I heard a crash in my outer office. I knew what had happened. My cool space-filling model of DNA is 33 years old and it is spontaneously degrading as the plastic connectors become brittle. This is very, very, sad. 
What does the future look like? For some, the future is the place of constant progress and a place where dreams become reality. For others, the future is a scary, dystopian place. When actualized, however, future worlds fall somewhere in between these two visions. Can we make accurate projections about the future? As I pointed out in a Synthetic Daisies post from February [1], futurists and technologists have a pretty dismal track record at projecting future scenarios, and often get things notoriously wrong.This is an amazing edition of Carnival of Evolution with lots of commentary to put the posts in context. If you haven't read it yet then get on over there right now!!!
With visions of the future in mind, this month's Carnival of Evolution (#58) theme is the future of evolution. While a significant component of evolutionary biology involves reconstructing the past [2], we are actually (with error, of course) also predicting the future. Yet can we do any better than futurists or technologists? It is hard to say, and if you have opinions on this I would be glad to hear them. However, this month's CoE will address five themes that may (or may not) help us understand where the complexity of life is headed.
The Unbelievers follows evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss across the globe as they speak publicly to sold-out halls, advancing a thoughtful dialogue about the importance of science and reason in the modern world. Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, and Krauss, director of the esteemed Origins Project, are dedicated to furthering the (r)evolutionary idea that science, above all else, should inform man’s understanding of the universe. Filmmaker Gus Holwerda follows these “rock stars of reason” as they embark on a most modern crusade to encourage people to cast off antiquated ideologies and assume a purely rational approach to important current issues. Refusing to engage with those who advance divisive and extreme fundamentalist positions Dawkins and Krauss show how sometimes sensitive and provocative ideas can be discussed respectfully and with intellectual rigour. Fans, including Ricky Gervais, Cameron Diaz, Stephen Hawking, Woody Allen and Werner Herzog, share their impressions and support, while arenas full of admirers and the curious eagerly receive them. As engaging as the subjects themselves, The Unbelievers offers an exciting glimpse into two of the world’s most influential minds at work.
... some people have known since the mid 70s that most DNA is transcribed into RNA, but sat on it because apparently they didn’t realise its significance ...It's true that most scientists were puzzled by this pervasive transcription but gradually they learned that a lot of it was introns and the rest was probably spurious transcription or junk RNA. They reached this conclusion because most of the transcripts were of very low abundance and were turned over (degraded) very rapidly.
Now, to my mind the first point only underlines my original point about the cult of Darwinism (word defined according to the old-school, traditional and popular usage); that it can get in the way of the practice and dissemination of science, a dysteleological worldview which stagnates interest in trying to find function, something which has only recently been picked up again by ENCODE, and only then, Larry claims, because they don’t understand evolution.
The idea that (almost) everything gets transcribed sometimes but only by accident, is an explanation, but it is one that requires no investigation, and inspires no investigation. It is much more convincing to an already-convinced Darwinist than to anyone else. A Darwinist says, nah, there’s nothing here to be understood, stop looking. But to others, that would be a presumptuous ‘evolution-of-the-gaps’. Anyone who has reason to suspect teleology (meaning: engineering intent) is going to look just that little bit harder, and is going to see the importance of pervasive transcription just that little bit earlier.Many scientists wanted to find a function for all of this RNA but they failed to do so. Meanwhile, other studies showed that much of our genome was probably junk DNA. This is about the time that scientists discovered pseudogenes (early 1980s) and discovered that half our genome was transposon pseudogenes (defective transposons). Experiments showed that a lot of pervasive transcription came from those regions of the genome suggesting that the transcripts were not functional.
I wonder if we should not be a little angry that this was not popularised in the 70s! My fiancee, who has a recent biology degree, is now annoyed that this fact was kept from her … The Darwinian establishment seem to have buried it, exactly the kind of thing I wanted to warn against.The existence of hnRNA was widely known in the 1970s. It was discussed in graduate courses when I was a student. By the late 1970s we were teaching this material to undergraduates.
Holland, C. A., Mayrand, S. & Pederson, T. (1980) Sequence complexity of nuclear and messenger RNA in HeLa cells. J. Mol. Biol. 138:755–778.
Hough, B. R., Smith, M. J., Britten, R. J. & Davidson, E. H. (1975) Sequence complexity of heterogeneous nuclear RNA in sea urchin embryos. Cell 5:291–299.
Milcarek, C., Price, R. & Penman, S. (1974) The metabolism of a poly(A) minus mRNA fraction in HeLa cells. Cell 3:1–10.
Varley, J. M., Macgregor, H. C. & Erba, H. P. (1980) Satellite DNA is transcribed on lampbrush chromosomes. Nature 283:686–688.
Function, the evolution-free gospel of ENCODEHe has now replied to my second post and I think I detect a real desire to learn about the issues [see (More and more) Function, the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE]. This could just be my imagination but please bear with me while I try to explain the facts to andyjones.
ENCODE & Junk and Why We Call Them IDiots
(More) Function, the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE
ENCODE, Junk DNA, and Intelligent Design Creationism
Larry’s ‘reply’ (to my first post) appears to have replicated and evolved into a real reply (to my second post) with some real information. Well, a little information. When I say information, I don’t just mean grammatically correct and unambiguous English text, I mean things that offered ‘surprisal’ and improved my ability to understand the world and to function better in this debate. I learnt three things: firstly, some people have known since the mid 70s that most DNA is transcribed into RNA, but sat on it because apparently they didn’t realise its significance; secondly, where DNA is transcribed but a function is not known, it is generally transcribed only relatively rarely; and thirdly, that RNA polymerase (RNAP) binds at sites other than recognised promoters.Later on he adds two other issues that he wants to learn about so that makes five in total. I'll devote a seperate post to each one.
I petition the Ontario Legislature to adopt legislation to establish a single, non-sectarian, publicly funded school system made up of English and French language school boards.Sign the Petition.
The last Monday's Molecule was L-gulose and the winner was Bill Gunn. It was a special anniversary (#200) so I reposted my original Monday's Molecule from November 13, 2006 [Monday's Molecule #200]. I don't think it was any easier this year than it was seven years ago. That's a shame since biochemistry students should have had no problem getting the right answer if they understand the basic concept behind drawing structures of carbohydrates. 
Imagine that you are speaking at a conference. You spent a long time preparing your talk and you have wonderful slides to illustrate your most important points. Imagine that half your audience doesn't seem to be paying attention. Their heads are down and they seem to be messaging on their smart phones or tablets. How do you feel about that?One particularly interesting technological development was that there were two screens at the front of the room: one big one for the presenter to use, and a smaller one on which a twitter wall was displayed — all the silent conversations using the “#skeptech” hashtag were continuously displayed, which meant there was a constant flow of commentary from the audience sharing the stage with the speaker. It was rather cool — I’d like to see more of it at more conferences. It certainly made that hashtag explode with content.I think that's a very, very, bad idea. I'm not sure that I would agree to be a speaker if I knew that the audience was going to pay more attention to their own tweets than to anything I was saying.
I finished reading The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine. It's a wonderful book. It brings you up to date on the fossil record, dating issues, evolutionary developmental biology, climate change, and molecular phylogeny. The book offers a reasonable evolutionary explanation for the apparent rapid diversification of animal groups during the Cambrian (about 530 million years ago). 
We've been keeping something from you, dear readers, but now it can be told. The evolution debate is about to undergo a paradigm shift....It would not be fair to criticize Meyer's book before we get a chance to read it. It will be fun to see how the science compares with that in the book by Erwin and Valentine. I'm really looking forward to reading about the Intelligent Design Theory that explains all of the scientific data. I'm especially curious about why the designer did the deed 530 million years ago and why everything since then looks so much like evolution. I'm sure that's going to be covered. We can be practically certain that a paradigm-shifting book like this isn't just going to be several hundred pages of evolution bashing.
Here is a sweeping account, stunningly illustrated with gorgeous color photos, of the frontiers of the scientific critique of Darwinism and the case for ID. Exacting and thorough, yet remarkably accessible to the thoughtful lay reader, Darwin's Doubt introduces us to the challenges to Darwinism based on the study of combinatorial inflation, protein science, population genetics, developmental biology, epigenetic information, and more.
Meyer explains how post-Darwinian alternatives and adaptions of Darwin's theory -- including self-organizational models, evo-devo, neutral or nonadaptive evolution, natural genetic engineering, and others -- fall short as well. He demonstrates that the weaknesses of orthodox evolutionary theory, when flipped over head-to-foot, are precisely the positive indications that point most persuasively to intelligent design.
Evolutionary biologists studying gene regulatory networks and fossil discontinuity, among other fields, have come tantalizingly close to reaching this conclusion themselves.
The Cambrian event, fundamentally, represents an information explosion, the first but not the last in the history of life. As no book has done before, Darwin's Doubt spells out the implications of this fact. Dr. Meyer stands on the verge of turning the evolution debate in an entirely new direction, compelling critics of the theory of intelligent design, at last, to respond substantively and in detail. The book will be a game-changer, for science and culture alike.
Erwin, D.H., Laflamme, M., Tweedt, S.M., Sperling, E.A., Pisani, D., and Peterson, K.J. (2011) The Cambrian conundrum: early divergence and later ecological success in the early history of animals. Science 334:1091-1097. [PubMed] [doi: 10.1126/science.1206375]
Ms. Sandwalk posted this on her blog and I just had to copy it. Here's Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, the current commander of the International Space Station, singing with Ed Robertson and the Barenaked Ladies band accompanied by the Scarborough Wexford Gleeks choir . 
Jerry Coyne's recent post on methodological naturalism was based on a recent paper by Fishman and Boudry (2013). Previously Jerry had addressed a paper by Yonatan Fishman from 2009 (Fishman, 2009) [Can science test the supernatural? Yes!!] I think it's worth highlighting that 2009 paper because it makes a strong case against limiting science. I'm a bit confused by the stance taken by John Wilkins (and others) as I mentioned in the comments to my recent post [John Wilkins Revisits Methodological Naturalism]. Perhaps they could respond to this argument from the Fishman (2009) paper?The recent court ruling in the United States against the teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) as an alternative to evolution in biology classes (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District; Jones 2005) has sparked public interest and has been hailed as a victory by the scientific community. One of the reasons given for the verdict is the notion that science is limited strictly to the study of natural phenomena and therefore that ID and other claims involving supernatural phenomena are outside the proper domain of scientific investigation.
While the verdict is widely viewed as correct for other reasons cited in the court’s opinion, that particular rationale upon which it is based is questionable. Indeed, is science limited to the study of ‘natural’ phenomena? Does science presuppose Naturalism and thereby exclude supernatural explanations by definition? Are claims involving ‘supernatural’ phenomena inherently untestable and therefore outside the province of science? The present article argues that this is not the case. Science does not presuppose Naturalism and supernatural claims are amenable in principle to scientific evaluation [see Monton (2006) and Stenger (2006a) for a similar critique of Judge Jones’ verdict]. Indeed, science does have implications for the probable truth of supernatural worldviews (Gauch 2006, defends a similar thesis).
To exclude, a priori, the supernatural would validate the complaint voiced by some ID adherents and other creationists that science is dogmatically committed to Naturalism and thus opposed in principle to considering supernatural explanations (Johnson 1999; see Stenger 2006a). On the other hand, if there is no fundamental barrier preventing science from evaluating supernatural claims, then to declare the study of supernatural phenomena out of bounds to scientific investigation imposes artificial constraints on scientific inquiry, which potentially would deny science the noble task of purging false beliefs from the public sphere or the opportunity to discover aspects of reality that may have significant worldview implications.
Fishman, Y.I. (2009) Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science and Education 18:165-189. [doi: 10.1007/s11191-007-9108-4
Fishman, Y.I. and Boudry, M. (2013) Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)? Science & Education (published online January 7, 2013) [doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9574-1]
Thank God John has revived Evolving Thoughts! 
Jerry Coyne agrees with my current position on methodolocical naturalism. We are both upset by the way it's used to support accommodationism at NCSE [The NCSE Position on Science vs Religion] and at AAAS [AAAS Supports Accommodationism, Illogically]. If you're new to the subject, read Jerry's latest post at: Must we assume naturalism to do science?. That will bring you up to date.The term “naturalism”, however, is ambiguous. On the one hand it can mean giving a natural explanation through the use of scientific methods such as the use of human reasoning and observation. Or, it can mean the claim that only “natural” things exist. The first is sometimes called “methodological naturalism”, and it is the underpinning of all science, and indeed all learning about the world. The second is sometimes called “metaphysical naturalism”, although I think it is instead a claim about what exists (which is called “ontology” amongst the philosophical community). God might be natural in that sense. There is no real sharp dividing line between the natural and the supernatural that would satisfy most believers. For example, human nature for some is held to include a soul, which is divine. So let us call the second kind ontological naturalism.Obviously I don't think that methodological naturalism is the "underpinning of all science." I think science is free to investigate claims of the paranormal (i.e. not naturalism) and can, in principle, discover things that don't meet the definition of naturalism.
