How Big is Our Universe?

How Big is Our Universe?

We are tiny creatures, living out short lives in an immense and ancient universe.  We’ve evolved to make sense of the scales of time and space that were relevant for survival of our ancestors, so it is remarkable that we have any inkling at all of just how small we are when we zoom out to the cosmic scale.  As Douglas Adams wrote in ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’:  

Space is Big.  You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.  I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”  

To try to make sense of the vast distances between the stars and galaxies, lets scale down the universe.  It is remarkable that even when we shrink things down quite a lot, we find that it is difficult to keep the sizes from rapidly becoming astronomical once again.  This exercise also helps make clear why interstellar travel is such a difficult prospect, and may be nearly impossible to accomplish, even for a very advanced civilization.  This is some of the fun you can have on a Saturday afternoon with some imagination, a calculator, and an understanding of how to use scientific notation.   So, lets begin!

All right, for our first scale down cosmos we will shrink our sun down to the very manageable size of a 1 inch marble.  That’s pretty small right?  That is about 2 one hundred billionths of the suns actual size.  So, with a 1 inch marble at the center of our solar system, here is what follows.  The innermost planet in our solar system, Mercury would be in orbit 3.5 feet from the sun, Venus would orbit at 6.5 feet, and Earth would be a tiny 0.23mm speck (barely visible) sitting 9 feet from the sun.   Next comes the planet Mars sitting 13.6 feet from the sun.  This is our inner solar system, and so far still pretty manageable – a solar system you could fit fairly easily in your living room.

  Next comes the outer solar system with the mighty Jupiter, a speck of 2.5mm flying around the sun at 46 feet from our marble sun.  Beautiful ringed Saturn is in orbit at 85 feet, Uranus at 172 feet, and Neptune at 269 feet.  Little Pluto, now sadly demoted to a dwarf planet, is in orbit at 354 feet.  From that distance our little marble sun would appear tiny, yet it’s the gravitational pull on the tiny dust mote of Pluto that keeps it chained to the solar system.   No longer can we hold the outer solar system in our living room.  We might need to move our solar system to the park to hold it all.  

Think for a moment of how empty our solar system really is.  Tiny specks of dust orbiting a tiny star.  Our model 1 inch sun holds almost all the mass in the solar system.  The rest is just a scattering of microscopic dots out hundreds of feet from the center, with mostly emptiness between them.  The solar system is really very very empty, indeed.

The New Horizon space probe, our fastest space craft yet, visited Pluto last year, taking nearly 10 years to make the trip from Earth.   How fast can we possibly get through the solar system.  Light, traveling at the fastest speed possible in the vacuum of space moves, you guessed it, at the speed of light.  At our little solar system scale the light leaving the sun would take 8 minutes just to pass the Earth 9 feet away.  After an hour of travel the photons of light would move only 64 feet through our little solar system.  That would be somewhere between the orbit of Jupiter and Saturn.  Think of a sphere of light traveling in all directions from our 1 inch sun and taking a full hour to move to a sphere with a radius of 64 feet.  That seems rather slow, but there is nothing known in the universe that can do better.

On this scale 1 light year (the distance that light travels in one year) would be 107 miles from our little sun, and the closest star to the sun – Proxima Centauri at 4.24 light years away – would be a staggering 454 miles out.   Our little 1 inch sun floating alone in the darkness of space with next closest marble sized star being over 450 miles out in the distance.  If the sun marble was located in Los Angeles, then Proxima Centauri would be located approximately at 100 miles further north than San Francisco.   Is it any wonder that interstellar travel is such a monstrous challenge?  To travel between the stars on human time scales seems like an unrealistic dream.

The star Trappist-1, which was recently in the news for having been confirmed to have 7 exoplanets in orbit around it (some of which are in the starts habitat zone)  At a mere 40 light years from earth it has been toted has being very close to us indeed.  On the scale of our model solar system  Trappist-1 would be a small marble 4226 miles from our sun.  Again, if our sun was in Las Angeles then Honolulu would be only 60% of the way out to where the little marble of Trappist-1 would have to be placed – that vast Pacific wildness becoming the vast empty ocean between the stars.  

From our model sun, the center of the Milky Way galaxy would be 2,675,000 miles away, or about 11 times further out than our moon.   The size of the galaxy from end to end would be 10,700,000 miles across.  The next large spiral galaxy to us is the Andromeda galaxy and that would be placed 271,000,000 miles away.  Now that is getting into scales that match the sizes found in our actual solar system.  For example, if our marble sun was sitting in the very center of our actual sun, the surface of the real sun would be 4040 light years on our scale model.  The mini Andromeda galaxy would be beyond the orbit of Mars.

Ok, time to change our scale model to make the universe more manageable again.  Lets suppose that instead of our sun being 1 inch in diameter, our entire Milky Way galaxy is just 1 inch in diameter.  On this scale the Andromeda galaxy is another small disk (a little larger than our Milky Way) just 2.1 feet away from us.  The Virgo cluster of galaxies, which contains thousands of galaxies would be 54 feet away, and the edge of the observable universe, 46.6 billion light years away, would be 7.35 miles in every direction from our little 1 inch disk galaxy.  I’ve heard of races where runners run “the solar system” and pass the orbits of planets at the appropriate places on their 10K race, but you could do a “Run the Universe” race too, where you run a 10K and pass, not only deeper into space but farther back into time until you reach the very edge of time and space at the finish line.   By the way, even though the universe is only 13.8 billion years old the edge is 46.6 billion light years away because the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light in the distant past.  Inside the disk of our tiny 1 inch galaxy, the distance from the Sun to Pluto would be just 1.59 Angstroms, which is very nearly the size of a Hydrogen atom.

What if we wish to make our entire observable universe the size of a friendly 6 inch diameter snow globe, so we can put it out on our desk and admire the whole of creation as we do our work?  What would that look like?  If the observable universe was 6 inches in diameter, then the Milky Way galaxy would be a speck in the very center of the globe (yes, we are in the center of the universe from our vantage point) that was a mere 160 nanometers across.  This would be approximately the size of a virus.  In fact, all the hundreds of billions of galaxies in your Observable Universe globe would be the size of viruses.  I’m not sure you would see anything when you looked in your snow globe universe since the galaxies themselves would be microscopic on this scale, but you could surely feel quite satisfied that when you held your snow globe every galaxy in the observable universe was in the palm of your hand! 

Who would win in a fight? Science or Philosophy.

By Rich Feldenberg:

With the movie, “Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice” soon to hit theaters, it makes me wonder, why? Why would Superman and Batman be at odds with one another? Why would they battle when they are both supposed to be on the side of good? It may be fun to think about, who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, Indiana Jones or Han Solo? But again, why would they fight to begin with? Lately, there has been a different sort of war between good vs good, that has resurfaced. It is that of Science vs. Philosophy, and it has mainly been revived by a group of vocal physical scientists, that could be accused of extreme Scientism.

Now, Philosophy has been around for a long time. At least since the time of the ancient greeks, while the modern scientific method (and hence modern science as we would recognize it today) is generally agreed to have begun around the time of Galileo, around 400 years ago. That’s not to discount some of the ancients who made important observations of the natural world and contributions to math and logic, but the idea of hypothesis driven experimentation is a more recent phenomenon. In fact, many of the ancient “scientists” didn’t believe it was necessary to experiment at all, that pure logical reasoning should be enough to uncover the secrets of nature. Most of these armchair deductions have since been found to be false, even if based on good logical reasoning. The reason, it turns out, is that you really do have to test your basic underlying assumptions against the real world. Often the presumptions are incorrect and deviate from what seems to be common sense, or there may simply be many other factors that were unknown, but then uncovered by the experimental data.

Prior to Galileo, science and philosophy were more unified, and what we might label as science today would have been identified as natural philosophy then. Since the split, the two disciplines have diverged and become increasingly unique in their scope, like an ancient gene duplication event leading to paralogous gene families, or perhaps like the unification of universal forces right after the big bang fracturing into what appears to be completely separate forces such as the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. If the two have a common origin can they really be so different? As noted by many philosophers, there has been a steadily increasing hostility towards philosophy by some prominent scientists, especially physicists in many cases. If hostility seems a strong word, then it at least appears justified to declare the attitude of these scientists as indifferent to philosophy – a disciple that lost its usefulness once science arrived on the scene. Those poor misguided philosophers!

I have heard statements from some top scientists reveal their dismissive attitude towards philosophy. People like Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrass Tyson, Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss, and most recently Bill Nye, the science guy, himself! All people I have a great deal of respect for when it comes to their areas of expertise. What I think these smart individual get wrong is a misunderstanding of what philosophy really is. They certainly know what science is, but I believe that their understanding of philosophy is lacking.

Now let me be clear, I’m not a philosopher, at least not by training. I took a couple philosophy courses in college, but that was the extent of it. I consider myself much more aligned with the world of science. Perhaps a number of years ago I might have agreed with the scientists that have decided philosophy is dead, and science rules all. I don’t think I feel that way anymore, not at all. After learning more about the philosophy of science (POS) in the last few years I’m much more convinced that there is a lot there that is of benefit to scientist and non-scientist alike. I’ve come that that conclusion by listening philosophers like Massimo Piglucci and Rebecca Goldstein discuss, explain, and debate philosophical topics. I’ve read a some articles and a few books. Again, this doesn’t make me a philosopher, not by a long shot, but it does make me appreciate the relevance of the topic to our lives today, and value the skills of it’s practitioners.

We all know that science has been hugely successful. It’s method of “question everything”, “experiment to find the answer”, and “self correction” by updating with new data, is by far the best way we have to gather new knowledge. Today we understand how the world works orders of magnitude better than we did 500 years ago. Science has given us understanding, but it’s benefits don’t stop there. It has transformed everything about how humans live. So, what has philosophy done for us lately?

Philosophy is important in helping us understand whether our basic assumptions about how science works are valid, in what settings science can work, and in which other setting it may not give us meaningful answers (i.e.. Like in questions of morality and ethics, or questions of purpose, for example). Philosophy won’t be able to answer what lies beyond the standard model of physics, or if our universe is one of many in a multiverse, but it may be able to help decide if those questions are scientific ones or not. Philosophy can help us understand how to apply critical thinking and rationality to our lives. As the title of philosopher Rebecca Goldstein’s article in The Atlantic asks then answers its self, “Why study philosophy? To challenge your own point of view.” That seems to be an important aspect for any rational creature that values self growth and learning. Some scientist go so far as to claim that science can answer moral questions. While science can inform the discussion (such as answering questions like can animals feel pain) it can not answer those questions of morality on it’s own. Philosphopy is better equipped to shed light on the questions of, “what is the best way to live one’s life”, “where does one find purpose”, and “what are ethical choices”. Of course, religion also claims a monopoly on this territory, but from a purely authoritarian approach, with it’s logical underpinnings coming after the presumption of a “law giver” instead of allowing the a questioning of all basic assumptions and following the flow of logic from there. In earlier times religion was eager to claim scientific truths (facts about the physical world), as well, (for quite a long time it was pretty much the only game in town), but as science has now advanced to such a high degree there are few modern thinking theologians that would claim that scriptures are books of science. They are now only metaphor when in contradiction to established scientific consensus.

So, who would win in a fight, Science or Philosophy? Well, they shouldn’t be fighting to begin with. They are both of use to us poor mortals as we try to make sense of the world we’ve been born into. They each bring an important skill set to the table. Is Superman like science and Batman like philosophy? Superman seems to have almost limitless power, but does have certain weaknesses as well, such as susceptibility to Kryptonite and perhaps an overly naive nature. Batman, meanwhile, possessing human frailty is immune to Kryptonite, has become who he is by dedicated work and training (he wasn’t just given magical powers), and is motivated by dark human emotions of past pain and suffering.

The issue of who would win, science or philosophy may be a bit like the joke I heard one time about who would win in a fight, a tiger or a shark? Each would win if the fight takes place in its own domain.

sharkvstiger
References:

1. “Why Study Philosophy? To Challenge your own point of view.” The Atlantic by Rebecca Goldstein. Feb. 27, 2014.

2. “Mike, don’t listen to Bill Nye about philosophy”, Plato’s footnotes blog by Massimo Piglucci. Feb. 29, 2016.

3. “A physicist flirts with philosophy and lives to tell the tale”, Scientific American. Sept. 23, 2011.
This was an interview with physicist Brian Cox, and to Professor Cox’s credit he describes his recent acknowledgment of the importance of philosophy.

4. Rationally Speaking:  Exploring the borderlines between reason and non-sense.  Podcast with host Julia Galef. 

5. “Science can answer moral questions“, Youtube link to TED talk by Sam Harris (neuroscientist, skeptic, and atheist).  I’m arguing against this point of view, but see what you think!

 

The Frequency Illusion

This week I had a good opportunity to discuss an interesting cognitive bias with one of my 4th year medical student while we were on renal rounds. The issue came up when I was examining the belly of one of my young patients, who screamed out, “your hands are cold”. One of our nurses was quick to respond, “Cold hands, warm heart”. My student looked at me then remarked that she had only recently ever heard that expression, and since then has been hearing it over and over again. This, of course, lead to a natural discussion of the cognitive bias called the Frequency Illusion, which also is known as “The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon”. I admit we had to look up the name, as neither of us could remember what it was called. As physicians and scientists, critical thinking and rational thought are vital, and one way I teach this to my students is by discussing cognitive bias and logical fallacies. These emphasize where limitations of the human mind lie, and how to avoid common pitfalls in thinking that we are all prone towards.

The frequency illusion is one we have probably all experienced from time to time. The example above, is a not unusual. My student may have heard that phrase before, but never really registered it, or perhaps really never did hear it before recently. In any case, the true frequency of the phrase is unlikely to have suddenly increased, but only my students perception of the phrase has lead her to believe that only now is she hearing, “cold hands, warm heart” all over the place. Cognitive scientists propose that when the human mind has been given new information, it creates a bias towards that information so that we are more likely to become aware of seeing or hearing that same information again the next time it is presented. This is known as a “Recency Effect”. In reality the information has always been present at the same frequency but until recently it was part of the background noise and not in the forefront of thought.

Another example of the Frequency Illusion is one that I noticed in myself this week.  This occurred after a friend of mine posted on Facebook that he and his wife were visiting the Florida Keys for vacation. Since then I have noticed several commercials on TV advertising the Florida Keys for tourism. I had never noticed those commercials before. Now, it is possible that those commercials have only just begun to be broadcast, my friend was influenced by the commercial and decided to go to the Florida Keys, and I only started noticing the commercials because they were never on TV before this week. A more likely explanation is that I have fallen victim to the Frequency Illusion.

And yes, my hands really are cold all the time, and my heart is around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit – so pretty warm. I guess my nurse was right after all!

Reference articles:
1. “The Baader-Meinhof pheonomonen”, How stuff works.

2. Structure of a logical argument. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe page.

3. “The Clumping Effect” Darwin’s Kidneys blogpost.

4. List of Logical Fallacies.  Wikipedia.

 

Diseases with an upside!

Diseases with an upside.
By Rich Feldenberg
Since life’s earliest emergence on planet earth, disease has been our constant and unwelcome companion.  Even the first single celled organisms were susceptible to break down, nutritional deficiencies, and harmful genetic mutation.  When single celled life upgraded to the multicellular stage, finally becoming large, it was then susceptible to a host of new disorders, such as cancer that interfered with the organization and growth of cells that now had to survive as part of a collective.  Humankind is no different than the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard, and throughout human existence disease has lead to untold suffering, death, and at times the threat of total extinction.  It may therefore be surprising to learn that some diseases confer protection against other types of illness, and this seems to account for the high prevalence of some of these disorders in the human population.  If the protective benefit of the disease mutation on a large portion of the population outweighs the suffering and death of a small portion of the population, natural selection will swing the balance in favor of keeping those mutations in the gene pool.  Not only may the disease mutation simply persist in the gene pool, but it may become very prevalent because it is selected for in the right environment, where the other illness it protects against is a major threat.   To illustrate how this works I’ll give some detail on two well known examples of diseases and their upside – in other words, how they protect against other threats to our species.
The first example is that Sickle Cell Anemia (SCA), which has the best documented evidence as to its evolutionary risk versus benefit ratio in its effected population.  Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic disease that causes anemia (low red blood cell counts), and can lead to painful, and potentially deadly pain crises.  It is inherited as an autosomal recessive trait – meaning that if you receive one copy of the mutated gene from each of your parents, then you have two abnormal copies of the gene (are homozygous, in the language of genetics) and will have the disease.  Each of your parents, however, has only one mutant copy and also one normal copy (is heterozygous), and so is only a carrier (has sickle cell trait) and will not show symptoms of the disease under normal circumstances.
SCA is due to a single base switch in the DNA that codes for the beta-chain of the hemoglobin molecule.  Adult hemoglobin is made of two alpha chains and two beta chains.  This is the major oxygen carrying protein in the blood, although, there are other versions of hemoglobin that are produced (one example is fetal hemoglobin with two alpha chains and two gamma chains).    In SCA, there is a substitution of the amino acid glutamic acid for valine at the 6th amino acid in the beta chain.  Since valine is more hydrophobic than glutamic acid this has the unfortunate consequence of causing the hemoglobin molecules to polymerized and compact together, deforming the shape of the red blood cells (RBCs) that carry them, into a sickle shape – hence the name Sickle Cell Anemia.  The polymerization event is more likely to happen if the affected individual is dehydrated, in a low oxygen state (hypoxic), or otherwise ill with another illness.  The deformed red blood cells can not get through the tiny capillaries very well, causing blockages that deprive tissues of blood and oxygen.   The result is pain and organ damage.
Over time, people with SCA damage their spleen so badly that they lose the its important immune function, which normally you against encapsulated bacterial infections.  These are certain bacteria that are surrounded by a polysaccaride capsule, that helps them to escape detection by the immune system.  Someone without a functioning spleen can then die of these types of infections, whereas those with normal spleens would be able to fight off the infection easily.  The blockages to blood flow due the abnormal sickle shaped RBCs can lead to strokes and to Acute Chest Syndrome.  If people with SCA become infected with the common virus Parvovirus B19, they can develop severe life threatening anemia, with hemoglobin levels that get so low they can develop heart failure.
Sickle cell anemia is common in sub-Saharan Africa, and about 300,000 are born with disease each year.  All the complications of SCA listed above can be fatal so why would this disorder have such a high prevalence?  The answer seems to be that although people with full blown Sickle Cell Anemia are at a most definite disadvantage from a survival aspect, those who are carriers of SCA are protected against another common killer – Malaria.  Malaria is an infectious disease caused by the protozoan Plasmodium.  It has a complex life cycle, part of which is spent inside the mosquito Anopheles, and part is spent inside a vertebrate host – such as a human.  When an infected female mosquito bites a human, the organism is transmitted into the persons blood stream where it travels to the liver, infects liver cells, reproduces, and then is released back to the bloodstream where it infects RBCs.  The symptoms of Malaria include fever, vomiting, joint and muscle pain, headache, and in some cases seizures.  As the Plasmodium organism goes through its life-cycle within the host, from liver to RBC and back again (these are known as the liver phase and the erythrocytic phase respectively), the symptoms return in a cyclical fashion.  In some cases the organism passes through the blood-brain barrier leading to Cerebral Malaria, which is a very serious complication.  Malaria has a high mortality rate if untreated – as would have been the case before the age of modern medicine.
It was observed, early on, that in regions endemic to malaria, people who were carriers of the sickle cell mutation showed resistance to the malaria infection, and that full blown SCA has a high prevalence in those same regions where malaria is endemic.  Further studies confirmed that those individuals who are carries for the sickle cell mutation, do in fact, enjoy a protection due to their gene mutation.  Unfortunately, those with actual sickle cell anemia (homozygous for the gene mutation) are not protected against malaria.  Not only do they have to suffer the fate of SCA, but if they get malaria they have a worse prognosis because the malaria damages their already vulnerable RBCs.
For a long time it was thought that sickle cell trait most likely confers its malarial protection by making it difficult for Plasmodium organisms to infect the abnormally shaped RBCs, and that the abnormal RBCs are removed more readily by circulating macrophages, helping to rid Plasmodium infected cells more readily.  More recent research seems to suggest that the protective mechanism is more complex that that, and involves the up regulation of an enzyme called heme oxygenase-1(HO-1).    HO-1 causes the breakdown of heme, and the release of carbon monoxide (CO), iron, and biliverdin, resulting in an anti-inflammatory effect.  HO-1 is upregulated or produced to a greater extent in RBCs that have the abnormal hemoglobin associated with SCA, and it is the production of CO that seems to have a detrimental effect for the Plasmodium organisms.  It confers protection against cerebral malaria, and decreased mortality for those with sickle cell trait who become infected with malaria.  This might also be the answer to why several other diseases or disease traits have also been observed to offer protection against malaria, such as thalassemia trait and Glucose-6-Phosphate Deficiency.  These disorders might also increase the activity of HO-1.
We’ll move now to another deadly disease that seems to have remained in the population because it offered a survival advantage.  This is the kidney disease called Focal Segmental Glomulosclerosis (a real mouthful) or just plain old FSGS for short.  FSGS can be caused by chronic infections, such as hepatitis or HIV, but many cases are due to a genetic mutation.  It is a subset of the genetic form that may have been selected for to protect against Sleeping Sickness.  In FSGS the tiny filters in the kidneys, called glomeruli, become scarred until they can no longer filter.  This can eventually progress to kidney failure and the need for dialysis or kidney transplant.  Kidney failure is fatal without modern medical care and FSGS is one of the more common causes for young people to be on dialysis.  Its also, often more common and resistant to therapy in African Americans and other people of African descent.
Some people with the genetic form of FSGS have a mutation in a gene called APOL1, and if you are an individual with two mutated copies of the APOL1 gene, your risk of developing FSGS and kidney failure is 17 times higher than if you have two normal copies of the gene.  That adds up to around a 4% chance of developing FSGS over your lifetime if you are homozygous for mutant APOL1.  This mutation is also thought to explain 18% of all cases of FSGS that currently exist.  There are two types of mutations in the APOL1 gene that can increase risk for FSGS kidney disease.  These is the G1 variant, which contains two amino acid substitutions – one is a replacement of glycine for serine at amino acid 342 in the protein (S342G), and the other switch is a replacement of methionine for isoleucine at amino acid 384 in the protein (I384M).  You have to have both of these switches you have the G1 variant.  The other variant is the G2 variant where 6 base pairs are deleted in the DNA coding for APOL1 starting at base 388.  People can have either a G1 variant or a G2 variant, but never have both types.
APOL1 is a protein that circulates in the blood and is part of the high-density lipoprotein (HDL – otherwise known as the “good” cholesterol).  Exactly how the mutated form of APOL1 causes kidney disease is still not known.  What is known, however, is that those individuals with either a G1 or G2 specific gene mutation in APOL1 have protection against African Sleeping Sickness, caused by the protozoan Trypanosoma brucei.  This tiny single celled eukaryotic organism is transmitted to its human host by the bite of the tsetse fly.  It is a common and dangerous disease in sub-Saharan Africa.  In 1990 it caused 34,000 deaths, but the death rate dropped to 9000 in 2010, thanks to efforts of the World Health Organization to prevent and treat the infection.
Those affected by the parasite experience two distinct stages of infection.  In the first stage the victim develops headaches, fever, and severe itching.  This resolves only to eventually progress to the second stage of the disease which effects the central nervous system causing confusion, paralysis, neuromuscular weakness, and sometimes psychiatric illness.  There is a reversal of the sleep-wake cycle, giving the disorder its common name.  Infected persons often sleep in the day and remain awake at night.  Without treatment the disease always ends in the death of its victim.   It can be treated with the drug pentamidine, when in the first stage, or drugs such as eflornithine or melarsoprol for second stage disease.
Like the association of Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria, those geographic regions with a high incidence of sleeping sickness also have a high incidence in the population of APOL1 G1 or G2 variants.  This is because those gene variants protect against the ravages of the Trypanosomes.  The APOL1 variants cause the lysis (breaking apart of the cell membrane) of Trypanosomes that cause sleeping sickness.  The normal gene for APOL1 gives us resistance to other species of Trypanosomes that do infect other mammals, but are unable to harm us.  The sleeping sickness Trypanosome (Trypanosome brucei rhodesiense) is immune to the normal APOL1 since it has evolved a serum resistance-associated protein (SRA) that blocks a portion of the APOL1 protein, neutralizing its anti-trypanosomal action.  Not so for the APOL1 variants G1 or G2, however.  They are able to get around this SRA and destroy the parasite.  From an evolutionary point of view, the advantage of being more resistant to sleeping sickness in an area of high risk, outweighs the cost of having a higher than average chance of kidney disease.  There is no advantage, however, to having these variants if your ancestors originated where sleeping sickness is not a problem, so other populations aren’t found to have these gene mutations.
The two examples of Sickle Cell anemia and Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (APOL1 mutation) are not the only situations where a disease mutation protect us against another illness.   I’ll just briefly mention two more.  Tay-Sachs disease, which is a lethal neurodegenerative disorder in the homozygous state, seems to protect against Tuberculosis in carriers (heterozygotes).   Also Cystic Fibrosis (CF) which usually leads to severe and chronic lung disease in the homozygous state, may have protected against the effects of cholera in the heterozygous carriers.  The CF mutation inactivates a chloride channel called CFTR, in the cell membrane.  Being a carrier for this mutation may have prevented the lethal dysentery that would have accompanied infectious cholera, by preventing water loss in the intestines due to poorly working chloride channels.  It is a very common gene mutation, with 1 in 25 people of European descent being a carrier for the CF gene mutation.
When we think disease we think of the suffering of its victims and the cost to society.  We are often unaware of the balance of the many forces involved, which influence why a particular disease may be so common in a given population.  The factors involved are typically much more complex than we appreciate, and most of them are still unknown to us.  Natural selection is working behind the scenes in ways that are difficult to detect on just a casual examination.  It may be of no consolation to the sufferers of a serious disease, or the family members devastated by a loved ones sickness and loss, but natural selection, with its cold blind eye to pain or suffering, seems to have fixed some of this in place to allow more genes to be passed onto future generations.  Evolution is not directed toward any particular goal and has no empathy or sense of compassion.  It only selects those traits that happen to give the organism the best chance to pass on its genes in its evolved environment.  This is where the human mind comes into play.  Now that we are finally learning to understand the root causes of disease at the genetic and molecular level, we can work to treat, cure, and eradicate disease.  Although we are not there yet, in theory it should be possible to cure a condition like sickle cell anemia with gene therapy.  At the same time, we shouldn’t have to worry about worsening the burden of malaria if SCA were eliminated, since we can also work on better therapies to treat the malaria, and more effective strategies to prevent infection with Plasmodium.
References and other reading:
 
1. “Mystery solved: How sickle hemoglobin protects against malaria”, ScienceDaily; April 29, 2011
2. “Sickle Cell Anaemia and Malaria”, Lucio Luzzatoo, Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Disease; Oct. 3, 2012.
3. Sickle Cell disease;  Wikipedia.
4. Malaria;  Wikipedia.
5. Heme Oxygenase-1;  Wikipedia.
6. “APOL1 Genetic Variants in Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis and HIV-Associated Nephropathy”,  Jeffrey B. Kopp, et al., Journal of the American Society of Nephrology;  Nov. 2011.
7. “Association of Trypanolytic ApoL1 Variants with Kidney Disease in African-Americans”,  Giulio Genovese, et al., Science, August 13, 2010.
8. “A co-evolutionary arms race: trypanosomes shaping the human genome, humans shaping the trypanosome genome”, Paul Capewell, et al., Parasitology, June 26, 2014.
9. “A risk allele for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in African Americans is located within a region containing APOL1 and MYH9”, Giulio Genovese, et al., Kidney International, Oct. 2010.
10. African Trypanosomiasis;  Wikipedia.

Why New Horizon’s journey to Pluto is so important for us here on earth.

Why New Horizon’s journey to pluto is so important for us here on earth.
by Rich Feldenberg
  
Almost like a time traveler sent 10 years too far back in time before an important event, I’ve been waiting for July 14th, 2015 for a long time.  Ever since the New Horizons space probe was launched from Cape Canaveral, way back on January 19, 2006, I knew this day would get here eventually.  It just seemed like our little space probe was taking its sweet time.  Nine and a half years is a long time to wait to see a new world – a world never before seen up close and personal.  In actuality, New Horizons was doing anything but taking its time.  It has been speeding towards its destination at over 36,000 miles/hour!  It passed earths moon in a mere 9 hours.  It happens to be the fastest man made object ever.  It’s just that it had a very long way to go to reach its destination.  Today New Horizons will make its closest encounter with Pluto, and almost certainly will increase our knowledge and understanding, not just of Pluto and its entourage of little moons, but of the origins and history of our solar system.  
Pluto was only discovered as recently as 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory.  Even from the beginning it seemed a little odd in comparisons to the other planets.  It takes about 247 years to orbit the sun and has a very eccentric orbit with its closest point in orbit at 2.7 billion miles from the sun (and inside the orbit of Neptune), and its farthest point in orbit being around 4.5 billion miles away from the sun.  It has five known moons, but the largest is Charon, which has a diameter that is more than half as big as the diameter of Pluto itself.  No other planet has a moon so close to its own size.  For that reason, many planetary scientists consider the Pluto/Charon system a binary system.  
Today’s post will go live on Tuesday instead of the usual Darwin’s Kidneys Original Wednesday (sorry Atomic Tuesday) to coincide with this historic occasion.  In this post I’m not going to write about the New Horizons discoveries, or much about the mission itself.   I’m not even going to write about whether Pluto should be classified as a planet or not.  I don’t really care that Pluto got “demoted” to dwarf planet because no matter what we label it, Pluto is a fascinating object with a history as old as our solar system.  Instead this article will focus mostly on why we should be interested in a tiny, human made hunk of electronics, computer chips, and metal, speeding to the edge of the solar system to photograph and measure a dark, frozen, ancient celestial body whose chance of harboring life is somewhere between zero and not bloody likely.  Why should we, as a society, spend money and resources to design, build, and launch this thing that may not even make it all the way there intact.  
We are a species of explorers.  Our ancestors traveled the globe and colonized nearly every part of it.  We are no strangers to taking risk, and thinking big when it comes to wondering what’s over the next hill or beyond the distant horizon.  Human consciousness first awakened on this planet on the continent of Africa, and from there spread to all corners of the world, from stone age Europe and Asia, and over the frozen Bering Straits of the last Ice Age, into North and South America.  Early humans even sailed across the forbidding oceans to Australia and the Pacific islands.  We have adventure in our blood.  
Pluto the most distant target that we have tried, so far, to reach out and touch.  Not a journey that humans, with laughably fragile bodies susceptible to harm from radiation and microgravity, and entirely too needy for food, oxygen, warmth, and even companionship, can make anytime soon.  Instead we send our stoic little robot ambassador out on a entirely peaceful mission of scientific discovery.  It represents the best part of humanity with no thought whatsoever to invasion, conquest, or exploitation of new territory for gain or profit.  It represents what’s best in us – our childlike curiosity, enthusiasm for discovery, and sense of awe at living in a universe that is so much bigger than our everyday concerns.  
Going to Pluto inspires us to be great by doing great things.  It is no trivial task to design, build, and implement a machine to do what New Horizons is doing right now.  That’s, of course, why it has never been done before.  The accuracy necessary for the mission to reach its target, and the durability of its components to remain functional after 9 years in the cold vacuum of space, are a triumph of human engineering and understanding of Newtonian mechanics.  The challenge of the mission elevates us up onto a more noble plane.  Teams of individuals made the mission possible, but also the millions of taxpayers that contributed to a successful human achievement, are all part of the process that show we as a society care about things beyond the mundane and everyday.  We are all apart of the mission, and we all have a right to see what New Horizons can tell us about the edge of our cosmic neighborhood block.  
Going to Pluto also inspires curiosity in the unknown.  From earth, even from the Hubble Space Telescope, Pluto is not much more than a dim dot in the night sky.  We want to know, what is it like on Pluto?  Why is it so different than the planets like the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and so on?  What is it made of and why is its orbit around the sun so unusual?  Does it hold clues to the formation of the solar system and the planets?  Could it hold clues to the origins of life’s chemical building blocks that lead to our own origins on earth?  We humans really want to know the answers to things.  When we have a real mystery it inspires a lot of careful thinking, formulation of hypotheses, and ideas about how to test those hypotheses.  Being curious is one of our most outstanding traits as a species.  Far from the old adage “curiosity killed the cat” in reality, curiosity is how we learn who we are, where we come from, and what our place in the universe really is.  “Curiosity killed the cat” is meant to keep us afraid and in the dark.  Curiosity keeps us moving forward, but the spirit of curiosity is easily doused by others who are perfectly satisfied by not knowing and who have long ago lost their curiosity.  We need to keep that spark of curiosity alive.  Not only is a mission like New Horizons the scratch to satisfy the itch of our innate curiosity, but it inspires new levels of curiosity in those sharing in the discoveries, and in the imaginations of young people who then begin thinking about what is next out there to explore.
There are also the unforeseen consequences from a mission like New Horizons.  It is not why these missions are undertaken, but we have reaped the benefits of the collateral developments (the opposite of collateral damage) of basic science research before.  From the World Wide Web developed by theoretical physicists at CERN, to advances in computer and laser technology, basic science research has provided benefits to society at large that were never predicted or expected.  When Nobel prize winning physicist, Edward Purcell was asked what practical applications his discovery of nuclear magnetic resonance in bulk matter could ever be used for, which he developed to better understand the quantum transition of hydrogen atoms from one energy state to another, his answer was, “I can see no practical applications”.  It turned out that this discovery changed modern life giving us Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in medicine to peer into the living body in exquisite detail, as well as transforming the field of chemistry with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) which has revolutionized our understanding of molecular structure and material science.  The truth is that we don’t always know what the final impact of fundamental research may be for our everyday lives.  The knowledge we gain from studying Pluto might help us better understand the threat of comets and asteroids to life on planet earth, and perhaps aid in our survival as a species.  The most likely benefit will be ones we don’t see coming at all.   There are also economic gains that programs, such as the space program provide to our country, as far as more jobs, and it signals to the world our national strengths and that intellectual endeavors are an important priority.  Being a leader in science and space exploration is no small thing in the eyes of the rest of the world.  
Missions like New Horizons remind us that we live in a much bigger universe than we are used to thinking about.  On a day to day basis, it’s easy to focus on the minor details, to think your little neighborhood is all there is.  We don’t look up at the night sky and observe the stars very often- not nearly enough.  Going to Pluto forces us to think about our place in the cosmos.  The solar system is big and the planets are far away.  How much bigger is our galaxy than the solar system, and what about the billions of distant galaxies?  We are not just in the universe, the universe is in us.  We are a part of the universe and it’s good to be reminded of that from time to time.
I’ve waited a long time for today.  I don’t know what pictures and information will be sent back to earth by our little robotic probe as it speeds past Pluto, but I know it will be amazing.  Just to know that something of earth is out there, so far from home and continuing its flight outward into the galaxy, is pretty cool in itself.  And once New Horizons leaves Pluto behind, there will continue to be new and exciting discoveries to anticipate, some from future robotic space missions, others from telescopic observatories examining the universes largest structures, and still others from basic science research facilities like CERN examining the universes smallest components and fundamental forces.  We will continue to have a lot to learn and look forward to so long as we as a society continue to decide that the nobel pursuit of new knowledge is a goal worth achieving.  For today, I just want to say, “Hello Pluto, it’s great to finally meet you”.
References:
1. NASA New Horizons website.
2. Pluto:  Wikipedia
3. Cylde Tombaugh:  Wikipedia
4.  Pluto Safari is a cool app you can down load on your tablet from iTunes.

Another Clever Mesign Brought To You By Mother Nature

Another Clever Mesign Brought To You By Mother Nature
By Rich Feldenberg
 
 
In the paragraphs that follow I’m going to introduce a new term, that I am calling mesign, but first let me remind you of how the world around us appears so well designed.  Almost perfectly designed, if we’re not looking too closely.  We observe the beautiful, intricate, complexity of nature everyday.  How can anyone go about their day and not be amazed by the well oiled machinery of nature, such as flowers blooming in the yard, full of nectar for busy bees.  Bees pollinating the flowers on their travels, using their compound eyes to see in ultraviolet light, markings on the pedals that are invisible to us, that guide them to where they need to go to find the nectar and pollen.   
Based on how perfectly each kind of animal and plant seems to fit into all their respective niches, it would be natural for us to assume that the world and all its living things were designed.  It would, that is, if we lived in a pre-scientific culture, but we live in a culture where we’ve fought hard to acquire a well earned understanding of the universe.  A world, where in the last 400 years, at least, the methodology of science has progressively shown us how the physical and biological phenomena that seemed so mysterious to our ancestors can be understood by human minds.  We know today that evolution works at the level of genes to shape organisms that survive and reproduce the best in their environment.  Over the billions of years that life has existed on the earth, complex biological structures have evolved such as eyes to see clearly, kidneys to maintain our internal environment in optimal chemical balance, hearts to pump blood to distant tissues, wings to soar into the sky, gills to extract oxygen from the water, and so on.  Before Darwin it was natural for people to think that all these structures, and their intricate parts, were designed to achieve their apparent purpose.  No one would deny that these things have the appearance of design.  That doesn’t mean that they were purposefully designed, however.  Evolutionary biology has revealed how complex structures, that perform complex operations, arise through the process of natural selection.  
Creationist often claim that certain biological structures are irreducibly complex, and therefore could not have evolved from any lesser evolved structure.  The eye for instance, is commonly sited by creationists as an example of a structure so perfectly made for the job it performs that it had to have been created by a divine designer.  Remarkably, it has been shown how the vertebrate eye could have very plausibly evolved in a series of small steps from more primitive kinds of eyes.  
To create a camera-type eye, like that evolved in vertebrates, you start with a simple patch of skin with light sensitive cells.  This simplest kind of eye can tell light from dark – day from night.  The next step is the formation of a slight depression at the skin surface which will then provide some ability to tell from which direction the light is coming due to shadowing in the depression.  This would seem to have obvious advantages over the creature with a simple flat eye spot.  As the depression deepened you would continue to improve the ability to discern direction.  At some point you would begin to form a pin-hole like camera eye where an image could actually be formed.  A thin transparent tissue over the pin hole might help protect the light sensitive cells inside and would act as a kind of lens as light passed through this tissue.  The shape of this lens tissue could be selected that allows for higher quality lens ability and would also allow the pin hole (now a pupil) to open wider and allow in more light and therefore a clearer image.  
 
stages of evolution for the vertebrate eye
Each step in the series outlined above, can be found in different animals in nature today, and, as Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist has pointed out, “What use is half an eye?  Well, it is 1% better than 49% of an eye.  And 1% of an eye is better than no eye at all”.   Those creature with simple sorts of eyes, like flat worms with tiny eye spots, still use their eyes to their advantage, even though we would consider ourselves essentially blind if you suddenly saw in flat worm vision!
It is still useful for scientists to discuss the structure-function relationships of evolved features in a language that may superficially sound like a discussion of purposeful design, when in fact, they mean nothing of the sort.  For example, it is just plain simpler to use common language such as, “The eye is beautifully designed to allow light to enter through the pupil, and using the lens, focus an image precisely on the retina”.  However, for the biologist, the meaning of this sentence is, “The eye is a beautiful structure, that has evolved through natural selection in a way that allows light to enter the pupil where the lens can then focus it precisely on the retina”.  By using the word design, which is easier and more natural to use in common speech, it can give the false impression that the speaker might really mean she thinks the eye was designed by an intelligent designer when this was not her intent at all.
   
We need a new word for the illusion of design in nature.  Well, relax because that word is here – Mesign.  Mesign would be used to distinguish that the intended meaning was for the illusion of design created by a natural process, such as evolution in the case of living things.  To use our previous example, we could simply say, “The eye is beautifully mesigned to allow light to enter through the pupil, and using the lens, focus an image precisely on the retina”.  There is no misinterpreting the intended meaning of this statement.  
Mesign obviously has its root in the word design, but has been modified to look a little like the word Meme, which Richard Dawkins coined to mean an idea that spreads through a population by use of language and culture, and may even be subject to a process of natural selection, which will determine its prevalence and permanence in a particular society.  I don’t know if mesign will be a successful meme or not, but I feel it could be potentially useful.
Mesign also implies that the design process of a particular feature, being accidental through the process of natural selection, is inevitably going to contain design flaws.  Why wouldn’t it, if it was simply an evolved structure with no grand engineer making any attempt to get the design just right, or performing test and experiments on working models of the design before sending it out for prime time in the real world.  Evolution doesn’t even have any kind of a goal that it is working toward.  Only in retrospect does it seem that the purpose of the evolutionary process was to get to this particular structure, organ, or organism.  To go back to our eye example, there was no intent to go from creatures in the precambrian with light sensitive eye spots to vertebrate eyes with lens, corneas, retinas, optic nerves, and so on.  Our little precambrian worm ancestors were simply in a struggle for survival due to limited resources and the rise of predatory species.  Those creatures with eye spots able to tell day from night, and up from down,  would have had some survival advantage.  Those little guys that may have acquired a gene mutation that caused a depression at the eye spot location during their development may have been favored to survive and pass on their “mutant” genes since they would have some sense of direction due to shadowing in the eye spot depression, potentially allowing them to see a shadow of a predator approaching.  The mutation was random, but the spread of the mutation in the population is not since a favorable mutation, like the one discussed above would be selected for by natural selection.
 
Many of the features of living things, while amazing, seem poorly designed when inspected more thoroughly.  Instead of intelligent design, it seems clear this is stupid mesign The common passage way of the oral pharynx leading to both the esophagus and the trachea makes every meal a choking hazard.  The fetal decent of the testis from the peritoneal cavity into the scrotum leads to a weak spot in the abdominal wall, making herniation and potential death by intestinal obstruction an unnecessary threat.  And, due to our, in evolutionary terms, recent adoption of bipedalism, childbirth is an extremely deadly activity for both mom and child.  Prior to modern obstetrical care, the mortality rate for infant and mother was extremely high.   The human body would be recalled, and the designer sued if this was an engineered machine.  
When it comes to the appearance of design in the physical world, mesign could be a useful term, as well.  Consider the “fine tuning” problem in physics.  We find that the physical constants have values, such that they allow protons and electrons form hydrogen atoms, clouds of hydrogen gas to condense into stars, which then fuse into heavier elements like carbon, planets made of heavy elements form and allow for the development of life, at least here on earth.  The universe has an appearance of design, and while it is not as clear why this is the case, as opposed to the illusion of design in the living world brought about by evolution, it is still a scientific question that is being actively researched. Science continues to inch its way slowly into the unknown, and at this point, there is no reason to assume that deeper physical laws can not be found that might explain this apparent design of the cosmos.  If certain physical properties of our universe, such as cosmic inflation are found to be true, then these same theories also demand the existence of a multiverse as part of their mathematical structure.  The multiverse, while possibly not observable on its own, could be a reasonable explanation for the physical parameters in our universe.  This is basically because universes with every combination of physical parameters also exist, we just find ourselves in one that has the parameters suitable to our kind of existence because that is the only kind of universe we could find ourselves in.  
Map of the early universe showing temperature variations
To explain a physical property in the language of mesign would be to allow the reader to be clear that the author is referring to a naturalistic process, without any notion of a supernatural plan implied.  An example might be, “Stars are well mesigned to turn hydrogen into helium by nuclear fusion in their cores”.  They happen to do that very nicely, thank you, based on their physical properties of size, mass, composition, strength of gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces, and so on, but there is no reason to suspect that they were engineered for this purpose.  In fact, most stars, such as the abundant but dim Red Dwarfs, are not efficient at synthesizing the heavy elements necessary for life.  Due to their low mass they will never explode in a supernova to produce the remainder of the periodic table.  A better design might be to have a process that guarantees every star to produce the building blocks of life.  That might be a universe where life was really thriving in every possible corner.  If someone’s intention were to suggest that the stars were designed by a designer, then design would be the proper wording in that case, and there would be no mistake about it.  
It seems better to take some of the ambiguity out of the equation when discussing question of evolution and other natural processes.  Confusion as to an author’s intended meaning, or at times, purposeful misuse of a quote to take it out of proper context might be avoided by using the word mesign when it is called for.  
References and a cool video to watch:
1.  Youtube video of Richard Dawkins demonstrating the evolution of the eye.  
2.  “Evolution of the Eye”,  Trevor D. Lamb;  Scientific American collector’s edition,  July  2015.
3. Wikipedia entry on Meme:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Mutation Monday: Lactase Persistence

Welcome back to your Mutation Station.
by Rich Feldenberg

Today we will examine the importance of the LP-mutation (Lactase Persistence-mutation), and its impact on human survival and global colonization.  Creationist like to ask the tiresome question, “name a mutation that increases the information content of a gene”.  I don’t think they really understand the question that they are asking, but today we will give one example of a simple mutation in human DNA that offered an advantage through natural selection to our species.  There are other examples, and we’ll address some of them in later blog entries.

Lactose is a carbohydrate found in mammalian milk.  It is composed of two simple sugars bonded together.  Humans and other mammals evolved to be dependent on mother’s milk during infancy, but then to be weaned off milk once the animal was mature enough to begin finding food on its own.  In order to digest lactose the enzyme lactase is required.  Lactase is produced in the digestive tracts of the infants and young mammals, but after weaning is generally no longer produced.  This is to conserve resources in the sense that it makes no sense to keep making an enzyme or other protein that is not being used.

This was true of early humans, as well, but a mutation occurred about 7500 years ago that allowed the lactase enzyme to remain expressed much longer throughout human life.  This mutation would then make drinking milk possible by adult humans, whereas prior to this, adult humans would not have tolerated drinking milk.  It is probably no coincidence that this mutation took place around the same time as the domestication of cattle and goats – sources of milk.
The mutation, itself is due to a simple switch of one DNA base in the gene coding for lactase, for another base – a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP).   This lead to a change in the regulation of expression of the gene so that it wasn’t shut off when it normally would have been.  To our stone age ancestors, this would have been a wasteful and useless mutation, but with the development of an agricultural society it became indispensable as a way to increase ever rare nutritional sources.  It may have been responsible for allowing humans to migrate into and successfully inhabit Europe.
References:
1. “The Milk Revolution”, Andrew Curry; Scientific American special collector’s edition.  July 2015.

Fossil Friday: Oldest fossils on earth!

Modern day stromatolites in Sharks Bay, Australia

Welcome back to Fossil Friday.  Today I’m linking to a 2013 article in LiveScience, that reports on 3.5 billion year old fossil bacteria.  These Australian fossils are among the oldest fossils yet discovered.  In life, they seem to have existed in shallow waters and may have been a variety of photosynthetic bacteria.  Not only did life arise very early in the history of our planet, but oxygen producing organisms appear to have gotten their start very early, as well.  The bacteria are visible as fossils because they form structures called stromatolites.  There are still bacterial stromatolites alive today in Australia.  They were probably common in the early oceans, but rare now due to predators that would easily gobble them up!

Atomic Tuesday: The Leptons

The Lepton Family
by Rich Feldenberg


The leptons are a family of elementary particles that have characteristic properties.  They have a value of quantum angular momentum, known as spin that is always a 1/2 integer value.  They also have an electric charge (minus for normal matter leptons and positive for anti-matter leptons).  Leptons are not effected by the strong nuclear force so are not bound to atomic nuclei in the way Up and Down quarks can be. 

The most familiar of the leptons is the electron.  The electron is common and is bound to atoms through its electromagnetic attraction to the positive charge in the nucleus.  There are two heavier versions of leptons called the muon and the tau.  The muon and tau are considered electron-like neutrinos, since they are identical to electrons in every way except for their mass.

In contrast to the electron-like leptons, there are neutral-leptons called neutrinos.  They come in different varieties and there is one variety associated with the electron, muon, and tau.  The neutrinos are very light, having such a small mass that they have been very difficult to measure until recently.  The neutrinos do not have an electric charge (hence neutral-leptons) and so interact with matter very rarely since they have no interaction through electromagnetic or strong forces, and barely register through the gravitational force.  They can interact through the weak nuclear force.  It is estimated that there are billions of neutrinos zipping through every square centimeter of your body every second of your life.  You don’t notice them because there interaction with matter is so weak.


Mutation Monday (Your Mutation Station): Thymine dimers

by Rich Feldenberg

Welcome back to your mutation station.  Today we’ll look at a harmful effect on your DNA due to ultraviolet light, which leads to dimerization of the nucleotide bases thymine (T).  If there are two T bases next to each other in the DNA strand and they absorb UV light they can undergo a photochemical reaction that causes them to link-up.   The double bonds in the base break and then form single bonds to their neighbor.

This blocks normal base pairing on to the other DNA strand of the double helix, and results in a mutation.  Fortunately there are cellular repair mechanisms that can find and fix these errors, but some errors escape detection and cause major harm.  Some melanomas are thought to be due to thyimine dimers caused by the effect of UV sunlight.

Thymine dimers are actually a more specific form of what is called pyrimidine dimers.  The bases thymine and cytosine (T and C) are pyrimidines.  Two pyrimidines can dimerize under the same conditions leading to the same sort of DNA mutations.  You could have T-T dimers (thymine dimers), but also T-C, and C-C leading to the same problems.   So, remember to use sunblock and be careful about exposure to the sun!!