BLOG

Tell me if this isn't a good idea: designing ion engines for space. The European Space Agency (ESA) is integrating ion engines into at least one of their spacecraft. While ion engines have miniscule thrust power, they can operate on solar power for years, unlike conventional fuel boosters, which are powerful but burn up quickly. Theoretically, a spacecraft running on an ion engine would start out slowly but accelerate indefinitely, reaching the edge of our solar system yet still increasing in speed.

The ESA, for now at least, seems to be interested in using ion engines for another purpose, which is to keep their Goce spacecraft in low-earth orbit. In this case the ion boosters would function as a "cruise control," in the words of one ion propulsion developer.

Go here to read the labels for the image. 

Image courtesy ESA 

Yes! Anyone agree? This excerpt is from a story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal about the Daylight Savings Time controversy in Indiana, my home state. The time change was instituted in the '70s to save energy, but according to this study, more energy is lost than saved overall. Why not do away with it and save us all a lot of circadian trauma each year?

 Indiana's change of heart gave University of California- Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. student Laura Grant a unique way to see how the time shift affects energy use. Using more than seven million monthly meter readings from Duke Energy Corp., covering nearly all the households in southern Indiana for three years, they were able to compare energy consumption before and after counties began observing daylight-saving time. Readings from counties that had already adopted daylight-saving time provided a control group that helped them to adjust for changes in weather from one year to the next.

Their finding: Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.

Answers in Genesis has launched their new, completely free, online technical journal, Answers Research Journal. The first volume focuses on microbes and models of pathogens that fit a creationist context. There is also an article dealing with the rapid formation of granite.

The chief editor of ARJ will be Dr. Andrew Snelling, with a Ph.D. in geology, who was also a founding editor of the Australia-based creationist journal, Journal of Creation (previously TJ).

It'll be interesting to see how ARJ grows and develops in the future as working creationists contribute their ideas in peer-to-peer format. The journal should be a great contribution to what Journal of Creation and a few other scholarly publications are already producing, giving creationist ideas a chance to stretch themselves, to challenge and to be challenged.

Are you a creationist with scientific credentials? Maybe you should consider submitting a paper. 

This week's News to Note from AIG is out, and links to a short article by Georgia Purdom (who's on staff at AIG) about the new "Japanese" method for culturing adult stem cells. This promising new technique alters the genes of adult skin cells to make them pluripotent--bypassing the morally problematic creation of new embryos. The man who cloned Dolly the Sheep, Ian Wilmut, believes the Japanese method has more potential for producing medically valuable stem cells than cloning does. How about that?

 This is a little off the beaten path of science, but Advertising Age has an article about "Millennials"--the age bracket of today's younger college students--and their perceptions of brands and advertising. Probably not many of you work in a marketing department but it's interesting stuff nonetheless.

It's a breath of fresh air: some creative thinking on space and dark energy from an Oxford theoretical physicist--Subir Sarkar. He proposes that our galaxy is surrounded by a gigantic bubble of empty space. Wish there were more guys like this willing to think outside the box. . .

At the other extreme, science news really doesn't get any nerdier than this. Homemade electronic apparel? Do the inseam mikes come with a sew-on disclosure label?

You may remember the fungus identified in the deaths of amphibians around the globe. It's been discovered that the basic antibiotic for human pink eye is effective against the fungus. Not solved: how to rub down all the frogs in the world with chloramphenicol ointment.

Last week the University of Manchester issued a press release with the somewhat sensational title, "St Bernard study casts doubt on creationism." Picked up by several, though not all, science news outlets, such as Wired News and Discovery, the story was based on a study of St Bernard skulls published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. While the study is interesting and worthwhile, the role it plays in "disproving" creationism is a bit harder to pin down--though I'll do so for you by the end of this post. First, an explanation of the study and a few comments:

Authors Abby Drake and Christian Klingenberg conducted their study of morphological evolution by examining 47 St Bernard skulls dating from 2001 to as far back as 1885. By using computer techniques that compared "landmark" points around the skull, the researchers could statistically analyze the rate and extent of evolution (or "change," more appropriately) over 116 years. St. Bernards were especially useful for the study because they are known to have originated in the mid-17th century (when monks at the Great St. Bernard Pass in the  Swiss Alps began breeding them). Records of the breeding history have been kept since the late 1850's. The pedigree included: A bulky body, large skull, high cheekbones, a short and wide muzzle, and prominent eye ridges. With those characteristics in mind, the monks and other dog breeders began crossing dogs that best matched the desired "St. Bernard" standard. Consider the following two skulls. The first is of a St Bernard from around 1892.

 Compare that with the skull below, from a more recent St Bernard--about 1976. Notice the high brows and the steep transition from the muzzle to the forehead.

 The obvious differences in the skulls highlight the point the authors of the Proceedings B study make, which is that selection (in this case artificial selection) can produce significant morphological change in a relatively short amount of time. The amount of shape-shifting that occurred in the skulls was measured by something called Procrustes distance (0.084 units), and according to the authors is comparable to the rate of evolutionary change that has occurred in "average body shapes among fish populations separated by periods up to 4000 years or between tooth shape divergence of mammal taxa separated by thousands to millions of years." They continue:

Episodes of particularly strong selection can achieve even faster divergence, as suggested by selection experiments on wing shape in Drosophila [fruit flies] or observations on bill size and shape in Darwin’s finches. The results from our study of St Bernard dogs are remarkable in that they indicate that a sustained response to such selection can be maintained for many generations.

Again, the point is clear and well taken--the right circumstances of selection can produce change quite quickly. However, the question creationists and ID theorists have raised is "are there limits to change?" And the study itself would seem to indicate so: 

Interestingly, there appears to be no trend for centroid [overall] size of the skull, even though the breed standard specifies that the head should be ‘massive’ and the size of the head is presumably under selection. Because body size and the sizes of structures such as the head usually are associated with heritable variation that provides the potential for a response to selection, the apparent lack of a response raises the question whether some constraint may have prevented an increase of skull size in St Bernards.

. . . . 

The historical change in St Bernards shows that selection by breeders can produce sustained change of shape in one direction, and thus can produce morphological alterations comparable to the differences between taxa that have been diverging for much longer times. Morphological variation in dogs is comparable to diversification in higher taxa, and dogs can therefore serve as a model system for studying the mechanisms involved in the evolution of morphological disparity.

To swipe a controversial title, is there an edge to the evolution of St. Bernards? Given the right artificial selection, could the breed be grown, say, 75% larger over the next hundred years? And like those "higher taxa," could Bernards be changed into, say, ponies? I'm as interested as any Darwinist in discovering what evolutionary potential--or boundary--exists in organisms, so I think such a simple experiment would be worthwhile. And just imagine the possibilities if St Bernards are truly being morphed by mutation, as the authors hint:

The more or less linear trend in the shape variable that corresponds to historical change indicates a sustained response of skull shape to the selection imposed by breeding. There is no evidence for a slowing down of the trend, as it has been found in many artificial selection experiments. Unfortunately, the available data do not allow us to decide whether a sufficient amount of genetic variation still persists from the initial, heterogeneous breeding stock or whether genetic variation is replenished continuously by new mutation.

 As it turns out, Bernards are particularly susceptible to a unique host of health issues, such as eye disorders, seizures, heart disease, eczema, and bone problems, including hereditary bone cancer. If mutation is doing its work on St. Bernards, evolution obviously has a few kinks to fix.

So what does this study show? It proves that artificial selection, and by analogy natural selection, can produce morphological change over time. Does it challenge creationism? Not in the least, because biblical creationism not only accepts, but promotes the concept of natural selection--except that young earth creationists believe morphological change can happen (or happened in the past) more quickly than most evolutionists suppose. It seems then that St. Bernard study co-author Christian Klingenberg was severely misinformed when said in his university's press release:

"Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.

"But this research once again demonstrates how selection — whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man — is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet."

Yet a simple glance at the website of Answers in Genesis, the major organization behind the creationist movement in America, shows that creationists wholeheartedly accept natural selection. Where Klingenberg heard otherwise is a mystery, and I'd like to hear from him if has a source at hand for his statement.

What creationists disagree with is the claim that the morphological change in St. Bernards is rightly "comparable to diversification in higher taxa." Creationists argue that simply because change is seen to occur on a small scale in a single species, isn't licence for that change to continue indefinitely and without bounds, until a particular species changes into something radically different, forming a new family of animals.

So while natural selection may be a fundamental driving force behind the (micro)evolution of life on planet, it doesn't explain the origin of that same life.

Other news: Homer Jacobson recalls his 1955 paper on the origin of life after it is cited by creationists; some of the best wildlife photos of the year have been selected; and, Vivek Wadhwa claims U.S. shortage of science and engineering grads is nothing but a myth.

St. Bernard photo from Wikipedia, used under creative commons license/St. Bernard skull photos provided, copyright Abby Drake.

Salvador at Young Cosmos claims he may have discovered confirmation of a specific young earth creationist light decay theory. If you have any knowledge in that area, he's looking for comments and second opinions at the young cosmos discussion forum.

Yesterday was a record day for attendance at the Creation Museum; at just under 4000, it was largest number of people seen at the museum since its opening day. Answers magazine now has an area at the bottom of their website for their  "Journal of Biblical and Scientific Studies," a free online collection of technical articles related to creation research. The most recent is Jean Lightner's brief article, "The Highly Efficient Genome" (not for the fainthearted. Remember these are technical). There is also a critique of the framework hypothesis of the creation account (in two parts), and an assessment of modern theories that put gaps in biblical genealogies.

There is a YEC geology conference going on this weekend at Cedarville University, which I sadly was unable to attend. But the next best thing has been posted at C & B Research News, a summary from someone who is attending--namely, Ian Juby. Here's an excerpt:

There was roughly 50 people who showed up for this event; the first ever of it's kind, and a long time coming. It is being hosted at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio.

The purpose of the conference is for Creation Geologists to bounce ideas off of other professionals; this is intended to be the place for model proposal and building where experts can critique your work and ideas.

Andrew Snelling drew the long straw and got to go first, giving us an update on his work cataloging and tabulating Radiohalo populations in various rock types, including various metamorphic rocks. This is a continuation of research from multiple researchers being carried out for literally decades, starting with Dr. Robert Gentry

Lee Spencer then presented a model for fossil distribution during a global flood related to biomes; that is, biological zonation and its possible relationship to why we find fossils where we do in the fossil record.

John Whitmore then attempted to address some of the claims made by old-earthers regarding reef formation and the possibility (as well as the methods) for rapid reef formation in a post-flood world.

I then gave my first paper which basically showed the research that was carried out in Glen Rose on two flumes at the Creation Evidence museum. . .

Read the rest here.

(For more about the presentations, read the abstract book [pdf])

Remember Luke Skywalker's robotic hand?  With the advent of biotic prosthetics, the concept of limbs controlled by the central nervous system is no longer the stuff of Star Wars.  Researchers in the UK, after studying (of all things) deer antlers, have invented a way of attaching artificial limbs directly to the body without the traditional use of straps or suction.  From the BBC story:

The technique, called Intraosseous Transcutaneous Amputation Prosthesis (ITAP), involves securing a titanium rod directly into the bone.
The metal implant passes through the skin and the artificial limb can be directly attached to it.
Risk of infection, which could be caused by bacteria passing from the external limb through the rod to the bone, is avoided because the skin tissue meshes around the rod to form a seal.

 Visit BBC to see a photo of this device in, uh, situ.

Meanwhile, the world's first face transplant, performed last November, is being hailed as a success.