Intel gearing up for 5G device opportunity

first_img Nokia scores Philippines 5G deal with Dito Telkomsel turns on 5G in major cities Diana is Mobile World Live’s US Editor, reporting on infrastructure and spectrum rollouts, regulatory issues, and other carrier news from the US market. Diana came to GSMA from her former role as Editor of Wireless Week and CED Magazine, digital-only… Read more Home Intel gearing up for 5G device opportunity Mobile Mix: Buzzing for Barcelona Tags Previous ArticleOpenSignal CEO tips US video tactics to go globalNext ArticleMobile leaders tackle connectivity at UN meeting Asia center_img Author 5GIntel INTERVIEW: As the industry awaits the release of the first commercial 5G devices, a top Intel executive said success for the company will mean more than just getting its chips into smartphones.Caroline Chan, VP of Intel’s Network Platforms Group and GM of its 5G Infrastructure Division (pictured), told Mobile World Live the company wants to target different form factors, including PCs, as the next-generation technology takes off.“If you look at the whole spectrum of devices, more than just the smartphone, more than just the form factor that you and I carry, it really goes into all kinds of things: cars and things and machines and drones. We want to enable that.”Chan said Intel is exploring a number of different use cases for the technology, highlighting its recent 5G video trials alongside partners at the Winter Olympics in South Korea and at the US Open golf tournament.In addition to media, she tipped enterprise as another segment primed for 5G development: “They have the money and they want to invest in order to improve their efficiency, so we think that’s something we’ll continue to invest in.”She added Intel is in a strong position to address the convergence of IT, cloud and mobile technologies in a 5G environment.Click here to view the full interview. Subscribe to our daily newsletter Back AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 25 SEP 2018 Related Diana Goovaerts last_img read more

Juggling Terms to Maintain the Illusion of Darwinian Selection

first_imgAdd now the confusion over the unit of selection. Is it the gene? The protein? The cell? The organ? The species? The body plan? The population? The ecosystem? Evolutionary biologists divide into camps supporting classic gradualism, punctuated equilibria, evo-devo, species selection, kin selection, group selection, multilevel selection and more. It would be easy to allege that “selection” is one of the most imprecise terms in all of science. It means whatever it must mean in order to keep those wicked ID people out of the game. Evolution NewsEvolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues. Share The Selection Deception Like stern English teachers, ID advocates would make excellent proofreaders and reviewers of such casuistry given the chance: demanding precise definitions, redlining circular arguments and extrapolations, pointing out invalid inferences. The authors would undoubtedly dislike all the red marks, but science would improve. The number of synonyms indicates that many people have a shared experience encountering it. Synonyms can be short (bosh, bunk, cant), sophisticated (amphigory, rigmarole, balderdash), or emotional (baloney, drivel, gibberish, hooey, rubbish, and a few other unmentionables). Synonym counts escalate with related words like equivocation, casuistry, sophistry, prevarication. Their commonality is an effort to manipulate words to put on airs while communicating no meaningful information. More evolvability with fluff from the University of Zurich, but first, pause and salute for the obligatory Darwin Party PSA: Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share In order to recognize gobbledygook and not be deceived by it, perceptive readers of evolutionary literature need to focus their laser-beam attention on the precise meanings of words. They also need to remain aware of the difference between association and causation. And they must avoid the fallacy of extrapolation: i.e., a particular fact cannot be extended without warrant TagsDarwinian evolutionDarwinismdeceptionDollo’s LawDuke Universityevolutionary biologistsevolutionary biologyfruit fliesgenesgobbledegookHunter FraserIcarusIndiana UniversityNorthern Arizona UniversityPNASpositive selectionSanta Fe Instituteselectionskin colorspeciousnessUC BerkeleyUniversity of Zurichword saladYale University,Trending Selectionists used to teach Dollo’s Law, that once adapted, an organism cannot revert, because the changes become canalized. But evolutionists at Santa Fe Institute claim that evolvability itself evolves! What a convenient theory rescue device. Does the evolution of evolvability evolve, too? How far can one take this game?  Evolution Juggling Terms to Maintain the Illusion of Darwinian SelectionEvolution News @DiscoveryCSCJanuary 28, 2021, 6:58 AM It is important to note that results from all trait-based tests of selection must be treated with caution when trait ascertainment bias is present. Darwinian evolutionists are masters at this kind of empty talk. Their victims are often caught unprepared to encounter or recognize it, because they have been trained to “respect science” and “follow the science” (the popular meme today). Way too much gets mashed together into the concept of “science” to give that word precision: is multiverse theory on the same level as electrodynamics? Black holes with gene sequences? Human evolutionary psychology with titration levels for chemical reactions? Evolutionary biologists are poised at the junction of a rich, meaningful science (biology) with a vague, descriptive concept (evolution). This makes the talkers especially prone to shift deftly toward either end of the spectrum of plausibility between. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share If this seems overstated, look at these recent examples. “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All The only kind of selection potentially able to contribute meaning to Darwinism would be positive selection. Something has to get better — significantly better. A selected variation must gain genetic information that provides new function. Cross off all the other types right now: stabilizing, relaxed, purifying, or any other type that goes down or sideways; even many creationists allow for “horizontal” variations within groups. Darwin’s tree must grow upward. The real-world genetic evidence that Michael Behe has accumulated has only shown survival by breaking things and losing information. One might imagine polar bears from brown bears that way, but not whales from wolves, or sequoias from mosses. Evolutionists claim to measure positive selection, but the reasoning is circular: if a gene survives, it must have been selected, irrespective of the function. But selection is the very question at issue. The Origin of Species Two UC Berkeley evolutionists try again in PNAS to find the elusive selection that makes any difference. Find anything? No; it’s all theoretical. Any positive or directional selection? No, but the graphs show that it “should” happen in their models.  Photo credit: Matt Bero via Unsplash.What are synonyms for saying lots of words without conveying any real meaning?  “Lamarck, come in here: I need you!” Large portraits of Darwin and Lamarck side by side introduce this news from Yale. Apparently, Darwin can’t do without his erstwhile rival at scientific explanation. A Yale University lab mixes natural selection with epigenetic inheritance to upgrade the Origin, saying, “both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms need to be combined in a ‘grand unified theory’ of evolution.” There goes almost a century of neo-Darwinism, the last big patch.center_img In PNAS, Hunter Fraser from Indiana University makes a valiant effort to rigorously measure selection to differentiate it from neutral drift in cases involving hybrids, but it’s all the useless kind of selection. In a hundred instances of the word selection, there’s only stabilizing selection. He mentions “directional selection” but it’s only theoretical, except in trivial examples like male head shape in Hawaiian fruit flies and human skin color, which involve members within species. He cautions wisely,  Word Salad: “incoherent speech consisting of both real and imaginary words, lacking comprehensive meaning, and occurring in advanced schizophrenic states.”Gobbledegook: “language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand.”Speciousness: “pleasing to the eye but deceptive.” A pernicious, ubiquitous term of confusion in evolutionary biology is “selection.” Even 161 years since Darwin put the word on the title page of the Origin, nobody knows what it means. Who or what is the selector? What is it selecting for? How does the concept of selection support Darwin’s dream of a natural world growing and developing into the rich biosphere without guidance or direction? There are many papers publishing “coefficients of selection” on graphs and charts that give an air of precision to the word. There are adjectives that parse selection into various directions: positive selection, negative selection, balancing selection, stabilizing selection, relaxed selection, purifying selection, and more. But that is part of the deception. Since the conclusions were derived by circular reasoning (“Whatever we find, it will support Darwinism”), those adjunct terms become part of the word salad garnished to different tastes. If large gene segments differ between populations, there must have been an explosive radiation. If no genes change much, ah: there is purifying selection at work. Selection selects except when it doesn’t. And since the selector is deemed impersonal, it could not care less what happens. Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour The rest, as already noted, is just fluff. Evolutionists must hang on to evolvability so that the animals don’t get locked in. How that evolvability will work, and what particularly it will select — hey, didn’t you hear that in the speech? Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists Everywhere we look in the natural world, there’s evidence of natural selection: the resin armor of a lodgepole pine cone evolved to defend against seed-hungry birds and squirrels; the long neck of a giraffe was evolutionarily favored for reaching high vegetation that the competition can’t touch. We know that natural selection shapes how animals and plants evolve and adapt. But does natural selection also influence an organism’s very capacity to evolve? And if so, to what degree? [Emphasis added.] A Duke evolutionist writing at bioRxiv predicted finding purifying selection in the LTEE, and that it would mostly occur in the “superessential” metabolic genes. The results were so contrary to expectations, he invented a new category “idiosyncratic purifying selection” to describe them and likened it to a game of Jenga. If this is Jenga, “who” is selectively removing the sticks carefully to prevent the tower’s collapse? The only potential instances of improvement the author mentions all occurred from loss of genes, as Behe said. Here was a case where scientists knew the actual ancestral paths, and after 60,000 generations, that’s it? Incidentally, all the trillions of cells were still one species, E. coli.  But lo! He finds directional selection in crop breeding — artificial selection! Darwinians clap nervously. Masters of the Art Darwin and Lamarck at Yale Slippery, Vague, Useless Waste of time. Next. Recommended Positive selection must be significantly greater than tiny steps that might appear to a Darwinist to be an improvement, unless they can be demonstrated to be cumulative. The improvements must also lead to the origin of species and larger taxonomic groups; it cannot occur merely with a species. Look at the variety within the human species; where, though, does history show a landlubber evolving into an Icarus by selection except in fables? No; positive selection, to differentiate Darwinism from random drift or from intelligently-designed front-loading, has to yield mammals from microbes, appealing only to unguided natural processes that “selected” the outcome in hindsight. Yet Darwinists’ main examples in the literature are about tiny variations at the gene or protein level, which fall under the “edge of evolution” according to Behe.  Our primary focus here has been on evolution in laboratory populations. It is unclear whether we should expect a similar impact of selection in natural populations. Naïve students are taught that selection works at the individual level, but evolutionists at Northern Arizona University appeal to multi-level selection to explain whole communities.  Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Selection is a slippery, vague, useless word in evolutionary biology that masks its lack of clarity with gobbledygook. In these seven recent examples from different institutions linked only by reliance on the word “selection,” the possibilities for obfuscation became apparent in practice. Pick your favorite synonym for gobbledygook. Hooey works just fine. last_img read more