Ongoing important Science news thread

[Hanni]

http://www.setilive.org/

SETILive is taking the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) directly to you by presenting radio frequency signals LIVE from the SETI Institute's Allen Telescope Array (ATA) while it's pointed at stars that, based on Kepler exoplanet discoveries, have the best chances of being home to an alien civilization. We'll also be putting you "in the loop" where if enough of you see a potential extraterrestrial (ET) signal in the same data, then within minutes, the ATA will be interrupted and sent back to take a second look. The data you see will be from frequencies where human-made Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) crowds them and we believe the human eye will have a better chance than SETI's computer algorithms to find ET signals there.

[troutman]

Building Aliens with Dr. P.Z. Myers
Thursday March 15, 2012 from 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM - TELUS Spark

http://events.r20.constantcontact.co...mu67uc8bb2addb

What can we expect aliens on other worlds to look like? Some scientists argue that evolution will inevitably produce forms of life we'd find familiar – so maybe we'd see humanoid aliens, as in popular science fiction movies and TV shows.

Another perspective – and one Dr. Myers will be taking – is that evolution has so many possible solutions that we ought to expect aliens to be wildly different than Hollywood's depictions and, well, alien. Dr. Myers will discuss why life's solutions are not inevitable, but dependent on many unpredictable factors.

Dr. P.Z. Myers is Associate Professor of Biology at University of Minnesota Morris. He is well known in evolutionary biology for his popular and often controversial blog, Pharyngula. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on skeptical science, often sharing the stage with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, and other popular scientists in the field of evolutionary biology, physics and cosmology.

His free lecture is a presentation of the Calgary Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, as their annual Peter Sim Memorial Lecture, dedicated to the memory of Centre member and local science popularizer Peter Sim.

[CarlW]

Russia and South Korean scientists plan to clone a wooly mammoth after remains of well preserved baby mammoth was thawed from the Siberian Permafrost.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16188009

Well, if movies have taught us anything can a Wooly mammoth apocalypse be far behind?

More seriously, would a wooly mammoth even if successfully cloned, be able to survive in modern day Earth? (with all the pollution, different ratios of gases in our air, etc.)

[Knut]

^ I do not care about all that stuff. How will it taste!!

Mammoth Burgers... droooooolll

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hesla

^ I do not care about all that stuff. How will it taste!!

Mammoth Burgers... droooooolll

Like Chicken?

Damn scientists can't get my burger right

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...0fQ_story.html



Let's just hope they don't find any black oil.

Here is a followup article. Looks like they got a sample of the lake without causing a mega-geyser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...0fQ_story.html

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by troutman

Building Aliens with Dr. P.Z. Myers
Thursday March 15, 2012 from 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM - TELUS Spark

http://events.r20.constantcontact.co...mu67uc8bb2addb

What can we expect aliens on other worlds to look like? Some scientists argue that evolution will inevitably produce forms of life we'd find familiar – so maybe we'd see humanoid aliens, as in popular science fiction movies and TV shows.

Another perspective – and one Dr. Myers will be taking – is that evolution has so many possible solutions that we ought to expect aliens to be wildly different than Hollywood's depictions and, well, alien. Dr. Myers will discuss why life's solutions are not inevitable, but dependent on many unpredictable factors.

Dr. P.Z. Myers is Associate Professor of Biology at University of Minnesota Morris. He is well known in evolutionary biology for his popular and often controversial blog, Pharyngula. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on skeptical science, often sharing the stage with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, and other popular scientists in the field of evolutionary biology, physics and cosmology.

His free lecture is a presentation of the Calgary Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, as their annual Peter Sim Memorial Lecture, dedicated to the memory of Centre member and local science popularizer Peter Sim.

I found the highlighted sections funny, and contradictory. How can one be a skeptic as well as have an expectation in the existence of aliens? Shouldn't one be "skeptical" regarding the existence of something there is ZERO evidence for?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I found the highlighted sections funny, and contradictory. How can one be a skeptic as well as have an expectation in the existence of aliens? Shouldn't one be "skeptical" regarding the existence of something there is ZERO evidence for?

We can speculate how life might evolve on other worlds, without knowing whether it has actually happened.

We can talk about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere in the universe - ie The Drake Equation.

[photon]

Oh please.

It's taking about what one would expect aliens to look like. You can discuss the topic even if there's no evidence aliens exist or not, because IF they did exist they would still be subject to the same physical laws we are.

Just like you could talk about what kind of actions you would expect Lord Voldemort to take even though there's no evidence Voldemort exists, because you can project future actions based on the character that's already been developed.

Is the concept of "If this and this were true, what would be the result" so difficult to understand?

Just because they're thinking about how aliens might look doesn't mean they're saying "aliens totally exist".

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh please.

It's taking about what one would expect aliens to look like. You can discuss the topic even if there's no evidence aliens exist or not, because IF they did exist they would still be subject to the same physical laws we are.

Just like you could talk about what kind of actions you would expect Lord Voldemort to take even though there's no evidence Voldemort exists, because you can project future actions based on the character that's already been developed.

Is the concept of "If this and this were true, what would be the result" so difficult to understand?

Just because they're thinking about how aliens might look doesn't mean they're saying "aliens totally exist".

I agree it's good fun to think about those sorts of things. I just wouldn't mention the two in the same breath. Seems counter intuitive. It's like saying "if we take things to their absolute furthest conclusion, we end up with results we cannot prove, nor replicate. BTW, I belong to a society dedicated to countering discourse that cannot be proven".

If the guy was doing a talk on Lord Voldemort, that would be one thing. But to advertise that he's a leading skeptic as a way of legitimizing it seems quite odd.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by troutman

We can speculate how life might evolve on other worlds, without knowing whether it has actually happened.

We can talk about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere in the universe - ie The Drake Equation.

Don't get me started on the Drake Equation. It's practically pseudoscience. Gives real science a bad name. What possible use could an equation be if the values of the variables cannot be determined, nor whether those variables are the only ones necessary? It SOUNDS like science, but it's nothing more than make believe.

[Knalus]

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Don't get me started on the Drake Equation. It's practically pseudoscience. Gives real science a bad name. What possible use could an equation be if the values of the variables cannot be determined, nor whether those variables are the only ones necessary? It SOUNDS like science, but it's nothing more than make believe.

Please, get started. Which variables cannot be determined? Which can be determined? What other variables should be included?

Is speculation not the foundation of science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Criticism

One reply to such criticisms[42] is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.[43]

[Deuce Bigalow]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Here is a followup article. Looks like they got a sample of the lake without causing a mega-geyser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...0fQ_story.html

Found a documentary on the lake, haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but should be interesting.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-l...f-lake-vostok/

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I agree it's good fun to think about those sorts of things.

It's more than fun, it's very useful. We only have this planet to go on for examples of convergent evolution, so thought experiments about convergent evolution of aliens is useful.

And yes it is fun, this is a talk at a science center intended for laypeople.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I just wouldn't mention the two in the same breath.

Why not? The blurb isn't a position paper or a discussion on the philosophy of science, it's a blurb written on a science center website.

And you are pulling things out of context. The part about aliens is about the talk, while the part about skepticism is describing the speaker himself.

So they aren't even in the "same breath".

Originally Posted by Knalus

Seems counter intuitive. It's like saying "if we take things to their absolute furthest conclusion, we end up with results we cannot prove, nor replicate. BTW, I belong to a society dedicated to countering discourse that cannot be proven".

Just because something's not intuitive doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Flatland is an imaginary novel about social hierarchy in Victorian culture, but is still read by scientists and mathematicians because of how helpful it is in describing dimensions.

Taking things out to their logical conclusions, even if only in thought experiments, is very helpful because it identifies boundary conditions and other things that might be meaningful later on.

Hypothesizing is at the core of science.

Originally Posted by Knalus

But to advertise that he's a leading skeptic as a way of legitimizing it seems quite odd.

Legitimizing what? Aliens? Aliens are a perfectly legitimate speculation. Life arose here, there's no reason to think similar conditions don't exist elsewhere. But no where does the blurb indicate that they're saying aliens DO exist.

We have no evidence gravity exists outside the observable universe too. Or heck we have no evidence gravity exists outside our galaxy, maybe other galaxies are held together by magic, or hope, or silly putty.

Or do you mean legitimizing something else?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

What possible use could an equation be if the values of the variables cannot be determined, nor whether those variables are the only ones necessary? It SOUNDS like science, but it's nothing more than make believe.

That's funny, lots of equations started that way.

Einstein's equations are EXACTLY what you describe; at the time the variables couldn't be determined, and it wasn't later until Einstein and others came up with specific solutions that they really became meaningful.

Heck even Newton's theory of gravity with its inverse square relationship of gravity was complete SPECULATION until a very long time later when that could actually be confirmed and measured.

ETA: Science is a process, not the act of getting it right the first time so that there's no possible further changes. The Drake equation is like any other equation.. it establishes relationships, but if you put garbage in you'll get garbage out.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by troutman

Please, get started. Which variables cannot be determined? Which can be determined? What other variables should be included?

We cannot determine:
ne: The number of planets capable of supporting life.
We have dfficulty understanding what is the minimum requirements for life. What kind of chemistry would life use? Would Silicon based Life forms use the same chemistry? Can Silicon based life-forms even exist? Would we even identify such life as life if we even saw it? Astrobiologists (an absurd term if there ever was one) can help us to determine the limits of life that this planet has been able to produce, which may give us a minimum value - of course this is IF we can determine the average planet's variables from here, which is a big if. But it's possible that the "Astrobiologists" cannot determine the range of environments capable of initiating life. In my opinion even the variable is suspect, as it is not even named correctly.

fℓ: The fraction that would go on to develop life.
We would actually have to have data - and loads of it - in order to determine this variable. It's a statistical variable, and to do statistics, we need a greater number of data points than 1. If we did have this data, we would pretty well have our answer as to whether or not there is intelligent life in the universe, and we would come up with a better equation than this farce.

fi : The the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life.
See the above argument. In addition, what constitutes "intelligent"? Would a Dolphin be considered intelligent? I would think this would result in an argument. This variable would mean different things to different researchers, and we couldn't even come to a consensus on this if we tried. It's like trying to place a variable to a philosophical question. Each philosopher will have a different answer. Some would have more than one. As a portion of the equation, it doesn't even need to be there - we can skip directly to the next variable, and exposes the silliness of the equation itself.

fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space. This variable could possibly be confirmed based on radio telescope work, however we may have to conclude that until positive ID has been done, this number is currently approaching zero if we were to go this route.

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
This equation once again requires more data points than zero. We don't know how long our own civilization will do such a thing. Heck, we have difficulty knowing what constitutes "detectable", as we can't even see our own signals.


Besides this, there are a great many variables that are missing, that have as great or greater a part in figuring out the answer. One being our distance of detection and ability to detect. This at least has some form of answer, even if that answer is ultimately wrong.
But the thing that gets me the most is we are missing out on the greatest mystery on our planet regarding the history of life. As a geologist, it's front and center in my way of thinking, but for an astrophysicist it's something he doesn't spend much time considering. The Cambrian Explosion was the beginnings of true multi-cellular life on the planet, and we have no answers at this point as to why it occurred, what factors were necessary for it's occurrence, why it took so long to happen, and if it was a happenstance that is not necessary for other theoretical life forms to go through. Read Stephen Jay Gould's "A Wonderful Life" to get a better handle on the extraordinary events that occurred during that odd few million years that shaped every single biological event that has since happened. I will concede that life is possible on other planets - it could even be common. But multi-cellular life? Until we figure out the mysteries of the Cambrian, it is my opinion that we may be utterly alone.


End Rant.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

It's more than fun, it's very useful. We only have this planet to go on for examples of convergent evolution, so thought experiments about convergent evolution of aliens is useful.

And yes it is fun, this is a talk at a science center intended for laypeople.



Why not? The blurb isn't a position paper or a discussion on the philosophy of science, it's a blurb written on a science center website.

And you are pulling things out of context. The part about aliens is about the talk, while the part about skepticism is describing the speaker himself.

So they aren't even in the "same breath".



Just because something's not intuitive doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Flatland is an imaginary novel about social hierarchy in Victorian culture, but is still read by scientists and mathematicians because of how helpful it is in describing dimensions.

Taking things out to their logical conclusions, even if only in thought experiments, is very helpful because it identifies boundary conditions and other things that might be meaningful later on.

Hypothesizing is at the core of science.



Legitimizing what? Aliens? Aliens are a perfectly legitimate speculation. Life arose here, there's no reason to think similar conditions don't exist elsewhere. But no where does the blurb indicate that they're saying aliens DO exist.

We have no evidence gravity exists outside the observable universe too. Or heck we have no evidence gravity exists outside our galaxy, maybe other galaxies are held together by magic, or hope, or silly putty.

Or do you mean legitimizing something else?

I think we have evidence that gravity exists outside of our galaxy.

Legitimizing what? I meant that in the context of Voldemort. Sometimes I don't write very clearly, I apologize about that.


Have you not noticed that discussing the existence of Alien life is one of those topics that serious scientists all seem to accept as not just plausible and probable, but move beyond that into likely? Even in the face of a complete lack of evidence? I wonder why that is. Can we not find wonder in our universe without conjuring up a multitude of imaginary beings flying all around the place? Does the universe really need dressing up in order to make it fun enough to involve the lay person? I personally don't think it does.

[octothorp]

Since the first understandings of evolution, scientists have speculated about creatures here on earth that might have existed to fill certain ecological niches or to fill in gaps in the fossil record in the fields of anthropology or paleontology. In some cases (darwin's orchid and corresponding moth being the most famous), such speculation turns out to be completely correct.

Thought experiments about extra-terrestrial life are much the same, and have a very specific, useful application: if we take what we know about terrestrial life and apply it to extra-terrestrial environments, it starts to shape where we look for extra-terrestrial life. For example, could complex life evolve in every gravitational environment, or is there an extremely limited gravitational goldilocks zone. Same about weather. Temperature. Seasonal variation, etc. Such discussions will ultimately have a massive impact on our search for extra-terrestrial life, and the more accurate our speculations, the much more efficient our search for extra-terrestrial life becomes.

[Thor]

With how much building blocks of life are found in meteors, I'd be stunned if life is commonplace in the universe, very basic life of course in that vast majority, and evolved intelligent life much less commonplace.