tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5428421193491156646..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Philip Ball writes about molecular mechanisms of evolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22794998055680970542020-12-01T17:36:55.604-05:002020-12-01T17:36:55.604-05:00You were an editor at Nature for a very long time ...You were an editor at Nature for a very long time and you are a science writer who has published 25 books. I will continue to criticize science writers for not explaining evolution to the general public because that's their (your) job. <br /><br />I am a scientist, and possibly an expert, and I have been trying to educate the general public (and science writers) for three decades. My job is much more difficult than you might expect because most science writers keep spreading lies and nonsense about evolution.<br /><br />As for Dawkins, I consider him a friend I'm more than happy to have lunch with him even though I have publicly disagreed with his views on evolution. I even be happy to have lunch with you in an attempt to set you straight about evolution. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52059583197211050702020-12-01T11:20:36.921-05:002020-12-01T11:20:36.921-05:00I'm very late here to the party, having just s...I'm very late here to the party, having just stumbled across this. But I do find it truly odd. So I write an article saying that it's time the public view of what genes do in evolutionary terms needs updating (i.e. it's not all just about natural selection), but I'm a little too cautious with my words because I know from experience that saying such things seems to infuriate some scientists (usually not those working on evolutionary genetics, who know this is and has long been the case). And indeed, several such scientists react by saying "Nonsense, the old story's just fine!" But for Larry the problem is not them or that response; it is that I was too cautious with my words. Science communicators need to do better! Then I comment on a recent article saying that things have moved on from the Modern Synthesis. Indeed they have, I say - and it puzzles me why that seemingly obvious fact is not more widely acknowledged. And again, Larry seems annoyed not that this seemingly obvious fact is not more widely acknowledged, but that idiot science writers have not been more widely acknowledging this fact. And why, I wonder, might science writers leaping over themselves to say these things, if what they will get in return is the response "You fool! We already knew this long ago!" ? Meanwhile, have experts been trying themselves for years/decades to move the public debate along? If they have, I'd like to know where - please do tell me.<br /><br />I am not about to lay all of the blame for the simplistic public perception of Darwinian evolution at the feet of Richard Dawkins. That would be unfair and inaccurate. All I'll say is that the kind of double standard by which it is fine to slam science writers for saying what you agree with BUT NOT LOUDLY ENOUGH YOU IDIOT, while going for a chummy lunch with a Big Cheese who has long promulgated precisely what you disagree with is something I have seen more than once before, and is really rather tiresome. Philip Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78974493152673208022014-03-17T22:48:33.442-04:002014-03-17T22:48:33.442-04:00Why not just call it "evolutionary theory&quo...<i>Why not just call it "evolutionary theory"? As soon as you give it a specifc name like "Modern Synthesis" you are locking in a particular version of evolutionary theory that's peculiar to a place and time. </i><br /><br />Couldn't we have a name that accommodated changes as pieces were added to the theory? "Newtonian" physics had a good long run -- it was not discarded immediately once the periodic table was understood, or once thermodynamics was invented, or statistical mechanics, or electromagnetism taken into account. Having a term like that would be desirable.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80400401403133601792014-03-17T22:44:40.441-04:002014-03-17T22:44:40.441-04:00Small disagreement: Wright would recognize his own...Small disagreement: Wright <i>would</i> recognize his own creation -- in retirement he was in Madison, Wisconsin, where Motoo Kimura did his Ph.D. thesis with Jim Crow. Wright was frequently in touch with Crow, had his office in the same department, and had ample opportunity to hear of Kimura's advocacy of neutral mutation. Wright wrote a four-volume review of theoretical and empirical population genetics in the period 1968 - 1984, and did discuss neutral mutation as an explanation of genetic diversity. He had less chance to deal with molecular differences between species.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76264306098132022322014-03-17T21:53:08.102-04:002014-03-17T21:53:08.102-04:00Why not just call it "evolutionary theory&quo...Why not just call it "evolutionary theory"? As soon as you give it a specifc name like "Modern Synthesis" you are locking in a particular version of evolutionary theory that's peculiar to a place and time. <br /><br />The Modern Synthesis is a product of the 1940s. Scientists like Mayr, Simpson, Huxley, Haldane, and Dobzhansky would not recognize the evolutionary theory found in modern textbooks. They would be shocked to see a whole chapter on random genetic drift, for example. Even Wright wouldn't recognize his own creation.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81809450473764806562014-03-17T20:26:44.427-04:002014-03-17T20:26:44.427-04:00The argument for keeping the name Modern Synthesis...The argument for keeping the name Modern Synthesis while one incorporates new phenomena is this: <br />1. Otherwise every time John Blotz came along with a new phenomenon he could strut around publicizing the fact that he, the great Blotz, had invalidated the evolutionary synthesis, and now we had the (ta-da!) Blotzian Synthesis. But he would be shocked a year or two later when Jane Schmerz came along and invalidated the Blotzian Synthesis in favor of the new Schmerzian Synthesis. And so it would go, until everyone was totally confused, and most people were several syntheses behind.<br />2. Meanwhile the public would be continually told that all that stuff they learned in secondary school, about mutation and natural selection and some other evolutionary forces, was all wrong, because now we had the Blotzian (er, oops, actually the Schmerzian) Synthesis instead.<br /><br />It would be great for Blotz's and Schmerz's egos (temporarily) but a disaster for everyone else.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35226838983899745062014-03-17T07:59:51.078-04:002014-03-17T07:59:51.078-04:00Next, the challenges to ENCODE are based on models...<i>Next, the challenges to ENCODE are based on models of population genetics, and that is probably less reliable than directly measurable findings used by the ENCODE authors.</i><br /><br />The objections to ENCODE are not just based on population genetics, but also observational and experimental biochemistry and molecular genetics. If you think the ENCODE objections are purely based on pop gen then you need to do some homework.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38939074132047597822014-03-17T06:42:53.826-04:002014-03-17T06:42:53.826-04:00It's not that our century view of evolution is...It's not that our century view of evolution is 80 years old. It's that the modern synthesis is 80 years old. What the term "the modern synthesis" refers to is a matter of terminology. Some hold that it refers to what Huxley said. Others use the term in different ways. If the modern synthesis is defined as a moving target, there seems to be a lack of landmark publications updating it. Where was neutral theory incorporated into it? Where was symbiogenesis incorporated?<br /><br />The "modern synthesis" has no foundation maintaining and updating it. Maybe that's because it died many years ago and its current gyrations are merely zombie-like death throes.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69597894998991683752014-03-16T05:20:33.618-04:002014-03-16T05:20:33.618-04:00Psoriasis: Abiogenesis is effectively unrelated to...Psoriasis: Abiogenesis is effectively unrelated to questions of contemporary evolution.<br /><br />The ENCODE results are not more reliable than pop gen. If by function you mean "having an actual effect in an organism", several basic facts prelude the ENCODE designation of function. You'll have to read a detailed post for a full discussion, but given the vast amount of "functional" variation they seem to describe, which has no discernible effect when duplicated or deleted or mutated, red flags should immediately go up. At best, the fitness effects are necessarily less than 1/2Ne, thus are selectively neutral.BradFoleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11739815026825472629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27249142808159285452014-03-15T21:17:52.438-04:002014-03-15T21:17:52.438-04:00In reference to abiogenesis, Dr. Szostak states th...In reference to abiogenesis, Dr. Szostak states that challenges remain. http://bit.ly/AbiogenesisChallengesRemain Thus, it may be appropriate to state that we do not fully understand. Next, the challenges to ENCODE are based on models of population genetics, and that is probably less reliable than directly measurable findings used by the ENCODE authors. Brett@DrSocial.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00930537675377684012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38309637848849476892014-03-15T18:57:46.909-04:002014-03-15T18:57:46.909-04:00I don't have a solution. Some of us try to cha...I don't have a solution. Some of us try to challenge graduate students when they give talks that reveal a lack of knowledge about evolution (and/or fundamental biochemistry). Some of us try to raise the issue during Ph.D. orals but, by then, their papers have been published in leading journals and it's difficult to convince other members of the committee that something is wrong.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38837976259094986972014-03-15T18:27:33.244-04:002014-03-15T18:27:33.244-04:00The first problem is our fault. We are letting stu...<i>The first problem is our fault. We are letting students graduate with Ph.D.s in biology without understanding evolution. It's no wonder that when they start their own research labs they perpetuate these misunderstandings of evolution among their own students.</i><br /><br />I fully agree with most of what you say, as I have said many times here. The only reason I myself am not completely ignorant of these issues is personal interest in the subject in combination with blogs like yours making me pay more attention to it. But how exactly do you envision the real-world fix for the problem?<br /><br />There is absolutely no incentive in the current system to train students in more than the hands-on technical skills necessary to do day-to-day research. And you do need that training, but you also need a lot more if your PhD is to be worth what it's supposed to be in terms of intellectual development. It is entirely up to your adviser to do that, if he/she is willing and has the time. I will not dispute the claim that there are advisers who are neither willing nor capable of doing that, but I think the largest group is the one of those who are willing but simply do not have the time and energy to engage in discussion not directly related to the specifics of the current research going on in their labs, because of all the obligations they have to meet. And with funding continually squeezed and the ever encroaching administrative duties creep, there is no escape in sight. <br /><br />It would greatly help if there was an NIH mandate to significantly beef up the first two years of PhD programs with theoretical coursework (it would help research too - some more math, statistics and computer science would not hurt anyone, and everyone having deeper understanding of evolution would open up new research directions when people put their work in a wider perspective). But that's time away from the bench, i.e. the direct return of investment goes down...Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78098567512722710642014-03-15T18:12:25.006-04:002014-03-15T18:12:25.006-04:00"Maybe he now realizes that the old-fashioned..."Maybe he now realizes that the old-fashioned, 80-year-old version of the Modern Synthesis was abandoned by the experts a long time ago"<br /><br />Theories do change over time, but there is a bit of irony in you saying that given that is almost word-for-word what people respond when you claim that that the present Modern Synthesis has "ossified" to become selectionist.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com