Marine invertebrate diversity has not increased dramatically over time, contrary to conventional wisdom. That’s the conclusion of a team of 35 researchers who spent a decade analyzing seashell fossils from around the world. Science Daily reported the story July 7. A week later, on July 14, Science Daily reported a follow-up story, entitled, “Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates.” The later article featured John Alroy (UC Santa Barbara), the principal author of the paper published in Science.1 “There’s been 36 years of people arguing about this,” he said. “And I feel we finally resolved this debate, which is certainly one of the most high profile debates in the study of diversity of the fossil record.” 95% of the fossil record consists of marine invertebrates (see ICR claim). The abstract says,It has previously been thought that there was a steep Cretaceous and Cenozoic radiation of marine invertebrates. This pattern can be replicated with a new data set of fossil occurrences representing 3.5 million specimens, but only when older analytical protocols are used. Moreover, analyses that employ sampling standardization and more robust counting methods show a modest rise in diversity with no clear trend after the mid-Cretaceous. Globally, locally, and at both high and low latitudes, diversity was less than twice as high in the Neogene as in the mid-Paleozoic. The ratio of global to local richness has changed little, and a latitudinal diversity gradient was present in the early Paleozoic.The team painstakingly catalogued 248,816 fossils from around the world and found that things that paleontologists have been saying for 40 years may not be accurate. Diversity reached saturation early after the Cambrian and Ordovician and remained flat, with minor excursions, over the remaining eras. The new database suggests that there were only three, not five, mass extinctions. The number of species recovered quickly, they said. The sixth and last presumed extinction never happened, they claim, based on their results. Another researcher explained the utility of the project. She said, “If we know where we have been, we know something about where it will go.”1. Alroy et al, “Phanerozoic Trends in the Global Diversity of Marine Invertebrates,” Science, 4 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5885, pp. 97-100, DOI: 10.1126/science.1156963.It’s good to know where you have been. Where you have been, though, does not necessarily predict where you will go. Do these researchers know the answer to such questions? Statistics can be misleading. Good for them that they went at it in much more detail than in previous studies. They have falsified claims going back four decades. That does not ipso facto “truthify” their own claims. Because their work has an incestuous relationship with evolutionary geology and biology, any conclusions borne out have a statistically high likelihood of dementia.(Visited 6 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Mark Loux, Ohio State University Extension weed control specialistWe recently ran an article that covered the legality of POST glyphosate and glufosinate applications to the LL-GT27 soybean, which is resistant to both herbicides. The issue at that time was the legality of applying a mix of both herbicides, based on questions we had received. Cutting to the quick, our conclusion was that because it was legal to apply the mixture since both herbicides could legally be applied and labels did not prohibit mixing. We were naïve apparently, because that article caused the issue over whether it was actually legal to apply glyphosate to the LL-GT27 soybean to be raised.Since then, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the companies who are the involved registrants have been working to come to a solution that clarifies this issue and keeps us all moving forward toward a resolution. The issue here seems to be this — wording on most glyphosate labels specifies application is allowed to “Roundup Ready” and “Roundup Ready 2 Yield” soybeans, and since the LL-GT27 soybean is not designated as such, those glyphosate products could not legally be applied. After a month of deliberation, the U.S. EPA issued some guidance:“Users of pesticide products containing glyphosate should refer to the pesticide product labels of herbicide products containing glyphosate for the specific registered uses on pesticide-resistant crops such as soybeans with glyphosate-resistant trait(s). Regardless of the herbicide product name (brand name), if the label of the glyphosate product states it is for over-the-top (post-emergent) use on glyphosate-resistant soybeans, and it is not otherwise restricted by other label statements/directions for use, it can be used on any soybean that has a glyphosate-resistant trait. However, if the label of the glyphosate product states it is for use on crops such as soybeans, with specific glyphosate-resistant traits by name, then the glyphosate product can only be used on those crop(s) with those traits specifically identified on the label. Ultimately, growers and commercial applicators must comply with the entirety of the pesticide label. Please let us know if you have any questions.”Questions? Yes. Here’s what it comes down to:The important part of the glyphosate label here is the use-specific directions, or the section within the larger “Roundup Ready” part of the label that deals with soybeans.If the soybean section of the glyphosate product label does not mention specific genetics by trade name, but just the wording “glyphosate-resistant” or “glyphosate-tolerant,” then it is legal to apply that product to the LL-GT27 soybean.If the soybean section of the label restricts use to certain genetics by trade name — “Roundup Ready,” “Roundup Ready 2 Yield,” etc., then it would not be legal to apply to the LL-GT27 soybean.If the wording on the label is along the lines of “for use on soybeans with the Roundup Ready gene,” or similar wording with other specific genetics, it would not be legal to apply to the LL-GT27 soybean.Our not exhaustive search through glyphosate product labels indicates that most, if not all, do not contain any wording about “glyphosate tolerance” in the soybean section, and indicate use is specifically on “Roundup Ready” or “Roundup Ready 2 Yield” or “Soybeans with the Roundup Ready gene.” This includes Roundup PowerMAX, Durango DMA, Abundit Edge, Credit Extreme, and Cornerstone to name a few. Manufacturer reps with a glyphosate product label that varies from this are free to contact us so we know.The inability to use glyphosate on the LL-GT27 soybean affects primarily growers who bought it for the genetics or other traits and not the LibertyLink trait, who might have planned to use only glyphosate POST. Most of the utility of this soybean on problem broadleaf weeds comes from the LibertyLink trait though (and it’s definitely legal to apply glufosinate POST). There’s plenty of generic clethodim around to help out with grass. We assume label language will adapt over time to take care of the glyphosate issue. We’re not even sure this issue would have come up if we hadn’t tried to clarify the tank-mix legality and stepped right in it. There appeared to be some confusion in the field about this though, with different stories being told, and better to just clear it all up way in advance of the season. Stay tuned for the next chapter.
Web Services are powering high-end enterprise IT make-overs with adoption of SOAs.But Web Services are also the force behind a grass-roots phenomena being called ‘Mashups’It’s Web Services for the masses.What’s happened is that Internet powerhouses like Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Amazon have introduced Web Service and RSS feed interfaces to the data they manage. The data they provide is available for anyone and the cost is either free or very low.Mashups are applications or sets of web pages that consolidate data from multiple sources and create unique combinations. Many of the applications that people have come up with have a mapping component based on Google maps. Mashup website examples include Platial, a site that combines geotagging with Google Maps — here people can pin their personal commentary or recollections associated to spot on the map. Another example is Zillow which has collected data on more than 60 million homes and overlays the data and home valuation estimates on a map with parcel information.Mashups are part of a trend towards enabling people to better interact with information available from the net. Consider Microsoft’s ‘Live ClipBoard’ concept that was recently demo-ed by CTO Ray Ozzie. In a few strokes, Ozzie created an RSS Feed of Flickr images and piped it into a desktop folder so that the folder would automatically update as new images were added to the web site.More and more easy-to-use tools like this based on light-weight technologies are becoming available to pull together information and for presenting it in new and compelling formats.Most of the mashup activity has been focused on the consumer side, which follows the recent trend for the consumer market to be driving new technology. But what does this mean for the enterprise? ‘Enterprise mashups’ or ‘Composite Enterprise Applications’ have the potential to feed a wave of Business Intelligence. The ability to define custom presentations created from a combination of data taken and processed from many different corporate, partner and external data repositories is very powerful. The concept is similar to data warehousing , but with mashups based on web services, the data is real-time, and the presentation is more moldable into appealing and more informative formats. It has the potential to take ‘what if’ to the next level.Consider an enterprise application that could pull together the various company-wide data and information feeds to create a project composite resource that might be a combination of project calendar/task list with published schedules, specifications and working drawings from a document repository, related emails messages from an email store, project member availability taken from Outlook calendars, etc.Companies like ActiveGrid now offer frameworks that accelerate the creation of enterprise mashups using light-weight technologies based on Web Services and AJAX.Core to the success of Enterprise Mashups is being able to expose enterprise data via web services. The Formtek | Orion repository Web Service interface is designed to facilitate Enterprise mashups. Content securely managed within the Formtek repository can form an important component of any composite application. Similar to the Google-Map-centric consumer-mashup application space, in the corporate space, Enterprise Content and Document Repositories can become a core component of Composite Enterprise Applications.
Chennai Super Kings sneaked into the Champions League semifinals with a thrilling 10-run win over Warriors, who have also qualified by virtue of a net runrate better than Victoria’s.Scores – Chennai vs WarriorsBrief scores: Chennai 136-6 (20); Warriors 126-8 (20)Justin Kreusch (3-19), Rusty Theron (1-16) and Johan Botha (1-27) did not let Chennai finish well after Mike Hussey’s 50 had set them up.Chennai have set a semifinal clash with Royal Challengers Bangalore, while Warriors will meet South Australia in the second semifinal. MS Dhoni’s side elected to bat in this must-win game, and began well with Hussey’s fifty. The innings slowed down after his fall, as they struggled to 136-6.Warriors needed just 109 to edge Victoria out and qualify. They passed the cut-off mark in less than 18 overs, thanks to Mark Boucher’s quick 25.However, some sharp catching in the outfield kept Chennai in the game. R Ashwin impressed again, taking 3-24 in four overs while Muttiah Muralitharan denied Warriors the 15 runs needed in the final over.