Looking for innovation at the American Museum of Natural History

\n

\nWhen it comes to innovation, is it too much of a simplification to say that there are two types of people -- creationists and evolutionists? Creationists believe that most innovation results from a random spark of creativity somewhere within the organization. These folks tend to focus much more on the "fuzzy front end" of innovation, and rely on creativity-inspiring tools such as brainstorming to push forward the innovation process. In contrast, evolutionists believe that most innovation results from a long, hard slog of continuous innovation, as each small bit of innovation builds on itself in a recursive manner. Instead of focusing on the "fuzzy front end" of innovation, these folks tend to focus on the "process" of innovation.


\n\n

As you might have guessed from the format and layout of this Endless Innovation blog, I tend to place myself in the evolutionist camp of innovation. (Oh, and for any Bible-thumping bloggers out there, my "belief system" about innovation says nothing about my "belief system" when it comes to religion, spirituality and the cosmos). Anyway, if you are inclined to take an evolutionist view of things, though, the new "Hall of Human Origins" exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City looks quite interesting. (Especially the milky white vials of DNA from 40,000-year-old Neanderthals!) The permanent exhibit opened over the weekend (February 10-11), and I hope to get up to the Upper West Side sometime within the next week or so in order to refine my thinking about the evolutionist view of innovation. Anyway, here's a brief blurb about the exhibit from the New York Times:

The museum’s new permanent exhibition on human origins, which opens\ntomorrow, merges notable achievements in paleontology and genetics,\nsciences that have made their own robust evolutionary strides in recent\nyears. Each introduces evidence supporting the other in establishing a\ngenealogy extending back to protohuman species that arose in Africa\nfrom earlier primates some six to seven million years ago.

\n\n

These two scientific threads run through the exhibition like the strands of the DNA double helix. Ellen\nV. Futter, the museum’s president, said the "mutually reinforcing\nevidence" was organized in the exhibition to address three fundamental\nquestions: Where did we come from? Who are we? And what lies ahead for\nus?

[image: The Hall of Human Origins]

\n

Why a federal judge ordered White House to restore Jim Acosta's press badge

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 16: CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta (R) returns to the White House with CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist after Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the White House to reinstate his press pass November 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the White House after Acosta's press pass was revoked after a dispute involving a news conference last week. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
  • The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
  • The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Scientists just voted to change the definition of a kilogram

The definition of a kilogram will now be fixed to Planck's constant, a fundamental part of quantum physics.

Greg L via Wikipedia
Surprising Science
  • The new definition of a kilogram is based on a physical constant in quantum physics.
  • Unlike the current definition of a kilogram, this measurement will never change.
  • Scientists also voted to update the definitions of several other measurements in physics.
Keep reading Show less