Evolution

Estimates range from 50,000 to 200,000 years ago, but the beginnings go back millions of years. It is important to give some background. There are two schools of thought regarding the subject: vocal and gestural. The vocal school posits that human language evolved from the grunts and hoots of our early ape-like ancestors. For instance, the evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar theorizes that as their numbers dramatically increased, our animal ancestors had to find new ways of cementing community bounds over long distances. Therefore, Dubar thinks speaking evolved to replace grooming--the glue of ape society (see Evolutionary Psychology: Beginner's Guide, 2005). The problem with this school is that it cannot account for syntax, or proper grammar like, say, the SVO (subject-verb-object) order of English.

The gestural school posits that human language evolved from the hand gestures of our early ancestors. This is because Chimps, our closest genetic cousins, mostly communicate through visual and tactile cues like facial expressions, hand and body gestures, and bodily contact. Chimps who have been taught American Sign Language progress at the same rate as human children learning sign language or spoken language. Most importantly, they do not make grammatical mistakes. This is because syntax is built into such gestural movements. In his book Next of Kin (1997), Roger Fouts writes:

"But experts in sign language, who assume a gestural origin for language, can explain the emergence of syntax in a much simpler, more commonsense way. You can test it yourself right now by following this suggestion of David Armstrong, William Stokoe, and Sherman Wilcox from their book, Gesture and the Nature of Language:

'If you will, swing your right hand across in front of your body and catch the upraised forefinger of your left hand.'

By enacting this gesture, say the authors, you have just illustrated the most primitive form of syntax. 'The dominant hand is the agent (it acts), its swinging grasp is the action (verb), and the stationary finger is the patient or object. The grammarians' symbolic notion for this is familiar: SVO [subject-verb-object].'

It is easy to imagine our earliest ancestors using this gesture to communicate [using the hand signs], HAWK CAUGHT GOPHER. And they might have modified this sentence with adjectives (two fingers for two gophers) and adverbs (raised eyebrows for expressing disbelief: HAWK SOMEHOW CAUGHT GOPHER). These variations on a relationship are the beginnings of language as we know it" (p. 194).

But how can hand movements lead to oral speaking? Well, the area of the brain that controls detailed movements of the hands also controls the detailed movements of the tongue. Fouts, who is a Prof. of Psychology, taught American Sign Language to a pair of autistic boys who could not speak or even interact in normal social situations with members of their families. The amazing thing is that these boys gained the ability to speak within a few weeks of learning to sign. Nicholas Wade mentions in his book Before the Dawn (2006) that people with a mutated version of FOXP2, the brain gene associated with speech, have great trouble in talking because they do not have proper control of their mouth and tongue muscles. FOXP2 is located close to the gene responsible for autism; therefore, learning to control their hands through sign language helped the autistic boys gain control over their tongues, allowing them to speak.

Researchers have suggested that the FOXP2 gene evolved around 50,000 years ago because human cultural exploded after this point, probably due to language. Vocal language is far more effective in transmitting ideas than hand gestures. This suggests that humans used gestural communication for thousands of years before the gene switched on. It is important to note that a 2012 paper entitled "Monkey lipsmacking develops like the human speech rhythm" points out that the coordination of the jaw, tongue, and hyoid used in primate lip-smacking is comparable to that used for human speech. No sound is produced during lip-smacking because their vocal cords are in the wrong position. Human vocal cords are lower in our throats. Our vocal cord and tongue anatomy had to change before we could produce the sounds that we do today. In conclusion, the road to human speech involved hand gestures, lip-smacking, the dropping of the vocal cords, and the evolution of a brain gene to better control the tongue and mouth muscles.

History of Trade Unions in India

The evolution of trade unions is based on the objectives and interests of communal groups as a result of modern industrialization (Zeiltin 1987), this interest are context dependent. It is had to have regulations to ensure that this trade unions and collective bargaining institutions remain focused to their roles. So where do India trade history begin.

The First Phase Occurred From 1957-1966

The historical development of trade unions in India is described as occurred in four phases, which was related with the changes in the economy. We shall examine all the four phases. The first occurred before independence from 1957-1966. This period is termed as a period of national capitalism. Which was characterised by a state sponsored industrialization policy that was based on importation of substitutes that lead to large unemployment. The unemployment rate increased to 2% annual from1961-1966 (Venkata 1987). Due to this public employment lead to formation of sector unionism bringing the number of registered unions from 4623 in 1951 to 11,614 in 1962 (Venkata, 1987). The most dominant trade union was the communist one known as all India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) it was dominant in textile and engineering. The huge public sector lead to entry of large scale unions, this saw the emergency of new inroads by the trade union controlled by the congress party ; the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). As opposed to the AITUC the INTUC had a proper chain of command coming from the party to the union the party was headed by the prime minister during that period.

Venkata (1987) observers that, the INTUC leadership was first loyal to the congress party, and then to the current congress government and lastly to the workers who are union members. When the INTUC is faced with solving a dispute between the government and the workers, the INTUC also supported the government side. This was because all the official dealing with the union was congress government appointees. The officials were always requested by the government to support it in order to overpower rival unions (Datta 1994). This relationship among the government and unions in the first phase of trade unions seemed to result in the formation of labour laws. As seen when industrial dispute act was formed, this is an important labour law between the employer and the employee. Yet, it did not have provisions for processes to represent the employee as a collective bargaining body. In summary, this first phase was characterized by state led industrialization that required government guidance in labour unions. The laws formed were biased and the concept was that the government knew better than the workers.

Second Phase of Labour Union from 1967-1974

This was from1967-1974; this corresponded with the high inflation period when the inflation went beyond 10% mark. During this period industrial stagnation occurred (Datta 1994) industries production went down to 3.6%. The structural changes that occurred in India during this period also affected the labour markets and its relationships. The period saw an increased number of labour disputes resulting in strikes and lockouts (Morley 2006). Workers become disillusioned with INTUC management and small trade unions were formed which were supported by different political parties. This phase reflected a period of crisis between the states controlled labour union and the workers. This period saw increase in labour unions which were not effective as by 1979 the number of registered unions went up to 10,021 where as the size of this labour unions increased so little. This meant that the power of this unions were limited. It can be argued that this was an attempt by the unions and the state to reach at new governance and improve the bargaining power of the union. As time went by it became clear that they was trouble in the union monopoly, specifically in the public sector. This was due to the factor that the public sector unions who had their official appointed by the government were paid well by the government. In contrast the private sector unions had to bargain a lot to receive such benefits in a private sector that was competitive. This period saw this unions looking for a common voice in an increased disputes environment.

Phase Three Occurred From 1980- 1991

This phase was witnessed between 1980-91 this period was during the five year economic plan of 1985-90 that saw the economy grow by 5.7 percent. This phase was characterized by emergence of independent unions in India. These unions arouse basically as a result of lack of strong bargaining power by the traditional unions (Datta 1994). Due to increased demand for labour unions which were more organized, better employers, two types of unions emerged, those that were altruistic and those that were selfish (Zeitlin 1987). The altruistic unions bargained for more wage increment for the workers, while the selfish ones were more interested in cooperating in the macro level. This made it hard to have a fair and efficient polices in the labour movement. Once more, this phase did not yield serious changes in the industrial relations regulations and laws.

Phase Four Occurred From 1992-2000

This stage saw the government adopt the World Bank -IMF structural adjustment plans this saw a lot of liberalization in the economy sector. This meant that barging power was decentralised; this meant that the government influence on labour unions reduced so much. The market experienced less disputes in the labour markets and a stop to union divisions. The positive aspect of this was that more employment was created and the labour unions increased it voice both on macro and micro level. India has experienced a lot of differences in the trade unions, the political parties and the state; these differences have hindered the enactment of industrial relations reforms. The worrying effect of luck of reaching a national agreement on labour unions reform is the lack of the labour unions to have a national effect and lack of power to bring industrial relations.

Collective Bargaining Power

The collective bargaining power of the labour unions was experienced more in the third and fourth phase. This lead to redesigning of agreements to cover stopping of recruitment of employees, halting of job transfers from bargain able group to non bargain able. The bargains also touched on voluntary retirements, transfer of stable permanent jobs to temporary one (Morley 2006). Though, the management had an upper hand, the unions also made some gains such as awarding of allowances for instance, house rent allowance, allowing pregnant mothers not to do computer work, allowing voluntary retired workers to take contract jobs, and much more. The government has continued to resist passing laws to increase minimum wages level. The trade unions have united to force the government to accept to increase the wages in a period of 5 years instead of the government proposed 10 years plan. Pressure from workers and employers in both public and private by sector to decentralize the bargaining power is going on.

Challenges Faced By the Indian Labour Unions

The challenges facing the labour unions in India are how to tackle the implications of implementation global policies (Morley 2006). Today India labour markets are faced with an increase in international capital movement which is causing restructuring of many industries, and satellite production units are replacing big production factories. This situation is causing the management to lie off, retrench, or lock out workers, in worst cases the management even resort to closure. In new plants being put up workers are being exploited by working long hours, being paid poorly and being exposed to other exploitative ways. Much industrial management in India are implementing these new measures which are decreasing the bargaining power of labour unions. The Indian government, the labour systems and also the judiciary are working with industries to undermine the labour unions by refusing to intercede in the labour disputes or by misinterpreting the laws in a way that it supports the global capital process, which are offensive to workers' welfare.

Even though, this is going on still the pro market supporters and the industrial managers feel that they are not given enough support. To them, the workers wages should be reduced to lower level because of market competition. Thus, labour unions are faced with a bigger challenge to ensure that they fight against the industries' managers to reduce or stop employees from being exploited. India labour markets is facing pressure from the international capital organisations such as World Bank to change the current labour laws which if changed will reduce legal protection of labour unions and consequently lead to reduced bargaining power of the unions. It is within this context that, labour unions are faced with challenging issues pertaining how to improve the working conditions of the employees and also at the same time maintain good industrial relations.

Model of Indian labour unions compared to others

The labour unions in India differ with other models in the world because; in India labour unions are based on political parties. In that, most of the unions are sponsored or backed by political parties (International Journal of HRM 2006). The government also has been the major player in the labour market by assuming different roles sometimes conflicting roles in labour unions. In India, there is no central labour union as in other countries. It seems that, the centralised labour unions that were there mainly at some stage in the phase one of labour industry lost momentum in the second phase and disappeared in the third phase (Jacoby 1994). The fragmented unions have tried to bargain for better agreements but in most cases have not succeeded because of employer's resistance. Some observers suggest that the unions have gone on defensive side since the start of reforms on the labour markets (Zeitlin 1987). In other countries labour unions are central organisations which have strong bargaining powers, in some instance, this organisation at times have immense political powers.

Industrial relations

The industry brings together the employer or management and the worker, while the interest of the management is ensure that the gap between product price of the labour cost is wide the employees' interest to get more for the services rendered. As seen before the relationship among the employer and the employee is referred as industrial relations (IR). The main aim of industrial relations is to minimize industrial disagreement. In India, statistics show that most of the disputes occur due to wages and allowances disagreements, workers' indiscipline, that lead to violence; and retrenchment of workers (Venkata1987). The industrial disputes Act of 1947 outlines the procedures of investigating and settling of the disagreements to ensure peace in the industries.

Objectives of the Industrial Relations

There are several objectives of industrial relation; we shall examine only the first three. The main objective of industrial relation is to protect the interest of workers and the management by providing common understanding between the workers and the industry management. Second; is to evade industrial disagreements or conflicts and enhance good relations which are an important factor in workers' productivity and progression of the industries. Third; to create and develop the growth of democracy in the industries that is founded on labour partnership that promotes sharing of profits and also management decisions to foster individual growth of workers and at the same time benefit the industry and the country as a whole (Morley 2006).

Suggestions to improve industrial relations

It has been suggested that, in order to improve the industrial relations, the management should carry out the following. The management together with the union has to develop constructive feelings towards each other. There should be clear industrial relations policies and procedures that everybody in the union understands and agrees with. It should be the work of the personnel manager to ensure that, these polices are clearly understood by the manager. It is also important that the personnel manager don't vie with the union offer gaining workers' loyalty because it will lead to frictions in the relations. However, some studies suggest that, a worker may have a dual allegiance (Singh 2000). Lastly, the management has to encourage the union members to have a good leadership in the union, while at the same time it should not interfere with the affairs of the union.

Conclusion

Industrial relation is an important aspect in the running of industries, it is important for the employees and employers to have good working relations to ensure continuous high industrial production. For the industrial relations to be enhanced there should support from management of the industries, good personnel policies and a constant review of the policies so that they remain relevant with changes in labour relations laws that occur over time. India labour unions have taken a long period in developing, though, today it is more organised than before, and it still has low bargaining power compared to other labour unions in other countries. This is probably because it is not centralized and small unions always lack high collective power. The challenges the labour unions have, is how to gain better bargaining power and tackle the effects of global capital markets new polices.

According to a recent Gallup poll 66% of Americans believe God created them. Thus, while evolution was not specifically part of the question, the two are exclusive - although you would need to research the figures for the percentage of those who believe that 'God used evolution' to get a definitive answer.

Researchers compared the results of past surveys of attitudes toward evolution taken in the U.S. since 1985 and similar surveys in Japan and 32 European countries. In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea. In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution. In the spring of 2007, following an all-candidates meeting of ten Republicans seeking the presidency, three denied a personal belief in evolution. This promoted the Gallup Organization to ask American adults between 2007-MAY-21-24: "Do you, personally, believe in evolution or not." This is one of the poorest polling questions that we have ever seen, because people generally hold one of three beliefs concerning origins: Naturalistic evolution:Evolution happened according to purely natural forces and processes without any divine guidance. Theistic evolution: Evolution happened and was/is guided by God. Creationism: Species were created separately by God.

When a person is asked if they believe in evolution, they might interpret the question as belief in naturalistic evolution only. Alternately, they might consider it as asking whether one believes in either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Pollsters tend to like simple yes and no answers. Sometimes they do not handle questions well where there are three discrete positions. Also, some people regard evolution as covering only the development of life forms from the first one-celled animal to the present diversity of plants and animals. Others include the origins of the universe, the development of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, development of mountain ranges, continental drift, etc. The results, for what they are worth are a statistical draw: 49% believe in "Evolution;" 48% do not; 2% have no opinion.

As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:" 74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do: 48% of college graduates 50% of adults with some college 41% of adults with high school or less.

More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:" 24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do: 52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 71% of those who attend seldom or never.

As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins: Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not. 61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not. 57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

The five main reasons why people say they do not believe in "evolution" are belief Jesus Christ, belief in God, due to my religion or faith, not enough evidence, and belief in the Bible. 9 Excerpted from; "Beliefs of American adults -- 1991 to 2007:" === === == == Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things. In the new FASEB poll, researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of "all living things" and found that 61 percent accepted that "all living things have evolved over time." Of those, 36 percent thought all living things "evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection," and 25 percent thought "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating life in the form it exists today." The researchers asked the remaining respondents to consider human evolution and found that 53 percent accepted that "humans and other living things" evolved. This majority included 32 percent who accepted that humans and other living things evolved through natural processes and 21 percent who thought they had evolved with guidance. Scientists accept evolution as the best and only theory that accurately explains how humans and other species came to be so diverse. The theory is supported by many studies in many different fields of science. Intelligent design is a thinly veiled creationist argument designed to make the public doubt the theory of evolution, according to nearly all scientists and a 2005 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

See link History Survey: 61 Percent Agree with Evolution

=== ===

The three-domain system divides the cellular life forms into archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote domains. The evolutionary relationship between the three domains is of central importance for understanding the origin of life.

This study had revealed that most of the metabolic pathways, which comprise the majority of an organism's genes, are common between Archaea and Bacteria, while most genes involved in genome expression are common between Archaea and Eukaryotes.

The evolutionary relationship between archaea and eukaryotes has not been extensively studied still and if you have a thirst for knowledge in this field, you are encouraged..!

According to the Bible, God always was. Which means he never had a beginning, OR an end, he just was. If you believe in God, you dont believe in evolution. We believe in adaptation, but not evolution. And if you believe in evolution, you dont generally believe in Jesus. Therefore, i believe that God came first.

ANSWER:

The answer can vary depending on exactly how you are using the terms "Jesus" and "evolution".

If by "Jesus" you mean the Son of God then, since He is eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus came first.

If by Jesus you mean the man Jesus of Nazareth whom the Son became and by evolution you mean the process by which life developed, then evolution came first.

If you mean Jesus the man and evolution the theory developed by Charles Darwin then, since Jesus lived over eighteen hundred years before Darwin, Jesus came first.