Monday's Molecule #153

 

Today's¹ molecule has a special significance for me since I "accidentally" purified the enzyme that catalyzes the last step in its synthesis. That was one of my first successful experiments as a graduate student (1969).

This is a complex molecule so I'm not going to insist on the IUPAC name. You can supply a common name as long as it is unambiguous (be careful!). This time it's not sufficient to just give me the name of the molecule. You also have to briefly explain what it does and where you can find it, including the "species." The functional explanation has to be a biochemical explanation.

Post your answer in the comments. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post correct answers to avoid embarrassment.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.) Every undergraduate who posts a correct answer will have their names entered in a Christmas draw. The winner gets a free autographed copy of my book! (One entry per week. If you post a correct answer every week you will have ten chances to win.)

After today, you have only one more chance to win an autographed book.

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

UPDATE:The molecule is β-D-glucopyranosyl-5-hydroxymethylcytosine. This is a modified base found in T4 bacteriophage and its relatives. The modification is required to protect phage DNA from E. coli host restriction endonucleases.

The winner is Bill Chaney.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)

---

1. Yes, I know it's Wednesday. I was too busy on Monday to post a molecule.

Barry Arrington Explains Irreducible Complexity

The Intelligent Design Creationists are feeling a little bit threatened these days. Some scientists are—believe it or not—actually addressing their main arguments head-on and showing them to be vacuous.

The IDiots don't like this because they are used to posting very silly arguments from amateurs on their blogs and then complaining that scientists are only picking the low-hanging fruit and not addressing the true "experts." Truth is, all of the so-called "expert" arguments have been refuted ages ago.

Here's an example from Barry Arrington who explains the real meaning of irreducible complexity and why it supports intelligent design [Denis Alexander’s Strawman Just as Silly].

No ID theorist has ever argued that evolution is impossible because complex biochemical systems cannot self assemble “all in one go.” This is an absurd caricature of the argument from irreducible complexity (IC).

The basic logic of IC goes like this: (1) By definition, evolution can work only in a stepwise fashion wherein each successive step is “selected for” because it has conferred a selective advantage on the organism. (2) an irreducibly complex system is a system which if one part is removed all function ceases. (3) by definition, therefore, an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced in a stepwise fashion. (4) therefore evolution is not capable of producing an irreducibly complex system.

Starting with this logic the ID proponent argues that certain systems are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have been produced by evolution. The bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade are classic examples of such systems.

I have frequently accused Intelligent Design Creationists of not understanding evolution. For example, one of their heroes, Phillip Johnson, clearly thinks that natural selection is a synonym for evolution in spite of the fact that other mechanisms have been known for almost a century [see This Video Should Be Shown to all Biology Students and Phillip Johnson, One of the Very Best Intelligent Design Creationists].

Jonathan McLatchie defended his hero by saying [Maligning Phil Johnson, with Lots of Rhetoric but Little Substance] ...

This is the type of condescending rhetoric that is so prevalent in anti-ID writings. Does Shallit really think that we haven't heard of processes such as genetic drift and endosymbiosis?

We look forward to hearing again from Jonathan McLatchie about how IDiots like Barry Arrington understand evolution.

Arrington's false premise (#1) isn't the only thing wrong with his argument because one can quite easily construct plausible scenarios where each step in constructing an irreducibly complex system confers a selective advantage. All you have to do is postulate that the intermediate selective advantages are not the same as the final purpose of the system.

This is all been thoroughly debated over a decade ago. It's just not true that the concept of irreducible complexity has so flummoxed evolutionary biologists that they have abandoned evolution.

Barry Arrington also takes on one of my comments from somewhere. I don't remember the context but apparently I questioned whether the definition of "information" from computer science and philosophy could be applied to the "information" in DNA sequences. The problem is that, according to Intelligent Design Creationists, if the DNA information is the same as other kinds of information then it has to be created by an agent like some god or some space alien.

They don't seem to be troubled by such an explanation because they never ask the obvious question ... where did the information in the designer come from?¹

Anyway, read Barry's defense of the idea that information in a DNA sequence is the same as other kinds of information that requires a designer [Upright Biped Replies to Dr. Moran on “Information”].

[UPDATE: Apparently that last posting was written by someone called "Upright Biped" and Barry Arrington just posted it under his own name on Uncommon Descent.]

Remember that Barry Arrington is a lawyer from Colorado and one of the regular bloggers on Uncommon Descent. Most IDiots consider him an expert on Intelligent Design Creationism. In other words, this is as good as it gets.

---

1. It's turtles all the way down, right?

The Top 50 Atheists

 

A website called The Best Schools has published a list of the top 50 atheists in the world today.

Atheists deny that God exists. Yet for an atheist to make our ranking of the 50 top atheists in the world—given in ascending order—it is not enough merely to deny that God exists. More is required.

Certainty. To make our list, someone has to be very sure of him- or herself. No mere agnostics will do. To make the cut, one has to do more than merely question God’s existence or even deny that knowledge of God’s existence is possible.

Celebrity is another requirement. To make our list, the atheist must have a public identification with atheism and must have made some public impact by challenging religion and/or promoting atheism, either in print or on the Internet. In other words, our ranking is a list of people who are well known because they are atheists, among other things—as opposed to people who are mainly famous for some other reason (like Jodie Foster or Bruce Willis). In a few cases, a person has made the list mainly on the basis of his or her attack on free will and morality—the foundation of the traditional religious view of human beings—so long as the person has also publicly identified as an atheist.

I know for a fact that some people on the list do not agree with the definition of atheist that the website promotes.

The ranking seems to be based largely on the production of books about atheism so it's heavily tilted toward philosophers. In fact, the top five are all philosophers. The top scientist, at number 6, is E.O. Wilson.

I'm surprised that there are philosophers who deny that gods exists as opposed to just not believing in them.

I'm not a very good atheist 'cause I've never heard of most of the top 50 atheists.

---

Ricky Gervais is not on the list.

Carnival of Evolution #42

 
This month's Carnival of Evolution (42nd version) is hosted by Psi Wavefunction, a researcher at Indiana University, Bloomington. He/she blogs at The Ocelloid : The Carnival of Evolution #42: Answers to life, the universe and everything.

Don’t panic — welcome to the forty-second Carnival of Evolution! Please bear with me and pretend it’s still Dec 1st — I had just recently emerged from a wormhole in time, caused by being in a protistologist’s heaven: Dalhousie University in Halifax, with about 30-40 dedicated protist geeks milling about. It was distracting and a pleasant contrast to being the only one in an entire state…

But now I’m back in a very evolution-ey place, just in time for a collection of equally evolution-ey posts from all four corners of the internet! (tubes have corners, right? No? Oh…)

Apologies if I missed any; there are a lot of submissions this month… will correct noted omissions and errors!

The next Carnival of Evolution will be hosted by the group at THE EBB AND FLOW. You can submit your articles for next month's carnival at Carnival of Evolution. Here's the website: Carnival of Evolution.

---

What's Happening at Centre for Inquiry Canada?

 

The short answer is, "I don't know." The long answer is, "I don't think anyone else does."

Here's what I know.

Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS)

CASS continues to meet and there are many projects under way. One of the co-directors, Michael Kruse, resigned because he wasn't happy with the direction that CFI was headed. The other co-director, Iain Martel is carrying on.

Centre for Inquiry Ontario

Right now this branch doesn't exist as far as I can tell. There's no leader and no volunteers are working.

National Executive Director

The acting National Executive Director is Michael Payton. He is struggling to get a grip on the organization after the abrupt departure of Derek Pert a few weeks ago. (Derek was forced to resign when the Board of Directors failed to support him.) The former National Executive Director, Justin Trottier, was fired last September.)

Michael could use a lot of help but there's no room for anyone else in the new office. Don't expect the website to be updated in the near future. Don't expect any memberships to be renewed—and certainly don't expect to be notified if your expires. Don't even expect any email messages from the head office.

Michael is leaving for Singapore in a few months and there's nobody who looks like they could step into his job.

Board of Directors/Associate Members

Three members of the Board of Directors resigned two weeks ago (Carol Parlow, Ian McCuaig, and Michael Gardnier). The remaining Canadian members are: Kevin Smith, Lorne Trottier, Pat O'Brian, and Richard Thain. The representatives from CFI Transnational are Ron Lindsay and Tom Flynn.

The Associate Members elect the Board of Directors. In addition to the current directors and the three who resigned there are six Associate Members: Chris DiCarlo, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Zak Fiddes, Ethan Clow, Bisi Bashorun, and Barry Karr. (Barry Karr is from CFI Transnational.)

As far as I know, only three of these are active: Chris DiCarlo, Jeffrey Rosenthal, and Zak Fiddes.

Sunday Meeting

There's going to be a meeting this Sunday. It was called by a group of Associate Members. The first part of the meeting is between the Board of Directors and the three active Associate Members. The second part of the meeting is a Board meeting.

The main item on the agenda is whether the firing of Justin Trottier was fair. I believe Justin will be at the meeting. There's talk of a plan to re-hire him in some capacity. It's clear that some members of the Board are sympathetic and it's clear that some are adamantly opposed. It doesn't look like the dissention within the Board has gone away after three resignations.

Some of us tried to make the Sunday meeting an open meeting for all members of CFI but that plan met with firm resistance from the Directors.

New Associate Members

There's general agreement that we need new Associate Members. Several people have sent in applications. New members have to be approved by the Board of Directors. They will discuss this at the Sunday meeting.

Rebranding

The rebranding exercise is on hold, and so is everything else.

---

Homology

 

There's an interesting discussion about homology going on in the comments section of Fishing for Creationists. The creationists are claiming that homology disproves evolution.

---

Fishing for Creationists

Fishing for creationists is not a sport. All you need to do is dangle a bit of bait and dozens of creationists will fight for the right to impale themselves on the hook. The latest victim is Jonathan McLatchie who responded to criticism of Phillip Johnson [Maligning Phil Johnson, with Lots of Rhetoric but Little Substance]. I'm sure the other bloggers on Evolution News & Views don't see him as a fishy victim, they probably think of him as the designated hitter. (You could use "sacrificial lamb" if you want a Biblical metaphor.)

Jonathan M, as he prefers to be known, is studying in Scotland for a Master's degree in evolutionary biology. He's upset with Jeffrey Shallit for criticizing Phillip Johnson's 1993 video (see This Video Should Be Shown to all Biology Students). He's also upset with my critiques of the same video (see Phillip Johnson, One of the Very Best Intelligent Design Creationists).

PZ Myers Talks About Junk DNA

 
PZ Myers has a blog called Pharyngula—perhaps you've heard of it?

He gave a talk on junk DNA at Skepticon IV in Sringfield, Missouri (USA) a few weeks ago. I disagree with a few thing he said,

1. Some intron sequences are essential for splicing whereas PZ implies that they are all junk.
2. Regulatory sequences make up less than 1% of your genome and not more than exons as PZ says [What's in Your Genome?].
3. Half or your genome is DEFECTIVE transposon, not active transposons. Active transposons are not junk. Defective transposons are a form of pseduogene and they are definitely junk. The distinction is important.

But the main point is that the IDiots predicted there wouldn't be any significant amount of junk in your genome and that prediction has been refuted.

---

Monday's Molecule #152

 

This is a simple molecule so I'm going to insist on the IUPAC name as well as the common name. This time it's not sufficient to just give me the name of the molecule. You also have to briefly explain what it does and why it's important to some humans. The functional explanation has to be a biochemical explanation, not a physiological one.

Post your answer in the comments. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post correct answers to avoid embarrassment.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.) Every undergraduate who posts a correct answer will have their names entered in a Christmas draw. The winner gets a free autographed copy of my book! (One entry per week. If you post a correct answer every week you will have ten chances to win.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

UPDATE: The molecule is chlorothiazide of hydrochlorothiazide or 6-chloro-1,1-dioxo-3,4-dihydro-2H-1,2,4-benzothiadiazine-7-sulfonamide. It's a drug commonly used to treat high blood pressure. Chlorothiazide belongs to a class of drugs that function as diuretics—they decrease blood volume by preventing reabsorption of water from the urine.

The winner is 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling). His answer emphasizes the role of the drug in inhibiting carbonic anhydrase and that's a valid property. However, the most important immediate effect is probably the inhibition of the Na⁺/Cl^- transporter in the kidneys. As far as I can tell the effects of the drug at the molecular level are not as clear-cut as one would like. The decrease in blood volume appears to be temporary and the long-term effect in lowering blood pressure is probabably due to some unknown effect on veins and arteries.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger

---

Earth to Rick: The Debate Is Over and You Lost!

 
Rick Santorum is a former United States Senator. He is running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. In this video he is explaining why creationism should be taught in schools.

The Discover Institute blog, Evolution News & Views, posted this video [Santorum on Evolution: "It's Worth a Debate." Yeah, It is]. It obvious that the IDiots consider Santorum to be a credible supporter of Intelligent Design Creationism.

I suppose that's understandable given the quality of their other supportersl

---

William Dembski Disproves Evolution

 

Bill Dembski is another one of the "big guns" of Intelligent Design Creationism. He has a Ph.D. in mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988), a Ph.D. in philosophy (University of Illinois (Chicago), 1993) and a Master's of Divinity (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996).

Here's a video explaining how Dembski can mathematically disprove evolution. Somehow this leads to proof of god. It may be difficult to follow the logic but that's probably because you and I don't have Ph.D.'s in mathematics or philosophy.

Keep in mind that this is no amateur. Dembski is among the very best of the best in Intelligent Design Creationism. His speculations have been thoroughly refuted by prominent mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers. Under normal circumstances, this would be enough to cause his supporters to abandon him but he's still a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture and he's still promoted as one of the leading supporters of Intelligent Design Creationism.

---

Phillip Johnson, One of the Very Best Intelligent Design Creationists

 

The IDiots have been complaining of late that we aren't addressing their very best arguments in favor of Intelligent Design Creationism. They think we're just picking off the low-hanging fruit by attacking amateurs and Young Earth Creationists. This isn't true, but that's not a surprise since much of what they say isn't true.

The Intelligent Design Creationists are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the publication of Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial [Phillip Johnson on the Scientific Nature of Opposition to Darwinian Theory] [Christian Post: Darwin on Trial Still Resonates 20 Years Later] [Why Phillip Johnson Matters: A Biography]. It's clear that they think of Phillip Johnson as one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism and that's quite reasonable since he was one of the key players at the beginning of the movement. I'm going to assume that Phillip Johnson is not low-hanging fruit. He's among the very best that Intelligent Design Creationism has to offer or else they wouldn't be making such a big deal of this anniversary.

I Don't Understand the Spammers

 

There are people somewhere who scour the blogs posting comments containing links to various websites. The object, I think, is to boost their scores on the search engines but I'm not sure this actually works. I imagine that these people are being paid to post comments.

I get about 20 of these spam comments per day. Since I moderate comments they never get posted and you, dear readers, never see them. The Blogger spam catcher puts most of them in the spam bucket.

So what's the point? The people posting these comments are wasting their time, and wasting my time as well. Is that the goal? I don't get it.

---

One Problem with Intelligent Design Creationism

 

There are many different ideas about creators but they all share one common feature; namely, they postulate the existence of a supernatural creator who is directly responsible for creating some parts of the universe (usually the whole thing!).

Intelligent Design Creationism is a version of creationism that focuses on the creation of life. Proponents of this version claim that god played a direct role in creating some parts of living organisms. They concentrate on biochemical structures like bacterial flagella and folded proteins but they're also interested in things like speciation and the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution can explain most of the things that the Intelligent Design Creationists worry about so their main overt activities are concentrated on discrediting evolution and discrediting those scientists who support scientific explanations of biology. Given this necessity, you'd think that the leading proponents of IDC would be quite knowledgeable about biology and evolution.

Joseph Hoffmann Responds

 

Joseph Hoffmann thinks he knows a lot about modern atheism so he wrote an insulting and rather stupid attack: Atheism’s Little Idea. A lot of atheists were offended and took the time to try and educate Hoffmann. My own contribution was: On Being a Sophisticated Atheist.

Hoffmann noticed that there was less than unanimous agreement with his position so he replied on his blog The New Oxonian: The Sure-Fire Atheist Rapid Response Manual.

You really have to read it to see just what a sophisticated response from a Harvard/Oxford intellectual looks like. I think he's a bit annoyed at all the attention he's getting.

---