The Scientific Process: Until Proven Otherwise.
Some things that used to be facts
17/8/2015
I decided it was time to consolidate a number of things I have found out are not what I was taught in school. The process of the human search for enlightenment and explanation has rolled over my education and squashed a number of things once accepted as axiomatic.
Now, I am not complaining, just observing the process. I have long held at the ready my understanding of the scientific process, to wield against those such as creationists, who claim that science can't be trusted, because what were once claimed as facts become revised over time. This is not a failing, but rather a strength of the scientific method's never-ending search for how things are. |
Columbus discovered America? Uh, no!
Now, I must qualify this correction. It has always been plain to me that the Eurocentric view of a "discovery" disregards the undeniable fact that the American continents were not "undiscovered" anyway, as the native peoples were perfectly aware of their existence. That being said, there only remains the question of when Europeans or possibly even Chinese arrived.
It was many years ago that I formed an "opinion" that it was highly probable the Scandinavians had landed on North America centuries before Columbus' arrival in the Caribbean. However, it was only recently while watching a documentary on YouTube that I realised my opinion has now become fact. I had no idea how firmly established the evidence has become. The documentary was of a style I generally dismiss as too fluffy, but turned out to cover the archaeological evidence in Newfoundland of Leif the Lucky's arrival in 1001.
The Wikipedia page "Norse colonization of the Americas" begins with the unequivocal statement "The Norse colonization of the Americas began as early as the 10th century AD, when Vikings explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeastern fringes of North America."
It also clearly states "Evidence of Norse west of Greenland came in the 1960s when archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad and her husband, outdoorsman and author Helge Ingstad, excavated a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland."
Readers in any doubt can make their own enquiries, but I think Columbus' claim has been firmly falsified.
Update 16/10/23: - I have found out the site at L'anse au Meadows has now been precisely dated to 1021 by the effects of a solar outburst on trees later felled by the Norse. See this page at Sciene.org.
(Interestingly, there is plenty of evidence his reputation also glosses over the suffering and deaths he was responsible for.)
It was many years ago that I formed an "opinion" that it was highly probable the Scandinavians had landed on North America centuries before Columbus' arrival in the Caribbean. However, it was only recently while watching a documentary on YouTube that I realised my opinion has now become fact. I had no idea how firmly established the evidence has become. The documentary was of a style I generally dismiss as too fluffy, but turned out to cover the archaeological evidence in Newfoundland of Leif the Lucky's arrival in 1001.
The Wikipedia page "Norse colonization of the Americas" begins with the unequivocal statement "The Norse colonization of the Americas began as early as the 10th century AD, when Vikings explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeastern fringes of North America."
It also clearly states "Evidence of Norse west of Greenland came in the 1960s when archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad and her husband, outdoorsman and author Helge Ingstad, excavated a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland."
Readers in any doubt can make their own enquiries, but I think Columbus' claim has been firmly falsified.
Update 16/10/23: - I have found out the site at L'anse au Meadows has now been precisely dated to 1021 by the effects of a solar outburst on trees later felled by the Norse. See this page at Sciene.org.
(Interestingly, there is plenty of evidence his reputation also glosses over the suffering and deaths he was responsible for.)
DNA is only transferred at cell division or fertilisation. Way wrong!
|
I have long been aware that the neat process we learned in fifth form biology, while cutting edge at the time, has been fraying at the edges where bacteria are concerned.
The term "horizontal gene transfer" refers to a process only really coming to attention in the late eighties, whereby bacteria pass genetic material between species. This is as opposed to the purely vertical transmission of genes within species from the parental generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, which was the only method taught to us. This insight has destroyed the clarity of the once neat diagram called the Tree of Life. (see Left) We now need to depict it more as the Web of Life. (see Left) "The network still includes some tree components such that the three domains of cellular life remains distinct but there is also an extensive horizontal component of genetic information flow that in particular dominates the earliest stages of evolution" Probably the most well-known occurrence of this is the acquiring of antibiotic resistance from exposed bacteria by unexposed bacteria. It is also one of the bases for opposition to release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment, since the effects of horizontal transfer of the engineered genes is such an unknown quantity. I get the impression this danger is not appreciated by the general public, who think the "greenies" are just opposed to genetic tinkering itself. |
Given the previous, I was prompted to marvel how far new knowledge had come when I recently listened to a podcast from Radio New Zealand's programme "Our Changing World" entitled "DNA Trafficking Between Cells".
The new discovery: - This joint Australian and New Zealand team "In a world first...... have found that DNA can shuttle between cells in an animal."
This is pretty exciting stuff. They found cancer cells lacking mitochondria would not grow initially but if left long enough would suddenly take off and begin to grow and spread. They were able to show the cancer cells had acquired mitochondria from the surrounding normal cells.
Human and animal cells have within them small units which do much of the energy-handling chemistry. These units, called mitochondria, are thought to descend from separate cells incorporated into our cells more than a billion years ago, as evidenced by the fact that they have their own DNA, 100-1,000 copies per cell, separate from the two sets of 23 chromosomes which make up the the 46 human chromosomes. (This symbiotic origin was not accepted or taught when I was at school. Thanks, Lynn Margulis)
When cells divide, the mitochondria divide to form copies for each of the new cells. (This also includes egg and sperm production. It was previously thought the sperm mtDNA was not included in the egg at fertilisation, and that consequently mtDNA is only passed via the female line, which has been a handy tool for geneticists, but [more new knowledge!] this is now questioned in humans.)
I have also just now learned that Mitochondria are in a constant state of fusion and division inside the cell, which seems to tie in with this new discovery, making the mitochondria seem a lot more autonomous than I had been taught.
"We have been doing work with two different brain cell types, astrocytes and neurons, and have been able to show that in early development … mitochondria can track between cells. This seems to be a normal communication process between cells. - Mike Berridge, Malaghan Institute'
Also from the Malaghan Institute site: -“Our findings overturn the dogma that genes of higher organisms are usually constrained within cells except during reproduction. It may be that mitochondrial gene transfer between different cells is actually quite a common biological occurrence.”
The new discovery: - This joint Australian and New Zealand team "In a world first...... have found that DNA can shuttle between cells in an animal."
This is pretty exciting stuff. They found cancer cells lacking mitochondria would not grow initially but if left long enough would suddenly take off and begin to grow and spread. They were able to show the cancer cells had acquired mitochondria from the surrounding normal cells.
Human and animal cells have within them small units which do much of the energy-handling chemistry. These units, called mitochondria, are thought to descend from separate cells incorporated into our cells more than a billion years ago, as evidenced by the fact that they have their own DNA, 100-1,000 copies per cell, separate from the two sets of 23 chromosomes which make up the the 46 human chromosomes. (This symbiotic origin was not accepted or taught when I was at school. Thanks, Lynn Margulis)
When cells divide, the mitochondria divide to form copies for each of the new cells. (This also includes egg and sperm production. It was previously thought the sperm mtDNA was not included in the egg at fertilisation, and that consequently mtDNA is only passed via the female line, which has been a handy tool for geneticists, but [more new knowledge!] this is now questioned in humans.)
I have also just now learned that Mitochondria are in a constant state of fusion and division inside the cell, which seems to tie in with this new discovery, making the mitochondria seem a lot more autonomous than I had been taught.
"We have been doing work with two different brain cell types, astrocytes and neurons, and have been able to show that in early development … mitochondria can track between cells. This seems to be a normal communication process between cells. - Mike Berridge, Malaghan Institute'
Also from the Malaghan Institute site: -“Our findings overturn the dogma that genes of higher organisms are usually constrained within cells except during reproduction. It may be that mitochondrial gene transfer between different cells is actually quite a common biological occurrence.”
New Zealand first colonised by intrepid Maori explorers? Uh, more likely fleeing than seeking.
This idea is perhaps less certain, but I mention it in the interest of keeping an open mind on this constantly changing field, again thanks to a recent podcast from Radio New Zealand's programme "Our Changing World", this one entitled "The Long Journey to Aotearoa". The page is worth a visit for the text and illustrations, even without listening to the podcast.
The item features conclusions by Atholl Anderson, an archaeologist at the Australian National University, with a special interest in ocean navigation, maritime technology and the settlement of islands.
He says that "....the first colonists may not have arrived in New Zealand as a result of deliberate exploration, but were more likely fleeing from their homelands during a period of conflict."
"He says there is no evidence that there was a period of exploration preceding the colonisation. If it had, archaeologist could expect to find traces left behind by people who returned to East Polynesia."
"The evidence is of a relatively large population reaching New Zealand and not going back."
He looks at the kind of sails available to the colonisers, and "By analysing the ocean temperature record, he and his collaborators found that there was a period, corresponding with the time of colonisation, when high-pressure systems built up slightly to the east of New Zealand and brought winds that blew from north or north-east, acting “almost like a conveyor belt from the Cook Islands or Tahiti for a down-wind vessel”.
Over my lifetime there has been much revision of early Maori history, from such evidence as ecological studies of their effects on the wildlife and vegetation, and studies of the effects of climate change on them.
The item features conclusions by Atholl Anderson, an archaeologist at the Australian National University, with a special interest in ocean navigation, maritime technology and the settlement of islands.
He says that "....the first colonists may not have arrived in New Zealand as a result of deliberate exploration, but were more likely fleeing from their homelands during a period of conflict."
"He says there is no evidence that there was a period of exploration preceding the colonisation. If it had, archaeologist could expect to find traces left behind by people who returned to East Polynesia."
"The evidence is of a relatively large population reaching New Zealand and not going back."
He looks at the kind of sails available to the colonisers, and "By analysing the ocean temperature record, he and his collaborators found that there was a period, corresponding with the time of colonisation, when high-pressure systems built up slightly to the east of New Zealand and brought winds that blew from north or north-east, acting “almost like a conveyor belt from the Cook Islands or Tahiti for a down-wind vessel”.
Over my lifetime there has been much revision of early Maori history, from such evidence as ecological studies of their effects on the wildlife and vegetation, and studies of the effects of climate change on them.
The Amazon rainforest in a primaeval state, preserved by primitive tribes in tune with Nature? Nope! Recently regrown from extensive agricultural exploitation!
I have read the odd item in the past about the Amazonian soils modified by dug-in charcoal. See this 2006 paper "Prehistorically modified soils of central Amazonia: a model for sustainable agriculture in the twenty-first century".
However, this recent article at the New Scientist magazine's website confidently titled "Myth of pristine Amazon rainforest busted as old cities reappear" claims "What is today one of the largest tracts of rainforest in the world was, until little more than 500 years ago, a landscape dominated by human activity, according to a review of the evidence by Charles Clement of Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research in Manaus, and his colleagues."
The article goes on to state: - "Archaeologists have uncovered dense urban centres that would have been home to up to 10,000 inhabitants along riverbanks, with fields and cultivated orchards of Brazil nuts, palm and fruit trees stretching for tens of kilometres. Remote sensing has revealed extensive earthworks, including cities, causeways, canals, graveyards and huge areas of ridged fields that kept crops like manioc, maize and squash clear of floods and frosts."
The charcoal soils are speculatively mentioned, "....may cover 150,000 square kilometres, much of it now reclaimed by rainforests. Before the arrival of Europeans, the region’s population may have reached 50 million."
This will be an unfortunate blow to the case of the forest preservationists, who are still undoubtedly right that we cannot afford to lose too much of the Amazon forests. At the time of this prehistoric agriculture, there was plenty of forest elsewhere which has now gone.
All my life I have seen constant revisions upward of the capabilities of earlier human societies. Refer my post on a book dealing with Celtic solar alignments, The Ancient Paths, by Graham Robb.
However, this recent article at the New Scientist magazine's website confidently titled "Myth of pristine Amazon rainforest busted as old cities reappear" claims "What is today one of the largest tracts of rainforest in the world was, until little more than 500 years ago, a landscape dominated by human activity, according to a review of the evidence by Charles Clement of Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research in Manaus, and his colleagues."
The article goes on to state: - "Archaeologists have uncovered dense urban centres that would have been home to up to 10,000 inhabitants along riverbanks, with fields and cultivated orchards of Brazil nuts, palm and fruit trees stretching for tens of kilometres. Remote sensing has revealed extensive earthworks, including cities, causeways, canals, graveyards and huge areas of ridged fields that kept crops like manioc, maize and squash clear of floods and frosts."
The charcoal soils are speculatively mentioned, "....may cover 150,000 square kilometres, much of it now reclaimed by rainforests. Before the arrival of Europeans, the region’s population may have reached 50 million."
This will be an unfortunate blow to the case of the forest preservationists, who are still undoubtedly right that we cannot afford to lose too much of the Amazon forests. At the time of this prehistoric agriculture, there was plenty of forest elsewhere which has now gone.
All my life I have seen constant revisions upward of the capabilities of earlier human societies. Refer my post on a book dealing with Celtic solar alignments, The Ancient Paths, by Graham Robb.
Glass is not a slow-moving liquid
I have just found debunked a long-standing belief I really thought was true.
I spotted this recent article on glass in New Scientist magazine's website. The full article is subscribers only, but I was able to read the teaser, which states: -
"FORGET the hoary myths peddled by tour guides at old European churches and cathedrals. Medieval window panes are sometimes thicker at the bottom not because of the slow flow of glass over centuries, but because of the uneven way molten glass was originally rolled into sheets in the Middle Ages.
Glass is not a slow-moving liquid. It is a solid, albeit an odd one. It is called an amorphous solid because it lacks the ordered molecular structure of true solids, and yet its irregular structure is too rigid for it to qualify as a liquid. In fact, it would take a billion years for just a few of the atoms in a pane of glass to shift at all."
I spotted this recent article on glass in New Scientist magazine's website. The full article is subscribers only, but I was able to read the teaser, which states: -
"FORGET the hoary myths peddled by tour guides at old European churches and cathedrals. Medieval window panes are sometimes thicker at the bottom not because of the slow flow of glass over centuries, but because of the uneven way molten glass was originally rolled into sheets in the Middle Ages.
Glass is not a slow-moving liquid. It is a solid, albeit an odd one. It is called an amorphous solid because it lacks the ordered molecular structure of true solids, and yet its irregular structure is too rigid for it to qualify as a liquid. In fact, it would take a billion years for just a few of the atoms in a pane of glass to shift at all."