Daily Archives: June 24, 2017

A scene from Food Evolution.

Black Valley Films

Several years ago, a county government in Hawaii debated a measure to ban genetically modified crops on the island. The hearings highlighted the divergent views of pro-GMO scientists and anti-biotech activists, many who assert, without credible evidence, that GMOs are linked to numerous diseases.

Those deliberations, contentious as they were, eventually became the focus of a long narrative feature by Pulitzer Prizewinning New York Times journalist Amy Harmon, titled A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops. The piece revealed the fraught and bewildering discourse around GMOs and why, even if you took the time to painstakingly verify all the claims and counter-claims (as one lonely councilman did), most people arent interested in listening or changing their minds based on the evidence. Its too much of a slog, and it goes against the very human tendency to accept only information that confirms pre-existing beliefs or mindsets. The majority of councilmembers voted for the GMO ban, an outcome, that as Harmons article shows, was likely preordainedand also nonsensical when considering the evidence.

For those seeking clarity on GMOs, the push to get people to accept the facts is just as lonely now as it was in 2014: The Hawaii case also serves as the dramatic centerpiece of an ambitious new documentary called Food Evolution, opening in select movie theaters this week. Food Evolution travels to major battlegrounds to better understand the GMO conflict, from Hawaii and New York to California and Africa. It is abundantly clear that the film, like any good documentary, is argument-driven, attempting to prove that GMOs, far from how theyve been painted, are in fact safe.

Unfortunately, theres no good reason to think this effort will be any more successful at correcting the popular misperceptions and stereotypes around GMOs than Harmons thoughtful piece (or several others since, including, for example, one in this very magazine). The film, like any good documentary, wants to be the arbiter of a debate over evidence. In reality, it ought to have admitted that what it is facing is an ideologically charged debate that, like climate change, is increasingly immune to facts.

Food Evolution leans heavily on science and scientific authority to make its argument. Exhibit A: Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the films narrator. To dispel unfounded but persistent health fears of GMOs, Tyson points to the nearly 2,000 experiments and foremost scientific institutions that have affirmed the safety of genetically engineered foods. Will this change anyones mind?

As we say in Brooklyn, fughetaboutit. Im skeptical that the film will have any impact on GMO-averse people because I know GMO-averse people. I belong to this tribe. My GMO-averse friends and fellow brownstone liberals havent given a lot of thought to the science that suggests GMOs are safe. Theyre not going to wade through dense National Academy of Sciences reports that provide nuanced discussions on the pros and cons of genetically modified crops. For them, the GMO debate is not about science; it is about emotions. They very much care about the food they feed their families. And they take their cues from the experts they trust on such matters, experts they judge to share their values. And in this tribe, GMOs are not associated with sustainability and healthy foods.

Im skeptical that the film will have any impact on GMO-averse people because I know GMO-averse people.

Maybe this explains why, despite embracing GMO foods myself, I also belong to my local organic co-op, something one friend gleefully reminded me of the last time I brought up misguided GMO fears at a dinner party. Yes, theres a large GMO-free sign hanging on the main wall in the co-op, but I like the vibe and ethic of the place. And yeah, I know the lucrative organic food industry is a racket unto itself and that organic benefits are grossly overstated, but I still identify with the people who shop at the co-op. And that matters more to me.

When the topic of GMOs comes up at dinner parties, I am the skunk who will gently remind everyone of everything Tyson says about GMO safety in Food Evolution. I have a litany of facts and studies that I cite. After listening politely and patting me on the head like a child out of his depth, they always checkmate me with, What about Monsanto?

Its hard to overstate the significance of that albatross on the GMO debate. Monsanto is perhaps best known for producing pesticides and herbicides like DDT in the 1940s and Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, Monsanto was at the forefront of the nascent agricultural biotechnology revolution, but when it pioneered the first generation of genetically engineered seeds, it conveniently made them able to withstand an herbicide it created. Activists suspicious of the new technology had a field day branding GMOs as the work of mad scientists with a history of poisoning us. Its easy for activists to portray the company as the evil face of industrial agriculture.

Of course, the reality is that it is possible for Monsanto to be terrible and for GMOs to still be safe. But when Ive tried unpacking the companys real problems (calling out its monopolistic, heavy-handed business practices and tone-deaf responses to critics), that only makes people more suspicious. Its become hard for scientists and journalists alike to debunk GMO myths and misinformation without being accused of shilling for Monsanto or Big Ag. Even Harmon, a highly regarded science journalist, cant escape this charge: After one of her (ultimately prize-winning) pieces chronicling a non-industry application of crop biotechnology was published, Michael Pollan tweeted that it contained too many industry talking points. (The science journalism community leapt to Harmons defense and repudiated Pollan.) And after Harmons Hawaii piece was published, an anti-GMO group on its Facebook page photo-shopped her in a leopard-skin bathing suit, holding hands with the Monsanto CEO on a Hawaiian beach.

Given this poisonous milieu, Im not surprised that Food Evolution has already been characterized by activists as a textbook case of corporate propaganda. Several influential GMO critics who appear in the film, including Pollan and New York University professor Marion Nestle, are also crying foul. Its fair to say that the film has an agenda. It does. (Though, to its credit, Food Evolution devotes ample time to the socio-political concerns of GMO opponents.) But to baselessly insinuate that Monsanto has somehow financially underwritten it, as Nestle does in a blog post on her website, is a pretty good indicator of Food Evolutions herculean challenge: to overcome immense distrust of a science dominated and shaped by industry.

There is one scene that left me hopeful that it is possible for a meeting of the minds on this topic. It comes when Alison Van Eenennaam, a professor of animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of CaliforniaDavis, stops to talk with anti-GMO protesters. She engages in a civil, good faith conversation with them. One protester says to her: Dont you think putting all these chemicals in our food and in our animals is dangerous?

After some polite back and forth, Van Eenennaam says, What frustrates me is that I think this [GMO] technology has potential and yet it gets mixed up with a lot of other concerns, like multinational control. The protester seems truly engaged in their dialogue. Maybe its not an and/or [issue], she says.

Van Eenennaam reaches out to shake the womans hand. I agree, she says, smiling. Can we agree on that?

They do. It would be great if more conversations like this resulted from Food Evolution. But the film is an attempt to inject science into a debate that is shaped by values. That tactic, one that I have employed plenty of times in my own life with minimal results, seems destined to fail. Instead, perhaps we should all take a page from Van Eenennaam and try to be more willing to listen to how peoples values inform their opinions and find common ground from there.

See the original post here:

Food Evolution is correct on GMOs, and unconvincing. - Slate Magazine

June 23, 2017 by David L. Chandler Researchers have discovered that Prochlorococcus varieties can each produce more than two dozen different peptides (molecules that are similar to proteins, but smaller). Credit: Christine Daniloff/MIT

It's one of the tiniest organisms on Earth, but also one of the most abundant. And now, the microscopic marine bacteria called Prochlorococcus can add one more superlative to its list of attributes: It evolves new kinds of metabolites called lanthipeptides, more abundantly and rapidly than any other known organism.

While most bacteria contain genes to pump out one or two versions of this peptide, Prochlorococcus varieties can each produce more than two dozen different peptides (molecules that are similar to proteins, but smaller). And though all of Earth's Prochlorococcus varieties belong to just a single species, some of their localized varieties in different regions of the world's oceans each produce a unique collection of thousands of these peptides, unlike those generated by terrestrial bacteria.

The startling findings, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, were discovered by former MIT graduate student Andres Cubillos-Ruiz, Institute Professor Sallie "Penny" Chisholm, University of Illinois chemistry professor Wilfred van der Donk, and two others.

"This is incredibly significant work," says Eric Schmidt, professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the research. "The authors show how nature has evolved methods to create chemical diversity. What really sets it apart is that it examines how this evolution takes place in nature, instead of in the lab. They examine a huge habitat, the open ocean. This is amazing," he says.

"No one had seen the true extent of the diversity in these molecules" until this new study, Cubillos-Ruiz says. The first hints of this unexpected diversity surfaced in 2010, when Bo Li and Daniel Sher, members of van der Donk's and Chisholm's labs respectively, found that one variety of Prochlorococcus could produce as many as 29 different lanthipeptides. But the big surprise came when Cubillos-Ruiz looked at other populations and found that the same organisms, in a different location, produced similarly great numbers of the peptides, "and all of them were completely different," he says.

After considerable study examining the genomes of many Prochlorococcus cultures and pieces of DNA from the wild, the researchers determined that the way the extraordinary numbers of lanthipeptides evolve is, in itself, something that hasn't been observed before. While most evolution takes place through tiny incremental changes, while preserving the vast majority of the genetic structure, the genes that enable Prochlorococcus to produce these lanthipeptides do just the opposite. They somehow undergo dramatic, wholesale changes all at once, resulting in the production of thousands of new varieties of these metabolites.

Cubillos-Ruiz, who is now a postdoc at MIT's Institute For Medical Engineering and Science, says the way these genes were changing "wasn't following classic phylogenetic rules," which dictate that changes should happen slowly and incrementally to avoid disruptive changes that impair function. But the story is a bit more complicated than that: The specific genes that encode for these lanthipeptides are composed of two parts, joined end to end. One part is actually very well-preserved across the lineages and different populations of the species. It's the other end that goes through these major shakeups in structure. "The second half is amazingly variable," he says. "The two halves of the gene have taken completely different evolutionary pathways, which is uncommon."

The actual functions of most of these thousands of peptides, which are known as prochlorosins, remain unknown, as they are very difficult to study under laboratory conditions. Similar compounds produced by terrestrial bacteria can serve as chemical signaling devices between the organisms, while others are known to have antimicrobial functions, and many others serve purposes that have yet to be determined. Because of the known antimicrobial functions, though, the team thinks it will be useful to screen these compounds to see if they might be candidates for new antibiotics or other useful biologic products.

This evolutionary mechanism in Prochlorococcus represents "an intriguing mode of evolution for this kind of specialized metabolite," Cubillos-Ruiz says. While evolution usually favors preservation of most of the genetic structure from the ancestor to the descendants, "in this organism, selection seems to favor cells that are able to produce many and very different lanthipeptides. So this built-in collective diversity appears to be part of its function, but we don't yet know its purpose. We can speculate, but given their variability it's hard to demonstrate." Maybe it has to do with providing protection against attack by viruses, he says, or maybe it involves communicating with other bacteria.

"Prochlorococcus is trying to tell us something, but we don't yet know what that is," says Chisholm, who has joint appointments in MIT's departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Biology. "What [Cubillos-Ruiz] uncovered through this molecule is an evolutionary mechanism for diversity." And that diversity clearly must have very important survival value, she says: "It's such a small organism, with such a small genome, devoting so much of its genetic potential toward producing these molecules must mean they are playing an important role. The big question is: What is that role?"

In fact, this kind of process may not be uniqueit may be just that Prochlorococcus, an organism that Chisholm and her colleagues initially discovered in 1986 and have been studying ever since, has provided the wealth of data needed for such an analysis. "This might be happening in other kinds of bacteria," Cubillos-Ruiz says, "so maybe if people start looking into other environments for that kind of diversity," it may turn out not to be unique. "There are some hints it happens in other [biological] systems too," he says.

Christopher Walsh, emeritus professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard University, who was not involved in this work, says "The dramatic diversity of prochlorosins assembled by a single enzyme raises surprising questions about how evolution of thousands of cyclic peptide structures can be accomplished by alterations that favor large changes rather than incremental ones."

According to Schmidt, "There are many possible practical applications. The first is fairly clear: By using this natural variation, the same process can be used to design and build chemicals that might be drugs or other materials. More fundamentally, by understanding the natural process of generating chemical diversity, this will help to create methods to synthesize desired applications in cells."

Explore further: Ubiquitous marine organism co-evolved with other microbes, promoting more complex ecosystems

More information: Evolutionary radiation of lanthipeptides in marine cyanobacteria, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (2017). http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700990114

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

William Blake may have seen a world in a grain of sand, but for scientists at MIT the smallest of all photosynthetic bacteria holds clues to the evolution of entire ecosystems, and perhaps even the whole biosphere.

The smallest, most abundant marine microbe, Prochlorococcus, is a photosynthetic bacteria species essential to the marine ecosystem. An estimated billion billion billion of the single-cell creatures live in the oceans, forming ...

Marine cyanobacteriatiny ocean plants that produce oxygen and make organic carbon using sunlight and CO2are primary engines of Earth's biogeochemical and nutrient cycles. They nourish other organisms through the provision ...

Sea experiments show there's a constant shuffling of genetic endowments among tiny plankton, say Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers.

In a proof-of-concept experiment, a 4-billion-year-old protein engineered into modern E. coli protected the bacteria from being hijacked by a bacteria-infecting virus. It was as if the E. coli had suddenly gone analogue, ...

Researchers from David Karl's laboratory at the University of Hawai'i at Mnoa (UHM) and from Professor Jens Nielsen's laboratory at Chalmers University of Technology in Gteborg, Sweden, developed a computer model which ...

Humans belong to a select club of species that enjoy crisp color vision in daylight, thanks to a small spot in the center of the retina at the back of the eye. Other club members include monkeys and apes, various fish and ...

Toxins produced by three different species of fungus growing indoors on wallpaper may become aerosolized, and easily inhaled. The findings, which likely have implications for "sick building syndrome," were published in Applied ...

Marine seismic surveys used in petroleum exploration could cause a two to three-fold increase in mortality of adult and larval zooplankton, new research published in leading science journal Nature Ecology and Evolution has ...

Sometimes, when a science experiment doesn't work out, unexpected opportunities open up.

Scientists at the University of York have used florescent proteins from jellyfish to help shed new light on how DNA replicates.

It's one of the tiniest organisms on Earth, but also one of the most abundant. And now, the microscopic marine bacteria called Prochlorococcus can add one more superlative to its list of attributes: It evolves new kinds of ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Originally posted here:

In marine bacteria, evolution of new specialized molecules follows a ... - Phys.Org

Classical music may be the art of the sublime, liquid architecture and all the rest, but it has nonetheless always been a long-suffering kingdom of kvetching. Born to serve the church, Western music became in the Middle Ages an ideal medium of sacrilege, and the art form has continued over the centuries to bite the hands that have fed it, be they the aristocracy, ruling powers, philanthropists or the public. However high-minded, the history of classical music is riddled with worry and an obsessive desire for reinvention.

Music Academy of the West the summer training program for young musicians on an elegant campus nestled among Montecito mansions and overlooking a scenic stretch of shoreline held a two-day conference this week called Classical Evolution/Revolution. Eighteen movers and shakers, young and seasoned, working in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, New York and London, took part in six panels surveying the state of the field.

The curriculum for such symposiums is expected to ask all the pressing questions. What horrors will disruptive digital unleash next? How can we develop new audiences without teaching music in schools? Can classical music, that sliver of a sliver of the modern zeitgeist, possibly matter? Where, everyone in the business desperately wants to know, will the next dollar come from?

If anyone should be anxious, its Graham Parker. Last July he was appointed president of the U.S. division of Universal Music Classics, which includes such fabled classical record labels as Deutsche Grammophon and Decca. The classical market has long been expected to die on the vine. Classical buyers still want CDs but cant readily find them. To top the charts, a new classical release once needed to sell tens of thousands. Now a few hundred units makes for a coveted bestseller.

But that doesnt mean the classical music baby need be thrown out with the the CD bathwater. A cheerfully upbeat Parker ended the conference raising eyebrows with the claim that in any given month an extraordinary 30% of the U.S. population listens to classical music on some device. That translates to 100 million people in our country alone! Another happy number he threw out is that more than 40 million Americans sing in a chorus (an estimate that includes church choirs).

Of course, how you best reach these millions is another matter. There are also millions more who dont know what they are missing. Classical music might just supply the spiritual nourishment they seek.

Technology is ever the elephant in the room. The history of sharks out to cheat musicians is long and dishonorable. Today its Silicon Valleys ability to redirect profits from the creators and producers to the likes of Apple, Amazon and Spotify. Equally troubling is the power of technology in the form of virtual reality, holograms and things we may not yet know about, to suck the life out of live music making.

Again, such dire predictions are nothing new in classical music. And yet so much classical has been around for so long that it would be hard to get rid of it all. Live performance has lasted, furthermore, because, as Los Angeles Opera head Christopher Koelsch said Tuesday, The human creature craves the communal.

For his part, Sam Bodkin asked what the world needs and rapidly answered his own question: It needs more substance, beauty and intimacy, and classical music checks all those boxes.

So Bodkin founded Groupmuse, which uses social media to build audiences for intimate concerts in homes, breaking down the barrier between listener and performer. People are looking to go places they cant find in contemporary commercial society, he said. Beethoven in your living room or grungy basement as far as Bodkin is concerned, any place can provide a newbies aha moment.

What is maybe new to our time is the necessity for everyone the creators, the practitioners, the producers and the audience to become determinedly flexible. The ways to make and consume classical music keep expanding. The technological wonders of the modern world take, but they also give. It is not just good but essential to be adaptable and open. And wary.

The idea of putting faith in the artists was another central point. Luke Ritchie and Toby Coffey, who respectively head digital innovation and development departments for the Philharmonia Orchestra and the neighboring National Theatre at the Southbank Centre in London, are working at the cutting edge of virtual reality and did a fairly convincing job of making that seem a less scary reality. Both demonstrated concern with enhancing content and disdain for digital trickery.

Ritchie has the advantage of the orchestras tech-savvy principal conductor and artistic advisor Esa-Pekka Salonen. He takes viewers hooked up to those clumsy VR masks on an illuminating tour of the orchestra that you really could never get any other way. The National Theatre is more radical, with its immersive storytelling. An audience member can wear VR goggles that create a 360-degree spatial environment that feels completely interior and dreamlike, and at the same time interact with live actors, resulting in intense situations, where the theatrical confusion between reality and dream state weaken emotional defenses. The implication for opera is terrifying and thrilling.

However encouraging the fact that artists may have a chance to help mold VR technology, which is still in its infancy, that is a future as yet out of reach. And it is coming up against what is a much bigger trend of reviving, as Bodkin is doing, the physical connection between performer and audience.

The value of discovery in an audience is diminishing, lamented Kristy Edmunds, executive and artistic director of the Center for the Art of Performance at UCLA. But her solution is simply listen to and support the artist. She said that her guiding principle is something that the French director Ariane Mnouchkine once told her: For somebody in the audience, this will be their first experience with theater, and for somebody it will be their last.

One of the great contributions of Mnouchkines avant-garde company, Le Thtre du Soleil, has been the understanding of the importance of space as the place. She took over former munitions factory in eastern Paris where she could create a uniquely communal environment for a revelatory new ritualistic theater. Yuval Sharon, founder of the Los Angeles opera company the Industry, described how masterminding operas in Union Station or in limousines driving through downtown L.A. offered a unique engagement between city and artists, allowing audiences to find all kinds of unexpected resonances.

Though Sharon may be a paradigm shifter, he distinguished his approach as a director from that of a disruptor. The dictates of the work is everything, he said, and, no, Wagner should not be done in Union Station, although his next project will be the creation of a play-opera hybrid of Brechts Galileo, with music by Andy Akiho, to be staged in September around a bonfire on the beach in San Pedro.

How to improve the world without making matters worse? Would a holograph of Yuja Wang playing at Walt Disney Concert Hall broadcast to audiences in Kansas yes that was suggested provide people access to something they would not otherwise have, or would it make classical music creepy?

Few students turned up for the conference. They were busy with lessons and practicing. Their duty is to become artists we can trust. Our duty is to create a world in which they can be trusted. That is not out of the question.

The news from picture-perfect Montecito is that however great the challenges may be for classical music, the possibilities are greater. And there are a lot of people who care.

mark.swed@latimes.com

OUR SUNDAY PACKAGE:

An assassination 2,061 years in the making: Trump, 'Julius Caesar' and the politics of theater

Mozart in Trump Tower, and the art of getting political onstage

Shakespeare and the politics of our age: 'Julius Caesar' and now 'Richard II'

See original here:

Evolution, revolution, smevolution: The future of classical music - Los Angeles Times

How fast does evolution occur?

In certain bacteria, it can occur almost instantaneously, a University at Buffalo molecular biologist has discovered.

Mark R. OBrian, PhD, chair and professor of the Department of Biochemistry in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB, made the surprising discovery when studying how bacteria finds and draws iron into itself. The National Institutes of Health has awarded him a $1.28 million, four-year grant to delve into the mechanisms of bacteria mutating to accept iron, and how the organism expels excess iron.

The discovery was made almost by accident, OBrian said. The bacteria Bradyrhizobium japonicum was placed in a medium along with a synthetic compound to extract all the iron. OBrian expected the bacteria to lie dormant having been deprived of the iron needed to multiply. But to his surprise, the bacteria started multiplying.

We had the DNA of the bacteria sequenced on campus, and we discovered they had mutated and were using the new compound to take iron in to grow, he said. It suggests that a single mutation can do that. So we tried it again with a natural iron-binding compound, and it did it again.

The speed of the genetic mutations 17 days was astounding.

We usually think of evolution taking place over a long period of time, but were seeing evolution at least as the ability to use an iron source that it couldnt before occurring as a single mutation in the cell that we never would have predicted, he said.

The machinery to take up iron is pretty complicated, so we would have thought many mutations would have been required for it to be taken up, he said.

The evolution of the bacteria does not mean it is developing into some other type of creature. Evolution can also change existing species to allow them to survive, OBrian said.

Bacteria, the most abundant life form on the planet, have been around for 3 billion years, evolving and adapting. So how big is the discovery of near instantaneous evolution?

It will depend on how broadly applicable it is, OBrian said. Can we characterize the mechanisms, and look around and see if they are in other systems? How does this affect bacterial communities? How important is it for human health?

OBrian said other researchers may take up work on how the new knowledge could impact human health.

The mutation may not be related to how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. The mutation that OBrian observed resulted in a gain of function, a much more complicated event than the adaptation to block an antibiotic, he said.

Organisms can adapt by switching genes on and off. Part of OBrians grant is to study how bacteria expel excess iron by turning on different genes.

The work now is strictly scientific, but uses could be in the offing.

There is the understanding of a mechanism that may help to better understand how you can approach an infectious disease, or approach remediation of the environment using bacteria, OBrian said.

Read more:

Near instantaneous evolution discovered in bacteria - ScienceBlog.com (blog)

Even after a tip of the cap to Rovio for making the original Angry Birds gameplay as durable and long-lived as it has been, its understandable that the company would want the franchise to spread its wings in order to keep going and no, thats probably not the only bad avian pun in this review. Angry Birds Evolution definitely succeeds in pushing the brand forward, but with mixed results as it combines gameplay you didnt know you wanted with a story you probably dont.

The set-up for Angry Birds Evolution is about as classic as it gets, assuming that word applies for a franchise that is less than 10 years old. Pigs are threatening eggs, so the grown-up birds need to do something about it and fight back. Theres a lot more to the narrative behind your adventure as well, with the gist of the plot being that you need to convince a legendary team of bird heroes to come back into the fold and help you defeat the Pigs leader, whos obviously been watching some iconic movies as motivation.

But the details of the story dont grab you as much as the sense that for the most part, these arent any Angry Birds youve encountered before in other games, animation or even the movie. They look like the characters from the film, but the game designers worked overtime to come up with a whole bunch of new birds when the familiar ones probably would have sufficed. On top of that, theyre more scary than cute, despite being beautifully rendered and animated.

If you can accept a whole new flock into your life, you might be impressed with the way Rovio created a turn-based RPG and still managed to preserve the one thing that screams Angry Birds to anyone. That is, when your characters attack, you pull them back, find the right angle to let them go and watch as they bounce off enemies, blow stuff up and generally wreak havoc until they come to a rest. Power-ups and special attacks add to the strategy as you pick your targets and try to eliminate them before they have a chance to do harm to your squad. Its somewhat reminiscent of Angry Birds Action in terms of the perspective from behind your birds, but otherwise its all its own thing.

Theres also a PvP mode where these same mechanics are combined with the simple goal of shoving as many birds onto your opponents side of the playing field for as long as possible. Its nice that the game doesnt ask you to learn a whole new way of doing things for multiplayer, and the matches usually tend to be fast and frantic.

In-between battles, there are plenty of very standard mobile game things to do to create a more powerful team of birds. Lower rarity birds can be used to power up the ones you plan on using regularly, and several different currencies give you a chance to hatch new characters in the time-tested gacha style. The different colors of birds all have different types of special attacks and can form sets that unlock extra abilities, so theres definitely a hunt and collect element to the whole thing. Extra birds can also be sent on resource-gathering missions if you so desire. Clans provide a social hook, as they often do.

One aspect of Angry Birds Evolution you might not expect is that its not geared toward kids, or at least theres a conscious effort to make this one more adult. One of the old heroes youre trying to recruit is named Major Pecker, which gives you an idea of the type of humor involved. Thats not to say the game is objectionable as a lot of whats going on will fly right over the head of younger players, and it does make one wonder exactly who the intended audience is supposed to be.

Then again, maybe O.G. Angry Birds players are mostly grown up now, or at least on their way. Evolution was probably inevitable, and it plants the Birds flag in a genre that works well on mobile in a unique manner, but it also jettisons a lot of what many would probably expect, right down to the birds themselves. If you simply adore turn-based RPGs or are down to glide with this IP all the way until the end, you need to try it, but otherwise, it feels like more of a curiosity than an essential.

Read more:

Angry Birds Evolution Review: A Fun But Strange Flock - Gamezebo