Will colonizing meteorites and asteroids with bacteria one day save life as we know it?

By Alex Ballingall - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 8:55 AM - 15 Comments

iStock, Getty Images; Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute

The world is doomed. Even if we avoid annihilation by climate change or nuclear holocaust, the inevitable expansion of the sun will surely do us in. Or will it?

Michael Mautner, professor of chemistry and astroecology at Virginia Commonwealth University, has a plan to save life as we know it. Called directed panspermia, it’s meant to maintain Earth’s evolutionary path, although it might be described as spraying bacteria into space.

Mautner became interested in the idea when he was studying at New York’s Rockefeller University in the early 1970s. It was there, in the midst of the Cold War’s nuclear standoff, that he felt “our survival really became a question.” He’s been advocating directed panspermia ever since. In 1995, he founded the Panspermia Society for Life in Space, and for most of his professional life, he has studied whether microbes can survive on asteroids and meteorites in space. This, he says, is necessary for directed panspermia to work.

Continue…

Does technology speed up human evolution?

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM - 10 Comments

Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert W. Fogel has spent three decades researching the size and shape of human bodies over the years, spawning a new branch of historical study and a controversial theory that technology has sped up human evolution in an unprecedented way over the past 100 years, the New York Times reports. According to Fogel, advances in food production and public health has totally outpaced traditional evolution, so people today are apart from other species, and even from our own previous generations. For example, the average American adult man in 1850 was 5 feet 7 inches, weighed 146 pounds, and had a life expectancy of 45 years. In the 1980s, a man in his early thirties was 5 feet 10 inches, weighed 174 pounds and was expected to live to 75. At the time of the French Revolution, the average man in his thirties weighed 110 pounds, compared to 170 pounds today. The exact impact of technology on evolution is still a controversial scientific subject. Next month, a book that sums up Fogel’s theories, The Changing Body, will be published.

The New York Times

Is the Pope Catholic?

By Brian Bethune - Monday, April 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM - 36 Comments

Franco Origlia/Getty Images

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, not according to confounded Vatican watchers. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was already 78 years old when he became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. He was widely seen as the arch-conservative doctrinal enforcer, the sharp spear point wielded by his charismatic rock star predecessor—Joshua to Pope John Paul II’s Moses, in the words of one Jewish scholar. The consensus opinion was that Benedict would provide a quiet, business-as-usual continuance of John Paul’s 27-year reign and, given his age, a brief pontificate that would allow the 1.1 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church time to catch its breath and consider its future options.

No one, it seems, asked Benedict what he thought of the caretaker idea.

From inflaming the Islamic world by quoting medieval anti-Muhammad remarks to welcoming disaffected Anglicans into the Roman fold, becoming personally embroiled in the clerical sex-abuse scandal, endorsing the (sometimes) use of condoms, writing a passage in his newest book exonerating Jews from the charge of killing Christ, and a host of less headline-grabbing initiatives (including a casual acceptance of the theory of evolution), Benedict—as he celebrates his 84th birthday and sixth anniversary as Pope (April 16 and 19, respectively)—continues to be far more active, innovative, and outright newsworthy than expected.

Continue…

This week: Newsmakers

By Charlie Gillis, Chris Sorensen and Nicholas Köhler - Friday, February 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM - 0 Comments

A breath of fresh Canadian air
The usual right vs. left political jabber of American talk TV was punctuated this week by a few clear-eyed statements courtesy of Canada’s first female prime minister. On Real Time With Bill Maher, former Progressive Conservative leader Kim Campbell called Republican Jack Kingston‘s views on global warming “absolute rubbish,” pointing out to the Georgia congressman that scientists didn’t set out looking for a non-existent problem just to torture right-leaning politicians. When the conversation shifted toward the evolution vs. creation debate, Campbell asked if Kingston was concerned about the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. He squirmed. “That’s evolution,” she said to applause. Does 132 days as PM preclude Campbell from a future in politics?

Lolita’s lepidopterist
In addition to writing great novels, Vladimir Nabokov was a self-taught expert on the evolutionary biology of butterflies—though, like any amateur, the Lolita author faced skepticism from the scientific establishment. Now one of his most audacious theories has been proven right. A paper published by the Royal Society has endorsed Nabokov’s hypothesis that butterflies are not indigenous to North America, but rather arrived in a series of “waves” from Asia. The new research was made possible by gene-sequencing technology Nabokov never had. Said Naomi Pierce, a Harvard expert who co-authored the study: “It’s really quite a marvel.”

Single White Premier seeks less idiotic press
With three female premiers and a female prime minister, Julia Gillard, Australian voters seem fairly accustomed to the idea of women in politics. The media? Not so much. The country’s biggest national newspaper, the Australian, ran a front-page story about Tasmanian premier Lara Giddings‘s first day in office that zeroed in on her comments (in response to a reporter’s question) about the challenges of snaring a husband when you’re a busy politician. The headline read: “Leftist Lara still looking for Mr. Right.” Critics shook their heads. “Why on Earth was this suddenly relevant the day Giddings became Tasmania’s first female premier?” asked one Sydney Morning Herald columnist, noting Giddings was previously an unmarried treasurer and an unmarried attorney general. “It was not as if she had landed from Mars.”

Continue…

Crowdfunding Evolution: An Update

By Andrew Potter - Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM - 1 Comment

You’ll perhaps recall that Baba Brinkman is trying to raise money through Crowdfunder to make some kickass videos for his “Rap Guide to Evolution”. I posted details earlier.

Well, things are going well but they need a bit of a push to get them over the top. Here’s Baba’s latest letter:

***

Happy New Year!

It’s the final two weeks of the Rap Guide to Evolution DVD Crowdfunder drive and we’re only at 81%, which is much better than I had feared, but Crowdfunder’s rules are strict.  If we don’t meet or exceed the £10,000 target in the 60 day timeframe everyone gets their money back and we’re stuck with our original (highly stretched) budget.  We can’t let this happen!  There are 13 days left as of today, so this is a call to arms.  Please share this link on facebook, twitter, blogs, and emails, and if you’ve been thinking of contributing, now is the time!

And here’s a recent post on BoingBoing.net that has given the pitch a nice boost, literally a 6% increase in the past 48 hours, thanks in part perhaps to the heated debates raging in the comments section, including a spat between myself and a semi-famous transexual blank-slatist over the scientific validity of evolutionary psychology.

Also, I’m accepting bookings through the Crowdfunder drive, and so far two different venues have secured bookings by contributing £1,000.  Email me to check about possible dates and availability first, as this is currently the only way I’m booking events for 2011 due to the off-Broadway run that’s scheduled to start in New York in March.  So if you’ve been thinking of organizing a performance of the Rap Guide to Evolution or Rap Canterbury Tales this year, let’s do it through Crowdfunder and put the money towards the DVD post-production costs!

Speaking of the upcoming off-Broadway run, Sharon Levy of Dovetail Productions is currently organizing the venue, hiring the team, and raising the crucial funds to make this happen, mostly through private investment.  She needs to secure $300K (minimum $5-$10K units), standard for New York off-Broadway theatre, and she is open to investors from my network (that’s y’all).  Be warned that there is risk involved, but also possible financial reward (if you think I’m bankable prospect!)  Let me know if you’re seriously interested and I’ll connect you with Sharon, but first read her Executive Summary with the pitch.

In other news, we have now finished all of the live filming for the music videos and the footage we have is amazing!  We filmed a Galapagos beach party for “Worst Comes to Worst”, a grimy snarling fire-in-a-barrel rudeboy video for “Survival of the Fittest”, and a breakdance battle between Darwin, Sarah Palen, Michel Foucault, and *God* for “Survival of the Fittest”.  Check out the photos on the bottom of the Crowdfunder pitch page.

Next, crowdfunder willing, is the editing and post-production phase, and finally the release party, hopefully in early April to coincide with the off-Broadway run.  One final push to make it happen!

Thanks for your support and continued efforts,

Baba

Crowdfunding Evolution

By Andrew Potter - Friday, November 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM - 6 Comments

Earlier this year, the very excellent Baba Brinkman was awarded a grant from the Wellcome Trust to make a series of music videos for the Rap Guide to Evolution, to “promote the public understanding of science”. He’s been working on with a crew in London to shoot the videos; the above clip is a preview.

But over the course of making the videos, he’s upped his ambition. From an email he sent out the other day:

…we want to take them to the next level by weaving in original animation, digital effects, and high-quality nature footage licensed from sources like the BBC.  Imagine a four-minute short film, part Eminem-style rap music video, part David Attenborough-style nature documentary, illustrating themes such as the common descent of all human beings from African ancestors and the processes of natural and sexual selection that shaped our bodies and minds and the rest of nature.

To pay for it, Baba and his partners have decided to try “crowdfunding” — essentially you pay upfront for the DVD, when they get their target they’ll produce the videos. If they don’t reach the target in sixty days you get your money back. If you like the project and want to support it, you have options:  £10 gets you a download of the finished videos, £20 gets you a DVD, and £30 buys you immortality: they will put your photo in one of the videos, representing a branch on the human family tree. HOW COOL A XMAS PRESENT IS THAT?

Here’s the link to the crowdfunding site.

And here is the Rap Guide to Evolution

How ‘The Beaver’ lost its name

By Martin Patriquin - Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 1:00 PM - 4 Comments

The Beaver is no longer, killed off on its 90th birthday. As of its April issue, the name of Canada’s second oldest magazine has been scrubbed from the masthead, replaced with Canada’s History. Though its staff says the name change is necessary to reflect its evolution—“We’ve become a multi-platform magazine,” says editor Mark Reid—the main reason was to put an end to the snickering, once and for all.

Call it death by double entendre. Rarely has the title evoked only the industrious, slick-haired rodent. The term’s other, more carnal meaning, a slang term for a specific part of the female anatomy, has been a distraction for years, cheapening this earnest, wholesome publication, clogging subscriber spam filters and ultimately hurting its bottom line. “Yes, I like beavers, the animals, just as much as anybody else,” Reid said recently.

“It’s a historic creature, it’s on our nickel, it’s a proud part of the fur trade. But in the 21st century, if you are going to rebrand your entire organization, including all that you do, ‘beaver’ is probably not going to be the word that best speaks to what you do, if you know what I mean.”

Continue…

Survival of the smallest

By Rachel Mendleson - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM - 7 Comments

(Kraig Lieb/Getty)

As a general rule, it’s tough to get the public engaged in science. Which is why Victoria-based environmental researcher Chris Darimont says he’s “thrilled” about the attention his findings on the evolutionary impacts of hunting and fishing have garnered. His paper, which shows how the targeting of large animals has prompted species to get smaller and breed earlier, was just named one of Discover Magazine’s Top 100 Science Stories of 2009. “I know that it’s infiltrating the world of managers,” says Darimont. “And that, for a conservation scientist, is really important.”

In a sense, his findings were always destined for the mainstream. According to Darimont, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and research scientist with the Raincoast Conservation Society, the study gives credence to oft-told anecdotes about how, in generations past, animals were much larger. Based on the meta-analysis of 34 studies, Darimont found that humans have caused swift evolutionary change in species ranging from big horn sheep to Atlantic cod. On average, he says, in the past three decades, body mass has decreased by 20 per cent and reproductive age by 25 per cent.

Though we tend to think of our role in the ecosystem in more civilized terms, in reality, says Darimont, we are predators, “and every predator can have an evolutionary impact on its prey.” Unlike other predators, who typically target the “newly born or nearly dead,” says Darimont, humans go after “large, reproductive-aged adults.” At the same time, regulations often require animals under a certain size be spared, which, says Darimont, “promotes these evolutionary changes.”

With the exception of emails from “a few angry trophy hunters,” Darimont says the feedback he’s received has been overwhelmingly positive. His hope, he says, is that the findings influence policymakers—and us—to rethink how fish and animals are hunted. “It’s not good enough just to do good science,” he says. “It’s got to be injected into the real world, so that changes can be made.”

Fixes for some common problems

By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM - 0 Comments

Most of the time this column pokes fun, usually while finding a way to reference Charlie Sheen. But this week I’m here to help. There are problems in the world and I aim to solve them—much in the way the presence of Charlie Sheen “solved” my desire to ever watch Two and a Half Men.

Problem: A poll indicates that Canadian parents are more comfortable talking to their children about sex than discussing the ins and outs of money and personal finance.

Solution: Son, have a seat. Comfortable? Good, that’s good. Look—it’s time we had a talk. [Deep breath.] When a man loves a woman, and also a motorboat, he may feel the urge to engage in the act of “earning.” Continue…

About those taxes (IV)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM - 34 Comments

Meet John K. Bell. He’s the Cambridge businessman who asked Michael Ignatieff a question yesterday that prompted an answer that may or may not be the single most controversial thing any Canadian politician in recorded history has ever said.

John and I chatted this afternoon. Our conversation after the jump. Continue…

James Lunney Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 6:11 PM - 16 Comments

The Nanaimo Daily News won’t take no comment for an answer.

Whatever his reasons for bringing creationist theory into the Canadian Parliament, Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney is keeping silent.

He won’t say why he gave a speech in the House of Commons Charles saying Darwin would likely rethink his theory of evolution today, based on new knowledge creationists say disprove evolution. He failed to return numerous calls, and last week he rebuffed questions at a Nanaimo press conference…

“I won’t comment,” he said, pushing away a reporter’s recording device during a funding announcement at the Vancouver Island University library on Wednesday.

James Lunney v. Evolution (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 9:59 PM - 4 Comments

The Nanaimo Daily News would like to speak with James Lunney.

Lunney’s brief speech contained references to controversial theories espoused by Robert V. Gentry, a creationist, Seventh-day Adventist Church member and nuclear physicist. Gentry concluded, after studying radiohalos, microscopic zones of damage found around radioactive crystals in rock, that the rock must have been formed in minutes, not the generally accepted millions of years. Gentry’s theory, discredited as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, has spawned a new field of study for creationists who take the story of Genesis literally.

Lunney also made reference to plate tectonic and fossil evidence theories some Christians consider proof of creationism. He gave the speech in Ottawa at 2:10 p.m. Eastern Time but has been unavailable for comment since then, despite repeated calls.

James Lunney v. Evolution

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 6:03 PM - 106 Comments

From the Conservative MP’s statement before QP.

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

Belief v. understanding

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM - 11 Comments

Scientists assess Gary Goodyear’s views on evolution.

Elizabeth Elle, a biology professor at Simon Fraser University, said it’s good to hear the minister accepts the theory of evolution, but she was concerned about the example he provided.

“I think it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution by natural selection works,” she added.

The fundamental premise is that genetic variation among organisms results in differences in their “fitness” — a biological term referring to the number of offspring they have. That ultimately leads certain characteristics to become prevalent among their descendents. However, the types of characteristics that result in more offspring change over time as the environment changes.

Elle acknowledged that humans are evolving every day, being naturally selected for characteristics such as resistance to certain diseases.

“The kind of shoes that you wear and the surfaces that you walk on — I don’t understand how that would translate into differences in fitness from a biological sense,” Elle said.

Do the evolution (V)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 11:21 PM - 21 Comments

Gary Goodyear gets some support from, well, pretty much the last person you’d expect to be defending him at this moment.

On Tuesday, Liberal science critic Marc Garneau said that believing in evolution is not a job requirement for the science minister.

“It is a personal matter. It is a matter of faith.… I don’t think it prevents someone from being a good minister,” said the former astronaut, who has been a vocal critic of the government for its cuts to the three granting councils that fund university-based research in Canada.

It is perhaps time to wonder whether this isn’t all just an elaborate production to punk Dan Gardner.

Do the evolution (IV)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 6:27 PM - 6 Comments

Dan Gardner, who must be having quite the day, responds to Gary Goodyear.

Apparently, the problem here is not merely that the minister of science does not accept the veracity of a basic scientific fact. It’s that he doesn’t have a clue what that scientific fact is.

He also has some words for Radwanski.

Do the evolution (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM - 28 Comments

Interviewed on the political chat show that’s named after a hockey term, Gary Goodyear has confirmed his belief in evolution. Sort of.

Jane Taber: So you do believe in evolution. You believe in the theory of evolution. Let’s just get this off the table right now.

Gary Goodyear: We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that’s not relevant. And that’s why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong…

From a couple offices over, Wells argues that this is positively Lamarckian (see here, here or here).

Full interview with Goodyear here.

Do the evolution (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM - 24 Comments

Adam Radwanski on all this nonsense.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kady O’Malley that Gary Goodyear displayed an appalling lack of political acumen in walking straight into a discussion of his belief – or lack thereof – in evolution. Coming so soon after his weird blow-up with representatives of the CAUT, it suggests our science minister is in way over his head in a portfolio that’s taken on more profile than Stephen Harper probably anticipated when he appointed him to it. And yes, Goodyear’s background as a chiropractor is probably not going to help him much in his discussions with Steven Chu.

All that being said, does anyone else get the feeling we’re losing the plot a wee bit here?

More to the point, when people are weary of the viciousness that’s come to characterize federal politics in this country, attacking the personal knowledge or views of your opponents is a dangerous game to play. At least, I’d like to think it is. And I’d also like to think that those of us in my line of work will keep our eye on the ball as much as we’ve implored our politicians to do.   

He then points to another case of religion meeting public policy that might be more worthy of discussion. He might’ve mentioned this too.

Do the evolution

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 2:05 PM - 15 Comments

Dan Gardner reads the front page of the Globe.

I thought it was embarrassing when a chiropractor was appointed Canada’s minister of science and technology.

I thought it was more embarrassing when physicist Steven Chu became US Secretary of Energy, thus setting up future meetings at which American science is represented by a Nobel laureate and Canadian science is represented by a man who thinks putting pressure on the spine is a wonder cure for all that ails us.

And it was still more embarrassing when the Conservative government, in a budget that tossed money to any upstretched hand, actually cut funding for scientific research. This, I thought, is the very depths of embarrassment. It can’t get any worse than this.

Well, I was wrong. Oh lord, oh lord! Was I wrong!

Later, he disagrees somewhat vehemently with our Paul.

Well, that certainly didn't come up at last night's science awards ceremony …

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM - 120 Comments

But if the story in today’s Globe and Mail had come out just a few hours earlier, we probably would have paid considerably more attention to what the PM’s pointminister on science and technology had to say to the crowd during the NSERC research awards last night at the Chateau Laurier last night.

Oh, who am I kidding? If Goodyear’s comments – or rather, refusal to comment – on evolution had been reported before last night’s awards ceremony, I suspect that reporters who turned up to cover it would have discovered that it had suddenly become closed to the media. (Maybe that’s why those PMO staffers were in such a rush to hustle us out the door after the presentations were over.)

Continue…

A coming glorious epoch of monkey supremacy

By Scott Feschuk - Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM - 8 Comments

A British geneticist claims to have made a startling discovery: humanity has stopped evolving. He apparently arrived at this conclusion after studying new data, analyzing behavioural patterns, and watching Rosie O’Donnell eat a side of ribs.

Professor Steve Jones of University College London cites a number of reasons, but says the leading cause of our stagnation as a species is that fewer older men are fathering children. Turns out a man in his 50s is more likely than a man in his 30s to pass on genetic “mutations,” the fuel of evolution. (By total coincidence, professor Jones is 64 years old—an older man—making his theory either the summation of a life’s work in science or the worst pick-up line ever. Hey baby, how’d ya like to help encourage a few cellular deviations?)

Many are taking issue with Jones’s conclusions—but what if he’s right? What if there will be no sixth finger or third arm for humankind—and no second liver for Lohankind? What if we really are done evolving?

Then the monkeys win, people.

The monkeys win.
Continue…