Group petitions for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary in Webster Co. – Eyewitness News (WEHT/WTVW)

Posted on by

WEBSTER COUNTY, Ky. (WEHT) Groups in several Kentucky counties, including some in the Tri-State, are petitioning local leaders for supporting rights to possess guns.

Theyre asking Webster and other counties to vote for a proposed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution, which they claim prevents more restrictions on owning a gun.

Its kind of a peaceful route to take, says John Whitfield, a member of Webster County Kentucky United, a group campaigning in Webster County on sanctuary status.

I dont think its just needed in Webster County, I think its needed here in the Tri-State area because its every American citizens rights to bear arms, he says.

An online petition, which has more than 400 signatures, calls for the county not to recognize any further gun restriction laws or possible seizing of weapons. Hancock County Fiscal Court approved a similar resolution late last month, and similar efforts started in Hopkins and other counties.

CIties around us are having to constantly live in fear because of this possibility of getting their guns taken away and not being able to protect themselves from shootings that have happened before, Whitfield says.

I had and still harbor concerns about it, counters Daviess County Sheriff Keith Cain. He says one issue is state lawmakers passed a bill in 2012, which prohibits counties and cities from passing local laws regarding sales and storage of guns. He also worries about local governments being empowered to determine the legality of federal laws.

For local government or in my case the local sheriff to be empowered with the ability to determine constitutionality of any laws, I think sets a very dangerous precedence. I think that clearly sites in the purview of the judiciary, he says.

Whitfield says their group plans to meet with Webster County Fiscal Court at their meetings later this month.

For the latest breaking news and stories from across theTri-State, follow Eyewitness News onFacebookandTwitter.

(This story was originally published on January 2, 2020)

Read the original here:

Group petitions for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary in Webster Co. - Eyewitness News (WEHT/WTVW)

Secure the Schools, Save the Second Amendment – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted on by

Secure the Schools, Save the Second Amendment, iStock-178748573

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-When discussing how mass shootings are a major vulnerability for our Second Amendment rights, there is one place in particular that Second Amendment supporters should be paying attention to: Schools. These are the worst types of mass shootings for obvious reasons. Not only is there a horrific tragedy, but all too often, the victims are children with a whole life ahead of them.

The mass shooting at Columbine prompted a new push for semi-auto bans. That was bad enough for Second Amendment supporters, but the Sandy Hook mass shooting was, in some ways, a game-changer. Why? In addition to a half-dozen teachers, 20 six-year-old children were killed. This was easily the most horrific event you could imagine outside a major terrorist attack. We will never know whether that horrific act was a crime or act of madness, due to the shooter committing suicide, but that doesnt negate the horror nor the damage done to our rights.

Lets face it, even though Second Amendment supporters beat back efforts to reinstate a federal semi-auto ban, in some ways, the cause of freedom still lost. It wasnt just seeing new semi-auto bans pass in several states, it also came in the form of anti-Second Amendment extremists upping their attacks.

Things went even further after Parkland. Now, any Second Amendment supporter knows how the bumbling cowards of Broward County failed to stop the shooter long before that tragic and horrific mass shooting. Those failures, though, are what Second Amendment supporters must address.

Again, it should be common sense for Second Amendment supporters to work to address school shootings. Again, if we dont have Second Amendment-compliant solutions, then Bloombergs bought-and-paid-for politicians and stooges will propose their extreme anti-Second Amendment agenda and a bunch of freaked-out soccer moms will back that agenda in order to protect their kids.

What sort of Second Amendment-complaint solutions should be considered? Making the schools harder targets is one of them. Passive security measures, like metal detectors and surveillance cameras, are one option. Another, of course, is better active security armed security presence, including, but not limited to, willing school personnel.

This generates controversy but shouldnt. Second Amendment supporters are all too familiar with the harsh reality that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Thankfully, the NRA School Shield program is being offered. This program is something Second Amendment supporters should be promoting at their local school boards if for no other reason than to get the refusal to consider the program on the record.

But that is only part of the solution. The fact is, as was shown with Parkland, the potential shooter gave off a lot of warning signs. Some existing laws could have addressed the situation: Second Amendment supporters may not like the Gun-Free School Zones Act, but it could be a tool to at least address some potentially dangerous students (keep in mind, the Parkland shooter was caught with ammunition and knives on school grounds) and given the expansion of concealed carry, there is much less chance a law-abiding citizen exercising their Second Amendment rights will be caught up in it. As is the case with other mass shootings, the debate over ERPOs/red flag laws also enters into this, along with the use (or lack of use) of civil commitment laws. Its not ideal, but we need to focus on what is achievable, and deal with the situation as it is, not how we wish it to be.

One voice Second Amendment supporters should back is that of Andrew Pollack. Since the death of his daughter in the Parkland shooting, Pollack has founded Americans for Childrens Lives and School Safety (CLASS). None of this groups proposals attack our Second Amendment rights, which should allow Second Amendment supporters to back them in good conscience.

Finally, if you have kids in school, this is important: Talk to them. Encourage them to say something if they see something. Make sure they are prepared to defend the Second Amendment. Find out what is going on in their schools. If they have concerns, sound the alarm.

Mass shootings in schools give anti-Second Amendment extremists the chance to make major gains. The smart move is for Second Amendment supporters to work for preventing them with a Second Amendment-compliant agenda. This isnt being a Fudd, an appeaser, or capitulating to those who oppose our freedoms, it is about heading off attacks on our rights before they happen.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Go here to read the rest:

Secure the Schools, Save the Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

2nd Amendment rights among top concerns at Harris town hall in Cambridge – MyEasternShoreMD

Posted on by

Enforcement of current gun laws should be the focus rather than enacting feel good laws that lawmakers could boast about passing but that had little positive practical effect.

CAMBRIDGE Congressman Andy Harris (R-1st District) answered questions and listened to his constituents comments at a Town Hall on Monday evening, Dec. 30 at the American Legion in Cambridge. Among those top concerns, second amendment rights, school discipline, and sanctuary county laws. The town hall format allowed for comments and questions from concerned citizens.

Impeachment

Harris spoke critically of the impeachment recently passed by the House of Representatives. He questioned the delay caused by the Houses Democrat leadership to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate due to not yet selecting managers as part of the process. Harris speculated that the delay was due in part to the fact that Democrats in the House did not want to address the controversy before the holiday break.

Red Flag Laws

Multiple town hall participants asked questions about and made statements opposing red flag laws for firearms. Red flag laws allows for authorities to temporarily take firearms from someone who is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.

Harris said that he fully supports the conclusion of the Heller decision handed down by the United States that the right to possess firearms is an individual right rather than a collective right held by a government sanctioned militia, and he said that the current red flag law prototypes would take away the constitutional rights by ex parte legal proceedings, proceedings in which the subject of a judges temporary ruling is not permitted to take part, and in Harriss estimation, is therefore denied their constitutional right to due process.

Harris said that mass shooting deaths are tragic, the numbers of people killed are far exceeded by the number of death from gun crimes that already violate existing laws intended to prevent such crimes. He continued with the assertion that enforcement of current gun laws should be the focus rather than enacting what he called feel good laws that lawmakers could boast about passing but that had little positive practical effect.

He said that outside of any federal consideration that Marylands state red flag laws should be reviewed in terms of how many complaints turn into temporary confiscations, and how many Marylanders that have guns taken from them by a judge, receive mental health treatment.

Other Firearms Issues

Harris answered a question on whether Congress could pass a law that would expand reciprocity for out of state firearms carry permit holders by saying that he thought that an agreement on reciprocity from the legislature was unlikely, but he pointed to an upcoming legal challenge that could make reciprocity agreements more uniformly applicable.

One town hall participant questioned Harris on whether he supported sanctuary counties.

To me thats not the solution, said Harris, who continued saying, sanctuary laws of any kind put law enforcement in a bad situation where they are asked to selectively enforce laws.

Another questioner asked about the possibility of the Maryland General Assembly extending background check requirements currently on handguns to long guns. Harris pointed to the percentage of crimes in Baltimore committed with long guns versus concealable weapons that current federal and state background checks and other firearms restrictions currently prohibit.

Partisanship

One attendee asked Harris what his solution to the extreme partisanship in Congress, asking What is it going to take for you [Congress] to get rid of this partisan pettiness? Harris said the first part of the solution was independent redistricting committees. He said his district, the 1st Congressional District of Maryland, extends from Pocomoke on the lower Eastern Shore to the Frederick County line, a layout he said is intended to include isolate as large a portion as possible of Republican voters at the expense of the districts compactness and geographical continuity.

Harris said that a more equitable districting would make districts more competitive, and more moderate. He said that because the First District is drawn so heavily Republican, the primary is likely to advance a more staunchly conservative candidate rather than a moderate, who then in turn doesnt face a real challenge in the general election. Harris said the flaw in the partisan districting process shows that despite re-electing a Republican governor, Maryland voters only elected one Republican Congressman out of eight seats statewide. As a result, Congress doesnt look like American, it looks like primaries, said Harris, who added that even though the system favors him in his district, I dont think its fair.

The second part of reducing partisanship is for voters to stop responding to what he called political attack ads. Harris said that aggressive political advertisements frequently mischaracterize candidates good faith efforts to discuss difficult and controversial topics, but their ideas are attacked and the dialogue often then becomes personal.

He cited the issue of H2B visas as an example of a locally important policy question derailed by the larger controversy over immigration. Harris said the temporary worker visas are an excellent solution in the current low unemployment labor market for seasonal labor needs for seafood and agriculture. He said the contribution in payroll taxes and the fulfilling of the need for workers makes the H2B visas a good thing, but partisanship prevents an easy solution.

School Discipline

Harris answered questions about the conditions in schools that teachers and others say is dangerous and harmful for students, referring to a recent study that a majority of students and teachers in Maryland public schools felt unsafe. Harris reflected on his time on the education committee in the Maryland State Senate, recalling a discussion with school officials that favored instituting a uniform policy as part of an overall plan to improve the environment in the school but who were reluctant to institute the policy due to a fear of being sued. You have to implement discipline, said Harris, who advocates for disruptive and dangerous students being removed from classrooms as part of a policy to promote the common good for students. He said the removal of disruptive students and the difficult question of where they should then be placed requires bold boards of education who are determined to solve the problem.

Federal Programs, Spending, and the Budget Deficit

Harris discussed the recent appropriations bill that passed with the specific inclusion of snakeheads as an invasive specific. He said that while the resources included in the bill were far from sufficient to remediate the invasive species from local waterways in Dorchester and elsewhere, that it was significant that the species was one of two specifically named.

Another attendee asked Harris about concerns about transportation being provided for veterans to their appointments and treatment at the Veterans Administration. Harris reflected back to his residency at a VA facility, and said that staff members put the ease of their own scheduling over veterans needs. He said that both contractors and VA personnel must put the needs of veterans first and promote the mindset of the customer is always right.

Harris also addressed questions on entitlements such as social security and food stamps, stating that Congress must make sure that obligations to Americans are being met while maintain solvency in the future.

Read the original post:

2nd Amendment rights among top concerns at Harris town hall in Cambridge - MyEasternShoreMD

Thank the Second Amendment: Texas church shooting stopped in its tracks by armed hero – Washington Examiner

Posted on by

Many Democrats and liberal media figures sneer at the good guy with a gun narrative when it comes to the debate over gun control, dismissing it as a myth clung to by Bible-thumping rednecks. Yet, if there was ever a single incident to remind us just how wrong they are, its the tragic church shooting that was thankfully stopped in its tracks on Sunday.

An armed intruder interrupted a morning service at West Freeway Church of Christ near Fort Worth, Texas, disrupting the ceremony and shooting several worshiping Christians. At least two people are dead as a result, including the suspect, and one injured.

But things could have been much, much worse. Two armed people attending the service intervened and shot the attacker in his tracks after just seconds, undoubtedly saving many lives.

Of course, this is still a tragedy. Someone was killed, and an entire congregation is surely traumatized. The community will need to heal and deserves compassion and support.

Politicizing the shooting with calls to vote for or against a political candidate would be gross. But it's worth pointing out the facts of what happened. Liberals will inevitably politicize future shootings and call for gun control or a rollback of Second Amendment rights. We must remind them that it doesn't hurt to let good people have guns. The good guy with a gun is an everyday reality, not a myth.

There is ample research, not just inspiring anecdotes, to confirm how common defensive gun use is. One study examining the prevalence of self-defense concluded that almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.

Defensive gun use is not a myth. After how this heroic act unfolded, we should all thank God that this is the case.

Excerpt from:

Thank the Second Amendment: Texas church shooting stopped in its tracks by armed hero - Washington Examiner

I want the stage: McAfee will run for president in …

Posted on by

Antivirus magnate and cryptocurrency evangelist John McAfee says he will run for president in 2020 in exile, using masked doppelgangers to campaign in the US. McAfee has been filmed sailing to Venezuela, fleeing indictment.

In a series of Twitter videos posted on Tuesday and Wednesday, McAfee claimed to fleeing felony charges brought by the IRS. McAfee, his wife Janice, and four campaign workers have been indicted for unspecified IRS crimes of a felonious nature, he explained, adding that he had not paid taxes in eight years.

The videos were shot on a yacht that McAfee called the "freedom boat," which will now double as his 2020 campaign headquarters. The eccentric cybersecurity guru announced his intention to run for the nations highest office last June, on a platform to serve the crypto community.

I will not allow them to imprison me and shut my voice down, McAfee explained. Today, crypto community, we are at war, and I am on the front lines.

McAfee plans on having thousands of volunteers print masks of his face, which will be worn by road warriors in parks, street corners, (and) restaurants all around America. McAfee will address these supporters over loudspeakers.

Another group of volunteers will wear McAfees masks to conferences and campaign events; speaking, shaking hands, and standing in for the man himself.

Where McAfee himself will be during this campaign is unclear. According to his Twitter feed, the crypto candidate is currently en route to Venezuela, which due to the current political climate is most likely beyond the reach of US law enforcement. According to the latest posts, the craft is currently somewhere near the Bahamas.

It is unclear if McAfee is being completely honest about the yachts location, given the fact that US authorities could simply intercept the freedom boat before it docks in Venezuela. A lot of people are saying they have never seen anyone live-cast their evasion of US authorities before, but why not? McAfee said. I have nothing to hide I dont have time or energy for lies and deceptions.

This campaign-in-exile is McAfees second attempt to run for the White House. In 2016, the crypto enthusiast lost out to former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson in his bid to be the candidate for the Libertarian Party.

The 73-year-old tech entrepreneur has recently emerged as a distinguished advocate for digital currencies, including bitcoin, which have experienced swift growth and extreme volatility in recent years. McAfees forays into politics have been aimed at promoting cryptocurrency, which he sees as a serious challenger to government-backed fiat currency.

Remember: I do not want to be president! I just want the stage. I just need to run. I did it once before in the Libertarian Party. Who cares whether I can?? I'm f**king doing it now!! he tweeted on Tuesday.

Apart from his career as a tech entrepreneur, McAfee hit the headlines in 2012 after he was declared a person of interest in a murder case in Belize, Central America. However, the businessman, who was neither arrested nor charged with the crime, left the country and moved to the US.

Although it is unlikely to be among his campaign issues, McAfee has also emerged as a champion of man-whale love:

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

View post:

I want the stage: McAfee will run for president in ...

$1mn by 2020: John McAfee will still eat his own d*ck if …

Posted on by

John McAfee has doubled down on his confidence in bitcoin by stating his belief it will be worth $1 million by the end of 2020. Bullishly, the controversial businessman said he will eat his own manhood if the cryptocurrency fails to perform to that level.

The founder of the eponymously named security software, McAfee has something of reputation for backing the volatile cryptocurrency with outrageous comments.

READ MORE: Ill eat my d**k on national TV if bitcoin doesnt surpass $500k in 3yrs John McAfee

Earlier this year, the US native signified his faith in the cryptocurrency by proposing a similar forfeit, stating he would eat his own penis on national television if bitcoin did not reach $500k within three years.

With bitcoin recently smashing the $10,000 landmark on South Koreas cryptocurrency exchange and news of its rise to $11,000 on Wednesday, McAfee appears to have become even more spirited. He has now raised the bet, waging his genitals against bitcoin growing to $1 million by 2020.

When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017, he said. McAfee said bitcoin has accelerated much faster than what he originally thought and therefore had to revise his opinion. I will still eat my d*ck if wrong, he added.

READ MORE: Unstoppable bitcoin rockets to $11,000 in massive sudden spike

Bitcoin has experienced a meandering rise since its launch in 2009. In early November, bitcoins value dropped 30 percent before rebounding. As of Wednesday, the digital currency was valued at a record $11,000, up from $1,000 at the beginning of the year.

View post:

$1mn by 2020: John McAfee will still eat his own d*ck if ...

Let’s look at what McAfee had to say about Bitcoin in 2019 – CryptoNewsZ

Posted on by

The crypto industry is one of the most fragile industries in the world and is heavily dependent on market influencers. This is because the industry itself is quite young, and theres a dearth of extensive and exhaustive data that could help interpret the market conditions. Thus, the role of influencers, especially those who are from technical backgrounds, is extremely crucial for the industry. One of the biggest names among such influencers is that of a computer scientist and anti-virus pioneer John McAfee.

McAfee, who himself is on the run from the US authorities, has been quite vocal about his views on cryptocurrencies and is the biggest proponents of Bitcoin and other cryptos. In fact, he is among the first persons to claim that BTC will touch the million-dollar mark in the next few years. As the year is about to end, we look at what McAfee had to say about Bitcoin in 2019, and what does he predict for 2020:

John McAfee was one of the prominent personalities that came out openly against self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator and Bitcoin SV chief Craig Wright. McAfee was among the firsts to debunk Wrights claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto and did so in a hilarious manner saying,

I am the real Craig Wright. I can prove it. Absolutely. Im filing a patent on my existence as Craig Wright. I can prove I am him at a fingers snap. But Im not going to. You must simply believe me. I will be suing Craig, soon, for impersonating me. Unlike me, he is serveable.

In turn, Craig Wright called McAfee a scam artist, and threatened to drag him to the court. However, McAfee had the last laugh as Wrights own legal battle grew tragic for him. Currently, Bitcoin SV is going through a tough phase, and problems for Wright doesnt seem to end anytime soon.

2018 was a disastrous year for Bitcoin as the apex crypto fell from its all-time peak of around $20,000 in December 2017 to less than $4,000 in January 2019. Things started to improve in February when Bitcoin broke its six months-long losing spree. Predicting a mega bull return, McAfee predicted that BTC would hit $1 million by the end of 2020, a claim which seems to be far from reality at the moment.

After a mini bull run till late July, BTC has come down steadily from its yearly peak of around $14,000 to less than $7,200 as of date. In spite of this, McAfee has stuck to his bull prediction stating that he agreed with the midterm $50,000 prediction by Peter Brandt and also reiterated that BTC would touch $1,000,000 by the end of 2020.

McAfee has been a long-time advocate of cryptocurrencies. This became even more apparent when he promoted BeatzCoin, a cryptocurrency targeted towards empowering artists, stating that it was one of the best. His support for the use of crypto became even more apparent when he stated that using fiat currencies is slavery, and that the government is afraid of crypto.

Similarly, McAfee also showed his open support for Dogecoin, an altcoin that began life as a joke but has successfully acquired a market cap of around $360 million. He seconded Tesla boss Elon Musks prediction that Dogecoin will go to the moon.

The year 2019 has been quite adventurous for John McAfee, as he not only spent time in jail and dodged the US authorities on multiple occasions but also engaged with several crypto-blockchain platforms. Some of these include:

John McAfee launched a decentralized crypto exchange called McAfee DEX in October. McAfee DEX boasts features like complete anonymity of transactions, lesser processing times, and lowest processing fees. The DEX is functioning smoothly at the moment, though it faced tough challenges initially.

Before launching the DEX, McAfee went out all guns blazing against fiat currencies and government-controlled monetary systems. He also heavily criticized centralized crypto exchanges and accused them of controlling the market.

McAfee launched the Epstein Didnt Kill Himself (WHACKD) token as a form of protest against the alleged murder of Jeffery Epstein which was staged as a suicide in prison. He also announced an airdrop of 700 million WHACKD tokens which were divided equally among all the eligible participants.

First of all, we will have to closely observe the McAfee DEX, how it performs and how much it stays true to initial promises. Similarly, it would be quite interesting to see the outcomes of various partnerships and engagements McAfee has entered into this year and given his past record, and exciting results are awaited.

However, the most important thing to keep an eye on would be the performance of Bitcoin. As mentioned earlier, McAfee has predicted a $1 million prediction for BTC by the end of 2020, and if Bitcoin was to really achieve this stupendous feat, it would have to have a terrific bull run through the year. At this moment, it seems quite unlikely due to the below $7,500 price, but if at all it happens, McAfee will establish himself as the greatest Bitcoin analyst.

Read the original:

Let's look at what McAfee had to say about Bitcoin in 2019 - CryptoNewsZ

John McAfee: Bitcoin Is Ancient Technology, As Ford Model T For Cars – CryptoPotato

Posted on by

American entrepreneur and controversial crypto figure John McAfee, who boldly predicted that Bitcoin would be valued at $1 million by the end of 2020, has openly lashed out on the leading cryptocurrency, referring to it as an ancient technology due to several limitations. This comes as a blow, considering that he was one of the biggest promoters of Bitcoin and crypto in general over the last few years.

McAfee believes that being the first blockchain to exist does not make Bitcoin the future. In his opinion, there are newer blockchains with enhanced features that solve the flaws of the Bitcoin blockchain, just as the Ford Model T automobile of 1908 was replaced by more sophisticated cars.

The 74 years computer programmer and billionaire has always been an advocate of decentralization and privacy. In fact, he has spent a great deal of time on the run while preaching against central authorities like government, and as such, privacy is a big concern for him, one of the features which he believes bitcoin lacks.

Bitcoin was first. Its ancient technology. All know it. Newer blockchains have privacy, smart contracts, distributed apps, and more, McAfee said in a tweet.

This is not the first time McAfee has called bitcoin outdated. In an interview with Cryptopotato from last October, he maintained the same opinion about the first cryptocurrency.

McAfee claimed that Bitcoin is only good at being a store of value and cryptocurrency, and nothing more.Besides, McAfee called the community to spend their bitcoins; otherwise, adoption wont come true.

McAfee is famous for his outrageous prediction that Bitcoins value would hit $1 million by the end of this year. He even went on to place a bet that he would eat his private part on national TV if the prediction does not come true, and many crypto enthusiasts are eagerly waiting for the event to happen in the next 12 months.

Although McAfee had stood firmly by his prediction on many occasions, including our interviewwith him from recent October, he said today that the $1 million bitcoin price prediction was only a trick to attract more people to the crypto space.

Eat my dick in 12 months? A ruse to onboard new users. It worked, he said in this regard.

Enjoy reading? Please share:

See original here:

John McAfee: Bitcoin Is Ancient Technology, As Ford Model T For Cars - CryptoPotato

The Dickening of John McAfee is Less Than 1 year Away – The Merkle Hash

Posted on by

As the new decade trucks along, plenty of crypto-related questions arise. It appears that a fair few people wonder if and when John McAfee will honor his initial promise.

Most bitcoin enthusiasts will remember the wild price prediction John McAfee shared with the world.

More specifically, he claimed how bitcoin will hit $500,000 by late 2020.

That prediction was ultimately adjusted to a value of $1 million per BTC by the end of 2020.

There are still over 364 days left to make this bitcoin price prediction come true.

If the prediction does not come true, however, John McAfee would eat his penis on national television.

A lot of enthusiasts are already warming up to this idea.

Given how bitcoin has performed in 2019, such a price point seems impossible to reach.

Based on the current price, the value per BTC needs to increase by $992,857.635.

While not impossible in theory it seems very unlikely the six-digit range will be reached in 2020.

Even in 2019, John McAfee further affirmed his bitcoin price prediction.

In a Tweet, he mentioned how the rise of bitcoin cannot be stopped.

Moreover, he also hinted at some obscure altcoins that could perhaps rise in value.

For the time being, it seems unlikely that anything major will happen to bitcoin.

A price increase is possible, but exponential growth will not happen anytime soon.

Image(s): Shutterstock.com

Read the original post:

The Dickening of John McAfee is Less Than 1 year Away - The Merkle Hash

Crypto Baron John McAfee Claims He Put Up Show Together with CIA and Zombie Coin – U.Today

Posted on by

John McAfee has just backpedaled on one of the wildest wagers in the history of crypto. In his recent tweet, the cybersecurity tycoon makes it clear that his promise to eat his penis if the Bitcoin price doesn't go to $1 mln by Dec. 31, 2020, was simply a "ruse" that was meant to attract new users.

Must Read

Back in July 2017, less than six months before Bitcoin became the biggest topic worldwide, McAfee took to Twitter to make an unprecedented claim that he would eat his penis on national television if Bitcoin failed to reach $500,000. Five months later, he upped the ante with the now-famous $1 mln price target.

Throughout these years, McAfee continued to stand by his prediction. As reported by U.Today, he still insisted that BTC could end up in the seven-digit reality as of Dec. 13, 2019. At the time of writing, BTC is trading at$7,462, which means that its price would have to increase by13,286 percent in twelve monthsfor McAfee's body to remain safe.

His prediction became so popular that there is even the "Dickening" countdown till Dec. 31, 2020 (itis called afterthe reward "halvening" that will take place in May). However, now that McAfee claims that it was nothing but a ruse, this site might no longer be relevant.

Must Read

Moreover, the eccentric septuagenarianhas apparently had a change of heart about Bitcoin since he's now certain that the top cryptocurrency has "an ancient technology," and newer blockchains will effectively replace it. McAfee compared Bitcoin tothe FordModel T,which is generally considered to be the very first affordable car.

While McAfee himself did not mention any specific names in his tell-all tweet, the threadgot instantly swarmed with people who wanted to pitch their favorite cryptocurrencies from some top altcoins to obscure projects.

A bit later, he named privacy-focused coin Monero as the new clear winner.

More:

Crypto Baron John McAfee Claims He Put Up Show Together with CIA and Zombie Coin - U.Today

7 Big Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Predictions for 2020 – The Daily Hodl

Posted on by

From outrageous price predictions to the future of altcoins, crypto analysts and industry leaders are placing their bets on the fate of digital assets in 2020.

Here are seven forecasts predicting some major shifts in the year ahead.

1. Twelve months ago, Bob Loukas, a Bitcoin trader and analyst, accurately predicted what the price of BTC would be at the end of 2019. Now, he thinks Bitcoin is headed for its all-time high near $20,000 by the end of 2020.

In the absolute bear case, after a 6-month downtrend, expect a counter-trend move towards $10k-$11k before another big downtrend. If you think you will FOMO buy $10k then buy it now instead.

Bob Loukas (@BobLoukas) December 26, 2019

2. Mike Novogratz, the CEO of crypto investment giant Galaxy Digital, is also bullish on BTC, saying he expects the king coin to end the new year above $12,000.

2020 prediction #1. @realDonaldTrump loses by more than 10mm votes. #2 $btc finishes over 12k. #3. @USAWrestling wins 3 golds in Tokyo (MF). #4 @tomhanks wins the Oscar for Mr Rodgers. #5 @reform and its partners help shrink the supervised population from 4.5mm to 4mm or <

Michael Novogratz (@novogratz) December 28, 2019

3. Changpeng Zhao, the founder and CEO of Binance, thinks numerous governments around the world will experiment with blockchain and their own digital assets.

Says Zhao in an interview with Global Coin Research,

I think in 2020, we will see different experiments tried by many different governments around the globe for adoption. Some will work, some may not, but overall, they will have a tremendously positive effect for crypto adoption.

4. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse predictsthat 10 of the 20 largest banks on the globe will begin to actively hold and trade digital assets in 2020 as fiat currencies go digital.

Hes also predicting that at least one G20 currency becomes fully digitized by 2021.

5. Decrypt columnist Matt Hussey echoed Zhao and Garlinghouses sentiments, predicting numerous nation states will roll out their own digital currencies this year.

6. Jimmy Song, a Bitcoin educator, thinks BTC dominance will be at more than 75% by the end of the year. He also predicts lots of altcoin delistings.

2020 Predictions Part 1:

* Bitcoin dominance will be 75%+ at end of year* Taproot will be activated without much controversy* Bitcoin price will have a bottom to top difference of at least 100%* Halving will be the big narrative

Jimmy Song () (@jimmysong) December 30, 2019

2020 Predictions Part 2:

* Lots of altcoin delistings* IEOs will lose steam* Some coin will be 51% attacked and cause an exchange to lose lots of money. Coin will go down less than 20%.* More coins will change to be merge mined with Bitcoin.

Jimmy Song () (@jimmysong) December 31, 2019

7. And last but not least, John McAfee now has only one year left to see whether Bitcoin reaches his sky-is-the-limit, dick-on-the-line forecast.

When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bircoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong. pic.twitter.com/WVx3E71nyD

John McAfee (@officialmcafee) November 29, 2017

Check Latest News Headlines

Go here to see the original:

7 Big Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Predictions for 2020 - The Daily Hodl

Trevon James Promised (And Claims He Did) Eating His Dogs Poop If Bitcoin Isnt At $10 By 2020 – CryptoPotato

Posted on by

Trevon James, a former promoter of the famous cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, BitConnect, made a Bitcoin prediction in 2018, which he must be regretting today. Back in 2018, he said that BTCs price will be $10 on January 1st, 2020 and that he would eat his own dogs excrement live on the internet if this is not the case.

James is a notorious YouTuber within the cryptocurrency community, mostly with promoting one of the largest scams in the industry BitConnect. It offered a 10% return on investment each month, and the coin (BCC) rose notably to $463 during the parabolic price increase of 2017 but ultimately plunged to less than $5 by January 2018, and then shut down officially.

While the community was attacking James for his knowing promotion of a suspected Ponzi scheme, he decided to offer a strongly negative prediction regarding Bitcoins price. Back in December 2018, he said that the largest cryptocurrency will be worth $10 as of today January 1st, 2020.

If his prognosis is somehow wrong, he will eat his own dogs poop. As we know today, BTC is at around $7,200, which is a long way from $10, so James indicated that Im a man of my word and that he will stream live the video of the unpleasant feast.

Even though he claims that he streamed the video, its worth noting that it doesnt appear on the platform nor on his YouTube channel.

Interestingly enough, James might now be promoting another controversial cryptocurrency-related project Hex.

The largest cryptocurrency is the target of similar predictions quite regularly, but it generally proves people wrong.

One of the most famous ones came from the prominent Bitcoins supporter and former antivirus tycoon John McAfee. As he confirmed in an interview with CryptoPotato, he thinks that BTC will reach $1 million by the end of 2020.

Some realistic and accurate predictions came from an anonymous analyst posting last year how Bitcoins price will change in the course of two years. While he was spot on at his first few picks, he was wrong about October, saying that BTC will be at $16,000, but in reality, it reached a monthly high of $9,700. The next listed month from his post is February, and the price is set for $29,000.

Most recently, another Bitcoin proponent, Michael Novogratz, seemed less optimistic about his prediction. Previously, he said that the largest cryptocurrency will go back to its all-time high of $20,000 by the end of 2019, but now it appeared that he is losing confidence by forecasting $12,000 at the end of 2020.

Featured image courtesy of Yahoo Finance

Enjoy reading? Please share:

Continue reading here:

Trevon James Promised (And Claims He Did) Eating His Dogs Poop If Bitcoin Isnt At $10 By 2020 - CryptoPotato

Mike Novogratz Starts 2020 with a Simpler Prediction for Bitcoin – Live Bitcoin News

Posted on by

Former hedge fund manager Mike Novogratz is joining the ranks of Tim Draper, Charles Hoskinson and Ross Ulbricht and making some wild predictions about bitcoins price for the year 2020.

In a recent tweet, Novogratz commented that he thinks the worlds leading cryptocurrency by market cap will spike to $12,000 in the coming months. While $12K is certainly a fine number by most standards, it doesnt quite garner attention or interest the way the predictions of the other three might. Heck, $12,000 doesnt even come relatively close to $13,600, which was the peak price for bitcoin in 2019, so what should we be getting so excited about?

Men like Draper have long stated that the cryptocurrency would reach the $250,000 mark, only prior, he stated that it would do so in the year 2023. Now, hes moving his prediction forward by three years and believes that bitcoin will reach this figure in 2020 thanks to the bitcoin halving currently scheduled for mid-May.

However, Draper freely admits that he hasnt seen the technical charts in some time and is basing his thoughts and ideas on instinct more than legitimate data.

Ross Ulbricht and Charles Hoskinson are a little more modest in their 2020 predictions, but still feel that this is the year when bitcoin crosses the six-figure mark. Both men believe bitcoin will reach $100,000 by the time next year is out.

The biggest price prediction comes from antivirus mogul John McAfee, who has repeatedly claimed that bitcoin will potentially strike the $1 million mark in 2020.

So, at the end of the day, Novogratzs prediction is nice to see, but it doesnt tantalize our brains the way the other predictions do. In fact, Novogratz took to Twitter to share several predictions for the year, and it feels almost as if the one regarding bitcoins price was simply thrown in there at the last minute to keep his words relevant to crypto users.

Some of the other random predictions he made in the tweet was that Tom Hanks would win this years Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of Mr. Rogers in the movie A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. This would be interesting considering the film hasnt even garnered that much interest at the upcoming SAG Awards, which are usually a tell-tale sign of who will be nominated or who might be potential winners.

A win for Hanks would mark a third golden statue for the actor. He has previously won Oscars for 1993s Philadelphia, and 1994s Forrest Gump, and is one of the only performers to win consecutive Academy Awards (one after the other).

He also stated that the U.S. wrestling team will win three gold medals at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, Japan Rather specific.

Go here to see the original:

Mike Novogratz Starts 2020 with a Simpler Prediction for Bitcoin - Live Bitcoin News

Four Ways To Prepare Yourself For Real Estate Investing Success In 2020 – Forbes

Posted on by

As we wound down 2019 with low interest rates and rising rental demand, it was clear to see that it had been a great year for investors. Considering this is the season of New Years resolutions, the following are four ways investors can up their competitive game and prepare themselves for even greater real estate investing success in 2020.

1. Ditch the paperwork and go digital.

The digital revolution has improved our lives in so many different ways, from social media to online shopping and vacation planning to bill paying and even buying and managing real estate investments. Ditching the paperwork and going digital was a game-changer in my real estate investing business, and it can be in yours too. Heading into 2020, set up the processes and systems so you can go almost entirely digital. The advantages of storing and organizing real estate documents online include:

Reducing physical storage space.

Bank-encryption security to minimize the risk of document theft or loss.

Preserve historic documents such as year-end financial statements for tax purposes.

Efficient retrieval and information sharing with business partners, CPAs or attorneys 24/7 from anywhere in the world.

Save money and be friendlier to the environment.

I dont know how many times Ive been on-site at one of my properties, chatting with a property manager or vendor, at a bank or talking with a member of my team when I needed to reference a document. Going digital makes it as simple as taking out your smartphone and having the answers at your fingertips.

2. Get your asset protection strategy in order.

Real estate investors who think its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission may be in for a rude awakening when they start getting into legal gray areas.Successful investors know that following rules and regulations shouldnt be viewed as an obstacle. People who have been there, done that know that it is important to protect yourself, your assets and investors from a worst-case scenario.

Real estate investors should protect themselves by:

Obtaining full coverage insurance for your property. Property damage and theft, fire and construction insurance, liability insurance that covers claims from tenants and their guests and loss of income with business interruption insurance coverage. Its also critical that your tenants have renters insurance and can provide proof of coverage. At the end of each year, I like to review current insurance coverage to ensure that its still adequate perhaps there have been changes to a building over the years. There may also be ways to reduce your costs if some coverage is no longer needed.

Reviewing what asset protection is right for you. LLCs help protect the members of the company from the liabilities and business debts, but they also have drawbacks. Understand whether this type of asset protection is right for you and consider others. If you dont choose the LLC route, you may want to explore umbrella insurance or use a combination thereof.

3. Prepare today for tax success tomorrow.

Lets face it: in addition to generating income, one of the main reasons we invest in real estate is for tax benefits. As youre digitizing your business, take the opportunity to get all your tax documents ready and organized for filing, whether on your own or with your accountant. Its never too early to begin preparing for tax season.

Smooth your tax information-gathering process by:

Tracking your income and expenses throughout the year using digital tools

Uploading and storing documents and receipts whenever you receive them

Talking with your accountant about how you can take advantage of other tax strategies like pass-through deductions and casualty losses

Keep in mind the various tax advantages that may be available to you as a real estate investor, such as:

Depreciation, a non-cash expense that allows you to reduce taxable net income

20% pass-through deduction of qualified business income helps maximize deductions for qualifying taxpayers

Deductions from a large list of business expenses allowed by the IRS for rental property income

The 1031 tax-deferred exchange, which can be leveraged to sell one property and buy another without paying capital gains

Taxes can be complex, but they dont have to be complicated if you are prepared.

4. Always learn.

Real estate education is a building block to success as an investor. We learn, we take action, we make mistakes and we adjust accordingly.

Some of my favorite resources for learning to invest in real estate in 2020 include:

Books on real estate written by experienced investors. TheStreet published a helpful summary of the best investing books from 2019.

Online seminars through blogs, videos and podcasts that are free and on-demand. One of my favorite podcasts is Bigger Pockets, and there are various others to choose from and add to your list.

Newsletters are a great way to stay abreast of the latest real estate news.

In-person training sessions led by a motivating and experienced instructor.

Mentors who can provide one-on-one advice and help you avoid mistakes that even experienced real estate investors can make.

Investment clubs, apartment associations and meetups in your local market for networking and finding off-market deals.

For real estate success in 2020 and beyond, the key steps investors should take are to go digital, get your legal house in order, prepare now for tax time and always seek out education opportunities. These will be the hallmarks of real estate investing success in 2020.

See the article here:

Four Ways To Prepare Yourself For Real Estate Investing Success In 2020 - Forbes

Dr. Pimple Popper Just Popped A Monster Inflamed Cyst In The Ultimate Popaholic Challenge Youtube Video – Women’s Health

Posted on by

The wait is finally over Popaholics, you've made it to a whole new year and to the finale video of the Ultimate Popaholic Challenge. The popping videos have gotten truly wild, and dermatologist Sandra Lee, MD, aka Dr. Pimple Popper, has saved the best for last. For level 10 of the Ultimate Popaholic Challenge, she tackles an abscess waterfall cyst in the new Youtube video.

Dr. Pimple Popper congratulated her fans in the caption: "If you guessed it would be an abscess cyst or more specifically a waterfall cyst you were right! Congrats to everyone that made it this far, no pop can hold you back! Now lets enjoy this waterfall of a cyst"

ICYMI: Dr. Pimple Popper launched the Ultimate Popaholic Challenge last week with blackhead pops and a seriously huge dilated pore of winer. Dr. Pimple Popper also shared all the details of the Ultimate Popaholic Challenge: "I'll be uploading some of the best and most extreme POPS we've ever had. Everyday, the videos get a little more intense, how far will you be able to go??? Do YOU have what it takes to be the ULTIMATE POPAHOLIC? Tune in Daily to find out."

Dr. Pimple Popper tackles the inflamed cyst in a whopping 50-minute Youtube video. Get comfortable and grab your snacks, folks. The doc adds commentary as she works. She writes: "There are small pustules overlying this cyst, as it is coming to a head."

She starts by numbing the area and slicing into the top of the cyst with a scalpel. Dr. Pimple Popper barely grazes the surface, and already the waterfall starts flowing. The cyst does not stop gushing. "It wants to come out," Dr. Pimple Popper says. They have a bowl set up under the cyst to catch everything streaming out. The monster cyst surprises the doc, too. She says, "Where is this coming from?"

The dermatologist has at least one food metaphor on the mind. "It looks like cafe au lait with peppermint," Dr. Pimple Popper explained. "It's always surprising to see how much comes out. It sprayed on my shoe before."

Dr. Pimple Popper's fans are loving the final pop. One Popaholic wrote: "I guess Dr lee didnt listen to TLC and decided to chase that waterfall." Another fan shared, "One of the best pops of all time! I love cyst drainage!"

Congrats to all the Popaholics who made it through the Ultimate Popaholic Challenge.

Excerpt from:

Dr. Pimple Popper Just Popped A Monster Inflamed Cyst In The Ultimate Popaholic Challenge Youtube Video - Women's Health

Behind the scenes in the Getty photo archives with ‘Unseen’ – Los Angeles Times

Posted on by

The photo album has been worn soft by the press of countless fingers, its water-stained cover turned the color of spilled coffee. Labeled London Boys Home, 1857, the album contains careful portraits of young men accompanied by neat handwritten script detailing biographies worthy of a Charles Dickens novel.

Fourteen-year-old William Ford is shown stiffly sitting in a suit twice his size. His slicked-back hair and high forehead tower above a small, pinched face with a long nose and sorrowful stare. The reader is told that Ford was admitted to the school on June 2, 1855. His parents are dead; his brother is a railway porter who is now out of work.

The school arranged for William to travel to Canada for employment, but his conduct on board the ship was not commendable and he gambled some of his clothes away during the voyage. The last entry in his biography, dated March 18, 1858, notes that our wee hero is in Toronto selling muffins.

The rare handmade book was rediscovered in the Getty Museums main photo storage vault by senior curator of photographs Jim Ganz, who was searching for gems to include in the new exhibit Unseen: 35 Years of Collecting Photographs, which runs at the Getty Center through March 8.

Created to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the founding of the museums department of photographs, Unseen features images from the collection that have never before been exhibited at the museum.

The Getty museums new exhibit Unseen is something of curatorial mixtape.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Work by prestigious names like Nan Goldin, Weegee, William Eggleston, Laura Aguilar and Anthony Hernandez share wall space with unknown talent, as is the case with the remarkable salt prints featured in the London boys home album or a grisly series of forensic crime photos made by the police in Paris in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Ganz, who collaborated on the project with the other six curators in his department, calls the result a curatorial mixtape and notes that objects that have no literal relationship to one another are found next to objects that present the opportunity for making unexpected connections and revelations.

He takes pains to stress that the photos in the show are not the greatest hits of the images not yet seen in the museum, but rather a loving assemblage of images that mean one thing or another to the curators who pieced them together.

This is a collection of 148,000 objects, Ganz says during a tour of the storage vault. So you do the math and realize that most of it hasnt been shown.

Like the journey of 19th century portraits of orphans in England to a storage vault in a Los Angeles museum, the much shorter journey of a photo from that vault to museum gallery wall involves intricate interventions that are not be obvious to the casual observer.

Most of the objects in the collection live in one of five vaults, which collectively provide 4,400 shelves and 10,000 square feet of hanging space. Prints are kept safe in archival quality mats and folders inside slender, black solander boxes rigid containers that protect prints from fluctuations in humidity and temperature, as well as from excessive light. Books and albums are stored in heavy metal cases with glass fronts. Some labels are written by hand, others are typed.

The main vault pairs the look of a library with the chilly, no-frills ambiance of a walk-in cooler. The room is kept at 68 degrees to protect the prints. The vault for color photographs is kept at 40 degrees to slow the inevitable changes with the dyes. Before color materials can be moved in or out, they must spend 24 hours in a transition room with the thermostat set to 55 to prevent condensation from forming on the surface of the work.

Its essential that photographs are housed with high quality materials and that the storage environment is climate controlled for long-term preservation, explains associate conservator of photographs Sarah Freeman, who is part of the team that evaluates each of these factors to ensure they are optimal. Acid-free folders, mats and frame packages are key because they provide protection from handling and the environment. Cool, dry conditions are ideal, and proper air filtration is necessary.

Freeman and her fellow conservators, who work in the lab next-door to the main vault, are also responsible for determining whether or not an object needs treatment. The many options include repairing tears, stabilizing emulsion and the edges of prints, as well as structural work on bindings and book covers. The lab is clean, white and brightly lighted a quiet place where science is obviously happening.

Conservators also must carefully assess an objects light sensitivity. Prints made in early days of photography were often created using experimental techniques and unstable chemicals, so exposing them to too much light could cause them to yellow or fade.

Unseen features a series of cyanotypes made in the mid-1800s by English botanist and photographer Anna Atkins and her friend Anne Dixon. These showcase a technique that uses iron salts to produce blue-colored prints. The results resemble paintings.

The delicate works of art were determined to be so light sensitive that each Monday when the museum is closed a page of the book containing the prints is turned so as not to expose one particular cyanotype to more light than it can handle.

Every object in the Gettys collection of photography has a back story that is often difficult to suss out. This is where the museums collection manager and curatorial assistants get their chance to shine. This group is in the process of cataloging and uploading the entire collection online.

When collection manager Miriam Katz began working at the museum eight years ago, she says that only about 3% of the collection was online.

Miriam Katz, collections manager and lead cataloger at the Getty, measures a print.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Now, as fast as they catalog an image, were uploading it, she says, adding that there are still more than 36,000 objects to go, a process that will likely take another five years.

Cataloging an image is a fascinating combination of scholarly research, hard science and imaginative speculation. Before an image is uploaded, the curatorial assistants have recorded as much information as possible about who took it, when, where and why. Historical background that adds meaning to the image is limned, as are identifying characteristics of the print and entries about who owned an image over the years, and where it may have been exhibited.

To my mind this is the most essential curatorial work there is, Ganz says, because if you dont know what you have, you dont have anything.

The curatorial assistants work at long, polished wood tables in the museums study room, which is open to the public. A print or album is laid on soft, white cloth. The staffers use a loop to magnify the image, a tape measure to record its dimensions and a pocket microscope to help identify the process used to create the image.

Megan Catalano catalogs photos at the Getty Museum.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Then theres the historical research work, which often can yield thrilling results, as was the case with the mysterious London Boys Home portraits. When the book fell into the hands of curatorial assistant Megan Catalano, very little was known about it, including the name of the school and where it was located.

She did some digital sleuthing and finally found another handmade copy of the book in the London Metropolitan Archives. This copy identified the school as being in Walton-on-Thames, which is a borough of Surrey about 15 miles outside of London. Catalano now had a place to start, and she began digging through old newspaper records and other historical materials to figure out the name of the school (Hurst Refuge) and the name of the headmaster (James Edmond Harries), who she thinks is likely the person who kept the book.

It took a very long time, but it was incredibly satisfying, Catalano says.

The book, which the museum has relabeled Walton-on-Thames Boys Home Case Book, arrived at the Getty in 1984 as part of curator and art collector Sam Wagstaffs collection. Catalano says Wagstaff acquired it a Sothebys auction in 1975.

Catalano hopes that someday someone will try to find the boys descendants, and that her research might help with the hunt. Most of the boys were sent to Canada for work, she says, and a few were sent to Australia or Africa.

One or two entered the Royal Navy, so there may be more information about their fates in other government records or archives in other parts of the world, she added. The reports of the boys mostly stop a few years after they arrive in Canada, some having found steady work, others bouncing around. Sadly, one or two didnt survive the journey or died shortly after arriving in Canada.

Each image on the wall in Unseen has its own story. Visitors need only pull back the curtain on the process of telling it.

'Unseen'

When: Tuesdays-Sundays, through March 8

Admission: Free

Info: (310) 440-7300, getty.edu

See the original post here:

Behind the scenes in the Getty photo archives with 'Unseen' - Los Angeles Times

CES 2020 tips and tricks: Your guide to techs biggest trade show – VentureBeat

Posted on by

I attended the Consumer Electronics Show back in the 1990s when then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates gave the opening keynote speeches every year. Las Vegas has changed a lot since then, but some of my advice about the show goes back that far.

Like the importance of wearing comfy shoes. I learned that lesson after some blisters during a CES years ago. Some of this is not rocket science. But there are new people attending the show every year, so I feel obligated to share my accumulated experience. (I take no responsibility for bad advice). I also have new tips, like pointing you to the CES app. (And heres tips from Tim Bajarin, who has attended the show for 50 years).

CES 2020 is expected to draw 170,000 techies, down some from 175,212 last year as the group that puts on CES, the Consumer Technology Association, continues to pare back on non-professional attendees. CES 2020 will have about 4,500 exhibitors across 2.9 million square feet of space, about the same number of exhibitors and slightly more space than last year, according to my interview with Karen Chupka, executive vice president of the CTA. The show will have 1,200 startups in its Eureka Park section, up from 1,100 the year before.

You will facebag restrictions and entrance searches at all of the big venues, and you can bet those restrictions will be enforced now that the CTA announced Ivanka Trump, advisor to the White House and the daughter of U.S. President Donald Trump, will hold a fireside chat with CTA CEO Gary Shapiro (Tuesday at 2 p.m. Pacific).

Above: Sign at CES 2019.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

You can expect long lines, but you may be able to cut one of them short by picking up your CES badge at the airport. You CES badge will now have your photo, and you need a government-issued ID to pick it up.

Regular attendees can only carry two small laptop-sized bags into the show. Clear bags will get you through the line faster. Rolling bags of any size are prohibited including luggage, carry-ons, rolling laptop and computer bags, and luggage carts.

Media professionals are granted an exception to this rule, as long as they submit to a search and have the bag tagged for approval. This allows me to carry my trademark back-saving backpack roller (which my coworkers have dubbed my secret weapon in years past) into the event. Thankfully, Im taking an HP laptop and a Dynabook laptop that are considerably lighter than in years past.

The show has consistently had highly visible law enforcement officers and K9 (dog) units at the entrances to the venues and on the exhibit floor. This means you will run into unexpected delays when youre going into venues. Youll just have to travel lighter when walking the show floors. If you do have heavier bags, you can check them at the Las Vegas Convention Center Central Plaza, next to the main registration tent, the Sands Level 1 Lobby, and the Venetian Ballroom Foyer.

Above: The crowd at CES 2013.

Image Credit: Devindra Hardawar

The 53rd annual show opens on Sunday, January 5 for the thousands of press attendees. The press events continue all day on January 6. But Samsung will skip its press event this year, as Hyun-Suk Kim, CEO of the consumer electronics division at Samsung, will give a keynote speech on Monday evening. And Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang will also skip his traditional Sunday evening press event.

For the press, Monday is a kind of baptism by fire, thanks to press events starting at 8 a.m. with LG and ending with Sonys 5 p.m. press event. The opening keynote follows, and then the press moves on to the Digital Experience (Pepcom) party at the Mirage. This is the day when I need the laptop with the longest battery life. VentureBeat writers Jeremy Horwitz and Kyle Wiggers will join me, and some of my colleagues will be comfortably watching livestreams from home.

But Tuesday and Wednesday are when the real crowds show up, and youll notice it in restaurants, transportation lines, convention halls, casino floors, and at the airport. Thankfully, the Las Vegas weather forecast predicts dry air and no rain during CES week. I remember in 2018 we had torrential rains and blackouts.

This is probably one of the busiest times of the show for attendees, and its when the taxis, ride-sharing cars, and others will be clogging the paths to the main venues, the Venetian Hotel/Sands Expo and the Las Vegas Convention Center.

If youre leaving the convention center around 6 p.m., you can catch a bus to most of the major hotels. But thats also the busiest traffic time.

Above: The lower level of the sprawling South Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center #CES2014

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

The 2.9 million square feet of exhibition space will open at 10 a.m. Tuesday, January 7. The venues are divided into Tech East (Las Vegas Convention Center and its surroundings), Tech West (Sands/Venetian), and Tech South (Aria, Vdara, and Park MGM).

If youre really ambitious, you could be walking 30,000 steps a day, about 3 to 6 times as much as usual. For me, exhaustion sets in around 20,000 steps. If you can cut some unnecessary walking from your day, that would be wise to do.

You can start by getting to know the locations.The LVCC Central Hall is where a lot of the big companies are, such as Samsung, Sony, Canon, Sharp, Nikon, IBM, Panasonic, LG, Bosch, Intel, and Delta.

You can walk across a connector from the Central Hall to the South Hall, where there are a mix of big booths, small booths, and meeting rooms (which are way in the back).

The South Hall itself is confusing, as it has two levels. South Halls 1 and 2 are on the ground level, with booth numbers ranging from 2000 to 22999 and 25000 to 27999 on the ground level. South Halls 3 and 4 (30000-32999, 35000-37999) are on the upper level, and both are easily reached via the South Hall connector.

If you want to see transportation tech, automobiles, and a flying car, check out the North Hall.

Above: A Bosch/Daimler self-driving car.

Image Credit: Daimler

The CTAs Chupka told me that the health and wellness marketplace (a collection of related booths) will increase by 25% in exhibitors and 15% in square footage. The smart city marketplace is also up about 25% in exhibitors and 70% in square footage, for a total of 50,000 square feet.

The transportation sections will grow as the march toward autonomous vehicles continues. Pegasus will have a booth that shows what a flying car may look like. The augmented reality, virtual reality, and gaming marketplace will be up about 30% in exhibitors and 15% in square footage.

But some marketplaces have already hit their peak, as drones will be flat and 3D printing will be smaller.

Based on the pitches Im getting, I think well see a lot of tech related to artificial intelligence, 5G cellular networks, health-focused wearables, energy-saving devices, the internet of things (IoT), sleep care, elder care, mental care, smart cars, and robots. For the first time, sex tech vendors will be allowed on the show floor, with companies such as Lora DiCarlo and Lioness exhibiting.

I still view CES as a bellwether for the tech economy, as no other event spans the entire tech world like it does. Companies want to create a buzz at CES, which is designed to signal products coming in the next year. I find the show a useful way to stay up to speed on the latest technology.

Apple doesnt attend the show, but just about every other tech giant does. Its where the tech industry will be next week, though its not so much of a game event these days, despite the weakness of E3. If youre curious, heres my best of show thoughts from CES 2019.

Above: Intels CES 2018 keynote had some amazing visuals on a giant screen. This image is a visualization of a trove of data.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

Many of these tips are recycled from past years, but Ive gone through and renewed them with my latest info. As I mentioned, its hard to get around at CES. You should keep appointments to a half hour, but note that it takes time to walk between venues. You may encounter delays because other people are behind schedule. And you may even have trouble finding people at large booths. So its good to pad your schedule to account for possible delays and isolate the really important appointments.

The CES badges now have photos on them, streamlining identification and making it harder for people to share badges.

On your crowded flights, try to travel light. For Southwest, I always check in ahead of boarding, setting an alarm for exactly 24 hours before my flight. Check your baggage if you dont have to get anywhere quickly. Be prepared for long cab lines and rental car check-in lines. (Services like Uber and Lyft were very useful the past couple of years at CES, particularly as parking is not plentiful enough and the big casinos/hotels now charge $10 per visit at their self-parking garages). I no longer rent a car.

I recommend sleep. If the parties are what you care about, heres a party list and another one. Many of the soirees are invite-only.

Remember to swap phone numbers with the people you are meeting so you can coordinate, particularly as someone is usually held up by the crowds. Incorporate driving and eating times into your calendar, or use a calendar that does that automatically for you (Im still looking for one).

Smartphone reception is better than it used to be, but its still probably prone to interference. Text message is usuallya decent way to communicate with coworkers. We always seek out the Wi-Fi havens in the press rooms or wherever we can find them.

But carry a MiFi or activate a personal hotspot if you can; even hotel internet connections are likely to be stressed to the limit during the show. If youre responsible for uploading video, thank you for clogging the network for the rest of us. By CES 2021, I hopefully wont have to complain about this, as 5G networks should theoretically enable faster connection speeds on cellular data. Theyre barely present in 2020.

If you collect a lot of swag, you can send it home via shipping services instead of carting it on the plane. You should print a map of the exhibit floor or rip one out of the show guide. You should also print your tickets, schedule, and RSVPs for events or make them easily accessible on your phone. (If someone steals your primary bag, you should have backups in a second bag).

You need battery backup for your laptop or smartphone, hand sanitizer, a good camera, ibuprofen, and vitamins. Im trying out an HP Elitebook and a Dynabook laptop this year. Bring a backup for everything, even if you have to leave it in your hotel room this year.

Above: Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg Mi-Fi discusses 5G at the 2019 CES.

Image Credit: Jeremy Horwitz/VentureBeat

Pack enough business cards. If youre exhibiting, wear your company brand on your shirt. Try very hard to avoid losing your phone. I wear a jacket with zippered pockets so I can put my phone and wallet inside.

Make some time to walk the show floor. If the cab line has you frustrated, dont think about walking to a nearby hotel. Chances are the cab line there is also bad, and the hotels are so huge that a mirage effect makes them look deceptively close. If you have a rental car, try not to get stuck in a traffic jam in a 10-story parking garage. And always mark down where you parked your car on your phone map or paper.

Uber and Lyft cars work well, especially at places where you cant be confused with a bunch of other people hailing ride-sharing vehicles. But last year I found that the pickup at the LVCC (near the Renaissance Hotel) was a traffic logjam.

Schedule your appointments in locations that are near each other, and check exhibitor locations on this map. Arrive early for keynotes because the lines are long.

Drink lots of water. Get some sleep you really dont have to party every night. Dont miss your flight on the way out. Pack up a bunch of snacks early on to avoid getting stuck in breakfast or lunch lines. Take a good camera because what happens in Vegas gets shared on the internet.

Above: Carsten Breitfeld, CEO of Byton, shows off the cars 48-inch screen.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

And heres how we expect the news to unfold this week:

Lots of embargoed news will break Sunday through Thursday as tech companies try to catch some early buzz. The Consumer Technology Association analysts will open press-only sessions with sales stats and trend forecasts for 2019.

The event officially kicks off in the afternoon, with press sessions led by CTA analysts at 1 p.m. at the Mandalay Bay hotel. P&G will hold a press event at 2 p.m., and Byton will hold a press event at 3 p.m.

Then I will hit a press-only CES Unveiled reception (5 p.m. in Mandalay Bay), where scores of companies that have won innovation awards will show off their wares. Youll start seeing posts about cool stuff at that party on Sunday evening, particularly from all the tech journalists who are chained to tables at the party.

Above: Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, at CES 2019 keynote.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

Media Dayat CES has now morphed into a day and a half. It starts around 1 p.m. on Sunday and then runs from 8 a.m. to the early evening on Monday.

LG kicks off the Monday press events at 8 a.m. AMD will take Samsungs place at 2 p.m. Intel will have an event at 4 p.m., and Sony will start at 5 p.m. You should search for CES press event livestreams, particularly if you cant get in.

Most of the press events are at the Mandalay Bay, although Sony has its event at the Las Vegas Convention Center. These events are closed to non-press attendees, but well be writing posts about a lot of them.

As noted, Samsung will kick off the keynotes at 6:30 p.m. on Monday at the Palazzo ballroom of the Venetian Hotel, and Daimler chair Ola Kllenius will speak at 8:30 p.m. at Park MGMs Park Theater. Ill close out my evening at the Pepcom Digital Experience party, a private event at the Mirage Hotel.

Dont be surprised if people start querying you about what youve seen. When I meet people at a CES party, the most common question I get is What did you see today? Its a bit annoying, as theyre usually fishing for a story or gadget that they should see and pass on to their friends. But I dont really mind because it causes me to sharpen my thinking about what Ive witnessed during the day.

Above: Ivanka Trump

Image Credit: AP/Shutterstock

Chupka and Gary Shapiro, CEO of the CTA, will kick off the Tuesday keynote at 8:30 a.m. Pacific time in the Venetians Palazzo Ballroom. They will be followed by Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian, in a keynote talk at the same location.

At 2 p.m., Ivanka Trump will do her fireside chat with Shapiro in the Palazzo Ballroom in the Venetian. They will talk about how the administration is advocating for employer-led strategies that invest in reskilling workers, create apprenticeships, and develop K-12 STEM education programs.

At 4 p.m., MediaLink chair Michael E. Kassan, Unilever CEO Alan Jope, and Salesforce co-CEO Marc Benioff will host a panel at the Park Theater at the Park MGM, Level 1.

At 10 a.m., the show floor formally opens at the big venues. The 11 locations are the Las Vegas Convention Center and World Trade Center, the Sands Expo, the Venetian, Aria, Park MGM, Vdara, the Palazzo Suites, Wynn Las Vegas, Encore at Wynn, the Westgate Las Vegas, and the Renaissance Las Vegas.

Above: Google Assistant space at CES 2019

Image Credit: Khari Johnson / VentureBeat

Well catch more product unveilings at the invite-only Showstoppers Party in the evening at the Wynn Hotel.

Some advice for walking the show floor: The Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC) is cavernous. It stretches from the North Hall, where a lot of the car makers and speaker manufacturers gather, to the vast Central Hall and the multilevel South Hall. Its a couple of miles from one end to the other, so try to space out your appointments. You should really take the time to map out where youre going to walk and how long it will take to get there.

Its not easy to get from the LVCC to the Sands Expo during the rush period, but the CTA provides shuttle buses for that purpose. Parking is really scarce, as theyve gotten rid of one of the main parking lots.

As I mentioned before, when the exhibit floor closes at 6 p.m., theres a mad rush for the taxi line, the shuttle buses to major hotels, the parking garages, and the monorail. Try to avoid getting stuck in gigantic traffic jams out on the Las Vegas Strip and anywhere else near the main convention center. It might be worth waiting out the rush at a coffeehouse or hotel bar. Ride-sharing lines are also long at the designated pickup points.

Above: Quibi CEO Meg Whitman.

Image Credit: HPE

Meg Whitman and Jeffrey Katzenberg will give a keynote speech about their entertainment startup, Quibi, at 9:30 a.m. (Park MGM, Level 1, Park Theater). U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao will also speak at 11:30 a.m. (LVCC, North Hall, N257). And NBCUniversal will host an entertainment panel at 4 p.m. (Park MGM, Level 1, Park Theater).

I will moderate a session on how brands are engaging with esports and gaming at 1 p.m. at Aria, Level 3, Ironwood Ballroom.

The show floor opens at 9 a.m. and runs until 6 p.m. Its still pretty crowded on this day, particularly around departure time.

Above: Dean Takahashi looks at a spider on his hand.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

Im walking the show floors on this day and doing some interviews. Im also moderating a session at 1 p.m. at the Venetian on mixed reality at the Kids & Family Tech Summit event (Venetian Level 4 Lando room 4302). I highly recommend that you hit just one major venue in a day, like the Sands or the Las Vegas Convention Center, and avoid going off-site at all costs.

If you hate crowds, this may be the day to show up. The VentureBeat crew will be gone by this point well be home contemplating our picks for the top CES trends, the best products and services, and awesome images from the show. But the show floor will be open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. After that, its probably a good idea to take the weekend and perhaps a vacation day to recover.

Thats the whole show. As for me, I wish Bill Gates would return and give a keynote speech. I think hes more interesting now that he is retired.

Continue reading here:

CES 2020 tips and tricks: Your guide to techs biggest trade show - VentureBeat

Shrinking dinosaurs and the evolution of endothermy in birds – Science Advances

Posted on by

Abstract

The evolution of endothermy represents a major transition in vertebrate history, yet how and why endothermy evolved in birds and mammals remains controversial. Here, we combine a heat transfer model with theropod body size data to reconstruct the evolution of metabolic rates along the bird stem lineage. Results suggest that a reduction in size constitutes the path of least resistance for endothermy to evolve, maximizing thermal niche expansion while obviating the costs of elevated energy requirements. In this scenario, metabolism would have increased with the miniaturization observed in the Early-Middle Jurassic (~180 to 170 million years ago), resulting in a gradient of metabolic levels in the theropod phylogeny. Whereas basal theropods would exhibit lower metabolic rates, more recent nonavian lineages were likely decent thermoregulators with elevated metabolism. These analyses provide a tentative temporal sequence of the key evolutionary transitions that resulted in the emergence of small, endothermic, feathered flying dinosaurs.

The evolution of endothermy in birds and mammals is regarded as one of the most important transitions in vertebrate evolution, providing an extraordinary case of evolutionary convergence between these groups that was pivotal to their widespread geographic distribution and ecological success (1). While several groups of invertebrates and vertebrates can raise their temperatures above ambient, the maintenance of high and constant body temperature (Tb) through endogenous heat production at rest is exclusive to birds and mammals and explains their greater mobility, stamina, and tolerance to a wider range of conditions. Nonetheless, because this strategy is energetically costly and leaves virtually no trace in the fossil record, the tempo and mode of the evolution of endothermy remains one of the most contentious subjects in vertebrate evolution (26). To understand how, when, and why endothermy arose during the evolution of birds and mammals, two fundamental questions must be considered: What are the costs and benefits of this strategy when compared against ectothermy, and, more importantly, under which conditions would the transition toward endothermy be favored?

Here, we address these questions using the Scholander-Irving model of heat transfer (Fig. 1) (7, 8). For any organism in thermal steady state, the model states thatMR=C(TbTa)(1)where MR corresponds to metabolic rate (milliliters of O2 per hour), C corresponds to thermal conductance (milliliters of O2 per hour and degrees Celsius), and Tb Ta constitutes the thermal gradient between body and ambient temperature (degrees Celsius), respectively. While this relationship has been used to study thermoregulation in endotherms for more than 60 years (79), it has been rarely used for ectotherms because of their low MR and high C that results, as the ratio MR/C tends to zero, in the rearranged approximation Tb = Ta [but see (10, 11)]. However, because all living organisms produce endogenous heat, the model remains applicable under thermal steady state, which is a crucial assumption to circumvent the use of complex dynamic models often applied to ectotherms that would render analyses below intractable.

(A) The cost-benefit to switch from ectothermy to endothermy for different ranges of body size was quantified with the Scholander-Irving model, which describes how a rise in metabolism at rest (cost) increases the thermal niche Tb Ta (benefit). Because there is no thermal gradient between the organism and the environment in the absence of heat production, this curve intersects the abscissa at Tb = Ta when MR = 0 (8). The solid blue and red lines depict the metabolic curves of a typical ectotherm and endotherm, respectively, and the open symbols depict the maximal thermal gradient Tb Ta possible with resting metabolic rates, used in our model (Eq. 2). (B) A reduction in body size, consistent with the one described from ancestral theropods to basal birds (22), constitutes the evolutionary path of least resistance as the energy costs of being large are traded for those of being endothermic.

The costs of endothermy can be quantified as mass-independent energy expenditure, whereas the benefits include greater mobility and foraging efficiency, predator avoidance, tolerance to, and colonization of a wider range of environmental conditions, increased growth rates, and homeostasis (1). Many of these benefits derive from an elevated Tb, which can only be maintained above a certain minimum Ta. Therefore, Tb Ta quantifies the thermal niche that organisms can occupy, and its expansion can be used to estimate the net benefit of endothermy (Fig. 1). The cost-benefit of adopting an endothermic lifestyle may now be calculated as the fold increase in MR required to expand the thermal niche by 1C (hereafter cost per degree), which can be worked out for a constant Tb ascost per degree=(MRendo/MRecto)(TaendoTaecto)(2)with the subscripts referring to the ectothermic ancestor and the endothermic descendant (Fig. 1). This index of energy cost per degree Celsius is expected to change with body size because both MR and C vary allometrically (Fig. 2) (12, 13). For example, since a generic endotherm exhibits a 5-fold higher MR adjusted to Tb = 38C (14) and a 2.5-fold lower C than an ectotherm (11) (allometric equations in Fig. 2), then the size reduction from the estimated ~370 kg for the basal Tetanurae to ~0.9 kg for the basal bird would result in reduction in total energy expenditure from 10,194.0 to 574.4 ml O2/hour and a thermal niche expansion of 12.1C (from a thermal gradient of 6.7 to 18.8C) (Fig. 2). This corresponds to a cost per degree of 4.65 103 per C, or 7.1 and 1.6% of the predicted costs should endothermy have evolved in lineages with a constant size of 370 and 0.9 kg (cost per degree of 6.48 102 and 2.89 101 per C, respectively) (Fig. 3). These calculations, which can be replicated with the exact body size estimates provided in the Supplementary Materials (see Methods), show that the evolution of smaller sizes reduces the energy costs to evolve endothermy, as originally proposed by McNab for mammals (3). In the next sections, we explore how this heat transfer model, combined with well-resolved phylogenies and body size reconstructions, can shed light on how endothermy evolved in birds from their theropod ancestors.

(A) Theropod phylogeny (15) with branches color-coded according to reconstructed metabolic levels. (B) Scaling of metabolic rate versus body mass (12) for ectotherms (MR = 0.68mass0.75) and endotherms (MR = 3.4mass0.75) and the predicted trajectory of the bird stem lineage during the transition from ectothermy to endothermy. Dashed lines show fold differences between ectotherms and endotherms (1 to 5); open and closed symbols depict reconstructed values for the bird stem lineage and the tips of the phylogeny, respectively (see Methods). (C) Scaling of thermal conductance C and body mass (13) for ectotherms (C = 2.5mass0.5) and endotherms (C = 1.0mass0.5), fold differences from 2.5 to 1. (D) Thermal gradient and fold differences calculated with Eq. 1 and values in (B) and (C). The log-log linear trajectories connecting MR and C of the ectothermic ancestor and the endothermic descendant, as well as the resulting trajectory in thermal gradient, are shown with the continuous lines.

(A) The miniaturization from Tetanurae to basal birds inferred from the fossil record (15), contrasted against 100 simulated size trajectories starting from the same ancestral body size for illustrative purposes (note that for the subsequent full null model, the ancestral body size is allowed to vary). The error represents the SD in reconstructed values across 20 candidate trees (see Methods). (B) The frequency distribution of body mass ratios obtained across 10,000 simulated body size trajectories (histogram) and the energy costs to evolve endothermy expressed per degree Celsius (Eq. 2) under this null model (gray symbols). In this case, the ancestral body size was obtained from a uniform distribution ranging between 10 g and 100,000 kg. The empirical estimate in the bird stem lineage is shown in red. The region in which a reduction in body size would compensate for the energy costs of evolving endothermy, enabling the population to increase in a scenario of constant resources, is highlighted in gray. The arrow depicts the expected population fold increase, given the observed body size reduction in the bird stem lineage as endothermy evolved. These analyses indicate that the energy costs to evolve endothermy are reduced with miniaturization and, as a result, population size may have increased despite the metabolic costs of an endothermic lifestyle.

We estimated the costs of evolving endothermy along the bird stem lineage from reconstructed ancestral body sizes inferred from the fossil record (15). To quantify the energy costs in alternative scenarios, we simulated the evolution of body size along this lineage and obtained the distribution of cost per degree under this null model (Fig. 3). We assumed an undirected Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) model of size evolution bounded between 10 g and 100,000 kg and a mean evolutionary rate equivalent to values reported for these theropods (see Methods). Estimates of cost per degree across different simulated size trajectories were log-normally distributed with a fold-change median of 0.124 per C (100.9 in Fig. 3B), which implies that, relative to the metabolism of the ectothermic ancestor MRecto (Eq. 2), the energy cost to increase the thermal niche by 1C as endothermy evolves amounts to roughly 12.4% at a constant body size. According to our null model, 95% of simulated costs per degree Celsius would fall between 275 and 0.576% depending on whether body size increases or decreases, respectively. In this context, simulations indicate that the energy costs per degree Celsius decrease markedly with miniaturization (Fig. 3). Two phenomena explain these reduced costs. First, the expansion in thermal niche following an increase in MR is disproportionally higher in larger ectotherms because they can maintain a high Tb with a relatively low mass-independent MR due to inertial homeothermy (also known as gigantothermy) (3, 1618). Accordingly, the residuals of cost per degree controlling for the fold difference in size between ancestor and descendant are negatively related with the simulated ancestral size according to a linear regression (F1,9998 = 1.94 105, r2 = 0.95, P < 0.001). That is, the larger the starting size of the ectothermic ancestor, the cheaper the transition to endothermy should be. Second, during miniaturization, the energy costs of being large are traded for being endothermic, which helps to explain how high energy turnover rates evolved despite their impact on food and water requirements. Birds require between 15 and 20 times more food than a similar-sized reptile (6), which could be problematic because the proportional fold reduction in population size expected if resources were constant might jeopardize the populations long-term persistence in evolutionary time (19, 20) (certainly, the benefits of being endothermic and capable of obtaining more resources might partly offset this limitation).

In contrast, in our model, energy equivalence between an ectotherm and an endotherm is attained with an 8.55-fold decrease in body size (Fig. 3); thus, a 43.3-kg bird should have the same requirements as its 370-kg Tetanurae ancestor, everything else being equal [life is certainly more complicated, and differences in activity patterns or home range size between ectotherms and endotherms should affect this rough estimate (21)]. Assuming that energy can be assigned to either body size or abundance, our analysis shows that, irrespective of the potential increment in food resources resulting from an expanded thermal niche or higher access to small prey as size decreased, populations could still exhibit a 30.5-fold increase as endothermy evolved (Fig. 3). This might explain how, despite the inherent variation in resource availability expected in evolutionary time, smaller sizes and higher energy turnover rates may have been systematically favored in this lineage. Accordingly, the estimated costs of 0.466% per C estimated for the bird stem lineage are significantly lower than our null distribution (one-tailed P = 0.0172; Fig. 3) and, therefore, energetically cheaper than most simulated scenarios using realistic background rates of body size evolution for theropods. Results remained qualitatively identical for other null models with relaxed assumptions such as a smaller Tetanurae ancestor or assuming Brownian motion model of evolution (see Methods).

The size reduction in the bird stem lineage (15, 22, 23) closely matches the theoretical path of least resistance for endothermy to evolve. We now reconstruct how this phenomenon might have unfolded in the theropod phylogeny. Combining node dates and body size estimates (15) with the allometric shift that would describe the transition to endothermy, we interpolated MR and C of intermediate ancestors in this lineage (Fig. 2). This procedure indicates that the rise in MR spanned most of the Early-Middle Jurassic [~180 to 170 million years (Ma) ago] (Fig. 4) and involved theropod groups in which the occurrence of protofeathers and feathers was already ubiquitous (24). It also suggests that metabolic levels were highly diverse across contemporaneous lineages of Coelurosauria, Maniraptora, and Paraves, which might partly account for the emergence and diversification of these groups during the Late Jurassic (22, 25), and the abnormally high diversity of Coelurosauria at intermediate body sizes (between 30 and 300 kg) when compared against other dinosaur groups (15). A niche-filling model of adaptive radiation in Mesozoic dinosaurs also detected exceptional rates of body size reduction in the bird stem lineage, particularly in the basal nodes of Coelurosauria and Paraves, although no suitable evolutionary hypothesis was proposed to account for this result [table 3 in (23)]. Our analyses show that the evolution of an endothermic machinery, concomitantly with the resulting thermal niche expansion, provides a plausible explanation for both the radiation and the reduction in size detected in these lineages.

(A) Reconstructed temporal course of metabolic evolution in the bird stem lineage, with dashed lines showing how reconstructions change assuming that either Paraves or Neornithes were fully endothermic instead of the basal bird [for calculations with Neornithes, we assumed a body size of 150 g based on estimates for Vegavis (22) and a time estimate of 100 Ma ago (39)]. The fold increase in MR was calculated by dividing the reconstructed MR during the transition to endothermy by the MR expected for a similar-sized ectotherm and is therefore dimensionless and independent of body size. (B) The evolutionary path of least resistance from ectothermy to endothermy includes inertial homeothermy as a transitional stage, followed by an increase in metabolism concomitantly with a reduction in size. (C) Hypothetical sequence of evolutionary transitions in the bird stem lineage, which combines results from this study with phylogenetic reconstructions of epidermal structures (24, 42) and capacity for active flight (38) (see the main text).

Two exceptional phenomena are observed during the evolution of birds: a sustained (but not necessarily gradual) miniaturization lasting millions of years and the emergence of endothermy. We argue that these phenomena are mechanistically linked. Our reconstruction suggests that endothermy evolved concomitantly with the decrease in size along the bird stem lineage, as originally proposed for mammals by McNab (3), and that related theropod clades should exhibit a whole spectrum of MR. Although it may be debatable to what extent energy costs are minimized in evolution, such a principle has been widely invoked or implicitly assumed to explain the diversity of thermoregulatory strategies across extant lineages (79) and may be equally useful to study how such a diversity evolved. The proposed scenario explains the conundrum of an expensive lifestyle being systematically favored despite its energy costs and explains the sustained miniaturization that preceded the origin of birds (15, 22, 23, 26), the so-called mesothermy (12), and intermediate to high growth rates of many dinosaurs (12, 2732). Previously labeled mesotherms (12) are either inertial homeotherms such as tunas, leatherback sea turtles, and large dinosaurs or small endotherms such as echidnas and, according to our reconstruction, the maniraptor Troodon and Archaeopteryx (Fig. 2). In this context, mesothermy constitutes an ambiguous concept from a mechanistic perspective because elevated MR due to thermodynamic effects (i.e., a high Tb due to thermal inertia and a large body size) is confounded with high MR due to the evolution of increased mass-independent energy turnover rates and true endothermy.

Inertial homeothermy might, in fact, constitute a necessary transitional state (3, 1618) in which homeothermy and a high thermal gradient Tb Ta can be maintained at low metabolic costs. That is, we posit that the MR of the large ancestral theropods (>300 kg) would fall in the allometric curve for ectotherms (21) and, yet, these organisms would be able to maintain a thermal gradient more in line with that of extant endotherms (Fig. 4B). Subsequently, selection toward smaller sizes would favor elevated MR if these large ancestral theropods were physiologically committed to homeothermy, as discussed by McNab (3), which would explain the departure from the ectothermic metabolic allometry with miniaturization (Fig. 2A). While this proposition has been generally dismissed (6, 33, 34) on the basis that a large size obviates thermoregulatory needs for high metabolic rates (16), this counterargument is true only within a limited range of Ta and body sizes and neglects other ecological advantages of a high mass-independent aerobic capacity and the advantage to a high reproductive rate, growth rate, etc. In large terrestrial animals, selection on increased MR for sustained activity, parental care, or high growth rates, presumed drivers of the evolution of endothermy in birds and mammals according to different hypotheses (4, 5), should inevitably increase the thermal gradient Tb Ta and give rise to larger thermal niches as a useful by-product (Fig. 2). In evolutionary time, it is only reasonable to expect lineages to exploit newly opened niches and eventually diversify (35). Under this scenario, thermoregulatory performance is expected to evolve regardless of the selective pressures favoring a high aerobic capacity, which reconciles alternative theories on the evolution of endothermy in birds and mammals (26).

While quantitative estimates are expected to vary with the allometric relations used, these patterns should be robust to variation in scaling and violations of the models assumptions. On the basis of Eq. 1, as long as the MR scaling exponent remains greater than that of C, the thermal gradient Tb Ta should increase with size and energy costs should decrease. In addition, the greater empirical MR scaling exponent described for ectotherms (12, 14) would result in lower energy costs per degree Celsius at larger sizes, whereas the lower Tb of smaller ectotherms should disproportionally increase the energy requirements to attain endothermy within this size range. The thermodynamic constraint imposed by a lower Tb would also buffer any potential advantage of a higher aerobic capacity on performance (i.e., highly aerobic lizards remain inactive when they are cold); hence, some degree of homeothermy would be desirable for high MR to evolve. In this context, it is important to recall that our model assumes a constant Tb for practical reasons, whereas, in reality, Tb likely varied across groups and was possibly higher and more stable in larger lineages, everything else being equal, due to a reduced surface relative to volume (36). Inherently higher and stable Tb in larger dinosaurs might partly explain their intermediate metabolic levels between reptiles and extant mammals and birds and may have contributed to the evolution of endothermy by facilitating parental care and favoring higher growth rates in these lineages (32).

Admittedly, the size reduction immediately preceding the radiation of birds could also be related with the evolution of flight, and it is quite possible that paravians or earlier groups were fully endothermic. The intermediate growth rates of these groups suggest otherwise (12, 2732), and given the accelerated rates of body size reduction in this period, this possibility does not alter the general trend of MR evolution reported here (Fig. 4). Moreover, relative forelimb elongation and increased flapping assisted locomotion are detected primarily within paravians (37, 38). Consequently, the stepwise evolution in body size reported by Benson et al. (15), with a first sustained reduction between the ancestors of Tetanurae and Paraves and a second shift within Avialae roughly 20 Ma later, might be associated with, respectively, the evolution of endothermy and flight. Alternatively, if basal birds were not fully endothermic and this derived condition emerged later in groups such as crown group birds (Neornithes) (39), as suggested by the slow growth rates of Archaeopteryx (27), then these traits may have coevolved in tandem, to some extent, within the avian lineage. Flightless birds exhibit lower MR (40), and there is substantial variation in metabolic levels among extant birds (41); hence, these alternatives are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, one should perhaps envision a scenario in which aerobic capacity shifted multiple times along the theropod and avian phylogeny (Fig. 2), resulting in a gradual rise in MR above the allometry of extant reptiles and a whole gradient of metabolic levels in these groups.

In any case, comparative analyses suggest that feathers or protofeathers evolved before the emergence of Coelurosauria (24, 42) and the rise in MR reconstructed in our study (Fig. 4). Together, the available evidence indicates that the evolution of flight cannot explain the reduction in size around the Early-Middle Jurassic boundary interval (~180 to 170 Ma ago). More crucially, our results, combined with previous analyses on the evolution of body size, feathers, and flight in the bird stem lineage (15, 2224, 26, 37, 38, 42), give rise to a relatively well-defined temporal sequence of key evolutionary transitions and a detailed working hypothesis for future studies (Fig. 4). This interpretation, that endothermy preceded the evolution of flight, is also consistent with descriptions of skeletal pneumaticity in derived, but not basal theropods (43), and mirrors the evolutionary sequence that can be inferred for bats since endothermy is a plesiomorphy present in virtually all mammals. Whether a similar scenario could explain the evolution of flight in pterosaurs, which have been recently described to exhibit feather-like integumentary structures (44), remains an open question. The elevated MR among bats and the enormous variation in metabolism across mammalian groups constitute a reminder that endothermy (and ectothermy, for that matter) constitutes a matter of degree rather than kind, which might explain why the earliest dinosaurs may have exhibited higher metabolic rates than those of extant reptiles (45) and early bird-like taxa growth rates that were not quite comparable to modern birds according to bone histology (27, 32). Thus, these findings are not necessarily at odds with our proposition that the marked reduction in body size during the evolution of the bird stem lineage was accompanied by a major shift in metabolic levels; they simply highlight that there is likely more to the evolution of endothermy in extinct archosaurs, dinosaurs, and birds than our analyses can convey.

To quantify how the sustained reduction in body size along the avian lineage would affect energy expenditure during the evolution of endothermy, we used the theropod phylogeny and body mass estimates reconstructed from the fossil record reported by Benson et al. (23) to build a realistic null model. We cross-validated this dataset against an independent study (22), which includes other taxa and is based on different methods to estimate body mass, phylogenetic relations, and evolutionary trends. For the species shared between these studies (n = 94), body mass estimates were very similar according to a regular regression (slope, 1.10 0.02 SE; r2 = 0.98, P < 0.001), and so was the structure of the phylogenies in both studies based on Bakers , which estimates the similarity between two trees of hierarchical clustering and varies between 1 and 1 as a regular correlation ( = 0.962, P < 0.001) (figs. S1 and S2). While both studies reach very similar conclusions and detect exceptional body size reduction in nodes along the bird stem lineage (22, 23), there are two remarkable differences: Lee et al. (22) reported a sustained, gradual decrease in body size along the bird stem lineage from a large ancestral theropod (175 kg), whereas Benson et al. (23) suggested that this miniaturization occurred in a stepwise fashion and later in time, following a period of size increase in early theropod evolution from a smaller ancestor (10 to 30 kg). Because the larger ancestral size seems to be an artifact of incomplete and biased sampling of early taxa (15) and the stepwise decrease in size was observed by Novas et al. (46), estimates used here correspond to unweighted averages of reconstructed ancestral body mass and divergence times obtained across 20 candidate phylogenies by Benson et al. [appendix S5 in (15)]. The dataset used does not change the general conclusions of this study, and analyses using body mass data and phylogeny of Lee et al. (22) are shown in the Supplementary Materials (figs. S3 to S5).

Allometric equations for endotherms were obtained from the literature for MR (12) and C (13). For mathematical tractability and to ensure that results were comparable across different ranges of body size, we obtained parallel curves for ectotherms by dividing the intercept of these equations by 5 (14) and 2.5 (11). On the basis of these allometric curves, we then assigned typical ectothermic and endothermic values for the Tetanurae node (~370 kg, range 290 to 420 kg) that corresponds to the largest theropod ancestor in most reconstructions (15, 22) and for the basal bird (~0.93 kg, range 0.78 to 1.10 kg). Results are expressed as fold change in MR or C with respect to the ectothermic allometric curve throughout the study, calculated as the ratio of the observed estimate/expectation for a similar-sized ectotherm. Subsequently, from linear log-log MR and C curves connecting these two taxa (Fig. 2, B and C), we interpolated how these variables evolved in the bird stem lineage using the body size estimates reconstructed for intermediate nodes. With the MR and C calculated for these nodes combined with divergence time estimates, we then reconstructed how metabolic levels evolved along the bird stem lineage. This approach assumes, for simplicity, a constant rate of fold change in MR and C as body size decreases, which is unlikely. Nonetheless, the exceedingly high rates of body size reduction observed primarily between Neotetanurae and Paraves (15, 22, 23) constrain the period in which metabolic levels increased in a narrow temporal window, which should remain largely unaffected by the general shape of the evolutionary path connecting the end points (i.e., the ectothermic ancestor and its and endothermic descendant). For the remaining species in the theropod phylogeny, we assumed that they inherited the fold change in MR and C from their most recent ancestor in the bird stem lineage, shifted the intercept of the allometric curves accordingly to obtain appropriate estimates of MR and C accounting for size effects, and then calculated Tb Ta with Eq. 1.

After quantifying the energy costs of evolving endothermy for the basal stem lineage leading to birds (Eq. 2), we built a null distribution of energy costs by simulating 10,000 different body size trajectories along this lineage under a null model. The body size distribution for the ancestral ectotherms was sampled from a uniform distribution ranging between 10 g and 100,000 kg, which encapsulate the range of body sizes observed within the theropod phylogeny, and the distribution of their descendent endotherms was constrained within this same range by removing those replicates falling outside this range. These boundaries are included to ensure that the body size null distributions fall within the range observed across higher vertebrates, which presumably reflect biomechanical or physiological constraints (e.g., simulating a 1-g endotherm is not realistic as sustaining a thermal gradient at this size is not really possible).

Body size evolution was simulated with an OU process, using a code written ad hoc. We used the 2 and parameters fitted to 20 candidate theropod phylogenies by Benson et al. (15), which measure, respectively, the intensity of random fluctuations in the evolutionary process and the strength of selection toward a presumed optimal trait value . To be as conservative as possible, from the seven single-optimum OU models with the best fit reported by Benson et al. (15), we used the parameters that resulted in the highest phenotypic variance following 10,000 diagnostic simulations: 2 = 0.025 and = 0.005 (obtained from the Theropoda tree 1 in their appendix S5; see figs. S6 and S7 for additional details on the null model and selected parameters). In addition, to remove the contribution of directional trends in these models and obtain random variation comparable to the empirical data, we used the same and 2 fitted for each tree and setting to the ancestral body mass [appendix S5 in (15)]. The amount of time between the ectothermic ancestor and endothermic descendant was set to 47 Ma, or the average difference (46.6 2.9 Ma) between the Tetanurae and basal bird nodes across the candidate phylogenies (15).

With this approach, we obtained a null distribution of energy costs to evolve endothermy from theropods to paravians under different body size trajectories, controlling for the amount of time available for this transition and using body size evolutionary rates inferred from fossil data. Subsequently, we tested whether the cost per degree estimated for the bird stem lineage was lower than that of 95% of the simulated datasets, which would indicate that the empirical trajectory is energetically cheaper than the null hypothesis holding type I error rates at 0.05, and suggest that the observed miniaturization constitutes an evolutionary path of least resistance from an energetic point of view. Results using a Brownian null model setting = 0.0, which is more conservative as the body size variance under this null model is expected to increase, were qualitatively identical (fig. S8). Similarly, results from our null model were also statistically robust to uncertainty in the ancestral body size of the Tetanurae node, whose estimated range between 290 and 420 kg always resulted in reduced energy costs associated with miniaturization with a P < 0.05.

Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/eaaw4486/DC1

Fig. S1. Relationship between body size reconstructions performed by Benson et al. (15, 23) and Lee et al. (22).

Fig. S2. Comparison between the topologies of the theropod phylogeny reconstructed by Lee et al. (22) and Benson et al. (15, 23).

Fig. S3. Replicate of Fig. 2, except that, in this case, analyses were replicated using the dataset and phylogeny by Lee et al. (22).

Fig. S4. Replicate of Fig. 4, except that, in this case, analyses were replicated using the dataset and phylogeny by Lee et al. (22).

Fig. S5. Comparison between reconstructed metabolic levels along the bird stem lineage using the dataset by Benson et al. (15) and Lee et al. (22), plotted against the 1:1 line.

Fig. S6. Phenotypic variance simulated with the difference parameters fitted by Benson et al. (15) for the theropod phylogeny (parameters available in their appendix S5).

Fig. S7. Simulated OU model overlapped against the empirical data from Benson et al. (15) (their appendix S5), which shows that this model can replicate the distribution of phenotypic data observed along the theropod phylogeny and provide a valid null model in the absence of directionality (see below).

Fig. S8. Results from the null model in the main text compared against expectations for a more conservative model assuming Brownian motion.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

Read more from the original source:

Shrinking dinosaurs and the evolution of endothermy in birds - Science Advances

Made in the Tri-States: For longtime Dubuque manufacturer, evolution a key to longevity – telegraphherald.com

Posted on by

Given its extensive history in Dubuque, one might assume The Adams Co. has been a model of consistency for the past 130 years.

During that span, however, the companys path to success has been marked by frequent and significant changes. Adams Co. moved its location across town earlier this century and, at various points, overhauled its business model.

Company executives speak about this change with a sense of pride.

We have evolved substantially from what our roots were, said President and CEO Steve Arthur.

Today Adams Co. is located 8040 Chavenelle Road in Dubuque. The business employs 70 people and custom-manufactures gears, shafts and power transmission parts.

The companys history dates back to 1883, when it operated primarily as a foundry out of a facility near Dubuques Ice Harbor. It continued to serve in that capacity for more than a half-century.

Other areas of focus have come and gone.

For the better part of 20 years, spanning the late 1800s into the early 1910s, the company also was in the business of car manufacturing. It produced multiple vehicles under the name Adams-Farwell but ultimately left that line of work when the likes of Henry Ford carved out a massive market share in the industry.

Adams Co. also created decorative fireplace accessories for about three decades until selling off that portion of the business in 2008.

While its focus may be narrower today, the companys methods continue to evolve and leaders are continuously looking for ways to improve in an ever-changing market.

Adams Co. creates products for a wide range of clients spanning multiple industries and geographical areas.

The business primarily creates gears and shafts for customers in the ag, oil and construction industries. Its reach extends well beyond its Midwest roots.

We have customers in nearly every state, said Pat Meehan, a sales coordinator who also works in the tooling and methods department.

Meehan noted that Adams Co. has some customers in Canada and one in Europe. Meanwhile, many of its domestic customers disperse parts from the Adams Co. across the globe, meaning that the Dubuque-based firm has more of an international reach than meets the eye.

Generally speaking, Meehan said most products created at Adams Co. go through a similar process.

The company receives steel in large bars, measuring from 20 to 30 feet in length. Employees then saw the steel into the preferred lengths.

From there, the parts are taken to the blanking department where they are transformed into the general configuration that is desired.

Parts are then sent to the tooth-cutting department, where the teeth of the gears are etched into the product. Afterward, the products get burred, a process that involves removing the sharp edges.

The parts are ultimately sent to an outside facility where they undergo heat treatment. This process ensures a hardened and more durable surface.

While many products follow a general path to completion, Meehan emphasized that each part is tailored specifically to a clients needs.

Everything we make is per our customers designs, Meehan said.

For more than 120 years, Adams Co. called the Ice Harbor home.

In the early 2000s, however, efforts to reshape the Port of Dubuque into a more tourist-friendly location precipitated an end to this lengthy run. Officials from the City of Dubuque and Adams Co. worked in conjunction on a relocation plan that ultimately prompted the companys move to Dubuque Industrial Center West.

In 2004, the company moved into a newly constructed, 50,000 square-foot building that sits on 9 acres along Chavenelle Road.

The company now has resided in that same facility for 15 years. However, the equipment and processes within continue to change rapidly.

With what we do, there is a constant evolution in the types of tooling being made, the material they are made out of and the coatings on them, said Meehan. It affects the type of equipment we invest it, how we make the parts and how quickly things get done.

Arthur said Adams Co. now employs about 70 workers and said that number has remained relatively stable in recent years. The productivity of the company has continued to rise while the workforce total remains level.

Employees are more efficient because the processes are more efficient, said Arthur. Weve been able to increase our levels of work without increasing the workforce.

Like many American manufacturers, Adams Co. continues to be impacted by foreign competition.

Arthur acknowledged that the company is acutely aware that it is operating in an international market. As a result, it will continue to emphasize innovation.

We are always looking to apply our knowledge to other types of industries and product lines, he said. As the world changes, you have to change with it. We will continue to try to evolve.

Here is the original post:

Made in the Tri-States: For longtime Dubuque manufacturer, evolution a key to longevity - telegraphherald.com

Himmelfarb and Her Haters – Discovery Institute

Posted on by

Editors note: Historian and Darwin skeptic Gertrude Himmelfarb died on Monday, December 30, 2019. While mourning the passing of this great scholar, we are pleased to republish Professor Flannerys 2009 essay, below. See also Flannerys tribute, Farewell to Gertrude Himmelfarb, Brutally Honest Historian of the Darwinian Revolution.

If you have no enemies, it is a sign fortune has forgot you. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Noted physician Thomas Fuller was an expert on eruptive fevers, and so it seems fitting to open this essay with his wry but telling observation on enemies in public life, for perhaps no contemporary historian has spawned more eruptive fever over an analysis of the reigning secular creation myth demigod, Charles Darwin, than has the present subject of this essay. If Fuller is any judge, fortune has indeed remembered Gertrude Himmelfarb.

Such fortune appeared a few months ago when Pandas Thumbused the occasion of Irving Kristols death on September 18 to denigrate Gertrude Himmelfarbs fifty-year-oldDarwin and the Darwinian Revolutionas a terrible book . . . demonstrating a lack of understanding of biology and a warped view of Darwins influence. The article, written by Jeffrey Shallit, glibly casts aspersions on the late Kristols ethics for reviewing Gertrude Himmelfarb (aka Bea Kristol) inEncounterand failing to disclose that he was the authors husband (though this writer could find no evidence of that at least with herDarwin), this without once reflecting on the questionable propriety of turning what should have been either a respectful obituary or complete silence into an opportunity to insult both the deceased and his widow. If that isnt unethical, it is at least indecent. Shallits one-sided, high-toned moralizing aside, as the Darwin year draws to a close and given the fact that Himmelfarbs biography of Darwin itself has just marked its golden anniversary, perhaps a careful reflection upon that effort is in order. What can be said ofDarwin and the Darwinian Revolutionin the dusk of 2009, fifty year after its original publication?Isit a terrible book?

Regardless of what one may think of Gertrude Himmelfarbs work, her preeminent role as an important (albeit controversial) historian cannot be doubted (seeJewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia). A prolific writer, this professor emeritus of the City University of New York has not shrunk from boldly decrying moral relativism and the so-called new history, positions for which she earned widespread praise and condemnation. Never-theless, her serious consideration for the position of Librarian of Congress in 1987 is a measure of her significance as one of Americas leading scholars and intellectuals.

Thus, it would seem worthwhile to probe a bit deeper into Dr. Himmelfarbs study of Charles Darwin. It is worth mentioning that her Darwin biography was (and obviouslyis) as controversial as its subject. Given the authors refusal to duck or dodge tough issues, her attention to modern biologys paterfamilias was bound to form an explosive catalyst easily discerned in the ensuing reviews.

Upon its publication Charles Gillispie insisted that one must deplore the interpretation of Darwin and his work that Miss Himmelfarb offers for its hostility to science.1Similarly, another reviewer dismissed it as a misrepresentation that is dubious in the extreme.2But others saw it differently. J. F. Burnet, for example, praisedDarwin and the Darwinian Revolutionas thorough and authoritative, concluding, This is an important book for all students of nineteenth-century thought.3Another reviewer called it, a scholarly book, well organized and well written, interesting to the intelligent reader whatever his special field.4

One would think these reviewers had read entirely different books, and perhaps theydid. Himmelfarbs detractors, as witnessed in Shallits mean-spirited post, say little about why her book is terrible, presuming the charge alone is sufficient to indict and convict. Interestingly, Shallit provides evidence of the authors failing in a provocative link tagged , which sends one to a posting by P.Z. Myers on December 6, 2005 titled A critique of Himmelfarbs scientific views. Now Himmelfarb has been caught! The spuriousness ofDarwin and the Darwinian Revolutionis now laid bare! Well, thats what The Pandas Thumb would have you believe anyway.

On closer inspection, however, this critique of Himmelfarbs science is nothing of the kind. In actuality it is a strange diatribe on neo-conservatism with allusions to Leo Strauss, George Will, and (Himmelfarbs husband again) Irving Kristol, none of which has anything whatsoever to do with her purportedly terrible science. Stacking up a series of allegedly damning Himmelfarb quotes, Myers then links them to creationist claims as if the mere association were sufficient condemnation. The critique concludes with a peculiar discussion of Machiavelli, which not only has nothing to do with Himmelfarbs science, but indeed nothing to do with neo-conservatism (those interested in following the perfidity of Machiavelli should examine number one of Benjamin Wikers list of10 Books That Screwed Up the World).

The only substantive example of Himmelfarbs supposed lapsed science is Myers dismissal of her charge that Darwin failed to explain the evolution of the eye by means of natural selection. Quoting from Ernst MayrsWhat Evolution Is, Myers proclaims the light-sensitive spot and the Pax 6 regulatory gene to have solved the problem. Photosensitive, eyelike organs have developed in the animal series at least 40 times, declared Salvini and Mayr in 1977, and all the steps from a light-sensitive to the elaborate eyes of vertebrates . . . are still found in the living species of various taxa. But 32 years later James Le Fanu (and many others) remain unconvinced. Le Fanu freely admits that we now know the eye to have emerged independently at least forty times in several different forms, but this has only served to make Darwins evolutionary problem more vexing:

Each different type of eye compounds Darwins difficulty further, for then it is necessary topresupposefor each a series of fortuitous numerous successive slight modifications, conferring some slight biological advantage to its possessor. It is necessary to presuppose, for, despite much effort, there is not a single empirical discovery in the past 150 years that has substantiated Darwins proposal that natural selection, taking advantage of slight successive variations, explains the puzzle of perfection epitomized by so many different types of eyewhich remains yet more puzzling than it was in 1859.5

And Michael Behe notes that the biochemical complexity of vision is not answered by a single regulatory gene, as if a single bolt could explain an automobile. Indeed where might the biochemical evidence lie? Even something as simple as a light-sensitive spot is in reality a system requiring a rhodopsin-transducin complex to interact with phosodiesterase along with many other molecular processes. Moreover, there remains no explanation of how these complex interactions could have occurred by Darwinian processes. The fossil record, as Behe has so clearly pointed out, has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by step.6No, the problem has not been resolved and is, in fact, worse than when Himmelfarb wrote in 1959 andmuchworse than when Darwin wrote a century before her.

The poor example of eye evolution apparently exhausts Myers evidence against Himmelfarb.The rest of his co-called critique is, in fact, an ideological rant rather than a sober investigation of her alleged scientific transgressions. Both Shallits and Myers remaining appeal seems to be anargumentum ad populumas if scientific truth was decided solely on the basis of consensus. Such arguments, of course, vindicate a noble line of scientific facts in history like phlogiston, globulism, and humoral pathology. Jeffrey Shallit and P.Z. Myers are admittedly high on passion but weak on substance.

But Shallit and Myers arent the only ones. Besides the Himmelfarb-bashers already mentioned, Ernst Mayr more than a decade after the appearance of herDarwincomplained of its abyss of ignorance and misunderstanding.7Even Cornells historian of science L. Pearce Williams appreciated Himmelfarbs grasp of the historical forces bearing upon Darwin and his times but quickly demurred at her assessment of Darwinian evolution. Calling it filled with rather serious scientific blunders, even worse than Shallit and Myers, Williams issued the indictment without giving a single instance of said blunder.8

Why is HimmelfarbsDarwin and the Darwinian Revolutionthe book Darwinists love to hate? To find out a detailed examination of the book and its incisive analysis of Darwins evolutionary theory is in order. Of course, this is abigbiography and an exhaustive account cannot be given here, but a summary investigation will make the source of the Darwinists discomfort obvious.

Darwinis divided into six books: 1) Pre-history of the Hero; 2) Emergence of the Hero; 3) Emergence of the Theory; 4) Reception of the Origin; 5) Analysis of the Theory; and 6) Darwinism. The first four books are an interesting read and provide a valuable backdrop to the treatment that follows, but Himmelfarb is weakest on Darwins early years. She completely passes over Darwins Edinburgh period where he joined the Plinian Society in November of 1826 and attended all but one of the ensuing 19 meetings until April of 1827. According to Adrian Desmond and James MooresDarwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, this was young Charles introduction to seditious science. While this is crucial in understanding the development of Darwins theory, it will not be gleaned from this book.

Also, Himmelfarb believes that Darwin was uninterested in and ill-equipped to appreciate the philosophical implications of his theory. Probably a better suggestion is that Darwin wasnt so much disinterested in philosophy as he was just a bad philosopher, or at least a very superficial one. She as much as admits Darwins anemic reading in the field: What little reading he did in philosophy was parochial in the extreme. . . . It is difficult to take seriously a discussion that had, as its most frequently cited moralist and philosopher, the historian William Lecky (p. 375).9When Darwin appended a list of moral philosophers he had relied upon in preparing hisDescent, philosophers he assured his readers they would be familiar with, Himmelfarb notes that 26 were British and that [they] are today, quite as assuredly, entirely unknown.

Nevertheless, what Himmelfarb misses in the early years she more than makes up for in the last two books devoted to an analysis of the theory and the ideologicalismthat it would turn into. Here in these two sections more than anywhere else reside the sources of anger, revilement, and consternation for the Darwinists.

For Himmelfarb Darwins presentation of his theory is most vulnerable not in his marshalling of evidence that was thin enough but rather in his means of handling it. What Darwin was doing, in effect, she observes, was creating a logic of possibility. Unlike conventional logic, where the compound of possibilities results not in a greater possibility, or probability, but in a lesser one, the logic of theOriginwas one in which possibilities were assumed to add up to probability (p. 334). Essentially, Himmelfarb accuses Darwin of making an argument from ignorance:

As possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and probabilities into certainties, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin could devise no hypothesis to explain away the difficulty, he resorted to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of nature to know why one event occurred rather than another, and hence ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his theory. When one botanist argued that his theory was contradicted by the fact that some forms remained unaltered through long periods of time and wide expanse of space, Darwin admitted the objection to be formidable in appearance, and to a certain extent in reality. But this did not deter him:

Does not the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? . . . . Certainlya prioriwe might have anticipated that all the plants anciently introduced into Australia would have undergone some modification; but the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.

Somehow the fact that no adequate explanation suggested itself today seemed a warrant for the belief that such an explanation would suggest itself in the future, and the explanation, moreover, would be bound to vindicate his theory. Thus the argument from ignorance was made the prelude to a confident affirmation:

We are far too ignorant, in almost every case, to be enabled to assert that any part or organ is so unimportant for the welfare of a species that modifications in its structure could not have been slowly accumulated by means of natural selection. But we may confidently believe . . .

It may be objected, however, that in the logic of science, as in the logic of grammar, three negatives do not normally constitute a positive.

To be sure, a scientific theory that explains equally well a variety of contradictory phenomena may still be true; there are reputable theories that cannot, in this sense, be falsified, and hypothetical reasoning is a legitimate, even necessary, scientific technique. The difficulty with natural selection, however, is that if it explains too much, it also explains too little, and that the more questionable of its hypotheses lie at the heart of its thesis. Posing as a massive deduction from the evidence, it ends up as an ingenious argument from ignorance (pp. 335-336).

This kind of writing infuriates Darwins defenders who are not used to such frank talk coming from the likes of a historian. And yet Himmelfarb is not the only one. Many have followed her in questioning Darwins logic and his argument (see, for example, Jacques Barzun,Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage,1941; William Irwin Thompson,At the Edge ofHistory, 1971; Robert Henry Peter, Tautology in Evolution and Ecology,American Naturalist, 1976, and Predictable Problems with Tautology in Evolution and Ecology,American Naturalist, 1978; Michael Denton,Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985; Thomas Nagel,The View From Nowhere, 1986; Stanley L. Jaki,The Savior of Science, 1988;R. F. Baum,Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud, 1988; Phillip Johnson,Darwin on Trial, 1993; David Stove,Darwinian Fairy Tales, 1995; Didier Maleuvre, Can We Believe in Darwin?,Comparative Literature, 2001; James Le Fanu,Why Us?, 2009). Nevertheless, despite skeptics, Darwins theory was able to rise as the reigning paradigm in biology and moreover retain that status to the present day. How so?

Himmelfarb offers a couple of reasons, neither of which was based upon the weight of any purported evidence. Quoting a letter from Darwin to Asa Gray on December 21, 1859,Origins author recommended that the book, released that previous month, be read by intelligent men, accustomed to scientific argument, though [curiously enough]notnaturalists. But as Himmelfarb notes, What he [Darwin] did not properly appreciate, however, was that it was less as intelligent men accustomed to scientific argument that they judged and approved theOriginthan as intelligent men susceptible to philosophical prejudice (p. 296). More specifically, it was the anfractuous nature of the argument itself that worked mischievously on its behalf:

It was probably less the weight of the facts than the weight of the argument that was impressive. The reasoning was so subtle and complex as to flatter and disarm all but the most wary intelligence. Only upon close inspection do the faults of the theory emerge. And this close inspection, by the nature of the case, was largely vouchsafed. The points were so intricately argued that to follow them at all required considerable patience and concentration an expenditure of effort which was itself conducive to acquiescence. Only those determined in advance to be hostile were likely to maintain a vigilant and hence critical attitude. In his rapid volley of expectations, where one might fail, another would hit the mark, and where one line of defense had to be abandoned, another was hastily erected. And there were few to point out that in the strategy of reason, as in the strategy of warfare, the cause was not better served by a succession of feeble defenses than by a single strong one.

More important, however, than any assets which Darwins theory might be thought to possess was the bankruptcy of his opponents. The only serious rival, as a general theory, was creation (pp. 350-351).

Himmelfarb is right. William Paleys venerable argument that a watch found in a field suggested a watchmaker was powerful analogous argument for design and teleology in nature. However, at the time he made it in 1802 few details were known about complexity in the natural world. Paleys apologetic could in many ways be answered by prior skeptics like David Hume. Paleys waxing eloquent on the divine beauty of his garden looked more like romantic effusion than sober analysis, and he often saw Gods hand in virtually everything in nature raising the question (as Darwin himself did), if God is omniscient and benevolent then whither evil and pain? Paley and the authors of theBridgewater Treatisesinsisted that all creation demonstrated Gods manifest infinite wisdom and power and goodness. Cornelius G. Hunter is quite correct in hisDarwins Proof when he notes, Natural theology was lopsided. Yes, the world is amazing, but the natural theologians happy view of nature could hardly be justified in light of the real world. It is easy to see why this version of natural theology supplied a ready source of material for its opponents (p. 90).

But there is yet a third reason why DarwinsOriginwas so readily accepted; Himmelfarb has already alluded to it when she suggested that Darwins supporters were found among those already philosophically inclined to accept it. This is an important point and one that she concludes with in assessing the nature of the so-called Darwinian revolution. Skeptic and freethinking philosophers had clearly prepared the way for a wholly naturalistic account of creation and biological life.

But what of the theory itself? Once launched, how did Darwin himself handle the responses to and further development of his evolutionary theory? Here Himmelfarb is at her best. In order to fully appreciate Darwins theory as it blossomed (perhaps metastasized is a better word) theDescent of Manmust also be examined. It is clear that, over time, Darwin demonstrated a discernable retreat from his theory of natural selection, instead turning to two subsidiary but increasingly important notions to address assorted problems: one was pangenesis, the other was sexual selection. Pangenesis proposed that gemmules, shed by body cells and containing hereditary information, collect in the reproductive organs and play a key role in inheritance. For Darwin, pangenesis (today thoroughly discredited) explained blended inheritance, reversion to ancestral types, limb regeneration, and even Lamarckian concepts of use and disuse. Of course genetics changed all of this. There is no inheritance of acquired characteristic.When Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries tried to create a permanent change of type by the selection of existent variations, he found that he could not. When his ear of corn with an extra row of kernels was no longer subjected to his careful crossing with select specimens, they reverted back to normal. Mutations, it seems, would have done the trick where selection had failed. Thus, natural selection was vindicated over pangenesis and neo-Darwinians were quick to recast Darwinian theory by changing variation to mutation. In effect, notes Himmelfarb, natural selection becomes a court of last appeal in the process. When it was discovered that favorable mutations are extremely rare in nature, neo-Darwinists then insisted that this simply goes to prove the very power of natural selection, which is able to surmount such formidable odds. The neo-Darwinians, it is apparent, comments a skeptical Himmelfarb, are as adroit as Darwin in making a virtue of necessity and in converting difficulties into assets (p. 329).

But Darwin also increasingly relied on sexual selection as an adjunct to natural selection, and a considerable portion hisDescentwas spent laying out its features. Here Darwin argued that some traits evolvednotthrough interspecies competition but through intraspecies competition, the selection of mates and breeding those traits deemed most desirable into the species. So while the natural superior strength of the male was obviously derived through natural selection, he attributed the beard to be an ornament to charm or excite the opposite sex. For Darwin music and the sweeter voice of the female were all explained as accoutrements for sexual attraction. Alfred Russel Wallace thought all this sexual selection talk was nonsense. Wallace, who had spent nearly twelve years with indigenous peoples, from South American natives of the Uaups River Valley to Dyak headhunters in Borneo, pointed out to Darwin that tribal women rarely if ever sing and that what an Englishman might value as a sweeter voice was thoroughly uninteresting to the aboriginal peoples he knew. Even if certain cultures could be found where some women did sing, the result would seem to be a zero sum gain for the sexual selection theory and thus no explanation at all. Wallace further pointed out that Darwins suggestion that elaborate plumage in birds gave evidence of sexual selection was, in fact, merely signs of sexual maturity and vigour and that to ascribe the elaborate coloration in butterflies, which is strikingly similar to birds, to female choice unthinkable (see hisThe World of Life). In short, Himmelfarb points out, Sexual selection has all the faults of natural selection and more:the suspicious facility with which it can be made to explain anything and everything, the manipulation of evidence for whatever purposes are convenient, and the invocation of ignorance when all else fails. Ignorance is resorted to even in so crucial a matter as the intellectual disparity between man and the apes (p. 366).

Here again we are treated to a litany of guesses and conjectures. If man is closely allied to the higher Simi, as Darwin openly suggested to the Marquis de Saporta, and is, in fact, descended from some primate ancestor then a naturalistic explanation for the development of speech, that uniquely human characteristic, might go a long way in revealing the process of divergence from our alleged animal ancestors. Darwin suggested that speech and language may indeed account for humanitys great intellectual advance. Here, Darwin suggested, this most distinctive of human attributes probably originated in the imitation and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and mans own instinctive cries, aided by signs and gestures. Darwin then leans on sexual selection to invest early man with true musical cadences, that is in singing speculating by a widely spread analogy, that this power would have been especially exerted during courtship of the sexes . . . .10Of course, Wallaces experience among native peoples didnt bear this out, but Darwin used it and maintained it anyway.

But this forced Darwin into an even more difficult conundrum. How could grunts and groans develop into intelligible speech unless a brain sufficiently advanced to develop it already existed? Darwin merely relied upon some early progenitors of man, but wasnt this precisely what Darwin had called upon speech to explain?As for other behaviors deemed utterly counter to the good of the group his shock at the utter licentiousness and unnatural crimes of many tribal cultures Darwin simply explained them away as evidence of their insufficient powers of reasoning. Given all the foregoing, one is forced to agree with Himmelfarb: When there are more exceptions to the rule than exemplifications of it, it would seem time to abandon the rule (p. 373).

Why did Darwin retreat from natural selection into subsidiary notions of pangenesis and sexual selection? Was Darwin simply adrift in theories? Himmelfarb keenly explains:

It was not, however, without cause that he [Darwin] abandoned natural selection. What forced his hand was the realization that natural selection was untenable as the main explanation either for the development of man from the animals or for distinctions of race and sex. Natural selection assumed that beneficial variations alone would be preserved. The difficulty was that the races of man differ from each other and from their nearest allies amongst the lower animals, in certain characters which are of no service to them in their ordinary habits of life. The advantage of sexual selection was that it did not have to prove utility. . . . More and more, the Lamarckian principle of the inherited effects of use and disuse came to replace natural selection (pp. 366-367).

This too would define Wallaces break with Darwin. For Wallace, sexual selection and pangenesis were unnecessary. Instead, he (in true original Darwinian fashion!)stuck with the original formulation: natural selection was guided and directed by the naturalistic principle of utility. But the very thing which defined italsolimited it for Wallace. How could one satisfactorily account for the mind of man? For that matter, what explains the origin of life before there was a principle of utility in operation? For Wallace, the answer was to be found in a teleological universe directed by an Overruling Intelligence. For Darwin, of course, this was unacceptable. But, as Himmelfarbs cogent analysis demonstrated, neither were Darwins wholly naturalistic ones.

Howdowe explain the origin of man? There are really just three options: invoke some form of teleology (by far the general consensus worldwide past and present has been some form of theistic teleology); leave the question unanswered (and some, like philosopher Thomas Nagle, have done precisely that); or rely upon some wholly naturalistic explanation, most commonly Darwinian evolution (a position held by an elite minority only over the past few hundred years). While the first option has usually had an ameliorating effect on the harsh consequences of competition and rivalry and infused society with needed altruism and the second merely provides external critique of proffered explanations, the third has had a dubious history, especially when a theory becomes itself an ideology in the hands of passionate ideologues.

Himmelfarbs chapter on Darwinism opens by observing that when applied to a variety of social contexts it could have a free and loose translation which provided the added advantage of giving it license to a variety of social gospels (p. 412). Applied to many social issues, Darwinism was ambiguous. Darwinism, for example, could argue against slavery, the greatest endorsement of which came from Darwin himself who was an outspoken critic of this peculiar institution. Recently Adrian Desmond and James Moore elevated this to a motivating factor for Darwins theory in theirDarwins Sacred Cause(see review). The thesis is plausible, after all, DarwinsOriginwas written and published when the slavery controversy (which the British Empire had abolished earlier in 1833) raged in America.But as Himmelfarb points out the implications of Darwins evolutionary theory could be taken in other ways:

It was not necessary . . . to confute theOriginin order to justify the South. It was only necessary to re-interpret it. For there were features of Darwins theory that could easily give comfort to the proponents of slavery and racism. Although Darwin derived all races, like all species, from a single historic ancestor, he by no means denied the reality of separate races and species in the present. . . . Nor did he deny that under certain conditions it was desirable to maintain, as far as possible, the purity of races. TheOrigin did declare that crosses between varieties tended to increase the number, size, and vigor of the offspring. But this was true only in special cases: where, for example, the crossed varieties had previously been exposed to fluctuating conditions and thus were especially hardy. Otherwise, such a cross might prove fatal to both varieties.

It was this argument against the crossing of races that first impressed itself upon some of the readers of theOrigin. One month after its publication, on the occasion of John Browns raid at Harpers Ferry, theTimesgave warning that the abolitionists would turn the population of the South into a mixed race. The lesson of modern times, it said, was that such a mixture of races tends not to the elevation of the black, but to the degradation of the white man. Reading this, a secretary at the American legation in London observed: This is bold doctrine for an English journal and is one of the results of reflection on mixed races, aided by light from Mr. Darwins book, and his theory of Natural Selection.

The subtitle of theOriginalso made a convenient motto for racists: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin, of course, took races to mean varieties or species; but it was no violation of his meaning to extend it to human races, these being as much subject to the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest as plant and animal varieties. Darwin himself, in spite of his aversion to slavery, was not averse to the idea that some races were more fit than others and that this fitness was demonstrated in human history (pp. 415-416).

Indeed even Desmond and Moore admit as much. When Darwins friend Charles Kingsley, whose family had been financially ruined when West Indies slaves were emancipated under British law, suggested that the lowly races were doomed and that the white race was destined to domination he was expressing common belief in Victorian England. Even Darwin, confess Desmond and Moore, agreed to the gruesome prospect: It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, will have spread & exterminated whole nations. There was a fatalism to the statement. While slavery demanded ones active participation, they add, racial genocide was now normalized by natural selection and rationalized asnatures way of producing superior races. Darwin ended up calibrating human rank no differently from the rest of his society (Darwins Sacred Cause, p. 318). So much for Darwins sacred cause!

It was rationalized in another context as well: From [Darwins] . . . preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, it was a short step, Himmelfarb points out, to the preservation of favored individuals, classes, or nations from their preservation to their glorification (p. 416). And converselyevenfrom the most favoreds preservation to theleastfavoredselimination. Recent [Himmelfarb is writing in 1959] expressions of this philosophy, such asMein Kampf,are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here. And it is by an obvious process of analogy and deduction that they are said to derive from Darwinism (p. 417). (More recently historian Richard Weikart has thoroughly explicated the connection inFrom Darwin to HitlerandHitlers Ethic).

While the Nazi program to eliminate the unfit is an indelible stain on human history, it should be remembered that it was but a specific (albeit especially horrific) exercise of eugenics being applied less dramatically elsewhere, and nowhere more enthusiastically than in the U.S. Described by its leading American apostle Charles Davenport as the science of the improve-ment of the human race by better breeding, eugenics could be applied (as this definition implies) positively by encouraging better marriages and family unions but also negatively as in the culling of the unfit. It was on this basis that more than 65,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized in the early decades of the 20th century. With Indiana passing the first sterilization law in 1907, Californias law of 1909 surpassed all others in efficiency, sterilizing more than 2,500 in ten years and in the next ten years accelerating the effort against the unfit to sterilize an additional 3,500 more. Following World War I, more than twenty states passed sterilization legislation, many modeled on the Indiana and California examples. (For details see Harry Bruinius,Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and Americas Quest for Racial Purity, 2006. For a more complete and explicit connection between Darwinism and the American eugenics movement see John G. WestsDarwin Day in America.)

The champions of American eugenics were Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin. Davenport devoted himself to natural science and became committed to the ideas of Francis Galton. It was Davenport who convinced the wealthy widow Mrs. E. H. Harriman to fund the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. In October of that year a Missouri schoolteacher, Harry Laughlin, accepted Davenports invitation to become superintendant of the ERO. In a program described by Bruinius as stunningly ambitious, Laughlin compiled information on existing sterilization laws with the hopes of coordinating a more centralized national legislative plan. A champion of social Darwinism, Laughlin insisted, To purify the breeding stock of the race at all costs is the slogan of eugenics. . . . It is at once evident that, unless this complementary agency, compulsory sterilization of certain degenerates, is made nation-wide in its application, and is consistently followed by most states, it cannot greatly reduce, with the ultimate end of practically cutting off the great mass of defectives now endangering the conservation of our best human stock . . . (quoted inBetter for All the World, p. 212).

In either case whether in Germany or America the connection with Darwinism is clear. Darwin insisted in hisDescent of Manthat humankind differed from animals in degree not in kind. If species are directed by the blind forces of natural selection, then why not give nature a helping hand by moving it along a better and perhaps more direct path to improvement? Many eugenicists reasoned that Darwins own examples of pigeon breeders merely proved the point. Such ideas were promulgated by Darwins cousin Francis Galton. He coined the very term eugenics, meaningeu(good or well in Greek)genes(born or birth). Nevertheless, as indicated above, it was not England that would adopt these ideas programatically. With America leading the way under the missionary zeal of Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin as mentioned earlier, Hitler need go no further than Laughlins Model Law as an example in framing his Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring in which more than 150,000 Germans were sterilized as unfit. No wonder then that the University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an honorary doctorate for his pioneer work in racial hygiene in 1936.

How different was the view of natural selections co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace! Wallace was adamantly opposed to eugenics. In the last book that he would write,Social Environment and Moral Progress(1913),Wallace referred to eugenic proposals for the segregation of the feeble-minded, sterilization of the unfit, and destruction of deformed infants, suggestions in every way dangerous and detestable, and efforts to interfere with the freedom of marriage . . . not only totally unnecessary, but . . . a much greater source of danger to morals and to the well-being of humanity than the mere temporary evils it seeks to cure (pp. 142-143).Wallace further explained (as indeed he had in hisWorld of Life, [1910]) that natural selection, which determined with law-like severity the brutal struggle of species, was no longer applicable to man:

From the moment when the first skin was used as a covering, when the first rude spear was formed to assist him in the chase, when fire was first used to cook his food, when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revolution was effected in Nature a revolution which in all previous ages of the earths history had had no parallel. A being had arisen who was no longer subject to bodily change with changes of the physical universe a being who was in some degree superior to Nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her. Not through any change in his body, but by means of his vast superiority of mind (Social Environment and Moral Progress, p. 110).

How this happened Wallace termed the Divine influx, a point in time when by purposeful action some portion of the spirit of the Deity, man became a living soul (p. 102). By limiting natural selection to the principle of utility first enunciated by Darwin himself, Wallace was able to discern discrete examples of intentional design in nature (the most stunning being the human mind) to counter Darwins naturalistically bound biological processes to incorporate genuine theism in a teleologically liberatedintelligent evolution(for details seeAlfred Russel Wallaces Theory of Intelligent Evolution).

This idea was completely rejected by Darwin and his followers. Instead, as seen earlier, Darwin and his disciples speculated on theories of pangenesis and sexual selection. Darwinians will plead that Mendel rescued their evolutionary theory, a curious position given the fact that, whatever the respective merits of the two mens ideas, Mendel himself opposed it and specifically arguedagainstDarwinsOrigin.11So what are we to make of Darwins contribution to the broad history of ideas and to society at large? Himmelfarb concludes her study with a review of the Darwinianrevolution. Some, like Ernst Mayr (see his Darwins Impact on Modern Thought) and more recently Peter Bowler (see his Darwins Originality) believe Darwin to have effected a thorough and sweeping revolution of historic proportions. If one is to measure it by the effect it has had on ethics, morality, and the general secularizing of society its revolutionary impacts seem undeniable. But revolutions dont necessarily imply progress and advance. Here Himmelfarb points out that Darwin was the leader of a distinctlyconservativerevolution. Oswald Spengler thought theOriginreeked of the atmosphere of the British factory (p. 418). The modernity to which Darwin brought the world was built upon foundations long preceding him. Surely the ideas of Ren Descartes and Thomas Hobbes had cleared the ground for the scientistic edifice that Darwin erected after all, Darwinian theory is if nothing else the gospel ofbellum omnium contra omnes the war of all against all that epitomized Hobbes characterization of human existence. And we know that Darwin was familiar with the skepticism of David Hume and the positivism of Auguste Comte. In this sense Himmelfarb is quite correct: Darwin, dramatizing and bringing to a climax the ideas, sentiments, and conjectures of his age, may be thought of as a hero of a conservative revolution (p. 447).

In the end, Gertrude Himmelfarb presents a complete and honest portrayal of Darwin and his theory, and her points are compelling:

If the Darwinian faithful cannot abide the less than ideal portrait that emerges they have only their Down House hero to blame.

Since writingDarwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Gertrude Himmelfarb has moved on to treat a wide range of topics. Nevertheless, her influence as an especially cogent historian of the man and his theory continues. A few have taken notice. Margaret A. Faye, for example, mentions her insightful and lucid analysis.12Philosopher/theologian Edward T. Oakes, S.J., PhD, wrote: I awoke from my own Darwinian dogmatic slumbers only late in life, when I first read Gertrude Himmelfarbstour de forceof a biography . . . .13M. D. Aeschlimans Angels, apes, and men praised her devastating critique for exposing the internal inconsistencies and willful obfuscations that have characterized Darwinism from the beginning, yet noted the conspicuous neglect of her work by those suspiciously interested in promoting the Darwin brand.

Neglected perhaps but not without opportunities for exposition. Four years ago the publication of edited compilations of Darwins works, E. O. WilsonsFrom So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwinand James D. WatsonsThe Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea, offered treatments by two of this tormented evolutionists most adoring fans and the occasion for a reply by Ms. Himmelfarb.

It appeared as an essay review titled Monkeys and Morals inThe New Republicon December 12, 2005. Pointing out that natural selection rather than evolution was Darwins claim to fame, Himmelfarb states that, interestingly enough, it was secularists who voiced concerns about the theory as much if not more than the religious community. Citing no less than John Stuart Mill, she notes his admission that the theory was impressive enough but that even as late as 1870 he confessed it to be problematical. Instead, Mill concluded that the evidence suggested creation by intelligence:

Creation by intelligence this by Mill, hardly a religious dogmatist. Today one may hear echoes of those words in the theory of intelligent design, which is derided by most scientists (including the editors [Wilson and Watson] of the present volumes) as a euphemism for creation and thus a denial of evolution. And so it is, for some of its proponents. Yet others, themselves scientists, insist that their quarrel is not with evolution itself but rather with natural selection conceived as a purely mechanistic and entirely sufficient explanation for evolution. For them, intelligent design is nothing more or less than teleology, the recognition of a purposiveness or direction in nature, with or without a Creator in the orthodox sense of God (p. 35).

Julian Huxley, Thomas Henrys grandson, thought the modern evolutionary synthesis solved all of Darwins problems. But, as Himmelfarb observes, Notwithstanding Julian Huxley, nothing has been settled. And notwithstanding the editors of these volumes, too, who sometimes sound as dogmatic as the creationists they deride not only in respect to evolution (the blind force, as Wilson puts it, that created animals and man) but in respect to all human behavior (p. 36). The intransigent scientism of both Wilson and Watson is duly noted too, and the lessons of their enormous achievements are countered in perhaps greater measure only by their hubris.

Himmelfarb ends by bemoaning the polarizing effects of both sides of this controversy, though as expected, this seasoned historian casts a far more wary eye on those (like Wilson and Watson) who hold the present positions of power in the debate. If she registers distress over the renewed warfare, a war incorrectly drawn between science and religion by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the Victorian era with attempted truces more recently proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Ronald Numbers, it would do well for everyone to realize that the battle isnotbetween science and religion butwithinscience itself.

Is methodological naturalism theonlyappropriate avenue of scientific inquiry?Arewe to believe in a uniformity of natural causesin a completely closed system?Ishuman intellectual endeavor easily, and more importantly,properlydivided into Non-Overlapping Magisteria?Is the human intellect reducible itself to purely naturalistic explanations so that our neurons and synapsearewho weare? The problem with the truces of Gould and Numbers ( and indeed with a wide variety of so-called well-intentioned theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller, Karl Giberson, and others) is that they would bury the hatchet only by burying it into the heads of those proposing intelligent design. After all, answering all these questions in the affirmative without substantively engaging in meaningful dialogue winds up merely ratifying the reigning Darwinian paradigm. But the very nature of the questions themselves bespeak the limitation of giving positivistic answers like those attempted by Wilson, Watson, Gould, or Numbers. While Himmelfarb yearns for peace, her suggestion that there need not be any inherent opposition betweentheism and evolution is a sound one. But itcannotbe an evolution hidebound to a conception of science thata prioriprecludes it.

Nevertheless, in providing a bold and brave historical analysis to the question of Darwinian evolution, Himmelfarb has rendered invaluable service. Her incredulity over those who continue to insist that Darwinism is theonlyreceived truth remains a mark of her constancy on behalf of reason and free and open inquiry. Her willingness to swim against the tide of nodding acquiescenceis the measure of a scholar genuinely committed to following the evidence wherever it may lead.

I am happy to report that Professor Himmelfarb remains active and intellectually vibrant and appeared recently onBook TVdiscussing her work on Edmund Burke. While her historical acumen has moved on to treat other subjects, she has indeed made an enduring contribution to our understanding of the figure of Charles Darwin and the modern cultural paradigm of Darwinism. If she suggests that the man should become less iconic or that the theory should be more modest, it is only the counsel of a historian reminding us, as Herbert Butterfield did long ago, that in matters of history as well as in science we should all be a bit less Whiggish in their pursuit.

Photo credit: National Science and Media Museum, via Flickr.

Read more:

Himmelfarb and Her Haters - Discovery Institute