By A.G. Noorani

A Month and a half after the Mumbai blasts on November 26, 2008, India-Pakistan diplomacy on the subject is dangerously deadlocked. Initial promise of accord on amends dissipated within three days, setting a pattern that has congealed with time. How far the dialogue has moved can be gauged with two statements by Pakistan’s leaders.
On November 29, President Asif Ali Zardari was asked by an Indian television channel: “Can you assure the Indian people that Pakistan will do everything it can to investigate and to inquire into this connection so that we get to the bottom of this matter?” That connection was “to people in Pakistan”. He replied: “Most definitely, this is a world incident. Today, every terrorist act is a world incident and [there are] multinational casualties. I am sure that the world intelligence agencies will be called. But at the same time, as the President of Pakistan, let me assure [that] if any evidence points to any individual or group in my country, I shall take the strictest of actions in the light of the evidence and in front of the world” (emphasis added, throughout).

Three points must be noted. There was an unqualified pledge “most definitely” to investigate “so that we can get to the bottom of this matter”. That could be done only in Pakistan, as the entire world knew and said. Secondly, he did not belittle the blasts as “one incident”. He called it “a world incident”, which is why world leaders spoke up as they did and the international media descended on Mumbai. Thirdly, he said that “if any evidence points to any individual or group in my country I shall take the strictest of actions in the light of the evidence and in front of the world”.

This is fair. The adequacy of evidence on any matter depends on the purpose. Facts that create a reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence justify the initiation of a police investigation and arrest of the suspect. To justify an order committing the case to the Sessions Court or framing of charges, proof of the commission of the offence is not required. Only a prima facie case needs to be made out. It is defined as evidence which, if unrebutted, leads to inference of guilt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is only required for conviction in a court of law.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that in fixing a state’s responsibility for the actions of its own “non-state actors”, a lesser degree of proof is required (see “Pakistan’s Burden”; Frontline, January 16). Zardari’s use of the expression “points to”, rather than “proves”, is therefore sound. He repeated it – “points to any camps”. He knew, of course, what was afoot. “We need to look at it as [an] action of non-state actors,” he said, in the context of the nationality of the perpetrators, of course.

Contrast this with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s remarks on January 10 and you get a fair idea of the gravity of the impasse and the depths to which the dialogue has been brought. It was adversarial in tone and contradicted Zardari flatly. The Mumbai attack was not a “world incident” but India’s “internal matter” arising out of an “intelligence failure in India”. If this be Pakistan’s stand after six weeks – contrary to that of the United States, the United Kingdom, and very many others, let alone the aggrieved country, India – how sincere is its promise of joint investigation or even of its own internal investigation? He said also, “We are now defending two countries, not one. We are defending them and ourselves.”
Read More

BERLIN (AFP) – An Iranian drama about an emigre who returns home looking for love joined the hunt for the Golden Bear for best picture at the 59th Berlin Film Festival Saturday.
“About Elly” by 36-year-old Asghar Farhadi tells the story of Ahmad, who has divorced his German wife after years living in Europe and takes a trip to the Caspian Sea to make a fresh start.
His friends, a group of fellow 30-somethings, invite the beautiful kindergarten teacher Elly along on the trip in a thinly veiled attempt at matchmaking.
But the getaway takes a tragic turn when Elly vanishes from the beach, exposing hidden tension within the group and a unique kind of love triangle.
Farhadi’s last film, the drama “Fireworks Wednesday”, was a hit on the international festival circuit. “About Elly” was to premiere in Berlin and Tehran Saturday tonight.
He told reporters in Berlin that while the film sheds light on the dynamic between the sexes in today’s Iran, the emotions it stirs could appeal to viewers outside.
“I wanted to make a story that was universal — one that everyone could connect with, not just contemporary Iranians,” he said.
“To my mind, these kinds of problems can be found everywhere. I’ve tried to go below the tip of the iceberg, beneath the surface of the water to see where they are coming from.”
Farhadi said he had based the story on a friend living in the northern German city of Hamburg who was trapped in an unhappy marriage.
The strong cast features Golshifteh Farahani who was last seen in the spy thriller “Body of Lies” with Leonardo DiCaprio.
“Our work with Mr Fahradi was a sort of a workshop,” Farahani said, adding that the picture was based on significant improvisation.
“It was a sort of a collaboration and a partnership.”
Also in competition Saturday are the German drama “Storm” about the international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, and a supernatural murder mystery by France’s Bertrand Tavernier set in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina and starring Tommy Lee Jones and John Goodman, “In the Electric Mist”.
Two European contenders entered the race Friday: “Ricky” by French director Francois Ozon about a baby with an extraordinary ability, and “Little Soldier” by Denmark’s Annette K. Oleson on a woman returning from a mission in a war zone who tries to save a Nigerian prostitute.
Both pictures received mixed reviews from film industry bible Variety.
It said “Ricky” was “an uneasy mix of comedy and the grotesque”. While Variety’s reviewer Alissa Simon was intrigued by the explosive subject matter in “Little Soldier”, she was disappointed by its execution.
“Despite the film’s considerable technical craft and involvement of powerhouse thesps (actors), the earnest, overly schematic script fails to connect emotionally,” she said.
The Golden Bear will be awarded February 14 by a jury led by Scottish actress Tilda Swinton. The 11-day festival wraps up the next day.
Read More

Today, on the occasion of the bicentenary of Charles Darwin, let us resolve to be nice to all our extended relatives, including the ape family.
And let us further decide on this the 12th Day of February 2009 of the Common Era to:

• never be nasty to any of our extended family members
• never harass them
• never restrict their freedom
• never imprison them
• never occupy or annex their territory
• never act snobbish towards them

From Globeistan editor and family members

By B. R. Gowani

Today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin who was born on the 12th of February, 1809 and died on 19th April, 1882.

Sometimes, events have a way of changing not only the path of history but the way human beings perceive the world, or even themselves.

Seemingly trivial things like digits can have a tremendous effect on our lives. Take for example, shunya or zero, which the Europeans got through the Arabs who got it from the South Asians. Zero represents nothing, yet it affects everything. There would have been no binary code system and no computers, as we know them today, without zero – pretty unthinkable, but true.

In 1610, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) changed the geocentric view, that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around the earth. He was enhancing the findings of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) who had earlier made earth a part of the heliocentric solar system (that is, our Sun is the center of our solar system and earth orbits around the Sun).

When Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to be in space on April 12, 1961 and the first person to orbit the earth, all humankind’s perception of space changed forever.
Later, when Neil Armstrong became the first person to land on the Moon on July 21, 1969, the possibility of inhabiting another planet didn’t seem like the impossible dream it was before the landing.

It is not easy to compare the great brains of history. However it would not be an exaggeration to say that it was Darwin, more than anyone else, who changed our thinking forever on the most vital subject of our existence on this earth. Who are we and how did we come into being?

Darwin brought human beings down from the pedestal where they had enthroned themselves (as the central creation of God) and showed them their true roots — that human beings are nothing but a branch in the evolutionary tree, and that they are related to apes. Indeed, they were once apes.

The religious establishment in England at Darwin’s time did not approve of his ideas. However last year, on behalf of the Church of England, Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown issued an apology:

“Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends.”Full text here

Lack of Understanding and Myths

Technological advances have enabled us to understand many mysteries and have led us to discard many theories our ancestors believed in due to the absence of knowledge of Nature and its workings.

For instance, to explain the changing of seasons, the Greeks had formulated this story:

One day Persephone was abducted by Hades (the Romans calls him Pluto), the God of the underworld. Her mother goddess Demeter (who was also Hades’ sister) was unable to rescue her and had to ask her brother/husband Zeus to rescue their daughter from their brother. Persephone was allowed to return back to the earth for six months (in some versions it is nine months) and had to return back to the underworld for the rest of the months because she had committed the act of eating pomegranate seeds in the underworld. When Persephone returned to her, Demeter was very happy and allowed the gifts of spring and summer seasons. Persephone’s departure made Demeter sad and hence she withdrew the gifts, causing the seasons of autumn and winter.

This was a good story for explaining natural phenomenon that was beyond the understanding of people of the time. But when we come to know the real reason for the changing of seasons (earth’s axis), it is natural to expect that we’ll integrate it as a part of our knowledge and regard their story as the myth that it was.

Let us take another myth where the goddess Hera, sister/wife of the god Zeus is tricked into nursing an abandoned child Heracles or Hercules (actually son of Zeus and Alcmene). The baby sucked so hard that Hera pushed him away causing the breast milk to spurt out forcefully. This was believed to have created the Milky Way Galaxy full of hundreds of billions of stars. We too would have believed this fantastic story if we hadn’t made progress in learning about the true nature of space through modern technology, including satellites and telescopes.

Nature Didn’t, but Humans Did

Thousands of gods and goddesses can be found in mythological books, and sometimes even in artwork. And it should be like that because it allows variety and creativity. However, when the religions became more powerful, they began exerting their influence to the detriment of progressive and intellectual thought in all walk of life. They try to arrest the evolving of mental curiosity of hundreds of millions of people through fear of afterlife and other such nonsense. (The political and business forces join hands with them for their own commercial and political motives.)

The religious establishments are never keen on letting people explore Godly things as this could jeopardize their establishments. Most of us human beings are curious by nature and would like to know about various things. Just lie down under a clear starry night and tens of questions will pop up in your brain. What are the stars? What are the shooting stars? How did they come into existence? Who made them? How far are they? What are they made up of? How many of them are there? And so on. A child’s mind is a curiosity-computer which is always on, to know and explore things. If their curiosity is encouraged, then their minds could blossom else they wither and settle for the things acceptable to the establishment. (I remember my little niece and nephew had many questions when growing up.) And if out of frustration, they rebel, the rebellion has no foundation as they lack proper understanding. Another essential factor is for there to be opportunities available for them to apply their knowledge in the fields they desire.

The present human beings evolved through various stages when finally Nature permitted them to branch out of the ape family. It does not mean that this path was smooth or that it was not a painful transition. The path was fraught with harassment and injury, with diseases, plagues, floods, earthquakes, etc. And yet they finally made it to the Homo Sapiens stage of evolution.

But when it comes to fellow human beings — those with resources, power, and influence – they have not been as kind as nature. Or that they have been more ruthless than nature has been.

Suffice it to say, that the world has produced many great brains but millions more have been denied a chance to evolve fully due to religious and human (commercial, political) blockages.

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:
• 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
• 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
• 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
• 1 billion years of multicellular life,
• 600 million years of simple animals,
• 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
• 550 million years of complex animals
• 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
• 475 million years of land plants,
• 400 million years of insects and seeds,
• 360 million years of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian,
• 300 million years of reptiles
• 200 million years of mammals,
• 150 million years of birds,
• 130 million years of flowers,
• 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
• 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
• 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
• 25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Read More

by Leslie E. Orgel

Growing evidence supports the idea that the emergence of catalytic RNA was a crucial early step. How that RNA came into being remains unknown.
LESLIE E. ORGEL is senior fellow and research professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, which he joined in 1965. He obtained his Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Oxford in 1951 and subsequently became a reader in chemistry at the University of Cambridge. While at Cambridge, he contributed to the development of ligand- field theory. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration supports his extensive research on chemistry that may be relevant to the origin of life. Orgel is a fellow of the Royal Society and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
When the earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago, it was a lifeless, inhospitable place. A billion years later it was teeming with organisms resembling blue-green algae. How did they get there? How, in short, did life begin? This long-standing question continues to generate fascinating conjectures and ingenious experiments, many of which center on the possibility that the advent of self-replicating RNA was a critical milestone on the road to life.
Before the mid-17th century, most people believed that God had created humankind and other higher organisms and that insects, frogs and other small creatures could arise spontaneously in mud or decaying matter. For the next two centuries, those ideas were subjected to increasingly severe criticism, and in the mid-19th century two important scientific advances set the stage for modern discussions of the origin of life.
In one advance Louis Pasteur discredited the concept of spontaneous generation. He offered proof that even bacteria and other microorganisms arise from parents resembling themselves. He thereby highlighted an intriguing question: How did the first generation of each species come into existence?
The second advance, the theory of natural selection, suggested an answer. According to this proposal, set forth by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, some of the differences between individuals in a population are heritable. When the environment changes, individuals bearing traits that provide the best adaptation to the new environment meet with the greatest reproductive success. Consequently, the next generation contains an increased percentage of well-adapted individuals displaying the helpful characteristics. In other words, environmental pressures select adaptive traits for perpetuation.
Repeated generation after generation, natural selection could thus lead to the evolution of complex organisms from simple ones. The theory therefore implied that all current life-forms could have evolved from a single, simple progenitor – an organism now referred to as life’s last common ancestor. (This life-form is said to be “last” not “first” because it is the nearest shared ancestor of all contemporary organisms; more distant ancestors must have appeared earlier.)
Darwin, bending somewhat to the religious biases of his time, posited in the final paragraph of The Origin of Species that “the Creator” originally breathed life “into a few forms or into one.” Then evolution rook over: “From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” In private correspondence, however, he suggested life could have arisen through chemistry, “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present.” For much of the 20th century, origin-of-life research has aimed to flesh out Darwin’s private hypothesis – to elucidate how, without supernatural intervention, spontaneous interaction of the relatively simple molecules dissolved in the lakes or oceans of the prebiotic world could have yielded life’s last common ancestor.
Read More

An Interview with Andy Knoll

What are the origins of life? How did things go from non-living to living? From something that could not reproduce to something that could? One person who has exhaustively investigated this subject is paleontologist Andrew Knoll, a professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life. In this wide-ranging interview, Knoll explains, among other compelling ideas, why higher organisms like us are icing on the cake of life, how deeply living things and our planet are intertwined, and why it’s so devilishly difficult to figure out how life got started.
NOVA: When people think of life here on Earth, they think of animals and plants, but as you say in your book, that’s really not the history of life on our planet, is it?
Knoll: It’s fair to say when you go out and walk in the woods or on a beach, the most conspicuous forms of life you will see are plants and animals, and certainly there’s a huge diversity of those types of organisms, perhaps 10 million animal species and several hundred thousand plant species. But these are evolutionary latecomers. The history of animals that we’ve recorded from fossils is really only the last 15 percent or so of the recorded history of life on this planet. The deeper history of life and the greater diversity of life on this planet is microorganisms—bacteria, protozoans, algae. One way to put it is that animals might be evolution’s icing, but bacteria are really the cake.
NOVA: So we live in their world rather than the other way around?
Knoll: We definitely live in a bacterial world, and not just in the trivial sense that there’s lots of bacteria. If you look at the ecological circuitry of this planet, the ways in which materials like carbon or sulfur or phosphorous or nitrogen get cycled in ways that makes them available for our biology, the organisms that do the heavy lifting are bacteria. For every cycle of a biologically important element, bacteria are necessary; organisms like ourselves are optional.
NOVA: What is your definition of life?
Read More

By Stefan Lovgren

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.
“Darwin wasn’t just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn’t go far enough,” said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. “We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.”
Read More

Only this site contains Darwin’s complete publications, 20,000 private papers, the largest Darwin bibliography, manuscript catalogue and hundreds of supplementary works: specimens, biographies, obituaries, reviews, reference works and much more.
Read More