Daily Archives: September 2, 2021

More Americans are coming to accept Charles Darwin's "dangerous idea" of evolution, according to thirty years' worth of national surveys.

Researchers have found that public acceptance of biological evolution has increased substantially in the last decade alone, following twenty years of relative stagnancy.

Between 1985 and 2010, roughly 40 percent of surveyed adults in the US agreed that "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". Taking into account the small number of fence-sitters, this suggests much of the nation was evenly divided on the theory.

By 2016, that percentage had, at last, become a majority, reaching 54 percent.

As it turns out, education has played a crucial role in that shift. When researchers began to analyze the demographics of survey respondents over the past thirty years, they noticed the completion of one or more college science courses was the strongest predictor of evolution acceptance.

"Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988," says Mark Ackerman, who studies collective intelligence at the University of Michigan.

"It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."

In the current analysis, the proportion of American adults with scientific literacy increased from 11 percent in 1988 to 31 percent in 2019.

That rise in knowledge can also easily spread to others. For instance, research suggests fewer students are exposed to creationism in the science classroom due in part to new teachers replacing a generation of educators less suited to teaching evolution.

Still, even a healthy dose of education can only go so far. Some researchers, for instance,think religious beliefs are a stronger predictor of accepting evolution than educational attainment.But this is an area of research that is still hotly debated. It could be, for instance, that education only works for some individuals who don't interpret the Bible literally.

In the US, evolution has become a highly politicized topic, especially among supporters of the Republican party, which tends to align its policies with evangelical Christian values.

The result is that today, the US has some of the lowest acceptance rates for evolution in the developed world, with only Turkey scoring lower.

Even now that a majority of Americans do not reject evolution, the rate of acceptance is still low compared to other nations and much lower than scientific consensus.

In recent years, religious adherence has begun to decline in the US, but the political divide on evolution still very much exists.

In 2019, researchers found 83 percent of liberal Democrats accepted evolution, whereas only 34 percent of conservative Republicans felt the same.

The driving force behind this huge difference is probably not ideological partisanship, experts say, but fundamental religious beliefs, which Republicans tend to hold more.

For instance, roughly 30 percent of American adults hold fundamental religious beliefs that directly contradict evolutionary theory, which is almost the same percentage of conservative Republicans that rejected evolution in the current analysis.

The authors of the current study are not ruling out religion as an influential factor. Their analysis still shows that fundamental religious beliefs can change the acceptance of evolution among American adults. But at least according to their analysis, it seems that educational attainment is the more influential factor.

According to their analysis, the recent increase in acceptance mostly comes from American adults who were previously unsure about the theory. Only some who outright rejected evolution had their mind's changed over time.

"Although scientific literacy has grown, and science continues to have pervasive influence in American society," the authorswrite, "a tension between religious fundamentalism and evolution remains."

While religion clearly remains a barrier to further public acceptance of evolution, that's gradually beginning to change. In 1988, the current analysis found only 8 percent of religious fundamentalists accepted the theory of evolution. Whereas in 2019, nearly a third did.

Along with growing exposure to scientific courses, a decline in religious fundamental beliefs will no doubt see the minority of Americans that reject evolution continue to shrink.

Last year, Pew conducted a more global surveythat showed a slightly higher acceptance of evolution in the US at around 64 percent.

It's a number that nonetheless falls far below nations such as Canada (77 percent), Germany (81 percent), and Japan (88 percent), showing the US still has some catching up to do.

The study was published in Public Understanding of Science.

The rest is here:

More Americans Are Finally Coming Around to Accepting The Science of Evolution - ScienceAlert

Share this Article

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Tiny tardigrades walk in a manner most closely resembling that of insects 500,000 times their size, according to new research.

Tardigrades earned the nickname water bears when scientists first observed the 0.02-inch-long animals distinctive gaits in the 18th century. Their dumpy plod raises the question of why they evolved to walk at all.

Animals as small and soft as tardigrades seldom have legs and almost never bother walking. For example, round worms of similar size and body type thrash about, slithering their doughy forms over unpredictable substrates.

Yet the water bear, a micro-animal so distinct that scientists were forced to assign it to its own phylum, uses eight stubby legs to improbably propel itself through marine and freshwater sediment, across desert dunes, and beneath the soil.

The new discovery of how tardigrades walk implies the existence of either a common ancestor or an evolutionary advantage that explains why one of the smallest and squishiest creatures evolved to walk just like larger, hard-bodied insects.

Tardigrades have a robust and clear way of movingtheyre not these clumsy things stumbling around in the desert or in leaf litter, says Jasmine Nirody, a fellow in Rockefeller Universitys Center for Studies in Physics and Biology. The similarities between their locomotive strategy and that of much larger insects and arthropods opens up several very interesting evolutionary questions.

Nirody and colleagues first determined how water bears walk and run. If you watch tardigrades under a light microscope for long enough, you can capture a wide range of behavior, Nirody says. We didnt force them to do anything. Sometimes they would be really chill and just want to stroll around the substrate. Other times, theyd see something they like and run towards it.

Nirody found that, at their most leisurely, water bears lumber about half a body length per second. At full throttle, their loping strides carried them two body lengths in the same amount of time.

Tardigrades are an important porthole into soft-bodied, microscale locomotion.

But the surprise came when she observed how a water bears feet contact the ground as it gains momentum. Unlike vertebrates, which have distinct gaits for each speedpicture a horses hooves as it transitions from a walk to a galloptardigrades run more like insects, scurrying at increasing speeds without ever changing their basic stepping patterns.

When vertebrates switch from walking to running, there is a discontinuity, Nirody says. With arthropods, all stepping patterns exist along the same continuum.

Why do tardigrades share a locomotive strategy with much larger, hard-bodied insects?

One possible explanation is that tardigrades, long assumed to fit neatly into no existing taxonomy, may share common ancestorsand even a common neural circuit with insects such as fruit flies, ants, and other segmented scurrying creatures. In fact, some scientists advocate classifying tardigrades within the proposed panarthropod clade, a catchall group that would assign common shelf space to insects, crustaceans, velvet worms, and water bears.

Another possibility is that there is no ancestral connection between tardigrades and arthropods, but that the unrelated groups of organisms independently arrived at the same walking and running strategies because they were evolutionarily advantageous. Perhaps the best way to navigate unpredictable terrain with a microscopic body is to plod like a water bear.

Nirody is equally fascinated by both possibilities. If there is some ancestral neural system that controls all of panarthropod walking, we have a lot to learn, she says. On the other hand, if arthropods and tardigrades converged upon this strategy independently, then theres much to be said about what makes this strategy so palatable for species in different environments.

Beyond the implications for evolutionary biology and the study of animal locomotion, the findings may have ramifications for the burgeoning fields of soft and microscale robotics.

By studying how small animals evolved to move across challenging environments, scientists may be able to design robots that can more efficiently squeeze into small spaces or operate at the microscale.

We dont know much about what happens at the extremes of locomotionhow to make an efficient small walker, or how soft-bodied things should move, Nirody says. Tardigrades are an important porthole into soft-bodied, microscale locomotion.

The new study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Rockefeller University

Read the original here:

Teeny 'water bear' walk points to evolution mystery - Futurity: Research News

Deep beneath the rubble and ashes of Chicagos Cabrini-Green lies a secret. Its history is written on the very souls of its last remaining residents, always lurking behind them. His face may change over time, but the name will always be remembered, along with that bloody hook. After almost 30 years since his original summoning, Candyman returns with new blood behind the camera.

Written by Jordan Peele and directed by Nia DaCosta, this sequel steps deeper into the hive of racial hatred and social commentary to uncover truths its predecessor could never achieve. Serving as both a direct sequel but also a fresh reboot, it is more than just a retelling. The entire craft is renovated with the most calculated execution. The themes are expanded, the symbolism is perfected and with a sprinkle of Peeles comedic timing, the scares are just as effective. Looking at every element of the 1992 classic, Candyman serves as the perfect sequel.

Peeles screenplay evolves the original story in a fresh perspective, giving the victims the voice rather than an outsider peeking through the blinds. Peele also utilizes this shift as an opportunity to redeem his own craft: he finally got the chance to write the ending he wanted to make for Get Out. Real life tragedy rots into cathartic horror, swarming around you to feed on your skin. It is a jaw-dropping experience, spared to the very end as a mic drop to audiences worldwide. It is because of the final scene that Peele achieves the true symbolism of the Candyman even better than its creator, Clive Barker.

With the original towers of Cabrini-Green long gone, one of the recurring themes is the cultural destruction of gentrification. What was once discarded brick and graffiti is now painted over white with clean furnishings. This re-polishing of Cabrini-Greens ghetto is where DaCostas directing shines, because the film itself can be seen as a gentrification of its predecessor. She takes the floating camerawork of the 1992 classic to new levels, sweeping through the streets of Chicago as if on the prowl for its next meal. Peele himself favored her directing over his, seeing it as refined, elegant, which can be the coinable term for not only the neighborhoods new apartments, but the main protagonist himself. He starts as a sculpted artist, distanced from his work with a clean conscience, but once the truth of his own soul is unmasked, he sinks deeper into the floors until it stains his very skin. The gentrified imagery lingers in the background, suffocating Cabrini-Green and serving as the true opposing force inside the walls.

Near the end of the story, the film begins to trip on its own inspiration. 1992s Candyman was more of a prophetic voice seeking direct revenge rather than a true force of nature, so even though Peeles evolved symbol in the hook resonates long after the credits roll, the plot decides to curve its momentum for a more faithful conflict. A contrived twist that squashes the true scale of what the themes were trying to achieve, which is very similar to the ending of its predecessor.

If this film had the chance to be released when it was supposed to, it would be just as influential and timeless as Get Out. Sadly, with it only coming out in theaters rather than streaming, I dont see it gaining any longstanding following. Its a fun watch with beautiful visuals and a great revival of the original score, enough to pick up the slack when the plot falters. From beginning to end, it sinks its hook into your heart, and with a chilling voice, whispers, Say my name.

Title: Candyman

Starring: Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Teyonah Parris, Colman Domingo

Director: Nia DaCosta

If you like: Get Out, Lovecraft Country

Shamrocks: 4 out of 5

See the original post:

'Candyman': Resurrection, evolution and gentrification - Observer Online

The discussion of cannabis strains has evolved to a point where it can feel like an entirely foreign language. While most consumers are familiar with the bedrock categories of sativa, indica and hybrids, concepts like minor cannabinoids and terpene profiles have expanded the conversation dramatically. Additionally, the sheer volume of strains on the market today can make the experience of selecting the best option for your needs feel downright overwhelming.

Fortunately, getting a better grasp on exactly what makes a strain a strain can be as simple as taking a quick journey through cannabis history. To start, lets take a closer look at the aforementioned bedrock strains.

While mainstream cannabis culture has long relied on sativa, indica and hybrids to define a given strain, these terms are largely considered outdated. For many years, common wisdom suggested that sativas offered a more cerebral high while indicas, by contrast, would put consumers in da couch, courtesy of a body high. Hybrids, by extension, offered varying combinations of the two.

This line of thinking can be traced back to the mid-1700s, where the terms indica and sativa were separately established as cannabis subspecies by Swedish botanist Carl Linneaus and French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Though far less prevalent, it should also be noted that a third subspecies, ruderalis, was identified by Russian botanist Dmitrij Janischewsky in 1930. Owing to the murky taxonomy of cannabis a situation undoubtedly exacerbated by the fact that cannabis was illegal in most of the world until recently indica and sativa caught on while ruderalis became more of a historical footnote.

Whats important to understand is that these terms are botanical in nature, not pharmacological. Rather than telling us about the potential effects that come with consuming a sativa or indica, these categories speak to the shape and size of a given cannabis plants leaves and the fiber they produce. In short, these concepts remain helpful to cultivators but do little to give consumers a clear picture of what they can expect to experience.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and we arrive at the onset of modern cannabis breeding.

As demand for cannabis in the U.S. continued to grow, the longer flowering cycle required of the pure sativas grown and transported from Mexico and the Caribbean caused a lack of supply. In search of a solution, California cannabis breeders began crossing these sativas with indicas native to Nepal and Afghanistan, hoping to create strains that offered the quicker flowering cycle of the latter with the higher potency of the former. Their success would ultimately establish Californias position as a capital for world-class cannabis while also kicking off a hybrid cultivating craze that continues to this day.

Naming conventions for cannabis strains can also be pegged to this milestone moment.

Prior to the 1970s, strains were usually named for the geographic region in which they originated. Also known as landrace strains, this straightforward process resulted in mainstays like Panama Red, Afghan Kush, and Acapulco Gold. From there, these strains were crossed, and then those crosses were crossed, and so forth. As a means of establishing lineage, subsequent strains were named to reflect the parent strains of a given hybrid.

Today, however, strain names are inspired by a variety of factors. In some cases, the name may speak to the strains effects, while others may highlight a given strains notable coloring, trichome density or aroma. And then there are strains named for pop culture figures, cannabis icons, and in some cases, just whatever the breeder in question felt like using. As a result, while some names can tell us a lot about a given strain though even that can vary from market to market going off name alone is not always a reliable metric.

Instead, most budtenders will likely tell you about a strains terpene profile and featured cannabinoids. Unlike strain names, knowing the amount and type of terpenes and cannabinoids a strain contains is an excellent method for determining which options will work best for you.

As cannabis breeding continues to diversify the strain pool, its never been more important to ensure that cultivators have access to the seeds that make it all possible. Thankfully, we have seed banks.

Seed banks are businesses that specialize in storing and selling cannabis seeds. With many showcasing incredibly robust inventories, seed banks can be seen as a kind of living library for the flowers genetics, featuring both classic options as well as the latest and greatest.

In addition, seed banks will often feminize the seeds they sell an incredibly important facet of the process considering its only the female cannabis plant that can produce the buds we know and love. Some seed banks also offer whats known as auto-flowering seeds, which some growers may prefer as the resulting plants mature quickly and produce maximum yields.

Lastly, its important to note that the story of strains is still being written. As advances in genetic mapping continue to evolve, its possible our understanding of strains will dramatically expand in the months and years to come. But for now, with the above information in mind, you should feel fully empowered to begin your own strain quest in search of the perfect match.

Read the original post:

A Guide to the Evolution of Cannabis Strains - Cannabis Now