Wednesday, January 27, 2010 ~ Have your say...

If humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?

The fundamental issue with this question is that there is an assumption that humans evolved from apes - but this is not the case.  The simple answer is that humans did not evolve from apes:  both apes, humans, and other primates evolved from a common ancestor. The common ancestor was probably more similar to apes than humans in terms of appearance.  It is estimated that this lineage branched apart 8 million years ago - one branch leading to homonids (human-like), and the other branch leading to apes.  This estimate varies - some arguing the split was as close as 5 million years ago, others that it was as distant as 20 million years ago.

It's important to realize that evolution is not a linear process where one species evolves from the previous, effectively "replacing" the previous.  Instead, it is a much more complicated process where species will branch off an existing line of ancestors.  Seperate branches evolve along different trajectories and can include major changes, minor changes, no change, or extinction.  The survival of an evolutionary line is dependent upon the ability of its members to live and reproduce in their environment.

The figure below illustrates the primate "family tree":


Sometimes, separate species will evolve such that they will be in direct competition with each other, and the one with the evolutionary advantage will tend to survive.  Other times, seperate species will evolve so that each is well suited to their own particular niche.  In this case, the species' will coexist, and will evolve independently.  Such is the case with humans, apes, and other existing primates.

One of the reasons early human-like ancestors were able to survive was because they were better adapted to the emerging grassland environments than the ancestors of modern apes, which were predominantly tree dwellers. Therefore, the grassland-adapted species would not conflict with the tree-dwellers and they could coexist.

Basically, the question "if humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?" is analogous to "if North Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?".  Seems obvious, right?

For further reading, please check out Steven Novella's article on the Skeptic Blog.


References:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/primate_family_tree.gif

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 ~ Have your say...

The Drake Equation: Will We Communicate With Others?

Ever wonder if we'll find intelligent life in our galazy, with whom we could one day communicate with? With approximately 100 billion stars in our Milky Way, it certainly seems plausible that such a species or civilization might exist.

The Drake Equation, developed by Frank Drake in 1961, is a tool to estimate these odds. The estimates for the variables are rife with debate, but as technology improves, the estimates for each of the variables become more accurate.

The equation is as follows:



Where N, the solution, is the number of advanced technological civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy that could communicate with us.


Below are the variables and their estimates. I've provided some of today's "best guesses" but also included my own personal opinion. I've provided a link to a tool where you can manipulate the Drake Equation with your own estimates.

N* = The number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.  T
here's approximately 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, and this is more-or-less a good estimate.

fp = The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems around them. 
Current estimates range from 20% to 50%. Let's take 50%, because we are detecting more and more planets around stars each year with improved technology, so this seems increasingly likely.

ne = The average number of planets in a given planetary system that are suitable for the development of life. 
The current estimate is 1 to 5. Let's take 2 as a low average.

fl = The fraction of those planets where life actually arises. 
Very wide range here... if we assume that where life can evolve, it will, then it's 100%. Or we can assume that it's incredibly difficult for life to start, so close to 0%. Let's take 10% as low average, since we have not found sufficient evidence to indicate how likely life is to evolve on other planets.

fi = The fraction of those planets with life on which intelligent life appears. 
Intelligence grants a survival advantage, so we might be able to assume that there's at least a 10% chance (I'm being pessimistic and halving Dr. Drake's estimate). But to get to the level of the species home sapiens (at least), the numbers are very small - 1 species out of approximately 50 million (estimates range from 5 million to 100 million species on Earth... but who knows how many species would be on another planet?). Taking 50 million as our number, the fraction is then 0.00000002.

fc = The fraction of those planets with intelligent life that develop a technological civilization capable of communicating to and from their planet. 
Here, again, the assumption is that an intelligent species will have the desire and means to communicate outside of their planet. Looking back into history books, collectively, it certainly seems that the desire is there. The means - perhaps 10% or less. Say 1% for a low estimate.

fL = The fraction of the life of a planet that a technological planet survives. 
Using our own Earth as an example, what is the fraction of the Earth's life where the species is communicating? We've been communicating with radio waves (cabable of penetrating into deep space)for less than 100 years of the years 4.7 billion year old history. The "100" extends until our civilization is destroyed or collapses, until we are no longer able to communicate. This is difficult to estimate. For example, if we were destroyed today, the fraction is 1/100,000,000th. If we survive 10,000 years, the answer will be 1/1,000,000th. For this example, I'm going to take 1000 years of survival with the ability to communicate, or 1/10,000,000th.

Plug these numbers into the equation, and you get N = 1. In my head, as a general thought experiment without using the Drake Equation, I would think (and hope) the number would be higher.


Dr. Drake, when he plugs in his estimates, gets N = 10,000


The Reappearance Factor...

Since the inception of the Drake Equation, it has been modified to include another fraction nr. This is defined as "how many times an intelligent civilization may occur on planets where it has happened once". Even if an intelligent civilization reaches the end of its lifetime after, for example, X years, life may still exist the planet for billions of years, allowing another civilization to evolve. As a result, several civilizations may come and go during the lifespan of one planet. So if nr is the average number of times a new civilization reappears on the same planet where a previous civilization once has appeared and ended, then the total number of civilizations on such a planet would be (1+nr).

Using my calcualtion above, the reappearance factor, for me, is a wild guess - if you assume "3", then our N = 3. Using today's modern estimates for the Drake Equation and multiplying by the reappearance factor, the result for N is 2.31.

You can try out your own estimates here:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

If we consider the case "how many planets support life", then the number increases significantly. Using a modified version of the Drake Equation (removing the values fi, fc, fL), we get a value of 20 billion (or 1/5). Add intelligence back into the equation and the number is only 400 (I used our tiny fraction of 0.00000002, which is an estimate of the number of species on Earth that are at least as intelligent as the homo sapiens.

Try out the Drake Equation - what numbers do you get for your estimates? Do you think the that the value for N is high enough to warrant the search for extraterrestrial signals?

If you change the definition of N, so that N = the number of advanced civilizations that could communicate with us in the Universe... then you can multiply by another several billion*.

It's fun to manipulate the numbers of the Drake Equation, but the concept of life outside of our solar system is far more enticing and exciting. Hopefully, SETI will one day be able to discern a signal from space that will help to answer one of the most difficult questions in science: Are we alone?  Looking through the eyes of the Hubble Deep Field, you can't help but wonder.

*I say "several" because even though there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, how many of them are stable enough to support a solar system that can sustain life?

Saturday, January 16, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Doomsday and TEOTWAWKI

It's going to be the end of the world as we know it.

This is true, though probably not any time soon.  And probably not in 2012.


As our Sun runs through it's main sequence, we'll have about another 500 million years where we can live comfortably. Beyond that - cooked. This is inevitable.


There is always the incredibly low probability that the Earth will get smacked with an asteroid (mass extinction-type asteroid impacts occur about 1 in every 100 million years or so)*. But we'll probably be gone by then anyways, at the rate we are going - some estimates put the end of humanity at around the year 11,000 (using the Doomsday Argument as a basis). Discover Magazine lists 20 ways for Doomsday, and they are legitimate.


So, it will all end, eventually.


But will the dates of these events be predicted?


Every few years, there's a hot and sexy new prediction that catches the media's attention.  A so-called prophet, maybe with a direct line to God, will spell out (with great certainty) the end of the world.  Or maybe someone will read between the lines of an ancient text and decipher a cryptic message signifying the apocalypse.  Or someone will look at some old scrolls and say "See? That's what [insert false prophet's name here] meant when [insert nasty event here] happened.", which is a great example of reading patterns in data after-the-fact.


Chris Nelson has compiled a list of doomsday predictions on his site abohota.info. Here are the stats thus far:


Correctly Predicted Doomsdays:
    0 (zero)

Incorrectly Predicted Doomsdays: 400+

The latest doomsday prophecy is scheduled for December 21st, 2012.  This is the end of the Mayaan calenda, and all sorts of chaos and destruction is supposed to happen.  When this doesn't happen, and the world continues, will they write about it?  Will it even make the news? Will they show "documentaries" about the prediction and how it failed

Probably not.


I believe we should stop wasting time with silly predictions and focus on the real issues that are certainly having a negative impact on our planet: population growth, mass consumption of resources, loss of biodiversity, destruction of the oceans and other habitat loss, climate change, terrorism and nuclear proliferation into unstable countries, territorial disputes, religious intolerance, war, famine, disease, pollution... the list goes on.


This week, the doomsday clock was been set back a minute, so we're good for at least a little while...



* If you are terribly worried, you can ease your mind by viewing NASA Near Earth Object Program's sentry risk table.

References and futher reading:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl1.htm
http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm  
http://alma-geddon.com/  
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/earth-gets-a-billion-year-life-extension/  
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/cosmology/ep-86-the-end-of-the-universe-part-1-the-end-of-the-solar-system/
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/25/the-end-of-everything/  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argumen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld


Thursday, January 14, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Amazing Photography

Over the last couple of weeks, I've browsed a number of sites looking for a new desktop background.  Yes, I consumed my time with this side project, but in an effort to beautify my Windows experience, I stumbled upon some truly magnificent examples of nature photography that should definitely be shared:
 25 Breathtaking Examples of Nature Photography

Earth Science Picture of the Day

Astronomy Picture of the Day

National Geographic Galleries

The Big Picture

NASA Photojournal and the NASA Archives

More sites to come...

Saturday, January 9, 2010 ~ Have your say...

5 Crazy Optical Illusions

The mind can play tricks on us, and this particularly evident when viewing optical illusions.  Take a look at these five, and then read on to see why optical illusions have anything to do with being skeptical...  Click on the images to see larger versions.

Spinning circles...



Can you count the black dots?




Waves...



Shimmering, vibrating...
 



Imaginary rotation...
 

So why are optical illusions important?  Because they teach us that even the most critical of minds can be fooled.  Verify the images above - they are static JPEGs (and a PNG) - there's no animation going on, but in all cases, most people will see circles rotating, dots moving, or waves rolling.  It's very easy to see things that aren't really there.

I was originally going to explain how these illusions work, Michael Bach has done a fantastic job already.  Visit his site to view many more.

Another great site is VisualIllusion.net, where they provide a free eBook to explain the scientific explanation for optical illusions.




Finally, ch
eck out this video...





Thursday, January 7, 2010

Failed and Forgotten Psychic Predictions of 2009

Each year, psychics around the world make predictions for the coming year, and each year, the Skeptic community checks to see their track record.

Our friends over at Skeptic North have done a wonderful job of outlining the failed predictions from "top" psychic Sylvia Brown and John Hogue. The track record speaks for itself.


John Hogue's 2009 Predictions
Sylvia Brown's 2009 Predictions

Over at the CSICOP, you can check out the track record as far back as the 90's.

It's interesting to see which predictions were a miss, but it should also be noted what wasn't predicted for 2009. Wouldn't the world's leading psychics want to predict these juicy news items?

  • H1N1/Swine Flu outbreak
  • The Tiger Woods scandal
    Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize
  • Deadly bushfires in Australia
  • The outstanding success of Twitter
    Deaths: Micheal Jackson, Natasha Richardson, Walter Cronkite, Patrick Swayze, Brittany Murphy, Farrah Fawcett, and others.
  • The sudden fame of Susan Boyle
 Finally, let's look at Psychic Nikki's predictions for 2009, now that the year has passed.  How do you think she did?

Saturday, January 2, 2010 ~ Have your say...

The Face on Mars and Pareidolia


Back in 1976, the Viking Orbiter 1 acquired some images of the Cydonia region of Mars as part of the search for a potential landing site for the Viking Lander 2. One of the images included a shot of a region that looked remarkably similar to a face. The image was released to the public by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as part of their public relations effort.

Here it is:
Shortly after the images were released, some people (mostly in lay literature) argued that the face was artificially created, and that this was concrete evidence for either past or present intelligence on Mars. The rock formation looked so similar to a face - how could it not have been designed by an intelligent architect?

Some believe the face was created by Martians, others say it is a tomb, or part of an ancient city. Others believe that NASA is involved in a conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the Face - all part of a secret space program (then why would they have released the picture in the first place?).

Mac Tonnies goes so far as to say that the Face is a "genuine scientific enigma". After NASA released new images of the Face in 1998, he claims that the "experts either don't understand the workings of their own instruments or else feel somehow threatened by the Face's enduring mystery." (you can check out his very centered site here)

"Scientific enigma", the Face is not.

Humans - all humans - have an innate ability to detect patterns out of seemingly random noise. This ability is particularly strong when it comes to faces. As David Hume once said, "There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer every object, those qualities, with which they are familiary acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good will to everything, that hurts or pleases us.

This phenomenon - detecting something clear and distinct from an apparently obscure stimulus - is called "pareidolia". Carl Sagan hypothesized that, as a survival technique, human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces.

Pareidolia not only applies to the detection of faces, but also to the perception of religious imagery and themes. In 1978, a New Mexican woman found that the burn marks on her tortilla she had made appeared similar to the face of Jesus Christ. Thousands of people came to see the burnt tortilla. Do think that if Son of God wanted to be seen, he would appear on a tortilla? Or the Virgin Mary, on a grilled cheese sandwich? Wouldn't they pick something a little more majestic?

But first, let's revisit the Face on Mars. Back in 1976, the imaging technology was inferior to today's, and the resolution of the images was significantly lower. Even compared to 1998, the resolution of space images has increased dramatically. Let's compare the Face from lowest to highest resolution:

The 1976 version sure does look like a face, and if you strain your eyes, you might still see a face in the 1998 version. But what about the 2001 version? Not so much. Let's look even closer at the 2001 version, just to be sure:


At the highest resolution, you need to slide the goalposts pretty wide to see a face.

So, combined with our knowledge of pareidolia, and the high resolution images provided by NASA, do you think the Face is still a face, or an optical illusion enhanced by the fact that we were originally looking at very low resolution images? Throw in Occam's Razor for good measure: Is it more likely that the Face is a result of an advanced Martian civilization, or the simpler choice: Low resolution images and the effect of pareidolia?

I'll go with the simpler of the two.
Here's a great video to sum up:




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...