Think Science .

DNA is a number of chemical in complex combination right? So all evolution is practically caused by a chemical reaction, at the most basic level. So why is it that evolution is always helpful for the sustenance of a species, it should have a random effect, for better or worse. Secondly is it possible for progeny to sprout wings, that is undergo some major development in terms of characteristics?

The mechanism of evolution can, very broadly (and coarsely), be summarized as follows:
1. “Try out some random shit.”
2. “Keep whatever works.”

The “random shit” is completely random. It is also usually a very, very small effect. Minor random mutations and transcription errors will often have no effect, or an only slight effect. Sometimes, they will give rise to deviations from the norm, such as Down Syndrome, which seem deleterious (and which usually are deleterious); sometimes it will just give rise to patches of different pigmentation on the skin, or makes you albino.

In a large and healthy population of animals, such as with humans today, the species can survive the loss of a small percentage of its members due to random mutations; and so the random variation will have very little impact on the survival of the species. Meanwhile, the harmless and mostly ineffective mutations are passed down as they spread into the gene pool.

In such cases, the reason why the population of a species of animals would be large is usually because they are well-suited to their environment; they don’t need to adapt to survive. So, as long as those conditions persist, they will continue to thrive, mostly unchanged. But if conditions change to make it harder to survive, any animal which has happened to accumulate beneficial changes arising in their ancestors will have things slightly easier; they will have a better chance of surviving, and propagating those beneficial genetic differences.

If the rate of propagation of genes depend on whether they confer advantages, the genes conferring the best advantage will propagate best, and eventually out-survive other possible sets of genes. As a result, what was once an insignificant fringe variation may become beneficial, and subsequently the new “norm” for a species of animal fighting to survive.

In short, “evolution” doesn’t help species to survive: genetic variety helps species to survive any new challenges due to changes in their environment (such as change in climate, new predators, scarce food, etc.) The greater the variety of the genetic pool of a species, the better the change that, for any change in the environment, there exists some portion of the population with a helpful adaptation. When a new challenge presents itself, that portion of the population has a better chance of survival, and carrying on the progress of the species.

Eventually, accumulated changes from challenges that have been faced may give rise to a new species, as the genes of the newest members become significantly different from those of their remote ancestors. “Evolution” isn’t a force; it is a label for this phenomenon of change over time, due to the process of “filtering” for many generations for adaptations which are helpful at particular moments in time.

Species may fail to evolve appreciably for two different reasons:

— One, as in the case of e.g. crocodiles, is that they are so successful that they have never faced any significant pressures which would cause significant differences in the prorogation of different genotypes. They do so well at being eating machines that they have simply succeeded in thriving in any of the conditions they have so far been subjected to.

The other reason why a species may fail to evolve is lack of genetic variety: if a species is highly uniform, then all the members of that species will tend to react the same way to a new challenge: either by mostly surviving, or mostly dying. If a new challenge presents itself, and a species has no members with helpful variations, then the species as a whole will live or die together. And if the species cannot survive the challenge without changes, it will therefore go extinct.

… however, I am not a biologist, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

This question comes to my mind when I try to look at various astrophotography collections. Some of the beautiful and interesting looks are you can see in those books. Especially look of Andromeda is the most beautiful look you can have in the list of galaxies you’ve got from those collections.

If you’re asking me about the planets then i must say Saturn looks superb and worth to take snap for.

Pulsar
Constellation
Quasar
Blackhole
Galaxy
Nebula
Nova
Supernova
Stars
Planets………………?

What is your favorite among these? What attracts you most in the sky ? What is your opinion related to the constellation and quasars ? Feel free to post it in comments.

As ISRO has found the existence of bactirial life in the stratosphere of Earth. It is unaffected by UV rays of sun. What do u think about this?

The three new species:
*Bacillus Aryabhatta.
*Bacillus Isronensis
*Janibacter Hoylei

Now the point is : Just because they were found in the upper atmosphere as opposed to on the ground, doesn’t make them “extra-terrestrial”, which in general usage means… coming from somewhere beyond Earth.

They could not have been placed within well established Genera. Take a look at the the names.

• Bacillus
• Janibacter

These are two widely prevalent and well know Genera of bacteria.
Spores of bacteria, mold, fungi, and other microorganisms are commonly lofted high into the atmosphere. While it is interesting that these are “claimed” to be new species. The burden of proof will be upon those who may claim that they are extra-terrestrial.

Hopefully, if enough of them are collected, DNA studies will be possible. Actually…
DNA analysis would seem mandatory, in order to resolve any doubts. Without more information on the discovery, it’s difficult to know what criteria was used to place these bacteria into two well know terrestrial Genera.

But even if we stretch the imagination and assume that the bacteria discovered in the Stratosphere are of extra-terrestrial origin…
Proving it will be an extremely difficult task.

Certainly, it’s amusing to ponder all kinds of possibilities. But a scientist must also maintain a healthy degree of skepticism.

Many people post comments about is there any chance of accelerating photons or not. So i thought it would be a better read if we discuss it on the blog. We’ll discuss gravitational lensing as well. If you’re not familiar with the term then search wikipedia for more information.

Gravitational Lensing does not cause acceleration of photons. As is currently held by Physics in the physical Universe…
Photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light. (3X10E8 m/s)

Some sub-atomic particles are postulated to travel as a velocity faster than the above, but not photons, as we commonly refer to photons.

And this is more a question of Physics than Astronomy.

Gravity itself can actually account for this within General Relativity. A certain class of cosmological constants can actually give rise to non-attractive gravitational forces.

This is how Einstein explained his static universe - the mass in the universe would lead to a collapse so he put in a cosmological constant to counteract this.

There is a problem with current modern “physics” interpretations of the universe in that they assume that it is “dead”. In contrast, if you assume that it might be alive, and may have been alive for several billion years, and that during that time period, species may have evolved far beyond our level, then the net result would tend to be Matrisoshka Brains. And they can explain (at least to some extent), both the missing Dark Matter and the Dark Energy. Mature Matrioshka Brains radiate energy in the far-IR spectrum and cannot be easily be detected with our current sensors.

I would propose that the current Dark Matter/Dark Energy perspective is fundamentally flawed (in large part because it relies on a “dead” universe). And why should humans get to define the universe on the basis of the fact that they think they were the first intelligent life form? Is that arrogance or something else?