The August issue of SEED has a wonderful article by Carl Zimmer, the best science writer on the planet. The article, The Meaning of Life, has just appeared on the SEED website so you can all read it [THE MEANING OF LIFE]. You should read it.We create life, we search for it, we manipulate and revere it. Is it possible that we haven't yet defined the term?What do you think of the definition(s) in the article?
One of my friends alerted me to a course taught by Denyse O'Leary at the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto. This is a continuing education course under Religion, Scripture, Spirituality. Here's the complete description.RSS7-F By Design or By Chance? AnNow that sounds really interesting. The good part is that she will focus on materialist vs non-materialist views of the nature of the universe. This is, indeed, the core of the problem. The bad part is that she identifies Thomas Kuhn with the idea of falsification—that doesn't bode well for the accuracy of her lectures.
Introduction to the Intelligent Design Controversy
The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe. Reputable scientists can be found on both sides. Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises. The controversy continues to grow because, while the materialism is prevalent in academia and the media, it is widely discredited in the population at large, including the professional classes.
INSTRUCTOR: *Denyse O’Leary is a Toronto-based journalist, author, and blogger, who is the author of Faith@Science, By Design or By Chance? and co-author of The Spiritual Brain with Neuroscientist Mario Beauregard.
Date: 6 Tuesdays, Oct. 23 – Nov. 27 2007
Time: 7 – 9pm
Fee: $130.00
Blue Card: Free
Partner School: $20
[Photo Credit: The photograph is from the University of St. Michael's College website. Marshall McLuhan was a Professor a St. Mike's and the photograph shows him walking to his office on Queen's Park Cresent.]
You know, I've always wondered whether there was a right-wing position so indefensible, so appalling, so absolutely batshit crazy that even the Blogging Tories would finally pull up short, saying, "No, I don't think so. That's too stupid, even for us." And I believe we've finally found it.Read the list of Blogging Tories who have turned on John Tory for promoting creationism. I never thought I'd be proud of right-wing conservatives. Canadian Cynic is also impressed,
God help us, even the usual suspects have finally had enough.
You know, with these signs of intelligent life over there, maybe -- just maybe -- I'll stop saying such snarky things about them.Don't hold your breath.
This is, of course, exactly the opposite of what the Progressive Conservative Party is proposing. They want to extend funding to all religious schools. We have just discovered that their leader, John Tory, has doubts about evolution and favors creationism [ John Tory Promotes Creationism]. 
This man is John Tory. He's the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Right now he's the leader of the Opposition but he's hoping to become Premier after the election on October 10, 2007.It should be said that Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is usually a thoughtful, articulate guy. But this week, the man has had nothing but a mouthful of foot. First, he referred to the University of Ottawa as the “University of Zero.” Another stumble came today, during an event to promote Mr. Tory’s promise to extend public funding to faith-based schools. A radio reporter asked whether schools would be allowed to teach creationism. Mr. Tory responded: “The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum, which of course has a different explanation. It’s still called the theory of evolution, but they teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they could also mention to children the fact that there are other theories out there that are part of some Christian beliefs.”Hmmm ... where have we heard that before? Do you know anyone who emphasizes that it's only a theory who isn't a creationist? Tory is in big trouble. He might get away with this in another country but here in Ontario he's going to look like a real fool.
What Mr. Tory did not say was whether evolution would be taught as part of science class or religious studies -- which is, we submit, a pretty important distinction. So important that late this afternoon, the Conservative campaign issued the following press release:Nobody's going to buy that. Tory clearly questioned whether evolution is true by mentioning that it is a "theory" and other "theories" should be taught.JOHN TORY 2007 CAMPAIGN
STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION
(Toronto, ON) – In an interview with reporters earlier today, John Tory was asked whether ‘creationism’ could be taught in faith-based schools, if they wished to receive funding under his proposed policy.
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
1.) The Ontario curriculum does not allow for creationism (or any other religious theory) to be taught in science classes in Ontario’s public schools.
2.) Mr. Tory clearly stated that any school to be included in the proposal must teach the Ontario curriculum.
3.) Mr. Tory’s proposal would allow creationism to be discussed only as part of religious studies programming, as is now the practice in Ontario’s publicly-funded Catholic schools.
Tory is running against the current Education Minister Kathleen Wynne (Liberal) in the riding of Don Valley West (Toronto). According to this article in the Canadian Press [ On eve of Ontario election, Conservative leader muses about creationism in schools] she nailed him on the issue.Education Minister Kathleen Wynne - who is running against Tory for her Toronto seat - said his comments prove his policy hasn't been properly thought out. Creationism is currently not part of the provincial science curriculum and isn't given the same weight as evolution, she said.The Canadian press is all over this: See this article from the Globe & Mail [Creationism raised as Ont. election issue], and this from Canada.com [John Tory grilled on faith-based schools proposal], and this from The Toronto Star [Tory ignites debate over creationism in schools].
Catholic schools may talk about creationism, Wynne said, but only in the context of a broader religious discussion.
"It's useful for students to have the opportunity to know the ideas that are out there and are part of our history," Wynne said.
"What we teach as the truth is the question. The scientific truths are the ones that are included in the Ontario curriculum. That's the curriculum that we support."
In 1938, Richard Kuhn (1900-1967) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the structure of several different vitamins, including the carotenoids [Vitamin A (retinol)] and the B6 family [Pyridoxal Phosphate and the Vitamin B6 Family]. When Richard Kuhn in 1926 took over the Chair for General and Analytical Chemistry at the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich he set in motion a comprehensive series of investigations into the so-called conjugated double bonds which make up the essential arrangement of the atoms of the polyenes.
The group of the diphenylpolyenes had at this time aroused especial interest because the presence in the carotenoid Crocetin of a chain of double bonds had been successfully demonstrated. Kuhn's sixth report on conjugated double bonds already contains structure determinations of polyene dyes from vegetable materials. With his syntheses of over 300 new materials belonging to this group Kuhn has by no means sought merely to liberate new substances. In this work he was much more concerned to clarify the general relationships between the chemical structure of these unsaturated substances and their optical, dielectric, and magnetic properties. The results which he has obtained in this respect form the starting-point for new lines of development in organic chemistry.
Kuhn's work on polyenes led him straight into the chemistry of the carotenoids. In 1930 Karrer clarified the constitution of carotene. The elementary composition of carotene, C40H56, had previously been ascertained by Willstätter. In 1931, R. Kuhn (at that time already Professor at Heidelberg), Karrer in Zurich, and Rosenheim in London discovered simultaneously and independently of each other the fact that the carotene in carrots consists of two separate components: one of these, b-carotene, rotates the plane of polarized light to the right, while the other, a-carotene is optically inactive. In 1933 Kuhn discovered a third carotene isomer which was called g-carotene.
The great physiological and biological significance of carotene lies in the fact that it is hydrolysed in the liver of certain animals so that from one molecule of b-carotene or from two molecules of a-carotene two molecules of Vitamin A, Axerophtol, are formed. This substance is necessary for growth in higher animals and especially for maintaining the normal condition of the mucous membranes.
With several collaborators Kuhn carried out a large number of investigations into the occurrence of carotenoids in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Among his most important results, his discoveries of the following carotenoids and their structure determination should be mentioned:
Physalien from berries of species of Physalis, Helenien, Flavoxanthin, isolated from species of Ranunculus, Violaxanthin from Viola tricolor, unstable Crocetin from saffron, Taraxanthin, Cryptoxanthin from Zea Mays Rubixanthin.
Kuhn also had an important share in establishing the composition of Rodoxanthin and Astaxanthin as well as in discovering the connection of this latter carotenoid with the chromoproteids of the Crustaceans.
Of great interest also are the many contributions Kuhn and his school have made to the perfection of the chromatographic method which is one of the most important aids to the isolation and synthesis of the different representatives of the carotenoid group.
Kuhn's second great field of activity concerns the clarification of the Vitamin B complex. Kuhn has the great merit, together with von Szent-Györgyi and Wagner-Jauregg, of having been the first to isolate the extraordinarily important substance Vitamin B2 (Lactoflavin or Riboflavin). He has made very important contributions to the elucidation of the chemistry of this substance.
From 5,300 litres skim milk Kuhn and his collaborators succeeded in liberating about 1g of a pure yellow substance, Lactoflavin, whose composition was found to be C17H20O6N4. A breakdown product of the Lactoflavin, which was called Lumiflavin, could be identified with a substance previously prepared from the yellow ferment occurring in yeast. By drawing up a structural formula for Lumiflavin later confirmed in various ways, Kuhn furnished a key to the chemical clarification of Lactoflavin. He himself demonstrated the Lumiflavin formula, which had been found by analytical methods, by a synthesis - namely through the condensation of an odiaminobenzene derivative with Alloxan.
At the beginning of 1939 Kuhn made his second significant discovery in relation to the Vitamin B complex. Together with Wendt, Andersag, and Westphal, he succeeded in isolating that component of the Vitamin B complex which is designated Vitamin B6, the antidermatitis vitamin, and in a remarkably short time he was able to establish its chemical composition and structure (Ber., 71 (1938) 1534; 72 (1939) 309). The substance which Kuhn thus elucidated, which he called Adermin, proved to be 2-methyl-3-hydroxy-4,5 -dihydroxymethylpyridine.
Ultraconserved elements are stretches of DNA that are 100% identical in mouse, rat, and human genomes. In order to qualify as an ultraconserved element, the length has to be greater than 200 bp. This eliminates most sequences that might be identical by chance. 
Ahitiv et al. (2007) set out to test this hypothesis by selecting four examples of ultraconservative elements for further analysis. They discovered that the elements function as tissue specific enhancers in a test designed to look at how they control expression of a maker gene in mouse embryos. The results are shown in Figure 1 (left) of their paper, which was just published in the open access journal PLoS Biology.Based on the compelling evidence that ultraconserved elements are conserved due to functional constraint, it has been proposed that their removal in vivo would lead to a significant phenotypic impact [7,8]. Accordingly, our results were unexpected. It is possible that our assays were not able to detect dramatic phenotypes that under a different setting, for instance, outside the controlled laboratory setting, would become evident. Moreover, possible phenotypes might become evident only on a longer timescale, such as longer generation time. It is also possible that subtler genetic manipulations of the ultraconserved elements might lead to an evident phenotype due to a gain-of-function-type mechanism. All four elements examined in this study demonstrated in vivo enhancer activity when tested in a transgenic mouse assay (Figure 1) [6], which would suggest regulatory element redundancy as another possible explanation for the lack of a significant impact following the removal of these specific elements. Just as gene redundancy has been shown to be responsible for the lack of phenotypes associated with many seemingly vital gene knockouts, regulatory sequence redundancy [22] can similarly provide a possible explanation for the lack of a marked phenotype in this study. While our studies have not defined a specific need for the extreme sequence constraints of noncoding ultraconserved elements, they have ruled out the hypothesis that these constraints reflect crucial functions required for viability.[UPDATE: Ryan Gregory at Genomicron discusses the same paper with a more thorough coverage of the background information and the relevance to junk DNA (Ultraconserved non-coding regions must be functional... right?). R. Ford Denison at This Week in Evolution has some thoughts on the paper (If it's junk, can we get rid of it?")]
Ahituv, N,, Zhu, Y., Visel, A., Holt, A., Afzal, V., Pennacchio, L.A., and Rubin, E.M. (2007) Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice. PLoS Biol 5(9): e234 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050234.
We've been waiting with Beauregard uses the most sophisticated technology to peer inside the brains of Carmelite nuns during a profound spiritual state. His results and a variety of other lines of evidence lead him to the surprising conclusion that spiritual experiences are not a figment of the mind or a delusion produced by a dysfunctional brain.I'm not going the buy the book. If someone wants to read it I'd be happy to see a review from a real scientist.
PLP is a cofactor that's bound to many enzymes in the cell where it participates in a number of different reactions. The most important reactions are those involving transfer of amino groups from one molecule to another. There is a large class of transaminases that require PLP. 
The poles are closed and the results are in. Richard Dawkins is the clear winner (boo!).
Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University (UK). In his first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), he promoted the idea that evolution can be viewed as a competition between genes. This concept was amplified in The Extended Phenotype (1982) where he also answered the main criticism of the selfish gene concept. Dawkins' most popular book was The Blind Watchmaker, first published in 1986. In that book he made the case for design by natural selection and attempted to dismiss, or minimize, all other mechanisms of evolution. The emphasis on the power of natural selection was expanded in Climbing Mt. Improbable (1996). 
Stephen Jay Gould was Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University from 1967 until his death in 2002.
Douglas J. Futuyma is a Professor of Ecology & Evolution at the State University of New York at Stoney Brook. He is best known for his textbooks on evolution; Evolutionary Biology (1998) and Evolution (2005). His major research interests are evolutionary theory [see Hypotheses, Facts, and the Nature of Science] and the interactions of plants and insects [see Insect Pests: Resistance and Management].No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:Neither Gould or Dawkins would respond in this way. Dawkins would admit to random genetic drift but downplay its importance. Gould would focus on higher mechanisms of evolution like species sorting.First, there is simply no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.
Genetic drift is very different from possibility number two, natural selection, which is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent superiority, shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.
Of course, it wouldn’t be the same, because first of all, random processes are involved in the evolutionary process. For example, the origin of new mutations: a lot of evolution is dependent on particular mutational changes in genes that were very, very rare or unlikely, but that just happened at the right time, in the right species, in the right environment, but it need not happen that way. So, there’s this unpredictability.This is very unlike Dawkins who is more inclined to think of evolution as design and strongly resists any attempt to sneak randomness into the equation. For the most part, Dawkins believes that all possible mutations will be available for selection so mutations can never determine the direction of evolution. Gould prefers to focus on developmental constraints as possible limits to the effectiveness of natural selection.
Today's molecule is actually three related molecules. You have to name all three by giving the common names and the complete IUPAC names. There's a direct connection between these molecules and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). (Hint: The Nobel Prize winner was not allowed to receive the prize.)
Here's an article form this week's New Scientist [Modern women are excellent gatherers]. I'd be curious to know what our adaptationist friends think about it. Is this a good example of how to do research?Men hunted, women gathered. That is how the division of labour between the sexes is supposed to have been in the distant past. According to a new study, an echo of these abilities can still be found today.The news report refers to a paper that will soon be published in Proc. Roy. Soc. B [New et al. 2007]. Here's the abstract.
Max Krasnow and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara, have discovered that modern women are better than men at remembering the location of food such as fruit and veg in a market.
The researchers led 86 adults to certain stalls in Santa Barbara's large Saturday farmer's market, then back to a location in the centre of the market from where the stalls could not be seen. They were then asked to point to each stall's location. This requires dead reckoning - a skill that men may once have used to return from hunting, and one that men today still usually perform better than women in experiments. Despite this, the ...
We present evidence for an evolved sexually dimorphic adaptation that activates spatial memory and navigation skills in response to fruits, vegetables and other traditionally gatherable sessile food resources. In spite of extensive evidence for a male advantage on a wide variety of navigational tasks, we demonstrate that a simple but ecologically important shift in content can reverse this sex difference. This effect is predicted by and consistent with the theory that a sexual division in ancestral foraging labour selected for gathering-specific spatial mechanisms, some of which are sexually differentiated. The hypothesis that gathering-specific spatial adaptations exist in the human mind is further supported by our finding that spatial memory is preferentially engaged for resources with higher nutritional quality (e.g. caloric density). This result strongly suggests that the underlying mechanisms evolved in part as adaptations for efficient foraging. Together, these results demonstrate that human spatial cognition is content sensitive, domain specific and designed by natural selection to mesh with important regularities of the ancestral world.As indicated in the news report, 86 adults (41 women and 45 men) were tested for their ability to remember the location of food stalls in a farmers market. The women were 9% better at this than the men.
Silverman & Eals (1992) argue that the female advantage on pencil-and-paper and desktop measures of object location memory reflects a selective pressure on ancestral women for plant-foraging efficiency. But their measures did not involve foods, tested spatial memory on a very small scale, and included no measure of vectoring; as a result, a female advantage on their measures is open to many alternative interpretations. For this reason, we deemed it important to examine whether a female advantage could be demonstrated on a task that closely resembles foraging for plant foods. From this theory, we predicted that women should remember the locations where they have previously encountered immobile resources (e.g. plants, honey) more accurately than do men.The authors don't explain exactly how this adaptation might have happened. Presumably it went something like this ...
New, J., Krasnow, M.M, Truxaw, D. and Gaulin, S.J.C. (2007) Spatial adaptations for plant foraging: women excel and calories count. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. DOI 10.1098/rspb.2007.0826.
[Photo Credit: The drawing is "An artist’s impression of early Hunter-Gatherers" from Manx National Heritage]
Jonathan A. Eisen is an evolutionary biologist with a blog called The Tree of Life. He's also one of the authors of a new textbook on evolution published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories [A New Textbook on Evolution]. I'm about to order a copy.For years I have been fighting against the tide on the tendency for people doing genomics work to resort to silly adaptationist arguments for observations. The argument goes something like this. We sequenced a genome (or did some type of genomics). We made an observation of something weird being present (take your pick - it could be a gene order or a gene expression pattern or whatever). We conclude that this observation MUST have an adaptive explanation. We have come up one such adaptive explanation. Therefore this explanation must be correct.Does this sound familiar?
Gould and Lewontin railed against this type of thing many years ago and others have since. Just because something is there does not mean it is adaptive (e.g., it could be neutral or detrimental). And even if something is adaptive, just because you can think of an adaptive explanation does not mean your explanation is correct.
And this is so common in genomics I have decided to invent a new word - Adaptationomics. And I am giving out my first award in this to Jack Warren and colleagues for their recent press release on their new study of lateral transfer in Wolbachia (plus it lets me plug their new study which is pretty ^$%# cool).
You're talking about a significant portion of its DNA that is now from Wolbachia," says Julie Dunning Hotopp, a geneticist at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, who led the study. "There has to be some sort of selection to carry around that much extra DNA."That's a classic adaptationist statement. The result "must be" explained by natural selection. There are no other options. I agree with Jonathan Eisen, this is a fitting recipient of his new Adaptationomics Award.
