Posts tagged ‘evolution’

November 23rd, 2009

The End of Humanity-No gods or guns required

If you only listen to politicians or prophets, the end of the world will come about dramatically, and according to many, soon. We are told to expect either wars in the heavens with gods battling gods over the fate of humanity or wars between nations involving nuclear weapons and mad men pushing the button.

Humans love drama. We also have an exaggerated notion of our importance to the universe. We cannot imagine the demise of humanity without a world-wide melodrama worthy of the best CGI artists in Hollywood. We simply cannot accept that humans could face extinction because bats disappeared first. Yet when you consider that all living systems on this planet are highly interdependent it’s a conclusion that is suddenly not very far-fetched.

Humans do not exist on Earth in isolation. We depend on the planet and our fellow creatures to provide what we need to survive. Strip the planet of all other living things and how long do you imagine humans could survive? A year, a month, a week? We’d have no food, no protection from the elements, no fresh air, none of the necessities of life. Over 90% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. What grand egotism leads us to believe we are exempt from the same natural processes?

It has only been in the last 100 years or so that we’ve had the scientific tools that permit us to examine the interconnections between us and all the other species with whom we share this isolated rock. In many cases we are just now beginning to learn how we all help each other survive. We are finding previously unsuspected dependencies between widely diverse groups of organisms, dependencies vital to our survival as a species. We are beginning to understand that the loss of one species in the chain of life can have drastic implications on the continued survival of other species thousands of miles away.

Case in point.

At least 1 million bats in the past three years have been wiped out by a puzzling, widespread disease dubbed “white-nose syndrome” in what preeminent US scientists are calling the most precipitous decline of North American wildlife in human history. If it isn’t slowed or stopped, they believe bats will continue disappearing from the landscape in huge numbers and that entire species could become extinct within a decade.

This would have drastic repercussions for the rest of us. As Tim King, a conservation geneticist with the US Geological Survey in West Virginia, told Chase, “We’re at the vanguard of an environmental catastrophe.”Baby bat

Why? Because bats are insect-eating machines, capable of consuming nearly half their body weight in insects each night. Take them out of the equation and we’ll have an explosion of pests, including disease-carrying mosquitoes and agriculturally destructive beetles, moths, leafhoppers and other foes of the farmers, who may be forced to use more pesticides as a result.

Bat colonies in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont have averaged a shocking 94.5 percent decline since white-nose syndrome was first detected there in 2006, plummeting from 48,626 bats to 2,695. The disease’s spread “has been terrifyingly swift,” according to the Globe, starting in the Northeast and South Atlantic states and now infiltrating “caves and mines in Kentucky and Tennessee, and possibly North Carolina and Ohio.”

But, unlike colony collapse disorder, the highly publicized disease that’s destroying our bees, white nose syndrome isn’t getting much attention. As Susi von Oettingen, a biologist who works for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, noted, “They’re not charismatic. . . . We don’t make money off of them. They are not cute and cuddly.” Let’s face it; even baby bats aren’t all that adorable.

This is more than just about bats dying. It’s about a key player in our ecosystem disappearing before our eyes. It may be a model for the severity of diseases that our native species are going to be confronted with.

If it’s frogs yesterday, bees two days ago, bats today, and something else in two more years, how long before this system falls apart on us?”

(Source-Eating Liberally)

So forget a nuclear or apocalyptic Armageddon. A far more likely scenario for the eventual extinction of the human animal is a slow imbalance of the entire ecosystem that leads to our inability to sustain ourselves. A failure of food crops due to the loss of pollinators, pandemics brought on by pestilence, silent but sure killers. How will we replace the bees and the bats? Do we even understand their complete role in making our lives possible?

We understand so little about the grand interconnectedness of life on this planet. And it’s quite likely our ignorance will prove fatal long before we manage to blow ourselves to kingdom come or we witness the great battle between good and evil in the sky above us.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

February 11th, 2009

“Evolution is just a theory”

Evolution is just a theory
Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

Every time I encounter that sentiment, and that happens all too frequently, I cringe.

Theory as used by science means something quite different than our common, every day usage. It pains me when someone tries to denounce something without having bothered to learn something about the topic. I don’t ignorantly attempt to say that redeemed, which can mean “cashed in” or “exchanged for goods” means that when used in the Christian context. “I’ve been redeemed” would equate with “I’ve been exchanged for something of equal or greater value”. Is that reasonable? No, because it fails to consider context when using the language.

Most of those who have never tried to learn anything about evolution and the theory of evolution generally confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a process, observed and documented. The theory of evolution is our attempt to explain how evolution works. The theory is incomplete and ongoing. Does the theory of gravity mean that gravity is “just a theory”? Gravity is a fact of nature, like evolution. The theory of gravitation, like the theory of evolution, is limited and incomplete. But scientific theories are not philosophies, nor are physical processes theories or philosophies.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

October 5th, 2008

The human barbarian

Two hundred thousand years may seem like a long time to us with our puny 80 year life spans. But on the evolutionary scale it’s not long at all. We are more similar to our early cousins than we are different. There have been modest increases in life span thanks to modern medicine, but physically and mentally we could easily pass for the early humans we’ve evolved from.

Brilliant humans, those who have advanced our species through their discoveries and inventions are unique enough we know about them individually. The vast majority of humanity is still concerned with the same issues our ancestors were; where to find shelter, clothing, food. We still guard our property jealously as I suspect early man did; my cave, my club, my kill. What advancements we have made are due to the insights of a few unique humans and the spread of their insight throughout society. It’s only as a group we’ve advanced at all. Individually we’re not all that advanced.

Humans would still be living in isolated, small groups of hunter/gatherers like our earliest ancestors were it not for socialization. Society, humanity en masse, is responsible for turning barbarians into “civilized” people. Without the social pressure of morals, law and yes, even religion, we would be indistinguishable from the humans who lived thousands of years ago. Morals (ethics), laws and religions were invented by social humans to keep our natures in check, to make it easier for us to live together in increasingly congested cities and towns. Even we atheists have been socialized with concepts borrowed from religions and ethics developed by preceding generations. Humans are pack animals, and every pack has to determine the limits of behavior it will accept and what behaviors will result in expulsion from the pack.

So while I still maintain that as a group humans have advanced in knowledge from our forbearers, individually we are not all that much different than we were hundreds and thousands of years ago. Without socialization we would still be barbarians.

January 2nd, 2008

Scientists find missing evolutionary link using tiny fungus crystal

Creationists like to latch on to minor points to try and make major claims. One of the more popular latch points for them is the transition from single cell, or simple, lifeforms to the more complex, multicellular forms. Since up until now science has not had a ready explanation for that jump, creationists and the ID crowd want to assume that god must have been responsible. It does no good to tell these people that just because we don’t have an answer to the “how” in many of nature’s processes this does not lead logically to a conclusion that “god did it”.

Well, now we are a bit closer to understanding that change from simple to complex life, and there’s still no sign of a god’s involvement.

The crystal structure of a molecule from a primitive fungus has served as a time machine to show researchers more about the evolution of life from the simple to the complex.

By studying the three-dimensional version of the fungus protein bound to an RNA molecule, scientists from Purdue University and the University of Texas at Austin have been able to visualize how life progressed from an early self-replicating molecule that also performed chemical reactions to one in which proteins assumed some of the work.

“Now we can see how RNA progressed to share functions with proteins,” said Alan Lambowitz, director of the University of Texas Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology. “This was a critical missing step.”

Results of the study were published in Thursday’s (Jan. 3) issue of the journal Nature.

“It’s thought that RNA, or a molecule like it, may have been among the first molecules of life, both carrying genetic code that can be transmitted from generation to generation and folding into structures so these molecules could work inside cells,” said Purdue structural biologist Barbara Golden. “At some point, RNA evolved and became capable of making proteins. At that point, proteins started taking over roles that RNA played previously – acting as catalysts and building structures in cells.”

In order to show this and learn more about the evolution from RNA to more complex life forms, Lambowitz and Paul Paukstelis, lead author and a research scientist at the Texas institute, needed to be able to see how the fungus’ protein worked. That’s where Golden’s team joined the effort and crystallized the molecule at Purdue’s macromolecular crystallization facility.

“Obviously, we can’t see the process of moving from RNA to RNA and proteins and then to DNA, without a time machine,” Golden said. “But by using this fungus protein, we can see this process occurring in modern life.”

Looking at the crystal, the scientists saw two things, Golden said. One was that this protein uses two completely different molecular surfaces to perform its two roles. The second is that the protein seems to perform the same job that RNA performed in other simple organisms.

“The crystal structure provides a snapshot of how, during evolution, protein molecules came to assist RNA molecules in their biological functions and ultimately assumed roles previously played by RNA,” Golden said.

The rest of the article, and a cool animation of the crystal, at: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080102GoldenEnzyme.html

January 1st, 2008

ID, it deserves to be Expelled

Writing on the ScienceBlogs, pharyngula is someone I read daily. A while ago he posted this video, which he describes better than I ever could, and attempts to correct a few of the glaring misconceptions spouted by O’Reilly and Stein.

Two people vying to out-stupid each other

*

Evolution (or as he called it, “Darwinism”) is a weak theory with many gaps that was fit for the 19th century, but not the 21st. This is a ludicrous statement; Darwin would scarcely recognize what we were talking about if he attended an evolutionary biology conference today. We’ve added genetics, population genetics, molecular biology, and developmental biology to the heart of the theory.
*

ID is an effort to fill in the gaps, and is a sincere effort to add new knowledge to the theory. That’s false. Look at the books written by IDists: from Darwin’s Black Box to Icons of Evolution to The Edge of Evolution, they are all about complaining about evolution while providing no new useful suggestions for research.
*

This is a free speech issue, we just want to be able to express our side of the story. I don’t see anyone rushing to censor Fox News, or shutting down the printing presses that dare to publish Behe’s or Gonzalez’s books. This is not about free speech, and no one’s speech is being restricted. It is about quality education: will we have our kids taught baseless nonsense because some people want to smuggle their idiosyncratic religious beliefs into the classroom? It’s about quality research: shall we fund and support unproductive and scientifically indefensible ideas because a third-rate character actor likes them? It’s about defending what science is: science is not about wishing something were true and inventing excuse for it; it’s about serious self-criticism and substantial work going into testing ideas. ID simply isn’t science.

I think we get a good glimpse of the dogmatic and dishonest tack Expelled is going to take. It’s going to be one solid wall of lies, insisting that we must privilege the hypothesis that “a deity created life” with the same seriousness that we do population genetics or the biochemistry of abiogenesis.

Has anyone who doesn’t buy into the whole Intelligent Design nonsense seen this movie yet? I’d love to read an objective review.

January 1st, 2008

2008 National High School Essay Contest

From Alliance for Science:
2008 National High School Essay Contest
For our second annual National High School Essay Contest we invite students to submit essays of not more than 1,000 words on one of two topics — “Climate and Evolution” or “Agriculture and Evolution.”

Submission deadline is February 29, 2008.

Student prizes start with $300 for first place, and includes incentives for sponsoring teachers. Watch those word counts! Several essays among our early submissions have no word count on the registration form, or the word count is over 1,000. Read the Official Rules – essays must be no longer than 1,000 words!

Eligibility:

All students in grade twelve or below in the United States or U.S. territories. Eligible students must be attending a public, private, parochial school, home school or participating in a high school correspondence program. Eligibility of
prospective winners will be verified before the award of any prizes. Alliance for Science members and their families are not eligible. Essay contest judges and their families are also not eligible.

Essay Ideas:

Throughout the ages, the earth has undergone major climate change. Some present-day cities were once covered in sheets of ice and some temperate zones were once lush tropics. These changes had a significant effect on the types of animals that thrived and the species that became extinct. If climate change speeds up, what will happen to the environments where endangered animals now live? How do the latest scientific projections of the rate of climate change compare with the spans of time over which evolution has occurred? Will new species of plants and animals arise with the characteristics needed to adapt to an altered climate, or will many forms of life simply become extinct?
When considering this issue, think about how evolution has shaped the variation in animal characteristics like fur and insulating features like the down feathers of geese that protect against the cold. “Warm blooded” animals such as mammals are generally more able to cope with temperature variation than reptiles. Are changes in global climate pattern likely to affect the distribution of these different animal types? Consider migratory animals – will changes in the weather disrupt the timing or destinations of migratory birds or animal herds?
Even the human body may not be immune to the impact of climate. Will this alter the future evolution of the human species, or will technological factors completely compensate for any potential change in climate?

December 31st, 2007

Modern times causing human evolution to accelerate

Human evolution is speeding up. Around 40,000 years ago our genes began to evolve much faster. By 5000 years ago they were evolving 30 to 40 times faster than ever before and it seems highly likely that we continue to evolve at this super speed today.

Our population explosion and rapidly changing lifestyles seem to be the drivers of this acceleration, the discovery of which contradicts the widely held notion that our technological and medical advances have removed most of the selection pressures acting upon us. (Source, subscription required)

Genetically we’re evolving faster, while mentally and philosophically we’re still mired in the Dark Ages.  In too many ways we’re nothing more than 1st century nomads with technology.