Working towards the Xmas Deadline

I understand that many of you are working on some scholarships, other courses (yikes - multiple tests for all courses this week), and layer B; but I assure you, scientists, researchers, and rovers are all trying to hit deadlines and non-stop working.

A New Theory on the Origin of Life
We spent a few days dissecting the origin of life; how did Earth go from rocks, to life?

Jeremy England, an assistant professor at MIT, has a new theory published.  Here's an excerpt from Quanta Magazine:

"... indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy...you start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get plant..."

For further info, listen to one of his multiple talks or you can look at his published paper "Statistical Physics of Self Replication".


Rosetta Findings Add to Debate of How Water Arrived on Earth
The more comprehensive findings of the comet that Philae has landed on is yet to be released; it takes about a year for the best quality pieces to be observed, analyzed, tested and written about.  However, an interesting one has already come out and it's caused enough of a stir that it's been reported by the weathernetwork.com. One of the more popular hypothesis of the origin of our water is that it came from comets and asteroids - but this more scientific description from NASA has been written here and they've concluded that water from comets such as the one they're studying now couldn't have been the source of our water.  The water at this comet has 3 times the amount of deuterium than our Earth water.

The Importance of Writing in Science
As we are closing to the end of the course, Mr. McCumber and I will be asking for some of your feedback on the organization of the course.  I understand that it may have been writing heavy for some of you, but even post-secondary education is slowly putting some emphasis on the writing as can be seen in this article from the Atlantic.

"Scientists need to know how to write to get their work published and get grants—it's an important skill that people assume they already have [once they reach a certain level], so no one ever teaches them how to write well in these specific formats...research is king, and it's important," she said, but over the past decade universities have started to pay more attention to the "soft skills" that scientists also need."

The Difference between Skeptics and Deniers
It's important to respect everyone's opinion.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion and so here is a bit of mine:  while some of those pro creationist essays I read over the past week had well-formed arguments and fall into the 'skeptics' of Darwin's evolution, others' essays fall into the "denier" category as further defined by a blog post over at Quarks and Quasars.

"Skeptics want evidence; they seek it; they find it; then they accept it. Deniers do not want real evidence and they won’t accept any if it is brought before them.  A person who rejects an idea that is backed by scientific evidence is a denier, and they are anti-science."

Alright, so that wraps up this week's post.  Let me know what you guys think.  Let's finish the last week strong!