Monthly Archives: May 2020

Ideas aimed at explaining how organisms change, or evolve, over time date back to Anaximander of Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C.E. Noting that human babies are born helpless, Anaximander speculated that humans must have descended from some other type of creature whose young could survive without any help. He concluded that those ancestors must be fish, since fish hatch from eggs and immediately begin living with no help from their parents. From this reasoning, he proposed that all life began in the sea.

Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word theory indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einsteins explanation of gravity as a theory.

A theory is an idea about how something in nature works that has gone through rigorous testing through observations and experiments designed to prove the idea right or wrong. When it comes to the evolution of life, various philosophers and scientists, including an eighteenth-century English doctor named Erasmus Darwin, proposed different aspects of what later would become evolutionary theory. But evolution did not reach the status of being a scientific theory until Darwins grandson, the more famous Charles Darwin, published his famous book On the Origin of Species. Darwin and a scientific contemporary of his, Alfred Russel Wallace, proposed that evolution occurs because of a phenomenon called natural selection.

In the theory of natural selection, organisms produce more offspring that are able to survive in their environment. Those that are better physically equipped to survive, grow to maturity, and reproduce. Those that are lacking in such fitness, on the other hand, either do not reach an age when they can reproduce or produce fewer offspring than their counterparts. Natural selection is sometimes summed up as survival of the fittest because the fittest organismsthose most suited to their environmentare the ones that reproduce most successfully, and are most likely to pass on their traits to the next generation.

This means that if an environment changes, the traits that enhance survival in that environment will also gradually change, or evolve. Natural selection was such a powerful idea in explaining the evolution of life that it became established as a scientific theory. Biologists have since observed numerous examples of natural selection influencing evolution. Today, it is known to be just one of several mechanisms by which life evolves. For example, a phenomenon known as genetic drift can also cause species to evolve. In genetic drift, some organismspurely by chanceproduce more offspring than would be expected. Those organisms are not necessarily the fittest of their species, but it is their genes that get passed on to the next generation.

Original post:

Theory of Evolution | National Geographic Society

Human evolution, the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates. Viewed zoologically, we humans are Homo sapiens, a culture-bearing upright-walking species that lives on the ground and very likely first evolved in Africa about 315,000 years ago. We are now the only living members of what many zoologists refer to as the human tribe, Hominini, but there is abundant fossil evidence to indicate that we were preceded for millions of years by other hominins, such as Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and other species of Homo, and that our species also lived for a time contemporaneously with at least one other member of our genus, H. neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals). In addition, we and our predecessors have always shared Earth with other apelike primates, from the modern-day gorilla to the long-extinct Dryopithecus. That we and the extinct hominins are somehow related and that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere. Yet the exact nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and investigation since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that man was descended from the apes, and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplificationjust as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the missing link between humans and the apes. There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a missing link along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent. In fact, the human family tree may be better described as a family bush, within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

Top Questions

Humans are culture-bearingprimates classified in the genusHomo, especially thespeciesHomo sapiens. They are anatomically similar and related to the greatapes (orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas)but are distinguished by a more highly developedbrain that allows for the capacity for articulatespeechand abstractreasoning. Humans display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees thehandsfor use as manipulative members.

The answer to this question is challenging, since paleontologists have only partial information on what happened when. So far, scientists have been unable to detect the sudden moment of evolution for any species, but they are able to infer evolutionary signposts that help to frame our understanding of the emergence of humans. Strong evidence supports the branching of the human lineage from the one that produced great apes (orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas) in Africa sometime between 6 and 7 million years ago. Evidence of toolmaking dates to about 3.3 million years ago in Kenya. However, the age of the oldest remains of the genus Homo is younger than this technological milestone, dating to some 2.82.75 million years ago in Ethiopia. The oldest known remains of Homo sapiensa collection of skull fragments, a complete jawbone, and stone toolsdate to about 315,000 years ago.

No. Humans are one type of several living species of great apes. Humans evolved alongside orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. All of these share a common ancestor before about 7 million years ago.

Yes. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were archaic humans who emerged at least 200,000 years ago and died out perhaps between 35,000 and 24,000 years ago. They manufactured and used tools (including blades, awls, and sharpening instruments), developed a spoken language, and developed a rich culture that involved hearth construction, traditional medicine, and the burial of their dead. Neanderthals also created art; evidence shows that some painted with naturally occurring pigments. In the end, Neanderthals were likely replaced by modern humans (H. sapiens), but not before some members of these species bred with one another where their ranges overlapped.

The primary resource for detailing the path of human evolution will always be fossil specimens. Certainly, the trove of fossils from Africa and Eurasia indicates that, unlike today, more than one species of our family has lived at the same time for most of human history. The nature of specific fossil specimens and species can be accurately described, as can the location where they were found and the period of time when they lived; but questions of how species lived and why they might have either died out or evolved into other species can only be addressed by formulating scenarios, albeit scientifically informed ones. These scenarios are based on contextual information gleaned from localities where the fossils were collected. In devising such scenarios and filling in the human family bush, researchers must consult a large and diverse array of fossils, and they must also employ refined excavation methods and records, geochemical dating techniques, and data from other specialized fields such as genetics, ecology and paleoecology, and ethology (animal behaviour)in short, all the tools of the multidisciplinary science of paleoanthropology.

This article is a discussion of the broad career of the human tribe from its probable beginnings millions of years ago in the Miocene Epoch (23 million to 5.3 million years ago [mya]) to the development of tool-based and symbolically structured modern human culture only tens of thousands of years ago, during the geologically recent Pleistocene Epoch (about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago). Particular attention is paid to the fossil evidence for this history and to the principal models of evolution that have gained the most credence in the scientific community.See the article evolution for a full explanation of evolutionary theory, including its main proponents both before and after Darwin, its arousal of both resistance and acceptance in society, and the scientific tools used to investigate the theory and prove its validity.

See the original post:

human evolution | Stages & Timeline | Britannica

Hold that thought: A good grip can mean the difference between life and death for lizards in a hurricane -- and as a result, populations hit more frequently by hurricanes have larger toepads.

A new study from Washington University in St. Louis is the first to demonstrate evolutionary response to hurricanes on a wide geographic scale. The research is published the week of April 27 in theProceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Lizard groups that more frequently experience hurricanes evolve larger toepads than those that experience relatively fewer hurricanes, according to a new analysis that spans 12 island populations ofAnolis sagreilizards and, separately, 188 Anolis species with ranges from Florida to Brazil.

Scientists have known for a long time that lizards on the Caribbean islands have larger toepads than those on the mainland. But this physical difference has never been definitively linked to an evolutionary response to hurricanes. Hurricanes happen so infrequently that researchers used to think their effects would be erased by natural selection favoring normal conditions.

"What we found is that hurricanes actually do have evolutionary effects on lizards that span both geographic and phylogenetic scales," saidColin Donihue, a postdoctoral fellow in biology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University. "We showed that hurricanes affect a single anole species in Turks & Caicos, and those effects are likely inherited to the next generation -- suggesting an evolutionary change. The effects are paralleled across 12 island populations of a different anole species, and ultimately can be detected across an entire genus of very distantly related anole lizards."

The hurricane effect was much broader than anyone anticipated.

"My role on this paper was to tell Colin not to bother, he was never going to find anything," saidJonathan Losos, the William H. Danforth Distinguished Professor at Washington University and professor of biology in Arts & Sciences. Losos is director of theLiving Earth Collaborative.

"I thought it was extremely unlikely that hurricanes would have a big enough and long-lasting enough effect on the populations that it would show up when you compare populations or species," Losos said. "Of course, I was absolutely wrong and Colin was absolutely right. And the patterns he found are quite exciting."

The effects are observable at the population level, at the species level and across a broad region of neotropics including the Caribbean, Central America and much of South America. The new analysis relies on 70 years of NOAA hurricane data from the north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans and hundreds of anole toepad measurements from across their entire neotropical range.

"We poked and prodded the data every which way to try to find if there were any holes in it," Losos said. "And I'm convinced that it's robust."

In 2017, Donihue had just finished a detailed survey of Anolis lizards in Turks & Caicos for another research effort when Hurricane Irma struck the islands directly, a Category 5 storm with winds in excess of 170 mph. Two weeks later, Hurricane Maria scored a second direct hit on the islands. Donihue's immediate before-after comparison showed that survivors of these hurricanes had different physical traits than the general population before the storms.

For the new study, Donihue and colleagues returned to Turks & Caicos one year later and took new measurements. Lizards in the next generation had toepads as large as the survivors that had been measured immediately following the hurricane.

The researchers thought that if hurricanes really do affect toepad evolution, then those lizards that live in areas hit by hurricanes more frequently should have larger toepads -- all other things being equal. But it's not actually possible to go back and see how the incidence of hurricanes has affected toepad size. Instead, as a next step, the researchers looked at many different lizard populations with different histories -- substituting a comparison across space for a comparison over time.

To quantify exposure to hurricanes, collaborator Alex Kowaleski, a postdoctoral scholar at the Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, used data from NOAA on historical hurricane paths, primarily tapping the Atlantic Basin Hurricane Database (HURDAT 2) archive of the track and intensity of all North Atlantic cyclones. Even among the first set of 12 island populations that Donihue wanted to compare, there was a great amount of variability in exposure. For example, one population had been hit four times in the past 70 years, and one had not experienced a direct hit.

HURDAT 2 contains position and intensity data every 6 hours, but, for this study, Kowaleski interpolated the track and intensity data to every 15 minutes.

"This was important because it is possible for a hurricane to strike a location between two timesteps," Kowaleski said. "Interpolation allows us to better capture hurricane strikes at each location."

"Correcting for things like differences in body size, we found that island populations that had been hit by hurricanes more [frequently] had larger toepads," Donihue said. "Hurricanes seem to be having some sort of additive effect on the evolution of these lizards -- that the more hurricanes you have, the larger toepads you have, on average."

"Toepads might be a key trait for helping lizards hold on tight to the vegetation during storms," he said. "But there's probably a tradeoff between the traits that make you really good at surviving a hurricane and the traits that make you really good at being a lizard day in, day out.

"Most of the selective pressure is to just be good at being a lizard: to go catch food, find a mate and avoid predators. These hurricane events are very infrequent and unpredictable, so we expect that there are other selective pressures that are acting on toepads. In other words, over time, these toepads are not going to turn into big snowshoes, or something like that. There's a balance."

The results may have implications for other types of animals -- not just lizards -- and also for other changes under new climate scenarios.

"Our best idea right now is that tropical cyclones will become less frequent globally; however, a higher percentage of them will become intense hurricanes," Kowaleski said. "Increases in sea-surface temperatures will cause a higher percentage of tropical cyclones that do form to become Category 4 or 5 hurricanes.

"Precipitation intensity also is expected to increase in tropical cyclones due to climate warming," Kowaleski said.

"My best guess is that this isn't just a lizard thing," Donihue said. "For any other species affected by hurricanes where survival is non-random, you would predict this same kind of pattern occurring.

"I'm really hoping that this is going to spark some new analyses of old data -- or new data collection going forward -- thinking about how hurricanes might be affecting things like the evolution of plants and trees, or snails ... or any of the other species affected by hurricanes in this region."

Go here to see the original:

Hurricanes twist evolution in island lizards - Jill Lopez

Catmint emits the odor nepetalactone which triggers a kind of ecstasy in sexually mature cats: They get high on sniffing at catmint plants, roll on the floor and exhibit an unusually playful behavior. Credit: Phil Robinson, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK

Researchers discover the evolutionary origins of the cat attractant nepetalactone.

Catmint, also known as catnip, is well-known for its intoxicating effect on cats. The odor responsible for the cats strange behavior is nepetalactone, a volatile iridoid produced by catmint.

An international team of researchers has now found through genome analysis that the ability to produce iridoids had already been lost in ancestors of catmint in the course of evolution. Hence, nepetalactone biosynthesis is the result of repeated evolution. Nevertheless, this particular iridoid differs considerably from other compounds in this group of natural products with regards to its chemical structure and properties, and most likely its ecological functions (Science Advances).

Iridoids are plant secondary metabolites from the group of terpenes. Many plants produce these substances to defend themselves against herbivores or to protect themselves from pathogens, among these plants many species from the mint family (Lamiaceae). The ancestors of a particularly species-rich subfamily of the Lamiaceae, the Nepetoideae, which includes many well-known herbs, such as basil, oregano, rosemary, lemon balm, and mint, had lost the ability to produce iridoids in the course of evolution.

However, there is an important exception: the genus Nepeta, called catmint or catnip. Catmint plants produce iridoids including a very special form: nepetalactone, a volatile substance known to excite cats. Presumably, its actual function is to deter herbivores from trying to feed on catmint.

Catmint (Nepeta cataria), also called catnip, from the genus Nepeta belongs to the Lamiaceae family. It is well-known for its effect on cats. However, it is not clear why cats respond to the odor nepetalactone. Credit: Phil Robinson, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK

An international team of researchers led by Sarah OConnor, director of the Department of Natural Product Biosynthesis at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany, has now investigated how and why catmint makes nepetalactone and how the biosynthetic pathways for the formation of this unique chemical molecule have evolved.

To answer this question, they sequenced the genome of catmint. We discovered a suite of unusual enzymes that generate nepetalactone molecules. These enzymes are not found in any related plant species and have evolved uniquely in catmint. When we first saw the genome sequence of catmint we realized that the important genes that we hypothesized were active in the formation of nepetalactone were next to each other in the genome. This allowed us to solve the problem more easily, explains Benjamin Lichman from the University of York, who is the first author of the study.

The scientists compared the genome of two catmint species which are both able to produce nepetalactone to the closely related medicinal plant hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) which is neither able to produce nepetalactone nor any other iridoids. This comparative approach, the reconstruction of ancient genes, as well as comprehensive phylogenetic analyses enabled the researchers to understand the chronology of events that led to the emergence of nepetalactone biosynthesis. They were able to determine the mechanisms for the loss and subsequent re-evolution of iridoid biosynthesis in catmint. These new discoveries provide broader lessons in the evolution of plant metabolic novelty and diversity.

In particular, the nepetalactone pathway is found as a gene cluster, a group of similar genes located in the immediate vicinity in the genome. By looking at this cluster, together with gene fossils and resurrected ancient enzymes the scientists elucidated important steps that led to the formation of this cluster. Similar steps lead to the evolution of the impressive plant metabolic diversity in many plant lineages.

Catmint provides a great model example for studying these processes. We are now trying to modify the chemicals present in the catmint plants. This will help us know if we completely understand all aspects of the pathway as well as understand the ecological functions of nepetalactone. This can in turn help us to uncover the selective pressures that led to loss and regain of this pathway. We are also looking at other Nepeta species that produce unusual iridoids, says Sarah OConnor summarizing her future research plans.

The leader of the study has been the new director and head of the Department of Natural Product Biosynthesis at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany, since last year. The focus of her research is on the biosynthesis of plant metabolic products which do not only have multiple ecological roles in mediating a plants interactions with its environment, but also hold promising potential in medicine. She wants to understand how and why plants apply such complex chemical reactions to produce this fascinating diversity of molecules: Plants are constantly evolving new chemistry. With our research, we would like to get snapshots of this evolution in action.

###

Reference: The evolutionary origins of the cat attractant nepetalactone in catnip by Benjamin R. Lichman, Grant T. Godden, John P. Hamilton, Lira Palmer, Mohamed O. Kamileen, Dongyan Zhao, Brieanne Vaillancourt, Joshua C. Wood, Miao Sun, Taliesin J. Kinser, Laura K. Henry, Carlos Rodriguez-Lopez, Natalia Dudareva, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Soltis, C. Robin Buell and Sarah E. OConnor, 13 May 2020, Science Advances.DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba0721

This research was funded by the Mint Genome Project (National Science Foundation) led by C. Robin Buell at Michigan State University.

Excerpt from:

Genetic Analysis Reveals the Fascinating Evolutionary Origins of Catmint AKA Catnip - SciTechDaily

William Dembski and Robert J. Marks developed the concept of active information to measure the extent to which a search function appears pre-programmed to find some target. Inspired by the theory of intelligent design, this metric has proved useful in exposing when genetic algorithms dont truly model the power of Darwinian evolution, but rather cheat due to a programmers guidance, leading to a predetermined outcome. As explainedhere, active information works as follows:

Exogenous Information (I) represents the difficulty of a search in finding its target with no prior information about its location. Active Information (I+) is the amount of information smuggled in by intelligence to aid the search algorithm in finding its target. Endogenous Information (Is) then measures the difficulty the search will have in finding its target after the addition of Active Information. Thus, I+= I Is.

Two new papers in the journalBIO-Complexityshow how active information is useful in new areas, helping us to better understand evolution and its limits.

In recent years proponents of non-Darwinian evolution have advanced ideas about natural genetic engineering, in which organisms can induce targeted, beneficial mutations in their own genomes in response to selection pressure. Last month inBIO-Complexity, computer scientist Jonathan Bartlett published an article, Measuring Active Information in Biological Systems. He addressed an important related question: How can we determine if a mutation is random and undirected, or if it was directed? In address to this question, he finds new applications for the concept of active information.

Active information tells us how much knowledge a search function has embedded in it about the location of the target. In the context of studying the effects of mutations on an organism, Bartlett explains: What active information measures is the alignment of the genome itself to the problem of finding viable genetic solutions to selection pressures. Thus, in some cases a mutation may be completely random, meaning that it occurred due to mechanisms that were not preprogrammed to help the organism solve a problem. In other cases, a mutation may not be entirely random, meaning that preprogrammed mechanisms internal to the organism directed the mutation to provide some potential benefit. Bartlett explains that non-random, directed mutations are essentially a reflection of the presence of active information in a genome to produce beneficial mutations:

This is wholly compatible with Behes First Rule of Adaptive Evolution, which states that evolution will break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. [16] The question that is posed by active information is a separate one. Does the genome contain information about what changes are likely to yield benefit? It may be that the most likely way to yield benefit is to blunt or break some particular system. If active information is present, then the blunting and breaking will be measurably tilted towards blunting and breaking systems that are likely to yield selection benefit by doing so.

The goal of active information is not to be a universal quantification of all aspects of information in biology, but rather to assess the narrow question of the information that cells contain that assist in their own evolution.

Bartlett notes that because living organisms tend to optimize across many variables over different timescales, measuring the amount of information could be difficult. However, he explains that the well-defined system of theadaptive immune system provides an environment where active information measurements can be readily calculated. He uses this observation to produce a general model for calculating active information in genomic mutations:

The methodology described for the somatic hypermutation system can be generalized to any mutational system for which the following are reasonable parameters:

Lastly, Bartlett applies his method to an example offered by proponents of Darwinian evolution to supposedly demonstrate the power of random mutation and natural selection. The example is Richard Lenskis well-knownE. coliLong Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) and the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype (the ability ofE. colito update and metabolize citrate). As Bartlett explains, the first time Lenski and his team observed the evolution of the Cit+ phenotype, it required 31,500 generations to appear. However, in their paper,Hofwegen et al. (2016)witnessed the same trait arise in only about 12 generations and 30 days because of selection pressures. Bartlett predicts that the trait arose due to active information in the genome, responding to selection and thereby predisposingE. colito evolve such a trait. Bartlett finds:

E. colicontributes approximately 12.4 additional bits of information towards the search for the Cit+ mutation when under selection. This number is relative to the ordinary predisposition ofE. colito produce this mutation when not under selection, which has not been determined.

Bartlett shows that it is not random mutation alone that generates such complex traits inE. coli. What this indicates is that classical Darwinian evolution is not the mechanism at work here. Instead, preprogrammed mechanisms are designed to allow an organism to rapidly adapt to increase selection pressures. Were these preprogrammed mechanisms intelligently designed? Thats a separate question for another day, but what Bartlett has shown is that Darwinism didnt produce this feature; something far smarter did. Intelligent design ideas are bearing fruit in our understanding of how evolution works.

A second paper inBIO-Complexitypublished just this week, Generalized Active Information: Extensions To Unbounded Domains, by Daniel Andres Diaz-Pachon and Robert J. Marks, further explores the utility of the concept of active information. They first respond to a criticism of active information made by Olle Hggstrm. The Swedish mathematician claimed that there is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that the blind forces of nature should produce a fitness landscape distributed [uniformly]. They reply by observing, It is not that out-of-equilibrium explanations are not allowed, it is that they must be accounted for.

They then explain that active information can help us detect instances where probabilities depart from expected uniform distributions:

Active information can be viewed as a generalized instantiation of anomaly detection otherwise known as novelty filtering. The status quo of probabilistic uniformity is set and any significant deviation is flagged as novel. The degree of deviation from normalcy is measured by the active information. [A]ctive information is the difference of the information for an event under equilibrium and nonequilibrium.

As they observe, Active information can also be seen as a statistical complexity measure. That is because it meets criteria previously laid out by mathematicians for building such metrics, including the fact that Active information determines the information gap between the search of a target by pure chance and the input of an expert/dumb programmer. In light of these results, they predict that active information can be applied to build a useful model of population genetics.

Photo: From Richard Lenskis terrificLTEE, by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [CC BY-SA 1.0],via Wikimedia Commons.

See original here:

New Papers Explore the Utility of Active Information - Discovery Institute

L

ive Casino solutions provider Evolution Gaming announced the addition of three new titles First Person Baccarat, First Person Dragon Tiger and First Person Football Studio to its growing range of RNG (random number generator) games with integrated GO LIVE functionality. The new additions are based on three of Evolutions live dealer tables: the casino classics Baccarat and Dragon Tiger, and the football-themed Top Card variant, Football Studio.

The three latest titles join a growing Evolution First Person range that already includes RNG versions of Roulette, Blackjack, Lightning Roulette, Dream Catcher and Mega Ball. Operators can use these RNG-based First Person titles to introduce new players to both casino classics and Evolutions range of TV-style game show games.

All three games include the GO LIVE button, a unique feature of every Evolution First Person game. By clicking this button players are taken on a journey through an in-game portal and directly to the live version of the game. This transition is made as natural as possible as the First Person and live versions of each game have the same game rules and the same familiar, easy-to-use Evolution user interface.

In First Person Baccarat, the game centres around an authentic virtual Baccarat hall, where all players are offered a VIP experience with unrivalled player control and a choice of 12 tables six standard and six No Commission tables. The game further extends player choice with options to shuffle the shoe, sort tables by streaks and the ability to deal free hands on vacant tables to build trends.

Similarly, First Person Dragon Tiger also puts the player fully in control. In this easy to play RNG game, players simply bet on which of the two cards dealt will be higher, Dragon or Tiger, with the addition of exciting light effects synchronised to game outcomes helping to build player anticipation.

First Person Football Studio is an RNG Top Card game, that again is very simple to play as just two cards are dealt. Those two cards are dealt face-up on a virtual interactive light-up table, styled as a football pitch. Just as in the live Football Studio game, players bet on a Home Win, Away Win or Draw, whilst simultaneously keeping a keen eye on the live match results from global football fixtures displayed in the user interface.

Todd Haushalter, Chief Product Officer at Evolution Gaming, said: Our goal when creating the First Person games was to make the worlds best RNG table games. When our first two games, First Person Roulette and Blackjack, were launched we agonised over ensuring that the 3D graphics and performance were perfect. We also included the GO LIVE button to take players to the live version of the same game. Those first two titles proved incredibly popular so we broadened our goal to include RNG versions of our game show games. Now were launching another trio of First Person games to add even more variety.

Dragon Tiger and Top Card are beautiful in their simplicity, with crisp clean graphics and game play, whereas First Person Baccarat is beautiful in its complexity. This is the first time anyone has tried to create a true Baccarat experience in RNG. Players may choose from their choice of 12 tables based on where the hot trends are, they can deal free hands, cut the cards themselves, and we deal from a true eight-deck shoe and do not digitally shuffle after each round. Baccarat players are notoriously particular, but I am certain they will love what we have created! Haushalter concluded.

Read more:

Evolution adds three new titles to its First Person range - Yogonet International

In early March, the Chinese Academy of Sciences National Science Review published a peer-reviewed study titled On the Origin and Continuing Evolution of SARS-CoV-2. The authors argued that the various strains of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, could be grouped into two clusters: An L type, which was predominant during the early weeks of the outbreak in Wuhan, and an S type, which could be distinguished from the L type by only two genetic changes. The researchers speculated that the L type was more aggressive and more contagious than the S-type strains that had become more common outside of China. The implication was that Covid-19 might not spread as quickly throughout the rest of the world as it had in Wuhan.

Although this analysis was based only on changes in mutation frequency in around 100 sequenced genomes, it caught on in the media. While some press outlets contextualized the study alongside its many criticisms, others extrapolated from it to predict that SARS-CoV-2 was evolving to become more benign, a dangerous oversimplification of a long-studied idea that many pathogens may evolve reduced severity after initial outbreaks.

These types of narratives a Covid-19 brand of pseudoscience have cropped up often in recent months. Just last week, media outlets swarmed to a non-peer-reviewed report of a mutation that was billed as an indication that SARS-CoV-2 populations are becoming more transmissible, and too diverse for any one vaccine to work against.

For the most part, respected evolutionary biologists have chosen to avoid weighing in on these controversies, opting instead to remain above the fray. This is surprising considering that evolutionary biologists are accustomed to debating creationists, and to the art of public discourse around contentious ideas. Their relative silence leaves a gap that less restrained commenters have rushed to fill: Seemingly every mutation in the novel coronavirus has been spun as a sign that the virus is either adapting to better reproduce and spread in its environment or becoming less harmful.

While genomic differences between different strains of the novel coronavirus are stark facts, our interpretation of those differences can be a wellspring of controversy. And right now, the media coverage of SARS-CoV-2 suggests that the American public fundamentally misunderstands how evolution works and how to distinguish between two of its key driving forces, adaptation and genetic drift. The latter represents a gradual accumulation of chance events that have no true consequences for how a virus behaves. And when a particular genetic strain appears to make great leaps in its ability to thrive and proliferate, its often genetic drift, not adaptation, thats at play.

Researchers at the University of Glasgow drove this point home with a letter and formal critique of the National Science Review study on L and S type viruses. The Glasgow researchers argued that among the studys many technical faults was a fundamental one: The study had failed to test whether the overabundance of the L type could have occurred without changes in the virus infectiousness. In other words, the researchers had failed to consider a null model a model that would have tested whether the patterns they saw in the data could have been caused by random chance.

In casinos, null models give the lie to the notion of lucky days, showing us that each play is independent of the others: A slot machine is just a machine, and contains about as much magic as the flip of a coin. In science, null models can be used to discipline inferential leaps. They are a reminder that, in most cases, the headline-grabbing explanations are less likely to bear out than the boring ones.

When a particular genetic strain appears to make great leaps in its ability to thrive and proliferate, its usually genetic drift, not adaptation, thats at play.

Null models are especially critical for making sense of the mounds of genetic information being collected about SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Evolutionary biologists use the term genetic drift to capture the roles of chance and luck in an organisms survival and reproduction, and any good null model must account for these effects of chance. While random, the accumulation of genetic drift across generations can have some surprising consequences; one string of evolutionary luck can cause a biologically insignificant, or neutral, mutation to become predominant in a population. The revelation that most genetic differences among species are neutral was controversial for decades but has now become conventional wisdom. The lesson it offers for the present moment is that most commonly encountered mutations of the novel coronavirus will have absolutely no bearing on the pathogens ability to infect or sicken humans.

That last point was seemingly lost on a recent study in the prestigious American journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The studys authors attempted to construct a detailed network showing the genetic lineages of 160 different SARS-CoV-2 genomes and how those strains spread throughout the world. Subsequent scientific critiques focused on the studys glaring technical issues. But what sparked a media frenzy was the authors suggestion that a particular group of strains, the Wuhan B-type virus, might be immunologically or environmentally adapted to a large section of the East Asian population, and may need to mutate to overcome resistance outside East Asia. The authors mentioned null models only briefly and on equal footing with more exotic hypotheses of differences in spread. By the time the speculative interpretation reached the Daily Mail, it had devolved into an even wilder assertion: Scientists believe the virus is constantly mutating to overcome immune system resistance in different populations.

When mutations hitch long-distance rides as in an intercontinental flight then neutral genetic changes can get balkanized into distinct geographical patches that resemble a meaningful pattern, leading the careless to jump to provocative, often unjustified conclusions about viral spread. Scientists may label these interpretations as speculative, but they service poorly-informed chatter suggesting that a vaccine couldnt possibly work, that SARS-CoV-2 may have hopped into other species from dogs, or that a mutant virus will foment a much worse second wave of infections. Amid public fears surrounding how bad the outbreak will get, a nuanced understanding of how Darwinian evolution works across various contexts is no match for the troll bot and rogue doctor who propagate half-baked evolutionary ideas at societys expense.

The fact is, viral genomes, although different from those of humans or other species in many ways, seem to obey the same evolutionary principles. One of those principles is that most genetic changes that become prevalent in a population do so despite having little or no effect on individuals behavior.

To be clear, these genetic changes are nevertheless worth studying: When interpreted correctly, they can reveal the movement of a virus through a population, and help researchers characterize local outbreaks. Also, some mutations may translate into meaningful changes in our relationship with this still-new pathogen.

But notions that SARS-CoV-2 will evolve into the Andromeda Strain or become as benign as the common cold prey on our ignorance and fear. Scientists, accustomed to spending years looking for certainty, can often lead best by explaining what we dont yet know. And right now while we are still struggling to measure the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and collect other required data for an informed null model we are ill-equipped to separate the signals of natural selection from the noise of genetic drift.

Jeremy Draghi studies the theory of evolution and is an assistant professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Virginia Tech.

C. Brandon Ogbunu studies the evolution and ecology of infectious diseases and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Brown University

See the article here:

The Coronavirus Is Mutating. That's Not Necessarily Good or Bad. - Undark Magazine