An article I found at ScienceDaily today described a recent study that revealed that more than 16 million Asian men are direct descendants of Genghis Khan, including about 35% of all Mongolian men. Using genetic tests to investigate the Y-chromosome of Asian men, the study found that a large number of men must have descended from a common ancestor who lived about 1000 years ago in Mongolia, who researcheres inferred must have been Genghis Khan.
For me, these statistics are both staggering and disconcerting. It's incredible that one individual could have such an immense influence on the genetic makeup of such a large portion of the modern world. It's also a little frightening to think that the individuals who have had the greatest influence on the global gene pool were not nice, meek individuals, but tyrants, mass rapists, and conquerors, who forcefully spread their seed to possibly tens of thousands of offspring, which then multiplied as the generations passed. Nevertheless, the fact that you don't see most of us trying to take over the world despite this selection for aggressive traits suggests that there must be a strong counteracting selection for altruistic traits as well.
Read the article here.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Anne's New and Hot - week 8
I have continued my correspondence with my tour guide Klaus, and it turns out that in the past ten years he has given many lectures at Universities and Private Institutions. He mentioned one of his lectures that pertains directly to what we’re studying in class. He said that his lecture that addresses Darwin’s path to evolution and the extent to which the Galapagos influenced him is one of his favorites to give. Knowing this, I’ll definitely ask him some questions about his take on certain things we’ve been discussing.
To start out though, I wanted to ask him about some of the issues relating to the Galapagos that we have been talking about. In one of my other posts I wrote about articles that I had read about the destruction of the Galapagos and tourism. Klaus wrote a really interesting response to my question that reaffirmed that tourism is not as big of a problem as more domestic issues. He wrote:
“Lately there has been a lot of media exposure about Galápagos, partly because of the President’s declaration of Galápagos under emergency. Right away this triggered the next response with all fingers pointing at the excessive numbers of tourists as the main problem and everyone imagined iguanas and sea lions trampled by hordes of visitors. A few weeks ago, a head of UNESCO made a remark about too many visitors in Galápagos. I see this as too much excitement over the wrong evil. Tourism has increased, true. But it is far from being a hazard. Last year we had 148 000 visitors. I have to say that every time I fly to Galápagos (five times in the last two months) I count as another visitor, so the actual number of tourist is much smaller (98000 foreign visitors, in fact, and a number of Ecuadorian too). But high as these figures may seem, keep in mind, that in a single soccer stadium, in Brasil, there is room for 170 000 seated spectators, for one and a half hours of 22 men chasing a ball. Galápagos is in season all of the 365 days of the year. The problem is not there (if you’d see the same trails as a decade ago, you wouldn’t notice the slightest decline of boobies, iguanas, albatrosses or else, right on the trails, nor would you notice a tiny piece of garbage),but in the 3% of Galápagos that is not protected. The inhabited side. And there the problems are many. Starting with a great population growth (5 to 6% yearly) to the problems attached to any human settlement. But Galápagos got to be a true disaster as far as institutions. And here is where the decree of emergency comes in. Consejo Provincial, Municipios, Instituto Nacional Galápagos, Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos, Direccion General de Marina Mercante, Armada del Ecuador, Gobernación Galápagos, etc are only some of the maze of institutions involved in managing Galápagos. A state of emergency allows the Government to by pass a lot of endless red tape and clean up the institutional mess. Conservation issues like quarantine and eradication program of introduced species will be addressed promptly and efficiently. The wildlife beyond these 3% is doing well as ever!”
I also asked him about Lonesome George since we had the opportunity to see him when I was in the Galapagos. Klaus disclosed some really cool news not well known to the public! There actually may be another male in Prague that could potentially save the subspecies! He also brought up a good point. The species is technically already extinct because there is no female. I thought that this portion of his response was pretty funny as well, so I included it. He wrote:
“Lonesome George? Well he is fine, in his usual celibacy. DNA has determined that indeed he is the last member of his subspecies (a status under debate
is the thin line that separates a species from a subspecies is not only thin these days but extremely blurry and far from being consensual) in Puerto Ayora at the Charles Darwin Research Station. However, there seems to be at least one confirmed back-up for ol´George. Another male tortoise of the abigdoni ssp lives a happy tortoise life in Europe (Prague, to be precise). Because Lonesome George is without a trace of doubt, the world´s most famous tortoise (I dare to go further and call him the world most famous reptile, other than Barney), and as such, we may not stir up too much attention to a brother elsewhere. Terribly important for making every attempt to save the subspecies, no doubt, but perhaps not the best marketing move if announced too loudly. This is my personal view only! In a scientist level, contacts are made to deal with this close encounter with extinction (technically, George is extinct, as a single male does not qualify as a species- both genders are needed!).”
As you can see Klaus is truly passionate about what he does and he would love to address any questions about the Galapagos or anything else that comes to mind! Let me know!
To start out though, I wanted to ask him about some of the issues relating to the Galapagos that we have been talking about. In one of my other posts I wrote about articles that I had read about the destruction of the Galapagos and tourism. Klaus wrote a really interesting response to my question that reaffirmed that tourism is not as big of a problem as more domestic issues. He wrote:
“Lately there has been a lot of media exposure about Galápagos, partly because of the President’s declaration of Galápagos under emergency. Right away this triggered the next response with all fingers pointing at the excessive numbers of tourists as the main problem and everyone imagined iguanas and sea lions trampled by hordes of visitors. A few weeks ago, a head of UNESCO made a remark about too many visitors in Galápagos. I see this as too much excitement over the wrong evil. Tourism has increased, true. But it is far from being a hazard. Last year we had 148 000 visitors. I have to say that every time I fly to Galápagos (five times in the last two months) I count as another visitor, so the actual number of tourist is much smaller (98000 foreign visitors, in fact, and a number of Ecuadorian too). But high as these figures may seem, keep in mind, that in a single soccer stadium, in Brasil, there is room for 170 000 seated spectators, for one and a half hours of 22 men chasing a ball. Galápagos is in season all of the 365 days of the year. The problem is not there (if you’d see the same trails as a decade ago, you wouldn’t notice the slightest decline of boobies, iguanas, albatrosses or else, right on the trails, nor would you notice a tiny piece of garbage),but in the 3% of Galápagos that is not protected. The inhabited side. And there the problems are many. Starting with a great population growth (5 to 6% yearly) to the problems attached to any human settlement. But Galápagos got to be a true disaster as far as institutions. And here is where the decree of emergency comes in. Consejo Provincial, Municipios, Instituto Nacional Galápagos, Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos, Direccion General de Marina Mercante, Armada del Ecuador, Gobernación Galápagos, etc are only some of the maze of institutions involved in managing Galápagos. A state of emergency allows the Government to by pass a lot of endless red tape and clean up the institutional mess. Conservation issues like quarantine and eradication program of introduced species will be addressed promptly and efficiently. The wildlife beyond these 3% is doing well as ever!”
I also asked him about Lonesome George since we had the opportunity to see him when I was in the Galapagos. Klaus disclosed some really cool news not well known to the public! There actually may be another male in Prague that could potentially save the subspecies! He also brought up a good point. The species is technically already extinct because there is no female. I thought that this portion of his response was pretty funny as well, so I included it. He wrote:
“Lonesome George? Well he is fine, in his usual celibacy. DNA has determined that indeed he is the last member of his subspecies (a status under debate
is the thin line that separates a species from a subspecies is not only thin these days but extremely blurry and far from being consensual) in Puerto Ayora at the Charles Darwin Research Station. However, there seems to be at least one confirmed back-up for ol´George. Another male tortoise of the abigdoni ssp lives a happy tortoise life in Europe (Prague, to be precise). Because Lonesome George is without a trace of doubt, the world´s most famous tortoise (I dare to go further and call him the world most famous reptile, other than Barney), and as such, we may not stir up too much attention to a brother elsewhere. Terribly important for making every attempt to save the subspecies, no doubt, but perhaps not the best marketing move if announced too loudly. This is my personal view only! In a scientist level, contacts are made to deal with this close encounter with extinction (technically, George is extinct, as a single male does not qualify as a species- both genders are needed!).”
As you can see Klaus is truly passionate about what he does and he would love to address any questions about the Galapagos or anything else that comes to mind! Let me know!
Dani's New & Hot (Week 8)
The complete article for my New & Hot can be found here.
The article is entitled "Climate Change Also Drives Evolution," and it talks about how animals are having to adapt more rapidly because of the effects on climate & environment due to human causes. The article brings up 3 specific examples. The first is that codfish are not reaching sexual maturity earlier than before due to human fishing practices. The main point is that if you're a codfish and you wait until you get really big to procreate, then chances are, it'll be too late...you'll be on someone's dinner plate first. Thus, now, codfish reach sexual maturity at around 6 years, instead of 10 years. This change took about 40 years to occur in codfish populations, but a similar phenomenon can be observed in guppy populations within only 5 years. Research has shown that "if the oldest guppies are retired from a population, their sexual places are occupied by younger exemplars."
Also, different species of birds are now observed in new, previously thought less-than-optimal environments. The white-tailed eagle provides one example. About 15 years ago, it was believed that this bird could only live in the large forests of Central Europe. However, recently, the white-tailed eagle has been found in Northern Germany, Poland, and Scandanavia.
Thus, the world's biodiversity is adapting to an environment influenced by human factors. In some cases the result is depressing, with ~150 species dying off each day, but in other cases, the result is more hopeful, particularly when species are able to adapt more rapidly. However, is rapid adaptation beneficial to the species in the long run?
Josh's New and Hot (Week 8)
Where did they all go?
In an exciting twist new twist for human development in the Americas, scientists are unveiling evidence this week that a blast from a comet or asteroid caused cooling in North America about 13,000 years ago. They have gathered geological evidence from 20 sites in North America that contain glass, carbon, iridium and nanodiamonds that could not possibly have come from the earth. All this points to the theory that a 5km object impacted the earth or exploded in the sky causing massive wildfires followed by a 1,000 year cooling period known as the Younger Dryas.
What's really cool about this, though, is the implications it has for explaining extinct species. It seems that the date corresponds perfectly with the extinction of most large mammals in North America at the end of the last Ice Age. Mastodons, giant ground sloths, short-faced bears, sabre-toothed cats, and North American camels could all trace their extinction back to this one event. Since I'm reading about Darwin's explanations for gaps in the fossil record for transitional state animals and such, it is interesting to read about theories that point out that fossil records may be spotty because of these sudden catastrophic events.
While interesting, this theory does have some caveats in it as well as conflicts with other theories on the topic. While this theory states that human populations were largely decimated, much evidence and scholarships has pointed out that early Meso-Americans were moving and growing at this period of time, not declining. Also, some would argue that if this explosion occurred, then where are the crater remains. This of course is explained by the fact that the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered much of North America masked the impact. Still, this is obviously a theory that still needs some tweaking. Perhaps future research will shed some light on where all the mastodons went.
Click here for the story from BBC
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Sagar's New and Hot (Week 8)
On Saturday I posted an entry about "Dr." Hovind a creationist who has built an amusement park which has a panorama that includes dinosaurs and humans living together at the same time. The theme park also claims that there are few small dinosaurs existing today. He is currently serving a 10-year sentence in a high security prision in Atlanta for tax evasion.
Today, I found an article about a new Young Earth Creationist Museum that has been built near Cincinnati. The museum features such exhibits as a girl feeding a squirrel while baby T-rexes play nearby and a half-million dollar planetarium aiming to show the glory of the heavens. The museum teaches that the Grand Canyon was a result of a natural dam breaking during the great Biblical flood and many more "facts" that attempt to disprove the established science of evolution.
What I found most appalling was the following exhibit bordering on racism. From the article: "An animatronic display sums up their argument: two paleontologists are examining the same dinosaur fossil. The evolutionist - an Asian man - comes to one conclusion while the creationist - a white man who resembles Ham - comes to another."
Did I say bordering?
The article can be found here .
Today, I found an article about a new Young Earth Creationist Museum that has been built near Cincinnati. The museum features such exhibits as a girl feeding a squirrel while baby T-rexes play nearby and a half-million dollar planetarium aiming to show the glory of the heavens. The museum teaches that the Grand Canyon was a result of a natural dam breaking during the great Biblical flood and many more "facts" that attempt to disprove the established science of evolution.
What I found most appalling was the following exhibit bordering on racism. From the article: "An animatronic display sums up their argument: two paleontologists are examining the same dinosaur fossil. The evolutionist - an Asian man - comes to one conclusion while the creationist - a white man who resembles Ham - comes to another."
Did I say bordering?
The article can be found here .
Lauren's New and Hot (Week 8)
Protein Folds Research Offers Insight into Metabolic Evolution
This article describes how researchers at the University of Illinois have created a phylogenetic tree (family tree) that tracks the evolution of proteins. They formed the tree on the assumption that protein folds (areas of activity) that were used by the most species were the oldest. They looked at 776 protein folds used by 200 different species of bacteria, archaea, protists, animals, plants, and fungi. 16 of the folds found were universal across all species, and nine of these evolved around the time of the earliest divergences of species. The researchers wrote that “These nine ancient folds represent architectures of fundamental importance undisputedly encoded in a genetic core that can be traced back to the universal ancestor of the three super kingdoms of life.”
What makes these results exciting is that the nine oldest folds are involved in RNA metabolism. The current hypothesis about the origins of life states that life was originally RNA based, and that self-splicing RNA both carried genetic material (from which it could make proteins) and had metabolic function (that enabled it to make proteins-important because DNA requires the use of proteins to transcribe genes). If the oldest proteins do contain RNA activity, then the earliest life most likely was RNA based.
This article describes how researchers at the University of Illinois have created a phylogenetic tree (family tree) that tracks the evolution of proteins. They formed the tree on the assumption that protein folds (areas of activity) that were used by the most species were the oldest. They looked at 776 protein folds used by 200 different species of bacteria, archaea, protists, animals, plants, and fungi. 16 of the folds found were universal across all species, and nine of these evolved around the time of the earliest divergences of species. The researchers wrote that “These nine ancient folds represent architectures of fundamental importance undisputedly encoded in a genetic core that can be traced back to the universal ancestor of the three super kingdoms of life.”
What makes these results exciting is that the nine oldest folds are involved in RNA metabolism. The current hypothesis about the origins of life states that life was originally RNA based, and that self-splicing RNA both carried genetic material (from which it could make proteins) and had metabolic function (that enabled it to make proteins-important because DNA requires the use of proteins to transcribe genes). If the oldest proteins do contain RNA activity, then the earliest life most likely was RNA based.
Julie's New and Hot (week 8)
"Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post" by Cornelia Dean
May 19, 2007 New York Times
In July, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) will be electing new officers. NASBE is a nonprofit organization of state board schools with the objective of improving leadership in educational policymaking. The only candidate for president in this election is Kansas Republican, Kenneth Willard. In 2005, Willard voted for changing Kansas' science curriculum to permit intelligent design to be taught in schools. There was another candidate for the presidential NASBE position, but he had dropped out due to personal reasons.
Scientists involved in this educational policy debate hope that states will write in other nominees instead of accepting Willard by default. Some are concerned that if Willard is elected, then the issue of teaching evolution or intelligent design will be taken to the national level, rather than be left up to states to decide. Others feel that science education is at a crucial period so "any situation that provides an opportunity for the opponents of science education to advance their agenda is a matter of concern."
Willard said that while he does believe students should be taught about alternatives to evolution, such as intelligent design, that the purpose of NASBE is not to set school curriculum but to deal with other issues such as promoting academic success for disadvantaged students. He also commented, "Some people are mindless about their attacks on anyone questioning anything Darwin might have said."
While I agree that it is concerning that an intelligent design proponent may hold this presidential office, should we really be worried? How much will Willard's opinions on evolution affect NASBE if this organization does not make decisions about what is actually taught in school? It seems that Willard's conservative background would affect the organization more than his specific thoughts on evolution. I also thought that the quote I included from him was an interesting role reversal. I normally don't think of scientists as mindless. Instead, I can imagine an evolution advocate making this comment about a creationist.
May 19, 2007 New York Times
In July, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) will be electing new officers. NASBE is a nonprofit organization of state board schools with the objective of improving leadership in educational policymaking. The only candidate for president in this election is Kansas Republican, Kenneth Willard. In 2005, Willard voted for changing Kansas' science curriculum to permit intelligent design to be taught in schools. There was another candidate for the presidential NASBE position, but he had dropped out due to personal reasons.
Scientists involved in this educational policy debate hope that states will write in other nominees instead of accepting Willard by default. Some are concerned that if Willard is elected, then the issue of teaching evolution or intelligent design will be taken to the national level, rather than be left up to states to decide. Others feel that science education is at a crucial period so "any situation that provides an opportunity for the opponents of science education to advance their agenda is a matter of concern."
Willard said that while he does believe students should be taught about alternatives to evolution, such as intelligent design, that the purpose of NASBE is not to set school curriculum but to deal with other issues such as promoting academic success for disadvantaged students. He also commented, "Some people are mindless about their attacks on anyone questioning anything Darwin might have said."
While I agree that it is concerning that an intelligent design proponent may hold this presidential office, should we really be worried? How much will Willard's opinions on evolution affect NASBE if this organization does not make decisions about what is actually taught in school? It seems that Willard's conservative background would affect the organization more than his specific thoughts on evolution. I also thought that the quote I included from him was an interesting role reversal. I normally don't think of scientists as mindless. Instead, I can imagine an evolution advocate making this comment about a creationist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)