Archive for the ‘Genetics and Biology’ Category

Science Daily has an article talking about how researchers at Sydney’s Centenary Institute in Australia have managed to view (in real time) and film the process of a parasite infecting an immune cell. Click here to read the article, and see some photos of the process.

—

• Sciencedaily.com: Inner Workings Of The Immune System Filmed

This article by the Daily Mail online talks about a new fossil discovery that could help scientists solve a current “mystery” in the field of evolutionary biology. The discovery of fossils of turtle ancestors with partially developed shells is helping shed light on the contentious issue of how turtles first developed their shells:

This fossil supports existing theories of the development of the shells being the result of an extension of the backbone and ribs, as opposed to a hardening of the outer layers of the turtle’s skin. Interestingly, this historical evolutionary development seems to match the individual development that we observe happening in turtle embryos and hatchlings. The fossil’s fully developed lower shell also suggests that turtle ancestors developed in an environment where they had to fend off predators from below, thus reinforcing the notion that they developed as aquatic animals.

Of course, fossil evidence of turtles with imperfectly formed shells is also proof against the notion of Intelligent Design… but that’s neither here nor there.

—

• dailymail.co.uk: Scientists solve evolutionary puzzle on how the turtle got its shell

Found on this website, “Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution” is meant to be a handy guide for students skeptical of evolution. According to this article at The New York Times, science teachers in the US are increasingly having to deal with similar anti-evolution ploys. Reading through the list gave me a few chuckles, so I thought — with only my knowledge from high school biology — I would go through the list and do my best to respond to the various challenges.

—

1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

It appears to be a favorite tactic of anti-evolutionists to try to tie evolutionary biology with the question of the origins of life. The truth is, biological evolution, natural selection, and common ancestry don’t say anything about how life began. Life could have started any number of ways; evolution is merely the proposed mechanism to explain the diversity and robustness of modern life.

That being said, we aren’t completely in the dark as to how life on Earth began. Unfortunately, we may never be able to prove how life on Earth began, but rather only likely ways that it could have began. While there is some controversy as to whether the Miller-Urey experiment replicated the atmospheric conditions of early Earth¹, it did show us the possibility of creating the building blocks of organic life from non-living materials. In that respect, it is still an important experiment, with implications for our search for the origin of life.

Regardless, this is not a criticism of evolution — it’s a criticism of the Miller-Urey experiment.
Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read this article on organic foods over at quackwatch.org. Following the article, the author had posted a reader protest complaining how it was unfair to lump organic farmers/foodies in with other “quacks”. The reader asks:

Honestly, is it so nutty to think we would be better off eating food that ISN’T full of chemicals and additives, preservatives and artificial colors?

Thinking about this question, I realized that the answer is “yes”. Nutty is probably not the word I would use to describe it, but it is a bit strange to think that we would be better off eating “food that isn’t full of chemicals, additives, preservatives, and artificial colors.” More accurately, it is a tad nutty to believe that so-called “natural” or “organic” products do not contain chemicals, additives, preservatives and artificial colors. The truth is that all foods — not just “artificial” foods — contain chemical preservatives and colors! The reader has simply assumed that because the chemicals found in organic foods are naturally occurring, they must also be safe.

This variation on the naturalistic fallacy is the foundation of naturopathy and a lot of modern new-age quackery. We have already explained in previous posts how natural is not always safe. Nature produces just as many harmful substances as it does nutritious substances… if not more. Furthermore, all “synthetic” compounds created by humans are merely variations on the chemicals we have already found in nature. The fact is that any distinction between the natural and artificial (insofar as it applies to the realm of biology and chemistry) is tenuous at best. In reality, human synthesis of chemicals usually involves nothing more than facilitating, or expediting, natural synthesis. Even when we create elements not found in nature, we produce them using other natural elements. Anyways, it is not as if you would find Ununpentium on the ingredients list of your favorite cereal. Conversely, finding all natural Uranium-238 on the ingredients list might be cause for concern.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why do we drive like jerks, and behave like assholes on the internet?

Some of the more seemingly sophisticated arguments for God (or some type of higher power) revolve around the mysterious nature of human morality. Dismissing evolutionary explanations for morality, some people believe that we simply cannot explain traits like altruism through the evolution of selfish motives. They believe that reciprocity is only a small part of what we like to think of as decent behavior. However, if this is the case, why do we behave like jerks when we obtain a small amount of anonymity?

To the best of my understanding, the current theory is that we evolved altruistic tendencies in response to our social environments. Just as speed, strength and agility can confer a survival advantage in a natural environment, so can altruistic behavior and honesty¹ confer a survival advantage in a social environment. In turn, the reciprocal relationship in any social environment confers a survival benefit in most natural environments. Because evolution and natural selection will operate to select for traits in any type of environment, our morality is merely a product of our evolution in our given social environment.

However, the idea of reciprocity breaks down when you become an anonymous actor. If the evolutionary theory of morality is correct, then our morality works in such a way (or at least initially involved in such a way) that we behave in certain ways towards other people in the hopes that they will return the favour. For example, we do not lie to other people in hopes that they will be truthful with us, and we do not steal from them in the hopes that they too will not steal from us. The reciprocal relationship does not even have to be symmetrical, which is why somebody might endanger themselves in order to save another person. They do not necessarily expect the same in return from the person they saved, but rather do so in the hopes that they might receive help if they were ever in need of saving. The key to this reciprocal relationship is that the people or society we are behaving kindly towards in turn must know to whom they should reciprocate. If we act in an anonymous fashion, they would not know to whom they “owe” their reciprocal action. Similarly, we would not have to fear harmful reciprocation should we do something inappropriate or harmful.

Interestingly, this matches the behavior that we see in social atmospheres when people are granted anonymity. As mentioned at the start of this post, people are (or at least perceive themselves to be) anonymous when they are in their cars, or on the internet. When in these situations, people tend to behave like jerks; and do thinks that they would never think of doing to somebody’s face. However, when you keep the environment constant, but take away the factor of anonymity – say on a social networking site like Facebook -the behavioral differences seem to vanish².

So why do we drive like jerks, and behave like assholes on the internet? Because our morality evolved in a system of reciprocity, and when placed in an anonymous environment where reciprocity becomes irrelevant, our moral instincts break down.

In my recent article about Consumer Reports, I mentioned that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that organically grown foods are any safer, tastier, or more nutritious than are their non-organically grown counterparts. Accepting this premise, you might say that it is still a legitimate choice to purchase organic food to support a more “natural” method of farming. Aside from the fact that this is quite fallacious, it is also very wrong.

The fact is that here in Canada — and in other countries that have modern farming practices — we have the most plentiful, healthful and safe food supply in all of recorded history (though you would not know it by talking to a naturopath). So much, in fact, that one of our biggest problems right now stems from an overabundance of food and the resulting over-consumption of certain types of foods. Short of obesity-related health problems, we live in a time and place where people are living longer than ever before.

Enter the organic food crowd, who believe that we are being slowly poisoned by the pesticides and antibiotics in our foods. The truth is even if evidence surfaced that eating non-organic food is harmful (none exists, to date), any negative health effects due to pesticide or antibiotic consumption would be vastly overshadowed by the health benefits accrued by modern farming techniques. In a way, organic food proponents bear some resemblance to anti-vaccine proponents. People who have never had to deal with nation-wide pandemics of measles or polio fail to see the importance of vaccinating their children and maintaining herd immunity against the diseases. Similarly, people who have grown up in a country with an abundant supply of safe and healthful food fail to appreciate all of the harms and waste that we have been able to eliminate through modern farming techniques.

The other problem with organic food is that even if we wanted to, we simply could not feed all of the people in Canada using organic farming techniques, let alone the world while maintaining affordable food prices (if you think increased food prices due to rising oil costs are bad…). Short of a mass extinction, there appears to be no way to reconcile this huge problem. Organic farming would only ever work as long as a small percentage of the population consumed organically grown foods — but proponents of organic foods believe that all food should be grown organically.

So why is organically grown food bad?

Read the rest of this entry »

Do you like science, wildlife, and Africa? If so, this site is for you! WildCam Africa is a web cam set up near a watering hole in Botswana. It streams live video to the National Geographic website for your viewing pleasure. This unbelievably simple idea can yield some pretty cool footage, and is a must see for anybody fascinated with wildlife. Personally, I’m amazed at the concept of being able to see what’s going on live, thousands of kilometers away.

Ever since I first discovered this site, National Geographic has expanded the program and set up WildCams elsewhere. You can find a full list of them here.

Enjoy.

—

• NationalGeographic.com: WildCam Africa
• NationalGeographic.com: WildCam

I have a problem with this article from over at dailygalaxy.com. It’s not a problem with the content of the article, which is actually quite interesting, but rather with the headline:

Is Aging an Accident of Evolution? Stanford Scientists Say “Yes”

I understand what is meant by the headline, but the fact remains that there are no purposeful or accidental evolutionary developments. Evolution only knows how to measure developments in one way: whether or not it helps the survival of a species… and even then, evolution doesn’t care one way or another. There’s no underlying will, or ultimate goal of evolution; just a continuous weeding out of those organisms that are less adapted to survive (and occasionally even weeding out those who are more adapted that have traits that might otherwise appear to us to be advantageous). Having an evolutionary accident suggests that the opposite can happen: a purposeful evolutionary change.

As long as we continue to think of the purpose of evolutionary traits, or accidents in our evolutionary history, we’ll never truly understand natural selection or evolution.

—

• Dailygalaxy.com: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution? Stanford Scientists Say “Yes”

While we here in Canada celebrate Canada Day today, there’s yet another reason for jubilation!  One hundred and fifty years ago today, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace first read the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection to London’s Linnean Society, establishing a new paradigm in both the fields of biology and medicine and bringing new perspective to our perceived role on this planet, and, for that matter, the entire universe!

So happy Canada Day and happy Evolution day, everyone!

Link.

This is truly beautiful. A little more than thirty years after introducing a mere 10 Italian Wall Lizards to an isolated island off the coast of Croatia, scientists discover a new generation populated by roughly 5000 lizards. Even more astounding, the species has evolved considerably, a feat usually requiring millions of years to accomplish:

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen… As if it were ever necessary, we now have a recent, formal scientific experiment supporting Evolution and refuting Creationism.

Perhaps lizards just hate Ben Stein.

Link.