Category: vrkwsmkf

first_imgMOST READ National Historical team rescues Amorsolos, artifacts from Taal Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next LATEST STORIES LeBron’s 3rd visit speaks of his love for hoops-crazy Philippines, says Alapag Hotdog’s Dennis Garcia dies Police seize P68-M worth of ‘shabu’ in Pasay Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up royal titles View comments FEATURED STORIESSPORTSEnd of his agony? SC rules in favor of Espinosa, orders promoter heirs to pay boxing legendSPORTSRedemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie ThompsonSPORTSMayweather beats Pacquiao, Canelo for ‘Fighter of the Decade’ OSG plea to revoke ABS-CBN franchise ‘a duplicitous move’ – Lacson Filipinos turn Taal Volcano ash, plastic trash into bricks PLAY LIST 01:40Filipinos turn Taal Volcano ash, plastic trash into bricks01:32Taal Volcano watch: Island fissures steaming, lake water receding02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite Marcosian mode: Duterte threatens to arrest water execs ‘one night’ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up royal titles Bishop Baylon encourages faithful in Albay to help Taal evacuees NBA Superstar LeBron James during his Nike Strive for Greatness Tour at the Mall of Asia Arena. INQUIRER PHOTO/ Sherwin VardeleonNBA superstar LeBron James kept his promise and he delivered another show for his Filipino fans during his Strive for Greatness event Saturday night at Mall of Asia ArenaJust like his previous two visits here in 2013 and 2015, James joined an exhibition game between current and former national team players and thrilled the crowd with his electrifying dunks.ADVERTISEMENT The three-time NBA champion vowed to be back in Manila. Watch the highlights of his “Strive for Greatness” show here: Search on for 5 Indonesians snatched anew in Lahad Datulast_img read more

first_imgAs the dust has finally settled after our exit from the Ulster Club Championship we can all look back objectively and now really appreciate what our gallant team have achieved in 2013. We as a club and community owe all involved a great debt of gratitude. They extended our summer of football into the first week of December and how we enjoyed every moment.The crowd who turned out in Healy Park for the final included proud Glenswilly people who had travelled from far and near and were joined by people from every corner of the county and together, supported our boys to the end. The team gave it their all but alas it was not to be. Painful as the defeat was, we still left Omagh with an immense sense of pride knowing that we have a team that have more to offer and a club that is strong and secure and will be the envy of many.We are looking forward to the dinner dance in The Silver Tassie on Sunday December the 29th were we can join with the team and management and celebrate an unbelievable year and show our appreciation for the effort and commitment they have given all year.The Club would like to thank everyone who contributed to help out our club and team in the run of the Ulster Championship. To the many clubs who sent good luck messages and the clubs who erected signs wishing us all the best, let us tell you it was greatly appreciated by all in Glenswilly.The club will hold an event to honour the participation of our underage teams and will make presentations to the successful teams in the Club Hall on Sunday 15th of Dec. at 6 o’clock. The U-15 team will play Fanad in the Northern Div. final this Sunday Dec.15th. Venue and throw in time unknown at time of going to press. We urge as many as possible to turn out to support the young guns from the Glen and we wish the team and management all the best.The winning lotto numbers this week were 11,15,17 and 22. Match 2 winner is Abina Mc Menamin. Next weeks sellers are Martin Glackin and Michael Canning with the jackpot now at €3640.00.GAA NEWS – GLENSWILLY LOOK FORWARD TO ANNUAL DINNER DANCE AFTER TERRIFIC YEAR was last modified: December 10th, 2013 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:Glenswilly GAA noteslast_img read more

first_imgDonegal’s Sarah Kennedy confirmed that she plans to embark on a professional modelling career after coming runner-up in last night’s Britain & Ireland’s Next Top Model.The 23-year-old from Portnoo said “Modelling is 100 per cent what I have wanted to do for a long time, it’s just never happened.”Sarah now plans to move to London with her boyfriend. Sarah has not yet signed with any modelling agencies, but said she is excited to start her new career.She took to Twitter last night to thank her faithful fans after the shocking result:“Thank you to each and every one of you for all your support over the past 13 weeks,I am now going to live my dream 🙂 Londons calling me! Xx”Sarah made it through 13 weeks of gruelling photo shoots on the show, one of those being underwater. She lost out to Lauren Lambert in the tense finale on Sky Living last night. She is the first Irish girl to ever reach the final.FUTURE IS BRIGHT FOR TOP MODEL SARAH AS SHE PLANS LONDON MOVE was last modified: September 6th, 2013 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:bintmmodelSarah Kennedylast_img read more

first_imgA new era has begun for Letterkenny Solicitor Maureen Gallagher with the opening of her very own practice this week.A successful open night was held on Thursday at the new Crawford Gallagher Solicitors offices on the High Road. Locals, friends, family and public representatives gathered to wish Maureen well on the new venture.To celebrate the occasion, Maureen has launched an offer on all wills for €50.00 in the month of August. She is also offering to do a free will for anyone who is buying, selling or transferring a property through the office.  Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open Night, High Road, LetterkennyHaving qualified as a solicitor from the Law Society of Ireland in 2015, Maureen has worked locally in the town with other solicitors for many years.This year, Maureen decided to open her own practice in a prime location beside the new Courthouse. At the moment she is practising in the areas of Residential Conveyancing, Wills & Probate, Criminal Law, Civil Litigation/ Personal injuries.Charlie McConalogue TD and Maureen Gallagher at the Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open NightPerhaps you need help buying, selling, or transferring your property? Have you suffered a personal injury? Or maybe it’s making a will or probating an estate you need advice on? Whatever legal service you require Crawford Gallagher Solicitors can help, don’t delay call Crawford Gallagher Solicitors today, located beside the new Courthouse Letterkenny. Tel: 0749164906.See more photos from the Open Night below: Seamus Farren and Maureen Gallagher at the Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open NightMaureen, Janet, Orla and Samantha at the Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open NightMaureen & Louis Wilkie at the Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open Night Eunan and Louis at the Crawford Gallagher Solicitors Open NightPicture Special: Celebrations as Crawford Gallagher Solicitors opens for business was last modified: August 16th, 2018 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:BusinessCRawford Gallagher SolicitorsLegalletterkenny solicitorsmaureen gallagherOpen nightpicture speciallast_img read more

first_imgEAST LANSING, Mich. — Very much ingrained in Draymond Green’s identity is his passion for Michigan State. Now, seven years after Green left East Lansing for the NBA, Michigan State showed him the ultimate sign of appreciation on Tuesday when they retired his No. 23 jersey.Joined by family and friends, Green was honored during a ceremony at halftime of a nationally televised matchup against Duke. During the PA announcer’s introduction, Green walked around the sideline and hugged several …last_img read more

first_imgThis story is not about Enron and Exxon, but about introns and exons.  The proportions of the scandals they are causing in evolutionary theory, however, may be comparable.    Introns are spacers between genes.  For several decades now, it has been a puzzle why they are there, and why a complex machine called a spliceosome takes them out and joins the active genetic parts – the exons – together. Only eukaryotes have spliceosomes, though; mitochondria have “group II introns” and some mRNAs may have them.  Their presence and numbers in various groups presents a bewildering array of combinations.  Figuring out a phylogenetic tree for introns has eluded evolutionary geneticists, as has understanding their origin and functions (02/18/2005).  Why do genes come in pieces that have to be reassembled?     William Martin and Eugene Koonin said in Nature1 that “The discovery of introns had a broad effect on thoughts about early evolution.”  Some theories have been falsified, and others remain in the running.  Consider the scope of the problems:A current consensus on introns would be that prokaryotes do indeed have group II introns but that they never had spliceosomes; hence, streamlining in the original sense (that is, loss of spliceosomal introns) never occurred in prokaryotes, although it did occur in some eukaryotes such as yeast or microsporidia.  An expansion of that consensus would be that spliceosomes and spliceosomal introns are universal among eukaryotes, that group II introns originating from the mitochondrion are indeed the most likely precursors of eukaryotic mRNA introns and spliceosomal snRNAs, and that many—conceivably most—eukaryotic introns are as old as eukaryotes themselves.  More recent are the insights that there is virtually no evolutionary grade detectable in the origin of the spliceosome, which apparently was present in its (almost) fully fledged state in the common ancestor of eukaryotic lineages studied so far, and that the suspected source of introns—mitochondria, including their anaerobic forms, hydrogenosomes and mitosomes—was also present in the common ancestor of contemporary eukaryotes (the only ones whose origin or attributes require explanation).    This suggests that intron origin and spread occurred within a narrow window of evolutionary time: subsequent to the origin of the mitochondrion, but before the diversification of the major eukaryotic lineages.  This, in turn, indicates the existence of a turbulent phase of genome evolution in the wake of mitochondrial origin, during which group II introns invaded the host’s chromosomes, spread as transposable elements into hundreds—perhaps thousands—of positions that have been conserved to the present, and fragmented into both mRNA introns and snRNA constituents of the spliceosome.This means that a complex molecular machine, the spliceosome (09/17/2004, 09/12/2002), appeared fully formed almost abruptly, and that the intron invasion took place over a short time and has not changed for hundreds of millions of years.  They submitted a new hypothesis:Here we revisit the possible evolutionary significance of introns in light of mitochondrial ubiquity.  We propose that the spread of group II introns and their mutational decay into spliceosomal introns created a strong selective pressure to exclude ribosomes from the vicinity of the chromosomes—thus breaking the prokaryotic paradigm of co-transcriptional translation and forcing nucleus-cytosol compartmentalization, which allowed translation to occur on properly matured mRNAs only.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)But this means that the nucleus, nucleolus and other complex structures also had to appear in a very brief period of time.  It means that the engulfed organism that somehow became mitochondria had to transfer its introns rapidly into a genome lacking a nucleus.  It means the nucleus had to evolve quickly to segregate the new mitochondrial genes from the nuclear genes.  A lot had to happen quickly.  “This bipartite cell would not be an immediate success story: it would have nothing but problems instead,” they admitted, but they believed that natural selection would favor the few that worked out a symbiotic relationship with their new invaders.    This is not the end of the problems.  The group II introns would have had to embed themselves with reverse transcriptase and maturase without activating the host’s defenses, then evolve into spliceosome-dependent introns and remain unchanged forever after.  Then those embedded group II introns would undergo mutational decay, interfering with gene expression.  Will this work without some miracles?A problem of a much more severe nature arises, however, with the mutational decay of group II introns, resulting in inactivation of the maturase and/or RNA structural elements in at least some of the disseminated copies.  Modern examples from prokaryotes and organelles suggest that splicing with the help of maturase and RNA structural elements provided by intact group II introns in trans could have initially rescued gene expression at such loci, although maturase action in trans is much less effective than in cis.  Thus, the decay of the maturase gene in disseminated introns poses a requirement for invention of a new splicing machinery.  However, as discussed below, the transition to spliceosome-dependent splicing will also impose an unforgiving demand for inventions in addition to the spliceosome.A spliceosome is not an easy thing to invent; it has five snRNAs and over 200 proteins, making it one of the most complex molecular machines in the cell.  Not only that, they appeared in primitive eukaryotes and have been largely conserved since.  Perhaps the miracles can be made more believable by dividing them into smaller steps:It seems that the protospliceosome recruited the Sm-domain, possibly to replace the maturase, while retaining group II RNA domains (snRNAs) ancestrally germane to the splicing mechanism.  While the later evolution of the spliceosome entailed diversification with the recruitment of additional proteins—leading to greater efficiency—the simpler, ancestral protospliceosome could, in principle, rescue expression of genes containing degenerate group II introns in a maturase-independent manner, but at the dear cost of speed.Will a lateral pass from maturase to incipient spliceosome during a long field run lead to a touchdown?  If a stumbling protospliceosome could survive, in spite of vastly decreased translation rate, it might have been able to run the distance with natural selection’s encouragement, they think.  Players would be falling left and right in this “extremely unhealthy situation,” they say, and “the prospects of any descendants emerging from this situation are bleak.”  How could the game go on, then?  “The only recognizable mechanism operating in favour of this clumsy chimaera is weakened purifying selection operating on its exceptionally small initial population.”  Purifying selection means weeding out losers, not adding new champions.  “Finding a solution to the new problem of slow spliceosomes in the presence of fast and abundant ribosomes required an evolutionary novelty.”    They winnow down the possibilities.  Getting instant spliceosomes smacks too much of an improbable feat.  Getting rid of spliceosomal introns from DNA apparently did not occur.  Their solution?  The invention of the nucleus, where slow spliceosomes could operate without competition from fast ribosomes.    This adds new miracles, however.  The nucleus has highly complex pores that permit only authenticated molecules into the inner sanctum.  They think, however, that it must have happened, somehow: “Progeny that failed to physically separate mRNA processing from translation would not survive, nor would those that failed to invent pore complexes to allow chromosome-cytosol interaction.”  So pick your miracles: since necessity is the mother of invention, “The invention of the nucleus was mandatory to allow the expression of intron-containing genes in a cell whose ribosomes were faster than its spliceosomes.”    The near-miraculous arrival of the nucleus is underscored by other feats it performs: “In addition to splicing, eukaryotes possess elaborate mRNA surveillance mechanisms, in particular nonsense-mediated decay (NMD), to assure that only correctly processed mature mRNAs are translated, while aberrant mRNAs and those with premature termination codons are degraded.”  How could this originate?  Again, necessity must have driven the invention: “The initial intron invasion would have precipitated a requirement for mechanisms to identify exon junctions and to discriminate exons (with frame) from introns (without frame), as well as properly from improperly spliced transcripts.  Thus, NMD might be a direct evolutionary consequence of newly arisen genes-in-pieces.”  But then, if it is verified that some translation occurs in the nucleus, that would be “difficult to reconcile with our proposal.”    They ended with comparing their hypothesis with others.  “Our suggestion for the origin of the nucleus differs from previous views on the topic,” they boasted, “which either posit that the nuclear membrane was beneficial to (not mandatory for) its inventor by protecting chromosomes from shearing at division, or offer no plausible selective mechanism at all.”  At least theirs is simpler and includes some requirements to select for the cells with the best inventors – or the ones with the luckiest miracles.1Martin and Koonin, “Hypothesis: Introns and the origin of nucleus-cytosol compartmentalization,” Nature 440, 41-45 (2 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04531.Was any of this storytelling useful?  The shenanigans they pulled, couched in biochemical jargon, can be summarized by two principles in their own imaginations: (1) since the cell needed these superbly-crafted machines, it had to invent them somehow, and (2) since evolution is a fact, it had to happen somehow.  Do you catch any hint of a mechanism for actually inventing a 200-protein supermachine that would actually work?  Did you find any hint that any cell any time had a “protospliceosome” that only worked half-way?  All this was pure fiction built on childlike faith in evolution.    Presenting a hypothesis in science is fine, but how would they ever test something like this?  They offered a few tests that could discriminate between their just-so story and other just-so stories, but nothing that could explain how a spliceosome, or a nuclear membrane with its elaborate pore complexes, or nonsense-mediated decay could have been invented from scratch just because a cell needed these things.    Would that evolutionists would get off this storytelling kick and do something useful with their lives.  Let’s find a cure for cancer.  Let’s find better sources of energy, and think of ways to reduce risks of disease and terrorism, and use science to improve our lives and our world.  Stringing together uncooperative data into a fictional account of prehistory will accomplish nothing and is wasting time and money in a world desperately in need of the productive possibilities of true science.(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

first_img(Visited 253 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 How can scientists and reporters write articles on “evolution” when evidence shows organisms died or didn’t change?What’s going on here? Frequently, evolutionists classify papers and articles as being about “evolution” when the evidence is opposite of evolution. Darwin needs life to evolve from bacteria to human beings. He doesn’t need them to stay the same or die out. What’s evolution got to do with it?Deep Macroevolutionary Impact of Humans on New Zealand’s Unique Avifauna (Current Biology). Humans have devastated birds on the New Zealand islands. Three Darwinists talk about it, and prognosticate about how long it would take for the island nation to recover. Phys.org summarizes their thoughts:Using computers to simulate a range of human-induced extinction scenarios, the researchers found that it would take approximately 50 million years to recover the number of species lost since human’s first arrived in New Zealand. If all species currently under threat are allowed to go extinct, they report, it would require about 10 million years of evolutionary time to return to the species numbers of today.Now, wait a cotton-pickin’ minute here: the only data these evolutionists have is the number of birds that have gone extinct since the first humans landed on the shore. What do they mean it would take 50 million years to recover, and another 10 million years if the endangered species go extinct? Oh, that’s it: that’s how much “evolutionary time” would have to pass for Charlie to invent new birds to fill in the gaps left by the dead. Well, ain’t that convenient! These Darwinians will be long gone before anyone can hold them accountable for telling a fib (see confabulation and confibulation in the Darwin dictionary).Extinction and the temporal distribution of macroevolutionary bursts (bioRxiv). This preprint mentions “macroevolutionary bursts” in the title, but the actual evidence talks about extinction and the “paradox of stasis.” Readers shouldn’t care about “microevolution,” because that is not controversial to creationists. They want Darwinians to come up with evidence of macroevolution – large-scale change. They want organisms to climb tall “adaptive peaks” on the fitness landscape, and turn into wondrous new things. They want to see the evolution of new phyla, orders, classes and families. Where is it?Phenotypic evolution through deep time is slower than expected from microevolutionary rates. This is the paradox of stasis. Previous models suggest stasis occurs because populations track adaptive peaks that typically move on million-year intervals, raising the equally perplexing question of why peaks shifts are so rare. Here, we consider the possibility that peaks can move more rapidly than populations can adapt, resulting in extinction. We model peak movement with explicit population dynamics, parameterized with published microevolutionary parameters. Allowing extinction greatly increases the parameter space of peak movements that yield the appearance of stasis observed in real data through deep time. Our work highlights population ecology as an important contributor to macroevolutionary dynamics, presenting an alternative perspective on the paradox of stasis where apparent constraint on phenotypic evolution in deep time reflects our restricted view of the subset of earth’s lineages that were fortunate enough to reside on relatively stable peaks.Did anyone see macroevolution pass by in this paragraph? No; Darwin floated by like a will-o’-the-wisp, a ghost, an imaginary figure threading through a forest of stasis and extinction. Oh, but in unobservable “deep time,” Stuff Happens.Death is on Our Side: Paleontological Data Drastically Modify Phylogenetic Hypotheses (bioRxiv). Here’s another preprint by Darwinians that glorifies death as a means of evolution. Two authors, Koch and Parry, think that their fellow Darwinians have tried to trace Darwinian progress by looking at the living. They need to study the dead. But actually, how clearly do dead things show macroevolution?Fossils are the only remaining evidence of the majority of species that have ever existed, providing a direct window into events in evolutionary history that shaped the diversification of life on Earth. Phylogenies underpin our ability to make sense of evolution but are routinely inferred only from data available from living organisms. Although extinct taxa have been shown to add crucial information for inferring macroevolutionary patterns and processes including ancestral states, paleobiogeography and diversification dynamics, the role that fossils play in inferring the tree of life itself is controversial. Since the early years of phylogenetic systematics, different studies have dismissed the impact of fossils due to their incompleteness, championed their ability to overturn phylogenetic hypotheses or concluded that their behavior is indistinguishable from that of extant taxa.So far they have discredited the ability to fossils to inform evolution! Can Darwinism be rescued from this evidence?Here we show paleontological data has a remarkable effect in phylogenetic inference. Fossils often have higher levels of topological influence than extant taxa, while inducing unique topological rearrangements. Previous studies have proposed a suite of explanations for the topological behavior of fossils, such as their retention of unique morphologies or their ability to break long branches. We develop predictive models that demonstrate that the possession of distinctive character state combinations is the primary predictor of the degree of induced topological change, and that the relative impact of taxa (fossil and extant) can be predicted to some extent before any analysis. Our results bolster the consensus of recent empirical studies by showing the unique role of paleontological data in phylogenetic inference, and provide the first quantitative assessment of its determinants, with broad consequences for the design of taxon sampling in both morphological and total-evidence analyses.Well, if you expect their promises to be fulfilled, you will be shocked that macroevolution is only mentioned one more time in the paper– and that just in passing, with no evidence to back it up. They say nothing about fitness, novelty, innovation or any other notion of positive selection leading to something new and different. Like most Darwinians, they just assume evolution occurred from all the things that went extinct. In the end, they only hope that more analysis of fossils might help solve the contradictions between molecular and paleontological tree-making (phylogenetic inference). By the way, when they say “Death is on Our Side,” to what side are they referring? Apparently, the side of Darwin storytellers.Causes and Consequences of Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions as Revealed from Rancho La Brea Mammals (Current Biology). This paper does not discuss macroevolution specifically, but it does try to explain why some predators died out (i.e., saber-tooth cats) and others survived (like coyotes). It does, however, discuss “adaptation” (often a synonym for Darwinian evolution), and extinction is once again the hero of the evolutionary plot. The press release about Larisa DeSantis from Vanderbilt University explains.It’s likely that those giant predators went extinct due to climate change, the arrival of humans to their environment or a combination of the two, she said, and her team is working to clarify the cause of the extinction with multiple colleagues across six institutions as part of a separate on-going study.What they know is predators alive today in the Americas were better able to adapt their diets. Instead of only feeding on large prey, they could effectively hunt small mammals, scavenge what they could from carcasses or do both.DeSantis conveniently leaves her options open. Extinction occurred because of climate change, or the arrival of humans, or a combination of the two. Cats preferred the forest, but wolves and coyotes preferred the plains, but their hunting grounds did overlap. Coyotes lasted because they learned to be opportunistic, surviving on predation and scavenging, or on human pets and trash cans. But wait; there are still mountain lions in California. DeSantis performs micro-divination on tooth samples to come up with a story that is little better than a post-hoc rationalization for the observable facts: some survived, others went extinct.Specifically, the cougar (Puma concolor), which survived the extinction event, consumed both flesh and bones with clear evidence of scavenging, in stark contrast to the extinct American lion (Panthera atrox) that had ∼30% broken canines and primarily ate tough flesh; the cougar’s opportunistic diet may have been key to its survival.The dire wolf (Canis dirus), the most abundant carnivoran at La Brea, ranged from Canada to South America during the Pleistocene before becoming extinct. However, the coyote (Canis latrans), a smaller canid, survived the late Pleistocene extinction event, as did gray wolves, cougars, bobcats, and other smaller carnivorans. As coyotes are highly opportunistic today, eating smaller prey (e.g., rodents and lagomorphs) and also scavenging larger prey, such as deer, their “key to success” may have been similar to the La Brea cougars. Alternatively, coyotes—in contrast to cougars—may have opportunistically altered their diet following the extinction of numerous large predators and prey species, only recently becoming true opportunists.But wait. Why couldn’t Darwinism help the unlucky ones develop opportunistic diets? If the big cats and dogs were too big, why didn’t natural selection make them smaller? Out of all the dire wolves from Canada to South America, did none of them adapt in those ways? When you raise the perhapsimaybecouldness index, phrases like “may have” can save you from falsification.By the way, nothing evolved. Certain animals went extinct. Others survived.last_img read more

first_img28 February 2003South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and The Boeing Company have inaugurated the world’s first Ka band telemetry, tracking and command facility at the CSIR Satellite Applications Centre at Hartebeeshoek, north-west of Johannesburg.Boeing, the largest aerospace company in the world, invested R45-million (US$5-million) to fund the project.Hughes Network Systems, a world leader in broadband satellite networks, is working with Boeing to manufacture a constellation of satellites for high-speed communication.Hughes is set to introduce their next-generation communication satellite system, dubbed Spaceway, after the launch of the first satellite later this year. The CSIR’s new antenna system is now ready to track, command and monitor the Spaceway satellites as they are placed into orbit.Boeing and the CSIR joined forces in project managing the design and implementation of the Ka band facility. Ka band refers to very high frequencies that have not – until now – been used for operational telemetry, tracking and command tasks.The Spaceway satellites will be launched over a period of several years and will provide bandwidth-on-demand direct to the office and home, with the initial service roll-out in the US. Boeing is erecting two other ground stations in the US to monitor and control the satellites during their 15-year design lifetime – with the CSIR station the first to be completed.The CSIR, which falls under the department of arts, culture, science and technology, is the largest research, development and implementation technology agency in Africa, and has been providing telemetry, tracking and command support to international satellite operators and launchers for over 40 years.The CSIR Satellite Applications Centre’s geographical location in South Africa makes it a favourable site for support of satellites launched from facilities such as Kourou, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Kennedy Space Flight Centre, and Baikonur, and for in-orbit support of low-earth orbit and geo-stationary satellites in the Africa, Europe and Middle East regions.With the addition of the Ka band antenna, the CSIR now becomes one of the first ground stations in the world that can offer telemetry, tracking and command support from L band through to Ka band.Speaking at the inauguration, CSIR President Sibusiso Sibisi thanked Boeing for the trust it has put in its South African partnership over these years. “Over many years, the Boeing Company has repeatedly selected the CSIR to keep a watchful eye on its own and its satellite customers’ orbiting assets”, Sibisi said.“During the 1990s the CSIR supported Boeing’s Delta II and Delta III launch vehicles; in 2001 we modified certain of our existing systems to support the XM Radio satellites; from 1998 onwards we have rendered ground support for numerous satellites in Ku/DBS band, including PAS-10, DTV and Bonum; and in 2002 the CSIR was officially contracted to render ground support for Boeing’s new Delta IV launch vehicles.”Boeing Africa President Walt Braithwaite said: “Our commitment to doing business on this continent was further proven when we opened extensions of our corporate offices here in South Africa and West Africa two years ago. Our relationship in Africa dates back to the late 1950s. Since then, we have continued to play a role in transfer of technology here and on the rest of the continent.”Arts, Culture, Science and Technology Minister Ben Ngubane said the Ka band satellite-tracking antenna “will benefit us in a myriad of ways. Its applications will be most obvious in the field of Earth observation, a key technology in the development of southern Africa and elsewhere.“The inauguration of the new satellite-tracking antenna represents a milestone in the development of our research infrastructure and in our work towards unlocking our full scientific and technological potential.”SouthAfrica.info reporter Want to use this article in your publication or on your website?See: Using SAinfo materiallast_img read more

first_img26 June 2014 US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is set to partner with South Africa’s North-West University in preclinical research, a key field in the development of new drugs, following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the company and the university this week. According to a joint statement, the partnership could include the use of Pfizer’s genetically modified animal models for testing the safety and efficacy of a range of new drugs, including treatments for cancer, heart disease and immune system disorders. Joint research projects will be conducted at North-West University’s (NWU’s) Preclinical Drug Development Platform, a state-of-the-art facility with a permanent staff of 14 scientists that functions as a national study platform, supplying researchers across South Africa with the infrastructure for preclinical studies. The facility was established, and is largely financed, by the Department of Science and Technology in order to enable a faster, more efficient drug discovery process in the country. The memorandum of understanding was signed by the facility’s director, Anne Grobler, and Pfizer’s Gabriela Cezar, at Pfizer’s R&D site in La Jolla, California on Monday. Mikael Dolsten, president of worldwide research and development at Pfizer, said the company hoped the partnership would produce scientific and medical advances for patients in South Africa and beyond, adding: “We salute the South African government for fostering an environment that encourages and rewards investments in innovative research.” Grobler said NWU was “enthusiastic about the milestones we may be able to reach in the areas of infectious and chronic diseases that are so relevant to our South African society”. Mmboneni Muofhe, deputy director-general of technology innovation in the Department of Science and Technology, said the development of South Africa’s pharmaceutical sector was a key component of the government’s national bio-economy strategy, “so we are delighted to witness the very first step in this new partnership”. SAinfo reporterlast_img read more

first_img3 Areas of Your Business that Need Tech Now Related Posts For many branches of the U.S. military, it’s the year to bring Web 2.0 inside the war room. Flagship experiments in many a division are using open source wiki software like MediaWiki and MindTouch. In both free and paid deployments, these collaborative networks are proving to be a favorite testing ground for a new way to manage the knowledge of soldiers. In some ways, these rigidly hierarchical organizations are displaying an real willingness to experiment, compared to the civilian businesses declaring themselves enterprise 2.0.In late June, the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate and the Battle Command Knowledge System (shorthand for “no one outside the military knows what we actually do”), made public their efforts to allow soldiers to update Field Manuals via wiki.The real source of knowledge for any field manual, military or civilian, is the people on the ground. The process of gathering and filtering that information to put it in to official Army Field Manuals typically takes three to five years, and the wiki experiment is tasked with seeing if they can reduce that time frame. It’s no surprise they’re emphasizing the real-time capabilities of sharing information: after all, wiki means quick. This initial pilot is built on MediaWiki, the free and open source software behind Wikipedia, and will let Army personnel get their hands on seven Field Manuals already in use. This isn’t the first time the U.S. military has tried the wiki way. For some time now, RDECOM in the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, the US Marine Corps, and the Defense Language Institute have been MindTouch customers. There’s no doubt that wiki software of all kinds has been used on a departmental basis within the military for years. But this summer’s test is the first time the Army itself has gone public with one. No doubt they’ll find the software and the collaborative culture it inspires transformative. Tags:#enterprise Cognitive Automation is the Immediate Future of…center_img IT + Project Management: A Love Affair steven walling Massive Non-Desk Workforce is an Opportunity fo…last_img read more