22.01 And what he did was he actually realized that certain sets of species seemed to be most
00:10:28.20 similar to each other and these sets of species seemed to occur in similar locations, okay?
00:10:34.24 So, he tried to group the species in the world into bins, in a sense, not just one species
00:10:41.21 but sets of species.
00:10:43.06 And he, for example, suggested that all of the Orient, which is Southeast Asia and India,
00:10:50.11 was one biogeographic zone or grouping.
00:10:55.06 And it's interesting to note that, very recently, in 2013, Holt and other authors actually kind
00:11:01.15 of reevaluated Wallace's ideas of these biogeographic zones based on modern DNA phylogeny.
00:11:09.10 So, Alfred Russel Wallace and Darwin are pre-DNA -- they didn't know anything about, you know,
00:11:15.10 the kind of hereditary material that we know so much about today, which we use to study
00:11:19.20 evolution.
00:11:21.03 And they also found very similar results to what Wallace had found so many years ago.
00:11:28.24 So, now we can look, then. we are looking with modern tools of GIS and DNA and so on,
00:11:37.12 and we can now look at biodiversity and ask questions in biogeography.
00:11:42.12 And this actually shows you a distribution of vertebrate species across the world, and
00:11:48.19 you can see immediately, anyone can see, that some areas have more diversity than others,
00:11:55.12 and this tends to be in the tropics.
00:11:57.12 So, of course, here, the colder colors or blues are areas with lower numbers of species
00:12:03.02 and the warmer reds are regions with higher numbers of species.
00:12:08.06 What I'm also going to try and convince you is that if you actually were to plot onto
00:12:13.12 this map mountain rangers, you would see that mountain ranges tend to correlate with areas
00:12:20.04 where there are high species, and we'll come back to this in a little bit.
00:12:25.01 There's other ways to look at species, right?
00:12:28.00 You can just count all of them, but you can also ask whether some places have more restricted-range
00:12:34.22 species, or higher endemism.
00:12:36.24 Do some places have more special species, which are not found anywhere else?
00:12:41.09 This is also an important thing for us to understand when thinking about biog. biogeography
00:12:46.12 and biodiversity.
00:12:47.12 So, we can quantify this by quantifying endemism, or how restricted a species' range is to a
00:12:54.12 geographic location.
00:12:57.05 And when we do this, again, we find, you know, really interesting patterns.
00:13:01.00 We find, for example, superimposing our mountains, again, that endemism, or special species,
00:13:07.23 tend to be found also in areas where there are mountains and, very interestingly, also
00:13:14.18 on islands, okay?
00:13:16.14 So, islands, mountains, and the tropics seem to be important for presence of species.
00:13:25.07 So, how do we actually study why there's more biodiversity in a particular location?
00:13:30.14 So, okay. so, why may there be more species in a particular place?
00:13:34.12 Well, clearly there's more speciation there.
00:13:38.03 Maybe there's less extinction.
00:13:39.20 Speciation increases the number of species while extinction might decrease the number
00:13:44.00 of species.
00:13:45.00 So, clearly, the balance or diversification. the balance between speciation and extinction
00:13:51.12 must be high.
00:13:52.12 There must be a net positive rate or diversification.
00:13:56.08 And we can actually quantify speciation rate and extinction by looking at phylogenies.
00:14:02.09 And so, in this paper, Rolland et al tried to do this, and what we did was they contrasted
00:14:08.16 the net accumulation of biodiversity, or diversification, amongst the tropics and amongst the temperate
00:14:16.01 regions.
00:14:17.10 And what you can see here, in this really beautiful graph is, if you look at speciation,
00:14:23.04 it's higher in the tropics, extinction seems to be much higher in the temperate regions,
00:14:30.06 and so, overall, on an average, it appears like diversification -- that's net diversification
00:14:36.07 over there -- is much higher in the tropics.
00:14:39.05 So, this suggests that the tropics are cradles of diversity, which means that new species
00:14:48.12 are being created here, right?
00:14:50.12 They're also museums -- there's less extinction, so they retain these species over longer periods
00:14:56.18 of time.
00:14:57.18 So, because they're both cradles and museums, tropic regions, overall, tend to have higher
00:15:03.05 biodiversity.
00:15:04.05 Islands, as we pointed out earlier, are also a really interesting case.
00:15:10.00 This is a very interesting figure from a review, a recent review, by Losos and Ricklefs, where
00:15:15.24 they actually suggest a model for how something like this may happen.
00:15:20.07 They basically verbalized what Darwin thought those many years ago, that you may have a
00:15:25.10 finch which moves from the mainland onto one island.
00:15:29.23 These islands are different and so it manages to disperse to all these islands over time.
00:15:35.10 And then, slowly, these finches or birds maybe differentiate over time, they become adapted
00:15:42.23 to the conditions on that particular island.
00:15:46.04 And then, maybe, if there's further speciation in allopatry, you have recolonization of these
00:15:52.23 different birds across these different islands, now, and further speciation.
00:15:56.23 So, islands are really nice because they're actually models to study speciation.
00:16:02.12 So, because they're small and they're in the ocean, environmental conditions can vary very
00:16:08.01 dramatically on islands, and any of you who've been to an island know it's suddenly raining
00:16:12.15 or suddenly there's a storm, so it's. they're very easy to see environmental changes on.
00:16:18.17 At the same time, because there are many islands, often, in a sea, there are natural barriers
00:16:24.15 which exist between islands, so we can clearly see a role for history -- there's a mainland
00:16:30.13 close by -- ecology -- differences between islands or within an island -- and things
00:16:36.22 like dispersal, right, where differences can actually come based on islands across space.
00:16:42.15 So, let's look at a couple of examples of speciation and its study on islands.
00:16:48.23 So, you know, one of the most biodiverse islands we have in the world is Madagascar.
00:16:56.15 It's a really interesting place because it has a very unique set of species found nowhere
00:17:01.21 else.
00:17:02.21 And I show you, here, a map of. of. a picture of birds -- these are called vangas
00:17:11.03 -- and these have diversified on Madagascar.
00:17:12.23 So, you can see, below, there, there's a map which shows the different kind of ecological
00:17:18.22 conditions or habitats within Madagascar.
00:17:21.12 And, here, you can see a phylogeny, a DNA-based tree, of all these birds, which allows us
00:17:28.02 to infer who evolved from whom, and who colonized which environment first, and so on.
00:17:34.12 And so here we can see an example of ecological speciation, right?
00:17:39.21 Diversification of these birds into different niches, different habitats on this island
00:17:45.23 of Madagascar.
00:17:46.23 And, actually, if you look at Madagascar, there's also incredibly rich vertebrate diversity,
00:17:55.01 in terms of reptiles and amphibians, and these maps on this side actually show you those
00:18:01.06 types of diversity.
00:18:02.09 They show you where there are more or less species, and you can see, for example, that
00:18:07.09 diversity tends to be high in some environments -- higher that, say, in other.
00:18:11.23 So, wetter environments, which you can see below, actually tend to have higher diversity
00:18:16.13 than drier environments.
00:18:17.17 So, again, examples of ecologically driven speciation within an island, and a place with
00:18:24.13 high biodiversity.
00:18:27.11 On the other hand, you can also have geographic examples of speciation.
00:18:31.05 So, here we see these insects on the Hawaiian island chain.
00:18:37.07 So, the nice thing about the Hawaiian island chain is the different islands have different
00:18:42.12 ages, right?
00:18:43.21 So, the oldest island is Kauai and the youngest island is Hawaii, and you can look and see
00:18:52.07 this, also, in the phylogeny.
00:18:54.00 So, for example, the authors have very nicely colored these islands in different colors
00:19:01.04 and the insects found on those islands are in the phylogeny in the same color.
00:19:05.16 So, if you look down, for example, you can see. you can this order, you can see green,
00:19:11.03 orange, purple, blue, and red, right?
00:19:15.17 So, in terms of time, the oldest island is green and then there's orange and then there's
00:19:21.22 purple and then there's blue and then there's red.
00:19:24.09 And you can see that reflected in the phylogenetic tree as well.
00:19:28.11 So, speciation has progressed with time and you have these different islands being colonized
00:19:34.17 and these different species diverging across the Hawaiian island chain.
00:19:39.12 So, lineages, or sets of individuals which are closer together from a DNA perspective,
00:19:45.22 are related on an island, younger lineages are on younger islands, and genetic data kind
00:19:51.16 of helps us explore the history of speciation on these islands.
00:19:56.24 So, now.
00:19:59.08 I've been kind of alternating between mountains and islands, slipping in the fact that mountain
00:20:04.21 ranges have high biodiversity.
00:20:06.21 Why was I doing this?
00:20:08.05 Well, it turns out as Humboldt showed us, and this is an example from the U.S., the
00:20:15.22 Southwest, mountains also have "islands", they have habitat islands.
00:20:21.06 As you go up a mountain, you can see that the habitat or the ecology actually changes
00:20:27.00 -- higher parts of the mountain are different than the lower parts of the mountain.
00:20:32.09 And so you might imagine that, ecologically, species would become adapted to live in these
00:20:38.10 specialized environments.
00:20:40.13 And then, if you looked at the mountain range, that's like a set of islands, kind of like
00:20:45.17 Hawaii in a sense, right?
00:20:48.00 So, it might be interesting to try and explore patterns of speciation, or the accumulation
00:20:53.15 of biodiversity, in mountain chains.
00:20:57.07 And this is what I'm going to talk to you about in terms of our research, but the best
00:21:00.20 part of it all is the history of this speciation is actually written in the DNA of these species,
00:21:07.19 of the populations which actually live on these islands.
00:21:11.11 A way to look at their past is through sequencing their DNA.
00:21:15.23 Umm. this is also important it's not just fun.
00:21:19.12 But, uhh. you know, our existence as humans is critically dependent on biodiversity.
00:21:25.09 There are many studies which show us, now, that human well-being, not just from an aesthetic
00:21:31.03 perspective, but in terms of our ecosystem services and many, many things, is critically
00:21:35.21 dependent on biodiversity, and this allows us to really prioritize studying areas of
00:21:42.18 high biodiversity.
00:21:44.05 It's important to us it's not just interesting.
00:21:47.16 And these can be classified globally as biodiversity hotspots, not just regions where there is
00:21:53.15 higher. high biodiversity, but also regions where there are threats to this biodiversity.
00:21:59.10 And two of the regions I'm going to talk to you about today happen to be biodiversity
00:22:03.07 hotspots -- the Western Ghats, which is in India and Southern India, and the Himalayas,
00:22:09.03 which is the in the northern part of Asia.
00:22:10.23 So, uhh.
00:22:12.00 I guess what I'm trying to say is that, you know, we're really interested in understanding
00:22:16.06 biodiversity, but it's also critically important from a conservation perspective.
00:22:20.11 This understanding, we hope, will help us to think about how we can save these species
00:22:26.02 in the future.
00:22:27.02 So, I'll just summarize and uhh. kind of give a leap into our research questions, which
00:22:32.17 I'm going to talk about in the next part of this talk.
00:22:36.09 Biodiversity is higher in the tropics, in mountain ranges, and in islands, and the barriers
00:22:42.12 which cause allopatric speciation, or the creation of biodiversity, could be physical
00:22:47.07 or ecological.
00:22:49.19 But what still remains for us to explore is whether what's driving speciation is really
00:22:56.02 different or the same in various locations across the world.
00:23:00.01 And you saw, for example, that study. you know. from Madagascar on vangas, right?
00:23:07.19 It's a particular type of bird.
00:23:10.02 But you could also think about this from the perspective of all the species which live
00:23:14.06 in a location.
00:23:15.15 Do they all respond similarly to these different barriers or changes in ecology?
00:23:22.07 How generalizable are these patterns?
00:23:24.22 How important are physical differences?
00:23:26.07 Are they more important to some species versus others, or not?
00:23:30.21 And this is what I'm going to talk about in the next talk.
00:23:34.02 Thank you.


The Main Arguments of Evolution Theory

International Management Prof. dr. Niels Noorderhaven Lecture 1 Agenda • • • 1. 2. 3. Introduction and organizational matters Does “international” still matter? Conceptual foundations of international business strategy (1) • • Case: Honda in the USA Literature: Textbook chapter 1 (pp 13-33 + 59-62) Team Lectures Niels Noorderhaven Cases Fons Naus Ana Aranda Gutierrez Zhengyu Li Teaching strategy Complementarity of lectures – readings • Individual case participation • Each lecture, one or several cases from the book will be expanded to put the theory into practice • Importance of research articles Grading • 70% MC exam – See Study manual for correction formula • Exam dates December 13, 2012 and April 12, 2013 • 30% 2 Interactive lectures – individual participation • Interactive lectures grades of 2010 and 2011 can be transferred Book • http://www. cambridge. rg/features/management/verbeke/ Does “international” still matter? 7 Transportation & communication costs fall 17 September 2012 8 Tariffs fall, anti-dumping measures rise anti- 17 September 2012 9 Globalization Theory: • Linguistic, trade and cultural barriers become less important • ‘Stateless’ MNCs • Within MNCs worldwide diffusion of technologies, knowledge and information Convergence of world economies 17 September 2012 10 Why is nationality important to people? Individual identity and social identity • Three processes of social identity formation: • social categorization • social comparison • social identification • (Self-)categorization: what is the salient category? 17 September 2012 11 Why is nationality important to people? • Positive stereotyping of “in-group”, negative stereotyping of “out-group” • Nationality differences are particularly salient when people have no common history • Nationality then becomes a source for one’s own identity and for the ascribed identity of the other 7 September 2012 12 Does “international” still matter? Yes, because …. • Cultural , institutional and language differences persist • Leading to differences in (business) decision making • Nationality forms an important basis for social categorization processes • Leading to shortcuts like cultural attribution and stereotyping With the effect that doing business across borders is different than domestic business 13 Conceptual foundations of international business strategy 4 Definition of international business strategy International business strategy means effectively and efficiently matching a multinational enterprise’s (MNE’s) internal strengths (relative to competitors) with the opportunities and challenges found in geographically dispersed environments that cross international borders. Such matching is a precondition to creating value and satisfying stakeholder goals, both domestically and internationally. 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS (1) Introduction and overview of the book’s framework • Part one: Core concepts (1) Conceptual foundations of international business strategy (2) The critical role of firm-specific advantages (3) The nature of home country location advantages (4) The problem with host country location advantages (5) Combining firm-specific advantages and location advantages in an MNE network 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS (2) • Part two: Functional issues (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) International innovation International sourcing and production International finance International marketing Managing managers in the multinational enterprise 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (3) • Part three: Dynamics of global strategy (11) Entry mode dynamics 1: foreign distributors (12) Entry mode dynamics 2: strategic alliance partners (13) Entry mode dynamics 3: mergers and acquisitions (14) The role of emerging economies (15a) International strategies of corporate social responsibility (15b) International strategies of environmental sustainability 18 The seven concepts of the unifying framework • • • • • • Internationally transferable (or non-location bound) firmspecific advantages (FSAs) Non-transferable (or location-bound) FSAs Location advantages Investment in – and value creation through – recombination Complementary resources of external actors Bounded rationality Bounded reliability The MNE’s unique resource base • Physical resources (natural resources, buildings, plant equipment). • Financial resources (equity and loan capital) • Human resources (individuals and teams, entrepreneurial and operational skills). Upstream knowledge (sourcing knowledge, product and process-related technological knowledge). • Downstream knowledge (marketing, sales, distribution and after sales service). • Administrative knowledge (organizational structure, culture and systems). • Reputational resources (brand names, reputation for honest business dealings). International transferability of FSAs? • Paradox: If the FSA consists of easily codifiable knowledge (i. e. , if it can be articulated explicitly, as in a handbook or blueprint), then it can be cheaply transferred abroad, but it can also be easily imitated by other firms.

Though expensive and time-consuming to transfer tacit knowledge across borders, the benefit to the MNE is that this knowledge is also difficult to imitate. It is often a key source of competitive advantage when doing business abroad. Some FSAs are not transferable abroad: location-bound locationFSAs (1) Four main types: • Stand-alone resources linked to location advantages (privileged retail locations). • Local marketing knowledge and reputational resources, such as brand names (may not be applicable to a host country context, or valued to the same extent). Local best practices (i. e. routines), such as incentive systems or buyer-supplier relations (may not work abroad). • Domestic recombination capability (may not work in foreign markets – e. g. , because co-location of resources is needed). Some FSAs are not transferable abroad: location-bound locationFSAs (2) • Even if transferability of the relevant resources were technically possible, this does not mean potential for profitable deployment, i. e. the resource bundles that may be transferable from a technical perspective (e. g. , the way n which a product is marketed at home), do not constitute an FSA abroad. Location advantages • Entire set of strengths of a location, and accessible by firms in that location. • Should always be assessed relative to the strengths of other locations. • Instrumental to FSAs Motivations for foreign expansion • Natural resource seeking – Verbeke: physical, financial or human resources • Market seeking • Strategic resource seeking – e. g. , knowledge, finance • Efficiency seeking – E. g. , low labor cost Case: Honda in the USA Background Prior to 1970s exports of motorcycles and cars • Drivers of foreign production: – Rising value of the yen against US$ – Fear of import restrictions – The Clean Air Act in the US – First oil crisis • Motivation for expansion (natural resource, market, strategic resource, efficiency seeking? ) Honda’s approach • After four-year decision process Honda of America Manufacturing established in Marysville, Ohio, in 1978 • Top priority: attain Japanese-level quality and efficiency – – – – – Selection of employees Training program Fly in managers and workers from Japan Develop lean supplier network Upgrade supplier quality level 1980: start production of cars • Present: 9 production plants in USA Honda’s FSAs • Non-location bound FSAs: – – – – – – – Know-how four-strike engines with optimal power-to-weight ratio Management principles Quality systems Employee selection processes Training and knowledge transfer routines Manufacturing expertise Supplier management approach • • Location-bound FSAs in the host country: – High demand for specific products Resource recombination: – – – Use four-strike engines in many products (motorcycles, small cars, generators, …) Design and manufacturing skills + knowledge of consumer preferences in USA Melding existing and new resources through management exchange program Exploit new capabilities worldwide Complementary resources of external actors • Opportunity to study American way of production at Ford • Extensive use of American experts and consultants (especially for selecting location) • Critical role of suppliers Bounded rationality issues lack of knowledge local conditions • Suppliers’ lack of familiarity with Honda • New employees lack of familiarity with “The Honda Way” Bounded reliability issues • Moral hazard/adverse selection employees • American managers have local priorities Deliberate strategy? Agenda for next lecture 1. 2. 3. 4. Four types of MNEs Recombination Bounded rationality & reliability Firm-specific advantages (FSAs) • Cases: 3M & IKEA • Literature: Textbook chapter 1 (pp 33-76) + chapter 2 NB: Class will be in SZ 31


Why Does “Evolution Theory” Trivialize Everything It Touches?

A couple of evolutionary anthropologists tried their hand recently at illuminating the depths of human anxiety. They started by getting one thing clear right away:

Researchers in our field are trained to think about humans in the same way that we think about chimpanzees, macaques and any other animal on the planet. We recognise that humans, like all other species, evolved in environments that posed many challenges, such as predation, starvation and disease. As such, human psychology is well-adapted to meet these challenges.

Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen, “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity” at Psyche (September 29, 2020)

So humans are just like other animals. Syme and Hagen oppose treating “the common mental afflictions of depression and anxiety as illnesses” when, from their perspective, they are adaptations for evolutionary survival.

Okay, so what’s the big message that everyone else has been missing?

First, evolution has not shaped humans to be perpetually happy or free of pain. On the contrary, we’ve evolved pain neural circuits because our ancestors who experienced physical pain in response to environmental threats were better able to escape or mitigate those threats, out-reproducing their peers who didn’t experience pain. We evolved to experience suffering as much as we evolved to experience wellbeing.

Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen, “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity” at Psyche (September 29, 2020)

What? Do we have any reason to believe that some of our ancestors were “peers who didn’t experience pain”? What could these peers have been like? Ancient literature is pretty clear on the point that the human plight is universal. As many old stories tell us, first the Creation of man, then the Fall. But Syme and Hagen move on:

From an evolutionary perspective, it is logical that people today display strong negative emotional responses to forms of adversity that were common during our evolutionary history, such as status loss, death of social partners and physical attack. To survive and reproduce and pass on their genes, organisms must respond adaptively to dangerous environments, often by escaping them and learning to avoid them. In many animals, it is emotions that guide behaviours. Fear, anxiety, sadness and low mood are forms of psychological pain that probably serve functions that are analogous to physical pain – informing the organism that it is experiencing harm, helping it escape or mitigate harm, and stimulating it to learn to avoid similar harms. Psychological pain, like physical pain, probably evolved by natural selection, and in many or most cases is therefore not a disease.

Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen, “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity” at Psyche (September 29, 2020)

Their approach is in the unique position of making no sense at all.

If we were the first human beings who had ever existed and had suddenly popped into existence a half century ago, we would likely react about the same way to the death of a loved one. We grieve deeply because we rationally understand what is happening (“I will never see Rose again”), not because we evolved one way or another. If Syme and Hagen wish to explain exactly how humans came to consciously use reason in apprehending our environment, they will be the first to do so. Be warned: The Hard Problem of consciousness is hard indeed.

Syme and Hagen fear that they are misunderstood by the mental health professionals who think that serious depression is a disorder rather than an adaptation: “Disease model advocates argue that their approach reduces stigma by showing that the person is not to blame and by conveying the seriousness of their condition they see alternative models as placing blame on the sufferer.”

Probably. But it’s unclear that most mental health professionals treat grief and anxiety as a disease unless it is harming physical and mental health and relationships, and then they really must see it that way. Issues about how and why it “evolved” wouldn’t matter much in the medical context.

In the same vein, Syme and Hagen go on to inform us, “… what the disease perspective has done is distract us from talking about the source of most mental anguish: adversity, often caused by conflicts with powerful or valuable others, such as employers, mates and kin.”

What? Are they really saying that no counselor has ever paid close attention to the effects of work and relationship issues in triggering serious depression?

The actual difference between typical mental health counsellors and evolutionary anthropologists is that the former do not treat mental health issues as if everyone involved were an animal, lacking reason and moral choice. But the evolutionary anthropologist, at least in Syme and Hagen’s account of their discipline, is obliged to do so. Evolutionary anthropology seems to mean never having to say that reason and moral choice matter.

Here’s a giveaway line: “Our ancestral lineage has grappled with adversity since before the dawn of Homo sapiens.” Yes, and doubtless the trilobite grappled with adversity too. But it wasn’t until the “dawn of Homo sapiens” that self-awareness made unhappiness a philosophical issue (As in, “Why are things the way they are?”)

Reducing the sufferer to the status of an animal (“chimpanzees, macaques…”) means that the evolutionary anthropologist contributes little of value to the discussion of human anguish. We are left instead with awful, crashing platitudes:

But the reality is that some adversity is an unavoidable part of human life, caused by intractable conflicts of interest. If one person abandons her romantic partner for another one, for example, this is to her benefit and her ex-partner’s detriment. There is no way, at least in the short term, to make that better for the abandoned partner nor is there a practical or fair way to prevent such strife from ever occurring.

Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen, “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity” at Psyche (September 29, 2020)

Yes. But so? Serious moral philosophers start here, they don’t end here. Syme and Hagen end here because this is all they have. There is no upper floor to their reasoning. It’s all about people as if we were animals and life as if explicitly Darwinian evolution decided everything. And neither of those propositions happens to be true.

They end, predictably, with a call to address social injustices:

Just because psychological pain is unpleasant to the self and others, that doesn’t make it a disease, and we shouldn’t seek in the first instance to blunt it with drugs or other medical interventions. Instead, we should look to the social roots of adversity – to inequities, injustices and individual selfishness – and consider if and how we can harness mental anguish to help change ourselves, and other people’s lives, for the better.

Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen, “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity” at Psyche (September 29, 2020)

But Syme and Hagen’s no-upper-storey perspective exempts them from the hard task that others must face of determining which social reforms would really help. Or, for that matter, whether any reforms offer a longterm “cure” for mental anguish in a world where all of us are mortal and philosophy means learning how to die (a perspective not granted to animals). Note: The 1880 painting above by Léon Bonnat depicts Job, a Biblical figure known for the severity of his tribulations and his struggles to understand them.

One turns with relief to traditional sources of comfort to those in anguish, for example, the Psalms:

How many rise up against me!

Suddenly, one is back in the real, human world of reason, philosophy, theology, moral choice, relationships, and suffering—and far from the thundering herd of platitudes (“psychological pain is unpleasant to the self and others”) and vague cliches (“social roots of adversity”).

Probably, any perspective that starts with the view that humans are merely evolved animals will show the defects Syme and Hagen’s essay exhibits, leading to empty prescriptions rather than insight or inspiration. But one cannot expect those in the grip of such a point of view to even be aware of that, let alone understand it as a fundamental problem.

The real reason why only human beings speak. Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly.

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? If we can be forced to want something, is the will still free?


Why do we need theories?

Theories organize knowledge and construct objectivity by framing observations and experiments. The elaboration of theoretical principles is examined in the light of the rich interactions between physics and mathematics. These two disciplines share common principles of construction of concepts and of the proper objects of inquiry. Theory construction in physics relies on mathematical symmetries that preserve the key invariants observed and proposed by such theory these invariants buttress the idea that the objects of physics are generic and thus interchangeable and they move along specific trajectories which are uniquely determined, in classical and relativistic physics.

In contrast to physics, biology is a historical science that centers on the changes that organisms experience while undergoing ontogenesis and phylogenesis. Biological objects, namely organisms, are not generic but specific they are individuals. The incessant changes they undergo represent the breaking of symmetries, and thus the opposite of symmetry conservation, a central component of physical theories. This instability corresponds to the changes of the environment and the phenotypes.

Inspired by Galileo’s principle of inertia, the “default state” of inert matter, we propose a “default state” for biological dynamics following Darwin’s first principle, “descent with modification” that we transform into “proliferation with variation and motility” as a property that spans life, including cells in an organism. These dissimilarities between theories of the inert and of biology also apply to causality: biological causality is to be understood in relation to the distinctive role that constraints assume in this discipline. Consequently, the notion of cause will be reframed in a context where constraints to activity are seen as the core component of biological analyses. Finally, we assert that the radical materiality of life rules out distinctions such as “software vs. hardware.”


Chomsky and Descartes

This report we will argue that the assumption that language is an instinct (primarily Chomsky is expressed it as an assumption) is a logical assumption, not physical/biological. This means that Chomsky is based on Descartes and his theory builds on reflections of Descartes Chomsky is written about it in the Cartesian thinking (Chomsky, 1966).

Let us recall that Descartes said. Thinking is the first, unmistakable and reliable reality with which we are dealing. It independently and self-sufficiently, therefore, it has its own life. It cannot be nothing or empty. (This can be compared with a look at "empty" space for a child's words in the interpretation of Chomsky). This reality is filled with innate ideas, knowledge that was originally (from the moment of birth) is present in our minds, does not depend neither outside nor from experience (Descartes, 1929).

The first in the history of philosophy Plato (2000) spoke of innate knowledge. Descartes' theory is somewhat similar to the philosophy of Plato, but Plato's original ideas in the human mind due to higher but forgotten knowledge of perfect soul that before the birth of the body was in a perfect world the true Being (Plato). Innate ideas in the system of Descartes - is the main characteristic of our thinking. They are the most common (wide) and extremely simple terms, that is so clear and clearly appear to our mind, that we may not doubt them. For example, the famous axioms of Euclidean geometry are, according to Descartes, innate ideas of the mind. They do not need evidence because they are self-evident, that is so simple, clear and indisputable that there are nothing to prove in them. But why they are represented to our mind so clearly and distinctly, why it is true itself? Because it is an innate idea, inherent in our mind by God, who says Descartes, can not deceive us. And, as in geometry of a few simple axioms reliably constructed all the grandiose building of the discipline, and in other branches of human knowledge it is necessary to proceed from axiomatic innate ideas and build any science on their base (Descartes, 1929).

Descartes' influence on Chomsky's happened on several lines. In case there is special language ability, which is one of the basic elements of the human minds. It acts almost instantly, in a predetermined manner, unconsciously and outside the conscious control, and the same for all members of the species, thereby forming a rich and complex system of knowledge – specific language (Chomsky, 1999:236). In this situation, there is no place for creativity. As a result, everything that a speaker can tell already in the language is (especial, unconsciously). Of course, we can give the characteristic of "predetermined manner" as innate ideas. But, in general, the innate idea is not an instinct in the biological sense.

The inherent idea comes from "God" (according to Plato and Descartes). Chomsky replaces "God" with Nature (It's almost Spinoza). And because of the Nature (in the philosophical sense) he chooses instinct. It happened because he wrote his works in the 20th century, when the study of God`s guarantee of innate ideas is not considered appropriate. Chomsky needed the assumption on instinct to explain the causes of the "innate" of language abilities. However, this is not an essential part of his theory, a matter of fact it is the usual axiomatic philosophical premise. As a result, Chomsky was embroiled in the unnecessary debate about "instincts" (it certainly would not have happened if his family stayed in Russia, and he can be a Russian linguist).

Chomsky is a philosopher, who may provide the admiration of logic in Hegel's sense. It is not lawful to consider the philosophical doctrine of Chomsky as a psychological and especially the biological doctrine. All of his statements can be reliably understood only from the standpoint of a serious philosophical foundation and valid for philosophers' manner of question presentation. We think if we want to understand it, it is enough to read the Chomsky's description of the Lorentz or Pierce. Chomsky has a quite weak interest in the study of reality as a biological process. Even nature or instincts in his philosophical/logical ideas acquire an incredible philosophical sound.


The Main Arguments of Evolution Theory

Teaching strategy
• Complementarity of lectures – readings • Individual case participation • Each lecture, one or several cases from the book will be expanded to put the theory into practice • Importance of research articles

Grading
• 70% MC exam – See Study manual for correction formula • Exam dates December 13, 2012 and April 12, 2013 • 30% 2 Interactive lectures – individual participation • Interactive lectures grades of 2010 and 2011 can be transferred

Does “international” still matter?

Transportation & communication costs fall

Tariffs fall, anti-dumping measures rise anti-

Globalization Theory:
• Linguistic, trade and cultural barriers become less important • ‘Stateless’ MNCs • Within MNCs worldwide diffusion of technologies, knowledge and information Convergence of world economies

Why is nationality important to people?
• Individual identity and social identity • Three processes of social identity formation: • social categorization • social comparison • social identification

• (Self-)categorization: what is the salient category?

Why is nationality important to people?
• Positive stereotyping of “in-group”, negative stereotyping of “out-group” • Nationality differences are particularly salient when people have no common history • Nationality then becomes a source for one’s own identity and for the ascribed identity of the other

Does “international” still matter?
Yes, because .
• Cultural , institutional and language differences persist • Leading to differences in (business) decision making • Nationality forms an important basis for social categorization processes • Leading to shortcuts like cultural attribution and stereotyping With the effect that doing business across borders is different than domestic business 13

Conceptual foundations of international business strategy

Definition of international business strategy
International business strategy means effectively and efficiently matching a multinational enterprise’s (MNE’s) internal strengths (relative to competitors) with the opportunities and challenges found in geographically dispersed environments that cross international borders. Such matching is a precondition to creating value and satisfying stakeholder goals, both domestically and internationally.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (1)
• Introduction and overview of the book’s framework • Part one: Core concepts (1) Conceptual foundations of international business strategy (2) The critical role of firm-specific advantages (3) The nature of home country location advantages (4) The problem with host country location advantages (5) Combining firm-specific advantages and location advantages in an MNE network

TABLE OF CONTENTS (2)
• Part two: Functional issues (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) International innovation International sourcing and production International finance International marketing Managing managers in the multinational enterprise

TABLE OF CONTENTS (3)
• Part three: Dynamics of global strategy (11) Entry mode dynamics 1: foreign distributors (12) Entry mode dynamics 2: strategic alliance partners (13) Entry mode dynamics 3: mergers and acquisitions (14) The role of emerging economies (15a) International strategies of corporate social responsibility (15b) International strategies of environmental sustainability


Five Factor Model

While Cattell&rsquos 16 factors may be too broad, the Eysenck&rsquos two-factor system has been criticized for being too narrow. Another personality theory, called the Five Factor Model, effectively hits a middle ground, with its five factors referred to as the Big Five personality traits. It is the most popular theory in personality psychology today and the most accurate approximation of the basic trait dimensions (Funder, 2001). The five traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Figure 3). A helpful way to remember the traits is by using the mnemonic OCEAN.

In the Five Factor Model, each person has each trait, but they occur along a spectrum. Openness to experience is characterized by imagination, feelings, actions, and ideas. People who score high on this trait tend to be curious and have a wide range of interests. Conscientiousness is characterized by competence, self-discipline, thoughtfulness, and achievement-striving (goal-directed behavior). People who score high on this trait are hardworking and dependable. Numerous studies have found a positive correlation between conscientiousness and academic success (Akomolafe, 2013 Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008 Conrad & Patry, 2012 Noftle & Robins, 2007 Wagerman & Funder, 2007). Extroversion is characterized by sociability, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, and emotional expression. People who score high on this trait are usually described as outgoing and warm. Not surprisingly, people who score high on both extroversion and openness are more likely to participate in adventure and risky sports due to their curious and excitement-seeking nature (Tok, 2011). The fourth trait is agreeableness, which is the tendency to be pleasant, cooperative, trustworthy, and good-natured. People who score low on agreeableness tend to be described as rude and uncooperative, yet one recent study reported that men who scored low on this trait actually earned more money than men who were considered more agreeable (Judge, Livingston, & Hurst, 2012). The last of the Big Five traits is neuroticism, which is the tendency to experience negative emotions. People high on neuroticism tend to experience emotional instability and are characterized as angry, impulsive, and hostile. Watson and Clark (1984) found that people reporting high levels of neuroticism also tend to report feeling anxious and unhappy. In contrast, people who score low in neuroticism tend to be calm and even-tempered.

The Big Five personality factors each represent a range between two extremes. In reality, most of us tend to lie somewhere midway along the continuum of each factor, rather than at polar ends. It&rsquos important to note that the Big Five traits are relatively stable over our lifespan, with some tendency for the traits to increase or decrease slightly. Researchers have found that conscientiousness increases through young adulthood into middle age, as we become better able to manage our personal relationships and careers (Donnellan & Lucas, 2008). Agreeableness also increases with age, peaking between 50 to 70 years (Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, & Costa, 2005). Neuroticism and extroversion tend to decline slightly with age (Donnellan & Lucas Terracciano et al.). Additionally, The Big Five traits have been shown to exist across ethnicities, cultures, and ages, and may have substantial biological and genetic components (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996 Jang et al., 2006 McCrae & Costa, 1997 Schmitt et al., 2007).

Link to Learning

To find out about your personality and where you fall on the Big Five traits, follow this link to take the Big Five personality test.


Society of Creation Conferences

Download, print, cut and paste, or otherwise use the following bulletin announcements in your church publications.

Conference Schedule:

Our second creation conference took place June 30 to July 2, 2014 at the Mequon, WI campus of Concordia University. The conference focused on the origin of life, and secondarily the amazing complexity of DNA and the individual cell.

Our keynote speakers were Jay Seegert, from the Creation Education Center, Waukesha, Wisconsin and Dr. Kevin Anderson, from the Creation Research Society in Arizona. Both Dr. Gary Locklair and Dr. Joel Heck also presented, as indicated below. We had a selection of workshops, or concurrent sessions, also.

Our Keynote Speakers:

Dr. Kevin Anderson is an author, speaker, and editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He holds the Ph.D. in microbiology from Kansas State University. He has been a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral fellow at the University of Illinois, professor of microbiology at Mississippi State University, and research microbiologist for the United States Department of Agriculture.

Jay Seegert is an author and international speaker and is the Co-Founder of the Creation Education Center. He has degrees both Physics and Engineering and has been lecturing on the authority of Scripture for over 28 years. In addition, Jay serves on the Board of Directors for Logos Research Associates and is a Representative Speaker for Ratio Christi. He is also a former adjunct speaker for Creation Ministries International and the former President of the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee.

Abstracts of Plenary Addresses:

"Evolution's Flawed Principles"

Evolutionary transformations are claimed to result from natural selection acting upon mutational change. However, this view reveals an incomplete understanding of natural selection and an inaccurate understanding of mutations. "The Human Genome: An Icon for Creation Science"

Since the publication of the human genome sequence, our understanding of the function and structure of chromosomes has increased dramatically. In light of these new discoveries, evolutionists' arguments, such as Junk DNA, evolutionary lineages, and Human/Chimpanzee genetic similarity, are now being discarded as erroneous. The genome exhibits a clear evidence of design, possessing an intricate organization of overlapping genes, dual coding systems, and 4-dimensional informational activity - fully consistent with a recent creation model.

“Evolution: Probable or Problematic?”

Even though certain aspects of evolution occasionally seem fairly plausible, when you "peek under the hood" to see what actually has to go on inside (in the DNA) we see a very different picture. Presenting some cutting-edge information about DNA, this presentation clearly demonstrates that molecules-to-man evolution is virtually impossible.

“I ‘Hear’ that Evolution is Impossible”

Using the human ear as the main example, this topic briefly addresses the origin of "information" and the origin of species, showing that mutations and natural selection are completely incapable of producing molecules-to-man evolution.

Gary Locklair "Positive Creation Evidences"

God created life as matter with teleonomy (information content). All life on planet earth was originally fashioned by God. Since this is true, there should be a number of scientific evidences that can be used as support. What are these evidences and what is an effective way to present and discuss the evidence? From the Law of Biogenesis to probability from complexity to information theory, there are many evidences to support the origin of life by God's creative activity. Any evidence can be expressed either as a negative argument against evolution or as a positive argument in favor of creation. This presentation will focus on defining and presenting positive arguments in favor of the creation of life.

"The Grand Canyon and the Flood of Noah"

The Grand Canyon is often presented as evidence for uniformitarianism and an old earth, but in reality it speaks of a cataclysmic worldwide deluge in the recent past. Belief in a worldwide flood in Noah's day, based on Genesis 6-9, usually goes hand in hand with a high view of Scripture and a natural reading of the creation account in Genesis 1. Drawing on a week-long trip in the Grand Canyon with one of the world's foremost Grand Canyon geologists, this topic will present evidence for the flood of Noah as seen in the fossils and sedimentary rock layers of the Grand Canyon with photos and videos taken on site. He who created all life also at one point destroyed most of that life, except for the family of Noah.


Why Magnetic Field Decay Matters

Earth’s magnetic field is vital for life, but it is decaying. To keep it going billions of years, evolutionists gloss over facts.

On Live Science, Stephanie Pappas asks, “What if Earth’s magnetic field disappeared?” Our planetary shield is “important for life,” she admits, and it is decaying in strength, she confesses. But she downplays its protective function. One reason is that evolutionists need their billions of years for the Stuff Happens Law to have time to mold humans out of bacteria. But they can’t have their precious billions of years, because the magnetic field is measurably decaying by 5% per century. It could not have lasted billions of years, and will be long gone before a billion more years could transpire.

Thank God for our magnetic field

Here are some of the blessings we get from having a robust magnetic field, taken from her article.

  • It shields the planet from solar particles.
  • It provides a basis for navigation.
  • It helps prevent solar erosion of our atmosphere.
  • It protects the ozone layer, which shields life from UV rays.
  • It protects our power grids and satellites.
  • It generates the aurora, one of the most awesome sights in the sky (see Illustra film).
  • And, she continues, “It might have played an important role in the evolution of life on Earth…”

Conversely, if the field were lost, these benefits would go away.

But what would happen if Earth’s magnetic field disappeared tomorrow? A larger number of charged solar particles would bombard the planet, putting power grids and satellites on the fritz and increasing human exposure to higher levels of cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. In other words, a missing magnetic field would have consequences that would be problematic but not necessarily apocalyptic, at least in the short term.

A running theme in the article is that loss of our field not be catastrophic right away. And yet increase in skin cancer for humans is only part of the problem. Many more delicate creatures in the oceans and on land would suffer from the barrage of radiation. It’s possible entire ecosystems would collapse, putting the food web into stress. Over “billions of years,” maybe the only survivors would be cave dwellers. Pappas and her physicist experts do not get into that. Maybe they think mutations are good things, providing a seed bed for natural selection to work on. Realistic science shows radiation harming organisms, not helping them.

Another fact glossed over in the article is the protection we get from (1) coronal mass ejections, (2) solar flares, and (3) cosmic rays. These episodic attacks on Earth can do far more damage in a shorter time than the steady rate of solar radiation.

Can’t Breathe Without a Magnetic Field

Loss of a magnetic field is linked to loss of an atmosphere. Just look at the other planets:

There is little evidence that past magnetic field variations have impacted life on Earth. Still, the magnetic field has undoubtedly shaped Earth’s surface, helping to keep the planet’s fragile atmosphere from being blown into space by the relentless force of the solar wind, Archer told Live Science.

A magnetic field is not crucial for having an atmosphereVenus has no magnetic field and has a massive, if unwelcoming, atmosphere — but it certainly acts as an additional protective layer. Mars, which used to have a magnetic field but lost it some 4 billion years ago, has had its atmosphere almost entirely stripped away. And if there were a way to give the moon an Earth-like atmosphere, the solar wind would whittle it to nothing in a mere century, Archer said.

A main reason Pappas downplays a weakening field is that she and her experts are confident that the field is billions of years old. This is expressed in a series of unsupported assertions rather than observational facts:

  • The first thing to understand about the magnetic field is that, even if it weakens, it’s not going to disappear — at least, not for billions of years.
  • This magnetic-field engine, known as a dynamo, has been chugging along for billions of years.
  • Scientists think that the current core arrangement may have settled into place about 1.5 billion years ago.
  • Tarduno and his team have found evidence for a magnetic field on Earth in the planet’s oldest minerals, zircons, dating back 4.2 billion years, suggesting that activity in the core has been creating magnetism for a very long time.
  • “We’re talking billions of years,” Tarduno said.

Got that? We’re talking billions of years. Billions of years. Billions of years. You are getting sleepy. You are getting verrrrryyyy sleeeeeepy….

The only raw data invoked to support these old ages involves geomagnetic reversals and radiometric dating, but radiometric dating methods rest on circular reasoning about the age of the Earth, and cherry-picking dating methods that give long ages, ignoring over a hundred other facts that do not permit millions and billions of years (CMI). Geomagnetic reversals, while interesting and informative, do not involve the decay rate. The rest of Live Science’s support for long ages comes from models of a geodynamo, but that is theoretical, and not without serious problems.

In Spacecraft Earth, Dr Henry Richter explains why geodynamo theory is no solution. In chapter 7, he says,

Surely secular geophysicists are aware of this problem. Some ignore it, thinking other evidence proves the earth to be much older. Some try to attack the credibility of Barnes and Humphreys [creation scientists who elaborated on the decay of Earth’s magnetic field]. Most simply assume that someone else has figured out a solution that will keep the magnetic field going for billions of years. The favored explanation is that a permanent dynamo runs in the earth’s interior… Somehow, this dynamo is sustained by convection, orbital mechanics, or residual heat from the core. (One critic of Barnes’ theory says that “This dynamo is driven by an unknown energy source.”) They’ve been working on this problem for over half a century with limited success. As we said, though, one cannot get something from nothing. Energy dissipates over time the magnetic field energy is radiated to space, where it is no longer available to power the field. It should be decaying, and measurements show it is decaying. Even if reversals occurred during earth’s existence, the overall strength could not have climbed higher than what it was before. It would have decayed at those times, and continues to decay now. (Spacecraft Earth, pp. 133-134)

Facing the Facts: Field Decay

Pappas admits openly that the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying, but she rests on the repetitive “billions of years” to save it from falsifying Darwinism. Some quotes from the Live Science article:

  • For more than a century, it’s been weakening.
  • The first thing to understand about the magnetic field is that, even if it weakens, it’s not going to disappear — at least, not for billions of years.
  • Far more relevant to the lives of humans is that the magnetic field is weakening.
  • Scientists have been measuring this weakening directly with magnetic observatories and satellites for the past 160 years.
  • The good news is that, even if the field is weakening, or preparing to flip, it’s not going to disappear there’s no evidence that the magnetic field has ever gone away completely during a reversal. [A sidestep around the problem. Reversals are different from decay.]

Once again, reversals, anomalies, and axis motions are not the problem. The overall energy of the magnetic field is decaying. In one of the longest data collections in the history of science (Karl Gauss began measuring the field in 1835), scientists have measured a steady decay of the field strength amounting to about 5% per century. This fits an exponential curve. Extrapolated into the past, the field would have been dangerously strong just 10,000 years ago, and would have rendered the Earth uninhabitable 20,000 years ago. Projecting into the future, the biosphere only has thousands of years—not billions—before the Earth could become stressed or unlivable due to radiation. Combined with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the evidence points to a young Earth with not much more time to go.

Earth’s magnetic field is an example of Foresight that was necessary for our planet to be a suitable habitation for life. Evolutionists ignore the decay evidence at their peril. It spells doomsday far more credibly than global warming. It dooms Darwinian evolution, not giving them the precious billions of years they want to maintain a chance universe without God. It reinforces the Bible’s account of a recent creation and a new creation after Christ returns. What we see in Live Science’s article is a series of sidesteps, selective arguments and bluffing assertions organized to maintain the moyboys‘ religion instead of following the scientific evidence where it leads.


Watch the video: Η Θεωρία της Εξέλιξης και η Σύγχρονη Ανθρώπινη Επιλογή ως Υποκατάστατο της Φυσικής Επιλογής (December 2022).