# data[].attributes.body
I have always wondered about  the Northern Lights, also known as Aurora Borealis.  What causes the Northern Lights to change colors? What makes them move so rapidly in the sky?
The resource I linked below provides insights into this mysterious phenomenon!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those who live at or visit high latitudes might at times experience colored lights shimmering across the night sky. Some Inuit believed that the spirits of their ancestors could be seen dancing in the flickering aurora. In Norse mythology, the aurora was a fire bridge to the sky built by the gods. This ethereal display - the aurora borealis or aurora australis, the northern or southern lights - is beautiful. What causes these lights to appear?

Our sun is 93 million miles away. But its effects extend far beyond its visible surface. Great storms on the sun send gusts of charged solar particles hurtling across space. If Earth is in the path of the particle stream, our planet's magnetic field and atmosphere react.

When the charged particles from the sun strike atoms and molecules in Earth's atmosphere, they excite those atoms, causing them to light up.

What does it mean for an atom to be excited? Atoms consist of a central nucleus and a surrounding cloud of electrons encircling the nucleus in an orbit. When charged particles from the sun strike atoms in Earth's atmosphere, electrons move to higher-energy orbits, further away from the nucleus. Then when an electron moves back to a lower-energy orbit, it releases a particle of light or photon.

What happens in an aurora is similar to what happens in the neon lights we see on many business signs. Electricity is used to excite the atoms in the neon gas within the glass tubes of a neon sign. That's why these signs give off their brilliant colors. The aurora works on the same principle - but at a far more vast scale.

The aurora often appears as curtains of lights, but they can also be arcs or spirals, often following lines of force in Earth's magnetic field. Most are green in color but sometimes you'll see a hint of pink, and strong displays might also have red, violet and white colors. The lights typically are seen in the far north - the nations bordering the Arctic Ocean - Canada and Alaska, Scandinavian countries, Iceland, Greenland and Russia. But strong displays of the lights can extend down into more southerly latitudes in the United States. And of course, the lights have a counterpart at Earth's south polar regions.

The colors in the aurora were also a source of mystery throughout human history. But science says that different gases in Earth's atmosphere give off different colors when they are excited. Oxygen gives off the green color of the aurora, for example. Nitrogen causes blue or red colors.

So today the mystery of the aurora is not so mysterious as it used to be. Yet people still travel thousands of miles to see the brilliant natural light shows in Earth's atmosphere. And even though we know the scientific reason for the aurora, the dazzling natural light show can still fire our imaginations to visualize fire bridges, gods or dancing ghosts.

Bottom line: When charged particles from the sun strike atoms in Earth's atmosphere, they cause electrons in the atoms to move to a higher-energy state. When the electrons drop back to a lower energy state, they release a photon: light. This process creates the beautiful aurora, or northern lights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what causes aurora borealis northern lights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What causes the aurora borealis? | EarthSky.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those who live at or visit high latitudes might at times experience colored lights shimmering across the night sky. Some Inuit believed that the spirits of their ancestors could be seen dancing in the flickering aurora. In Norse mythology, the aurora was a fire bridge to the sky built by the gods.

# data[].attributes.body
How are our brains able to generate consciousness?

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout my lifetime, I have heard many theories as to whether or not there is life on another planet. Is it even possible? I heard the theories from my peers that lead me to believe they were crazy, but these crazy theories also sparked a sense of curiosity in my mind. According to recent studies, life outside of Earth is looking more and more likely, but how could we know if any of these studies are factual and not fabricated? For now, we will just have to trust what we hear.

# data[].attributes.body
How did scientists figure out that this was the best way to conduct experiments?

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder what and how many species are still undiscovered around the world and in the ocean.

# data[].attributes.body
I have always wondered if science and religion can coexist. Is there a Heaven like the bible tells us? or is science taking a different turn on this topic. Since there is no evidence, there is a realty good chance that when we die our souls just die with us and we don't get to go to Heaven like we were told. It makes you wonder what happens to our souls, do we even have souls in the after life? or do we just disappear and our time in this universe was compacted into our life span of 90 years.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a limit to how smart individuals and communities can be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2. What are the limits of human life and physiology?

Roger Highfield, author, museum executive and science journalist.

We know what distinguishes living things from inorganic matter, but scientists may never know where life actually comes from and how it began.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
24 Big Questions Science Still Needs To Answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2. What are the limits of human life and physiology? Roger Highfield, author, museum executive and science journalist. We know what distinguishes living things from inorganic matter, but scientists may never know where life actually comes from and how it began.

# data[].attributes.body
For the majority of my life my biggest wonder has been about the ocean. Nobody has ever seen everything that the ocean has to offer. What types of animals live at the very bottom of the ocean? Why hasn't any tried sustain human life at the bottom of the ocean?

# data[].attributes.body
One wonder that I have is why do we dream when we sleep?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dreams can be entertaining, disturbing, or downright bizarre. We all dream -- even if we don't remember it the next day. But why do we dream? And what do dreams mean, anyway?

WebMD takes a look at what makes us dream and helps unravel the mysteries behind dreams.

What Are Dreams?

Dreams are basically stories and images our mind creates while we sleep. Dreams can be vivid. They can make you feel happy, sad, or scared. And they may seem confusing or perfectly rational.

Dreams can occur anytime during sleep. But most vivid dreams occur during deep, REM ( rapid eye movement) sleep, when the brain is most active. Some experts say we dream at least four to six times per night.

Why Do We Dream?

There are many theories about why we dream, but no one knows for sure. Some researchers say dreams have no purpose or meaning and are nonsensical activities of the sleeping brain. Others say dreams are necessary for mental, emotional, and physical health.

Studies have shown the importance of dreams to our health and well-being. In one study, researchers woke subjects just as they were drifting off into REM sleep. They found that those who were not allowed to dream experienced:

Many experts say that dreams exist to:

Help solve problems in our lives

Incorporate memories

Process emotions

If you go to bed with a troubling thought, you may wake with a solution, or at least feel better about the situation.

Sigmund Freud believed dreams are a window into our subconscious. He believed they reveal a person's:

Unconscious desires

Thoughts

Motivations

Freud thought dreams were a way for people to satisfy urges and desires that were unacceptable to society.

Perhaps there is merit with all these theories. Some dreams may help our brains process our thoughts and the events of the day. Others may just be the result of normal brain activity and mean very little, if anything. Researchers are still trying to figure out exactly why we dream.

Continued

What Do Dreams Mean?

Just as there are varying opinions as to why we dream, there are also different views as to what dreams mean. Some experts say dreams have no connection to our real emotions or thoughts. They are just strange stories that don't relate to normal life.

Others say our dreams may reflect our own underlying thoughts and feelings -- our deepest desires, fears, and concerns, especially recurring dreams. By interpreting our dreams, we may be able to gain insight into our lives and ourselves. Many people say they have come up with their best ideas while dreaming, so dreams may be a conduit of creativity.

Often people report having similar dreams -- they are being chased, fall off a cliff, or appear in public naked. These types of dreams are likely caused by a hidden stress or anxiety. While the dreams may be similar, experts say the meaning behind the dream is unique to each person.

Therefore, many experts say not to rely on books or "dream dictionaries," which give a specific meaning for a specific dream image or symbol. The particular reason behind your dream is unique to you.

Although scientists can't say for sure what dreams mean and why we dream, many people find meaning in their dreams.

Why Do Nightmares Occur?

Nightmares, or bad dreams, are common in children and adults. Often nightmares are caused by:

Stress, conflict, and fear

Trauma

Emotional problems

Medication or drug use

Illness

If you have a recurring nightmare, your subconscious may be trying to tell you something. Listen to it. If you can't figure out why you are having bad dreams, and you continue to have them, talk to a qualified mental health care provider. They may be able to help you figure out what is causing your nightmares and provide tips to put you at ease.

Keep in mind that no matter how scary a nightmare is, it is not real and most likely will not happen to you in real life.

What Are Lucid Dreams?

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming during your dream? This is called a lucid dream. Research has shown that lucid dreaming is accompanied by an increased activation of parts of the brain that are normally suppressed during sleep. Lucid dreaming represents a brain state between REM sleep and being awake.

Some people who are lucid dreamers are able to influence the direction of their dream, changing the story so to speak. While this may be a good tactic to take, especially during a nightmare, many dream experts say it is better to let your dreams occur naturally.

Continued

Can Dreams Predict the Future?

There are many examples of situations where a dream came true or was telling of a future event. When you have a dream that then plays out in real life, experts say it is most likely due to:

Coincidence

Faulty memory

An unconscious tying together of known information

However, sometimes dreams can motivate you to act a certain way, thus changing the future.

Why Are Dreams Hard to Remember?

Researchers don't know for sure why dreams are easily forgotten. Maybe we are designed to forget our dreams because if we remembered all our dreams, we might not be able to distinguish dreams from real memories.

Also, it may be harder to remember dreams because during REM sleep our body may shut down systems in our brain responsible for creating memories. We may only remember dreams that occur just before we wake, when certain brain activities have been turned back on.

Some say our minds don't actually forget dreams, we just don't know how to access them. Dreams may be stored in our memory, waiting to be recalled. This notion may explain why you may suddenly remember a dream later in the day -- something may have happened to trigger the memory.

Tips for Dream Recall

If you are a sound sleeper and don't wake up until the morning, you are less likely to remember your dreams compared to people who wake up several times in the night. But here are some tips that may influence your ability to remember your dreams:

Wake up without an alarm. You are more likely to remember your dreams if you wake up naturally than with an alarm. Once the alarm goes off, your brain focuses on the annoying sound and turning it off and not your dream.

Remind yourself to remember. If you want to remember your dreams and make a conscious decision to do so, you are more likely to remember your dreams in the morning. Before you go to sleep, remind yourself that you want to remember your dream.

Dream playback. If you think about the dream right after waking, it may be easier to remember it later.

Continued

How to Make Sense of Your Dreams

If you are intrigued by your dreams or want to sort out the meaning behind them, consider keeping a dream diary or journal. Here are some tips:

Write it down. Keep a notebook or journal and pen next to your bed and record your dream first thing every morning, while the memory is still fresh. Write down anything you recall from the dream and how it made you feel, even if you can only remember random pieces of information.

Journal without judgment. Dreams are sometimes odd and may go against societal norms. Try not to judge yourself based on your dreams.

Give each dream a title. This may help if you want to refer back to a dream. Sometimes the title you create can provide insight on why you had the dream or the meaning behind it.

Dreams have fascinated humanity since the beginning of time and will likely continue to mystify us. And although science has allowed us to learn much about the human brain, we may never know for sure the meaning behind our dreams.

Sources

SOURCES:

International Association for the Study of Dreams: "Common Questions About Dreams."

National Sleep Foundation: "In Your Dreams," "Dreams and Sleep."

DreamScience.org: "The Science of Dreaming."

University of California Santa Cruz: "The Quantitative Study of Dreams: Frequently Asked Questions."

PBS.org: "Dreams: Expert Q&A."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dreams: Why We Dream, Lucid Dreaming, Nightmares, Common Dreams, and More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WebMD talks about dreams: what makes us dream, if dreams mean anything, what lucid dreaming is, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
This project led me to wonder what was the first science project and has it been revisited today?

# data[].attributes.body
The Tardigrade is a microscopic creature that is able to survive in the world's most hostile environments. It is so well adapted and hardy that is can (and has) survived in the vacuum of space and the bottom of the Mariana Trench. My question is will humans ever harness the adaptive attributes or develop the technology to utilize or mimic the Tardigrades hardiness and will this technology finally aid us enough to explore the unknowns of both the Earth and space?.

# data[].attributes.body
One question that I still have after discovering more about the Scientific Method is how do scientists and students know they are using the scientific method correctly? Also, if you are using the method correctly how do you know when to refine, alter, and expand your theory?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steps of the Scientific Method in 3 Minutes

# data[].attributes.body
Kyle Conway
How can we claim the earth is flat when we see images from the Voyager proving the other planets are not flat? How does such an item have the ability to travel such lengths to orbit these planets in the middle of nothingness?

# data[].attributes.body
Being a mom of 3, I wonder what my children's future will look like.  Our planet continues to change and not in a good way. Climate change, extinction of species, whats next?

# data[].attributes.body
The ocean has always interested me. It goes on for miles and miles. I have always wondered what lies beyond the ocean. Whenever I am swimming or laying on the beach this question always comes to my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIkwhyECYKI

# data[].attributes.body
One wonder that I have about the Scientific Method is how multiple scientists can take on different tasks in an experiment. Are these parts of experiment done at the same time or different times? And are the end results the same as they would be if one scientist participated in the experiment by themselves?

# data[].attributes.body
Learning about the Scientific Method has been very interesting. One thing I still have questions about is how different parts of the process can be carried out by different people at different times. Does one person come to a conclusion, and then another person comes at a different time and does their own inquiry of the topic to come to a different conclusion?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The scientific method (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How the scientific method is used to ask questions and test explanations.

# data[].attributes.body
From a young age I have always loved to be outside. I especially love hiking. This one hiking spot I like to go to is half rock and half trees. What I find interesting is that there are some trees that are growing in the middle of rocks. My wonder is, how does seed migration affect other parts of Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder where we are headed in the future with all the technology that has burst onto the scene within the last 15/20 years.  Even the presidential candidates are concerned that jobs becoming automated and disappearing.  Mayor DeBlasio wrote a piece for Wired magazine about it. Will people still have meaningful work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They call it the "lights out factory." A manufacturing complex run by the Japanese company FANUC, it spans 22 facilities producing 23,000 computer parts each month for companies like Tesla and Apple. The plant runs close to 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

WIRED OPINION

ABOUT

Bill de Blasio is the mayor of New York City and a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The complex seems to run so smoothly, it might take a moment to realize that something's missing: human workers. FANUC's factory is 100 percent automated, with robots going "unsupervised" by a human for as many as 30 days at a time.

The scale of automation in our economy is increasing far faster than most people realize, and its impact on working people in America and across the world, unless corralled, will be devastating. Already, according to the Brookings Institution, 36 million American jobs are "highly likely" to be automated out of existence in the coming decades.

But automation and human employment should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. America has welcomed technological advancement throughout our history, and we still should, as long as the benefits of these advancements are shared evenly instead of solely going to big corporations.

As mayor of New York, and as a candidate for President focused on the needs of working people, I've seen at home and across the country that workers can benefit from these technological changes, but we can't let American jobs be replaced by them. That's why I'm proposing a new plan today to protect American workers and ensure that we all share in the gains from technological advancement.

To start, my plan calls for a new federal agency, the Federal Automation and Worker Protection Agency (FAWPA), to oversee automation and safeguard jobs and communities.

FAWPA would create a permitting process for any company seeking to increase automation that would displace workers. Approval of those plans would be conditioned on protecting workers; if their jobs are eliminated through automation, the company would be required to offer their workers new jobs with equal pay, or a severance package in line with their tenure at the company.

Additionally, my plan would close tax loopholes worth hundreds of billions of dollars for corporations that invest in automation and then often deduct it on their taxes, even if they know that their "investment" will likely destroy their employees' jobs.

Lastly, my proposal would institute a "robot tax" on large companies that eliminate jobs through increased automation and fail to provide adequate replacement jobs. They'd be required to pay five years of payroll taxes up front for each employee eliminated. That revenue would go right into a new generation of labor-intensive, high-employment infrastructure projects and new jobs in areas such as health care and green energy that would provide new employment. Displaced workers would be guaranteed new jobs created in these fields at comparable salaries.

Automation and human employment should not be viewed as mutually exclusive.

This tax, and the jobs in 21st century fields that it creates, would drastically change what the next economy will look like for working people. It'll have two fundamental effects that would guarantee that American workers have a shield against unemployment.

First, my plan would ensure stability for the workers who have the jobs of today. Secondly, by taking the revenues created by closing the automation loophole and the "robot tax" and investing them in new programs, it would facilitate the next generation of jobs-good-paying union jobs in green energy, early childhood education, home health care, and the like. For generations, Americans went to work confident not just that they had the security of a good-paying job with union benefits, but that they'd have that security for years to come. Those of them still in the workforce-as well as Generation X and Millennials-deserve that same peace of mind.

To deal with this looming threat, some tech leaders in Silicon Valley, and my fellow 2020 candidate Andrew Yang, have proposed providing every American with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $12,000 a year. While this idea could be part of a broader solution, as a standalone proposal it's woefully inadequate and has the potential to do more harm than good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why American Workers Need to Be Protected From Automation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They call it the "lights out factory." A manufacturing complex run by the Japanese company FANUC, it spans 22 facilities producing 23,000 computer parts each month for companies like Tesla and Apple. The plant runs close to 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

# data[].attributes.body
Space has always interested me with how big it is and what else may exist. Since the universe is never ending and is infinite, what else may exist, are we alone in the universe? It is too difficult to believe that Earth and Mars are the only sustainable planets that can provide life. I found an interesting Ted Talk that I would like to share. This video goes over what they believe and what they feel may be true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The SETI Institute's Jill Tarter makes her TED Prize wish: to accelerate our search for cosmic company. Using a growing array of radio telescopes, she and her team listen for patterns that may be a sign of intelligence elsewhere in the universe.

# data[].attributes.headline
I wonder about space and what else could be out there. Are there planets we have yet to discover? Are there other life forms? The site I have linked below is a great resource. I found especially interesting the various ways in which new planets are searched for.

# data[].attributes.subject
I wonder about space and what else could be out there. Are there planets we have yet to discover? Are there other life forms? The site I have linked below is a great resource. I found especially interesting the various ways in which new planets are searched for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the exoplanets discovered so far are in a relatively small region of our galaxy, the Milky Way. (“Small” meaning within thousands of light-years of

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder how our brains are effected by computers and smart phones. We knew that children should not be exposed to screens before the age of 3, but what about beyond?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Smartphones Change The Way You Think | Jeff Butler | TEDxHilliard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever wondered why it's so hard to put down your phone? There are hidden psychological effects that smartphones are having on our brains. Studies show that smartphone users are developing serious problems, like real addictions, and losing the ability to focus.

# data[].attributes.body
Over the years, global warming has become a concern for many people all over the world. My wonder is that if we know what causes global warming why don't we take steps to reduce those causes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil, and gasoline raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming.﻿﻿ Global climate change is certainly one of the top environmental issues today.

You can help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which in turn reduces global warming, by using energy more wisely. Here are 10 simple actions you can take to help reduce global warming.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables -- get a reusable water bottle, for example. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper, plastic, newspaper, glass, and aluminum cans. If there isn't a recycling program at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.﻿﻿

Change a Light Bulb

Wherever practical, use LED bulbs to replace regular light bulbs; they are even better than compact fluorescent light (CFL). ENERGY STAR-qualified LEDs use 20 percent - 25 percent of the energy and last up to 25 times longer than the traditional incandescent bulbs they replace.

Drive Less and Drive Smart

Less driving means fewer emissions. Besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are practical forms of exercise. Explore your community mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school. Even vacations can provide opportunities to reduce your carbon footprint.

When you do drive, make sure your car is running efficiently. For example, keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Every gallon of gas you save not only helps your budget, it also keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Use the "Off" Switch

Save electricity and reduce global warming by turning off lights when you leave a room, and using only as much light as you need. And remember to turn off your television, video player, stereo, and computer when you're not using them.

It's also a good idea to turn off the water when you're not using it. While brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog or washing your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You'll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital resource.

Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company

Many utility companies provide free home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.

Encourage Others to Conserve

Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.

These steps will take you a long way toward reducing your energy use and your monthly budget. And less energy use means less dependence on the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gasses and contribute to global warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Are the Things You Can Do to Slow Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are several things you can do every day to reduce your energy costs and your use of fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming.

# data[].attributes.body
The Scientific Method fascinates me. I wonder how many experiments a scientist will do before rejecting a hypothesis to start over?

# data[].attributes.body
I think back over my science classes in elementary school, and what I remember are the hands-on experiments.  I have forgotten the lectures, the old reel movies, but the hands on experiments like owl pellets, or worms ant farms, growing flowers, watching roots grow in a glass bottle, those I remember and was in awe in.  My wonder is how technology will build creativity and awe moments in science and replace the hands-on experience?

# data[].attributes.headline
One wonder i still have about hypothesis is how do scientists know when it is time to revisit an older experiment when new information is discovered?  

# data[].attributes.subject
One wonder i still have about hypothesis is how do scientists know when it is time to revisit an older experiment when new information is discovered?  

# data[].attributes.body
Based on what we now know about dinosaurs, I have always been curious about them and how they would've reacted with humans if we were alive at the same time. My question is, would we have been able to live at the same time as dinosaurs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could We Live With Dinosaurs? | Earth Unplugged

# data[].attributes.body
Being that environmental sustainability has been prevalent lately, my wonder is, what will happen to the world if bees go extinct? I am interested in what we can do to stop this from happening!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Worried Should We Be About the Bees?

# data[].attributes.headline
Leanna's Question- How is evolution tested? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Leanna's Question- How is evolution tested? 

# data[].attributes.body
I know they have tested evolution, but how? I found an article, but it still does not fully answer my question...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Creationists sometimes say that the theory of evolution is untestable and thus unscientific. This is a surprising claim, since creationists also say that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. If evolution were precluded by the second law, then evidence that confirms the second law would disconfirm the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution can be disconfirmed, then it is testable. Creationists cannot have it both ways.

What is the source, then, of their claim that the theory of evolution is untestable? Let us ignore, for the sake of consistency, the creationist claim that the second law is incompatible with the theory of evolution and examine the grounds for the thesis that evolution is untestable. In the final analysis, I think the creationists' arguments fail miserably.

However, a caveat is necessary before we proceed. Creationists are mistaken in their presupposition that the theory of evolution must be classified as either a theory or a fact. One of the many problems with that presupposition results from the sloppy use of the indefinite article a in the phrase a fact. Such usage treats the theory of evolution as if it consisted of a single proposition whose evidential status is all-of-a-kind and which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. But if anything is evident, it is that the theory of evolution consists of many propositions whose evidential status is not all-of-a-kind. Proving the untestability of the theory of evolution, then, would consist of the piecemeal task of considering each separate proposition individually and demonstrating that each is untestable. Furthermore, since research is currently being done in evolutionary theory, not all of the propositions are in, making the task even more difficult. We need, therefore, to beware of hasty talk about the untestability of the whole theory.

Survival of the Fittest

But perhaps there is a proposition (or small set of propositions) that is so basic to evolutionary theory that showing its untestability would, like Descartes' evil genius, undermine the edifice upon which the theory is built, obviating the need for a "piecemeal" approach.

This, evidently, is the presupposition underlying the attack on natural selection. The argument occurs early in Henry Morris' book, Scientific Creationism: "A theory which incorporates everything really explains nothing! It is tautologous. Those who survive in the struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the ones who survive" (p. 7). Stephen Jay Gould (1983) formulates the argument quite well before refuting it:

Natural selection is defined by Spencer's phrase 'survival of the fittest,' but what does this famous bit of jargon really mean? Who are the fittest? And how is 'fitness' defined? We often read that fitness involves no more than 'differential reproductive success'-the production of more surviving offspring than competing members of the population. Whoa! . . . This formulation defines fitness in terms of survival only. The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than 'the survival of those who survive'-a vacuous tautology. [pp. 141-142]

Does this argument prove the untestability of the theory of evolution? A prerequisite for doing so is to show that the theory of evolution is built upon the edifice of natural selection in such a way that, without natural selection, the theory of evolution itself would collapse. That, however, is far from clear and certainly does not go without saying.

In response to creationist Duane Gish's assertion that the theory of evolution is a tautology without predictive value on the basis of the argument just cited, Gould writes: "Please note, however, that the false claim for tautology was advanced only against Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, not against the idea of evolution itself" (p. 140). In response to the claim that natural selection was quietly abandoned by even its most ardent supporters, Gould quips: "News to me, and I, although I wear the Darwinian label with some pride, am not among the most ardent supporters of natural selection" (p. 141). These remarks, if anything, suggest that the theory of evolution is independent of natural selection.

R. C. Lewontin (1981), another authority on the theory of evolution, inveighs against ". . . the growth of a vulgar Darwinism that sees direct adaptation in every feature of life. By making claims for natural selection that are as tortured as the absurd claims of the nineteenth century evolutionists who saw God's wisdom in everything, the vulgar adaptationists seriously weaken [the perception of] the power of evolutionary explanation." Now if only "vulgar" Darwinists make extravagant claims for natural selection, and thereby undermine the perception of the power of evolutionary explanation, then there are other mechanisms that explain evolutionary change, and the theory of evolution very well might be independent of natural selection.

Lewontin does mention other factors that play a role in evolutionary explanation:

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. One such controversy concerns the relative importance of direct "adaptive" natural selection for characters, as opposed to other forces of evolution such as genetic drift, genetic linkage, pleiotrophy, allometry, and multiple adaptive peaks for particular events in evolution. [p. 559]

Two others might be mentioned: mutation and founder effect. Now if authorities cite many other factors involved in evolutionary change, debate the relative importance of natural selection, and suggest that the theory of evolution is independent of it, then creationists must first establish that the theory of evolution stands or falls with natural selection before their case can be made. But that issue is not even broached in their argument for evolution's circularity. Therefore, they have not proved the theory untestable.

A Criterion for "Fitness"

Nonetheless, they have made an important charge against natural selection itself: the charge of untestability. To answer this, it will be necessary to show that there is a criterion other than survival for something being the "fittest" or better adapted. Is there an independent criterion?

Gould tells us that there is. He says that the survival and spread of certain traits in individuals throughout populations is a result of the fitness (adaptability) of those traits, not a definition of fitness (p. 143). Certain traits are superior or better adapted before they survive and spread. I quote Gould:

Now, the key point: certain morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer's criterion of good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. [p. 143]

A trait is better adapted, then, if it meets an engineer's criterion of good design. Although the word design may prompt some to think of a popular argument for God's existence, the criterion Gould invokes is naturalistic. It is a matter of comparing an engineer's design of something with what one finds in nature. The better adapted or "fitter" organisms are those which would meet an engineer's criterion for good design if an engineer were to apply one. If one then predicts that organisms which meet an engineer's criterion would be those that survive and, in the long run, spread their traits throughout populations, then such a prediction in terms of natural selection is testable.

The criterion Gould cites is general and designed to cover all cases. But it is not clear how this criterion plays a role in evolutionary explanation. Let us turn, then, to a specific example in order to clarify the testable and contingent character of possible explanations in terms of natural selection.

The example I shall cite is one that the creationists deny is an instance of evolution "in the true sense." An evolutionary process is a change in gene frequency that, in the long run, results in the appearance of a new species. The example I shall cite is not one in which a new species appeared. Those changes take so long that it is impossible for an individual to point to one having occurred in his or her personal experience. But the creationists' denial that it is an instance of evolution "in the true sense" is irrelevant here, for the issue has to do with the testability of explanations in terms of natural selection. And the example I shall cite is undoubtedly an instance of natural selection.

My example is a standard one about the peppered moths in England. Before 1845, every observed moth of this kind was gray (at least every recorded observation). In 1845, however, a single black moth of that biological type was observed and recorded in Manchester, an industrialized area. Presumably, there were more black moths. Now the gray color of most of the moths was better adapted to their environment, since the moths tended to stay on trees that were covered with gray lichens. Thus, the gray color constituted a good camouflage against their predators (primarily birds). On the other hand, the darker moths were less well camouflaged and even tended to stand out against the background of the trees on which they lived. They were therefore less well adapted. Now, since the darker moths were easier for the birds to see, they would, as a group, more likely be eaten before they matured and reproduced. Since physical characteristics are inherited, it could, at this point, be predicted that, if the environment remained the same in the relevant respects, the black moths would constitute a smaller percentage of the population, whereas the gray ones would comprise a larger one. If you were to design a moth for living in such an environment, you would give it good camouflage against its predators. The gray moths in that environment meet the engineer's criterion of good design.

But the environment did not remain the same. Industrialization in England blackened the trees, making the gray moths more easily visible to their predators, whereas the black ones had thus become less easily visible. It could then be predicted that the percentage of black moths would increase, whereas the gray ones would decrease (Northington and Goodin, 1984). In this new environment, the dark moths meet the engineer's criterion of good design.

Now it is a logically contingent fact that the better camouflaged moths survive and, in the long run, spread their better-adapted characteristic throughout the population. I would not place my bet on the survival and spread (or even stability) of the black moths when the trees are gray, nor on the gray ones when the trees are black. However, it is not true by definition that the better-adapted (in this instance, better camouflaged) individuals will survive and spread. Their greater adaptation relative to environmental conditions is identifiable independently of and prior to their survival, as shown by the predictions those identifications license. If those predictions were disconfirmed by subsequent observations, that would be evidence against natural selection as an explanation of the evolutionary change. The possibility of such disconfirming evidence constitutes testability.

This example is not atypical. Basically, it is a matter of being able to identify those characteristics that, in a given environment, would be more likely to produce survival and spread. But survival, once again, is not a definition of adaptability but a probable result of it. Creationists have not, therefore, proven the untestability of explanations in terms of natural selection, much less the untestability of the theory of evolution.

One harmless concession should be made. Gould does note that some of the literature in evolutionary theory does involve the use of a circular criterion of fitness or adaptability (p. 143). Gould, and I think rightly, attributes this to an unwillingness among some scientists to "explore seriously the logical structure of arguments" (p. 141). Some scientists need, in short, to be more philosophical. But this does not mean that the theory of evolution or Darwin's formulation is untestable, since good explanations and predictions in terms of natural selection can be specified in a noncircular way, and frequently are.

Ehrlich and Birch

The argument I have refuted is not, however, the only argument for the untestability of the theory of evolution in Scientific Creationism. Consider this argument from page nine:

It is clear that neither evolution nor creation is, in the proper sense, either a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis. Though people might speak of the "theory of evolution" or of the "theory of creation," such terminology is imprecise. This is because neither can be tested. A valid scientific hypothesis must be capable of being formulated experimentally, such that the experimental results either confirm or reject its validity.

As noted in the statement by Ehrlich and Birch cited previously, however, there is no conceivable way to do this.

The claim that the theory of evolution is untestable is based upon the assertion that evolution is not a valid scientific hypothesis that is capable of being formulated experimentally, such that the experimental results either confirm or reject its validity. Ehrlich and Birch's authority is cited as grounds for asserting this.

If one reads only the creationists' quotation from Ehrlich and Birch's article, one would think that Ehrlich and Birch believe that the theory of evolution as a whole is untestable. That impression, however, would be far from the truth, since the creationists have, by quoting Ehrlich and Birch out of context, distorted their views. This is the quotation in Scientific Creationism:

Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus "outside of empirical science," but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. . . . (Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. [pp. 6-7]

The creationists did not cite the very next sentence: "The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets" (Ehrlich and Birch, p. 352). If Ehrlich and Birch think that the theory of evolution as a whole is untestable, why do they say, in the very next sentence, that evolutionary theory should not be scrapped? The answer is that they do not regard the theory of evolution as a whole to be untestable, as even a cursory reading of the article shows. At the beginning of Ehrlich and Birch's article, offset and in boldface, is a good precis:

While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions. [p. 349]

These two biologists are not at all dissatisfied with the theory of evolution as such.

They are dissatisfied, however, with how some scientists make use of some hypotheses about the evolutionary past. The article is about how some ecologists investigate matters poorly by turning too readily to untestable assumptions about the past to answer their questions rather than first turning to explanations that are falsifiable. Ehrlich and Birch write, for example:

It is clear that considerably more thorough investigations of the present day population biology of these birds, with the emphasis on the genetics of clutch size, magnitude of selection pressure on clutch size, and rates of gene flow, will be necessary before we fall back on an untestable historical hypothesis. [p. 350]

In brief, those ecologists who investigate poorly have used untestable historical hypotheses to circumvent the need for more empirical investigation, which is objectionable. [This is not to imply that historical hypotheses are automatically untestable; see the next article, page nine.]

Ehrlich and Birch also say that the tendency of some ecologists to turn too quickly to untestable historical hypotheses has been accompanied by a failure to address logically prior questions and confusions about what constitutes a proper scientific explanation (pp. 350-351).

What are these untestable historical hypotheses? They are very specific assertions about specific animals in specific locations. One example is about the ancestral habitat of the British great tit, Parus major. Another is about competition in the past between two species of birds on the Canary Islands, Fringella coelebs and Fringella coerulea (p. 350). The point is that these hypotheses are about specific details of evolutionary history. These hypotheses are quite peripheral. They are not fundamental propositions in the theory of evolution. They are not even relatively important to the theory as a whole but represent only some sloppy work on the part of some ecologists. The untestability of these speculations about very specific details, therefore, does not imply that fundamental or relatively important propositions of evolutionary theory are untestable. In fact, such propositions as "More complex lifeforms have developed out of simpler ones" and "Dinosaurs existed and became extinct long before modern humans came into existence" are testable. The evidence could disconfirm them, but it simply does not. No doubt Ehrlich and Birch recognize this, which is why they recommend that evolutionary theory be retained.

Furthermore, Ehrlich and Birch not only favor retaining evolutionary theory but also criticize their colleagues for failing to appreciate "the efficacy of natural selection." As I pointed out earlier, creationists believe that explanations in terms of natural selection are untestable. To say the least, it is not in their best interest to cite as authoritative such strong advocates of the explanatory power of natural selection.

Conclusion

We have examined two arguments in Scientific Creationism for the untestability of evolutionary theory. The first, concerning the alleged circularity of natural selection, rested upon an unproven presupposition and included the false premise that survival is the test of adaptability. The second involved an appeal to the authority of Ehrlich and Birch. Examining what they had to say, however, showed that their article did not advance the creationist's case. If the creationists believe that the theory of evolution stands of falls with a peripheral hypothesis about the great British tit, they must be guilty of a confusion to which I alluded at the beginning of this article-that of thinking of evolutionary theory as a single proposition whose evidential status is all-of-a-kind.

Furthermore, the evidence could have corroborated (but does not) the hypothesis that all lifeforms appeared at virtually the same time. As a result, it is not only true that creationists have failed to prove the untestability of the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory, it is also true that the fundamental tenet is testable.

The same cannot be said of the fundamental axiom of creationism, that God wrote Genesis.

According to the Biblical record, God Himself wrote with His own hand these words: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. . . ." That being true, it follows that real understanding of man and his world can only be acquired in a thorough-going creationist frame of reference. [Morris, p. iii]

I should like to show the untestability of that creationist axiom and others. That, however, is a different topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Creationists sometimes say that the theory of evolution is untestable and thus unscientific. This is a surprising claim, since creationists also say that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. If evolution were precluded by the second law, then evidence that confirms the second law would disconfirm the theory of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Oceans are a big mystery to me. I always wonder when I am at the beach about the life below, and what lies beneath the ocean? I watched this video on YouTube about how marine biologist explore the depths of the ocean and study the habitat of the ocean. They study whales and how they need protected habitat. This is a great video that I encourage you to explore!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transcript

Imagine going to work everyday in the ocean, to study the plants and animals that call it home.

Scientists from Canada, Mexico, and the United States are benefitting from marine protected areas as living laboratories to make better decisions about our oceans.

In the Arctic, researchers brave extreme conditions to identify critical habitat for belugas.

These whales need protected areas in the far north to feed, mate, and raise their young.

Off the coast of Mexico's Baja Peninsula, counting and measuring fish helps biologists understand how marine protected areas allow fish to grow bigger and more abundant compared with surrounding waters.

In some cases, the contrast between them is astonishing!

In the Gulf of Mexico, scientists lower remotely operated vehicles into deep ocean vents to study sea corals and mud volcanoes. These places have been protected so researchers can continue to learn about organisms that live without sunlight.

The Northwest Hawaiian Islands are home to one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, where table coral creates a unique habitat for thousands of animals.

Scientists compare this pristine area with other parts of the ocean where plants and animals are not protected.

Thanks to marine protected areas, scientists make new discoveries every day that help reveal the secrets of the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science: Discovering the Ocean's Secrets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine going to work everyday in the ocean, to study the plants and animals that call it home. Scientists from Canada, Mexico, and the United States are benefitting from marine protected areas as living laboratories to make better decisions about our oceans. In the Arctic, researchers brave extreme conditions to identify critical habitat for belugas.

# data[].attributes.headline
I've often wondered what life would be like if people didn't need sleep?

# data[].attributes.subject
I've often wondered what life would be like if people didn't need sleep?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image: © Pressmaster | Shutterstock.com)

If you've ever pulled an all-nighter, you know you're not yourself the next day. And perhaps you've even lamented the need for 8 hours of shut-eye.

But what if there were a cure for sleep? What if there were a drug you could take so you never felt tired? After all, researchers are working on drugs to prevent sleepiness - a 2007 study found that a nasal spray containing the hormone orexin-A reversed the effects of sleep deprivation in monkeys.

Even so, experts say sleep plays a fundamental role in how people structure their lives, and taking it away would have a large sociological impact.

"People don't realize what a reciprocal relationship we have with sleep," said Mairead Eastin Moloney, a medical sociologist and assistant professor of sociology at the University of Kentucky. "Sleep really structures our lives," and we also structure our sleep around our social world, Moloney said. [ What If? 22 Crazy Hypothetical Questions (and Their Answers)]

Here are some ways human lives might be different if there were a cure for sleep.
More productive?
Many people think they would be more productive if only they had more time. So in a world without sleep - in which people had 8 more hours in a day - it's tempting to suggest they'd get more done, and society would solve more problems. But experts say most people would not make the best use of this extra time.

"It's really seductive to think we would all become smarter and more productive, but that's not necessarily the case," Moloney said.

The human brain requires a certain amount of downtime to function optimally, and too much work or stress impairs thinking, Moloney said. That's why people may come up with their best ideas in the shower, or in the middle of a seemingly mindless pastime.

Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in private practice in New York, agreed. "Most people are not more productive," if they have more time, Sapadin said.

When people have extra time, they tend to fill it with relaxation, or just pass the time away, Sapadin said. "We're not machines," so we can't simply keep working 24/7, she said. People who are compulsive workers might do more at first, but "eventually [the work] would take its toll, because we need to refresh ourselves," she said.

Rather than being more productive, people might just be busier. Technological advances over the last few decades have allowed people to work around the clock, Moloney noted, but they aren't necessarily more productive than in the past - they're just busier.

"Sleep really puts a pause on our busyness and our productivity," Moloney said. Without sleep, "I would be curious to see if we would spiral into busier and busier patterns."
Changes in work schedules
Expectations around work might change as well. Without a need for sleep, your boss might be justified in wondering why you didn't reply to an email at 3 a.m.

Taking away sleep "shifts expectations of how long people can work for without a break," said Catherine Coveney, a research fellow in global health at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom.

As part of a research project, Coveney asked people in different professions what they thought would happen if there were a drug to replace sleep. She found that people who worked day as well as night shifts (such as doctors, nurses and police officers) were concerned about the idea. "They were worried about exploitation and employers putting pressure on their employees to work longer hours and do more shifts in the name of economic productivity, where socially and healthwise, workers would lose out," Coveney said.

Society would also need more staff in service professions, such as police officers and firefighters, Moloney said. Even though there are night-shift workers now, society would need more, because people would be more active at night, Moloney said.

What would you do if you didn't have to sleep?
Relationship problems
A cure for sleep would also likely affect relationships. Although people like to spend time with loved ones, too much time with their kids or significant other could have a downside.

"If everyone's awake and active, when do you get downtime, when do you get a break from your intimates?" Moloney said. "People get a little worn out," if they don't have time away from their loved ones - something that sleep usually brings, she added.

On the other hand, some people might lose out on interactions with their family if routines that are built around sleep, like reading to kids before bed, disappear.

"We might lose things like mealtimes and family time [and] routines around bedtime," Coveney said.
Economic impact
Although the elimination of sleep would provide more opportunity to make money, it would also offer more opportunities to spend money. For instance, people would need to heat their homes 24 hours a day and eat more meals, Coveney said. "A world without sleep would need more resources to keep it running," she said.

There's also a question of what would happen to the sleep industry - Americans spend $5 billion a year on sleeping aids, Moloney said.

"We have all these ways in which we basically have formed a private economy around sleep that would disappear," Moloney said.
Health implications
Forgoing sleep might also have health implications. Sleep problems have been linked with a number of health conditions, including obesity and heart disease. Even if there were a drug that allowed people to function without sleep, that would not necessarily take away the risk of these other health conditions linked with a lack of sleep, Moloney said.

In addition, there would be more opportunities to eat, which could lead to increases in obesity, Moloney said. While there would theoretically also be more time to get to the gym, humans tend to gravitate toward things that bring pleasure, she said.

"Even when people really do have the time to make healthy choices, a lot of times, most of us don't," Moloney said.

Sleep is also important for memory consolidation, said Dr. Abid Malik, medical director of the South Seminole Hospital Sleep Disorders Center at Orlando Health in Florida. So even if people don't feel tired, a lack of sleep can affect their brains, Malik said. It's unclear what the long-term consequences of taking drugs to stay awake might be, he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Image: © Pressmaster | Shutterstock.com) If you've ever pulled an all-nighter, you know you're not yourself the next day. And perhaps you've even lamented the need for 8 hours of shut-eye. But what if there were a cure for sleep? What if there were a drug you could take so you never felt tired?

# data[].attributes.body
I often wonder about space and the vastness of our universe and more specifically, blackholes and the science behind them. The YouTube channel, Kurzgesagt, is a great resource that takes complex concepts, such as blackholes, and condenses them into simplified and easy to understand videos. I would definitely recommend this channel to anyone who wants to broaden their perspective on all things science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Holes Explained – From Birth to Death

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder how the brain works. What makes us conscious?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is consciousness? - Michael S. A. Graziano

# data[].attributes.body
My wonder is acutally a fear, it is if and when the world will run out of drinkable water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What If Earth Ran Out Of Water And Food?

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder if technology will ever take over teachers and their jobs. After all, people are getting their degrees online in the comfort of their own homes, so why not? After doing some research I found this article to address just how beneficial teachers are for students overall development. Check it out!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is a much known fact that in this modern age, technology is replacing almost everything. We do not need papers and pens, as software can be used to write on, we do not need physical books because of the advent of e-books and PDFs. So, the question arises - Can this modern technology replace teachers too? Is this technology sophisticated enough to teach children the way virtual teachers do? Is the need of human teachers being eliminated?

Everyone has a different perception. But what I believe is that the answer to the above stated arguments is a big 'No'. Technology cannot replace a teacher. Technology is merely an augmentation to a teacher. It can help the process of learning, but it certainly cannot replace the role of the teacher.

Technology can make it easy to get educated by sitting at home but that education too is provided by a teacher. Even in online courses, we see that teachers are necessary to give lectures, whether in the form of videos, tutorials, Skype sessions, etc. Children still need to learn computers to operate those online sessions, which of course are taught by teachers.

It is significant that we remember, a teacher is more than just a facilitator of knowledge. A teacher also acts as a guide, a mentor and an inspiration for students, a role that cannot be replaced by technology of any kind. Taking critical skills into account like decision making, time management etc, a child needs a teacher as the technology cannot teach these human skills.

It is much obvious that technology is assisting students in their learning and it is playing a crucial role in the field of education. But, as of now, it does not have the power to replace teachers because human interaction cannot be replaced by computers and human skills cannot be taught by technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a much known fact that in this modern age, technology is replacing almost everything. We do not need papers and pens, as software can be used to write on, we do not need physical books because of the advent of e-books and PDFs.

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder how ants are able to crawl around and not burn up on hot/humid days? I researched and had a hard time finding the answer, instead I found this video on Why don't animals get sunburns? Check it out!

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder if one day computers will be able to process and provide the results of an experiment within seconds if we plug in the components of the scientific method needed for formulating a proper conclusion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Share your wonder here. Click twice on the wall and type in, or add a video or a link to support your WONDER.

# data[].attributes.subject
Share your wonder here. Click twice on the wall and type in, or add a video or a link to support your WONDER.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is the Link to my Soil FlipGrid! Daniel Morgiewicz