Evolution – Part One

Credit Steinhöfel-ESO - CC-BY

Credit Steinhöfel-ESO – CC-BY – Depicting the evolution of a main sequence star – tap for large image

Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The Free Dictionary, definition 1(a).

Some years ago I published a series of articles about evolution in my local newspaper. It generated some interest and a spate of letters to the editor, and my publisher liked it. There was even a creationist who challenged me to a debate over it. I decided to reproduce it here. This is part one, which I called Evolving in Spite of Us. See also Part Two and Part Three.

When we think of evolution we usually think of life. It seems natural to think of Darwin’s “origin of species” as being what evolution is all about. After all, that’s what people are usually talking about when they talk about evolution. It’s good to remember, though, that not only life evolves. Pretty well anything you can think of is changing over time. Everything is in the process of transforming from one state to another. Since that’s practically the definition of evolution, it’s safe to say that everything is evolving.

For example, the interior of our planet Earth is gradually cooling over the eons. That means that there is less heat energy to drive the movement of the crustal plates, and therefore continental drift will gradually slow down. Eventually, if given enough time, Earth would cool enough to set and the continents would never move again. Fewer earthquakes. Fewer volcanoes. Less mixing of the various parts of the biosphere. The Earth is evolving.

Our Sun is also evolving. It’s much hotter now than it was when it was young. It’s been slowly heating up in the four-and-a-half billion years since it was born. If it follows the course of other stars of similar mass and composition, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t, in another four or five billion years it will be a red giant. This will likely happen before the Earth can cool down enough to set. By that time it will have burned Earth to a crisp, possibly even growing large enough to engulf it. Life on Earth has been adapting to the Sun’s increasing output, even to the point of actively adjusting the atmosphere to keep it in the right temperature range. Nothing is likely to compensate for being engulfed, though.

Even the universe as a whole is evolving. We can tell that it’s expanding, which implies that it used to be smaller. We know that the universe was different in the past, to the point where there were no galaxies or stars at all. In the past it was very small and very hot. After about 14 billion years of expansion it exists in a state which supports life. Unfortunately, the rate of expansion is increasing. If nothing happens to change things, the universe is going to grow increasingly cold and dark. Eventually it will no longer support life.

We may continually come back to life when we think of evolution, but evolution goes on regardless of life.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Fake News – Fake Science

fake-news-everything-on-realtruenews-was-a-lie

Fake news is in the news these days. It’s a problem because of the gullibility and credulousness of so many people. There are those who trust any source that gives the appearance of authority. And there is the ever-present problem of people believing anything that seems to confirm their biases, either supporting what they believe, or criticizing what they dislike. This is pretty bad but normally it wouldn’t be much of a problem. Just another case of liars taking advantage of fools. But this time around it is out there in such volume, and is said to have so much influence, that people are rightfully beginning to worry.

But that’s just the news. At worst, we might have to put up with foreign countries or malevolent corporations affecting democratic elections. Oh, and the disenfranchisement of voting citizens. And I guess the serious erosion of trust in democratic institutions and processes. But that’s just politics, right? There’s always been lying and cheating there. No, the really worrisome fakery is taking place in science. Just as there is an increase in fake news, so there is an increase in fake science.

We’re used to corporations and their loyal politicians invoking false or purchased science to protect their profits and privileges. From tobacco to fossil fuels, we’ve been repeatedly reassured that no one has proven that they’re harmful. So maybe people die, or the environment suffers, but that’s just business as usual. We’re used to it. There’s never been a question about the integrity of the scientific community. Just a few individuals who weren’t seriously troubled by their consciences. But now things have changed. Now people can pay to publish their fake science right in the scientific journals. Those organs which were once the barrier to false and frivolous claims. Which set the bar of credibility for those claims, and whose stringent rules of review ensured that most of what they published was worthy of our attention.

Still, everyone knew who the pay-to-publish journals were. It was easy to keep track of them and to treat their content with greater scepticism. And they were actually a good outlet for honest scientists who couldn’t make the cut at the traditional journals, if only because they don’t have enough space for everything. But lately it’s worse. Lately profits have overtaken the dissemination of knowledge as the motive for publication, and some of these journals have begun to publish everything in the quest for revenue. Now anyone with an axe to grind can publish “scientific” papers as proof. Smoking is good for you? Pollution is good for the environment? Creationism is science? Of course. It says so right in this paper published by this prestigious journal.

Okay, so maybe there are a few crooked publishers out there. Surely the legitimate ones will balance them out. Right? Don’t count on it. In Canada, two publishers of prominent and respected medical journals have recently been bought out by a fake-science-for-cash publisher. Oh, they’ve insisted that they will maintain high standards, but they’ve been caught out by a test paper submitted by the Ottawa Citizen. They presented a paper that made no sense, was highly plagiarized, and, to put it simply, was awful. It passed the fake journal’s supposed peer review and got published. I wonder if that review consisted of sending an invoice.

It’s hard to know if the paper you’re reading is genuine science or not. It’s hard to keep track of which journals are still honest. And this doesn’t just affect the readers of the journals. It’s also a problem for honest scientists who want to submit their work.

Fake news is a problem, my earlier facetiousness aside, but fake science is at least as much of a problem. We need to deal with both of them.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

How Did Life on Earth Begin

Today life has conquered every square inch of Earth, but when the planet formed it was a dead rock. How did life get started?

We have probably been wondering for millennia how life started on Earth. At some point we decided that it must have been done by one or more gods, and we’ve elaborated that hypothesis as it evolved over the ages. We’ve never tested it, though. No one has ever done an experiment to see if a god could create life. We just sort of said that they must have because, well, how else could it have happened? The judicious application of exclusion, torture and execution kept the questions to a minimum.

Eventually we reached a point where inquiry could no longer be peremptorily quashed, at least not everywhere all the time, and we began to look at the question in a more naturalistic way. That is, could life have arisen on Earth through the natural workings of physical elements and forces? The linked BBC article is a long, comprehensive look at the evolution of this inquiry over the last two hundred years or so. I strongly recommend reading it, but in the case of TL;DR, here’s the condensed version: We haven’t settled on a single theory yet, but we’ve certainly shown that’s it’s plausible.

From the BBC article:

The oldest known fossils are around 3.5 billion years old, 14 times the age of the oldest dinosaurs. But the fossil record may stretch back still further. For instance, in August 2016 researchers found what appear to be fossilised microbes dating back 3.7 billion years.

This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell.

Before the 1800s, most people believed in “vitalism”. This is the intuitive idea that living things were endowed with a special, magical property that made them different from inanimate objects.

… the big biological breakthrough of the 19th Century was the theory of evolution, as developed by Charles Darwin and others.

The idea that life formed in a primordial soup of organic chemicals became known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It was neat and compelling, but there was one problem. There was no experimental evidence to back it up. This would not arrive for almost a quarter of a century.

The Miller-Urey experiment.

Miller connected a series of glass flasks and circulated four chemicals that he suspected were present on the early Earth: boiling water, hydrogen gas, ammonia and methane. He subjected the gases to repeated electric shocks, to simulate the lightning strikes that would have been a common occurrence on Earth so long ago.

And five more chapters follow. It’s really worth the read. But I think I can safely guarantee that the creationists won’t be convinced. They prefer the age of vitalism.

Source: The secret of how life on Earth began

For your interest, see my previous posts on Panspermia and life in the Solar System.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment