The Photosynthesis Song and a Pet Peeve

Photosynthesis is a process where light energy is captured and converted to chemical energy in the form of ATP. The basic process is similar to that in membrane-associated electron transport. In both cases an energy source (light or reducing equivalents respectively) is used to create a proton gradient across a membrane. The dissipation of this gradient as protons move back into the cell drives the synthesis of ATP.

In addition to ATP, most types of photosynthesis can also be coupled to synthesis of NADPH. The chemical energy molecules derived from photosynthesis (ATP and NADPH) are used in many different biochemical pathways such as DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, fatty acid synthesis and carbohydrate synthesis.

Most photosynthetic organisms can fix carbon dioxide and make carbohydrates using ATP and NADPH [The Calvin Cycle] [Fixing Carbon: the Rubisco Reaction]. Many nonphotosynthetic organisms can do this too. In photosynthetic bacteria and photosynthetic protists this pathway uses only a small part of the chemical energy created by photosynthesis. In large plants the synthesis of carbohydrates can use up a significant portion of the ATP and NADPH generated by photosynthesis.

The fixation of CO₂ and the synthesis of carbohydrates used to be called the "dark reactions" of photosynthesis back in the days when all we knew about were big plants. We didn't know anything about the biochemistry of photosynthetic bacteria or other species. Because our attention was focused on big plants, it was thought that photosynthesis was always coupled to the carbohydrate synthesis pathways. Now we know that this isn't true, so the old-fashioned equation,


is just not a valid representation of photosynthesis. The real products of photosynthesis don't even appear in the equation and, furthermore, those products are used for many different purposes inside the cell (especially in bacteria). Not only that, in some photosynthetic bacteria the electron donor isn't water but some other inorganic molecule like H₂S and S₂ is produced instead of oxygen. The equation is very misleading on many levels and should be abandoned.

Greg Laden has posted the video shown below and commented on the fact that the word "miracle" is used [The Photosynthesis Song ... Bad Word Choice?]. I'm much more worried about the misleading science in the video than I am about one instance of the word "miracle."

---

FOX News Anchor Want USA to Support Terrorism

 
This is really quite incredible. Brain Kilmeade is the co-host of of the Fox and Friends morning news program. He thinks the USA should support terrorists inside Iran who will set off car bombs in Tehran. The conservative right really doesn't get it, do they?

The war against Iran is coming soon to a theater near you.

---

[Hat Tip: Jim Lippard]

Cafe Inquiry

 

The Centre for Inquiry (Toronto) and the University of Toronto Secular Alliance are pleased to announce the first Cafe Inquiry. These monthly meetings will focus on topics of interested to the secular community.

The first meeting is going to be held in conjunction with a series of lectures sponsored by CFI. The speaker happens to be me, talking about Evolution as a Theory and a Fact. If you haven't had enough of me on this blog, then come out to the Centre for Inquiry on Wednesday November 28 at 7 pm or McMaster University on the evening of November 27th. The McMaster event is sponsored by the McMaster Association of Secular Humanists.

For more information see [Evolution Is a Theory and a Fact with Prof. Laurence Moran].

---

Supermouse

 
This CNN report tells us about a supermouse created by Hansen's group at Case Western Reserve University (Hakimi et al. 2007). They inserted an extra copy of the PEPCK gene into the mouse genome and drove expression of that gene in muscle cells. The mice with extra PEPCK in their muscle cells were seven times more active than normal mice. As you can see in the CNN report, they can run on a treadmill for much longer times than mice without the extra PEPCK.



I'm sure most of know about Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK) because it's a really important enzyme. For the very few who don't know their biochemistry pathways, here's a brief lesson.

Here's a simplified overview of the main biosynthesis pathways. The important ones are gluconeogenesis (the biosynthesis of glucose) and the citric acid cycle. Various intermediates in the citric acid cycle are used for synthesis of amino acids. One of them, oxaloacetate, is the substrate for PEPCK in a reaction that converts oxaloacetate to phosphoenolpyruvate.

This is a way to use the carbon atoms of citric acid cycle intermediates in the synthesis of glucose. Under normal circumstances the intermediates in the citric acid cycle don't change very much but their concentration can increase when amino acids are degraded in the reverse of the amino acid synthesis pathways shown here.

The activity of the supermouse is explained by increases in the number of mitochondria in muscle cells and more efficient utilization of oxygen. It is not clear why an increase in PEPCK levels causes such a drastic effect. It could be due to the fact that the mammalian version of PEPCK uses GTP ...


and one of the reactions in the citric acid cycle requires GDP. This could increase flux in the citric acid cycle leading to greater synthesis of ATP in the mitochondrial membranes. (The greater the flux, the more NADH is produced, and every mole of NADH makes 2.5 moles of ATP.)

Alternatively, the increase in stamina could be due to the fact that oxaloacetate is removed from the pool of citric acid cycle intermediates and this results in increased flux since the pools don't become too large when amino acid are broken down to citric acid cycle intermediates.

Finally, increased PEPCK activity could produce more phosphoenolpyruvate which is readily converted to acetyl CoA that can be used in the synthesis of triglycerides (fatty acids) [THEME: Pyruvate Dehydrogenase]. The storage of fatty acids supplies an energy-rich source that can be used up during exercise. In normal mice, the energy is derived from glucose molecules stored as glycogen but fatty acids are better.

All these possibilities are discussed in the paper but no definite conclusions are reached. Richard Hansen has been working on this enzyme for thirty years and it's truly remarkable that we still don't have a good idea about its role in mammalian metabolism. PEPCK is found in all species and it seems clear in most species that it plays a role in the biosynthesis of glucose from fatty acids. In species other than mammals, the citric acid cycle is short-circuited by the glyoxylate pathway which provides a route for acetyl CoA to be converted to glucose. Acetyl CoA is produced when fatty acids are degraded. Mammals don't have the glyoxylate pathway enzymes.

---

Hakimi, P., Yang, J., Casadesus, G., Massillon, D., Tolentino-Silva, F., Nye, C.K., Cabrera, M.E., Hagen, D.R., Utter, C.B., Baghdy, Y., Johnson, D.H., Wilson, D.L., Kirwan, J.P., Kalhan, S.C. and Hanson, R.W. (2007) Overexpression of the Cytosolic Form of Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxykinase (GTP) in Skeletal Muscle Repatterns Energy Metabolism in the Mouse. J Biol Chem. 282:32844-32855. [PubMed]

Curing Leg Cramps with a Bar of Soap

 
Friday's Urban Legend: ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE

Some people, who shall remain nameless, sleep with a bar of Ivory soap in their beds. Now why in the world would anyone do this? Well, it turns out that the bar of Ivory soap prevents you from having leg cramps at night.

I kid you not. People swear by it.

After a little investigation it turns out that there are just as many people who swear that it has to be Dove soap and not Ivory soap. Then there are those who say it can be any kind of soap as long as it's not Dove. Some people say the soap has to be in its original wrapper and others say it has to be unwrapped.

The snopes.com website hedges their bets on this one since there are so many people who claim that it works [Soap Dope]. On the other hand, they do list it under "Old Wives Tales."

I'm not so hesitant. There's no possible scientific explanation that could explain how a bar of soap would prevent leg cramps. It sounds like a placebo effect, at best, and an overactive imagination, at worst.

---

[Photo Credit Wikkepedia]

Best Countires for Academic Research

 
From TheScientist [Best countries for Academic Research].


Judging by the results for the other categories (e.g. Top 40 US Academic Institutions, Top 10 International Academic Institutions) I don't think this is a serious poll. It follows that TheScientist isn't a credible magazine.

---

Blog Readability Test

 
I guess spelling doesn't count or I'd be at kindergarten level.

---

[Hat Tip: A Blog Around the Clock]

What Is Framing?

Matt Nisbet is still puzzled over opposition to framing. He doesn't understand why some of us don't like the idea very much. Personally, I don't think it's much different than "spin."

Nisbet's latest lament is posted today [UPDATED SECTION: What is framing? [video]].

If the blog debate that ensued after publication of our article at Science showed anything, it was just how widely misunderstood the concept of framing might be. Not surprisingly, many bloggers offer strong opinions about framing and its relationship to science communication but have very little actual knowledge or expertise in the area.

Yes, that must be the answer. We don't understand framing but as soon as we do we'll get right to it. Not.

Matt, you've explained the concept as well as you can—which isn't very well as it turns out. On your website you give us some fine examples of framing [What Is Framing?]. Here they are in case anyone doesn't get it.

Frame devices are used strategically in almost any policy debate. Consider just a few prominent and successful examples of such devices that have been used to alter the focus of policy:

1. Republicans have used the frame device "death tax" to recast estate tax policy in populist terms and to trigger wider public concern.

2. Democrats have used the phrase "gun safety" to shift the traditional debate over "gun control" away from a focus on civil liberties and instead toward an emphasis on public health.

3. Greenpeace has used the term "frankenfood" to redefine food biotechnology in terms of unknown risks and consequences rather than the industry-promoted focus on solving world hunger.

4. Religious conservatives have relabeled the medical procedure know as "dilation and extraction" as "partial birth abortion," pushing decision-making on whether to use the procedure away from doctors and into the hands of Congress and the courts.

5. Anti-smoking advocates have promoted the term "big tobacco," a headline-friendly phrase that immediately emphasizes considerations of corporate accountability and wrongdoing.

6. Anti-evolutionists have coined the slogan "teach the controversy," which instantaneously signals their preferred interpretation that there are holes in the theory of evolution and that teaching rival explanations for life's origins is really a matter of intellectual freedom.

I get it. I don't want any part of that kind of "framing."

Matt says that scientists should engage in framing. I say they shouldn't, and it's not because I don't understand what framing is all about. These are the "successful" examples, in Matt's opinion, and he's supposed to be the expert. Why is he surprised at the opposition to framing? Why should scientists attempt to mimic these examples of misleading and highly deceptive spin?

Is framing just false spin? What may have led to this misperception is that several examples of highly effective messaging have originated from groups or individuals with special interests. While the content of some of these messages such as Greenpeace's "Frankenfood" is debatable, these messages have been more effective in reaching key audiences than many efforts that originated from the scientific community.

In other words; yes, successful framing can be the same as false spin. Thanks for explaining that, Matt.

---

Succcinate Dehydrogenase and Evolution by Accident

Succinate dehydrogenase is one of the enyzmyes of the citric acid cycle. It catalyzes the following reaction .....


Students in my biochemistry class will recognize this as a classic oxidation-reduction reaction where succinate is oxidized to fumarate and quinone (Q) is reduced to quinol (QH₂). (The green carbons are the ones originally derived from the acetyl group that starts the cycle.)

The succinate dehydrogenase complex is also complex II in membrane-associated electron transport. This is the electron transport process that's coupled to ATP formation—part of what used to be called oxidative phosphorylation or respiration. The complexes are found in the inner membranes of mitochondria in eukaryotes and the inner plasma membrane in bacteria.


Within the complex, electrons are passed from succinate to FAD and then to three different iron-sulfur ([Fe-S]) clusters and finally to a molecule of quinone (Q) bound to the active site in the membrane (Q and QH₂ are only soluble in the membranes.)

The reverse reaction, where electrons flow from QH₂ to fumarate is common in bacteria. It is usually catalyzed by a separate enzyme called fumarate reductase. The two complexes (succinate dehydrogenase and fumarate reductase) are very similar in structure and the various subunits of the complexes are homologous.

The structure of succinate dehydrogenase from Escherichia coli was solved at good resolution some years ago [PDB 1NEK]. It reveals the presence of a heme b group in the membrane-bound part of the complex. The binding site for QH₂ is located close to the third [Fe-S] cluster near the inner side of the membrane.

The role of this heme is highly controversial. It's not present in fumarate reductase, demonstrating that it plays no role in electron transport for the reverse reaction. It seems as though the heme group might not be involved in the transfer of electrons from succinate to QH₂ either but it has been difficult to rule this out.

Tran et al. (2007) have investigated the role of heme b in a paper that has just appeared in the online version of PNAS. They created mutant enzymes that could not bind the heme b molecule and examined the effect of these mutations. Mutant bacteria grew normally under conditions where the activity of succinate dehydrogenase was essential. The levels of enzyme activity of two different mutant enzymes were only 6% and 30% lower than the levels of the wild-type enzymes.

These results demonstrate that the heme b group is not required for the chemical reaction. This confirms a lot of previous work that pointed to the same conclusion. However, the mutant enzymes are less stable than the wild-type enzyme; they tend to lose activity during purification. This indicates that the heme group helps to stabilize the complex although whether this is significant in vivo remains an open question.

The result is further proof that not every feature has adaptive significance—or, at least not the significance you would normally assign. When the heme b molecule was first detected it was assumed to be involved in the chemical reaction since that's what heme groups do in most other complexes. Now we know it is not required for electron transfer but may play a small role in stabilizing the enzyme. Maybe there used to be a heme in the primitive ancestor of succinate dehydrogenase (SQR) and fumarate reductase (QFR) but it has been lost in QFR and rendered almost obsolete in SQR. Perhaps it used to be an essential component of the reaction in the ancestor enzyme or perhaps a primitive heme b enzyme that bound quinone just happened to evolve a binding site for another enzyme containing [Fe-S] clusters and succinate oxidation properties.

The more we study these molecular machines, the more we are coming to realize that the evolutionary pathway leading to their formation was somewhat haphazard and accidental. These are not cases where the final product is so well designed that a very precise series of improbable events had to happen in order for them to exist at all. Instead, proteins that may have originally served another purpose are co-opted and modified in newly evolving complexes.

Modern enzyme complexes may contain fossil evidence of their evolutionary history (e.g. heme b) that has very little to do with their current function. It's like biochemical junk.

---

Tran, Q.M., Rothery, R.A., Maklashina, E., Cecchini, G. and Weiner, J.H. (2007) Escherichia coli succinate dehydrogenase variant lacking the heme b. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) published online November 7, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0707732104 [PNAS]

Judgment Day Is Coming

 
NOVA has produced a documentary on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial that took place two years ago [Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial].

The complete show will be available on the website [Watch Online] after November 14th. In the Toronto area we can watch it on WTVS Detroit (channel 163) on Tuesday Nov. 13th at 8pm or on WCTS Seattle (channel 164) at 11pm our time. Most people probably don't get these channels because they're part of a special timeshifting package. I find that WNED Buffalo, the regular PBS channel in this area, often doesn't show the documentaries I want to watch on PBS. It doesn't broadcast NOVA documentaries, for example. I assume they're too expensive.

Here's the trailer. The show looks really cool even if ultimately the trial will have very little effect on the creationist movement and may even have strengthened it.

---

Rachel Marsden Fired by the Toronto Sun

 
Rachel Marsden is officially a Canadian although most Canadians would prefer than this not be widely known. She's currently based in New York city. Here's how she describes her upbringing in Vancouver [About Rachel Marsden].

Born in suburban Vancouver, British Columbia, Rachel grew up listening to Jack Webster, who pioneered combative political talk-radio long before it ever spread to the USA.

Fully bilingual in both French and English, Rachel survived growing up in Canada during the socialist regime of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, best known for his close friendship with Fidel Castro, decimation of the Canadian military, a wife who partied at Studio 54 with the Rolling Stones, and doing pirouettes behind the Queen of England's back.

Always a capitalist at heart, Rachel spent her childhood on her parents' farm selling eggs from the family driveway. To ensure the operation looked legit and to score an advantage over the competition (the neighborhood Safeway), she would hold her pet chicken, Brenda (named after her Sunday school teacher), on her lap as proof that the eggs were truly "farm fresh".

Here's a clip of Rachel Marsden on CNN from just last week. She's defending the torture of so-called terrorists¹—one of her favorite topics—while getting skewered by Jack Cafferty. One of her most famous recent quotes comes from this broadcast, "One man's torture is another man's CIA-sponsored swim lesson."

Marsden used to write a weekly column for the Toronto Sun. one of Canada's most idiotic right-wing rags. This relationship is now over according to her website [RachelMarsden.com].

Attention terrorists and Islamofascists: You can now read the Toronto Sun without having your delicate sensibilities offended, as my weekly column is no longer with Sun Media. I am currently exploring US syndication and other venues for the column. In the meantime, you can continue to read it here at RachelMarsden.com, every Monday. And yes (to respond to some of your queries), after more than 2 years of writing weekly for the Sun, I've been under a new Editor-in-Chief, Lou Clancy, since October 5th, who comes from Canada's most liberal newspaper: The Toronto Star. My column about Islam was spiked on his first day at the job. Best of luck to any principled conservatives who remain.

Now, the remarkable thing about this is that even the Toronto Sun has had enough of Rachel Marsden. Who woulda thunk?

I guess she'll just have to sell her brand of "principled conservatism" south of the border from now on. No doubt she'll find plenty of buyers. I understand that the USA is about to appoint an Attorney General who approves of torture.

Here's an excerpt from her last column in the Toronto Sun [Torture? Sounds like a swimmingly good idea].

When asked about it during a recent CNN appearance, I suggested that "one man's torture is another's CIA-sponsored swim lesson." In case anyone thought I was being facetious -- I wasn't.

I suppose that those who object to terror suspects getting water up the nose would say that, as a young competitive swimmer, I was also tortured. It was called "hypoxic training" -- swimming underwater and holding our breath until we passed out. Our coaches didn't call it torture, just an exercise in "mental toughness." So think of it this way -- terror suspects are getting some free mental toughness training courtesy of the U.S. government.

Here's another idea to make the concept more palatable to objectors: Call the place where waterboarding is performed "The CIA Centre For Aquatic Excellence," give all participants an "I survived training camp" T-shirt with the centre's logo on it, and treat them to a couple of carbo-loading pancake breakfasts. It worked for us.

Judge for yourselves.

---

1. All of the people who are being tortured are merely "accused" of doing something wrong. Many of them are innocent. Very few of them are real terrorists.

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

Nobel Laureate: Emil Theodor Kocher

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1909.

"for his work on the physiology, pathology and surgery of the thyroid gland"

Emil Theodor Kocher (1841-1917) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering that the thyroid gland was an essential organ. It secreted a component that was required for proper development and daily metabolism. We now know that the secretion consists of two iodine-containing hormones; thyroxine and triiodothyronine [Monday's Molecule #50].

The Presentation Speech was given by Professor the Count K.A.H. Mörner, Rector of the Royal Caroline Institute, on December 10, 1909.

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The Nobel Medical Prize has been awarded this year to the famous surgeon, Professor Theodor Kocher of Bern, in recognition of his work concerning the physiology, pathology and surgery of the thyroid gland.

The thyroid gland, thyroidea, is one of the structures in the organism whose significance has only been made clear during the last few decades. At the close of the 1870's it was still stated in the physiology text-books that the function of this gland was a complete mystery. It was even questioned that it had an actual physiological significance, for the adult organism at least. On the other hand it was a common experience that it could be the site of pathological changes; in the course of these, considerable trouble could result, as, for example, when the pathologically enlarged gland exerted pressure on neighbouring parts, especially on the trachea.

Yet it was hardly right that this gland should have been undervalued, not to say disdained, for so long. Astley Cooper, who was working about a hundred years ago, had already observed disturbances in animals after removal of the thyroid. These were specified with greater precision by J. M. Schiff in Bern. He found that animals in which the thyroid had been extirpated, often died in circumstances which suggested that this gland might be of great importance to the organism; however, he did not gain any deeper insight into the gland's function. Unfortunately, these observations did not receive the necessary attention and development. It was only after similar results had been obtained with human beings that the question of the thyroid's significance was analysed successfully. Observations made by surgeons were the cause of this.

The disturbances which occur with a pathological enlargement of the thyroid are often so grave that people had already for many years been extirpating the thyroid occasionally to relieve them, despite the difficulty and dangers which the operation then presented. Indeed, in the days before the introduction of antisepsis it often happened that the patients died of the immediate results of the operation. After the introduction of antisepsis a significant improvement took place in this respect. As a result, the number of operations of this kind, in which the whole gland was removed, increased considerably. In the meantime it was gradually noticed that the position was by no means satisfactory, even if the operation itself and the subsequent healing had gone well. Not infrequently, after a period of apparent health, significant disturbances in the general health made their appearance. The conscientious investigation of these cases of illness resulted in the establishment of a new syndrome called «cachexia strumipriva», which was characterized by muscular weakness, swelling of the extremities and of the face, anaemia, decline in intelligence, and finally death from exhaustion. Once attention had been drawn to this condition, enthusiastic and productive research into the significance of the thyroid followed in many different centres. In this, reliance was placed on clinical observations on humans as well as on animal experiments. From this research an understanding of the physiology of the thyroid has evolved which is comprehensive, even if not complete in all respects.

We now know that this gland is a vital organ, whose total removal in experimental animals infallibly causes death within the course of a few days or weeks. The gland is of great importance in the general nutrition of the adult, and especially in individuals still undergoing development. The loss of thyroid function results in serious disturbances in this nutrition. Metabolism is significantly diminished; growth ceases; the skin and the subcutaneous tissues are the site of mucous infiltration; degenerative processes occur in internal organs; serious disturbances make their appearance in the functions of the nervous system and muscles. It became clear that the gland acts by elaborating a secretion, which reaches the various parts of the body. It is, as the expression goes, an internal «secretion». Later it became evident that such processes of internal secretion are of exceptionally great importance. Not only the thyroid, but also various other glands such as the adrenals and the pancreas play a characteristic part in the processes within the organism by elaborating a secretion peculiar to each gland, which is not excreted, but is diffused throughout the organism and is of the greatest importance to it.

The knowledge of the physiology of the thyroid has brought a valuable increase in our understanding within the field of pathology. Through it new light has been thrown on hitherto mysterious morbid conditions. Pathological changes in the gland can lead to suppression or decrease of its function. Various morbid conditions are explained by this, among which are cretinism and myxoedema. On the other hand one looks for the explanation of various other disturbances such as those in morbus Basedowi in abnormally increased or possibly qualitatively abnormal activity of this gland.

This briefly outlined important and momentous development, which has benefited medicine during the past 25 years, was brought into being, as I mentioned before, as a result of observations which have been made by surgeons. In this respect, the first public utterance was made in September, 1882, by Professor J. L. Reverdin in Geneva. At this time his colleague in Bern, Professor Kocher, had also turned his attention to the same subject, and in April, 1883, the latter gave a comprehensive exposition, which has been of fundamental importance to the later development of thyroid surgery as well as to other important areas of our knowledge of this gland. Through Kocher's exposition it became quite clear that complete extirpation of the thyroid is reprehensible. A portion of the gland which is capable of functioning, must be left behind at operation. This very important principle of surgical intervention has always been observed from that time onwards. With regard to the surgery of the thyroid, Kocher has subsequently continued to occupy a leading position. It should be possible to omit on this occasion a report concerning the development of the methods of operation and the suitability of the various types of intervention in different cases. It should suffice to recall that there are now several thousand people who owe their regained, lasting health directly to him after a goitre operation which he has successfully performed. A far greater number, which cannot be estimated, owes him a debt of gratitude indirectly for similar results. Fatal cases or secondary illnesses have become more and more of a rarity in goitre operations.

However, it is not only the treatment of the goitre which has been the subject of Kocher's research on the goitre. He has also carried out extensive investigations into the causes of the endemic occurrence of goitre in certain regions and into the cretinism connected with disturbances in thyroid function.

In the thyroid, as already indicated, other diseases can occur in addition to those which arise with the ordinary goitre. To these as well Kocher has devoted successful work, as a result of which it has been possible to define with more and more certainty the method of treatment best suited to each case; in addition, on the basis of Kocher's work a broader, deeper knowledge of the pathology of the thyroid has been achieved.

Through his research, which we have briefly described here, Kocher has carried out pioneering work of an enduring nature which is of the greatest importance to medical science and of the greatest value in the service of suffering humanity. It is this work which the Staff of Professors of the Caroline Institute has wished to honour by awarding him this year the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

---

[Image Credit: University of Manchester]

Evolution: Education and Outreach

 
A new journal called Evolution: Education and Outreach has just been launched. We've been hearing about this for almost a year and it's good to see the first issue. The publisher is Springer [Evolution: Education and Outreach]. The mandate is ...

The journal will connect teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on a variety of instructional levels. Teachers and scientists will collaborate on multi-authored papers and offer tools for teachers such as unit and lesson plans and classroom activities, as well as additional online content such as podcasts and powerpoint presentations.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, Curator Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (USA) and Gregory Eldredge, of John F. Kennedy High School in Bronx, New York (USA) are the editors-in-chief.

The editorial board contains a lot of recognizable names so this should be a good journal. I'm looking forward to seeing the first articles.

Editorial Board:

Brian Alters, McGill University
Sarah Brem, Arizona State University
Daniel R. Brooks, University of Toronto
Roy Caldwell, University of California Museum of Paleontology
Joel Cracraft, American Museum of Natural History
Douglas Eernisse, California State at Fullerton and National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
Douglas Eldredge, Lincoln High School
Joseph Fail, Johnson C. Smith University and National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
Linda Froschauer, National Science Teachers Association, President-Elect
Douglas Futuyma, SUNY Stony Brook
Michael Gaspar, JFK High School
Adam Goldstein, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY
Myles Gordon, New York, NY
Joseph L. Graves, Jr., North Carolina A & T State University
T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph
Kristin Jenkins, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
David Kohn, Drew University
Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate, Florida State University
Bruce S. Lieberman, University of Kansas
Ronald L Numbers, University of Wisconsin, Madison
William Miller III, Humboldt State University
Eugenie Scott, National Center for Science Education, University of California, Berkeley
Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History
Telmo Pievani, University of Milan II
Judy Scotchmoor, University of California Museum of Paleontology
Ilya Temkin, New York University
Anna Thanukos, University of California Museum of Paleontology
John Thompson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Jory P. Weintraub, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
Matthew Williams, Manhattan Village Academy
David Wilson, SUNY Binghamton

---

[Hat Tip: The Panda's Thumb]

Tangled Bank #92

 
The latest version of the Tangled Bank has been posted on _Paddy K_ [Tangled Bank #92].

Welcome welcome one and all, to the eighty-twelfth edition of the ancient and worthy Tangled Bank Blog Carnival. And let the games begin…

---

Fixing a Bad Design

 
Mark Hoofnagle on denialism blog has posted an interesting article on how to fix badly designed humans [Ask A Scienceblogger - Which parts of the human body could you design better?]. I agree with most of his suggestions but he left out some.

Childbirth is definitely a serious problem as Mark points out. It's one of the important proofs of evolution 'cause no intelligent designer would ever come up with the mechanism we have now. Another problem is menopause. Very few people who have lived through it (wives and husbands) think it's a good thing. Let's get rid of it entirely. I doubt very much that we would see a massive increase in fifty-year-old mothers.

I'm not a big fan of our immune system. Sure, it has some good points but a real intelligent designer could do a much better job. It looks like it was designed by Rube Goldberg or some drunken sailer. The only thing it's really good at is generating Immunology Departments and thousands of scientific papers.

Let's fix it so that it doesn't get confused by peanut antigens and other ridiculous things that can kill you. We don't want no more asthma and auto-immune diseases. How hard can it be? There's got to be a more simple way of doing the same job.

---

[Hat Tip: John Dennehy, who has other suggestions for improvement.]

[Photo Credit: A rough diagram of the Immune system]

A Global Moritorium on the Death Penalty

 
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has voted every year from 1998 to 2005 on a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. Canada has been a sponsor of this resolution every single time along with countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Australia and 71 other countries. I'm proud of Canada's leadership on this important issue.

This leadership is about to end according to CTV [Feds won't sponsor UN anti-death-penalty resolution].

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government will not co-sponsor a United Nations resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty, breaking with a nearly decade-old tradition.

An official with the Foreign Affairs Department says Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN General Assembly in December, but will not sponsor it.

"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support,'' said Catherine Gagnaire.

Yeah, right. This represents a substantial shift in policy for the Canadian government. It's consistent with another change recently announced whereby Canada will no longer oppose the execution of Canadian citizens in foreign countries.

Last week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day surprised the House of Commons by announcing that Canada will not oppose the execution of a Canadian citizen on death row in Montana for two murders. Day said the new policy will apply to "murderers'' such as Ronald Allen Smith who have had a fair trial in a democratic country. (Doesn't the idea of Stockwell Day as "Public Safety Minister" just want to make you cry? )

The government has not specified which countries it considers democracies.

One of those countries is surely the United States of America. A country that executes Canadian citizens and has voted against the UN Human Rights resolution every single time.

The UN resolution has never passed thanks to the USA and other nations that still have a death penalty (e.g. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia). Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and there haven't been any executions in this country since 1962. Let's hope Stephen Harper doesn't try and bring back the death penalty remove us from the list of enlightened liberal democracies.

---

[Photo Credit: see Abolish the Death Penalty for the significance of the photo.]

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic, Harper, Porcine Copulater]

The Logic of the IDiots

 
Intelligent Design Creationists are really upset that their views aren't taken seriously by real scientists. They want to claim that Intelligent Design Creationism is science. So far they haven't succeeded but that doesn't stop them from trying again and again.

The latest attempt by DaveScot has just been posted on Uncommon Descent [P. falciparum - No Black Swan Observed]. Let's look at this stunning example of creationist logic.

DaveScot says that scientific statements have to be capable of falsification in order to qualify as science. That's one view of what science is all about (Popperian) but it's not the only one. Nevertheless, let's run with this definition and see where it takes us.

DaveScot gives us an example of a falsifiable statement, "All swans are white." The discovery of a single black swan would falsify that statement. That's correct. Now he goes on to make a statement about intelligent design, "All complex biological systems are generated by intelligent agents."

Hmmm .... that's an interesting statement isn't it? There are no known examples of complex biological systems that have been generated by intelligent agents. From a logical perspective, it's like saying that Pluto is made of green cheese. But, what the heck, let's see where he's going with this.

What we don’t know is whether any non-intelligent means can generate complex biological systems. A single observation of a complex biological system generated by a non-intelligent cause will falsify the biological ID hypothesis.

Now I see the logic. All the evidence for the natural evolution of complex biological systems doesn't count for a damned thing. You have to actually see something like that evolve with your own eyes before you can believe it. If you don't actually witness the thing then it's logical to assume that it doesn't exist. Right?

What's the data? Well, according to DaveScot, scientists have given it their best shot and no complex biological system sprang into being. The experiment was performed with Plasmodium falciparum the protozoan that causes malaria [Plasmodium falciparum Causes Malaria].

P.falciparum replicating billions of trillions of times in the past few decades represents the largest search to date for a “black swan”. This is orders of magnitude more replications than took place in the evolution of reptiles to mammals wherein there are many exceedingly complex biological systems that separate them. If P. falciparum had been seen generating any complex biological systems such as those that distinguish mammals from reptiles then it would have falsified the ID hypothesis. None were observed. This doesn’t prove ID but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific.

Don't you just love creationist logic? Just because we haven't seen any complex biological systems spring naturally into existence in Plasmodium falicparum it follows that it's impossible for such thing to happen. Therefore Intelligent Design Creationism is strongly supported. QED.^1.

WARNING!!!

This experiment could be harmful to your brain. Don't try this at home.
Let's try using this logic ourselves. P. falciparum has replicated trillions of times and not once did we see an Intelligent Designer making anything. This scientific observation lends strong support to the idea that Intelligent Designers don't make complex biological systems, right? It means that evolution is correct.

Furthermore, after hundreds of years of observation involving billions of people, we haven't got a single documented case of anyone actually seing God. This doesn't prove the non-existence of God but it certainly lends strong support to it. All perfectly scientific. At least that's what DaveScot would say, I assume.

---

1. The argument would make some sense if evolution predicted that complex biological systems should evolve in protozoa every few hundred years. Since evolution predicts no such thing then nothing has been demonstrated except that Intelligent Design Creationists are IDiots. But we already knew that.

[Photo Credit: photo by Graham Stephinson at canberabirds]

Monday's Molecule #50

 
Today's molecule may seem very simple but be careful. Pay close attention to the structure before you venture a guess. You need to give as complete a name as possible.

There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). The Nobel Prize winner(s) didn't know about this particular structure but its effects were detected.

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are two ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. This way I may select multiple winners if several people get it right. This one is easy. Get your response in quickly.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is triiodothyronine (2-amino-3- [4- (4-hydroxy-3-iodophenoxy)-3,5-diiodophenyl] propanoic
acid). We have a winner.

---

Mendel's Garden: November Edition

 
The 20th version of Mendel's Garden has just been posted on VWXYNOt? [November Kickabout in Mendel's Garden]. CAE started her blog to satisfy her frustrated inner scientist but now that she's back in academia she continues to post good science articles. She lives in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) but we try not to hold that against her.

---

"Animal Rights" Is a Complicated Issue

 
Ryan Gregory has put up an interesting posting on Genomicron [On speciesism]. He points out that most of the so-called "debate" about animal rights is at the level of 8th graders. Personally, I think he's being generous.

Ryan asks the following questions,

And so I ask, on what basis do you draw the sharp moral line between "humans" and "animals", "human rights" and "animal rights", "us" versus "them"? What rational argument do you bring in defense of speciesism? Perhaps you argue that only humans are capable of suffering, or that our intellectual capabilities are of a different kind from those of other animals. As Dawkins has noted, neither is compatible with what we understand about evolutionary history.

I don't have an answer to these questions even though I've been thinking about them far longer than youngsters like Ryan Gregory.

Swatting mosquitoes does not pose an ethical dilemma for me. Nor does eating beef, chicken, fish and shrimp. On the other hand, I don't fish and I don't hunt. I don't lose sleep over gorillas in a zoo but I do when they are killed in Africa.

There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to why some animals don't matter while others do.

I'd like to go beyond Ryan's question and include plants. What is the justification for caring about some animals and not about the weeds in your garden or the wheat plants that feed you? I don't think there is a rational basis for doing so. This seems to be one of those issues where rationality doesn't work. That makes me very uneasy.

---

[Photo Credit: Smithsonian National Zoological Park]

Gene Genie #19

 

The 19th edition of Gene Genie has just been published on ScienceRoll [Gene Genie #19: Geneticalization].

---

Goodbye Daylight Saving Time

 
Today we stopped using Daylight Saving Time in Canada.

Last Spring I posted an article about time zones [Happy Daylight Saving Time!]. It included the photograph shown here of a strange thing right outside my building on the University of Toronto campus. If you don't know what it is, follow the link.

---

Note to students at the University of Toronto: This could be on the The University Exit Exam].

Are You Liberal or Conservative?

 
Today we start a new poll of Sandwalk readers. See the sidebar on the left of this posting.

Try and answer according to where you see yourself on the political left-right spectrum without paying too much attention to the labels. The "left wing" category isn't meant to imply radical Marxism; it's meant to encompass the views of most socialists in Europe. "Liberal" doesn't mean that you have to be a member of a "Liberal" (upper-case L) party. It just means somewhat left-of-center.

Similarly, "right-wing' doesn't mean you share the point of view some evil dictator. It means you have more in common with very conservative points of view than with more moderate conservatives.

---

Happy Birthday Sandwalk!

 
Today is the first anniversary of this blog. My first posting on November 4, 2006 was Welcome to My Sandwalk. Since then there have been 1282 other postings for an average of 3.5 per day (whew!). My original goal was to average one science-related article per day and I think I've come close to that average. The others are just for fun.

I was told when I began that you have to attract hundreds of views per day in order to generate interesting comments and discussions. That seems to be about right. When I started I saw this blog as an experiment and I intended to re-evaluate after six months. When the six months was up I had not met many of my goals so it was a time of soul searching [My Six Months Are Up!]. What happened was I avoided making a decision so I just kept going by default. I'm glad I did. There are now lots of interesting discussions going on in the comments sections.

All of us science bloggers have discovered one important feature of science blogging. You hardly ever get comments about science. If you check those articles where I talked about science, there are almost no comments or discussion. On the other hand, as soon as you mention politics, religion, or racism, there are dozens of readers who want to speak up.

It's a puzzling phenomenon. That's not to say it isn't fun to talk about those non-science issues—it clearly is a lot of fun or we wouldn't be doing it. The puzzling thing is why there aren't more comments about the science.

From time-to-time I asked for photographs of readers who have walked the real sandwalk. I'd like to acknowledge those who sent in pictures.

Cody
The God Delusion
T. Ryan Gregory
PZ Myers
John Wilkins

I hope I haven't forgotten anyone. Send photographs if you're not on the list already.

For those of you who are interested in the numbers, here are the statistics for Sandwalk. What they mean is that Sandwalk is on the verge of making the transition from a low popularity blog to a medium popularity blog. For comparison, Pharyngula gets one million views a month or 20X more than Sandwalk. In terms of the Top100Science Sites Bad Astronomy is 468th, Pharyngula ranks 794th, and Sandwalk is 1006th

Sandwalk has a long, long way to go. I think I'll try for quality instead of quantity!

Here are the top five postings in terms of number of comments: [Arguing Against God] [The Evolution Poll of Sandwalk Readers] [Propaganda Techniques: Shift the Burden of Proof] [Genomics Is Dead! Long Live Systems Biology!] [Dennett on Adaptationism].

Sandwalk readers are a diverse group in terms of geography. Yes, it's true that a majority of readers come from USA addresses, but there's still a large number of you from Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are even a handful of readers from South America and Africa. Oops ... I almost forget—there are Canadian readers as well.

On other issues the Sandwalk readers are less diverse. About 70% of you are atheists and almost all of you accept evolution—even though it may be the wrong version of evolution.

Next month's poll is going to ask about education. I suspect that most readers have been to university. This month the poll will be about your political views, e.g. where you position yourself on the left-right spectrum. I'll be surprised if most readers don't lean to the left.

Anyway, thanks for reading so far. And please, keep those comments coming—that's the most fun part of blogging.

P.S. If you have any suggestions for improving the looks or content of Sandwalk this is your chance to mention them.

---

You Gotta See This ...

 
Jason Rosenhouse says you gotta see this. I agree. It's how I feel every time I try and use Adobe Photoshop.

---

The Peace Tower Clock Does Not Fall Back Tonight

 
Canada likes to think of itself as a progressive country—always moving forward. But this seems to be going to extremes. The clock on the Peace Tower (Parliament Buildings) does not go backwards. Thus, according to CBCNews [Time stops annually on Parliament Hill as Peace Tower clock falls back]...

While most Canadians scurry around their homes changing their clocks back to standard time this weekend, the clock-keepers of Parliament Hill will only sit and wait.

At 2 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Sunday, a Public Works employee will open a glass housing and flip a switch, bringing the 50-year-old mechanism that runs the Peace Tower clock, with its four faces, to a halt....

For 60 minutes, the technician will just wait and then will restart the 1950s-era electric motor drive that runs the big clock, several levels overhead, at exactly 2 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, according to the National Research Council time signal

They need to wait out the hour because the old motor drive only goes forward, says Brian Cook, the Public Works property manager for Parliament Hill.

At the risk of sounding stupid, why doesn't the technician just advance the clock eleven hours?

---

You poor Amercans ....

 
I love the wit and humor of Canadian Cynic. From time to time he comes up with some very funny lines. Today is one of those times [ Suddenly, the parallels are starting to creep me out].

You poor Americans -- you have a leader whose party doesn't even have a majority, who's submitting one vile bit of legislation and one horrendous nomination after another, and you have an "opposition" that just rolls over and plays dead on all of it. I feel so sorry for you. Now up here in Canada, we ... we ... um ... actually, never mind.

I should have thought about that argument a bit harder, really.

---

Dawkins on Watson

 
There's a lengthy article on the Guardian website about the Watson affair [Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low]. It contains quotations from Richard Dawkins and Oxford neurologist Colin Blakemore,

In the end, Watson's decided to return home, so no meetings occurred, a move that has dismayed many scientists who believed that it was vital Watson confront his critics and his public. 'What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation,' said Richard Dawkins, who been due to conduct a public interview with Watson this week in Oxford.

Dawkins's stance was supported by Blakemore. 'Jim Watson is well known for being provocative and politically incorrect. But it would be a sad world if such a distinguished scientist was silenced because of his more unpalatable views.'

I agree with Dawkins. Watson was stupid to make those remarks but they were perfectly consistent with a lifelong career of being as politically incorrect as possible in today's society. Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?

Nor is it at all clear that Watson is a racist, a point stressed last week by the Pulitzer-winning biologist E O Wilson, of Harvard University. In his autobiography, Naturalist, Wilson originally described Watson, fresh from his Nobel success, arriving at Harvard's biology department and 'radiating contempt' for the rest of the staff. He was 'the most unpleasant human being I had ever met,' Wilson recalled. 'Having risen to fame at an early age, [he] became the Caligula of biology. He was given licence to say anything that came into his mind and expected to be taken seriously. And unfortunately he did so, with casual and brutal offhandedness.'

That is a fairly grim description, to say the least. However, there is a twist. There has been a rapprochement. 'We have become firm friends,' Wilson told The Observer last week. 'Today we are the two grand old men of biology in America and get on really well. I certainly don't see him as a Caligula figure any more. I have come to see him as a very intelligent, straight, honest individual. Of course, he would never get a job as a diplomat in the State Department. He is just too outspoken. But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that he is not a racist. I am shocked at what has happened to him.'

This is a clear case of political correctness out of control. I'm embarrassed to be associated with the people who attacked Watson and I admire Dawkins (and Blakemore) for standing up to them.

---

Berlinski Quotes

 
In the comments section of Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!, glennd points us to An Interview with David Berlinski on an Intelligent Design Creationist website. (Incidentally, the commenters on that thread do a good job of proving that Berlinski isn't a mathematician.

Here's are some of the eye-popping views of this "famous" mathematician "philosopher" ...

The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background – computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs, with even the names – Sir Toejam, The Reverend Lenny Flank – suggesting nothing so much as a group of guys spending a great deal of time hanging around their basements running video games, eating pizzas, and jeering at various leggy but inaccessible young women.

Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.

And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It’s not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.

But Dawkins …

DB: An interesting case, very louche – fascinating and repellant. Fascinating because like Noam Chomsky he has the strange power effortlessly to command attention. Just possibly both men are descended from a line of simian carnival barkers, great apes who adventitiously found employment at a circus. I really should look at this more closely. Repellent because Dawkins is that depressingly familiar figure – the intellectual fanatic. What is it that he has said? “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”. Substitute ‘Allah’ for ‘evolution,’ and these words might have been uttered by some fanatical Mullah just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping. If he ever gets tired of Oxford, Dawkins could probably find a home at Finsbury Park.

It is a matter of attitude and sentiment, Look, for thousands of intellectuals, becoming a Marxist was an experience of disturbing intensity. The decision having been made, the world became simpler, brighter, cleaner, clearer. A number of contemporary intellectuals react in the same way when it comes to the Old Boy – Darwin, I mean. Having renounced Freud and all his wiles, the literary critic Frederick Crews – a man of some taste and sophistication – has recently reported seeing in random variations and natural selection the same light he once saw in castration anxiety or penis envy. He has accordingly immersed himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm. Every now and then he contributes an essay to The New York Review of Books revealing that his ignorance of any conceivable scientific issue has not been an impediment to his satisfaction.

Another example – I’ve got hundreds. Daniel Dennett has in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea written about natural selection as the single greatest idea in human intellectual history. Anyone reading Dennett understands, of course, that his acquaintance with great ideas has been remarkably fastidious. Mais, je divague …

In the case of both Crews and Dennett, it’s that God-awful eagerness to explain everything that is the give-away. The eagerness is entirely academic or even literary. But, you know, what sociologists call prole-drift is present even in a world without proles. Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say. Were smart scientists to say that a form of yeast is intermediate between the great apes and human beings, Hitchens would, no doubt, conceive an increased respect for yeast. But that’s a journalist for you: all zeal and no content. No, no, not you, of course. You’re not like the others.

The problem with Berlinski is that he's a fuzzy-headed idiot on some things but on others he hits a little too close to the mark for my comfort level. He's the Christopher Hitchens of the Intellligent Design movement.

---

[Photo Credit: Turkey's First ID Conference, March 2007]

Chalk Up One for the Intelligent Design Creationists

 
Jason Rosenhouse has been following an exchange between Micheal Behe and Theistic Evolutionist Creationist Ken Miller [In Which I Agree With Michael Behe Over Ken Miller]. Miller is upset because Behe's intelligent designer made malaria.

Miller doesn't think this fits with his idea of a loving God so he criticizes Behe in a recent review published in a Catholic magazine. Behe responds and here's what Jason says,

Bingo! That's exactly right, and it nicely punctures the sophistry offered up by theistic evolutionists.

I agree with Jason. This is a fight between two Intelligent Design Creationists even though one of them (Ken Miller) pretends that he's not a creationist. What I like about this exchange is that Behe is honest and forthright about the implications of his belief in a designer. The Theistic Evolutionist Creationists on the other hand, aren't.

---

Best Science Blog

 
There are ten candidates in the voting for Best Science Blog—part of the 2007weblogawards.

I'm familiar with two of them; Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy but not with the others. Can anyone help out? What's interesting in that list?

---

Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!

 

This jerk is David Berlinski a mathematician and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He's not a biologist and neither are his "skeptical" mathematician friends. I wonder what he would say if a bunch of evolutionary biologists expressed skepticism about vector calculus and scaler fields? They sound like pretty crazy ideas to me.

---

Denyse O'Leary's Advice to Students

 
Denyse O'Leary is teaching a short course on intelligent design creationism [Denyse O'Leary's University Course on Intelligent Design]. Presumably, the students in her class don't need to be afraid of making fools of themselves but it's a different story when creationists sit in on a real science course.

Not to worry. She has an answer for those students [Not a Darwinbot? Got a story? Tell it to The EXPELLED!].

I usually tell students, keep QUIET. Act like a good little Darwinbot. Question nothing, no matter how ridiculous. Practice keeping a straight face. (Anyone who laughs will be disqualified.) Get great marks.

It's called lying for Jesus.

---

Is Race a Biological Concept?

 
I suppose it was inevitable. The latest issue of New Scientist has the obligatory article denying that intelligence can be defined and denying that humans can be separated into races. This is required political correctness in light of Jim Watson's comments from two weeks ago.

The politically correct author in this case is Robert J. Sternberg, a psychologist at Tufts University [Race and intelligence: Not a case of black and white]. He writes ...

A further hugely complicating factor is what we mean by the word "race". Populations in different parts of the world have clearly adapted to their environments in different ways. A trait that is beneficial in one environment may work against people in another. Obesity is a problem today because it once was beneficial to eat as much as one could while one could. Stratification - classifying people into categories of higher and lower status in a society - already occurs on the basis of weight just as it has on the basis of intelligence test scores.

But there is nothing special about skin colour that serves as a basis for differentiating humans into so-called races. Skin colour correlates only weakly with genetic differentiations. Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Maryland, and Kidd have found that the genetic differences among black Africans are often greater than those between blacks and whites. The significance of those labels stems only from the fact that society has found it convenient to label races on the basis of skin colour.

Curiously, we do not apply the concept of "race" to colours of dogs or cats - or moths, for that matter. For some of these, colour can be important: being a black moth confers camouflage advantages in polluted environments and disadvantages in clean environments - and vice versa for white moths. Similarly, our ancestors in Africa were almost certainly dark-skinned because it provided better protection against the particular challenges of the environment, such as ultraviolet light. We could of course refer to moths as being of different "races". We do not, presumably because we are less interested in creating social classes for moths than for people.

The problems with our understanding of intelligence and race show that the criticism being levelled at Watson is based on science rather than political correctness. Intelligence is clearly a far more complicated issue than standard testing allows. And race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify. Whether people with a genetic predisposition toward fatness will be classified as a separate race remains to be seen.

We all know what people mean when they talk about blacks and whites. Those are synonyms for Africans and Europeans. Unless Sternberg is being extremely pedantic, he's arguing that there are no such thing as distinct populations of Europeans and Africans that differ genetically. Races—or demes if you wish—don't exist according to him.

That's nonsense, of course, but it seems to be widespread nonsense. I'm beginning to wonder whether the discipline of psychology deserves to be called a science.

There's an interesting press release out today from Cold Spring Harbor Press [Scientists discover genetic variant associated with prostate cancer in African Americans]. It reports on a study of higher incidence of prostate cancer among African Americans compared to European Americans. The scientists identified a particular locus on chromosome 8 (8q24) that may contain a genetic variant that differs between the two groups.

Other studies show that the incidence of cystic fibrosis is higher among Europeans (whites) than among Africans (blacks).

How could there be a genetic difference between Africans and Europeans if there's no such thing as race? If these are just social constructs there shouldn't be any genetic differences that correlate with other features used to distinguish the two groups, right?

---

What's Your Image?

 
PZ Myers is bored in San Diego so he came up with another meme for bloggers. This time we're supposed to Goggle for the first image that comes up when you enter your name [What's your image?].

Being a sucker, I fell for it. Guess what's the first photograph of real people that comes up with "Larry Moran"?

Right, it's a picture of PZ Myers (left) [A Visit to Downe]. How evil is that? Am I the only one this happened to? Is Pharyngula taking over the world?

---