Theories Don't Become Laws

 
I'm pleased by the almost universal condemnation of John Tory's remarks about creationism in schools [John Tory Promotes Creationism]. Letters to the newspapers are running overwhelmingly against the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. However, there's still lots of misunderstanding out there even though their hearts are in the right place.

In today's Toronto Star there's a letter from a reader in Barrie, Ont. The title is Misunderstanding of the word `theory'. I'll quote most of the letter ...

John Tory's statement appearing to equate Darwin's theory of evolution with "other theories that people have out there" comes from a common misunderstanding the general public has about the scientific meaning of the word "theory."

When a scientist has an idea he or she wishes to test through observation or experimentation, this is termed a hypothesis.

Once a body of scientific data has been accumulated in support of the hypothesis, it is elevated to the status of theory.

After a time, certain theories receive considerable support from various scientists and no contradictory evidence turns up. Then, the theory may be elevated to the status of law.

There is now so much evidence from many branches of science supporting Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, that it may be time to give it the status of a law.

This is not right. Theories are explanations of natural phenomena and laws are simple descriptions of phenomena. Boyle's Law, for example, simply states that "For a fixed amount of gas kept at a fixed temperature, P and V are inversely proportional." It does not explain why this is so. That's what the theory of the behavior of gases would do.

Evolutionary Theory is a complex subject that attempts to explain how species evolved. It incorporates Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and other things like random genetic drift and mechanisms of speciation. Evolutionary Theory will never become a law. Theory is as good as it gets in science.

Waiting for the Paradox

 
John Dennehy's citation classic for this week is Gunther Stent's Molecular Biology of Bacterial Viruses [This Week's Citation Classic]. This reminds me of the time when I was an undergraduate in 1966 and I first read about the Phage Group in Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology (1966). The book was a collection of articles by workers who had been influenced by Max Delbrück, on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

A few years later I got to meet most of them at the annual phage meetings in Cold Spring Harbor. It was an exciting time. I remember Stent as one of those people who is so smart it's scary. Little did I know at the time that I was witnessing the end of an era.

Stent's contribution to Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology was an essay with the cryptic title "Waiting for the Paradox." He describes some of the early history of the phage group and Delbrück's attempts to define the gene in 1940. This influenced the physicist Erwin Shrödinger who wrote a famous little book called What is Life?. It stimulated many physicists to enter biology—including Francis Crick.

The key passage from Shrödinger's book is described by Stent. Schrödinger defines an important credo (quoted by Stent) ...

In fact, this credo was probably the most important psychological incentive for physicists to turn to biology in the first place: "From Delbrück's general picture of the hereditary substance it emerges that living matter, while not eluding the 'laws of physics' as established up to date, is likely to involve 'other laws of physics' hitherto unknown which, however, once they have been revealed will form just as integral part of this science as the former." Thus it was the romantic idea that 'other laws of physics' might be discovered by studying the gene that really fascinated the physicists. This search for the physical paradox, this quixotic hope that genetics would prove incomprehensible within the framework of conventional physical knowledge, remained an important element of the psychological infrastructure of the creators of molecular biology. [my emphasis - LAM]

By 1966 it was clear that no new laws were going to be discovered although there was still the hope that something mysterious was going on inside the brain. Some people were still waiting for the paradox.

Today we teach our students that the most remarkable thing about biology is that life obeys the laws of physics and chemistry.

---

[Photo Credit: The book cover shows the 1992 expanded edition of Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology. A new Centennial Edition is due out next month.]

John Tory's Self-Immolation

 
This is from the National Post. They're supposed to be on the same side as the Progressive Conservatives. It's too cute to pass up [Colby Cosh: Tory's tumble].

EDMONTON -Where were you when John Tory lost the Ontario election? I was at my usual post in far-off Alberta, but even here Tory's Wednesday self-immolation cast a glow that you could almost warm your hands by.

As I hear it told, a radio reporter looking for a new angle asked the Conservative leader whether the fully funded religious schools he wants to pay for as premier would be permitted to teach creationism.

There's no word on whether Tory actually expressed gratitude for the layer of gasoline he had just been super-soaked with: he just went ahead and whipped out the Zippo. Creationism? Sounds great! Why, it's just one more of the menu items our $400-million will buy us! Say, why's my tie melting?

Genomics Is Dead! Long Live Systems Biology!

 
When you're an old fuddy-duddy like me you've lived through several revolutions in biology. I still remember when recombinant DNA technology was going to change the world. Then it was developmental biology and evo-devo. Along the way were told with a straight face that sequencing the human genome would cure cancer and everything else.

After a while it all got very boring. We put up with the hype on the grounds that it was good spin framing for the general public. If it brought in lots of money then what's the harm? Well it turns out there was some harm done. We scientists are losing our credibility.

I've gone way beyond being bored by this kind of nonsense. Now I'm angry—especially when it seems that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to misrepresent it. Here's the opening paragraph of a press release on Systems Biology [Systems Biology poised to revolutionize the understanding of cell function and disease]. It summarizes the contents of a report to the European Science Foundation.

Systems Biology is transforming the way scientists think about biology and disease. This novel approach to research could prompt a shake up in medical science and it might ultimately allow clinicians to predict and treat complex diseases such as diabetes, heart failure, cancer, and metabolic syndrome for which there are currently no cures.

I wonder if they just reuse the reports from years past substituting "systems biology" for "genomics," or whatever the last cure for cancer was supposed to be? This kind of stupid motherhood hyperbole would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that these people are deadly serious. That makes it pathetic.

Look what one of authors of the report has to say ...

Until recently, researchers tended to focus on identifying individual genes and proteins and pinpointing their role in the cell or the human body. But molecules almost never act alone. According to Lilia Alberghina from the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy: “There is a growing awareness in medical science that biological entities are ‘systems’ – collections of interacting parts."

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "recently." If it's 40 years then maybe the statement might make some sense but even then it's a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Of course we isolated genes and proteins one-at-a-time but the goal was always to put them back together to make molecular machines. Does Lilia Alberghina really think that older scientists were completely unaware of the fact that biological entities are "systems"? I wonder if Alberghina is aware of metabolic pathways that were worked out half a century ago, or ribosomes, or DNA replication complexes, or muscle, or the complement system, or Drosophila embryogenesis, or any number of other systems that haven't just sprung into existence in the last few years.

Most scientist are already tired of these fads masquerading as revolution. I wonder how long it will be before the public and the politicians catch on?

How Logical Are You?

 

You Are Incredibly Logical

Move over Spock - you're the new master of logic You think rationally, clearly, and quickly. A seasoned problem solver, your mind is like a computer!

How Logical Are You?

---

[Hat Tip: GrrlScientist at Living the Scientific Life (How Logical Are You?]

Don't Trust All DNA Sequences

 
I've been interested in sequence errors and cloning artifacts for many years. I have a thick file of papers that have uncovered numerous examples of DNA sequences that are just plain wrong. It's one of the reasons for being at least a little bit skeptical of any unusual discoveries in DNA sequences.

Now, I'm not saying that you should take this skepticism to extremes; I'm saying that you should keep your mind open to the possibility that the data might not be real. Just because it's published in the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean it's right.

Sandra Porter has an interesting example over on Discovering Biology in a Digital World [Digital Biology Friday: What sequences do you believe?]. She describes the process she went through when she first heard about the discovery of a β-lactamase gene [Penicillin Resistance] that was supposedly from Streptococcus pneumoniae. I'm not going to spoil the punchline by revealing it here. You'll have to read about it on Sandra's blog.

Keep this lesson in mind. It's what good science is all about.

---

Figure Credit: The image of the common (but old) cloning vector pBr322 is from Horton et al. 4th ed. (2006). The amp^R gene encodes β-lactamase.]

Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting

 
Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting is a fledgling organization that's going to try and impose some standards on the reporting of peer-reviewed papers by bloggers. Here's their mission statement at [BPR3.org].

Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting strives to identify serious academic blog posts about peer-reviewed research by developing an icon and an aggregation site where others can look to find the best academic blogging on the Net.

The idea is to list all blog posts about peer-reviewed scientific literature on one site (with an RSS feed) and to identify all such blogs with a copyrighted icon.

What's the point of that, you might ask? Well, it's because BPR3 wants to impose some sort of standards on the blogging community. Here's how Dave Munger describes it on the BPR3.org website.

Here’s how I imagine we might handle this issue:

• Credentialling of blog authors is probably a bad idea — some expert bloggers have good reasons for being anonymous, and there are many blogs run by graduate students, journalists, and others without PhDs that offer thoughtful commentary on peer-reviewed literature


• Instead, we could have bloggers register their blogs here. Then we will (eventually) have an aggregation system which will allow links to those blogs’ posts about peer-reviewed research to appear on this site.


• If a blog appears to be abusing the system, either by not meeting our definition of peer review, or not commenting thoughtfully on the article, then readers could alert us and we could remove them from the list of registered blogs. How exactly would that process work? We’re open for suggestions.


• A secondary process could be used to combat abuse of the icon itself (whether or not the blog is actually aggregated here). This would require BPR3 to maintain copyright of the icon, so that we could deny permission to use the icon to those who abuse it. Again, we’d love to hear suggestions about how that might work.

Any other ideas/suggestions? Let us know in the comments.

I write a lot of articles about peer-reviewed research so this is right up my alley. I've got to say right up front that I'm not very enthusiastic about the proposal. Any attempt to impose order on the blogging community is doomed from the start, in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't see any advantage for most bloggers. What's in it for them?

We already have a sort of system that mimics this "peer review" of blog articles. It's the various carnivals that are published every week (see my list in the sidebar). The idea is that the carnival moderator will pick the best of the blog articles that have appeared recently and collect them on a single site. You can judge for yourself whether this has been a remarkable success over the years. From my perspective the quality of the articles in most carnivals varies enormously and I've no reason to suspect that the same won't happen on the BPR3 site.

What does everyone here think? Is this an idea that's going to work?

Adaptive Evolution of Conserved Noncoding Elements in Mammals

 
"Adaptive Evolution of Conserved Noncoding Elements in Mammals" is the title of a paper that's just been published in PLoS Genetics [Kim and Pritchard (2007)].

With a title like that you'd think the paper would be really interesting because conserved noncoding elements are a hot topic. Recall that these are short sequences in the genomes of diverse mammals that are highly similar. They were thought to be examples of regulatory sequences but deleting them from the mouse genome seems to have no effect [The Role of Ultraconserved Non-Coding Elements in Mammalian Genomes]. It's a little puzzling to see "adaptive evolution" in the title since the very fact that these short sequences are conserved implies adaptation.

I took a look at the paper. Here's the abstract.

Conserved noncoding elements (CNCs) are an abundant feature of vertebrate genomes. Some CNCs have been shown to act as cis-regulatory modules, but the function of most CNCs remains unclear. To study the evolution of CNCs, we have developed a statistical method called the “shared rates test” to identify CNCs that show significant variation in substitution rates across branches of a phylogenetic tree. We report an application of this method to alignments of 98,910 CNCs from the human, chimpanzee, dog, mouse, and rat genomes. We find that ∼68% of CNCs evolve according to a null model where, for each CNC, a single parameter models the level of constraint acting throughout the phylogeny linking these five species. The remaining ∼32% of CNCs show departures from the basic model including speed-ups and slow-downs on particular branches and occasionally multiple rate changes on different branches. We find that a subset of the significant CNCs have evolved significantly faster than the local neutral rate on a particular branch, providing strong evidence for adaptive evolution in these CNCs. The distribution of these signals on the phylogeny suggests that adaptive evolution of CNCs occurs in occasional short bursts of evolution. Our analyses suggest a large set of promising targets for future functional studies of adaptation.

Okay. It's confusing but what they seem to be saying is that the sequences of these conserved noncoding elements change in various lineages. A lot of them seem to be evolving at a "neutral rate"—which raises the question of why they are "conserved" in the first place. Does it mean that the ancestor to all mammals had a functional sequence but that function has been lost? Some of these conserved elements evolve at a very rapid rate in some lineages and this is taken to be evidence of adaptive evolution in that lineage.

I read the entire paper. It's pretty much Greek to me. If anyone else can figure it out please feel free to post an explanation in the comments.

John Tory Tries To Clarify

 
According to CityNews ,John Tory is trying to put his goof behind him. He's asking people to stop focusing on this one issue. Just because he doesn't understand what science is all about is no reason to not vote for him, is what he's saying [John Tory Tries To Clarify "Creationism Vs. Evolution" Controversy]. One nice thing about this controversy is that nobody is listening to him, even his so-called supporters. Another nice thing is that the Premier, Dalton McGuinty, makes it pretty clear where he stands.

Don't make this a one-issue election.

That was the plea from Conservative leader John Tory Thursday as the PC boss found himself awash again in a sea in controversy over his faith-based school funding platform. The plan was already contentious enough, when Tory openly mused on Wednesday about the possibility of creationism being taught alongside evolution in religious schools.

Since then, he's been assailed by those who oppose his idea and those who support it. "In the course of an election campaign, you have to have an open, honest discussion about these kinds of issues and you always have to choose your language with precision," Tory admits about his statement. "I understand that this issue is controversial ... But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't discuss it or try to sweep it under the carpet."

He attempted to bridge the gap by clarifying that the creation theory would only be allowed to be taught during a true religious lesson and not in a science class. But it's clear what pundits believe will be the most controversial part of the election has left the Conservative leader between two different worlds that don't seem likely to ever meet.

Dalton McGuinty is taking a different road on the issue. "Creationism is not a science," he reminds. "Evolution is a science. When we're teaching science in our public schools, we should be teaching evolution."

One School System Network Sponsors a Debate

 
The One School System Network (OSSN) is sponsoring a debate on Friday, September 21st from 7-10 pm in MacLeod Auditorium.

Catholic Public Schools: Constitutional Right or Archaic Privilege? Featuring Jan Johnstone, Progressive trustees network and trustee for the Bluewater District School Board.

The One School System Network includes the University of Toronto Secular Alliance and a variety of civil rights, faith-based and secular humanist advocacy organizations. The OSSN is lobbying the government to merge our two school boards into one secular school system.

University of Toronto Secular Alliance

 
Well, it's that time of year again. The Meds students have already begun classes and the undergraduates start next Monday. It's time to start putting those important events on your calendar.

The University of Toronto Secular Alliance is hosting a BBQ at the Centre for Inquiry on Thursday Sept. 13 from 5 to 7pm. If you haven't joined yet then sign up on the website.

The Centre for Inquiry is located at 216 Beverly St. just south of College St. Following the BBQ you can stay for the Flying Spaghetti Monster Dinner and Movie Night.

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

 
The editor of the Lebanon Daily News has made a prediction. It's so important that it deserves a posting on Uncommon Descent [Matter of time for intelligent design].

Now I don't know where Lebanon is—other than it's in Pennsylvania, USA—but this editor must be one of the big guns of Intelligent Design Creationism. Here's the bad news ...

The public needs enlightenment on the truth of intelligent design as increasing numbers of the world’s greatest scientists are yielding to the compelling and mounting evidence of this burgeoning movement. In recent years the erroneous teaching of Darwinism and life by random chance is becoming unraveled and exposing itself for what it really is: a bankrupt philosophy masquerading as a science with the aid of fake fossil mills loose in the world.

I’m confident that in the not-to-distant future the information-revolution will sound the death knell for Darwinism. The hard evidence of technology will shake the pillars of evolutionary theory and toss them into the dustbin of history. When America restores true Bible science and accountability to our Creator God into our political and educational institutions, we’ll have taken a giant step toward healthier national character and the prevention of crime, life without purpose and the consequences of our condom culture.

You've all been warned. Your days of crime and condoms are almost over.

"IDiot" doesn't even begin to describe this nonsense.

Intelligent Design Creationism: Frontloading

 
You're not going to believe this.

A few days ago I reviewed some work from Edward Rubin's lab at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California (USA) [The Role of Ultraconserved Non-Coding Elements in Mammalian Genomes]. What they did was identify short stretches of DNA that are identical in the mouse, rat, and human genomes. Most of these pieces of DNA are 200-300 bp in length but some are larger. Rubin's group deleted four of these "ultra-conserved" non-coding elements in mice and discovered that the resulting strains seemed perfectly normal. This raises questions about the role of these short sequences that appear to have been highly conserved.

The IDiots have an explanation. DaveScot describes it on Uncommon Descent [Ultra-conserved DNA with no evident immediate purpose].

Edward Rubin again finds hard evidence supporting a front loaded evolution. Front loading is a design engineering term generally used to describe design elements inserted for possible use in the future (contingency) as opposed to immediate use. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is incapable of contingency planning. RM+NS can build based on experience but can’t build based on an abstract future. It is reactive not proactive. The front loading hypothesis in essence says the complex specified information necessary to construct the more complex machinery of life has been around since life appeared on the earth but much of it was preserved for expression in the far distant future.

According to Intelligent Design Creationism this DNA is for future use by the Creator. Apparently the Intelligent Designer can't just make up some new DNA whenever (s)he needs to evolve some new function. Instead, (s)he has to stick the DNA in the genome of all organisms then take steps to protect it from mutation. In a few years the Intelligent Designer will activate these little bits of DNA and viola!—rats will get smarter (or something).

The other good news is that there's not much of this ultra-conserved DNA in our genomes. The Intelligent Designer must have just about finished with us. I don't know about you but I think it's time to get ready for the Rapture. Life is going to be so much better without the Christians.

---

[Note: Viola is English for voilà]

Defining Life

 
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.

Zimmer asks an important question,

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?

Denyse O'Leary's University Course on Intelligent Design

 
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? An
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

Now 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.

It might be fun to learn what the "professional classes" think about Intelligent Design Creationism. Is the entertainment worth $130?

---

[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.]