Science

Stephen Hawking

In a new series on the Discovery Channel, Hawking explains “If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans”.

My own thoughts are that it would be extremely hard to predict what intelligent aliens’ intentions might be, therefore it is safest to not have contact with them at all. That means, as Hawking also pointed out, not advertising our presence in the universe. In my opinion, sending out information out into space to meet these hopefully altruistic, nice aliens, as in the Pioneer 10 plaque, is naive and stupid beyond description. How do we know these aliens are going to be nice or even neutral? How do we know they wouldn’t wipe us out on contact? There is no way to know, therefore wisest to assume the worst. In the Army, they have a concept called “radio blackout”, where everyone turns off radio transmissions so that an enemy cannot find your position by triangulation. Could it be that other alien civilizations come to this same conclusion – that they can’t trust anyone else out there, and therefore enforce a permanent, planet-wide radio blackout? That would be one explanation of why we haven’t detected alien radio transmissions.

I also agree with Hawking’s point that just by statistical reasoning, any alien civilization more advanced than us, especially those with the ability of distant space travel, would be advanced to an extreme compared to us – likely by millions of years.

Do aliens have a
human-like form?

Another point where I would side with Stephen Hawking is that animals on other planets would have surprisingly similar bodily arrangements/features as earth animals. I would go so far as to predict intelligent aliens would have a general human-like form, maybe not too unlike the “grays” type that has evolved in the popular imagination. My reasoning is the principle of convergent evolution – that is, that adaptions to very similar environmental/niche conditions produce similar adaptions.

I’ve noticed most theoretical physicists don’t theorize about evolution and life very well, but I have to say, Stephen Hawking does pretty good!

Scientific researchers have discovered a kind of jellyfish and a shrimp-like animal 600 feet under an ice shelf in Antarctica, where no sunlight reaches. The discovery sheds light on just what types of lifeforms can survive where, for researchers.

However, in my estimation, just because life can survive 600 feet under an ice shelf on earth or deep underground on earth, doesn’t mean it would exist in equivalent spots on other planets and moons elsewhere in the universe. I think it would take somewhat robust success of life on a given planet or moon in more productive ecosystems to produce lifeforms that could thrive in such energy and heat starved environments. However, if a planet was more hostile, but had much, much more time for life to evolve or was even more overall stable than our planet has been, then complex life might arise in those challenging environments.

Scientists go ‘gaga’ to find creatures beneath 600 feet of ice

Artist’s rendition of
ancient Greenlander

An analysis of an ancient Greenlander’s DNA (from a hair sample) yielded a surprise – that he was unrelated to modern, native Greenlanders and apparently was from a group that migrated from Siberia more recently than known ancestors of Native Americans. Researchers believe the group came from Siberia about 5,500 years ago and the man whose DNA was analyzed lived about 4,000 years ago.

This obviously blows up some previous assumptions about ancient migrations, etc., and I believe there will be many more surprises to be found in human DNA over the next couple of decades, revealing unexpected ancestries, migrations and more. Sure, 90% of archaeology, prehistory will remain the same, but 10% might need totally rewritten. Do South American natives have a small amount of Polynesian ancestry? Do Europeans carry any Neanderthal DNA at all? Mitochondrial DNA studies say something, but they don’t reveal the whole picture. Genetic contributors may leave no trace of mitochondrial DNA, though they contributed nuclear DNA. In fact, male-only contributors would leave no mitochondrial DNA trace at all, since mitochondrial DNA is only inherited through the mother. And simple genetic drift could easily wipe out maternal mitochondrial DNA contribution from female contributors, while the untested nuclear DNA contribution persists.

On a related note, who were the Clovis people? This finding with the ancient Greenlander DNA certainly lends credibility to the theories of the Clovis people being a genetically separate group who found the Americas on their own and died out or were assimilated into later migrations of the ancestors of modern Native Americans.

Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct Palaeo-Eskimo (Nature)

Ancient Greenland gene map reveals surprise (TimesofMalta.com)

Seems people are trying genetic engineering (or the more politically correct “genetic modification”) at home make-shift labs for all sorts of interesting projects. Many of these people are those who had the insight to study biotechnology in college, but didn’t find a job in the field. Is this a good or a bad thing? I’d say overall, it’s great. Sure, there is the risk that some sinister soul would try to concoct a bio-weapon, but much more likely, is that this will get citizens more comfortable with these extremely important technologies. In some cases, children in the family or community may get involved and be inspired to pursue a career in biotechnology. There’s nothing like a lab in the home or close to home, to make obvious the concrete reality of what can de done nowadays. And some very small percentage may actually be successful in creating something of value to society. Remember the garage/apartment tinkering that launched the personal computer revolution (If not, see Pirates of Silicon Valley)? Good luck getting the product to market without the idea being stolen by a huge corporation with an army of patent lawyers though (that’s another article).

Scientific education supply companies also now provide a suprising array of genetic engineering kits to get you started. These kits may not be set up to create anything of marketable value, but are intended to educate in the principles, practice and understanding of recombinant DNA technology. And that is quite valuable in itself!

Amateurs are trying genetic engineering at home (Associated Press)

Location of Palau

A fascinating discovery has been made that may shed light on the Homo florensis mystery. Thousands of bones (dated 900 to 2,900 years old) have been found in caves in the Pacific island of Palau, the older of which are of humans 3 to 4 foot in height. Although the estimated brain size is twice that of the “Flores Hobbits”, the bones exhibit primitive characteristics.

Researchers are leaning on classifying these remains as Homo sapiens, with insular dwarfism, the island-dwarfing evolutionary effect.

See more on the story below:

National Geographic:
Ancient Bones of Small Humans Discovered in Palau

Scientific American: Hobbit Watch:
Tiny bones from Palau don’t detract from hobbit’s uniqueness

I don’t think so.

You might have heard the lastest on the Flores hobbit story; that some Australian researchers are claiming they were actually modern humans suffering from cretinism (myxoedematous endemic cretinism, to be precise). The researchers include iodine deficiency as a cause of the cretinism.

Iodine deficiency is usually caused by a lack of seafood (in the days before idodized salt, of course), but remember the skeletons were found only 15 miles from the ocean shore. So my first thought was… when has 15 miles ever been much of a barrier to stone age hunters and gatherers? This just doesn’t add up.

An article on Scientific American shows most scientists don’t agree with this interpretation, and it is pointed out that the researchers didn’t even read the data correctly:

Scientific American: Hobbit Watch:
Experts slam the cretin hypothesis

You might have heard of a movie called “10,000 BC” coming out in March of 2008. If you saw the trailers you might have noticed some things that were inaccurate, or at least grossly exaggerated, if you have some basic knowledge of prehistory. Were saber-tooth tigers (smilodons) really that big? Did they really have sailboats, domesticated mammoths and cities back in 10,000 BC?

It’s been a while since a real movie has been made based on prehistoric times, but it appears that this movie shamelessly embellishes to be more entertaining to the average Joe. I guess why should I expect anything else from Hollywood by now? Don’t see this movie expecting it to be a scientific documentary. Think of it more as a fantasy film, merely similar to earth-like events, more like The 300, or even The Mummy or Lord of the Rings. Maybe it’s the science nerd in me, but I just can’t stand any movie that implies it is based on historical (or in the case, prehistorical) life or events, but then ignores the likely realities of the time. Maybe that’s why I like documentaries.

Let’s look at some of the items from the trailers:

• Saber-Tooth Tiger Size: Smilodon populator, the largest of the saber tooth cats, which went extinct around 10,000 B.C., was no little kitty, but was the size of a large lion. It is known to have been 120 cm, or about 4 feet at the shouder. The scene I am looking at on the 10,000 B.C. movie website shows a smilodon that is more like 7 feet or so at the shoulder, assuming the man is only 4 feet, 6 inches tall!
• Saber-Tooth Geography: Another problem. Smilodon species existed in North and South America, whereas the man in the movie who encounters one does not look Native American. Ancestors of Native Americans were just now migrating into the North American continent at about 10,000 BC.
• Sailboats: The trailer shows boats with red sails on a river, as well as big, wooden boats. Possible, but not likely… there is no evidence of sail or big boat technology for the time. Mesopotamians had sailboats on their rivers by 4,000 BC, however.
• The Wheel: The wheel is not known to be used, until invented by the Mesopotamians by 3200 BC, and may have been invented independently elsewhere.
• Domesticated mammoth: One trailer version shows humans leading mammoths with some sort of harness. Again, possible, but not likely. Animals, other than dogs and goats, are not known to be domesticated by this time. And used as a beast of burden to help build the pyramids? C’mon! See next.
• Cities or large man-made structures: No structures or cities this large and advanced are known by science to have been constructed by 10,000 BC. The structures and cities shown in the trailer look more like middle-eastern cities, closer to 5000-3000 BC. No pyramids, like shown in the trailer, are known to have been built by 10,000 BC. Wikipedia: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
• Helmeted horseback rider: A man with a stereotypcial-viking-style helmet (were helmets even “invented” yet? … and see knife/metallurgy discussion below) is seen riding on horseback. There is no reason to believe that humans rode horses at this stage in prehistory or had even domesticated them yet. Horses were hunted and eaten at this time however!
• Bows/Spear Points: A bow is shown in the trailer. Bows were almost invented by 10,000 BC, but likely they were another mellennium or two away yet. And what’s up with that fancy spear point in the aforementioned scene with the over-sized saber-tooth? That’s an unlikley style – if anything, something made for ceremony – but probably useless for hunting. Some real Stone Age points can be seen here.
• Knives/Swords: At least one of the trailers shows what appears to be something like a steel knife and you can hear what sounds like clashing swords. Well, assuming it’s not steel, but bronze, it’s still thousands of years too early. Although there is a possible early (7500 BC) site for copper metal working, it is generally accepted that bronze (alloy of copper and tin) was not discovered until 3500 BC. As far as iron goes, the earliest known iron-based weapons were Egyptian and made from meteoric iron. Iron extraction from ore was not done until 1200 BC. Wikipedia: Metallurgy
• Shaving: Maybe. Plucking seems to have pre-dated shaving in human history, but it’s hard to know for sure from the archaeological record. I’m guessing that most men that could (as with today, depends on one’s genetics) grow full beards did grow full beards at this time, though they could have also been decorated, braided, cut short, etc.. There surely would have been much variation in customs and technology from tribe to tribe.
• Hunting Tactics: A scene shows a hunter squirming along the ground between unaware grazing mammoths. Now, you don’t have to be a seasoned hunter or zoologist to correctly guess it would take about a half second for the mammoth to stomp the $%&@ out of him.

Where do you learn about the real life of 10,000 BC? From an authoritative scientific source or something that get it’s information from a scientific source. Here are some sources to get you started:

10th Millennium BC, on Wikipedia

The History Channel: Journey to 10,000 BC: Describes the lives and people of the 10,000 BC era, including theories about the origin and fate of the Clovis people and ice age animals.

The National Geographic Channel: Birth of Civilization: Does a good job of covering the evolution of culture in the middle east from about 12,000 BC through 3,000 BC.

Around 10,000 BC, there were less than 5 million people on earth, scattered among all continents except Antarctica. The earth was going through a period of global warming. Receding glaciers allowed the ancestors of Native Americans to migrate from Asia. Humans were hunter-gatherers and many nomadic. Agriculture has not really taken off yet, although goats were domesticated in Persia, and figs domesticated in the Jordan River valley at about this time. In Mesopotamia, people began making beer (hey, gotta have your priorities!) from the grain they were gathering. Evolutionarily, humans were essentially the same as now, though there are likely some slight changes since then.

Despite the inaccuracies, I will still see the movie when it comes out, but I will, of course, consider it a fantasy film. I guess we’ll imagine it as a world that could have been – maybe on another planet!

10,000 B.C. Official Site

10,000 B.C. on Rotten Tomatoes

Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

Looks like my second guess might have been right (or closer to the truth). Assuming this wrist bone study was done right, it sure tilts the likelihood strongly in the direction of the Hobbit being a non-human species (but still a primitive, upright hominid). It may not be exactly Homo erectus, but something along those lines. This makes the find more fascinating than simply dwarfed or diseased modern humans. As always, I’m interested in the truth, whatever that turns out to be.

There are similar cases of a branch of a primitive species surviving on much longer in isolation. Sometimes it’s as if an island’s isolation can trap it’s species in time. You might know that mammoths died out around 9,000-10,000 years ago (7,000-8,000 BC). However, a dwarfed species of mammoth (also dwarfed by the island-dwarfing effect originally proposed to explain the Hobbit’s small stature) persisted on Wrangel Island (off Siberia) until 3700 years ago (1700 BC)! By 1700 BC, civilization was well underway in Egypt, the Middle East, China, India and elsewhere, and there were still little mammoths running around up there! The Great Pyramid at Giza and the Sphinx had been built nearly a thousand years before. Imagine what an interesting pet that could have been for the Pharoah, had they known about them.

Scientists: Hobbit wasn’t a modern human

Homo floresiensis on Wikipedia

An Araucana hen. Araucanas, an odd-looking, colored-egg-laying breed, are possibly descendents of chickens brought to South America by Polynesians decades before Columbus.

As a teenager, I had read that the odd, colored-egg laying chicken breed, Auranacas (some of which my son has raised), were originally from a South American Indian tribe. Well, even as a teenager, I knew enough about natural history, archaeology, etc. to know that just didn’t fit. These chickens didn’t look like other European chickens (called Mediterranean type chickens) and I thought the laying of blue/green eggs was a very odd trait to just pop up out of the chicken gene pool out of the blue (pun intended).

Chickens are known to be bred from original ancestors in southeast Asia. It was assumed, by most, that the Spaniards or Portuguese had introduced chickens to these South American Indians, but it seemed to me they must have had them already.

Now, a study has been done comparing the DNA of chicken bones found at an archaeological site in Chile with chicken bone DNA in the Polynesian islands of Samoa and Tonga with a very good match. The most likely scenario is that Polynesians traveled by boat to South America, and traded with Indians there. This also explains another anomaly – sweet potatoes in pre-Columbian Polynesia – when they were native to South America. The carbon-dating of the bones shows the chickens were there by around 600 years ago – about 100 years before Columbus. There could have been contact and trading for hundreds of years up to that point – or perhaps the contact was just a limited one or few visits. Hopefully, future scientific findings will paint a more complete picture.

While we’re on archaeological anomalies… there is speculation and study that the Chinese discovered America decades before Columbus. There are a few little bits of interesting evidence, but not enough to “write home” about.

An anomaly in science means one of two things, either:

1. It’s a mistake in observation/or a hoax/otherwise not true… or…
2. It is a valid finding, and your current theories are wrong or at least incomplete.

Perhaps some other scientific anomalies should be taken more seriously, to determine if fall under category 1 or 2, above.

Versions of the story on other sites:
Did chickens reach America before Columbus? (ScientificBlogging.com)

More about Araucanas:
Araucanas on Wikipedia
AraucanasOnline.com: a knowledgeable website on Araucanas.

You may remember the hype and speculation about the “Flores Hobbit”, bones of which were first dug up on the Indonesian Island of Flores in 2003. The scientists found prehistoric remains of what appeared to be a race of really short, really small-brained hominids. They found parts of several skeletons and one reasonably-intact skull.

I won’t repeat the entire story and list of facts here, but I’ll summarize the theories:

1. The “hobbit” people were an isolated, late-surviving, dwarfed group of Homo erectus.
2. The skull studied was from a homo sapiens individual, with microcephaly.
3. They were just a very small group of homo sapiens, dwarfed perhaps by a combination of the island-dwarfing effect, chance genetic drift, and severe nutritional constraints.

Okay, well the main contending theories are the first two, but I am leaning toward No.3. The proponents of No.1 say how much the skull resembles Homo erectus, but I think it could still be normal variations of homo sapiens. There are modern Homo sapiens skulls that could probably pass for neanderthal, and with a small isolated population, homo erectus-like skull shapes might have developed. In addition, some of the existing peoples of the area are very short and have skulls at least somewhat approaching a Homo erectus shape. Locals tell of a former small race of hairy people that interbred with them just generations ago. Is it just legend, perhaps concocted just for the new international attention? Or could it be real?

I’m doubtful too, of the microcephaly theory (No.2). It might explain the skull, but what about the other small skeletons? And a microcephallic individual would have had reduced chance of survival in stone age conditions. Possible, just not terribly likely. But then every once in a while, the unlikely happens.

My second guess would be No.1 (if I had to take a second guess), that they were indeed a dwarfed version of Homo erectus. And they have not turned over every stone in the DNA analysis/comparison of modern humans. They might yet find some anamolies that point to groups that co-evolved, then interbred with modern humans, as has been suggested, by some, with neanderthals.

Only more evidence will complete the picture and reveal the likely reality of what the Flores Hobbit is. Unfortunately, that might be serveral years from now. Until then, we’ll just have to continue guessing.