Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, January 1, 2007 | Science : Astronomy | print version Print | Comments

Document Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

by European Southern Observatory

Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207160512.htm

Science Daily — Using VIMOS on ESO's Very Large Telescope, a team of French and Italian astronomers have shown the strong influence the environment exerts on the way galaxies form and evolve. The scientists have for the first time charted remote parts of the Universe, showing that the distribution of galaxies has considerably evolved with time, depending on the galaxies' immediate surroundings. This surprising discovery poses new challenges for theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies.

The 'nature versus nurture' debate is a hot topic in human psychology. But astronomers too face similar conundrums, in particular when trying to solve a problem that goes to the very heart of cosmological theories: are the galaxies we see today simply the product of the primordial conditions in which they formed, or did experiences in the past change the path of their evolution?

In a large, three-year long survey carried out with VIMOS [1], the Visible Imager and Multi-Object Spectrograph on ESO's VLT, astronomers studied more than 6,500 galaxies over a wide range of distances to investigate how their properties vary over different timescales, in different environments and for varying galaxy luminosities [2]. They were able to build an atlas of the Universe in three dimensions, going back more than 9 billion years.

This new census reveals a surprising result. The colour-density relation, that describes the relationship between the properties of a galaxy and its environment, was markedly different 7 billion years ago. The astronomers thus found that the galaxies' luminosity, their initial genetic properties, and the environments they reside in have a profound impact on their evolution.

"Our results indicate that environment is a key player in galaxy evolution, but there's no simple answer to the 'nature versus nurture' problem in galaxy evolution," said Olivier Le Fèvre from the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France, who coordinates the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey team that made the discovery. "They suggest that galaxies as we see them today are the product of their inherent genetic information, evolved over time, as well as complex interactions with their environments, such as mergers."

Scientists have known for several decades that galaxies in the Universe's past look different to those in the present-day Universe, local to the Milky Way [3]. Today, galaxies can be roughly classified as red, when few or no new stars are being born, or blue, where star formation is still ongoing. Moreover, a strong correlation exists between a galaxy's colour and the environment it resides in: the more sociable types found in dense clusters are more likely to be red than the more isolated ones.

By looking back at a wide range of galaxies of a variety of ages, the astronomers were aiming to study how this peculiar correlation has evolved over time.

"Using VIMOS, we were able to use the largest sample of galaxies currently available for this type of study, and because of the instrument's ability to study many objects at a time we obtained many more measurements than previously possible," said Angela Iovino, from the Brera Astronomical Observatory, Italy, another member of the team.

The team's discovery of a marked variation in the 'colour-density' relationship, depending on whether a galaxy is found in a cluster or alone, and on its luminosity, has many potential implications. The findings suggest for example that being located in a cluster quenches a galaxy's ability to form stars more quickly compared with those in isolation. Luminous galaxies also run out of star-forming material at an earlier time than fainter ones.

They conclude that the connection between galaxies' colour, luminosity and their local environment is not merely a result of primordial conditions 'imprinted' during their formation - but just as for humans, galaxies' relationship and interactions can have a profound impact on their evolution.

More information

Results from this study are published in volume 458 (1) of Astronomy & Astrophysics, "The VIMOS VLT Deep Survey: The build-up of the colour-density relation", by O. Cucciati et al. The paper is available from the A&A web site.

The Survey team consists of O. Cucciati, A. Iovino, L. Guzzo, S. Temporin (INAF-Observatory of Brera, Italy), C. Marinoni (Centre de Physique Théorique, Marseille, France), O. Ilbert, B. Maranno, A. Bongiorno (University of Bologna, Italy), O. Le Fèvre, A. Pollo, L. Tresse, V. Le Brun, C. Adami, S. Arnouts, A. Mazure, S. de la Torre (CNRS-Université de Provence, France), S. Bardelli, G. Zamorani, A. Cappi, E. Zucca, M. Bolzonella, P. Ciliegi, R. Merighi, L. Pozzetti (INAF-Observatory of Bologna, Italy), P. Franzetti, B. Meneux, M. Scodeggio, D. Bottini, B. Garilli, D. Maccagni, S. Foucaud, D. Vergani (IASF-INAF, Italy), H.J. McCracken, Y. Mellier (Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, France), L. Scaramella, A. Zanichelli, G. Vettolani, M. Bondi, L. Gregorini (IRA-INAF, Italy), J.P. Picat, T. Contini, I. Gavignaud, R. Pello, F. Lamareille, G. Mathez, D. Rizzo (Institut d'Astrophysique de l'Observatoire Midi-Pyrenées), M. Arnaboldi, M. Radovich, G. Busarello, P. Merluzzi, V. Ripepi (Observatory of Capodimonte, Italy), S. Charlot (MPIA, Germany) and S. Paltani (Integral Science Data Centre, Switzerland)

Notes

1. The Visible Multi-Object Spectrograph VIMOS is a multi-mode instrument on Melipal, the third Unit Telescope of the Very Large Telescope array at ESO's Paranal Observatory. In operation since 2003, VIMOS can provide both images and astronomical spectra at visible wavelengths over wide fields of view. In its multi-object mode, it can record up to 1,000 spectra at a time.

2. The VIMOS VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) is a breakthrough spectroscopic survey which will provide, when finished, a complete picture of galaxy and structure formation over a very broad redshift range (0 < z < 5), over sixteen square degrees of the sky in four separate fields.

3. Because of the time taken for light to reach an observer on Earth over the vast distances of the cosmos, astronomers studying distant galaxies are in fact observing conditions in the Universe's past. The region closer to Earth, local to our own Milky Way Galaxy, is thus often referred to as the 'present-day' Universe.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by European Southern Observatory.

Comments 1 - 16 of 16 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #15643 by Zappi on January 1, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Although it may be interesting to use different ideas from other science fields to gain insights, talking about galaxies and labeling its "evolution" as "Darwinian" is a huge stretch.

Before it's shown that galaxies reproduce, either sexually or not, mentioning of the word "Darwinian" in this context is simply the result of a profound misunderstanding of what Darwin's theory of evolution was all about.

Other Comments by Zappi

2. Comment #15648 by eggplantbren on January 1, 2007 at 8:48 pm

 avatarWhat's that got to do with Darwinism? Evolution just means change. I can see nothing like natural selection operating there.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

3. Comment #15658 by topherclay on January 1, 2007 at 10:35 pm

 avatarI don't understand how Darwinism applies to the galaxies either. Furthermore, I was fairly certain that the classification of galaxies as red or blue was determined by their velocity in relation to us.
Red meaning that they were expanding away from us and Blue meaning a galaxy is one of the few coming towards us. This article seems silly.

Other Comments by topherclay

4. Comment #15670 by Vardu on January 1, 2007 at 11:55 pm

It's not silly at all if one thinks of Darwinian evolution as change due to environmental pressures, and it does look like some form of natural selection occurs at the galactic level.

No divine fiat states that Darwinism needs to be restricted to biologic systems only.

I'd take a punt and suggest that RD is not opposed to the possibility. I'm sure, at least, that he'd take a look at the evidence for the hypothesis before dismissing it by calling it silly.

Other Comments by Vardu

5. Comment #15677 by seals on January 2, 2007 at 1:17 am

 avatarThey suggest that galaxies as we see them today are the product of their inherent genetic information, evolved over time, as well as complex interactions with their environments, such as mergers.


Hmm this is so unreal. What is meant by inherent genetic info - I think they need to provide a glossary with what these terms mean in an astronomical sense, since they can't be taken literally. Or is someone having a laugh?

Other Comments by seals

6. Comment #15707 by Frostbit on January 2, 2007 at 7:00 am

These are just interchanging analogous terms used between the sciences and has nothing to do with its literal meaning, just as biologists use the term 'dark matter' to describe those areas of the genome that are not expressed.

I see no harm done here.

Other Comments by Frostbit

7. Comment #15708 by keiths on January 2, 2007 at 7:02 am

Vardu wrote:
No divine fiat states that Darwinism needs to be restricted to biologic systems only.

Vardu,

We're not objecting because galactic evolution is non-biological. We're objecting because it doesn't have the three essential characteristics of a Darwinian process:

1. Replication.
2. Heritable variation.
3. Selection.

#1 and #2 aren't present at all, and #3 is present only to the extent that some galaxies burn themselves out sooner than others.

Development is a far better metaphor than Darwinism for galactic evolution. Galaxies are born, live, and die. The developmental trajectory followed by a galaxy is determined partly by initial conditions (its "genetic" information), and partly by the environments it encounters during its lifetime.

But there is no reproduction, and no heritable variation, so it is not a Darwinian process.

Other Comments by keiths

8. Comment #15719 by jbannon on January 2, 2007 at 8:54 am

Darwinian theory often gets applied in areas where it should not be, including galaxies, ideas and what not. It seems to be in vogue at the moment for some reason (simplicity?).

Other Comments by jbannon

9. Comment #15720 by DavidJMH on January 2, 2007 at 9:04 am

"keiths" has hit the nail on the head. The problem being seen more and more these days is the use of "in vogue" terminology to describe entirely unrelated subjects. Is it not this type of sloppy thinking which confuses the lay public? It is very similar to the religious use of improper terms to describe their "truths".

Other Comments by DavidJMH

10. Comment #15729 by DavidMcC on January 2, 2007 at 10:08 am

 avatarAlthough the biology analogy fails for galaxies, mainly because they don't have generations, it comes closer with stars within a galaxy, because stars are born and die, then much of their material gets recycled and mixed to form new stars. The material for each generation gets more "metal-rich" due to nuclear burning in the previous stars, but "new" hydrogen is involved as well. Not quite like sex, but vaguely similar. Selection is by size, because most stars are red dwarfs, because they last so long.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

11. Comment #15738 by Millimeter Wave on January 2, 2007 at 11:47 am

 avatarThis doesn't make any sense at all to me. I think keiths summed up the issues with the article rather well.

Honestly, the article reads like somebody was just trying to make headline-grabbing copy. Difficult to say whether the culprit would be the astronomers or the journalist writing the article...

Other Comments by Millimeter Wave

12. Comment #15740 by macronencer on January 2, 2007 at 11:56 am

 avatarI agree that this is a deeply unsatisfying report. I am left thinking "so what?" Perhaps I'm naive, but all those statements about environment affecting galaxies sound as if they can be explained largely by saying "star formation is more rapid and short-lived in a galaxy if there are plenty of raw materials nearby". Doesn't sound like news to me!

I may, of course, have completely missed the point - but I really feel as if there was no point to miss, here. If there's something deeper going on then I don't think it's been explained well enough.

And although "evolution" is often used loosely, I did wince at each mention of "genetic material".

Other Comments by macronencer

13. Comment #15783 by Ian on January 3, 2007 at 12:32 am

I'd like to agree with people who have criticised this report. This analogy is deeply misleading, as is labeling pre-galactic material genetic.

Working this analogy backwards would mean that a portion of everything a mother ate during gestation would count as genetic material affecting the growth of the foetus, whereas a portion of the same material would just be nutrient helping the mother.

Genetic has a specific definition, as does Darwinian and for the sake of clarity, these meanings should not be allowed to become nebulous.

Other Comments by Ian

14. Comment #15796 by Homo economicus on January 3, 2007 at 3:42 am

 avatarI think most of us agree that the use of language in biology does not have the same meaning used in the cosmos. Ideas may be similar but they need their own explanation and terms.

I would blame the journalist, though I think it may be an honest attempt to convey the ideas simply by use of bilogical analogy. Without realising that it makes it more confusing rather than a bridge to understanding!

Other Comments by Homo economicus

15. Comment #15798 by -TheCodeCrack- on January 3, 2007 at 4:23 am

 avatarI completely foresee a Darwinian explanation for our entire universe!
Keith you may not notice that the...

1/" replication of galaxies" that you think disproves the Darwinian aspect, anymore then one can notice the bones within the hands are replicating, if in fact you had a different observational viewpoint you might never know that the bones of the hands are replicating. if we lived within one of these bones(like we live within our galaxy) we would not see any kind of replication, all we would see are similar bones(similar but different galaxies) but not notice that they are in fact replicated or within a replicator, that needs them such as humans need the bones in their hand (unless of course were in a freak mutant universe)
As so far we cannot escape the possibly inescapable entity, though we might be able to go to another entity(another universe) but without being able to observe both or numerous at the same time and will forever be in a cyclic(
Also 2/ heritable information, I believe is completely at play here but we are not able to observe it, yet until that extraordinarily advanced program(simulating actuall events) comes along, the computer simulation created by our millions of years more advanced technology or simply and probably better option and vasely more close option genetically altered individuals, (how smart can we genetically make ourselves?) if we genetically doubled the brain size of a say a Stevne Hawkins that 'new' individual would have to be smarter then he is. Lets get to it and the genetically altered ones can help us answer these questions instead waiting for more intellectual freaks to pop up(ps hawkins could have died in the war you know, lets hope no1 smarter did!)

3/ selection, yes natural selection is definitely at play for I haven't noticed any square galaxies pop up, the environment favors a round or oval galaxy much as the earthly environment of the land favors that the large creatures have bones.

The summary is that if our observation was within a bone in the hand (Milky Way) we would notice the other bones (galaxies) develop and change over time (develop as you put it) from infant to adult human much like we witness in our galaxies. But because of our observational view point (trapped inside) we are not in a position to know the bones (galaxies) are being replicated or in fact HAVE BEEN REPLICATED.

Once again if you are in a bone you see the other bones change (form, develop from various stages processes) but you will not know that they are being replicated because of our viewpoint and with each replication there are mutations within human hands as within different universes producing different galaxies.

The nurture part is obvious in that if I took to a 3 year old infants hand with a hammer he might not die(especially in modern-day times) but his hand would grow up deformed and bizarre, much probably a galaxy would to 'deform' from 'nurture' if sufficient force form its internal environment acted upon it or the non observational one of outside the universe affected it, we presently cant notice.

I think we are living within a replicator with its own "possibly not that unique"environment, but it many ways I can see this is as bad as the god argument in that "well who made god" compares to "well who made the replicator" or better put it "what was the replicator's replicator" im guessing a distant singularity and that this singularity does not lie in our universe or if it does is not the same singlearity that allowed for our universe to replicate but a much different one.

Other Comments by -TheCodeCrack-

16. Comment #15803 by mummymonkey on January 3, 2007 at 4:59 am

If natural selection was at play, might one not expect the odd square galaxy to pop up. Just as one might expect the odd white blackbird?

Other Comments by mummymonkey
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: