Evolution in fossils

(cont'd)

So macro-evolution claims that all forms of life we see on earth today could be theoretically traced back through their millions of evolving ancestors to one living cell that appeared somehow about 3.8 billion years ago.

Picture what that would look like if we could see those fossil remains.  Try to imagine layers of rock showing sea worms with a bump on their lower side, then rocky layers of fossils with two bumps, then fossils of worms with three bumps with a division of toes, then fossils with one true leg, then a layer of fossils whose legs have toes, then fossils of worms with four legs and claws, then fossils of legged worms with lungs instead of gills (wait - that's huge genetic change), then lizards with eyes feet and lungs, then . . .

You get the idea, picture innumerable slight variations leading to elegant organs like lungs and eyes and to wildly differing life forms.  This was Darwin's vision of what he expected would be found in the fossil record.  But the fossil record doesn't look like that.

Instead, what scientists have discovered (in the 150+ years since Darwin's book) is a fossil record that shows this:   the sudden rather than gradual appearance of animal/plant species, and usually stable body design which does not morph into other designs.

photo:  pe.com

Macro-evolution

(cont'd)

Survey after survey shows that Americans largely do not believe that last meaning of  "evolution" is correct. But public (government) schools, from elementary to university level,  uniformly teach that it is correct.

Both public schools and government are committed to avoid supporting any view whatsoever that involves God, so their options are severely limited.  There's only one theory about the origin of life that doesn't involve God at all, and that is evolution (see the third meaning of this word, macro-evolution, in yesterday's post).

Here's how it works.  Offspring retain the characteristics of their parents almost entirely, but random small variations can occur.  Among all the offspring, if an individual has an advantageous variation, then that individual may have more offspring bearing the inherited advantage. Over time, the species evolves in that direction, resulting in new life forms.

It's called natural selection.  The individuals in every generation who survive to reproduce were the most fit to survive and reproduce.  Nobody disagrees with this!

There is only disagreement with the claim that this process alone produced all life's diversity:  whales, spiders, palm trees, cats, tulips, dinosaurs, butterflies, wolves, roses, salmon, worms, moss,  etc., etc.

photo:  statedclearly.com

What is evolution?

The word is often used, and its meaning can be pretty fuzzy.

First there is the general meaning which no one argues about:  just change over time.  In this sense, you evolve as you learn and experience life; your job evolves as you add or subtract responsibilities.  Change occurs in almost everything as time goes on.

Then there is micro-evolution, which no one argues about:  all life species change somewhat in relatively minor ways.  The size of a bird species' beak can change with changing circumstances, for instance, so that most of the birds in an environment have stronger/bigger beaks when the seeds available to eat become tougher.  An apple is developed by horticulturists that is sweeter and juicier than others.

photo:  mrjacksfarm.com

But it's the third type that does get argued about:  macro-evolution.  This theory says that changes in a kind of animal/plant happen over generations to the point that the later animal/plant is actually a different kind than its ancestors were, and all the kinds of life on earth came about this way.

There are lots of implications to this meaning of evolution.

More for the 20-somethings

Jason Nazar started a company in his 20's, is now 34,  and employs an "amazing group of 20-somethings." He has some things he'd like his employees, and all 20-somethings, to understand about how to be successful at work.  So he wrote this article, "20 Things 20-Year-Olds Don't Get."

Here's a sample:  use more personal & phone contact, keep building your "technical chops", take responsibility for your mistakes, go ahead and try things (and make mistakes), be the first in and the last to leave - and your reputation is priceless so take good care of it.

Jason blogs about business and Los Angeles here.

(For more insights on how to get traction, see "Your Defining 20's.")

photo:  levoleague.com

Fuel prices rise again

T. Boone Pickens thinks that the market for crude oil is not a free market, but is controlled by OPEC.

They have a price they want to make on their oil, and they're going to get it if we keep importing it from them.  He makes his case here.

Quiet but interested

(cont'd)

Maybe the main point of the book Quiet is that America ought to stop trying to make introverts more extroverted.  I agree, don't try to make everybody work in groups (as she emphasizes in her TED talk).

But let's admit that introverts, if they are Believers, will have to deal with their tendency to keep people at arm's length because people are God's idea and they are important.  My friend Dave sets a good example.  A quiet person, he's yet really interested in people and engages when he's in a one-on-one situation.

Here's a suggestion:  though author Susan Cain doesn't like the old self-help classic, How to Win Friends and Influence People, it has practical advice for how to relate to people.  You don't have to be in sales to learn how to be more of a blessing to just about everyone who encounters you.

Introvert

When I reserved Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking at the library, there were 500 people ahead of me!  It took about six months to finally get the book, and Hennepin County Library system (Minneapolis and suburbs) has 109 copies.   It was on the  NY Times bestseller list.  And Bill Gates counts the author's TED talk as a favorite.

Somehow this self-identified introvert woman has really made headlines, and it cannot have happened by accident.    So, she put herself out there in uncomfortable situations by speaking in public and promoting and doing whatever she had to do, all to affirm that it's really ok to be an introvert who likes to do none of this.  Interesting.

Author Susan Cain says on her website,  "I’m actually not sure if I went to the cafés to write or wrote so I could sit around in cafés, which is my favorite activity."

Here's her TED Talk, which has been viewed by 4.7 million people  She says that introverts should be allowed to do what they do best (see my post "Strengthen Your Strengths"), and that is to think and create in solitude.  

Personality

Extrovert or introvert, it's a Personality thing that you're mostly born into; it's not a Character thing.   In Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, author Susan Cain says that American culture transformed from a Culture of Character to a Culture of Personality early last century.

Character refers to high standards that anyone can choose to live up to:  diligence, honesty, duty, loyalty, compassion, these are character qualities.  Personality is more limited to what your genes give you:  whether you prefer to talk or think, whether you like loud or quiet environments, your natural ability to tell jokes (or your total lack of said ability), these are personality traits.

The kind of personality that made it big in 20th century America was the extrovert.  Author Cain traces the developing trend in books:  Masterful Personality in 1910, How to Win Friends and Influence People 1936, Organization Man 1956.  The ideal became the extrovert who dominates, charms, talks the most, entertains, and usually gets his/her way.

Introverts can feel they don't have much to offer in comparison.  For a classic story told from an introvert's point of view, read Rebecca through to the end and enjoy her paradigm shift.

Chinese farming unproductive

Farmers don't own the land they work in China.  The government owns it all.  The land cannot be mortgaged to make large purchases, so small farms use less machinery and are more labor intensive.  

In fact, this article at Business Insider makes the case that Chinese farmers are some of the most unproductive in the world (includes a beautiful photo essay).  The author quotes Deutsche Bank as saying that South Korean farmers are 40 times more productive.

Maybe this non-productivity has something to do with China's plan to take hundreds of millions out of the countryside and put them into cities; maybe there will be a transformation of the whole agricultural picture.  But I haven't yet read anything about a grand plan for agriculture.  I would love to see these farmers own their farming business, make it vastly more productive, and enjoy the results.

Walmart response to critic

As an observer of the retail industry, Walter Loeb has credentials:  20 years at department stores and then 16 years as a senior retail analyst at Morgan Stanley.  So when he roundly criticizes a Walmart store, it's with authority.  But from the description, anyone could have criticized it.

He reports that the store in Pittsfield MA was "in total disarray," with merchandise on the floor, empty shelf space, filthy restrooms.  All of this was disrespectful to customers and out of line with standards of the founder, Sam Walton, whom he knew.

Walmart's response to the criticism is so good.  Senior VP of New England, Julie Murphy, affirms that the store doesn't adhere to their standards, affirms Mr. Loeb and his report, lists their prompt corrective actions, and re-affirms that they are committed to high standards.

China urbanization - an excuse?

Another note to China's urbanizing project  (posts June 24 - June 27):  The South China Morning Post (see the photo caption as the reason for this post's title) reports that there is still a lot of uncertainty about how it's going to work out.

The government aims to relocate 250-300 million rural citizens to new cities (which they are building so fast that many stand empty).   "To accommodate them, China would have to build a new city the size of Shanghai every year for the next 20 years."   
Got to wonder where they are getting their money.   As a comparison, the U.S. can't even pay for our current spending (we won't be building empty cities any time soon). In fact, we are at a historic debt level - and China loaned us much of that money.

Again, the rationale for urbanization is that city people spend more money than country people so the economy will grow. Ummm, are there going to be jobs for them so they can buy lots of goods and services?  Will they be passive about their uprooting?  The world is watching.

Optimistic

(cont'd)

Everyone encounters disappointing circumstance.  The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is how he explains it.  A pessimist may describe the lost sale or the poor grade in school as Permanent, Pervasive, and Personal - "It always happens this way, nothing goes right, and everything(one) is against me."  Easy to see how this leads to a feeling of helplessness!

But you can learn to think differently, think realistically, think optimistically.

Dr. Seligman (Learned Optimism) suggests using the power of Disputation.  When your mind presents you with an explanation like the above, dispute it.  Ask questions before you buy into it:  But what did I do right?  Haven't I succeeded in other things?  Seriously, has the universe gone out of its way to pick me for failure?  Don't let the negative conclusion settle in with no resistance.

Think of an optimist you know, how she would explain the adversity to herself.  She might say, "I've done better before and I will again," or "I know my mistake and can correct it," or "It wasn't perfect but it was an improvement."

And if you are a Believer, you have even more resources.  You remind yourself that God is good and that His plan for your future is full of Hope - not hopelessness.

Optimist/Pessimist

If you're not especially optimistic, could you learn to be?  Dr. Martin Seligman thinks you can. After writing Learned Optimism in 1990, what he calls "positive psychology" became the theme of his professional life.

As a child watching his father suffer from feelings of helplessness, the boy Martin decided to dedicate his life to finding a way to assist such people.  He found that helplessness is "at the core of the phenomenon of pessimism.  Helplessness is the state of affairs in which nothing you choose to do affects what happens to you."  

Even if you have the valuable qualities of talent and desire but you're also a pessimist, you may still not achieve your goals.  That's because, "Learned helplessness is the giving-up reaction, the quitting response that follows from the belief that whatever you do doesn't matter."

The Little Engine That Could has taught children for decades the concept that they can indeed affect outcomes with effort.   To solve problems, you must think that what you do matters.  Or else you could move toward pessimism and depression.

Champion Garden

Our church pastor Tim Burt has a fantastic back yard!   His gardens won the  2011 "Grand Summer Blossom Award" in Brooklyn Park MN -  and you can see them here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71595908@N08/show/

Solar business loans

(cont'd)

Nobody likes to see our government throw away $935,000,000, nobody.  But that's what happened.

Presumably, the two American companies were doing the best they could to succeed. I wish a solar company would discover a way to produce solar energy efficiently enough that they could make a successful business out of it (and pay back their loans).  But that's what business entrepreneurs do:  they take a risk because they think they have a good chance.

Some questions should be asked.

Why did the U.S. government think those loans were a good risk - when the independent investors did not think so and chose not to risk their millions?  Private investors are highly motivated to analyze the company very carefully and to make the loan when the company shows evidence that they will be successful.  As it turns out, the independent investors who said no were right.

If loaning hundreds of millions to these companies was not a good risk, why did the federal government do it?  I'd like to see better quality decisions coming out of the government, like the decision to quit picking market winners and losers.

Solar industry trouble

Gehrlicher Solar and Conergy are the companies that have filed for bankruptcy in Germany.

What this means is that the companies ran out of money and tried to borrow more from their investors, who said no.  Investors will lend money if they are pretty sure they will be paid back in the future with interest.  When business investors say no, it's probably because they don't think that company is going to do well, that is, make enough profit to pay back the loan.  (Profit is what's left when all the costs to making a product, solar energy in this case, are subtracted from all the revenue that comes in from customers buying the product.)

It's not only Germany where solar companies are failing.  A year ago, Bloomberg reported the demise of Abound Solar which filed bankruptcy in Delaware.  They had previously received a $400 million loan guarantee from the federal government.  That means that when they could not repay that loan to their investor, American taxpayers actually paid the investor.

If this sounds familiar, think Solyndra:  another solar company that had to declare bankruptcy and for which Americans guaranteed a loan of $535 million.  The investor doesn't have to be careful about granting the loan if our government says, "Go ahead and give Solyndra the loan even though it doesn't appear to be a good investment.  If they can't pay it back, we will pay it."

Solar efficiency rises

As of last month, a new record was set in how efficient a solar cell can be.  Sharp Corporation  announced that its research has produced a cell that can turn 44% of the sunlight striking it into electricity.  

All solar cells now in operation capture less than 44%, discarding/wasting/unable to use well over half of the light.  There's no such thing as 100% efficiency in the producing of any energy; we just try to waste less and capture more.  Why?  To use fewer/less of our resources (of materials, time, labor) while getting more energy to feed a growing global need.

Nova (pbs show) has an explanation of how solar energy is produced here.

There's an enthusiastic drive to use the sun's light as an energy source because of its huge potential:  there's sunlight shining everywhere on earth and the process of producing it is thought to be more benign to the environment.

Germany leads the world in producing units of electricity per citizen in this way by a very big margin.

Two of Germany's biggest corporate producers of solar just filed for bankruptcy four days ago.

Strengthen your strengths

Most of us have been instructed to strengthen our weaknesses, i.e. "you're bad at [x] so work on it til it's good."  But Marcus Buckingham in Now, Discover Your Strengths advises us to do the opposite.

I heard author/speaker John Maxwell agree with this strategy.  Here's his reason:  If you are, say, a one  (on a ten-point scale) in making people laugh, you may be able with a lot of effort to improve your ability up to a 2 or 3. That's all.  Your effort won't pay off much.

But if you are a 6 on that scale in something else, maybe organizing projects, and you build your talent into an 8, you can make an impact.  At that level you'll have significant success.

Here is one man's experience in with this very thing.

Little-known facts about the Declaration

A committee of five were assigned to write it, the main author being Thomas Jefferson.

He drew from his own draft of a preamble to the Virginia State Constitution, and a draft of Virginia's Bill of Rights.

Congress formally declared that America was independent on July 2, 1776.  The final text of the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4.  It was signed by 56 men in August.

Nine of the signers died before the American Revolution ended.

The oldest signer was Ben Franklin at 70, and the two youngest were only 26 years old.

After the text was approved, Congress hired someone to make a formal copy which was then signed on August 2.  This is our Declaration of Independence now stored in the National Archives.

Happy birthday, America!

Where did they get the courage to stand against the most powerful nation on earth?  The signers of the Declaration of Independence were passionate about freedom, and convicted that their destiny was liberty.

Just got the book, "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor."  That's what they risked when they signed their names to the Declaration.  Looking forward to some detail on how that worked out for the individuals.  History-wise, they changed the world against all odds.

Celebrate the birth of that exceptional country today!

photo: sweetpaul.typepad.com

Natgas to ethanol

One third of the U.S. corn crop doesn't go to food but is made into ethanol.   Since 2005, the law requires that ethanol be in your car's fuel.  Less pollution has been good.  But the price of U.S. corn has tripled, and in many ways that's not good.  

There's not enough ethanol for gasoline in spite of the fact that other plant sources (not food) have been tried, backed with money from the government.  So refiners have paid fines because their gasoline doesn't have the right mix.

Enter another player in the game:   "Celanese [a chemicals company] makes its ethanol by tearing apart and recombining the hydrocarbons found in plentiful natural gas or coal. .  If it works, what [Celanese] is building will revolutionize the fuel industry."

So natgas could solve the shortage of ethanol - if the law requiring plant based ethanol is changed.  

If America doesn't go for it, China will.  They can't afford to waste farmland growing plants for ethanol.  Celanese is building a huge plant to make ethanol from natgas in China right now.

(from "How A Dumb Law Blocks A Great Way To Fuel America" at Forbes.com)

Natgas made practical

The big disadvantage with natural gas powered vehicles is clear:  we already have millions of cars on the road that need gasoline, and something like 150,000 filling stations in the U.S. to serve them.  That represents trillions of dollars of investment in gasoline power that can't be scrapped.

But if natural gas could be made into gasoline at a manageable cost, maybe that could work - we could have the advantages of natural gas and yet continue to use the huge system already existing in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

In 1979 a process was developed by Mobil in partnership with New Zealand to do just that.  But one of the steps is apparently too expensive for the process to be commercially viable. 

A small tech company may have a solution:  "Primus Green Energy has built a pilot plant to perfect the technology of taking natural gas and converting it into gasoline. V.P. George Boyajian says Primus is close to finalizing a deal to build a commercial scale plant that will turn gas into gasoline (or diesel) for $2 a gallon."

I would love to see this happen.

"Natgas" vehicles

Natural gas is abundant in the U.S.  It's cheaper by far than oil and we don't have to give billions of dollars to hostile countries to get it.  What if our millions of cars could be powered by natural gas instead of oil?  It would be great for our country both economically and environmentally:  "natural gas is clean, cheap, abundant and domestic."

But can vehicles run on natural gas instead of gasoline?  

Yes, the how-to is known.  Ryder is making a few hundred trucks now that run on it .  There are ten+ stations for CNG (compressed natural gas) in Oklahoma City where you can power-up for the equivalent of about $1.50/gallon.  Ryder is also partnering with San Bernardino CA in the Natural Gas Vehicle Project.  And Honda will build you a Civic Natural Gas for about $28k.

Of fuels that can be used as an alternate to petroleum, natural gas has more advantages than most.