Name This Tree

 
Seriously, what kind of tree is this? It grows in Belgium.

---

[Photo by Ms. Sandwalk]

Who Does This Remind You Of?

 

---

[Photo by Ms. Sandwalk]

Herent Belgium

 
We're staying in a town called Herent, in Belgium. Our apartment is in a renovated manor house on a working farm (goats, chickens, ponies, cat).

Herent is a few kilometers north of Leuvan and only 20 minutes from Jane, Michael and our new granddaughter Zoë.

It's an easy drive back and forth except for the snow and Belgium drivers. Today we're off to our first babysitting job!!!!

---

Critical Thinking

 
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted this video from QualiaSoup. It's one of the best descriptions of critical thinking I've ever seen. Critical thinking is what we're supposed to be teaching our students in school and university.

We're not doing a very good job.

---

Homeopathy and Avogadro's Number

 
Avogadro's Number, or it's more modern equivalent, Avogadro's Constant, is 6.022 × 10²³ mol^-1.

There's a new website called "Homeopathy: There's nothing in it" that explains why Avogadro's Number is important in understanding why homeopathy is a fraud.

---

[Hat Tip: Phil Plait]

Zoë Jane

This is my new granddaughter, Zoë Jane. Congratulations to my daughter Jane and her husband Michael. In a few hours we'll be flying to Paris then taking a train to Brussels to visit them. Meanwhile, there are more pictures at The First Picture's on Ms. Sandwalk's blog and a video of her first bath on Jane and Michael's blog [Zoë's First Bath].

---

The Key Darwin and Design Science News Stories of the Year

 
The people at Access Research Network have compiled a list of the best stories of 2009. These are stories that lend support to the idea that God exists and that he plays an important role in creation of the universe.

The stories are supposed to fall into two categories; anti-science stories that cast doubt on modern scientific explanations, and stories about evidence supporting intelligent design creationism.

Here's the list from: “The Key Darwin and Design Science News Stories of the Year”. Judge for yourselves how many fall into each of the two categories.

1. The Modern Synthesis is Gone
2. Cell Motors Work in Concert
3. Early Large Galaxies Stun Cosmologists
4. The Ida Hype and Bust
5. Walking White Blood Cells
6. Signature in the Cell
7. Cells Use Cloud Computing
8. Peppered Moths Oscillates Back to Gray
9. Reverse Engineering Biological Designs
10. Cambrian Explosion Continues to Challenge Materialistic Theories
11. The Collectivist Revolution in Biology
12. Failed Assault on Irreducible Complexity
13. Intelligent Input Required for Life
14. The Edge of Evolution Confirmed
15. The Ardi Hype and Bust

---

Communicating Science

 
The primary goal of science writers and science journalists is to be effective communicators of science. However, they have had little impact on the general public over the past few decades since the level of science literacy has barely budged.

Most citizens have little idea of how science works and many reject outright the basic fundamentals of science.

Having failed to achieve their goal, and finding themselves irrelevant when it comes to making a profit (largely because of their own failure), they are now looking for someone to blame. Chris Mooney has decided to blame scientists for not being science journalists. See his latest contribution at On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up. He doesn't really mean "speak up" as scientists, of course. What he means is that scientists should learn how to "frame" and fudge their position in order to please the general public. Making friends with theists and promoting religious scientists is supposed to help.

What's interesting about this debate is that science writers like Chris Mooney are convinced they know how to teach the general public in spite of the fact that science writers—as a profession—have not been successful in the past.

Why should scientist listen to them?

---

How Long Does It Take to Recognize an IDiot?

Ken Ham is the man behind Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. He's upset with Lawrence Krauss because Krauss has been critical of anti-science creationists in general and the Creation Museum in particular. Ken Ham is particularly upset because Krauss was critical of th Creation Museum before he had actually visited it.

Krauss himself got criticism from some in the secular press because he had not even visited the museum to see it for himself. Presumably because of this criticism, he did come some time later and walked through the Creation Museum exhibits with AiG’s CCO, Mark Looy. Mark actually timed Krauss’s visit. He took a whole 22 minutes to walk through the museum, most of the time asking Mark Looy questions and only occasionally glancing at some of the exhibits. Considering it would take a person nearly one and a half hours to watch the programs in the various theatres, including the Planetarium and SFX theatre, plus take 2 hours to watch all the 50-plus videos in the various exhibits, and a further two hours to read all the signage—it was obvious Krauss wasn’t the least bit interested in researching the content of the museum (as one would expect from a real scientist and well-known anti-creationist commentator), but only visited presumably to tell people he has seen the Creation Museum and thus could comment on it—what a farce!

Now, let's be fair to Lawrence Krauss. He's a very smart guy and I'm certain that it didn't take him 22 minutes to recognize that the museum was a farce. I'm sure he stayed an extra 21 minutes just to be polite to his host.

---

Time Magazine's Top 10 Scientific Discoveries

Here's the list of Time Magazine's Top 10 Scientific Discoveries. Given all the hype about The Darwinius Affair last May it's amazing that the discovery of this fossil didn't make the list.

There were several other huge scientific breakthroughs that failed to make the list: proof that Darwin was wrong, the overthrow of evolutionary theory, exposing the fraud of climate change, and the publication of Unscientific America.

There are some real scientific stories that were ignored by Time magazine: the creation of artificial stem cells (continuing), the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, Nobel Prizes for telomeres and ribosome structure, and rapid human genome sequencing.

1. Our Oldest Ancestor, "Ardi"
2. The Human Epigenome, Decoded
3. Gene Therapy Cures Color Blindness
4. A Robot Performs Science
5. Breeding Tuna on Land
6. Water on the Moon
7. The Fundamental Lemma, Solved
8. Teleportation!
9. The Large Hadron Collider, Revived
10. A New Planet (or Brown Dwarf?) Discovered

It looks like a bad year for science if this is the best of the best.

In case you've forgotten, here's the top 10 list from last year [2008].

1. Large Hadron Collider
2. The North Pole — of Mars
3. Creating Life
4. China Soars into Space
5. More Gorillas in the Mist
6. Brave New Worlds
7. The Power of Invisibility
8. Cenozoic Park?
9. Can You Spell Science?
10. First Family

---

Does Excess Genomic DNA Protect Against Mutation?

Many eukaryotic genomes have a large amount of "excess" DNA that doesn't have any of the functions we normally assign to DNA (protein-coding, regulatory, origins of replication, centromeres, RNA genes etc.). Many of us think this is junk DNA. It has no function and could easily be dispensed with.

One of the adaptive explanations for this excess DNA is that it protects the functional DNA from mutations. Ryan Gregory thinks this is a serious scientific hypothesis even though he's skeptical. He has a wonderful post that reviews the history of the idea and how the hypothesis should be tested [Does junk DNA protect against mutation?].

The bottom line is that this hypothesis is not taken very seriously by the scientific community for some very good reasons.

First, most spontaneous mutations in the germ line seem to be due to errors in DNA replication. The overall rate of evolutionary change is consistent with the mutation rate of DNA replication + repair, suggesting that it is the dominant form of mutation. This mutation rate is based on the number of nucleotides replicated. What this means is that the rate of mutation in functional DNA is independent of how much other DNA is being replicated. Excess DNA offers no protection from the spontaneous error rate of DNA replication.

THEME

Genomes & Junk DNA
However, the protection hypothesis may be applicable to other kinds of mutation such as those caused by chemicals or ionizing radiation. In multicellular organisms such as animals, fungi, and plants, this possible protection may prolong the lifetime of somatic cells or prevent them from becoming deregulated (e.g., cancer).

The idea is that excess DNA may shield the functional DNA from the effects of these mutagens but this would only work if the excess DNA was specifically organized so that it surrounded the functional DNA and provided physical shielding. There's no evidence that this is the case and, furthermore, it doesn't make much sense. The functional DNA in a nucleus is already shielded by lots of proteins, lipids and membranes so it's unlikely that a bit more DNA is going to make a difference.

Not only that, but some kinds of DNA damage caused by these mutagens will cause strand breakage. What does that mean? It means that the larger the genome the greater the chance that damage will occur. In other words, excess DNA leads to greater rates of mutation, not lower rates of mutation, for those types of mutagens. Ryan Gregory shows results from several studies during the 1970s that establish that fact.

I sympathize with Ryan's call for experimental support of the hypothesis but I'd also like to point out that not only does it not have direct evidence to back it up but it's not even theoretically feasible. It's just a bad hypothesis based largely on a misunderstanding of mutations and how they arise.

Also, the protection hypothesis doesn't pass The Onion Test which is one of the first requirements for an adaptive explanation of junk DNA.

---

On the Evolution of Homosexuality

 
A reader alerted me to a posting by Greta Christina on The Blowfish Blog.¹ She discusses Why Did Gayness Evolve?.

This is not your ordinary posting on the topic. For one thing, she acknowledges that you can only discuss the evolution of homosexuality if there's a significant genetic component. She makes the assumption that there is a genetic component but it is not proven.

From that point on, her analysis of the possible reasons for evolving homosexuality is as good as it gets. Greta Christina avoids the obvious clichés and concentrates on real biology. The words "spandrels" is used a lot.

This is someone who understands evolution. Speaking of understanding evolution, in order to discuss whether homosexuality evolved you need to have a workable definition of evolution. My definition restricts evolution to heritable changes in a population and that's why the discussion of a possible genetic component is relevant.

Some people prefer a different definition of evolution—something like "descent with modification." I wonder how you can discuss the possible evolution of homosexuality using such a definition of evolution? Would it mean that the increased prevalence (and acceptance) of homosexual behavior in ancient societies was an example of evolution?

---

1. Thank-you Fred.