Debate continues to swirl around the theory of evolution Charles Darwin proposed 150 years ago in his groundbreaking book, "On the Origin of Species," despite its universal acceptance among scientists.

Before Darwin's discovery, the world was generally thought to have remained more or less the same since its creation. This belief, based on Biblical interpretations, was contested through fossil studies showing that species change over time.

Darwin's legendary round-the-world 1831-1836 voyage aboard the HMS Beagle generated his most significant observations and discoveries, inspiring his work on natural selection.

Although Darwin first used the term "natural selection" in a paper in 1842, it wasn't until 1859 that he published his controversial theory that all living beings share a common ancestry -- a discovery that remains vital to modern biology.

Author Nick Spencer, director of studies at Theos, a research organisation launched in 2006 with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, explained why the debate persists to this day.

"People are encountering evolution not so much as a science but as a philosophy," he told Reuters ahead of a Nov. 24 lecture at Westminster Abbey to mark the anniversary of the exact date on which Darwin's book was first published.

Amid ongoing debates over the hazards of excessive digital exposure through such Web 2.0 social networking platforms as Facebook and Twitter, a new book by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger extols the virtues of forgetfulness.

Since the emergence of digital technology and global networks, forgetting has become an exception, Mayer-Schonberger writes in "Delete".

"Forgetting plays a central role in human decision-making," he argues. "It lets us act in time, cognizant of, but not shackled by, past events."

Mayer-Schonberger shared his theory on how to fight back against the digital panopticon with Reuters before giving a lecture at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London.

- Phelim Kine is an Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch. The opinions expressed are her own. -

When 15-year-old Wang Xiaomei made the long trip from Gansu province to Beijing last year, she hoped to find justice for her family. Instead, she met with abuse.

First, Wang was abducted by plainclothes Gansu officials, who imprisoned her incommunicado for two months in a “black jail”—an illegal detention facility.

Two days before her September 13, 2008 release, Wang’s captors beat her so badly they knocked out one of her teeth. Wang’s victimizers have never been brought to justice.

Worse still, Wang’s experience—which stands in stark contrast to the Chinese government’s claims of fealty to the rule of law—is not unique. A new Human Rights Watch report released today, “An Alleyway in Hell: China’s Abusive ‘Black Jails',” exposes the routine and severe human rights abuses perpetrated against detainees in these secret facilities.

Our research shows that Wang is just one of estimated thousands of people abducted off the streets of Chinese cities and held incommunicado for weeks or months. Inside these unlawful, secret detention facilities detainees are beaten, sexually abused, deprived of food, sleep and medical care, and subject to theft, extortion and intimidation at the hands of their guards.

And, as Wang’s case shows, children aren’t spared the dangers and indignities of black jail detention. These facilities exist outside of China’s official prison system, and are often located in state-owned hotels, nursing homes and psychiatric hospitals.

The former black jail detainees we interviewed were petitioners--people from mainly rural areas who come to Beijing and other cities in search of legal redress for violations including illegal land seizures and police torture. The petitioning system, which exists in parallel to formal judicial structures, is entirely legal, and explicitly permits people to take their grievances to the highest levels of government.

So why are petitioners being treated this way? Black jails emerged in 2003 after the Chinese government abolished laws permitting the arbitrary detention of any “undesirables.” But that progress was undercut by the introduction at the local level of guidelines that limit local officials’ prospects for promotions or raises if petitioners from their areas carried on their efforts to find justice in larger cities.

What might have been intended as an incentive to make local officials deal with local grievances became an incentive for those officials to keep petitioners off the streets and invest considerable resources in achieving that goal. Plainclothes thugs commonly known as retrievers, or jiefang renyuan, locate and abduct petitioners in Beijing and other cities for bounties as high as $250 per person. Operators of black jail facilities reap daily cash payments from local governments of up to $29 per detainee, helping to perpetuate black jail abuses.

Rather than crack down on these facilities, the central Chinese government denies that they even exist. In an April 2009 Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference, a MOFA official responded to a foreign correspondent’s query about black jails by insisting, “Things like this do not exist in China.”

In June 2009, the Chinese government asserted in the Outcome Report of the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission’s Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record that, “There are no black jails in the country.”

Such denials make a mockery of the commitment in the first-ever National Human Rights Action Plan that, “The Chinese government unswervingly pushes forward the cause of human rights in China.” The Chinese government’s credibility would be considerably enhanced by acknowledging that black jails do indeed exist, shutting them down, liberating detainees, and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

External actors also have a role to play. Many governments and international organizations fund Chinese legal reform projects, and they too should demand that the Chinese government put an end to these abuses and that their victims be fairly compensated.

No less a civil rights and legal aid luminary than U.S. President Barack Obama, who will make his first trip as President to China on November 16-18, has a golden opportunity to raise the cases of black jail detainees and explain that an independent judicial system in China is of significant consequence to U.S.-China relations.

He should also repeat to his Chinese hosts–and the Chinese people—his September 2009 message to the United Nations General Assembly: “True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home.”

-Jane Foley is research director at Forex.com. The opinions expressed are her own.-

November meetings of leaders from the Group of 20 industrialized nations may not have had exchange rates on the agenda, but the notes prepared by the International Monetary Fund included some meaty foreign exchange references.

The first is the view that although the dollar has moved closer to medium-term equilibrium it “still remains on the strong side”.  The second is the (widely held) view that the dollar “is now serving as the funding currency for carry trades” which has contributed to upward pressure on the euro.

The third was the acknowledgement that the Chinese renminbi has depreciated in real effective terms and remains significantly undervalued from a medium-term perspective.  To deal with the latter the IMF prescribed the usual recipe; namely that “exchange rate appreciation would help limit capital flows” and “facilitate a shift towards domestic consumption that is needed in many emerging economies, notably those with large external surpluses”.

None of the points put forward by the IMF on foreign exchange are ground breaking.  However, the fact that the IMF judged it appropriate to outline these issues ahead of the G20 meetings is suggestive of the economic and thus political relevance of these issues.  China’s exchange rate peg is clearly at the forefront of these issues.

Also significant is the IMF’s mention of the upward pressure on the euro, which could be seen as acknowledging that the euro (along with the yen) is bearing the brunt of the dollar’s downward adjustment.  By recognising that the dollar is “still on the strong side”, the IMF may be warning that the upward pressure on the euro may have further to run.

Now that the euro/dollar is back at 1.500, the market will again begin to wonder whether at some point the authorities may act to stem the appreciation of the euro/dollar.  Intervention in euro/dollar cannot be completely ruled out but it remains a remote possibility because it would avoid the real issue.  The dollar’s decline is being driven by inflows into higher yielding markets which is unlikely to be turned around by intervention in euro/dollar as long as the market is forecasting low Fed rates and as long as risk appetite holds.  The rise in the euro vs the dollar is merely a symptom of these flows but the appreciation of the effective euro (and that of the yen) is being compounded by the fact that as the euro rises vs the dollar it also rises vs the renminbi.   At present, the effective euro exchange rate is creeping back to its December 2008 high which represents an all time high.   Rather than seek to rebalance euro/dollar, officials should be increasing pressure on China to address its policy regarding its exchange rate.

It is not just the Europeans and the Japanese that should be worried about the impact of non-flexible exchange rate policies.  The World Bank last week warned that asset price bubbles in parts of Asia are being driven by a rapid increase in equity and house prices notably in China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

The World Bank advised that policy should be tightened by “removing some of the support for liquidity in domestic and foreign currencies”.  Calls for the breaking of some exchange rate pegs within Asia are becoming more commonplace and China’s size will mean that its exchange rate policy will garner most attention.

The issue of exchange rate flexibility in parts of Asia is promising to be one of the most dominant foreign exchange topics of 2010 and President Obama’s visit to Beijing this week could kick it back into the headlines.
ResearchEMEA@forex.com

What do you do when you are trained as an economist, but find economics too complex?

Become a freakonomist, of course.

Steven D. Levitt, co-author of  the freshly published  SuperFreakonomics, decided to "take the tools of economics and apply them to the kind of questions that no self-respecting economist would ever want to be related to -- like: does the name that you give your children affect their life outcomes; what are the underlying economics of prostitution; or, is your estate agent ripping you off?"

Levitt, who teaches economics at the University of Chicago, co-wrote SuperFreakonomics and an earlier book titled Freakonomics with New York journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

Before a talk at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London, Levitt explained to Reuters how he became a freakonomist.

Related vlog: A freakonomic view of climate change

-Matthew Bath is technology editor at Which? The opinions expressed are his own.-

Microsoft’s Windows operating system has been frustrating and delighting computer users in almost equal measure since it was first debuted by the software giant first in 1985. Fast forward through nearly a quarter of a century of powering the majority of the world’s personal computers, and Windows is about to hit another milestone.

Windows 7 launches on October 22, worldwide, and it’s safe to say that, as a firm, Microsoft will be collectively crossing fingers and toes that shoppers flock to the new version.

The successor to its Windows Vista operating system, Windows 7 promises to be faster, more reliable and make computing simpler than ever – so much so that like a proud parent, Microsoft hosting worldwide coming-of-age parties to help launch Windows 7 onto PC desktops worldwide.

Yet the key question is whether consumers, already stung by what many found a problematic Windows Vista, are as willing to take a punt on this latest version.

Certainly, it’s chalking up record sales – and Windows 7 has overtaken Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to become the biggest grossing pre-order on Amazon.co.uk of all time, and the online store says demand for the new operating system remains strong.

So why are shoppers pre-ordering in droves? Partly, it’s because Microsoft fumbled the ball with Windows Vista, leaving some users frustrated and fed-up with an operating system that felt sluggish and crash prone. A chance to jump to a shinier ship is welcomed. Partly, last time lots of people stayed away from the Windows Vista party following negative reports, remaining with the perfectly functional Windows XP instead.

The surge in sales tells only part of the story, however. Which? has talked with shoppers who tell us they are confused by Microsoft’s different versions (with six different prices at the last count), and there are lots of questions around whether the upgrade really is worth the hassle.

Certainly, a lot of the features seem fairly cosmetic on the surface, and some will appeal to only a handful of users. If you’re one of the chosen few to own a touchscreen PC and monitor, then the new multi-touch features in Windows 7 will have you clapping (and pinching and swiping) your hands with glee as your monitor turns into the equivalent of an outsized Apple iPhone.

Other features – such as easier home networking and interface tweaks to make navigation simplier are all good, but seem slight. Rather, Microsoft has been significantly reworking the technology that happens under the hood of Windows, making it less crash prone, faster, and hopefully a better experience.

If you’re happily using Windows Vista, though, then there really isn’t a compelling reason to upgrade as the new features are hardly lengthy.

And if you’re using Windows XP, then Microsoft has a different message for you: your PC is unlikely to run Windows 7 well, and you’ll have to fork out for a new computer. That’s an expense in these economic times that many consumers might find a little tough to swallow.

And, finally, amidst all Windows shopping it’s easy to forget that most new operating system launches are hit with bugs, glitches and incompatible software. That’s normal, but not any less frustrating.

So, if you are looking longingly through the Microsoft-shaped window, our advice is clear. Resist the temptation to upgrade straight off the starting blocks and wait for Microsoft and other software makers to find and fix the niggles and bugs, then feel free to jump in to Windows 7.

-David Kuo, Director at the financial website The Motley Fool. The opinions expressed are his own.-

Go on. Admit it. You didn’t see it coming, did you? You never thought a member of the G20 nations would dare to break ranks and raise interest rates this soon.

But Australia has done just that. The Central Bank of Australia has increased the cost of borrowing by 0.25 percent to 3.25 percent. It is doing what it thinks is right for the country regardless of what the rest may think. Now, Asian countries, keen to avert another bubble, may follow Australia’s lead and ratchet up interest rates before long.

Of course, Australia’s economy is vastly different to the UK’s. It has huge deposits of iron, aluminium and nickel that are in demand by mineral-hungry China. That said, Australia did briefly flirt with a downturn, which it successfully corrected with 21 billion pounds of fiscal stimulus.

But the UK is not Australia. We do not have huge deposits of mineral, and we are not near fasting-growing Asian countries either. What we do have are consumers saddled with over a trillion pounds of debt following a decade of binge borrowing, and a national debt burden of similar magnitude.
Therefore, it is unlikely that we will experience demand-led inflation. In fact, consumers are saving more of their household income than they have done for eight years.

The most recent Office for National Statistics report shows that between March and June British households saved 5.60 pounds out of every 100 pounds of household income. That is very different from the first three months of 2008 when we not only failed to save any money, but we even borrowed 50 pence for every 100 pounds of household income.

That said, we are still some way off getting our overstretched household finances back on an even keel. So, the savings ratio could go higher. In fact, it is still some way short of the long-run savings-ratio average of 8 percent of household income.

And herein lies the problem for the Bank of England.

According to the paradox of thrift, high levels of savings in a recession can prolong the economic downturn. That is because two-thirds of economic growth comes from consumer spending. So the less we spend, the longer it will take the UK economy to recover from the slump.
So what is the Monetary Policy Committee to do?

It has already slashed interest rates to historic lows. But that has failed to stimulate consumer spending. It has pumped 158 billion pounds of fresh money into the coffers of lenders through quantitative easing. But the money has, as yet, failed to invigorate the ailing economy.

However, both those measures will, in time, achieve their goals. The risk is not whether they will work, but instead, whether they will work too well and stoke inflation. Just as no one expected Australia to hike rates this soon, our days of enjoying low interest rates may end just as abruptly, and without warning. So save and invest what you can now.

Political leaders gathered in Dublin to debate both sides of the controversial Lisbon Treaty and the implications it could have on the future of Europe.

The panel consisted of Micheál Martin, Ireland's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nigel Farage MEP, leader of UKIP, Mary-Lou McDonald, Deputy President of Sinn Fein and David Begg, General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Watch the debate on the player below.