The Largest Single Organism on Earth

 
The largest known organism is not some giant squid or other cephalopod. It's a stand of quaking aspen in Utah known as Pando. What seem to be individual trees are actually just the visible expression of a gigantic underground organism. Every "tree" is connected via the root system. The individual "trees" are genetically identical. (Erroneously referred to as "clones.")

The total size and weight of this organism isn't known with certainty but it's surely more than 6,000,000 kg. The Wikipedia article mentions that Pando is probably the oldest known organism as well, dating back 80,000 years. I'd like to confirm this, if possible. Does anyone know how accurate this date is and whether there is anything older?

Lots of plants are bigger than cephalopods. There are even some mushrooms that are bigger!

Nobel Laureates: Dam and Doisy

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1943.


Henrik Carl Peter Dam (1895-1976): "for his discovery of vitamin K"

Edward Adelbert Doisy (1893-1986): "for his discovery of the chemical nature of vitamin K"

Henrik Dam and Edward Doisy won the Nobel Prize in 1943 for their contributions to the understanding of blood clotting, especially the role of vitamin K.

Dam was working at the Biochemical Institute in Copenhagen during the 1930's. He was studying diet in chickens and noticed that his flock was suffering from frequent hemorrhages. After eliminating the most obvious causes, including lack of vitamin C, Dam proceeded to isolate the missing factor that caused the deficiency in blood clotting. The effort is described in the presentation speech.

In cooperation with F. Schønheyder, it was found by Dam in 1934 that an addition of hempseed to the food prevented the bleedings. This forced him to the conclusion that hempseed must contain a still unknown substance which has a protective effect against certain hemorrhages. This substance, which was found to be necessary for the coagulation of the blood, is termed by Dam the coagulation vitamin or vitamin K. Dam moreover found that this vitamin occurs not only in the vegetable kingdom, for example in the seeds of cabbage, tomatoes, soya beans and lucerne, but also in certain animal organs, especially in the liver. Dam and the American investigator Almquist showed almost simultaneously that activity follows the non-saponifiable lipoid fraction. Vitamin K is formed also by bacteria in the intestinal canal, as was shown in 1938 by Almquist and his co-workers. The organism's need of this vitamin may thus be satisfied either by supply with the food, or by its formation in the intestinal canal.

Dam was able to show that a lack of vitamin K led to a deficiency in prothrombin, the precursor of thrombin. Thrombin is the enzyme that cleaves fibrinogen to create fibrin and it is fibrin molecules that interact to form a blood clot.

The nature of vitamin K remained a mystery until 1939 when Edward A. Doisy, Professor of Biochemistry at St. Louis University School of Medicine, determined its structure and synthesized it in the laboratory.


By 1943 it was apparant that vitamin K could relieve the symptoms of inappropriate hemorraging in humans and treatment with vitamin K became routine as described in the Nobel Prize presentation speech.

It was in fact soon found that this vitamin was to assume great importance in the treatment of hemorrhagic diseases in man. Certain diseases of the liver and gall ducts with jaundice are characterized by a marked tendency to hemorrhage, and it was found that this tendency, being due to a lack of prothrombin, could be remedied with vitamin K. In this way operative treatment in such cases has become much less risky than before. Also in certain protracted intestinal diseases there is a hemorrhagic tendency, due to insufficient absorption of vitamin K through the intestine. These cases too have been successfully treated with vitamin K.

It is, however, in the checking of hemorrhages in newborn babies that this vitamin has assumed its greatest practical importance. At this early age, hemorrhages - sometimes involving menace to life - occur far oftener than in more advanced stages. A great many of these cases have proved to be due to deficiency of vitamin K and can be cured by the supply of that vitamin. What is more, by treating the mother shortly before delivery, or the newborn child immediately afterwards, it is possible also to prevent the occurrence of such hemorrhages. Even if there are also neonatal hemorrhages which are not due to a lack of vitamin K and therefore cannot be cured by the supply thereof, the number of cases of such deficiency in the neonatal stage is rather large, and then vitamin K often conduces to save life. Indeed, it may be said that the discovery of vitamin K has revolutionized the treatment of these not uncommon cases.

Nowadays the role of vitamin K is so well understood, and the compound is so easily available, that it's rare to encounter deficiencies.

Most Metabolic Diseases Affect Unimportant Genes

 
Okay, so the title is a little bit disingenuous. Obviously metabolic diseases like cystic fibosis, thalasemia, phenylketonuria, and Huntington's Disease are not trivial. They cause devastating problems for patients and family. Many metabolic diseases are lethal. That's not "unimportant."

The point isn't that the genes are "unimportant" in that sense. What I meant is that defects in essential genes—the ones are part of core metabolism—do not usually show up as metabolic defects. The reason is that any defects in, say, RNA polymerase, will usually be embryonic lethals and we will never see them [RNA Polymerase Genes in the Human Genome].

The defects that are most likely to show up as metabolic diseases are those where the defect is not so severe as to prevent embryonic development. Thus, a defect in adult hemoglobin (thalasemia), for example, will only be manifest after birth and even then there are compensating genes that can prevent death. Same with cystic fibrosis. Not to minimize the consequences of the disease, but we only see it as a metabolic defect because it isn't immediately lethal.

The point of this little note is to correct a widespread misconception. Many people think that metabolic diseases identify the most important genes in humans. The ones that are essential for life. In fact that's not usually the case. The really important genes do not have associated metabolic diseases. As a general rule, it's only the second tier of important genes that are associated with metabolic disease. The ones that are not essential for cell survival during fetal development.

Vitamin K

 
Vitamin K (phylloquinone) is a lipid vitamin found in plants as K₁, or phytylmenaquinone, and in bacteria as K₂, or multiprenylmenaquinone. Vitamin K is related to ubiquinone [Monday's Molecule #10]. Ubiquinone serves as an electron carrier in reactions such as membrane-associated electron transport [Ubiquinone and the Proton Pump]. Related cofactors in plants (plastoquinone) and bacteria (menaquinone) can be absorbed in the intestine and converted to vitamin K.


Although we can't synthesize vitamin K ourselves, we usually get enough of it from intestinal bacteria. Vitamin K deficiency is not common for this reason. The most common symptom of vitamin K deficiency is hemorraging due to a defect in blood clotting. The symptoms are frequently seen in newborn babies, especially those born prematurely because they lack intestinal bacteria. This is why premature babies are given vitamin K.

Vitamin K is a cofactor in reactions required for the synthesis of some of the proteins involved in blood coagulation. It is the coenzyme for a mammalian carboxylase that catalyzes the conversion of specific glutamate residues to γ-carboxyglutamate residues. The reduced (hydroquinone) form of vitamin K participates in the carboxylation as a reducing agent.

Silent Mutations and Neutral Theory

 
This is a post about the quality of science writing and what can be done about it. I'm picking on an article in SEED magazine here but it's not because SEED is any worse than the competition. It's partly because SEED makes claims about raising the quality of science writing and science education. For example, this statement from a SEED press release seems to indicate that they aspire to better science writing than the competition [Seed Media Group Adds Scientific and Political Pundits to Editorial Team] and certainly their commitment to science bloggers suggests the same aspiration.

As part of its growth strategy, Seed Media Group will develop original science content aimed at a general audience for distribution across a number of media channels, including magazines, books, newspapers, online, topical blogs, digital, film and television. Seed Media Group's endeavors will present science in the same culturally articulate and accessible style that earned Seed a prestigious UTNE Independent Press Award in 2004 and the support of leading advertisers.

It's reasonable, in my opinion, to expect that SEED will live up to this billing. They've certainly made a major step in that direction by hiring PZ Myers to write a monthly science column. The science in his first two contributions is impeccable. As we will see, it raises the question of whether you need to be a scientist in order to get the science right. I hope that's not true.

I'm not going to criticize PZ's articles. Instead, I want to examine another article published in the March 2007 issue of SEED. (That's the one with the "TRUTH" prominently displayed on the cover!) The article in question is titled The Sound of Silence and it's written by Lindsay Bothwick, an experienced science writer with a M.Sc. from McGill and a Masters degree in journalism from Ryerson University here in Toronto. She's a senior editor at SEED so I'm assuming she can take criticism.

The article talks about silent mutations in protein-coding regions. The focus is on a recent Science paper showing that some silent mutations affect the activity of a protein. The point I will make is that the SEED article is very misleading and misrepresents the state of knowledge in this field.

Before getting into the article, let me give you some background.

The most common kinds of mutations are those where one nucleotide is substituted for another. For example, a G or an A or a T replaces a C. This substitution usually results from an error during DNA replication.

If the mutation (allele) persists in a population, it's called a single nucleotide polymorphism or SNP (pronounced snip). The term polymorphism means that there are at least two different alleles segregating in the population. Often these are the original "wild-type" allele and the new mutant allele.

We now recognize that genomes within a population are very heterogeneous. Polymorphism is common. This level of variation was discovered in studies during the 1960's and it's much higher than most scientists thought prior to 1960.

There are three explanations that can, in theory, account for this high level of polymorphism

First, if we think about SNP's, they can represent a transient phase of fixation by natural selection. In this case, one of the alleles is rapidly replacing the other and we just happen to catch it in the act. Back in the days when natural selection was the only game in town it was thought that this transient stage would be rare so populations were not expected to show much variation.

Polymorphism can also be explained by balancing selection. This is when the population has to maintain several different alleles because there is selection for heterogeneity. The classic example is the mutation for sickle cell anemia. When a person is homozygous for the mutant allele they exhibit the symptoms of anemia but when heterozygous they are resistant to malaria. Balancing selection is not common and it can't explain the variation that was discovered in the 1960's.

The third explanation was that the variation is mostly neutral. The idea here is that the majority of mutations are not being acted upon by natural selection. They are not being removed by purifying selection; they are not being maintained by balancing selection; and they are not rising to fixation under positive selection. It was the discovery of significant polymorphism in populations that gave rise to Neutral Theory in the first place ((Kimura, 1968, King and Jukes, 1969).

Neutral mutations will eventually become fixed or be eliminated from the population and the change in frequency is due entirely to random genetic drift. Drift is a much slower process than natural selection so there will always be large numbers of neutral alleles in the process of becoming fixed or extinct.

Neutral Theory and random genetic drift explains variation and it also explains molecular evolution and the (approximate) molecular clock. There are no other explanations that make sense and nobody has offered a competing explanation since Motoo Kimura (1968) or Jack King and Thomas Jukes (1969) published their papers almost fifty years ago. (Aside from occasional nitpicks, of course. There are always scientists who like to show that some mutations that were thought to be neutral are actually beneficial or deleterious. None of them have mounted a serious claim that most variation or most of molecular evolution can be explained by natural selection.)

The history of variation and the competing explanations were well covered by Lewontin in his 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. (Lewontin published the classic 1960's papers that revealed extensive within population variation.)

Long-held assumptions about "silent" genetic mutations have been torn down, challenging a fundamental evolutionary theory.

Lindsay Borthwick
SEED
March 2007This brings me to the article in the March issue of SEED [The Sound of Silence]. It begins with a conclusion that's all too common in popular science writing these days,

Scattered throughout the human genome are thousands of mutations that biologists have treated mostly as footnotes. They're hardly few in number—in coding regions of the genome, there are as many as 15,000—but biologists regard them as mutations that simply don't change the way a cell functions. Both in name and effect, they have been accepted as "silent." Now, however, new discoveries are showing that silent mutations appear to play an important role in dozens of human genetic diseases, a fact that is forcing biologists to discard a long-held evolutionary theory and to reexamine the very rules governing the transfer of information from DNA to proteins.

What's going on here? Has there been some extraordinary new discovery that's about to overthrow evolutionary theory and the "rules" of information flow? I will attempt to show that this rhetoric is completely unjustified. It presents a misleading picture of the state of modern science.

The author is talking about silent mutations. These are mutations in the coding region of a gene that alter a codon without changing the amino acid. The genetic code is redundant because there are 64 possible codons and only 20 amino acids. This means that several amino acids have multiple codons. For example, there are six codons for leucine (Leu): TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, and CTG. If an original TTA codon is mutated to CTA then it still specifies leucine and this is a silent mutation.

The concept of codon bias has been known for almost forty years and it's an important part of all university courses in molecular biology. Some codons are more efficient than others during translation because the levels of various tRNAs in a cell are not identical. A rare codon will be translated less efficiently because the tRNA that binds to it will not be recognized as frequently as the codon for more abundant tRNAs. There are published codon usage tables for most species showing the preferred codons in that species. Highly expressed genes will preferentially use the codons recognized by the abundant tRNA species. All students know what these tables mean. It means that not all silent mutations are neutral. (It's on the exam!)

This is only one possible reason for silent mutations not being neutral. The various possibilites were discussed by Jukes back in 1980 when he revisited the evidence for neutral changes (Jukes, 1980)) . He gave some specific examples and then addressed the theoretical problem,

The question arises, are these silent changes actually neutral, or have they taken place for adaptive reasons, such as the requirement for a specific secondary structure in mRNA, or a preferential use for certain transfer RNAs in regulating the rate of synthesis of a protein?

For some results the answer is that the silent changes really are neutral, although in a few cases there is evidence of adaptation. The point is that these issues have been recognized and dealt with for decades.

The existence of a few exceptions to a rule does not invalidate the generality. That's an important point. It's one that all science journalists need to grasp. There are no absolute, inviolate, rules in biology. The generalities are all about relative frequencies. Are most silent mutations neutral or are most subject to natural selection?

As Jukes put it 27 years ago,

The neutral approach to molecular evolution is a proposal to prove a negative, which is something like trying to show that a given substance is not a carcinogen. The counterrresponse to the publications by Kimura (1968) and King & Jukes (1969) has been quite strong. Any exceptions to neutrality are usually taken as disproof of it, and many authors have cited such exceptions for this purpose. We have, indeed, developed evidence for such exceptions ourselves, because a theory should be challenged by those who have postulated it.

For example, the finding that synonymous codons for each amino acid are not use in equal amounts in β-hemoglobin mRNA has been cited as disproof of the neutral model, as if such a departure from randomness in a single gene were pertinent.

As the old expression goes, "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." It helps a lot to be aware of the history of biology and the contributions of those who developed our current understanding. Modern science writers often fail to understand that there's not much that's new in biology these days. In this case, it's just not true that biologists were too stupid to recognize that some silent mutations weren't neutral. There was no "orthodoxy" that all silent mutations were neutral and, therefore, no orthodoxy has been overturned.

Silent mutations have no impact on the amino acid sequence of proteins and, therefore, were not expected to change their function.

Lindsay Borthwick
SEED
March 2007The SEED article goes on to describe the results of experiments done by Kimchi-Safaty et al. (2007). They presented evidence that a cluster of three silent mutations in the MDR1 gene led to a slow down in translation and subsequent misfolding of the protein. Lindasy Bortwick then writes, "Through a series of elegant experiments, the team put to rest the idea that silent mutations were neutral." Of course, they did no such thing. They merely added one more data point to something that we already knew; namely, not all silent mutations are neutral.

Borthwick closes with,

Most fundamentally, the involvement of silent mutations in disease undermines the neutral theory of molecular evolution. This theory, posited by Motoo Kimura in the late 1960s and a powerful influence ever since, asserted that the vast majority of mutations were neutral, having no effect on the fitness of an organism, and spread through a population by chance. The fact that silent mutations are not harmless anomalies of nature means that they are not neutral. In contrast, some, if not all, silent sites must be subject to the forces of Darwinian natural selection.

The theme of the article is that neutral theory is in big trouble. This point is emphasized in the highlighted quotations that are prominently displayed on page 35 (see the two boxes above). That's totally wrong and it distorts the modern consensus among knowledgeable scientists. Neutral Theory is alive and well, thank-you very much. It can easily accommodate one more example of a non-neutral mutation.

I believe that science writers have an obligation to get the concepts right and I believe they shouldn't misrepresent the science they're supposed to be presenting in a "culturally articulate and accessible style" to a general audience. A layperson reading this article would go away with the impression that a decades old concept has just been overthrown by a single paper published in Science. That's irresponsible journalism.

Jukes, T.H. (1980) Neutral Changes Revisited. In The Evolution of Protein Structure and Function, pp. 203-219.
.
Lewontin, R.C. (1974) The Paradox of Variation. in Evolution Mark Ridley ed., Oxfrod University Press, Oxford UK.

Kimchi-Sarfaty, C., Oh, J.M., Kim, I.W., Sauna, Z.E., Calcagno, A.M., Ambudkar, S.V., and Gottesman, M.M. (2007) A "silent" polymorphism in the MDR1 gene changes substrate specificity. Science 315, 525-528.

Kimura, M. (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217, 624-626.

King,J.L. and Jukes,T.H. (1969) Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 164, 788-798.

The Taxonomy Song

 
Pop on over to Evolving Thoughts where John Wilkins has posted a YouTube video of kids singing The Taxonomy Song. Do you recognize the accent? I think they're Australian, no?

Problem is, they get the highest levels wrong (the rest is okay). How many people can correctly name the FIVE KINGDOMS of life? How many people can come up with a better classification scheme?

While you're over on John's blog, read Microbial Species - postlude. It's a discussion about how to identify bacteria species. Remember that the biological species concept doesn't work very well with bacteria because they don't have sex in the same that eukaryotes do. John has some important insights into this problem but it hurts my brain when I try and understand them.

Homer Jay Simpson Evolves

 
Everyone's going to be posting this but here it is anyway, ... just in case you don't see it elsewhere. As far as cartoon versions of evolution go, it's not bad. Just remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. And don't forget that there's no direction to evolution and humans are not the only living mammal that evolved.

Internet Connection Speeds

 
Here are the results of a test for internet connection speed from InternetFrog.com. This is the speed I get at the university.

Now, here's some questions for all you technical experts out there. The download speed varies from a low of 2 Mbps to a high of close to 9Mbps. Why? Does anyone have faster connections on a regular basis?

The upload speed varies from a low of about 150 Kbps to a high of 1.7 Mbps. Why? And why is the upload speed so much slower than the download speed? Does that depend on the speed of my processor?



[Hat Tip: Kevin Black]

Happy 66th Birthday Richard Dawkins

 
Today is Richard Dawkins' birthday [RichardDawkins.net]. Go [here] to enter your own birthday message.

I may disagree with Dawkins on some parts of evolutionary theory but I think he's done a wonderful job of focusing attention on evolution as a scientific fact. I'm also a strong supporter of his attacks on superstition and support for rationality (e.g., The God Delusion).

Dawkins is just one of many intelligent men and women whose brains did not shut down when they turned 50 or 60. We need to point this out because there are, unfortunately, too many people who think that you can only make a contribution to science when you're under 40.

Monday's Molecule #19

 
Name this molecule. You must be specific but we don't need the full correct scientific name. (If you know it then please post it.)

As usual, there's a connection between Monday's molecule and this Wednesday's Nobel Laureate. This one's easy once you know the molecule and make the connection. There'll be a few extra bonus points for guessing Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s).

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

RNA Polymerase Genes in the Human Genome

 
The structure of yeast RNA polymerase II was solved by Roger Kornberg [Nobel Laureate: Roger Kornberg]. There are many different polypeptide subunits labelled Rpb1 to Rpb12 in the nomenclature used by yeast workers. The mammalian enzyme is very similar. Most of the same subunits are present but they have different names.

The core of RNA polymerase is composed of two very large subunits called Rpb1 and Rpb2 in yeast. In mammals they are called subunits A (220 KDa) and B (140 KDa). These subunits are homologous to the β and β′ subunits in bacterial RNA polymerases. The genes for these polypeptides in humans are called POLR2A and POLR2B. They are located on chromosomes 17p13.1 and 4q12 respectively.

The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database has entries for both genes but there are no genetic diseases associated with mutations in either gene [OMIM POLR2A and OMIM POLR2B]. This should not be a surprise since it is rare for genetic diseases to be associated with important essential genes.

Recall that mammals have four different RNA polymerases [Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases]. Both RNA polymerase I and RNA polymerase III have homologous large A and B subunits. The genes for these polypeptides are called POLR1A (194 KDa, chromosome 2p11.2), POLR1B (128 KDa, chromosome 2q13), POLR3A (155 KDa, chromosome 10q22-q23), and POLR3B (~120 KDa, chromosome 12q23.3). As is the case with the large subunits of RNA polymerase II, none of these genes are associated with metabolic diseases because they are essential, important housekeeping genes.

These genes make up a typical eukaryotic gene family. It's important to remember that a gene family refers to homologous genes within the same genome and not to a group of homologous genes from different species. Gene families arise from gene duplication events.

The "A" genes evolved from a common ancestral RNA polymerase β gene several billion years ago and the "B" genes evolved from an ancestral β′ gene. The β and β′ genes, in turn, evolved from a common ancestor near the time life began about 3.5 billion years ago.

The "A" and "B" genes have evolved independently by divergence. In such cases the family members are often on different chromosomes and the intron-exon organization of each member is very different in spite of the fact that the genes are still closely related in amino acid sequence.

In addition to the "A" and "B" genes for each RNA polymerase, there are genes for three different subunits of RNA polymerase I (POL1C, POL1D, POL1E), 12 different subunits of RNA polymerase II (SURB7 and POL2C - POL2L), and 9 different subunits of RNA polymerase III. There are also dozens of genes for the general transcription factors required for initiation, elongation, and termination. Altogether, there are at least 80 different genes required for transcription and that's not counting any gene-specific regulatory genes.

The fourth RNA polymerase in humans is the mitochondrial version. Its gene is POLRMT located on chromosome 19p13.3. The large subunit of the mitochondrial RNA polymerase is only distantly related to the others. There are no metabolic defects associated with mutations in POLRMT [OMIM POLRMT].

Happy Birthday Elton John!

 
Elton John is 6o years old today.

The Salem Conjecture

 
The Salem Conjecture was popularized by Bruce Salem on the newsgroup talk.origins. It dates to before my time on that newsgroup (1990) and I haven't been able to find archives to research the exact origin. The conjecture was explained by Bruce on numerous occasions, here's a statement from Sept, 5, 1996.

My position is not that most creationists are engineers or even that engineering predisposes one to Creationism. In fact, most engineers are not Creationists and more well-educated people are less predisposed to Creationism, the points the statistics in the study bear out. My position was that of those Creationists who presented themselves with professional credentials, or with training that they wished to represent as giving them competence to be critics of Evolution while offering Creationism as the alternative, a significant number turned out to be engineers.

This is the so-called "soft" version of the conjecture. The "hard" version is that there is something about being an engineer that leads one to become a creationist. That's not what Bruce said,

For a long the so-called "soft" hypothesis is the one I have been putting forth, not the one earlier attributed to me. I have also further qualified it by saying numerous times that religious belief was the most significant factor. The reason I prefer to call my idea a "conjecture" is that I have had only anecdotal data to support it.

The Salem Hypothesis has its own entry on Wikipedia [Salem Hypothesis]. Both versions of the Salem Conjecture are listed there. The talk.origins Jargon File is incorrect because it only lists the hard version and attributes it to Bruce Salem.

We all know that scientists overwhelmingly reject creationism so it doesn't come as a surprise that there are so few scientists in the creationists movement. Ironically, the creationists long for scientific validity while, at the same time, they attack all the basic principles of science. The few so-called scientists who subscribe to superstition get very prominent play among the creationists.

Engineers are not scientists and they did not have much scientific training in school. They are technologists (i.e., engineers) and that's not the same thing. I don't think engineers spend much time studying evolutionary theory in university. (It's probably too difficult for them.)

Among the general public the distinction between scientists and technologists is lost so whenever an engineer comes out in favor of superstition (s)he is counted as a scientist. This is what the Salem Conjecture says. Whenever you see a common run-of-the-mill creationist who claims to have scientific knowledge, chances are they're an engineer and not a scientist.

Here's how Bruce explained it on talk.origins on May 10, 1996 in response to an engineer who was objecting to the conjecture.

By your own admission you are running the risk of becoming yet another data point for something called the "Salem Hypothesis" or "Salem Conjecture" in which I noticed some time ago the number of people publically supporting Creationism whether in Creationist publications or this group claiming to be "scientists" were mostly engineers. Most of them had little knowledge of the scientific disciplines that relate to the scientific acceptance of evolution and an old earth. Many people have noticed subsequently that while engineers as a group seem more inclined as a majority to believe Darwin, those with a background in certain religions and those concerned with intelligent design seemed predisposed to accept
Creationism or the arguments that support it.

This morning Larry Faraman, the author of the blog I'm From Missouri, posted this message [The Salem Hypothesis].

I have been aware for a long time that engineers have an especially strong tendency to be skeptical of Darwinism, but I just now learned that this tendency has a name: the "Salem hypothesis." I am especially interested in this tendency because I am an engineer myself ....

I feel that the reason why we engineers tend to be skeptical of Darwinism is that we are a logical, practical, no bullshit, cut the malarkey, "I'm from Missouri," "show me" kind of people.

The irony is palpable. Mr. Faraman, an engineer, is skeptical of evolutionary biology and, by implication, most of the rest of science. On the other hand, he's not the least bit skeptical of creationism. Another solid data point for the Salem Conjecture. In this case, it's the "hard" version that Mr. Faraman is supporting. He claims that training in technology predisposes one to believe in superstitious nonsense. Maybe he's right. I look forward to hearing from other engineers on this point.

BTW, Missouri must be a very strange state. These days when someone begins a conversation with "I'm from Missouri" it's usually following by something irrational.

Dennis Kucinich on Universal Health Care

 
This is why I would vote for Dennis Kucinich ... if only I could vote. Why don't you vote for him?



[Hat Tip: Corpus Callosum]

Gene Genie #3

 
Hsien Hsien Lei has just posted Gene Genie #3 at Genetics and Health. There are >26,000 genes in the human genome and we hope to cover them in a finite amount of time. At this rate we'll be done sometime in the Spring of 2207! Let's pick up the pace, fellow bloggers.

The next Gene Genie (#4) will be hosted right here on Sandwalk. Send me your articles by email or submit them at blogcarnival [gene genie]. You ain't never had a friend like Gene Genie!