Butt scores century in comeback match

first_img Rehabilitation Responsibility accepted Both players ultimately accepted their responsibility before the ICC lifted their bans. The PCB agreed a six-month rehabilitation programme for the duo that included lectures to younger cricketers on anti-corruption before allowing them to compete in domestic matches. “I am very relaxed, the toughest phase of my life is over,” Asif said. “This one-day tournament will help me gauge where I stand … International cricket is my target but I have to do well in the domestic matches before I can hope (for) international cricket.” Pakistan coach Waqar Younis said last week that, if they perform well in domestic matches, both players deserve another chance in international cricket. ISLAMABAD (AP): Former Pakistan captain Salman Butt smashed a century and fast bowler Mohammad Asif took two wickets as the convicted spot-fixers made their first appearance yesterday in competitive cricket after being away for more than five years. Butt scored 135 off 143 balls with 14 fours while Asif took 2-22 as they led the Water and Power Development Authority to a convincing 141-run victory over Federally Administered Tribal Areas in a one-day cup match in Hyderabad. “I hope that this is the new beginning,” Butt said. “As long as I will get more matches, I will improve.” Both players were eligible to compete from last September when their bans ended but first had to go through the Pakistan Cricket Board’s rehabilitation programme. Asif, Butt and fast bowler Mohammad Amir were banned for at least five years for deliberate no-balls at a 2010 Test match against England. Butt was captain of the team for the Lord’s Test. Amir pleaded guilty from the onset, which accelerated the left-arm fast bowler’s return to the national team, Butt and Asif went on to challenge the bans until their appeals were rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.last_img read more

Metabolism-First Origin of Life Won’t Work

first_imgEvolutionists believe it is necessary to get chemicals up to the point of replication before Darwinian evolution can come into play to build them into giraffes and eagles (given millions of years, of course). But because it is difficult to imagine a chance formation of nucleic acids (the “genetics first” theory), it has become popular in certain camps to change approaches and imagine metabolism coming into existence first. These “metabolism first” scenarios envision self-perpetuating cycles of chemical reactions as the first stages in the origin of life. A team of scientists just showed it won’t work. Three European scientists who published a paper in PNAS tried to give the concept a fair shake:1 A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution. The replicator concept is at the core of genetics-first theories of the origin of life, which suggest that self-replicating oligonucleotides or their similar ancestors may have been the first “living” systems and may have led to the evolution of an RNA world. But problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication have spurred the alternative metabolism-first scenario, where self-reproducing and evolving proto-metabolic networks are assumed to have predated self-replicating genes. Recent theoretical work shows that “compositional genomes” (i.e., the counts of different molecular species in an assembly) are able to propagate compositional information and can provide a setup on which natural selection acts. Accordingly, if we stick to the notion of replicator as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications, those macromolecular aggregates could be dubbed “ensemble replicators” (composomes) and quite different from the more familiar genes and memes.As they said, perhaps one could generalize the notion of a replicator up to a system or network of molecules instead of requiring a genetic code. Trouble is, accurate replication is required or the system breaks down:In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.That last phrase tries to be courteous to the metabolism-first believers by giving them some role as stage hands in the play. But these authors already stated in the first quote that the genetics-first scenario is plagued with problems of its own – among them, “problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication.” They can’t get the required molecules to form on their own, and then there is the nasty problem of the origin of a genetic code that can copy itself. The first paragraph in the paper elaborates:Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems (in the Darwinian sense) is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission. Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored. All present life is based on digitally encoded information in polynucleotide strings, but difficulties with the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides and clear-cut routes to an RNA world (but see ref. 6), wherein RNA molecules had the dual role of catalysts and information storage systems, have provided continuous fuel for objections to the genetics-first scenario.But having demonstrated in their paper the inadequacy of metabolism-first story, viz: “We now feel compelled to abandon compositional inheritance as a jumping board toward real units of evolution,” they could offer no hope on the other hand that the genetics-first scenario was more fit. All they could supply was faith: “We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from, but there are strong reasons to believe that it had existed.” Why? Because the metabolism-first scenario cannot work: “Template-free systems like composomes could only have had the limited role of accumulating prebiotic material and increasing environmental patchiness.” There needs to be a storage mechanism for genetic information, and that requires at least RNA. Storage-based inheritance, not merely attractor-based inheritance, is the minimum requirement for Darwinian evolution: “The essence of nucleic acids from the point of view of inheritance is exactly that they can store a lot of information at roughly equal energy/stability levels, exactly the property one requires from ‘storage.’” Later in the paper, they disparaged the habit of applying Darwinian terms, like “selection values”, to prebiotic molecules. Such terms are “devoid of meaning” in a chemical context, they said. “The unfortunate usage of words with clear Darwinian connotations—such as adaptation, fitness landscape, and coevolution—in the realm of pre-Darwinian systems cannot be overemphasized.”Update 01/08/2010: Three days after our report, Science Daily reported about this paper, based on a press release from Free University of Barcelona. Aside from getting the name of NASA wrong, they defined life as “self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” Even within that questionable definition, the metabolism-first scenario will not work, the article said: “the basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).” Since subsequent Darwinian evolution has nothing necessarily to do with the origin of genetic information, the statement lends more support to a definition of life made by astrobiologist Benton Clark (see 12/30/2002): “life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism.”1. Vasos, Szathmary and Santos, “Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism-first path to the origin of life,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, January 4, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912628107.We could have told them this. They are just restating with additional rigor a common-sense principle, that you can’t get inheritance without accurate information storage and retrieval. The threshold to avoid error catastrophe is too demanding. Anyway, it’s nice to have their side prove it with eigenvalues and equations. And it was nice for them to chastise their brethren for misapplying Darwinian terms to chemicals: “The unfortunate usage of words with clear Darwinian connotations—such as adaptation, fitness landscape, and coevolution—in the realm of pre-Darwinian systems cannot be overemphasized.” This paper represents the latest in a series of devastating salvos in the battle between the two approaches in origin-of-life studies (see important entry 01/26/2008). Both sides have both falsified each other and bombed each other’s fortresses to the ground. Brush aside their false premise that life is defined by its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution; what they really mean is that a lack of accurate genetic replication forbids Darwinian evolution. But the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids life itself, too, so they lose either way. Notice that this team falsified the metabolism-first hypothesis but acknowledged serious shortcomings with the genetics-first hypothesis. So did they give up and acknowledge that life was intelligently designed? No: they resorted to what the NCSE would tell you is the antithesis of science: FAITH. There are good reasons to BELIEVE in the RNA world, they said, simply because their trust in Darwinian evolution requires it, and the alternative, intelligent design, is so horrible to their tender little psyches, they will resort to chance miracles – anything – to avoid going that route. Too bad, though. Stephen Meyer showed in Signature in the Cell that the RNA World scenario, and all naturalistic theories for the origin of specified genetic information, are hopelessly inadequate. The facts of nature have turned naturalism against itself. You can’t get here from there. The origin of life requires the input of information from an intelligent, purposeful source, and science proves it. That being the case, Darwin becomes superfluous for anything beyond that point, except maybe for explaining minor changes between interfertile finches.(Visited 287 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

ICC Champions Trophy: Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli sweep aside Bangladesh, it’s India vs Pakistan in summit clash

first_imgIndia cruised into the final of the ICC Champions Trophy after a nine-wicket victory over Bangladesh on Thursday, setting up a clash with old rivals Pakistan on Sunday.A masterful unbeaten 123 from Rohit Sharma steered defending champions India to victory with nearly 10 overs to spare after they were set a target of 265 by Bangladesh, playing in their first semi-final of a major tournament. (ICC Champions Trophy: Virat Kohli calm and composed ahead of final vs Pakistan)WATCH FULL VIDEOSharma shared a 178-run partnership with Virat Kohli, who ended unbeaten on 96 as India delivered a composed and classy batting display.Bangladesh’s bowling attack never managed to create any real pressure on what was a good batting track and they will also feel they failed to put up a big enough target. (ICC Champions Trophy: Rohit Sharma says Team India ready for title showdown vs Pakistan)An entertaining 123 run third wicket partnership between Tamim Iqbal and Mushfiqur Rahim put Bangladesh in a strong position but their middle order failed to fully capitalise on that foundation.Bangladesh ended their 50 overs on 264 for seven after Tamim top scored with 70 and Mushfaqir made 61, but with a stronger middle and lower order contribution they would have expected to reach around 300. (Virat Kohli smashes AB de Villiers’ record, becomes to fastest 8000 ODI runs)Bhuvneshwar Kumar claimed two early wickets for India – Soumya Sarkar dragging on in the first over and then Sabbir Rahman slashing a short ball to Ravindra Jadeja at backward point to leave Bangladesh at 36 for two.advertisementReuters PhotoTamim was fortunate when he was bowled by Hardik Panya off a no-ball when he was on 17, but he took good advantage of the reprieve.Together with Mushfiqur, Tamim took the game to India with some aggressive batting, taking calculated risks and scoring at a brisk pace as they brought up the century partnership off 104 balls with 10 fours and one six. (Shikhar Dhawan, Rohit Sharma become most successful opening pair in ICC Champions Trophy history)The breakthrough came after India had managed to slow down the run-rate and with the pressure on, Tamim lost his composure, bowling the part-time off-spin of Kedar Jadhav as he attempted a wild slog.Shakib Al Hasan was superbly caught, off a bottom edge by MS Dhoni, stood up to spinner Ravindra Jadeja and then Jadhav struck again with the crucial wicket of Mushfiqur, whose mistimed shot was snaffled up by Virat Kohli at mid-wicket.Bangladesh badly needed Mahmudullah, a century maker in the win over New Zealand last week, to regain the momentum but he was only able to make 21 off 25 balls before being bowled by a fine Jasprit Bumrah yorker.last_img read more

Leeds United’s worst signings of all time

first_imgTransfers Leeds United’s worst signings of all time Goal Last updated 1 year ago 19:15 2/27/18 FacebookTwitterRedditcopy Comments() Seth Johnson Leeds United Getty Images Transfers Leeds United Championship The Elland Road outfit have had a rough time of it in the transfer market over the years – Goal takes a look at some of their most disappointing buyslast_img