Two evolutionists describe Darwinian evolution as a brilliant mess, with “a thousand times more questions than satisfactory answers”.“Alas, poor Darwin?” — With apologies to Shakespeare (“Alas, poor Yorick!” the skull Hamlet holds in philosophical contemplation), that’s the headline two evolutionists gave their entry in this year’s Edinburgh Fringe (see The Conversation). They hold Darwin’s skull with respect for his brilliance, yet find themselves uneasy with the mess in evolutionary biology and psychology that his ideas wrought.Evolutionary theory is a bit like a chocolate ice cream in the hands of a two-year old: it’s going to get applied everywhere, but will anything useful be achieved in the process? The central tenets of Darwinian theory – variability, heredity and selection – are as beautiful as they are compelling. They completely revolutionised biology.But applying these principles to the study of human behaviour has caused far more controversy. The evolutionary explanations for human behaviour that grab the headlines can often be neat; really neat – like tightly-plotted narratives in which everything works out perfectly in the end, usually with a guy getting a girl, where everything happens for a reason.Real life rarely makes for such a neat story. We’ve all seen enough action movies to notice that the more satisfying the ending, the more plot holes you have to ignore as you walk out of the cinema. Neatness makes a good story, but it’s not enough for good science.The rest of the article is consumed with trying to squeeze good science out of Darwinian storytelling. Not that they doubt its principles; psychologist Kate Cross and biologist Lewis Dean still think Darwin’s theory is beautiful and compelling. They just want to see it get more rigorous, according to the summary of their talk at Edinburgh Fringe:If Darwin was alive today he’d be very, very angry about what we’ve done with his idea. Evolutionary theory can be used to explain pretty much any human behaviour, but that doesn’t mean it should be. Is it natural for married men to have affairs? Are good novelists more evolutionary? Does the pill make you more attracted to your brother? Psychologist Kate Cross and biologist Lewis Dean will use sketches, debate and game shows to explore the data behind the headlines and help decide: evolutionary just-so story, or evolutionary just-right?This sounds a bit like a more sober-minded Bah! Fest event (Heads up! 3 of them coming this fall). Dean, author of the Conversation article, gives examples of some of the slipshod storytelling that passes for evolutionary psychology these days. Then he plunges into the philosophical implications about “The Reality of Scientific Enquiry [sic].”In our own work we don’t generally find neat, satisfying stories that are easy to tell, hard to critique, and make everything fall into place. We tend to end up with tantalising hypotheses, really interesting ideas that might be true but we haven’t quite gathered the data to nail down beyond all doubt. We find theories that are dazzling in their elegance but multitudinous in their caveats.The human mind is simply too complicated to fit into simple, neat stories.We find that the mind steadfastly refuses to behave like a collection of perfectly adapted units, each with a single function that afforded a clear evolutionary advantage at some weirdly specific yet curiously under-specified time during human evolutionary history. Instead the human mind seems to be full of compromises and by-products, highly flexible, and intricately intertwined with this weird thing called “human culture”.In spite of these issues, Dean and his colleague cling to the brilliant elegance that first attracted them to Darwin. That attraction still overcomes the mess inside the sausage factory they encountered as career Darwinians:Yet having been drawn to evolutionary science for its extraordinary elegance and having found a thousand times more questions than satisfactory answers, we persist. Because if you expand your ideas about what “evolutionary” means – if you cease looking for the neat stories and embrace the fact that it’s going to get very, very messy, you can start to get somewhere really interesting.Culture and evolution are not opposites. Evolved doesn’t have to mean adaptation. It might or might not mean “useful under some circumstances”. (It certainly doesn’t mean – and has never meant – good or right).One problem remains: the quest for something interesting is not science. Science is judged by results, not hopes.Dean and Cross caution that just because they find flaws in some of the Darwinian stories, it doesn’t follow that they are all flawed. That gives them hope to persist. God forbid they should be lumped in with “science denialists” like those skeptical of Darwinism. Anything but that!Arguing about the how, when and why isn’t a sign of science denialism, nor a reason to scrap the whole line of investigation – it’s healthy disagreement and we’d like to see more of it. Being an evolutionary scientist is a bit like being Dirk Gently: you might not get where you were hoping to go, but you’ll probably end up somewhere it’s worth being.If they ended up as intelligent design advocates, would that qualify?It’s good to see two young scientists with some courage to ask hard questions. They have a long way to go, but we encourage them to keep asking questions, while letting go of emotion as a reason to cling to Darwinian theory. In science, it doesn’t matter if you are attracted to a theory because it once appeared brilliant, elegant, or revolutionary to you. It has to be right. It has to be logical.To help them on their quest, we ask them to consider this problem: is Darwinian storytelling adaptive? How do you know that prehistoric evolutionary forces are not influencing you to pursue a line of investigation that ends up with a mess of tantalizing hypotheses lacking rigor? Is not your ability to contemplate larger issues evidence that your brain transcends the unguided, mindless forces of variability, heredity and selection? If you think not, are you not left to tilt at windmills, driven by some purposeless process that did not have “satisfactory answers” in mind? If evolutionary theory has “never meant good or right”), then is it good or right for products of evolution to try to apprehend such non-adaptive concepts as goodness or morality? Is that not an impossible dream?To dream the impossible dreamTo fight the improbable oddsTo bear all the cosmic indifferenceAnd to run withthe atheist godsTo right the unrightable wrongAnd to love tantalizing suggestionsTo try when your data are messyTo reach the unreachable goalThis is my questTo run from that LightNo matter the darknessNo matter how farTo seek empty answersWithout question or pauseTo be willing to march,march into hellFor that Darwinist causeAnd I knowIf I’ll only be trueTo my thousands of questionsThat my brainWill lie mindless and deadWhen I’m laid to my restAnd the world willcare nothing for thisThat one man, plaguedwith thousands of questions,Still strove with his lastounce of follyTo reach the unreachable,the unreachable,The unreachable goalAnd I’ll always playThe unwinnable gameYes, and I’ll dreamThe undreamable dreamAll I have to do is dream; dream dream dream.(Visited 46 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
19 May 2010President Jacob Zuma has thrown his weight behind calls for “green” technologies and industries to help South Africa respond to climate change, adding that the government envisaged a new growth path involving job creation through environmentally friendly initiatives.“Through our actions, we need to respond to the notion that there is a trade-off to be made between faster economic growth and the preservation of our environment,” Zuma said at a Green Economy Summit in Johannesburg on Tuesday.“We must be able to prove that faster economic growth can be achieved alongside the sustainable management of our natural resources.”He said South Africa, as the continent’s economic powerhouse, had a responsibility to ensure that its policies and economic activities contributed meaningfully to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.Preserving the environmentThe three-day gathering, which brings together various organisations and independent climate experts, is the first to be organised by the government. It is being attended by more than 650 delegates, including invited international guests.South Africa’s economy is the largest on the African continent, and since 1994 the country has managed to position itself as a global player among other emerging markets. But the country has also come under fire for its heavy reliance on conventional energy sources such as coal.Renewable energyZuma said renewable energy was becoming an increasingly viable alternative to the energy sources that fuelled the growth of the developed world.“But for Africa to make use of its abundant renewable energy sources, it needs substantial investment, skills, technology and greater economic integration,” he said.In pursuing faster economic growth and improved service delivery, South Africa needed to find innovative ways to ensure that its consumption and production patterns were sustainable.“We look at this Green Economy Summit to describe a sustainable path for our country, bearing in mind our historical obligation to improve the living conditions of all South Africans, particularly the poor,” Zuma said.‘Green economy’ pathSpeaking earlier, Environmental Affairs Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said inputs from the summit would feed into the national plan and priority actions for a green economy path.“It will start building national consensus on the green economy path as an innovative towards sustainable consumption and production. Our move towards a green economy is part of the country’s long-term plan to grow the economy while mitigating the effects of climate change,” Sonjica said.Source: BuaNews
The Obama, Mandela Washington Fellowship this week alongside the YALI Alumni hosted a Leadership Dialogue in Celebration of the Centenary of the late Tata Nelson Mandela as well as a Tree Planting Community Service Day.The Young African Leadership Initiative (YALI) Alumni Leadership Dialogue took place at the Apartheid Museum on Wednesday and saw a series of panel discussions that included topics: The Power of Place: Tour of the museum, The Power of Our Journey, The Power of ideas: How the Mandela Washington Foundation is changing the narrative and The Power of Leadership.Brand South Africa’s Play Your Part Ambassadors Ella Bella, (founder of Gen Earth and the Director of Miss Earth SA) and Catherine Constantinides (Humanitarian and Environmental Activist) on Thursday joined the Fellowship for the Tree Planting Community Service Day at Solwazi Primary School, Orange Farm. Learners at Solwazi Primary School were taught how to plant seeds, something that would not only benefit them, but also the environment in future. Miss Earth SA finalist, Margo Fargo is excited to also have witnessed and made out part of the love, joy and prosperity of the day.Brand South Africa is proud to have partnered in the series of events that will save the environment and carry on the legacy of Tata Madiba.
Peer review: The Senate bill tells NSF to continue using its twin criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts—to judge the merit of proposed research. In contrast, the House bill would add another step to the peer-review process by requiring NSF officials to certify that the grant to be awarded addresses an area of importance to the nation. Most scientists agree with Rockefeller that imposing such a requirement gives politicians too large a voice in the process. Taking issue with its counterpart in the U.S. House of Representatives, a Senate panel has embraced how the National Science Foundation (NSF) does its business in a bill that sets policies and recommends funding levels for NSF over the next 5 years.The proposed legislation, released Friday afternoon in draft form by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, calls on Congress to increase NSF’s budget by nearly 40%, to $9.9 billion, by 2019. It also endorses NSF’s current policies for reviewing grant proposals and—in sharp contrast to a House bill—emphasizes the importance of the social sciences as part of a balanced research portfolio.“[T]he Federal science agencies should receive sustained and steady growth in funding for research and development activities, including basic research, across a wide range of disciplines, including … [the] social, behavioral, and economic sciences,” declares the 146-page Senate bill, titled the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014. The legislation, which sets policies affecting research programs at NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology as well as science education activities across the federal government, would replace the 2010 America COMPETES Act, which expired last year.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)The Senate language strikes a much more supportive tone than a bill passed in May by the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. That bill questions how NSF manages its research grants and takes an especially dim view of the social and behavioral sciences. The House bill, called the FIRST Act, has been denounced by the U.S. academic community and leading scientific organizations.The chair of the commerce committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D–WV) didn’t mince words in explaining why he felt his bill was better for science—and the country—than what was moving through the House. “We’ve seen proposals that would let Congress decide what research projects are worthwhile,” he said in opening a hearing Thursday. “Having served on this committee and worked with the Senate Science and Technology Caucus, I know that scientists through grant competitions and peer review are best able to make those decisions.”As is his habit, Rockefeller then dipped into history. “On his deathbed in 1969, former President Dwight Eisenhower told a friend that, in his experience, scientists ‘were one of the few groups in Washington who seemed to be there to help the country and not help themselves.’ Our House colleagues who would substitute their own opinions for those of the scientific community would be wise to remember President Eisenhower’s words.”Here are some key provisions of the Senate bill, which is expected to be introduced shortly.Funding: NSF’s current budget of $7.17 billion would grow by 6.7% each year, reaching $9.9 billion in 2019. In contrast, the House bill extends only to 2015 and proposes spending $7.27 billion in that year. The Senate bill would also leave it up to NSF officials to allocate those funds across the agency’s six research directorates. The House bill, in contrast, sets specific targets for each directorate—an approach that most scientists view as micromanaging the agency—and would shrink the social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorate from $256 million this year to $150 million in 2015. Science education: Both the Senate and House bills urge the federal government to do a better job of coordinating and assessing its $3 billion investment in programs that support STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education from grade school through graduate school. The bills also emphasize the value of having mission agencies like NASA continue to support training and public outreach activities—a jab at last year’s failed attempt by the Obama administration to designate NSF, the Department of Education, and the Smithsonian Institution as the three lead agencies for STEM education.In addition, the Senate bill would give the Education Department, working with NSF, the authority to fund states that want to create so-called STEM secondary schools.Commercialization: Both the Senate and House bills laud NSF’s 3-year-old Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, which teaches researchers how to take a basic research discovery to market. The Senate bill invites the NSF director to work with other federal research agencies to give researchers they fund access to the I-Corps program. The National Institutes of Health has recently launched its own version of the I-Corps curriculum.Given the short and crowded legislative calendar in both bodies, few observers expect the Senate or House to complete action on their reauthorization bills before the November election. That means it won’t be until a lame-duck session, or next year, before the two bodies have a chance to reconcile their conflicting visions for NSF.
The National Conference on Saturday said Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements on “hugging Kashmiris” and turning Kashmir into a paradise sound hollow and belie actions taken by his government.“Now we see PM Modi parroting new catch-words. These catch-words are hollow and will eventually vanish into oblivion,” the party said in a statement. Asserting that the party rejects the prime minister’s rants , the NC said people are the best judge of the veracity of Mr. Modi’s earlier catch-words of “Kashmiriyat, Jhamooriyat and Insaniyat”. “The government led by PM Modi has obliterated the very visage of Kashmiriyat by bifurcating the state. The jhamooriyat rant too turned out to be a damp squib following the detention of legitimate political voices of the state,” said the NC statement. “The PM’s insaniyat rant too turned out to be a damp squib following the unparalleled clampdown in the state in the shape of communication gags and curfews, it said. The party said Mr. Modi’s dream of ‘Naya (new) Kashmir’ is to “disempower people” of the State.“By turning Jammu and Kashmir into (two) Union territories, the lieutenant governor, chief minister and other elected functionaries of the Jammu and Kashmir Union territory will be confined far behind in the protocol as compared to when J&K was a state,” it said. The statement said jobs and scholarships which otherwise were only reserved for state subjects would cease to be solely available to the youths of the state.“By removing the safety valve of the state in the shape of Article 370 and Article 35-A, the people of the state, irrespective of their caste, creed and religion have become prone of numerous susceptibilities,” said the NC statement. The party accused the Centre of trying to put the state land on sale ignoring the fact that farmers in a mountainous Jammu and Kashmir have very low land-holdings. “The state is mountainous and as such the land holding of the farmers are very small as compared to the farmers in the rest of the country. “Today, we see how the government of India and the local administration is persistent on putting up the land of the state on wanton sale without giving a thought to the plethora of socio-political, ecological and political issues that will pop up following such a move,” the party said. The NC said the path on which the Centre was treading, would eventually lead to socio-political disempowerment of the people of Kashmir.“It will undo what good was achieved by the successive NC-led governments in the state. People of the state have understood the reality and no gimmickry can beguile them. They are the best judges. They are seeing for themselves as to how the government has sucked the life and blood of the people of the state by unilaterally and unconstitutionally scrapping Article 370 and Article 35-A,” the NC said.
A sessions court here on Friday discharged Gurdaspur MP Sunny Deol and film actor Karisma Kapoor in a 22-year-old case of alleged chain pulling in a train at the Naraina railway station in Rajasthan during the shooting of a film. The two actors had challenged the framing of charges against them by a railway court through a revision petition.Mr. Deol and Ms. Kapoor, along with stuntman Tinu Verma and actor Satish Shah, were accused of entering the Naraina railway station, near Phulera Junction, in 1997 and stopping the 2413-A Uplink Express by pulling its chain, which delayed the train by 25 minutes. The Assistant Station Master said in his complaint that a few persons from Mumbai shooting for a movie in a nearby village had illegally stopped the train.Allowing the revision petition, Additional District & Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar held that there was “no prosecutable evidence” against the two actors. Same charges The court said the Railway Magistrate was wrong in framing the same charges last month, which were earlier set aside by a sessions court in 2010.The actors’ counsel, A.K. Jain, had contended that the Railway Magistrate’s order for framing of charges was against the law. The film unit was shooting for the movie “Bajrang”.
Three persons were injured in a blast at an ordnance factory in Maharashtra’s Jalgaon district on Friday, police said. The incident took place at around 9.45 a.m. at the ordnance factory in Varangaon, where three employees sustained serious injuries, an official said.The injured were rushed to a private hospital in Jalgaon town and are undergoing treatment, he said. The exact cause of the blast is yet to ascertained, he said, adding that the police are in the process of registering the case. Ordnance factories manufacture armaments for the Indian Armed Forces.
Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox – subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what’s happening in the world around you – in real time. New York: Novak Djokovic was feeling right at home on the Arthur Ashe Stadium hardcourt on Monday, which may be bad news for anyone hoping to deny the defending champion from adding to his Grand Slam tally.The top-seeded Serbian said the surface of the blue court during his 6-4 6-1 6-4 first round win over Spaniard Roberto Carballes Baena was very similar to last year when he picked up his third U.S. Open title. “I didn’t notice any significant difference. It is cooler in terms of weather than it was last year,” said Djokovic, who has won four of the last five Grand Slam titles.”I really like the conditions of the balls, the speed of the court, the weather is fantastic. You know, it’s just very enjoyable.”Djokovic had never before faced Carballes Baena and spent the opening set figuring out his opponent before cruising home and into the second round where he will face another first-time opponent in Argentine Juan Ignacio Londero.The 32-year-old Serbian, who has reached at least the semi-finals in every U.S. Open he has competed in since 2006, will obviously be a favourite in his next match but is not taking anything for granted.”I have people, analysts in my team that are responsible for providing data and information and video and data analysis on every next opponent that I play against,” said Djokovic.”I have to do my homework. I think it’s something that is so logical and so normal. You know, it’s part of, in a way, my job as well to get myself ready for what’s coming up.”Djokovic has a tough draw given both in-form Russian fifth seed Daniil Medvedev and five-times champion Roger Federer are among his projected opponents en route to the final.The world number one said his mindset at this point in his career has not changed given he is two Grand Slam titles shy of Rafa Nadal on the all-time list and four away from matching Roger Federer’s record tally of 20.”It’s no different approach than it was in the past ten years. Very motivated, very focused, very determined to do well,” said Djokovic.”I have been in this particular situation many times in my career, and I know, you know, what feels comfortable for me, what I need to do in order to get far in the tournament.” djokovicNovak DjokovicRoberto Carballes Baenaus open First Published: August 27, 2019, 8:30 AM IST
Mumbai, Sep 30 (PTI) The Maratha Kranti Morcha, being held across various cities in Maharashtra, will be organised in Mumbai after Diwali.A meeting of the volunteers of the organising committee was today held at Shivaji Mandir here, a release issued by the Committee said.It also said that there was a demand to announce the date of march in Mumbai, it said.The organisers claimed that since the march in the mega-polis would be the “worlds largest”, adequate planning, time and coordination was required.The march would be held after Diwali and before the Winter Session of the Maharashtra Legislature in Nagpur, it added.The organisers also appealed every household should lit one lamp this Diwali in memory of the victim who was raped and murdered in Kopardi in Ahmednagar district, said the release.The members of the Maratha community would sport a black ribbon along with their festive clothes during Diwali as a protest since their demands are not met so far.At todays meeting around 1,500 volunteers from.all districts except Bhandara and Gondia were present.The communitys demands include stern action against the culprits of Kopardi rape and murder case, reservations for the community and scrapping of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.The silent marches began after the alleged rape and murder of a Maratha girl by Dalits at Kopardi in July. PTI MR NRB SMJ RDS
Google is currently working on this year’s Pixel phones, dubbed — Pixel 2 and Pixel XL 2. This years Pixel phones are expected to be much improved than last years. Report are that Google will announce the Pixel phones 2017 this fall, which is some time around the month of September, this is at the same time when Apple is said to unveil iPhone 8. Ahead of the official launch, Google Pixel 2 and XL 2 has been subjected to several leaks and rumours already. Adding to the rumor mill, a new concept video of Google Pixel 2 (Walleye) leaks online, which shows thinner bezels, dual cameras and much more.Unlike last year, the Pixel phones 2017, codename Walleye and Taimen will be manufactured by LG confirmed a recently report. To recall, Google Pixel and Pixel XL was manufactured by HTC. Going back to the newly leaked concept video, the upcoming Google Pixel 2 shows thinner bezels as compared to its predecessor — Pixel. Further, the video further shows sleek design, dual camera set up and so much more.Also Read: Google sold out only 1 million Pixel, Pixel XL phones in 8 months: ReportThe leaked concept video further hints that the upcoming Google Pixel 2 will feature a rear-mounted fingerprint scanner which will be placed right below the dual rear camera set up. Not only that, the render also shows that there will be significant changes on the rear panel of the Pixel 2, when compared to its predecessor — Google Pixel. The upcoming Pixel 2 is tipped to feature mono-tone rear panel unlike the Google Pixel which is designed with duo-tone glass and metal on the back.advertisementThe video further shows that the upcoming Pixel phone will come with dual camera at the back, unlike its predecessor. To recall, Google Pixel come with 12-megapixel sensor at the back, placed vertically and will be coupled with LED flash, which sits right next to the camera ring. While on the front, the handset features a 7-megapixel selfie snapper. The concept render further show that the device will possible ditch the 3.5 mm audio jackAlso Read: Google hires veteran chip maker from Apple, may use own mobile processor in Pixel XL 2Google Pixel 2, codename Walleye has been subjected to several leaks and rumours in the past few months. Rumours suggest, in terms specifications Pixel 2 will sport a 5.7-inch QHD+ display and will juice its power from an octa-core processor. Other rumours tip that the handset will come with 6GB of RAM coupled with 128GB of internal storage. It is also expected to come packed with 3,800mAh battery with fast charging support and IP68 certification for resistance against water and dust. It is quite obvious that the upcoming Pixel phones will be launched with the latest software — Android O. This years Pixel phones will be the first ones to run on Android O operating system. Further, Google is also planning to build its own mobile processor for the upcoming Pixel phones. As a part of the initiative, Google has hired a veteran chip architect from Apple — Manu Gulati as Google’s Lead SoC Architect. He helped the Curpertino major to build its own chipset back in 2009. By hiring Gulati, Google is reportedly focusing on building its own chip for this years’ Google Pixel phones, dubbed Pixel XL 2 and Pixel 2. Not only that, Google is also looking forward to hire additional chip experts to improve the hardware set up of the upcoming Pixel phones.