Scientists solve the mystery of where feathers, fur and scales come from
By Sarah Kaplan
The current diversity of feathers, fur and scales is part of what made their origins so mystifying to scientists. There are almost no known intermediate forms to illustrate how they might be related to one another. That’s largely because the features are so fragile — while bone and teeth can be preserved as fossils, delicate skin appendages are usually lost to time. In the absence of physical evidence from the past, scientists try to interpret the present, for instance by studying developing embryos, for clues to how traits evolved.
Early on in embryonic development, feathers and fur look startlingly similar — both begin as tiny, thick accumulations of cells on the skin known as anatomical placodes. This shared morphology indicates that the features have the same evolutionary roots, which would seem to make sense, since birds and mammals evolved from a common ancestor some 320 million years ago.
But that ancestor was also the predecessor of modern reptiles; in fact, reptiles and birds are far more closely related than birds and mammals. Yet reptile scales develop very differently than feathers and fur — or they seemed to, at any rate. Not a lot of scientists study reptile embryos, Milinkovitch noted (“model species” like fruit flies and mice tend to get most of the attention), but those who did generally couldn’t find evidence of anatomical placodes.
Enter a caption
The placodes — dark blue spots corresponding to groups of cells expressing a specific early developmental gene — are visible on the embryonic skin of (from left to right) a mouse, a snake, a chicken and a Nile crocodile. Each of these placodes will develop into a hair, scale, or a feather. (UNIGE 2016 Tzika, Di-Poï, Milinkovitch)
That left with biologists with two possible explanations, Milinkovitch noted, neither of which was particularly satisfying.
“Either the placode was ancestral for everyone and then it was lost multiple times in independent lineages of reptile … or birds and mammals invented placodes independently,” he said. The second possibility seemed particularly unlikely because research had revealed that the same exact gene, called EDA, controlled placode development in both groups.
That’s where things stood when Di-Poï began parsing the genome of the naked bearded dragon his adviser had brought back to the lab. He pinpointed the mutation that prevented scales from developing, only to discover that it was EDA — the same gene responsible for feathers and fur.
That prompted the duo to take a closer look at the embryos of normal bearded dragons during development. They realized that the tiny creatures did have anatomical placodes, they just appeared and dispersed differently than the versions biologists are accustomed to seeing in mammals and birds.
“You have to look at the right places at the right time otherwise you don’t see them,” Milinkovitch said. “Now of course, once you know this it’s much easier to to find them because you know where to look and when to look, but before people didn’t know and they overlooked them.”
Eventually, he and Di-Poï identified placodes in several species of snake, lizard and crocodile.
“They obviously inherited this from a common ancestor,” Milinkovitch said.
“That makes sense, ecologically speaking, when you think about, ‘what is the innovation of amniotes?'” he continued, using the term to describe creatures like reptiles, birds and mammals, whose fetuses develop in membrane-bound amniotic sac that allows their mothers to lay fertilized eggs on land (or nurture them inside the uterus, as most mammals do).
Unlike amphibians and lobe-finned fish, amniotes aren’t anchored to water by the need to lay their eggs there. That meant it was worth investing in adaptations that allowed us to live entirely terrestrial lives, like skin or scales that keep us from drying out. Hundreds of millions of years after reptiles, birds, and mammals diverged from this original amniote, we united by the outcomes of this innovation.
“They are extremely different morphologically, but if you look past that you can see the homology,” Milinkovitch said. “That’s the beauty of it.”
Four new elements named by IUPAC
IUPAC is naming the four new elements nihonium, moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson.
Nihonium and symbol Nh, for the element 113,
Moscovium and symbol Mc, for the element 115,
Tennessine and symbol Ts, for the element 117, and
Oganesson and symbol Og, for the element 118.
…The guidelines for the naming the elements were recently revised [3] and shared with the discoverers to assist in their proposals. Keeping with tradition, newly discovered elements can be named after:
(a) a mythological concept or character (including an astronomical object),
(b) a mineral or similar substance,
(c) a place, or geographical region,
(d) a property of the element, or
(e) a scientist.
The names of all new elements in general would have an ending that reflects and maintains historical and chemical consistency. This would be in general “-ium” for elements belonging to groups 1-16, “-ine” for elements of group 17 and “-on” for elements of group 18. Finally, the names for new chemical elements in English should allow proper translation into other major languages.
For the element with atomic number 113 the discoverers at RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science (Japan) proposed the name nihonium and the symbol Nh. Nihon is one of the two ways to say “Japan” in Japanese, and literally mean “the Land of Rising Sun”. The name is proposed to make a direct connection to the nation where the element was discovered. Element 113 is the first element to have been discovered in an Asian country. While presenting this proposal, the team headed by Professor Kosuke Morita pays homage to the trailblazing work by Masataka Ogawa done in 1908 surrounding the discovery of element 43. The team also hopes that pride and faith in science will displace the lost trust of those who suffered from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
For the element with atomic number 115 the name proposed is moscovium with the symbol Mc and for element with atomic number 117, the name proposed is tennessine with the symbol Ts. These are in line with tradition honoring a place or geographical region and are proposed jointly by the discoverers at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna (Russia), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA), Vanderbilt University (USA) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA).
Moscovium is in recognition of the Moscow region and honors the ancient Russian land that is the home of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, where the discovery experiments were conducted using the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator in combination with the heavy ion accelerator capabilities of the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions.
Tennessine is in recognition of the contribution of the Tennessee region, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, to superheavy element research, including the production and chemical separation of unique actinide target materials for superheavy element synthesis at ORNL’s High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC).
For the element with atomic number 118 the collaborating teams of discoverers at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna (Russia) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA) proposed the name oganesson and symbol Og. The proposal is in line with the tradition of honoring a scientist and recognizes Professor Yuri Oganessian (born 1933) for his pioneering contributions to transactinoid elements research. His many achievements include the discovery of superheavy elements and significant advances in the nuclear physics of superheavy nuclei including experimental evidence for the “island of stability”.
…Ultimately, and after the lapse of the public review, the final Recommendations will be published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry. The Provisional Recommendation regarding the naming of the four new elements can be found on the IUPAC website at http://www.iupac.org/recommendations/under-review-by-the-public/.
Finally, laboratories are already working on searches for the elements in the 8th row of the periodic table, and they are also working to consolidate the identification of copernicium and heavier elements….
Engineering
Engineering is the use of physics to design buildings, vehicles, or infrastructure. We’ll examine real world engineering projects, and see how these techniques may be extended to proposed mega-engineering projects.
Objectives
-
Ask questions that arise from examining models or a theory, to clarify and/or seek additional information and relationships.
-
Ask questions to clarify and refine a model, an explanation, or an engineering problem.
-
Evaluate a question to determine if it is testable and relevant.
-
Ask and/or evaluate questions that challenge the premise(s) of an argument, the interpretation of a data set, or the suitability of the design
– Science and engineering practices: NSTA National Science Teacher Association
– Next Generation Science Standards Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/forces/extreme-engineering/
Using forces
Introduction: When engineers design a building, they have to consider all of the forces on every element in the structure.
It doesn’t matter if they are designing a building, airplane, overpass or tunnel – it all comes down to using Newton’s laws of physics & forces.
What kind of engineering – applied physics – was used in Boston’s Big Dig? Let’s use an app to study the effect of changing forces, loads, materials and shapes, on a structure.
-
Forces: Forces act on big structures in many ways. Click on one of the actions to explore the forces at work and to see real-life examples. Squeezing, stretching. bending, sliding, twisting
-
Loads: All structures must withstand loads or they’ll fall apart. In order to build a structure, you need to know what kinds of external forces will affect it. The weight of the structure, weight of objects (live load), soft soil, temperature, earthquakes, wind, vibration
-
Materials: What you build a structure out of is just as important as how you build it: Put these to the test – wood, plastic, aluminum, brick, concrete, reinforced concrete, cast iron, steel
-
Shapes: The shape of a support affects its ability to resist loads.
App: “Building Big: Forces Lab” PBS
Subways
In the late 19th century, as America’s teeming cities grew increasingly congested, the time had come to replace the nostalgic horse-drawn trolleys with a faster, cleaner, safer, and more efficient form of transportation.
Ultimately, it was Boston — a city of so many firsts — that overcame a litany of engineering challenges, interests of businessmen, and the fears of its citizenry to construct America’s first subway.
Based in part on Doug Most’s acclaimed non-fiction book of the same name, The Race Underground tells the dramatic story of an invention that changed the lives of millions.
Introduction: The Race Underground
Main page: The Race Underground
Slide Show: The Race underground Boston in the early 1900’s
Video: The Race Underground, Chapter 1: Building Boston’s Subways
-
Then & Now: Boston in the Early 1900s
-
Preview: The Race Underground
-
Bonus Video: MBTA Signal School
-
Map, interactive: What the Maps Miss
-
General Article: The Forgotten Hero of the American Subway
-
Bonus Video: Chapter 1
Engineering An Empire
—
Our related article on Extreme Engineering.
External resources
Walkinator app, by Bryce Summer. Biomechanical evolution.
Learning Standards
2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework
HS-PS2-1. Analyze data to support the claim that Newton’s second law of motion is a mathematical model describing change in motion (the acceleration) of objects when acted on by a net force.
HS-PS2-10(MA). Use free-body force diagrams, algebraic expressions, and Newton’s laws of motion to predict changes to velocity and acceleration for an object moving in one dimension in various situations
2016 High School Technology/Engineering
HS-ETS1-1. Analyze a major global challenge to specify a design problem that can be improved. Determine necessary qualitative and quantitative criteria and constraints for solutions, including any requirements set by society.
HS-ETS1-2. Break a complex real-world problem into smaller, more manageable problems that each can be solved using scientific and engineering principles.
HS-ETS1-3. Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, aesthetics, and maintenance, as well as social, cultural, and environmental impacts.
HS-ETS1-4. Use a computer simulation to model the impact of a proposed solution to a complex real-world problem that has numerous criteria and constraints on the interactions within and between systems relevant to the problem.
HS-ETS1-5(MA). Plan a prototype or design solution using orthographic projections and isometric drawings, using proper scales and proportions.
HS-ETS1-6(MA). Document and present solutions that include specifications, performance results, successes and remaining issues, and limitations.
The nature of reality
What is the ultimate nature of reality? This the core questions of physics, as well as of classical, rationalist philosophy. We now know that this question relates to interpretations of quantum mechanics.
“Those are the kind of questions in play when a physicist tackles the dry-sounding issue of, “what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?” About 80 years after the original flowering of quantum theory, physicists still don’t agree on an answer. Although quantum mechanics is primarily the physics of the very small – of atoms, electrons, photons and other such particles – the world is made up of those particles. If their individual reality is radically different from what we imagine then surely so too is the reality of the pebbles, people and planets that they make up.”
The Many Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Graham P. Collins, Scientific American, November 19, 2007
To what can we compare our knowledge of the universe?
The allegory of Plato’s cave
The Allegory of the Cave was presented by the Greek philosopher Plato the Republic (380 BCE) He retells an analogy created by Socrates, about people who think that they know the true nature of reality – however, as the analogy progresses, we find that they have no idea what the real world is like at all.
The idea is that most people don’t actually understand our own real world – and that we never will without philosophical and scientific inquiry.
Socrates says to imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from childhood. They are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them, and not look around at the cave, each other, or themselves
Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets “of men and other living things”
The masters walk behind the wall – so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see. But the objects they carry cast shadows. The prisoners can’t see anything behind them : they only able see the shadows cast on the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of people talking echo off the wall, so the prisoners falsely believe these sounds come from the shadows.
The shadows constitute reality for the prisoners – because they have never seen anything else. They do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real living things outside the cave
The philosopher (or scientist) is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality – rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
Plato then supposes that one prisoner is freed: he turns to see the fire. The light would hurt his eyes and make it hard for him to see the objects that are casting the shadows. If he is told that what he saw before was not real but instead that the objects he is now struggling to see are, he would not believe it. In his pain the freed prisoner would turn away and run back to what he is accustomed to, the shadows of the carried objects.
Plato continues: “suppose…that someone should drag him…by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out into the light of the sun.” The prisoner would be angry and in pain, and this would only worsen when the light of the sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him.” The sunlight represents the new knowledge that the freed prisoner is experiencing.
Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun. First he can only see shadows. Gradually he can see reflections of people and things in water, and then later see the people and things themselves. Eventually he is able to look at the stars and moon at night until finally he can look upon the sun itself (516a). Only after he can look straight at the sun “is he able to reason about it” and what it is.
- adapted from “Allegory of the Cave.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 29 May. 2016. Web. 3 Jun. 2016
Another illustration of Plato’s cave.
Are the laws of physics really absolute?
One of the major goals of physics is to emerge from the relative ignorance of the cave, and venture out into an understanding of the real world – how our universe really works.
We have made remarkable progress in doing so – everything we have learned in classical physics over the last two millennia is part of the human adventure.
What we have learned is, in an important sense, “real.” Physics lets us ask specific questions and then use math to make specific answers. We then compare our predictions to the way that universe really works.
Yet we need to be careful – we could make the mistake of using physics equations as if they are absolutely true. Yes, they certainly are true in the sense that they work. But are these math equations the absolute truth themselves – or are they really emerging from a deeper phenomenon? See The laws of physics are emergent phenomenon.
Is nature a simulation?
The simulation hypothesis proposes that our reality is actually some kind of super detailed computer simulation. This hypothesis relies on the development of a simulated reality, a proposed technology that would seem realistic enough to convince its inhabitants. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films.
Simulation hypothesis (Wikipedia)
Video Why Elon Musk says we’re living in a simulation: YouTube, Vox
Elon Musk thinks we’re characters in a computer simulation. He might be right.
Is the Universe a Simulation? Scientists Debate
Nick Bostrom: Are you living in a computer simulation?
Is the universe a hologram?
The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.
First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn.
As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way. In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon. – Wikipedia
Our Universe May Be a Giant Hologram
Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
Space’The Holy Grail for Physicists’: First Evidence Universe is a Hologram Uncovered
To learn more about quantum mechanics
The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature, Heinz R. Pagels
One of the best books on quantum mechanics for general readers. Heinz Pagels, an eminent physicist and science writer, discusses the core concepts without resorting to complicated mathematics. He covers the development of quantum physics. And although this is an intellectually challenging topics, he is one of the few popular physics writers to discuss the development and meaning of Bell’s theorem.
Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert
Herbert brings us from the “we’ve almost solved all of physics!” era of the early 1900s through the unexpected experiments which forced us to develop a new and bizarre model of the universe, quantum mechanics. He starts with unexpected results, such as the “ultraviolet catastrophe,” and then brings us on a tour of the various ways that modern physicists developed quantum mechanics.
And note that there isn’t just one QM theory – there are several! Werner Heisenberg initially developed QM using a type of math called matrix mechanics, while Erwin Schrödinger created an entirely different way of explaining things using wave mechanics. Yet despite their totally different math languages – we soon discovered that both ways of looking at the world were logically equivalent, and made the same predictions. Herbert discussed the ways that Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman saw QM, and he describes eight very different interpretations of quantum mechanics, all of which nonetheless are consistent with observation…
In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality, John Gribbon
“John Gribbin takes us step by step into an ever more bizarre and fascinating place, requiring only that we approach it with an open mind. He introduces the scientists who developed quantum theory. He investigates the atom, radiation, time travel, the birth of the universe, superconductors and life itself. And in a world full of its own delights, mysteries and surprises, he searches for Schrodinger’s Cat – a search for quantum reality – as he brings every reader to a clear understanding of the most important area of scientific study today – quantum physics.”
External links
The Many Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Scientific American
Tom’s Top 10 interpretations of quantum mechanics
Learning Standards
SAT Subject Test: Physics
Quantum phenomena, such as photons and photoelectric effect – Atomic, such as the Rutherford and Bohr models, atomic energy levels, and atomic spectra. Nuclear and particle physics, such as radioactivity, nuclear reactions, and fundamental particles.
AP Physics Curriculum Framework
Essential Knowledge 1.D.1: Objects classically thought of as particles can exhibit properties of waves.
a. This wavelike behavior of particles has been observed, e.g., in a double-slit experiment using elementary particles.
b. The classical models of objects do not describe their wave nature. These models break down when observing objects in small dimensions.
Learning Objective 1.D.1.1:
The student is able to explain why classical mechanics cannot describe all properties of objects by articulating the reasons that classical mechanics must be refined and an alternative explanation developed when classical particles display wave properties.
Essential Knowledge 1.D.2: Certain phenomena classically thought of as waves can exhibit properties of particles.
a. The classical models of waves do not describe the nature of a photon.
b. Momentum and energy of a photon can be related to its frequency and wavelength.
Content Connection: This essential knowledge does not produce a specific learning objective but serves as a foundation for other learning objectives in the course.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)
Electromagnetic radiation can be modeled as a wave of changing electric and magnetic fields or as particles called photons. The wave model is useful for explaining many features of electromagnetic radiation, and the particle model explains other features. Quantum theory relates the two models…. Knowledge of quantum physics enabled the development of semiconductors, computer chips, and lasers, all of which are now essential components of modern imaging, communications, and information technologies
Scaling and biophysics
From Math Bench Biology Modules:
Scaling examines how form and function change as organisms get larger – in other words, how do biological features scale across size? Do they change in meaningful ways as organisms get bigger or smaller? Of course, you can’t even ask these types of questions without having a way of measuring how relationships change mathematically.
Why study these relationships? Well, if you understand how form or functions change as organisms get bigger or smaller, it is possible to learn something fundamental about what underlies the processes or learn about what factors place evolutionary limits on organism growth and adaptations. For instance, determining at what size arthropods can no longer support the weight of their exoskeleton gives us clues about the limits of their growth.
Let’s use a concrete example so you’ll know what we mean. Here is some data on body size and metabolic rate for mammals….
- metabolic rate increases as animals get bigger. That’s because we are specifically interested in total energy consumed (here measured through oxygen consumption). Of course, bigger animals will use more oxygen than smaller ones (think about how big a breath a lion takes compared to a mouse).
- But look at the values adjusted for body size (the last value listed for each species). Mice use a lot more oxygen per gram than a lion. This means that lions use oxygen more efficiently than mice.
- As mammals get bigger, this increase in efficiency is not linear (notice how the steepness of the slope decreases as size increases).
- This means that metabolism does not scale linearly with body size.
“Who cares?” Well, it turns out that how metabolism (and other factors) scales with body size can give important information about which factors are most important in limiting these biological functions. If we can understand that, we understand a lot more about biology!
Math Bench Biology Modules, University of Maryland: Scaling and Power laws
– – –
How scaling affects biology
There are species of animals such as the deer and the elk that are closely related but of different size. Galileo took notice that the bones of the elk are not just proportionally thicker to the bones of the deer – but instead the elk’s bones are even much thicker.
The elk’s bone has to be much thicker to lower the stress in the bone below the breaking point of the bone. Even so, elk and all the other large vertebrates are still more likely of breaking their bones than the more active smaller animals.
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html
Enter a caption
External links
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scaling.htm
The Principle of Scale: A fundamental lesson they failed to teach us at school
The Biology of B-Movie Monsters, Michael C. LaBarbera
Scaling: Why Giants Don’t Exist, Michael Fowler, UVa 10/12/06
Science of Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park is a 1993 film directed by Steven Spielberg. The first installment of the Jurassic Park franchise, it is based on the 1990 novel of the same name by Michael Crichton.
Next Generation Science Standards: Science & Engineering Practices
● Ask questions that arise from careful observation of phenomena, or unexpected results, to clarify and/or seek additional information.
● Ask questions that arise from examining models or a theory, to clarify and/or seek additional information and relationships.
● Evaluate a question to determine if it is testable and relevant.
● Ask and/or evaluate questions that challenge the premise(s) of an argument, the interpretation of a data set, or the suitability of the design
Science and engineering practices: NSTA National Science Teacher Association
Next Gen Science Standards Appendix F: Science and engineering practices
1. When did dinosaurs live? Investigate the geological eras.
Another view of the relationship between geological eras and the Earth’s strata.
2. What are chromosomes/genes/DNA nucleotides?
DNA is like an alphabet: Analogies to explain nucleotides, genes and chromosomes
3. How might DNA possibly be preserved for long periods of time?
4. What is the scientific premise of the film: How did they recreate ancient dinosaurs? Did they (according to the film) create dinosaurs at all?
5. According to the book & film, not enough intact DNA was recovered to create a true dinosaur. How then were the theme park dinosaurs created?
http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Filling_the_sequence_gaps
6. Have scientists ever actually discovered preserved soft tissue, and/or protein, in dinosaur fossils?
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist
https://student.societyforscience.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue
7. Have scientists ever actually discovered preserved DNA in dinosaur fossils?
http://www.livescience.com/23861-fossil-dna-half-life.html
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-dinosaur-dna-amber-01383.html
http://scitechdaily.com/researchers-calculate-that-dna-has-a-521-year-half-life/
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
8. Some scientists have proposed that we can realistically reverse engineer dinosaurs from living birds. What is their biological, and evolutionary reasoning for why this could make sense?
http://www.livescience.com/17642-chickenosaurus-jack-horner-create-dinosaur.html
Can Scientists Turn Birds Back Into Dinosaur Ancestors? National Geographic
TED Talks: Jack Horner on building a dinosaur from a chicken
9. How would these scientists actually go about doing this? (Summarize in a clearly written paragraph, describing several steps.)
Additional resources
Are Movies Science? DINOSAURS, MOVIES, AND REALITY Univ. of California Museum of Paleontology
Real-Life ‘Jurassic World’ Dinos May Be Possible, Scientist Says: LiveScience
Can scientists clone dinosaurs? How Stuff Works
Scrappy Fossils Yield Possible Dinosaur Blood Cells: National Geographic
DNA has a 521-year half-life, Nature (scientific journal)
The final nail in the Jurassic Park coffin. Research just published in the journal The Public Library of Science ONE (PLOS ONE)
Absence of Ancient DNA in Sub-Fossil Insect Inclusions Preserved in ‘Anthropocene’ Colombian Copal. (scientific journal)
Science of Jurassic Park: JurassicWikia
Book: The Science of Jurassic Park: And the Lost World Or, How to Build a Dinosaur
Climate ‘Skeptics’ are not like Galileo
The following article is from https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm. Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
___________________________
Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.
“I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell” – Texas Governor Rick Perry
The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.
1. Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists. Galileo was not suppressed or “outvoted” by other early scientists. Many scientific contemporaries agreed with his observations[2], and were appalled by his trial.[3]
Galileo was persecuted by the religious-political establishment – the Catholic Church, which in 1616 ordered him to stop defending his view of the solar system, which contradicted church dogma. After Galileo published his famous Dialogue, the Roman Inquisition tried him in 1633 for defying Church authority, and found him guilty of suspected religious heresy, forced him to recant, banned his books and sentenced him to house arrest for life.[4] Galileo died eight years later.[5]
2. Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based. The key difference between Galileo and the Church concerned Galileo’s “way of knowing,” or epistemology. How is knowledge attained?
Medieval scholarship and Catholic Church dogma relied on the authority of Aristotle and a literal interpretation of the Bible to place earth at the center of the universe.
In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.
The vast majority of vocal skeptics are not engaged in climate research. The common bond uniting them, observers note, is an ideological belief system: Government regulation is bad, so problems that may require regulation must be resisted.[6] From there, they search for ways to cast doubt on the science.[7] Unlike Galileo and modern scientists, they do not change their view when presented with new evidence, because their position derives not from open-ended scientific inquiry, but from strongly-held ideological convictions.
In contrast, climate science applies the scientific method pioneered by Galileo. Scientists make observations, form logical hypotheses, then test their hypotheses through experiments and further observations. They follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The Church’s attack on Galileo and the skeptical assault on climate science are far from unique. History is full of examples where new scientific findings threatened powerful vested interests – whether religious, financial or ideological — and provoked a furious backlash.
3. The discovery of global warming overturned an age-old belief; the skeptics seek to restore it. In arguing that the planets revolve around the sun, Galileo was challenging an idea that had dominated Western thought for over 1400 years. Ever since Ptolemy (90-168 AD) codified Aristotle’s “geocentrism,” most philosopher/scientists had accepted the common sense view that the earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and planets revolving around us.
Similarly, the prevailing view throughout history was that people, through our own actions, could not possibly alter earth’s climate on a global scale. Even into the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of scientists maintained, in science historian Spencer Weart’s words,
the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of it, hardly worth a scientist’s attention.[8]
Some say climate science’s first “Galileo moment” came in 1896, when Swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius, after years of laborious hand calculations, predicted eventual global warming due to CO2 emissions.[9] Others point to 1938, when a British steam engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar, after poring over old CO2 and temperature records, stood alone before the Royal Meteorological Society to argue that global warming was already happening.[10]
Arrhenius and Callendar were ahead of their time, and failed to persuade others. In both cases, the scientific establishment found their calculations oversimplified and their evidence incomplete, certainly not convincing enough to overturn the ancient view that global climate was impervious to human acts.
Mainstream scientific opinion was slow to change. During the post-war science boom in the 1950’s, early computers and advanced methods allowed scientists to directly investigate objections to Arrhenius’ and Callendar’s view.[11]
Using the new digital computers, Gilbert Plass found that more CO2 could indeed block more heat.[12]
Hans Suess analyzed radioactive isotopes to detect ancient carbon in the air, presumably from fossil fuels.[13]
Roger Revelle and Suess discovered that the oceans could not quickly take up additional CO2.
David Keeling built the first sensor capable of accurately measuring atmospheric CO2 – just as Galileo had invented a more advanced telescope – and found that the CO2 level was indeed rising.
From 1960 to 1990, the evidence kept accumulating, from areas of study as far afield as geology, astronomy and biology. As the gaps in knowledge were filled, one-by-one, most scientists changed their views and gradually formed a new consensus: significant anthropogenic (human caused) global warming was likely.[14]
By 2000, the evidence was overwhelming.
The hypothesis proposed by Arrhenius in 1896—denied by almost every expert through the first half of the twentieth century and steadily advancing through the second half—was now as well accepted as any scientific proposal of its nature could ever be.[15]
The climate pioneers were vindicated.
Critics of climate science, backed by the alarmed fossil fuel industry,[16] sprang into action in the late 1980s, when the mounting evidence led to calls for international action to limitCO2 emissions. They did not argue, like Galileo, for a revolutionary hypothesis based on new evidence, because they could not agree on one among themselves.[17] They produced little new evidence. Instead, they searched for flaws in others’ research, and launched a public relations campaign to sow public doubt.
Unlike Galileo, climate skeptics were not trying to overturn an ancient view. Their goal was the opposite: to restore the age-old conventional wisdom, that, by itself, “human activity was too feeble to sway natural systems”[18]. In clinging to this old view, the skeptics’ stance more closely resembles that of the Catholic Church, which fought Galileo’s views for another 100 years after the scientific establishment had embraced him.
4. Climate scientists, not skeptics, are being dragged into court Armed with ideological certainty, backed by powerful financial and political interests, skeptics have sought to not only discredit the science but impugn the researchers’ honesty. Unfounded accusations of deception and conspiracy fly freely,[19] and some climate scientists even receive death threats.[20] These attacks, according Dr. Naomi Oreskes, “have had a chilling effect… Intimidation works.”[21]
In April 2011, personal attacks on scientists took a more ominous turn, when Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce climate skeptic, launched a criminal fraud investigation of a prominent climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann.[22] Multiple investigations by independent scientific bodies have found no trace of wrongdoing in Mann’s work, and a Virginia judge dismissed Attorney General’s subpoena request for lack of evidence. Yet, as of September 2011, Cuccinellis’ crusade continues.[23]
If Galileo were alive today, watching climate scientists being dragged into court on baseless charges, is there any doubt whose side he would take?
*************
[1] On Sept 7, 2011, at the Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, Texas Gov.. Rick Perry, became the highest level politician to invoke the Galileo comparison.
Well, I do agree that there is — the science is — is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at — at — at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me, is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=all
The founders of Australia’s “Galileo Movement” claim that global warming is a “fabrication,” and
cite as inspiration Galileo Galilei, the 17th century astronomer and father of modern science, who challenged the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church to report the Earth orbited around the sun. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/science/earth/09galileo.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=galileo&st=cse
[3] personal communication, Spencer Weart, 9-17-2011.
[4] Wooton, David. Galileo: Watcher of the Skies, Yale University Press, New Haven (2010), p. 224-5.
[5] Galileo died on January 8, 1642 at age 77.
[6] http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/the-never-ending-story/?hp
[7] See Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury Press, New York (2010)
[9] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
[10] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
[12] Dr. Spencer Weart’s excellent history of this period can be found in overview at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm, with more details athttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm, the linked timeline and other articles.
[13] Weart, Spencer. The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, New York (2004), p. 26
[14] Weart, p. 164.
[15] Weart, p. 191.
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=all
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html
[18] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
[19] Oreskes and Conway, page 4, 198-213. 264.
[20] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-scientists-angered-by-deniers-death-threat-campaign/story-e6frg6nf-1226079058193
[21] Oreskes and Conway, p. 264-5.
[22] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083005004.html?sid=ST2010050303477
[23]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/the_university_of_virginia_hol.html
Also see the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/donation/
Articles
Global warming and greenhouse gases
Global warming has not stopped
Global warming: Pause in the rate of temp rise
Global warming Industry knew of climate change
Global warming: Adjusted data sets are a normal part of science
Climate skeptics are not like Galileo.
Yes, the climate has always changed. But this shows why that’s no comfort: XKCD infographic
See the speed of sound
from http://nerdist.com/watch-the-speed-of-sound-ripple-through-queen-fans-at-live-aid-1985/
By Kyle Hill
Queen’s performance at Live Aid 1985 was only 20 minutes, but it lived on forever. Propped up by an infectiously enthusiastic Freddie Mercury and Brian May’s screaming guitar, the performance has gone on to be regarded as one of the best rock concerts of all time. If you haven’t seen it (above), take a little break to appreciate this supernova of a show.
The other thing you’ll notice is the crowd. They are in near-perfect unison, signing along and gesturing with Mercury’s mesmerizing gyrations. The audience was so in sync, in fact, that the only thing separating their movement was the speed of sound itself.
Watch the GIF below. Can you see the rapid, pulsing ripples that radiate through the fist-pumping masses? This is much faster than an organized wave like you’d see during a baseball game. No one is coordinating the movement, so what is going on?
A little math might help. The venue, Wembley Stadium, goes about 115 yards deep. The time it takes wave in the crowd to go from Mercury to the back of the stadium is maybe 0.3 seconds (a rough approximation). Dividing these two values results in a wave velocity of 340 meters per second. That’s almost exactly Mach 1, or the speed of sound.
Think about that! What you are actually seeing is thousands of people reacting reflexively the show, and what pops out is a wave moving at Mach 1. The people are a visual representation of Queen’s music–a unbridled manifestation of sound. It could only have happened at a show like this, yet another testament to Mercury and the band.
What are fields?
What are gravitational fields? Electric fields? Magnetic fields? the electromagnetic field?
What do physicists mean by the term “field”?
Let’s start by seeing how we describe stuff – anything – that exists in space.
Imagine our universe is flat. We could describe what’s going on at any point by defining a 2D grid, like graph paper.
We could use a 2D field to show the temperature at any location.
2-d field representing wind speed
But our universe is 3D.
That means we need 3 dimensions – 3 axes – to describe any point in space.
This image shows an empty universe, with nothing in it.
Now imagine a three dimensional grid extending through our world.
(indoor 3D climbing array by Croatian-Austrian artists Sven Jonke, Christoph Katzler and Nikola Radeljković.)
Now imagine this 3D field extending through all of space – and that this isn’t just a mathematical tool.
All of space is filled with several different fields.
These fields exist everywhere – on Earth and in space, between you and me.
They are within our bodies, and they extend to the visible boundaries of the universe
These fields are not a hypothesis or idea; they are absolutely real.
Our universe is made of two basic things:
particles (like protons, electrons, neutrons)
fields
Can we make these invisible fields visible?
Yes! Throw a handful of magnetic iron filings around a suspended magnet.
Magnify this image, look carefully:
We see each tiny pieces of metal pulled along the (otherwise invisible) magnetic field lines.
Now consider a horseshoe magnet – it’s a 3D object, with a 3D magnetic field invisibly emanating from it.
Toss a few thousand small iron filings at it – and suddenly those invisible fields become apparent!
At every single point in our universe there is an electric field.
And at every single point in our universe there is also a magnetic field, a gravitational field, and more!
Our whole planet creates, and is surrounded by, a magnetic field – and we can easily see its effects!
Just walk around with a compass, and this mysterious invisible field clearly grabs small slivers of metal, and orients them N/S.
That’s not a “concept” – these fields are real.
You can see the effect of invisible fields with the magnetometer built into your cell phone (yes, there’s an app for that!)
Physics Toolbox Magnetometer: google play
Now walk around indoors, and then outdoors – literally place you stand is filled with electric fields, magnetics fields.
Oh, and both are difference aspects of one greater field, the electro-magnetic field.
All of space, everywhere, is filled with this!
Oh, and there is more. You know how regular matter – atoms – has mass? How is that possible? Why do any atoms have mass at all? Why do atoms have the mass that they have, and why can’t atoms move at the speed of light?
While we won’t get into the details here, the answers to those questions come from the fact that there is yet another field permeating the entire universe: the Higgs field.
Here are visualizations of how particles moving through space interact with the Higgs field.
and
Putting it all together
As you move around our world, as space probes fly through outer space, it turns out that every point in space has multiple fields, at the same point, at the same time.
Each one of these fields has a separate value, which changes over time. Although we can’t see fields directly, we know they are real, and we certainly can “feel” them, measure their effect on particles as they pass through them.
If we had a God’s eye view of the universe, everywhere we look we would see these many different fields, changing in time.
Learning Standards
NGSS
HS-PS2-4 – Use mathematical representations of Newton’s Law of Gravitation and Coulomb’s Law to describe and predict the gravitational and electrostatic forces between objects.
Disciplinary Core Ideas PS2.B: Types of Interactions
Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Coulomb’s law provide the mathematical models to describe and predict the effects of gravitational and electrostatic forces between distant objects.
Forces at a distance are explained by fields (gravitational, electric, and magnetic) permeating space that can transfer energy through space. Magnets or electric currents cause magnetic fields; electric charges or changing magnetic fields cause electric fields.
HS-PS3-2. Develop and use models to illustrate that energy at the macroscopic scale can be accounted for as a combination of energy associated with the motion of particles (objects) and energy associated with the relative positions of particles (objects).
DCI PS3.A: Definitions of Energy
These relationships are better understood at the microscopic scale, at which all of the different manifestations of energy can be modeled as a combination of energy associated with the motion of particles and energy associated with the configuration (relative position of the particles).
In some cases the relative position energy can be thought of as stored in fields (which mediate interactions between particles). This last concept includes radiation, a phenomenon in which energy stored in fields moves across space.
HS-PS2-4. Use mathematical representations of Newton’s Law of Gravitation and Coulomb’s Law to describe and predict the gravitational and electrostatic forces between objects.
HS-PS2-5. Plan and conduct an investigation to provide evidence that an electric current can produce a magnetic field and that a changing magnetic field can produce an electric current.
DCI PS2.B: Types of Interactions – Forces at a distance are explained by fields (gravitational, electric, and magnetic) permeating space that can transfer energy through space. Magnets or electric currents cause magnetic fields; electric charges or changing magnetic fields cause electric fields. (HS-PS2-4),(HS-PS2-5)
AP Physics Learning Objectives
Essential Knowledge 2.A.1: A vector field gives, as a function of position (and perhaps time), the value of a physical quantity that is described by a vector.
a. Vector fields are represented by field vectors indicating direction and magnitude.
b. When more than one source object with mass or electric charge is present, the field value can be determined by vector addition.
c. Conversely, a known vector field can be used to make inferences about the number, relative size, and location of sources.
Content Connection: This essential knowledge does not produce a specific learning objective but serves as a foundation for other learning objectives in the course.
Essential Knowledge 2.A.2: A scalar field gives, as a function of position (and perhaps time), the value of a physical quantity that is described by a scalar. In Physics 2, this should include electric potential.
a. Scalar fields are represented by field values.
b. When more than one source object with mass or charge is present, the scalar field value can be determined by scalar addition.
c. Conversely, a known scalar field can be used to make inferences about the number, relative size, and location of sources.
Content Connection: This essential knowledge does not produce a specific learning objective but serves as a foundation for other learning objectives in the course.
Proof of evolution we can see on our bodies
…your body is a museum, full of ancient relics that no one really needs anymore. From your wisdom teeth to that weird way some of us can wiggle our ears, so much of how we ended up as humans reflects what our animal ancestors needed for survival. As this video by Vox explains, these strange remnants, that stuck around only because they’re not ‘costly’ enough to have disappeared across many millennia, only make sense within the framework of evolution by natural selection.
Proof-of-evolution-that-you-can-find-on-your-own-body
![Notebook B B 36 [1837.07]-[1837.10] http://www.amnh.org/our-research/darwin-manuscripts-project/edited-manuscripts/evolution/creating-the-origin/london-years/spring-1837-july-1842](https://kaiserscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/darwins-notebook-first-evolutionary-tree.jpg)
Latest Posts
-
Is it feasible and safe to colonize Mars?
Over the last decade many people working in space exploration have become much more skeptical about the possibility of human colonization of Mars, at least…
-
Soil profile Lego lab
First let’s learn about soil and its layers – Soil profiles This image comes from Build a Layers of Soil Model by Sarah McClelland. Clicking…
-
Epithelial cell tissue box model
Students can build a realistic model of epithelial cells with a tissue box. Here’s an article on Skin – the integumentary System Using a tissue box…
-
Making a winter cat shelter for outdoor cats
New England winters are beautiful, but they can be awful for feral cats. We have a few cats in our home that we got from…
KaiserScience 
