Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time. In the 19th century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change; the teleological belief went on to include social evolution. In the 1970s the term Neo-Evolutionism was used to describe the idea "that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control"; the term is most used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion. The term is seldom used within the scientific community, since the scientific position on evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists; because evolutionary biology is the default scientific position, it is assumed that "scientists" or "biologists" are "evolutionists" unless noted otherwise. In the creation–evolution controversy, creationists call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself "evolutionism".
Before its use to describe biological evolution, the term "evolution" was used to refer to any orderly sequence of events with the outcome somehow contained at the start. The first five editions of Darwin's in Origin of Species used the word "evolved", but the word "evolution" was only used in its sixth edition in 1872. By Herbert Spencer had developed the concept theory that organisms strive to evolve due to an internal "driving force" in 1862. Edward B. Tylor and Lewis H Morgan brought the term "evolution" to anthropology though they tended toward the older pre-Spencerian definition helping to form the concept of unilineal evolution used during the part of what Trigger calls the Antiquarianism-Imperial Synthesis period; the term evolutionism subsequently came to be used for the now discredited theory that evolution contained a deliberate component, rather than the selection of beneficial traits from random variation by differential survival. The term evolution is used, but the term evolutionism is not used in the scientific community to refer to evolutionary biology as it is redundant and anachronistic.
However, the term has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy. For example, the Institute for Creation Research, in order to imply placement of evolution in the category of'religions', including atheism, fascism and occultism uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief; the BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term "evolutionism" to describe "the atheistic worldview that so accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse." It views this as a subset of scientism. Alternatives to evolution by natural selection Darwinism Evolution as fact and theory Evidence of common descent Social Darwinism Carneiro, Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History ISBN 0-8133-3766-6 Korotayev, Andrey. World Religions and Social Evolution of the Old World Oikumene Civilizations: A Cross-cultural Perspective.
Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-7734-6310-3. Review of Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, The Times Tuesday, November 15, 1836. 2003. Is Evolution a Secular Religion? Science 299:1523-1524. Singh, Manvir; the Evolutionist's Doodlebook. New Jersey: Fuss Klas Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9832930-0-2. Trigger, Bruce. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84076-7
External stowage platforms are key components of the International Space Station. Each platform is made from steel and serves as an external pallet that can hold spare parts known as orbital replacement units, for the space station; as a platform it is not pressurized, but does require electricity to power the heaters of some of the stored equipment. ORUs are attached to the ESP via Flight Releasable Attachment Mechanisms, matching witness plates that mate the ORU to the platform. While ESP-1 is unique in shape, ESP-2 and ESP-3 were based on the deployable version of the Integrated Cargo Carriers, which were designed to transport unpressurized cargo inside the Space Shuttle's cargo bay. ESP-1 was transported to the International Space Station on STS-102, ESP-2 flew on mission STS-114'Return to Flight' and ESP-3 on mission STS-118; the first of the external stowage platforms, called ESP-1, was installed on the port side trunnion pin on the outer hull of the Destiny Laboratory Module on March 13, 2001 during the second EVA of the STS-102 Space Shuttle mission.
It has two attach points to store ORUs. ESP-1 was carried into orbit on the underside of an Integrated Cargo Carrier, it is smaller than the other ESPs and ELCs, with dimensions 0.46 m wide by 2.4 m long, is differently shaped. ESP-1 holds the following ORUs: FRAM-1 Pump Flow Control System nicknamed'Leaky' from ITS-P6 was swapped out during an EVA on Exp. 55 May 18, 2018 with the PFCS nicknamed'Frosty' added here by the STS-102 crewFRAM-2 Direct-Current Switching Unit added by STS-100 crew ESP-2 was detached from its Keel Yoke Assembly and installed with the assistance of Space Shuttle Discovery's robotic arm and two spacewalkers during the STS-114 mission. It is much larger than ESP-1 with eight FRAM sites creating room for up to eight spare parts. Like ESP-1, it is powered by the Unity Module. However, unlike ESP-1, ESP-2 is attached to the Quest Joint Airlock using a specialized ESP Attachment Device. ESP-2 and ESP-3 are deployable versions of the integrated cargo carrier and have the same dimensions 8.5 feet long and 14 feet wide.
The ORUs on ESP-2 are: FRAM-1 Pump Module SN0005. Moved here robotically from ELC-2 on 6 March 2015 in a swap with failed Pump Module SN0004, relocated here by the ISS-41 US EVA-27 crew in Oct. 2014 FRAM-2 Direct Current Switching Unit FRAM held the VSSA FRAM-3 CTC-3 container moved here via SPDM. DCSU added by STS-123 crew) had been relocated via SPDM Jan. 30, 2013 to ELC-2. FRAM-4 Latching End Effector Support Equipment moved here via SPDM from ELC1.)Main Bus Switching Unit launched on ESP-2 moved to truss to replace a degraded unit, brought inside and returned to earth on SpaceX CRS-12. FRAM-5 Pitch/Roll Joint added by STS-123 crew FRAM held a CMG FRAM-6 Main Bus Switching Unit added by STS-120 crew This unit was swapped with a failed unit MBSU #1 from the SO truss, by the Exp 32 crew in late 2012. FRAM-7 Flex Hose Rotary Coupler launched on ESP-2 FRAM-8 Utility Transfer Assembly launched on ESP-2Notes: Video Stanchion Support Assembly launched on ESP-2 at FRAM-2 was jettisoned overboard on July 23, 2007.
Pump Module installed on FRAM-1 during STS-121, was removed on August 17, 2010 by the Exp 24 crew and installed on S1 Truss, replacing the original PM SN0002. The failed unit had been temporarily stored on an ORU site on the MBS moved to ESP-2 by the STS-133 crew returned to earth by the STS-135 crew July 13, 2011. A failed Control Moment Gyroscope was installed on FRAM-5 from August 13, 2007 during STS-118 until February 13, 2008 when it was returned by STS-122. MBSU was moved to the truss during Expedition 52 and the Latching End Effector was moved to ESP2 to prepare for the spacewalk on January 23, 2018; the failed MBSU was returned to earth on Space X CRS12. ESP-3 was detached from its Keel Yoke Assembly and installed on the P3 Truss at UCCAS-1 on August 14, 2007 during the Space Shuttle STS-118 mission, it has seven attachment sites for ISS spare parts and assemblies, called Orbital Replacement Units. The platform has handrails and attachment points for tethers and foot restraints that astronauts can use while working with the ORUs on the ESP-3.
ESP-3, as with ESP-2 are deployable versions of the Integrated Cargo Carrier and have the same dimensions 8.5 feet long and 14 feet wide. ESP-3 has two grapple fixtures to aid deployment. ESP-3 was the first major station element to be installed by robotics, using only the shuttle and station's robotic arms, an external berthing camera system and a Photovoltaic Radiator Grapple Fixture. Astronauts robotically installed the platform onto the station's P3 truss segment during the STS-118 mission's seventh day. On January 12, 2010, the station's robotic arm was used again to move ESP-3 from the P3 truss segment UCCAS-1 site, it was grappled by the arm and transferred down the station's backbone on the mobile transporter. ESP-3 was attached to its new location on the lower part of S3 truss segment at the PAS-3 site. Moving the storage platform cleared the way for ExPRESS Logistics Carrier-3 to be installed during STS-134; the ORUs installed on ESP-3 are: FRAM-1 Pitch/roll joint launched on ESP-3 FRAM-2 Flex Hose Rotary Coupler added by STS-126 crew FRAM-3 empty FRAM-4 Linear D
London Design Festival is a citywide design event that takes place over nine days every September. Conceived by Sir John Sorrell and Ben Evans in 2003, the concept was to create an annual event to promote the city's creativity, drawing in the country's thinkers, practitioners and educators to a deliver a diverse celebration of design. London Design Festival's vision is to celebrate and promote London as the design capital of the world; the Festival is made up of over 400 events and exhibitions staged by over 300 partner organisations across the design spectrum and from around the world. The Festival commissions and curates its own programme of Landmark Projects, Projects at the V&A, Special Commissions throughout the city; the 17th edition of the Festival will take place from 14-22 September 2019. Festival audiences are significant, with an estimated direct audience of over 580,000 people from over 75 countries in 2018. An additional passer-by audience of nearly 1 million people had the opportunity to see the five Landmark Projects.
Over 2,000 international design businesses took part in the 2018 London Design Festival including exhibitors at five Design Destinations: 100% Design, Decorex International, Focus/18, London Design Fair. In 2018, eleven Design Districts participated in the Festival - Bankside, Clerkenwell, Marylebone, Pimlico Road, Regent St & St James's, Shoreditch and West Kensington - offering a programme of events, talks and tours. Four Design Routes joined including Brixton, Kings Cross, Mare Street and Paddington Central; the V&A Museum is the official residency and hub of the Festival, with 2018 seeing the celebration of 10 years in partnership together. Since 2009 the Victoria and Albert Museum has acted as the central hub location for the London Design Festival. In 2018, London Design Festival helped drive a total of 161,250 visits to the V&A over the Festival period with 22% of those surveyed saying they had never visited the museum before and were driven there by the Festival. For the nine days of the Festival, visitors to the V&A each year explore a range of special displays and installations throughout the museum, complemented by an extensive programme of events, keynotes, daily tours, workshops.
In 2018 Global Design Forum drew 50 speakers from 13 countries, 2,800 visitors. Celebrating eleven years with the V&A as the official London Design Festival hub in 2019, this unique collaboration sees iconic spaces within the Museum transformed each year by an extraordinary collection of specially-commissioned installations and displays by international contemporary designers. Past examples include Slave/Master in 2017, a contemporary ballet ‘pas de deux’ between two KUKA Robotics industrial robots and human dancers, choreographed by Rose Alice Larkings, the centrepiece of an installation highlighting the relationship between man and robots; each year a Jury composed of established designers, industry commentators and previous winners choose recipients of The London Design Medals across four categories. Winners are chosen from a wide range of design disciplines and awards for their exceptional contribution to their field; the London Design Medal categories include: London Design Medal Design Innovation Medal Emerging Talent Medal Lifetime Achievement Medal“While there are no shortage of design awards, we wanted to do it differently: not just a big dinner that everyone has to buy tables for,” says Festival Director Ben Evans.
“So we took the Nobel Prize route – there’s no shortlist, just a winner. So that means there’s no losers either.”The London Design Medal is designed each year by jewellery designer Hannah Martin. The medals feature the Cockney Sparrow, in flight. Previous winners are Neri Oxman, Hussein Chalayan, Grace Wales Bonner, Eva Jiricna, Es Devlin, Paul Priestman, Margaret Calvert, Julian Melchiorri, Sir David Adjaye, Sir Kenneth Grange, Bethan Laura Wood, Daan Roosegaard, Edward Barber and Jay Osgerby, Marjan Van Aubel, Peter Brewin and Will Crawford, the Bourellec brothers, Nicolas Roope, Roland Lamb, Lord Richard Rogers, Daniel Rybakken, Dieter Rams, David Constantine, Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg, Jane Ni Dhulchaointigh, Rosario Hurtado and Roberto Feo, Vidal Sassoon, Sir Ken Adam, Peter Saville, Marc Newson, Sir Paul Smith, Dame Zaha Hadid, Thomas Heatherwick, Sir Terence Conran, Ron Arad. London Design Festival official website
HD 40307 is an orange main-sequence star located 42 light-years away in the constellation of Pictor, taking its primary name from its Henry Draper Catalogue designation. It is calculated to be less massive than the Sun. HD 40307 was observed before 1900 as part of the Cape Photographic Durchmusterung; the star has six known planets, three discovered in 2008 and three more in 2012. One of them, HD 40307 g, is a potential super-Earth in the habitable zone, with an orbital period of about 200 days; this object might be capable of supporting liquid water on its surface, although much more information must be acquired before its habitability can be assessed. The designation HD 40307 is from the Henry Draper Catalogue, based on spectral classifications made between 1911 and 1915 by Annie Jump Cannon and her co-workers, was published between 1918 and 1924; as a K-type star, HD 40307 emits orange-tinted light. It has only about three-quarters of the Sun's mass, its temperature is measured at under 5000 K.
This is high for a K-type star, approaching the temperatures found in G-type stars such as the Sun. The astronomers who discovered the planets orbiting HD 40307 suggested that the metallicities of stars determine whether or not the planetary bodies that orbit them will be terrestrial, like Earth, or gaseous, like Jupiter and Saturn. Despite its relative proximity to the Sun at 42 light-years, HD 40307 is not visible to the naked eye, given its apparent magnitude of 7.17. It came within 6.4 light-years of the Sun about 413,000 years ago. After spending five years observing the star, the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere announced that they had discovered three super-Earths in orbit around HD 40307 in June 2008. All three planets were detected by the radial velocity method. In 2012, an independent analysis carried out by a team of astronomers led by Mikko Tuomi of the University of Hertfordshire confirmed the existence of these planets and found an additional three planets in the systems.
Five of the planets orbit close to the star, with the farthest of them located twice as close to HD 40307 than is the planet Mercury is to the Sun. The outermost planet orbits at a distance similar to the distance of Venus to the Sun and is situated well in the system's liquid water habitable zone; the minimum masses of the planets in the system ranges from three to ten times the mass of the Earth, placing them somewhere between Earth and gas giants like Uranus and Neptune. Dynamical analysis of the innermost planets suggests that planet b is unstable at its age unless it is an ice giant, having migrated from further away; that implies similar for the other planets further out. The most recent discovery indicates via dynamical analysis that the true planetary masses can not be much higher than their minimum masses. List of extrasolar planets Other stars with planets discovered in June 2008: HD 181433 HD 47186 MOA-2007-BLG-192L A Trio of Super-Earths: A harvest of low-mass exoplanets discovered with HARPS, press release, European Southern Observatory, ESO 19/08, June 16, 2008
Mechanistic models for niche apportionment are biological models used to explain relative species abundance distributions. These niche apportionment models describe how species break up resource pool in multi-dimensional space, determining the distribution of abundances of individuals among species; the relative abundances of species are expressed as a Whittaker plot, or rank abundance plot, where species are ranked by number of individuals on the x-axis, plotted against the log relative abundance of each species on the y-axis. The relative abundance can be measured as the relative number of individuals within species or the relative biomass of individuals within species. Niche apportionment models were developed because ecologists sought biological explanations for relative species abundance distributions. MacArthur, was one of the earliest to express dissatisfaction with purely statistical models, presenting instead 3 mechanistic niche apportionment models. MacArthur believed that ecological niches within a resource pool could be broken up like a stick, with each piece of the stick representing niches occupied in the community.
With contributions from Sugihara, Tokeshi expanded upon the broken stick model, when he generated 7 mechanistic niche apportionment models. These mechanistic models provide a useful starting point for describing the species composition of communities. A niche apportionment model can be used in situations where one resource pool is either sequentially or broken up into smaller niches by colonizing species or by speciation; these models describe. The resource pool is broken either sequentially or and the two components of the process of fragmentation of the niche include which fragment is chosen and the size of the resulting fragment. Niche apportionment models have been used in the primary literature to explain, describe changes in the relative abundance distributions of a diverse array of taxa including, freshwater insects, bryophytes beetles, hymenopteran parasites, plankton assemblages and salt marsh grass; the mechanistic models that describe these plots work under the assumption that rank abundance plots are based on a rigorous estimate of the abundances of individuals within species and that these measures represent the actual species abundance distribution.
Furthermore, whether using the number of individuals as the abundance measure or the biomass of individuals, these models assume that this quantity is directly proportional to the size of the niche occupied by an organism. One suggestion is that abundance measured as the numbers of individuals, may exhibit lower variances than those using biomass. Thus, some studies using abundance as a proxy for niche allocation may overestimate the evenness of a community; this happens because there is not a clear distinction of the relationship between body size and resource use. Studies fail to incorporate size structure or biomass estimates into measures of actual abundance, these measure can create a higher variance around the niche apportionment models than abundance measured as the number of individuals. Seven mechanistic models that describe niche apportionment are described below; the models are presented in the order of increasing evenness, from least the Dominance Pre-emption model to the most the Dominance Decay and MacArthur Fraction models.
This model describes a situation where after initial colonization each new species pre-empts more than 50% of the smallest remaining niche. In a Dominance preemption model of niche apportionment the species colonize random portion between 50 and 100% of the smallest remaining niche, making this model stochastic in nature. A related model, the Geometric Series, is a deterministic version of the Dominance pre-emption model, wherein the percentage of remaining niche space that the new species occupies is always the same. In fact, the dominance pre-emption and geometric series models are conceptually similar and will produce the same relative abundance distribution when the proportion of the smaller niche filled is always 0.75. The dominance pre-emption model is the best fit to the relative abundance distributions of some stream fish communities in Texas, including some taxonomic groupings, specific functional groupings; the Geometric P i = k i − 1 In the random assortment model the resource pool is divided at random among or sequentially colonizing species.
This pattern could arise because the abundance measure does not scale with the amount of niche occupied by a species or because temporal-variation in species abundance or niche breadth causes discontinuity in niche apportionment over time and thus species appear to have no relationship between extent of occupancy and their niche. Tokeshi explained that this model, in many ways, is similar to Caswell's neutral theory of biodiversity because species appear to act independently of each other; the random fraction model describes a process where niche size is chosen at random by sequentially colonizing species. The initial species chooses a random portion of the total niche and subsequent colonizing species choose a random portion of the total niche and divide it randomly until all species have colonized. Tokeshi found this model to be compatible with some epiphytic Chiromonid shrimp communities, more recently
Lawrence Iquaibom is a Nigerian former weightlifter. He is now coach. Lawrence Iquaibom grew up in the state of Akwa Ibom. After ending his active career as a weightlifter he became an official coach of the weightlifting association of the state of Akwa Ibom as well as technical director of the Nigerian weightlifting association, he competed in weightlifting at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles and the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. In 1984 he competed in the Men’s Featherweight and became 14th of 21 competitors with 107.5 kg in Snatch and 130 kg in Clean and jerk, in 1988 he competed in the Men’s Lightweight and became 12th of 29 competitors with 125 kg in Snatch and 160 kg in Clean and jerk. Hew won the weightlifting competition in the category until 60 kg at the 1987 All-Africa Games in Nairobi with a total of 245.0 kg. At the 1990 Commonwealth Games in Auckland he competed in the Men’s Lightweight and won silver medals for 130 kg in Snatch, 160 kg in Clean and jerk and 290 kg overall