Happy Birthday Charles Darwin

 
Today is the birthday of the greatest scientist who ever lived. When you visit Darwin's home (Down House) you get a sense of what he must have been like. One of the things that's obvious is the number of bedrooms for the children. The house must have been alive with the activities of young children. It's no wonder that Darwin needed some peace and quiet from time to time.

Gwen Raverat was Darwin's granddaughter (daughter of George Darwin). She described Down House as she knew it in the years shortly after Darwin died.

Of all places at Down, the Sandwalk seemed most to belong to my grandfather. It was a path running round a little wood which he had planted himself; and it always seemed to be a very long way from the house. You went right to the furthest end of the kitchen garden, and then through a wooden door in the high hedge, which quite cut you off from human society. Here a fenced path ran along between two great lonely meadows, till you came to the wood. The path ran straight down the outside of the wood--the Light Side--till it came to a summer-house at the far end; it was very lonely there; to this day you cannot see a single building anywhere, only woods and valleys.

I became interested in Darwin's children about fifteen years ago when I first began to appreciate the influence they had on his life. We all know the story of Annie's death when she was ten years old and how this led to Darwin's rejection of religion. There were other tragedies but Charles and Emma turned out to be very good parents.

Here's a short biography of each of Darwin's children from AboutDarwin.com

William Erasmus Darwin
The first of Darwin's children was born on December 27, 1839. He was a graduate of Christ’s College at Cambridge University, and was a banker in Southampton. He married Sara Ashburner from New York, but they had no children. William died in 1914.

Anne Elizabeth Darwin
Born on March 2 1841, and died at the age of ten of tuberculosis on April 22, 1851. It was the death of Annie that radically altered Darwin’s belief in Christianity.

Mary Eleanor Darwin
Born on September 23, 1842 but died a few weeks later on October 16th.

Henrietta Emma Darwin ("Etty")
Born on September 25, 1843 and married Richard Buckley Litchfield in August of 1871. She lived 86 years and edited Emma's (her mother) personal letters and had them published in 1904. She had no children.

George Howard Darwin
Born on July 9, 1845. He was an astronomer and mathematician, and became a Fellow of the Royal Society ... in 1879. In 1883 he became the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University, and was a Barrister-at-Law. He studied the evolution and origins of the solar system. George married Martha (Maud) du Puy from Philadelphia. They had two sons, and two daughters. He died in 1912.

Elizabeth Darwin
Born on July 8, 1847 and died in 1926. She never married and had no children.

Francis Darwin
Born on August 16, 1848. He became a botanist specializing in plant physiology. He helped his father with his experiments on plants and was of great influence in Darwin's writing of "The Power of Movement in Plants" (1880). He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1879, and taught at Cambridge University from 1884, as a Professor of Botany, until 1904. He edited many of Darwin's correspondence and published "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1887, and "More Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1903. He also edited and published Darwin’s Autobiography. He married Amy Ruck but she died when their first child, Bernard, was born in September of 1876. He then married Ellen Crofts in September of 1883, and they had one daughter, Frances in 1886. Francis was knighted in 1913, and died in 1925.

Leonard Darwin
Born on January 15, 1850. He became a soldier in the Royal Engineers in 1871, and was a Major from 1890 onwards. He taught at the School of Military Engineering at Chatham from 1877 to 1882, and served in the Ministry of War, Intelligence Division, from 1885-90. He later became a liberal-unionist MP for the town of Lichfield in Staffordshire 1892-95, and was president of the Royal Geological Society 1908-11. Leonard married Elizabeth Fraser in July of 1882. He married a second time, but had no children and died in 1943.

Horace Darwin
Born on May 13, 1851. He was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and became an engineer and a builder of scientific instruments. In 1885 he founded the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. He was the Mayor of Cambridge from 1896-97, and was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1903. Horace married Emma Farrer in January of 1880 and they had three children. He died in 1928.

Charles Waring Darwin
Born on December 6, 1856 but died on June 28 1858.

Monday's Molecule #13

 
Name this molecule. You must be specific. We need the correct scientific name. This one's a bit difficult.

As usual, there's a connection between Monday's molecule and this Wednesday's Nobel Laureate. Bonus points for finding the connection.

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

Not Ready to Make Nice

 
I'm not usually a fan of country music and I'm not usually fond of people from Texas, but I'll make an exception for the Dixie Chicks. I just watched them sing Not Ready to Make Nice on the Grammy Awards show. Introduced by Joan Baez, no less (see below).

Joan Baez and Friend

 

Joan Baez: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

 
I think you have to be over 50 to remember her and what she stood for.

Gene Genie Carnival

 
There's a new Carnival in town. It's called gene genie and the description is,

A blog carnival on genes, gene-related diseases. We plan to cover the whole genome before 2082.

I'm going to assume that they're talking about the human genome. Dibs on the chaperone genes.

The plan is to publish a collection of articles every two weeks. That's 26 per year. In order to get done by 2085 we'll have to post articles on eleven different genes every two weeks. Better get busy.

Heat Shock and Molecular Chaperones

 
Protein folding takes place inside cells at their normal temperature. This temperature is 37°C in the case of mammals. If cells encounter higher temperatures, their proteins become unfolded since the minimal energy conformation at one temperature isn't the same minimum at a another temperature.

The difference in temperature isn't large. Many mammalian proteins become unstable at 42°C. This is a temperature encountered with high fever but it's also common in skin cells that have been exposed to the sun or the water in a hot tub. Temperature differences are even more common in species that do not regulate their temperature (e.g., plants, fungi, bacteria, invertebrates).

All living cells have defense mechanisms that protect against exposure to high temperature. They produce special proteins called heat shock proteins in order to recover damaged proteins that have unfolded at the high temperature. Many of the heat shock proteins are molecular chaperones. These are proteins that guide proper refolding of damaged proteins.

Shortly after the discovery of heat shock proteins we learned that these proteins are always present even in cells that haven't been stressed. In other words, molecular chaperones play a role in normal protein folding as well as helping to recover from damage. This role is illustrated in the energy diagram (top left).

One of the pathways to the energy minimum follows the line labeled "B." This traverses a local energy well and proteins can get trapped in this pit. What happens is that they adopt a less-than-optimal conformation but they can't easily unfold and refold to fall down into the deeper well because that would require an increase in energy. It will happen eventually, but it could take a long time. Chaperones help direct folding along the proper pathway and his speeds up the folding process.

Recall from the earlier discussion of How Proteins Fold that folding is an entropy-driven process where the end result is to bury hydrophobic residues in the central core of the protein. Another thing that can happen during folding is that exposed hydrophobic surfaces of one protein can interact with similar surfaces in another protein leading to aggregation. Chaperones can bind to these hydrophobic surfaces and prevent aggregation. This is another way of speeding up folding.

There are many different chaperones. My personal favorite is HSP70 (Heat Shock Protein of relative molecular mass 70,000). This is a protein that's found in every type of living species. It is the most highly conserved protein in all of biology so it's an excellent protein for looking at deep phylogeny. The role of HSP70 as a molecular chaperone is to bind to proteins as they are being synthesized in order to prevent improper folding. It also prevents aggregation.

Another famous chaperone used to be called HSP60 since it was a heat shock protein of M_r= 60,000. It was also known as GroE since it allowed for the growth of bacteriophage λ gene E mutants. Now it's known as chaperonin. Note that the term "chaperonin" refers to a specific molecular chaperone.

Chaperonin is a barrel-shaped molecule consisting of two rings of seven subunits surrounding a central cavity (one subunit is colored green in the image) . The top of the cavity is sealed by cap of seven smaller subunits. The chaperone works by capturing small unfolded proteins in the cavity where the hydrophobic environment encourages rapid folding to the correct conformation. Aggregation is also prevented by keeping the folding protein away from other proteins.

The inside of the cavity is referred to as an Anfinsen cage after Christian Anfinsen, a Nobel Laureate who worked on protein folding (see next Wednesday's Nobel Laureate). The release of unfolded protein is coupled to the hydrolysis of ATP. This is a common feature of most molecular chaperones.

Daniel vs the Christians

Let me make it clear that I'm not a fan of Daniel Dennett. I think his version of evolution is sophomoric and wrong. His book "Darwins' Dangerous Idea" was one of the worst books on evolutionary theory that has ever been published.

Nevertheless, from time to time Dennett gets things right. One of those times was in the New York Review of Books last month where he took on Allen Orr [letter from Daniel Dennett].

You might recall the kerfuffle over Orr's review of The God Delusion. Orr claimed that Dawkins had ignored all the more sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Here's part of Dennett's reply,

H. Allen Orr, in "A Mission to Convert" [NYR, January 11], his review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and other recent books on science and religion, says that Dawkins is an amateur, not professional, atheist, and has failed to come to grips with "religious thought" with its "meticulous reasoning" in any serious way. He notes that the book is "defiantly middlebrow," and I wonder just which highbrow thinkers about religion Orr believes Dawkins should have grappled with. I myself have looked over large piles of recent religious thought in the last few years in the course of researching my own book on these topics, and I have found almost all of it to be so dreadful that ignoring it entirely seemed both the most charitable and most constructive policy. (I devote a scant six pages of Breaking the Spell to the arguments for and against the existence of God, while Dawkins devotes roughly a hundred, laying out the standard arguments with admirable clarity and fairness, and skewering them efficiently.) There are indeed recherché versions of these traditional arguments that perhaps have not yet been exhaustively eviscerated by scholars, but Dawkins ignores them (as do I) and says why: his book is a consciousness-raiser aimed at the general religious public, not an attempt to contribute to the academic microdiscipline of philosophical theology. The arguments Dawkins exposes and rebuts are the arguments that waft from thousands of pulpits every week and reach millions of television viewers every day, and neither the televangelists nor the authors of best-selling spiritual books pay the slightest heed to the subtleties of the theologians either.

Who does Orr favor? Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Plantinga, or some more recondite thinkers? Orr brandishes the names of two philosophers, William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and cites C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, a fairly nauseating example of middle-brow homiletic in roughly the same league on the undergraduate hit parade as Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (1998) and transparently evasive when it comes to "meticulous reasoning." If it were a book in biology—Orr's discipline—I daresay he'd pounce on it like a pit bull, but like many others he adopts a double standard when the topic is religion....

[Hat Tip: [RichardDawkins.net]

Sylvia Browne Is a Fraud

 
The so-called psychic Sylvia Browne is a fraud. There's a website called stopsylviabrowne devoted to exposing her. Recently Sylvia Browne's lawyers tried to shut down the website but the owner wasn't cowed. He got his own lawyers to fight back. You should see the letter they sent to Sylvia Browne's lawyers. Read it [here].

Delicious.

[Hat Tip: The Bad Astronomer]

The Separation of Church and State

John Pieret and I have often argued about religion and science. He is a classic appeaser even though he doesn't support any of the established religions. John notes that this is the anniversary of a famous court decision in America [Madison's Avenue].

John list ten "rules" concerning the separation of church and state. I thought I might respond to those rules in the context of a non-American. It will be interesting to see if there's a difference in how Americans perceive "separation of church and state" and how it's perceived in other countries.

John's rules are in boldface and my response are in italics.

10 Commandments of the Separation of Church and State:

1. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

I disagree in the sense that many countries with a state church don't seem to have as the same problems as the USA. So, I would not advocate a hard and fast rule that forbids state religions. I don't think a modern country should set up a new state religion but neither do I think that existing ones need to be abolished. I would definitely support disestablishment, myself, but antidisestabishmentarianism shouldn't be illegal.

2. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

I disagree with this as well. There's nothing seriously wrong with tax breaks for religious charities, for example and there's nothing wrong with laws that proclaim national holidays on days with special religious significance for one group. (e.g., Good Friday) I prefer to live in a society that chooses not to favor religions but it shouldn't be illegal.

3. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will.

Nobody disagrees with the "force" part but the "influence" part is a different story. I favor a government that influences people to stay away from churches that preach hatred and bigotry.

4. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Everyone agrees with this one.

5. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs.

I agree in principle. There might be some extreme cases of religions that merit banning but these are exceptions. In a case where one's religious beliefs might case harm (e.g., refusing blood transfusions for children) the state is justified in stepping in even though this can easily be seen as punishment.

6. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious disbeliefs.

This one seems pretty straightforward. It's the one that's most difficult to enforce, however. Right now atheists would have a very hard time getting elected in many parts of the USA.

7. No person can be punished for church attendance or non-attendance.

Same as #5.

8. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

I disagree. Tax money is used to support religious schools in Canada and many European countries. While I would argue strongly against such a practice, I see no reason to make it against the law. It's a matter for society to decide, not the courts.

9. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups.

Lots of countries have state religions. In modern civilized countries, they're pretty harmless for the most part. I don't see any reason to have a constitutional amendment in Great Britain.

10. No religious organizations or groups can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of a state or the Federal Government.

Same response as #9.

What a Surprise!

 

You are 100% atheist!

 

Hooray you are an atheist with respect to most or all gods. Good work. Hope you aren't disbelieving in the wrong one...

Am I An Atheist
Create a Quiz

All Seven Continents

 
I was just checking to see where you all were coming from when I realized that in the past few hours I've had visitors from all seven continents!!!

Isn't that amazing? (I'm pretty sure there are Sandwalk readers in Antarctica—you just can't see the white dots against the snow.)

Uncommon Descent Supports Bigots

 
Considering the mess that Paula Zhan has created, you'd think the Intelligent Design Creationists wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. After all, they don't want to be seen defending bigots, do they?

Yep, they do. Bashing atheists and Muslims is just too much for DaveScot to resist [Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel - YOU GO, GIRLS!].

(I think I've figured it out. The best way to predict how the IDiots are going to behave is to assume they'll do the stupidist thing you can imagine.)

Here's the original show—the one that impressed DaveScot. Watch the followup tonight when Paula Zhan interviews Richard Dawkins. Given Paula's track record I'm predicting that she will look very stupid foolish. I'm betting the IDiots are gonna love it.

The IDiots Don't Under stand Irreducible Compexity

 
Evolution News & Views, the Intellgent Design website, has just posted a quotation from a Professor of Design and Nature(?) at Bristol University in the UK.

I've been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I've learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I've seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time.

I thought that by now even the IDiots would know that irreducibly complex systems can arise by evolution. Apparently I was wrong. The IDiots haven't been paying attention to anything that scientists have been saying over the past 15 years.

I guess that's why they're IDiots.

American Museum of Natural History

 
The American Museum of Natural History has just opened its new exhibit on human origins (see The New York Times). PZ Myers notes a paragraph in the article about balancing religion and science,

One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.

Fine, I understand why this might be considered necessary in a science museum but shouldn't the other side be presented as well? After all, most scientists are non-believers.

Why not have a video presentation of atheist scientists who point out the conflicts between science and religion? Why not present the reasons why evolutionary biology is incompatible with many religious beliefs?

I wonder which "scientists" are featured in the presentation? Do you suppose it's the usual suspects like Ken Miller and Francis Collins or are there some Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists as well?