1467766836000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjay-m-pasachoff%2Fjuno-is-in-orbit-around-j_b_10818654.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Juno Is In Orbit Around Jupiter
It was exciting to be at JPL for the time of orbital insertion (Jupiter Orbital Insertion = JOI) on the evening of July 4, Pacific Daylight Time. There was a festive air even with the guards at the gate as I drove in. I was with the press people in an auditorium and adjacent spaces; the science teams were in a different auditorium.

Our auditorium boasted of a 1/5-scale model of Juno, next to a full-size model of Voyager.

"2016-07-05-1467762714-268201-jaymp.jpg"

"2016-07-05-1467762714-268201-jaymp.jpg"

(One of the 134 photos carried on Voyager's golden record is by me, so I paid special attention to the little exhibit on that golden record.) Also by the entrance was a team from Oculus Rift showing a 3-min Virtual Reality (VR) animation of Jupiter (the planet, not the god) and Juno (the spacecraft, not the goddess). With the headset on, I could look behind me to see a huge Jupiter as we passed from pole to pole, and in front of me I could see the spacecraft, eventually seeing through the protective titanium vault to see the individual experiments' electronics.

It has been decades since a spinning spacecraft went to Jupiter, with Pioneers 10 and 11. [I described all these missions in edition after edition of my Astronomy 101 textbook, then Contemporary Astronomy and now The Cosmos]. Decades ago, I described the three-axis stabilization of Voyagers 1 and 2, which enabled them to take better pictures than the crude ones reconstructed from the spinning Pioneers in 1973 and 1974. It remains to be seen how good the images will be from Junocam, which is not one of the science instruments and as I recall was a late addition as people realized that the public would not react well to a camera-less spacecraft. The main observations Juno is to make are of the magnetic field and radiation, hoping to find out more about Jupiter's interior (such as whether it has a dense core, solid or not, perhaps 10 or 20 times Earth's mass), and how and where in the interior the magnetic field is formed.

The NASA TV interviews were very well done, with engineers describing various stages. Though we were at JPL, I note that JPL people must be disappointed that they weren't selected to build the spacecraft, which was made by Lockheed Martin in Boulder, Colorado, with a Principal Investigator from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), which also ran last year's New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto (and just this week its continuation to an asteroid was approved by NASA). Juno is part of a relatively low-cost series of spacecraft from NASA (though a billion dollars isn't cheap), not one of the flagship missions like Galileo (to Jupiter) or Cassini (to Saturn) was.

Because the spacecraft was built on the cheap, it didn't have an articulated antenna or instrument section, so the whole spacecraft had to be turned in the proper direction for the main engine to fire, so that Juno could be slowed enough to enter its desired, polar orbit. That also meant that neither high-gain nor medium-gain antenna were pointing at Earth, and only a low-gain non-directional antenna was available to send out signals that we could receive. At Earth, therefore, JPL (through NASA's Deep Space Network's telescopes in Goldstone, California, and in Canberra, Australia) received only "tones," with limited amount of information other than saying "such and such a step has been performed.

At 8:18, such a tone was received to say that main-engine burn had started and at the proper interval, at 8:54 or so, the burn had finished, so Juno should be in its desired polar orbit. (Had the burn ended up to halfway early, it still would have been in Jupiter orbit, though not the most desirable one.) The spacecraft had been spun up from 2 rpm to 5 rpm to provide extra stabilization, and then had to be spun back down and the solar panels reoriented toward the Sun (the spacecraft had been on battery power for the burn).

The passage through Jupiter's radiation field and magnetic field had been thought to be so hazardous that the scientific instruments had all been turned off. They won't be turned on for a couple of days, and then Juno will be far from Jupiter in its very-elongated 53-day elliptical orbit. So we don't even know that the instruments are working, though the electronics were all in a 400-pound titanium box to protect them. The next time Juno comes close to Jupiter will be August 27, so that is when we will get the first desired set of instruments. Someone told me that we would have to wait until then for Junocam pictures, too. (So far, we know that it worked on approach, with a nice set of the Galilean moons orbiting--moons independently discovered by Simon Marius, who wrote down his discovery 1 day after Galileo in January 1610, though Marius may have actually seen the moons first: months earlier. Al Van Helden, an early-telescope scholar now in Utrecht, and I are giving a paper about that at the American Astronomical Society's Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Pasadena in October, after a set of historical papers I arranged on the history of the New Horizons and other attempted Pluto missions and the discovery and following of Pluto's atmosphere from occultation studies.)

In sum, it was exciting to be at JPL last night, though I am a bit disappointed today that we don't yet have scientific data and may not until the end of August. But I, and the world, can wait!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467761031000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Finverse%2Fmatrix-style-skill-transf_b_10822106.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Matrix'-Style Skill Transfer Is Possible With Electrical Brain Stimulation
This article was originally posted on Inverse.

"2016-07-05-1467756058-5768377-brainsjpg.jpeg"

By Yasmin Tayag

What if becoming a pilot was as simple as putting on a cap?

That's the question posed at the beginning of a video from HRL Laboratories, a company attempting to develop Matrix-style brain uploading using electrical brain stimulation techniques.

In their latest study, researchers successfully used a technique called transcranial direct current stimulation, or TDCS, to "transfer" brain activity from expert pilots to beginners. If their results, published in the latest issue of the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, are any indication, it looks like we're all on the way to becoming like Neo, expressing surprise that we know the proverbial "kung fu."

Imagine brain activity as a skull-shaped map of electrical currents: People who are better at certain tasks -- say, landing a virtual plane -- are going to have very different natural patterns of electrical activity than the rest of us when it comes to actually applying those skills. It's a good thing, then, that we've figured out other ways to run electricity through our brains.

Using customized skullcaps, fitted with electrodes, the researchers zapped the brains of novice pilots with the brain patterns of six flight experts, hoping they could improve their performance during flight simulation training.

In particular, the researchers focused on stimulating the brains' right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is known to be linked to working memory.

They found that novices who received four consecutive days of brain-zapping showed a 33 percent increase in skill consistency during flight simulations compared to those who got fake brain stimulation, suggesting that TDCS really did improve learning.

Picking up a new skill, like landing a plane, takes both time spent actively practicing and "offline" days spent consolidating those experiences. While the researchers aren't changing up the learning process altogether -- the novice pilots still had to go through training -- they suggest that TDCS can cut down on the time it takes to complete the learning process.

The field is still in its infancy -- it's still largely the domain of DIY brain zappers -- but the researchers are hoping that their research could someday help people with traumatic brain injuries re-learn essential skills.

At this rate, it won't be long until we all know kung fu.

"2016-07-05-1467756275-1042534-matrixgif.gif"

MORE FROM INVERSE:

Photos via https://www.facebook.com/TheMatrixMovie/

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467754888000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Finverse%2Fif-aliens-ever-attack-ear_b_10821098.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
If Aliens Ever Attack Earth, We Need to Protect the Moon or Die Trying
This article was originally posted on Inverse.

"2016-07-05-1467751492-8584547-astillfromthemovieobliviondepictingashatteredmoon.jpeg"

By Neel V. Patel

In the world of science fiction, when aliens attack the Earth, they often go after another rocky sphere. That would be the moon, our planet's only natural satellite. Although there are exactly zero humans currently residing on the moon, zero pieces of essential equipment or instruments (although let's be real, those lunar go-karts are pretty dope) situated on its surface or its orbit, and no concrete sense of whether it possesses any valuable resources, the moon is essential to our species' survival on this planet. If hostile aliens were to blow it to bits or cause some serious damage to it, human would be in serious trouble -- even if we managed to successfully repel an extraterrestrial threat.

The moon has played a key role in shaping the way natural processes of Earth, and it continues to do so today. The moon is thought to have been formed just a mere 30 million years after the Earth (which itself is 4.53 billion years old). Since then, the moon's single greatest (and most obvious) effect on the Earth has been the mediation of the ebb and flow of tides on the planet's bodies of water.

Scientist believe that in the infancy of this relationship, the moon's distance from Earth was half of what it is today -- and this resulted in much more extreme tides. These tides drove heat from the equator to the poles, leading to ice ages. These glacial shifts spurred more rapid migratory patterns in various species, resulting in a more diverse array of life around the globe. In fact, because of how important water is to molecular processes in primitive life and organic materials, tide shifts may have acted as a kind of natural way for those chemical reactions to get rid of or acquire water in the formation of basic structures like nucleic acids. In other words, tides may have jumpstarted or encouraged the evolution of life on Earth.

"2016-07-05-1467752515-7110444-becauseitsgoneforever.gif"

Because it's gone forever.

Okay, that's a pretty cool history lesson, but what about today? What exactly would be the biggest impact on our lives today if the moon disappeared or had a chunk ripped out from itself?"

"We'd lose the normal rhythm of tides," says Noah Petro, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who works with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. He tells Inverse we'd probably lose the large tides we're used to on a day-to-day basis, and instead experience "smaller tides, caused by the Earth's rotation with the sun."

The most noticeable effect this would have is that we'd see oceans around the world level off, to a certain extent. While initially that might save coastal communities from having to deal with potential floods during high-tide, it would also mean they would lose the benefits of low tide. That would wreak havoc on clams, which would have a cascading effect on underwater ecosystems as well as the beachside food shacks worldwide.

Furthermore, the moon plays a significant role in distorting water around the equator. Without a natural satellite, that water would probably redistribute itself around the poles. This might seem like a good thing for coastal cities by the ocean that are constantly threatened by rising floods. But this is awful for bodies of water inland that are fed by oceans. We might see estuaries -- responsible for desalinating water naturally -- dry up or become significantly reduced. Rivers and lakes further inland would also shrink by quite a bit.

Unless we manage to make artificial desalination technology viable, we'd see the whole world inundated by water shortages -- and that's already a problem much of the world is currently contending with.

Petro also cites two other significant effects the moon's vanishing act would have on Earth. "The moon stabilizes Earth's orbit," he says, "so we'd see changes to the climate we're currently used to." He points to Mars as an indicator of what we might see. Mars doesn't have large moons like Earth's to affect its axial tilt as much, so the red planet is stuck with very long ice ages.

On Earth, there would be a significant amount of long winters, and "a general cooling off," of the world at first, he says, perhaps followed by a warming. We'd see "wild extremes" that are more drawn out and last much longer than the planet has previously exhibited. Petro emphasizes that these climatic effects would certainly not be felt immediately -- they would occur on a scale of 1,000 to 10,000 years. But there is one other effect that humans would have to find solutions to very quickly if the moon were blown up or hit with some sort of explosive force: debris.

A lot of material, he says, would be expelled into Earth's orbit, and some of it might even push through the atmosphere and strike the surface. If that debris were big enough, we'd basically deal with a catastrophic scenario of falling moon rocks that not even Brian May would be able to fix.

Let's also not forget the fact that orbital debris is also an increasing threat to the world's satellite currently zipping around the globe. Some of those instruments are extremely important to communications systems used by governments and militaries. If aliens fired a bunch of missiles at the moon, we can basically kiss those satellites goodbye. Hopefully we have a few landlines still lying around as a backup.

"Fortunately, we don't expect the destruction of the moon to happen," Petro added, laughing.

MORE FROM INVERSE:

Photos via YouTube

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467740526000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fseth-shostak%2Findependence-day-core-val_b_10813464.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
"Independence Day": Core Values
They're baaaaack. Just when you thought humanity's future was already dimmed with tough problems like climate change, terrorism and reality TV, bad guys from a distant planet show up to ruin everyone's whole summer. It's "Independence Day: Resurgence."

What's the deal? It seems that the invading aliens, with their ugly praying mantis heads and restless flagella for swatting flies, are here for... our planet's core. That's right: They've come to pump out the Earth.

Two decades ago these same aggressive aliens swooped down on our planet like space-faring locusts, to stripmine our resources and obliterate life. Not the gentlest of agendas for sure. One of the truly memorable lines in the original "Independence Day" was uttered when the U.S. president, clearly discomfited by the havoc and destruction, asked these unattractive creatures "What do you want us to do?" The answer was both candid and concise: "Die."

Bummer. But twenty years later, getting rid of us is not what drove them to drive here. They want Earth's core as an energy source for their spacecraft.

Now that's an interesting idea that might qualify as the mother of all fracking schemes. But what in Earth's core could interest these interstellar insectoids anyway? Is there some terrific source of energy hunkered down in our planet's hot-and-heavy center?

Well, since the 1930s we've known that there are actually two cores down there, imaginatively known as the inner and the outer. Both are mostly metal -- iron and nickel. Thanks to the pressure of all that's above it, the inner core is a solid sphere about 1500 miles in diameter. It's a hot, supersized cannonball that would be difficult to pump out, for sure. Imagine trying to get the pit out of an avocado with a hypodermic needle.

The outer core, a gooey layer roughly 1,400 miles thick that surrounds the inner core, is liquid and less dense. Not liquid like water of course, but more akin to the hot magma that oozes out of volcanoes. It's this layer -- one presumes -- that is the target of the aliens' unauthorized drilling project.

But how do you power your interstellar spacecraft with molten metal? Iron, it turns out, is the most stable of the elements -- you can't fission it or fuse it. But of course there is all that heat energy, given that the outer core is a scalding 7,000 F or more. You can compute just how much heat energy we're talking about using nothing more than freshman physics, and it works out to 800 thousand joules per pound.

Admittedly, that's not a number you'll be bandying about at the water cooler, but I urge you to compare it to the energy per pound of regular-test gasoline, which is 22 million joules.

In other words, this is more than a misguided alien attempt to purloin low-test fuel from Earth: they're going for no-test.

Clearly, this doesn't make too much sense. (Which could be said of the aliens' military technologies, too. But there's no time for that now.)

Then again, let's be fair: There aren't many movie-goers who expect "Independence Day" to be an extra credit exercise in STEM education. And frankly, leaving aside all the funky science, the cosmic-scale visual imagery of this sci-fi potboiler is worth the admission. For fans of the original film, there's the pleasure of seeing the always-compelling Brent Spiner topped by his now-trademark Leonardo da Vinci hairdo. And everyone can enjoy the offhand personality of Jeff Goldblum who, I note, is still able to amble double-jointed into any scene.

Undoubtedly you'll sleep better at night knowing that Earth's core -- while handy for keeping our planet's magnetic field going -- is unlikely bait for mucus-riddled visitors from afar. Just keep them away from your local service station.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467712018000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FScience360NewsServiceBreakingStory%2F%7E3%2FEPICqNIFJKA%2Fgrade-school-students-teach-robot-help-themselves-learn-geometry&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Grade-school students teach a robot to help themselves learn geometry

Full Text:

Computer technology has become integral to the learning process. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, at the end of the last decade, some 97 percent of U.S. teachers had one or more computers located in the classroom every day, and the ratio of students to computers in the classroom every day was a little over 5 to 1. With the advent of tablet and hand-held computing devices, this ratio is fast approaching 1 to 1. Up until very recently, mainstream educational software for computing devices in the classroom has been designed based upon a style of interaction utilizing the traditional WIMP (window, icon, menu, pointing device) paradigm. Student engagement is then an isolated one-on-one experience, individual student to individual machine. To better engage students with their environment through educational technologies, researchers have begun exploring a variety of solutions that provide more embodied and tangible interactions -- ranging from collaborative activities surrounding an interactive tabletop to interactive robots that teach language learning.

Image credit: Pete Zrioka, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University

science

1467676658000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fthe-conversation-us%2Fplaying-a-science-based-v_b_10806840.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Playing a science-based video game? It might be all wrong

Playing 'Spore' is a good way to explore evolution.'Spore' screenshot

By Alex Leith, Michigan State University

You look down from the sky, manipulating the world and seeing how it responds to your changes. You are able to alter vegetation and climate while watching their effects on the surrounding organisms. In this way, and many others, digital games provide excellent opportunities for players to learn about complicated subjects, including the concept of evolution through natural selection. Even games designed for fun and not specifically for education can provide rich, concise, dynamic representations of complex science, technology, engineering and math topics.

Since I was young, digital games have successfully supplemented the educational process in a range of topics, including math, science and biology. Research shows that if these games are going to actually teach those concepts, they must represent them accurately. Games that include incorrect depictions teach the wrong lessons.

Since Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, evolution has been understood as a process based on genetic differences between individual organisms of the same species. There are three key principles:

Organisms with genetic advantages for their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, while organisms whose genes make their bodies less suited will die more quickly and reproduce less effectively.
Because these characteristics are genetic, they are passed on to offspring.
Organisms with genes that improve their survival will have more successful offspring, which will in turn pass on their advantages to the next generation.

Some colleagues and I looked into how well current games could serve as educational tools, specifically about evolution. We examined how Darwinian evolution was represented in 22 games, which we located either through game databases like GameSpot or IGN, or through Google searches. Most games got evolution at least partly wrong. Only five accurately represented all three key principles of evolution.

The five that got it right

A screen-capture of a Norn interacting with its environment in 'Creatures 2,' developed by Creatures Labs and published by Mindscape.
Wikipedia

"Creatures" provides a rare example of the three principles. In that game, players create cartoon-like creatures called "norns," through a process that allows norns to be altered not just in terms of appearance, but at the genetic level. For the most accurate representation of evolution, the game offers a play mode called "wolfling run." In that mode, players cannot directly affect their norns, but can observe their relative fitness for a particular in-game scenario. The potential variations in both norn creation and the environment they must survive in provide for an astonishing number of evolutionary possibilities.

Maxis, best known for creating the "SimCity" game series, and its spinoff "The Sims" collection, also made a set of games called "SimEarth" and "SimLife." Like "SimCity," both give players top-down control of a world. "SimEarth" was designed for players to make major changes to the weather, landscape and animals to create an environment. Players were then able to see how the animals would fare in this created environment. "SimLife" was more specific: it has players engage with the animals (rather than merely creating them) to learn about the biology surrounding their survival.

A screen-capture of 'Who Wants to Live a Million Years,' playable on the Science Channel website.
from sciencechannel.com

We also found two academically oriented games that loosely presented the three mechanics of evolution: "Selection Game" and "Who Wants to Live a Million Years" (which was later renamed "Charles Darwin's Game of Survival"). The two games were designed to be simple tools that could be played quickly in places like museums. Despite the limited mechanics present in such games, they still clearly show each element of the evolution process.

Market success doesn't mean accuracy

The most commercially popular game we found didn't quite get evolution right. "Spore" left out something many other games did, too: Organisms' genetic differences didn't affect their survival rates. Instead, organisms whose genes were unfit for the environment would not necessarily die more often, in keeping with evolutionary principles. Rather, players could intervene and increase an organism's likelihood for success by, say, helping it move more intelligently and strategically, beyond the scope of its genetically predisposed movements.

Nevertheless, "Spore" does a reasonable job presenting the broader concept of evolution to players, and is the best such game made this century. ("Creatures," "SimEarth," and "SimLife" are all from the 1990s.) "Spore" is also still available for purchase, so it is the only game readily usable by the average educator or student.

But other findings were disappointing. Most games inaccurately portrayed evolution, usually in the same way Spore did - allowing player intervention to save organisms that were unfit for survival.

For these other games, evolution becomes more akin to mutation during a single organism's life than a process that occurs through generations. In "E.V.O.: Search for Eden" and "L.O.L.: Lack of Love," players earn points they can spend to modify their organisms. In "Eco," at the end of each level, the player arbitrarily changes an attribute, though not necessarily one that affects an organism's survival prospects. In each of these cases, what the game calls "evolution" is actually external genetic manipulation, rather than inheriting particular traits.

These inaccuracies may confuse those unsure of what evolution actually is. If other scientific subjects are similarly poorly depicted in video games, the potential educational benefits of these games could be lost. However, as game designers become more adept at modeling scientific themes, it could herald an educational revolution.

"The Alex Leith, Doctoral Candidate in Media and Information Studies, Michigan State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467594926000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsuzan-mazur%2Fkalevi-kull-censorship--r_b_10797646.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Kalevi Kull: Censorship & Royal Society Evo Event

"2016-07-03-1467578670-1931893-KaleviKull.JPG"

Founders of the Copenhagen-Tartu School of Biosemiotics at a Seminar in Estonia: (l-r) KALEVI KULL, Claus Emmeche, Jesper Hoffmeyer, Frederik Stjernfelt

Biosemiotics pioneer Kalevi Kull has sent the following letter to me in response to one of the organizers of the upcoming Royal Society public meeting on paradigm shift attempting to censor my coverage of the event.

Kalevi Kull plans to attend the November gathering in London.

Dear Suzan,

Well, I really interpret the letter you refer to in your article ["Censorpship & Upcoming Royal Society Evo Meeting"] as evidence that this IS a paradigm shift. Because it focuses not on the biological theory itself, but on social matters in academia. And this is a serious hint. Because if this kind of deep change happens, then very many scientists face a problem of how to survive this change because the new dominant model they would like to accept results in many of their previous writings losing much of their value. Nobody wants to belong to the party of losers. One of the best strategies in such a case is evidently an interpretation of the change as a gradual accumulation of knowledge while their work has always been at the cutting edge.

[Following is the censorship email Kull refers to above -- it was not written by Denis Noble:

"Could I request that you stop referring to the forthcoming RS-BA meeting ("New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosophical and Social Science Perspectives"), and to the extended evolutionary synthesis, more generally, as in some way advocating a "paradigm shift". Such language is both misleading (the vast majority of scientists working towards an extended synthesis do not seek revolutionary change in neo-Darwinism) and counterproductive (such talk undermines calm scientific discussion by creating an unnecessarily emotive and antagonistic atmosphere). I view the Kuhnian model as superseded long ago: the data suggests that sciences rarely if ever change through "revolutions". Lakatos' framework of "research programmes" offers a more up-to-date, accurate and useful conceptualization of (gradual and progressive) scientific change. The extended evolutionary synthesis is best regarded as an alternative research programme, entirely complementary to orthodox evolutionary biology. Talk of "paradigm shift" gives the false impression that the differences amongst evolutionary biologists are far more extreme than they actually are. . . ."]

[Kalevi Kull's correspondence continues:] Is this a radical change in biology what is going on now? The contrast is quite clear, if we look at how evolutionary innovation is described. Either innovation begins from a new mutation, followed by newly behaving phenotype, which is amplified by natural selection (this is what the neo-Darwinian model suggests), or innovation begins from a change of function (with habitat choice, or resource choice, etc.) first stabilised by epigenetic or ecological inheritance and followed by fixation due to mutational noise (which is what the new model states, let us call it the post-Darwinan model).

That is: either a genetic change first, followed by functional change, or a functional (epigenetic, i.e., non-genetic) change first, followed by genetic changes.

The details of this contrast are described, for instance, in my work "Adaptive Evolution without Natural Selection" published in the Linnean Society journal. . . but there are many scholars who share this model. That paper provides a row of references. Isn't it a deep contrast, and a possible move from one to another, a radical change of the major model of evolution?

However, if indeed one knows all the dramatic history of the theory of evolution. . .
Here's a sketch. Estonia has been described as a country with one of the richest political experiences. We also see this in our history of Darwinism.

In the 19th century, Tartu University was one of the leading German-language universities, and one of the leading critics of Darwin was working at Tartu University -- Karl Ernst von Baer, the founder of developmental biology. Simultaneously, one of the very first courses in the world and best textbooks written about Darwin's-time Darwinism was provided by a professor at the same university, Georg Seidlitz.

Around the turn of the century, before WWI, Tartu University was a Russian-language university, and Darwinism was soon popularised as supporting early socialist ideas. Soon after, together with advances in genetics, evolutionary theory was interpreted as a basis for eugenics (also used in this way by national socialists in Germany before WWII).

Then Estonia was annexed by Russia, and after the WWII for more than a decade it meant the influence of vulgar Darwinism (also called 'creative Darwinism' at that time), as propagated by Lysenko (yes, he also praised Darwin, he just did not like genetics).

In the 1970s and 80s, all students in the Soviet Union had to learn how Darwinism goes hand in hand with Marxism, meaning a good connection with the 'synthetic theory of evolution', which was a synonym for neo-Darwinism. . .

Simultaneously, a radical non-Darwinism was also developing within certain circles of Soviet biologists, who took it from the theory of Nomogenesis of Lev Berg and his follower Alexander Lyubischev. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an outgrowth of neo-Darwinism called sociobiology became a dominant view for many, particularly among zoologists. . .

If one has read all this and been able to understand why all these scholars had the views they had, it is hardly possible to describe this history as gradual improvement of a model, continuous extension of a synthesis. There have rather been different paradigms existing and developing in parallel. Most of the time just one of them was strongly dominant over the other. And since evolutionary theory has almost always been tied to some ideological battles, its changes were not limited by scientific discoveries.

Nevertheless, we have good friends and colleagues whose views about evolution we do not share. But should we therefore be less strict in our formulations about our views? No, that would mean giving up our understanding. Good teachers wouldn't do so.

Science, deeply speaking, is the mutual help in understanding. We should help each other as friends; nobody is understanding everything. Keeping this in mind, the best way to make our thoughts clear is to use formulations that do not hide meaning. A better understanding is not always an extension of the earlier model, sometimes it is an alternative.

In other words -- summarizing -- claiming that what is going on is just an ongoing extension of Darwinism would be equivalent to saying that Einsteinian physics is just an extended Newtonianism. Why not, one may describe it so. However, the Einsteinian change became a classic example of a paradigm shift, for Kuhn. . . .

I like very much your writings.

Warm wishes

Kalevi

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

Phobos and Demos last remnants of Martian rings

ESA schedules Gaia mission's first data release

Jupiter has new visitor _ a solar-powered spacecraft

Jupiter has new visitor _ a solar-powered spacecraft

NASA's Juno spacecraft prepares for cosmic date with Jupiter

NASA's Juno spacecraft prepares for cosmic date with Jupiter

The five that got it right

Market success doesn't mean accuracy

100 day target still out of reach

NASA's Juno spacecraft prepares for cosmic date with Jupiter

The big red button has already been pushed on the risky manoeuvre to date

Bee pheremone is similar to genes found in mammals

This is what your brain looks like on bad data