Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor
There's quite a resemblance, don't you think?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Pictures Worth A Thousand Words
A few days ago Jennifer Smith over on Runesmith's Canadian Content reported that Stephan Harper has redecorated the lobbies behind the benches in Parliament. (It's the place where lobbyists used to hang out back in the olden days.) The full description can be found on the Green Party website [Model Parliament]. What may have been the most fascinating part of the afternoon was my time in the Government Lobby. Behind the curtains that run along the last row of benches on both sides of the House, are doors to long skinny living room areas. One is called the Opposition Lobby; the other the Government Lobby. In my pre-Green Party leader life, I have spent a lot of time in both. The Government Lobby was a frequent work space when I was Senior Policy Advisor to the federal Minister of Environment back in the mid-1980s. And I frequented both lobbies when I was with Sierra Club of Canada from 1987-2006. It did not strike me until I walked into the Government Lobby to await my turn as Speaker that I had not been in there since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister.
It used to have some paintings on the wall. Past prime ministers, certainly a formal portrait of the Queen. Landscapes. I know there was the occasional photo of current Prime Ministers, but when I walked in this time, I felt chilled to the bone. Every available wall space had a large colour photo of Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper at Alert. Stephen Harper in fire fighter gear. Stephen Harper at his desk. Stephen Harper meeting the Dalai Lama. Even the photo of the Queen showed her in the company of Stephen Harper. None were great photos. None were more than enlarged snapshots in colour. They didn’t feel like art.
Jennifer wrote to her MP, Garth Turner, to see if this was true and if someone could supply pictures. The title of her latest posting, Ask And You Shall Receive, tells it all.Not only did Garth Turner MP take pictures, he posted them on his blog [Let me count the ways…]. Cool. I stole some of them so you can see what's become of our government.
We need to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and send over Stephan Harper, permanently.
Nobel Laureate: Bruce Merrifield
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1984.
"for his development of methodology for chemical synthesis on a solid matrix"
In 1984, Bruce Merrifield (1921 - 2006) was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering a method of synthesizing polymers on a solid matrix. The technique laid the groundwork for the development of peptide and nucleotide synthesizers that are now common in biochemistry laboratories. The presentation speech was delivered by Professor Bengt Lindberg of the Royal Academy of Sciences.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The chemical reactions which take place in living organisms are not spontaneous, but require the involvement of catalysts. These catalysts are called proteins and are composed of chains of amino acids called peptides. A number of hormones and other substances which regulate different life processes are also peptides. There are about 20 naturally occurring amino acids which are found in such peptides and since the chains can be very long, the number of possible variations is virtually unlimited.
Today we know the structures of a very large number of proteins and peptides. Important contributions to this area of knowledge were made by Fredrick Sanger, who received the Nobel prize in 1958, and Stanford Moore and William H. Stein, Nobel prizewinners in 1972. A very important contribution was also made by the Swedish researcher Per Edman, who unfortunately died relatively young and whose method for the controlled degradation of peptides is now generally used.
The chemical synthesis of peptides is an important task. The principle used in such synthesis is simple and was developed a relatively long time ago by Emil Fischer, who received a Nobel prize in 1902, although for completely different discoveries. Expressed simply, this principle involves the binding together of two amino acids which have been appropriately modified to give a dipeptide. This dipeptide is then combined with a third modified amino acid to give a tripeptide and so on.
Even if the principle is simple, in practice it is difficult to synthesize peptides, since a large number of individual steps is involved. After each step the desired product must be separated from by-products and unreacted starting material and this takes time and involves loss of the product. When Vincent du Vigneaud synthesized a peptide hormone, oxytocin, which is a nonapeptide, for the first time, this represented a great step forward which was rewarded with the Nobel prize for 1955. To use a similar approach for synthesizing a peptide containing 100 or more amino acid residues is truly a heroic task, requiring a very large amount of work and chemicals. This task can be compared to climbing a high mountain peak in the Himalayas, which begins with a large expedition carrying much equipment and ends, if all goes well, with a few lightly equipped alpinists reaching the top.Therefore, Merrifield's development during the 1960's of a method for carrying out peptide synthesis on a solid matrix revolutionized the field. He attached the first amino acid to an insoluble polymer, a plastic material in the form of small spheres. Subsequently, the other amino acids were added one after one and only after the entire peptide chain had been synthesized was it released from the polymer. The advantages of this method are considerable. The complicated purification of the product after each synthetic step is replaced by simply washing the polymer to which the peptide is attached, so that loss of product is avoided completely. At the same time, the yield for each individual step is increased to 99.5% or better, a goal which cannot be achieved with conventional methods, but which is extremely important in syntheses involving a large number of steps. Finally, this method can be automated and automatic peptide synthesizers are now commercially available.
Thousands of different peptides of different sizes, as well as proteins, peptide hormones and analogues of these compounds have now been synthesized using this method. One milestone in this respect was the synthesis of an active enzyme, ribonuclease, containing 124 amino acid residues, by Merrifield and his coworkers.
The approach of performing a multistep synthesis with a compound attached to a solid matrix as the starting material has also been used in other areas. The most important of these is undoubtedly the synthesis of oligonucleotides, which are needed in hybrid DNA research. In this case as well an automated apparatus which can be programmed to synthesize desired products has been constructed. Although Merrifield has not worked in this area himself, it is clearly his ideas which have found a new application here.
Professor Merrifield,
Your methodology for chemical synthesis on a solid matrix is a completely new approach to organic synthesis. It has created new possibilities in the fields of peptide-protein and nucleic acid chemistry. It has greatly stimulated progress in biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine and pharmacology. It is also of great practical importance, both for the development of new drugs and for gene technology.
On behalf of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences I wish to convey our warmest congratulations and ask you to receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.
Sophophora, the New Model Organism
Meet Sophophora melanogaster. It has some major advantages as a model organism. The genome is small and there are only four chromosomes; there are thousands of well-characterized genetic markers; the genome sequence is known; developmental pathways have been worked out; it has a short life cycle.In summary, it has all the advantages of Drosophila melanogaster. In fact, it is Drosophila melanogaster.
The latest studies show conclusively that the genus Drosophila is paraphyletic. Many of the 1500 species cluster with flies from other genera rather than with those in Drosophila. This will prompt a renaming since taxonomists these days are mostly cladists—as they should be.
The type species for the genus Drosohila is Drosophila funebris. Unfortunately, Drosophila melanogaster is not very closely related so its genus name has to be changed. The new name is Sophophora melanogaster. Read all about it on Catalogue of Organisms [Drosophila forever?M].
Now if they could only get around to changing Caenorhabditis and Saccharomyces, we'd all be much happier .....
Mike Huckabee Says "It's Just a Theory"
This is a video from several years ago when Mike Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas. Here's the description on YouTube.
A young Arkansan asks Mike Huckabee what should be done about schools not teaching evolution properly. The former governor then advocates what the student has already said was against state standards...that schools should teach creationism because evolution's only a theory.Huckabee is entitled to his opinion about creationism, of course, but what troubles me is his statement that evolution is only a theory. Most of us don't (usually) make statements about things that we know nothing about. I can't believe that Huckabee is completely ignorant about the basic facts of biology. Somebody must have told him at some time during his life that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by solid scientific evidence.
What is it about IDiots that makes them so immune to rationalism? Why aren't people like Huckabee challenged when they lie? Is it because it's not polite?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Learning About Evolutionary Theory
There seems to be a bit of a trend over on ScienceBlogsTM. First Razib decides that it's finally time to read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, then John Lynch figures he should too. And now Laelaps gets into the act.I have long maintained that you can't have a serious discussion about evolutionary theory until you've read Gould's tome. You don't have to agree with him but at the very least you have to understand the arguments and there's no better way to do it than by reading all 1432 pages. Take lots of notes. Write in the margins. Use a highlighter.
There are several things you need to get out of this book. First, Charles Darwin Was a Gradualist. Second, try to understand punctuated equilibria. Don't just assume that you know what it is. Listen to Gould explain it in his own words. An open mind helps. Third, understand what Gould means when he talks about hierarchical theory. Fourth, pay attention to the description of species sorting. Don't read your own biases into the concept.
Enjoy. It's worth the effort.
Warning: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is written at a very high level. It's not for high school students. If the language and style turns you off then maybe it's not for you. Try Dawkins or Dennett. Their version of evolutionary theory can be understood by 5th graders.
Who Accepts Evoluton?
Half Sigma has posted an interesting article on the results of a 2006 poll about evolution. The survey asked the following question:Now, I would like to ask you a few short questions like those you might see on a television game show. For each statement that I read, please tell me if it is true or false. If you don't know or aren't sure, just tell me so, and we will skip to the next question. Remember true, false, or don't know. i. Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (Is that true or false?)The overall results are not surprising. They have been discussed before. About 50% of Americans accept the fact of evolution and about 50% reject scientific facts.
The fun part comes when Half Sigma looks at a breakdown of the responses. Men are
The interesting piece of information comes from analysis of the responses of difference 71% of blacks (Afro-Americans?) reject science. That's much higher than I imagined. What accounts for such a high percentage of IDiots in that subgroup? Is it true that Afro-Americans are much more religious than other groups? Is that why they reject evolution? Or is it a lack of decent science education in those states?
[Hat Tip: Gene Expression]
Famous Psychic Nikki Predicted Heath Ledger's Death
This is Earth-shattering news. If you go to the website of Nikki (psychic to the stars) you'll see that she predicted Heath Ledger's death [Nikki: Predictions].Death Watch and Health WatchTo find out why this isn't the end of rationality and the triumph of superstition, check out Way of the Woo. The surprise isn't that Nikki is a liar, it's that so many people fall for it.
Annette Funicello, Hillary Clinton, Doris Day, Willie Nelson, Pamela Lee Anderson, Loretta Lynn, Ted Kennedy, Unice Shriver, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Benazir Bhutto, President Masharaff, Billy Graham, Jerry Lewis, Chareleton Heston, Tony Curtis, Debbie Reynolds, Heath Ledger, Barack Obama, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Nelson Mandela, Farah Fawcett, Nancy Reagan, Dick Cheney, Dick Clark, Elizabeth Taylor, Larry King, Suzanne Pleshette, Mick Jagger, Arnold Schwarzeneger, Kirk Douglas, Hugh Hefner, Shirley Temple Black, Alex Trebek, and French President Sarkozy.
Showing Respect
I couldn't resist copying this cartoon from Friendly Atheist [Lack of Respect]. It's by Don Addis. Hemant Mehta got it from Freethought Today.
Getting Into Graduate School
Julianne Dalcanton is an astronomy professor at the University of Washington. She works on the evolution of galaxies which is sort of like real evolution, but not quite. She blogs at Cosmic Variance.Julianne decided to enlighten students about the process of getting into graduate school [The Other Side of Graduate Admissions]. It's a very informative posting and I recommend it to anyone who will be applying to graduate school next year, or who is waiting to hear right now.
I think it's really important to give undergraduates the straight dope about getting into graduate school. It's not about grades, as Julianne says. It's about the complete package. In our department we look at five things and each one is important.
- Grades in undergraduate courses: If your grades are below a minimum value you will need to have something extraordinary to compensate. If grades are too low then nothing will help you. Just because you have high grades doesn't mean you will be admitted.
- Reference letters: This is much more important than you think. If you don't have good letters then your chances of being admitted are slim. If the letters say that you are passionately interested in becoming a physician but you'll seriously consider graduate school if you don't get into medical school, then you've got a problem. The letters need to tell us that science is your primary objective in life.
- Courses: You should have taken the right undergraduate courses to prepare you for graduate school. What this means is that you need to have a number of upper level (4th year) courses in the field you're applying to. In some cases, your undergraduate studies may have been in a related field but you still need to demonstrate that you can handle the most difficult undergraduate courses. That means you're ready for graduate school. This can be a problem in our system here at the University of Toronto because we allow student to graduate with a B.Sc. even if they have only taken a few 400-level courses. Those students may not be acceptable candidates for some graduate schools.
- Research Experience: We look for students who have already demonstrated that they can work in a laboratory. They will have completed a research project in their final year and they will have worked in research labs during the summer. They will have glowing letters from their research supervisors.
- Motivation/Enthusiasm: This will come out in your letters of reference and in the choices you have made as an undergraduate. In some cases, we will conduct an interview to determine whether you are a suitable candidate for graduate school. We look for students who really want a career in science or who really want to learn more about science at an advanced level in order to pursue a related career (e.g., teaching). Remember, we're not interested in students who are picking graduate school as their second choice.
The best advice I can give undergraduates is to apply to many graduate schools in several different countries. If I recall correctly, I applied to 18 graduate departments and got five acceptances. This is not unusual.
[Photo Credit: Graduate students in the Department of Biochemistry 2007-2008.]
Monday, January 28, 2008
Monday's Molecule #60
I'm a little pressed for time today 'cause my mid-term test is tomorrow. This is a molecule for all you hard-core biochemists out there.You have to give me the common name of this molecule and explain what it's used for. You'll be pleased to know that I don't need the systematic IUPAC name for this one.
There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). Your task is to figure out the significance of today's molecule and identify the Nobel Laureate(s) who worked with it.
The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward.1 The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate. Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureates so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.
Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.
UPDATE: The winner is Mike Fraser who correctly guessed that this is the tert-butyloxycarbonyl derivative of valine, also known as Boc-valine. The Boc group acts as a carboxy-terminal blocking group in the chemical synthesis of proteins. The most common peptide synthesizers are the solid phase peptide synthesizers originally developed by Bruce Merrifield. Merrifield received the Nobel Prize in 1984.
1. Here's an interesting bit of trivia. How many ScienceBlogTM authors have won the free lunch? How many have guessed the correct answer even though they weren't the first to do so? The answers might surprise you.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Quackery in Academia
Last night was lots of fun. A bunch of us went to the Centre for Inquiry for a pre-talk reception with David Colquhoun (pronounced "Ca-hoon"). There were light refreshments and lots of talk about atheism, blogs, science, and of course pseudoscience. About 30 friends of the centre showed up.David Colquhoun is cool. He even agreed to pose with me for a picture. We look like two old curmudgeons but of course we're really not.
After the reception we all walked up to the campus were we heard Prof. Colquhoun talk about alternative medicine. In case, anyone is confused about alternative medicine, the definition is very simple. We all know about evidence-based medicine. That's the kind that's been shown to work. Everything else is "alternative" medicine—medicine that has not been shown to work.
In some cases we know that the "medicine" is not effective. This is the case with homeopathy, a scam that charges patients $2000/litre for water. In other cases, we don't know whether the treatment is helpful or harmful (e.g., some herbal remedies). What we do know is that the claims are wrong. (Because the claimants don't know whether they work either.)
You can find reviews of the talk at Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant, The Frame Problem, and The Unexamined Life. The only thing I want to add is that Prof. Colquhoun made a strong case for academic quackery. He showed us a long list of universities that now have Departments of Alternative Medicine. The list included some Canadian schools like McMaster University in nearby Hamilton. Colquhoun pointed out that there are many legitimate academics who have fallen for the anti-science crap that is alternative medicine and he calls upon us to take notice and do something about it.Fellow blogger Ron Brown (right)(The Frame Problem) and old friend Rob Day (left) were at the reception. Rob is a veteran of talk.origins and the creation/evolution controversy from way back—even before my time. It was fun to meet them and Mike (Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant) again. I'm sorry I didn't get to meet the student behind The Unexamined Life. I guess he/she wanted to remain anonymous.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Macromutations and Punctuated Equilibria
Olivia Judson has published a piece in The New York Times where she discusses "Hopeful Monsters" [The Monster is Back, and It’s Hopeful]. The basic idea here is that there can be single mutations that have a large effect on the phenotype of an organism. Think of a four-winged fruit fly, for example, that loses one set of wings.
The first organism to exhibit this new phenotype is a "Hopeful Monster." If it has aselective advantage, then the mutation will be passed down to its progeny and in a short time the species will be transformed in a single jump.
The term "Hopeful Monster" is associated with the views of Richard Goldschmidt. These views were thoroughly discredited in the 1940's at the time when the Modern Synthesis was being forged. The sudden leap in evolution due to macromutations was called "saltation" and we now know that this is not a common mechanism of evolution.
That does not mean that saltations never happen. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay in 1980 called Return of the Hopeful Monster in which he gave some examples of sudden changes. One of them is the acquisition of fertility by the axolotl of Lake Xochimilco. This amphibian never transforms into a normal-looking salamander but reproduces as a tadpole with external gills. The idea that mutations affecting development can have such effects is entirely in line with Gould's interest in the subject. His first book was Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977).
Another example is the lobster Scyllus in which the second pair of antennae have been transformed into uropods in a manner highly reminiscent of homeotic mutations in Drosophila melanogaster (Dawkins, 1996 p. 252). Dawkins (1996 p. 103) also mentions the evolution of snakes, which have hundreds of vertebrae.
Jerry Coyne does not like macromutations or hopeful monsters and he has written a strong rebuttal of Olivia Judson's article. Carl Zimmer published it on his blog [Hopeless Monsters--A Guest Post from Dr. Jerry Coyne].
I don't want to get into the details of the Judson article. I think Coyne makes some very valuable points about the specific examples used in the article and I agree that the general tone of the New York Times piece is wrong. Macromutations are not common.
I want to make another point. Coyne says,
What kind of changes are we talking about here? Very small changes. So small, in fact, that it often takes an expert to recognize them in the fossil record. We're talking about the differences between snails in the same genus, or different species of trilobites, or changes in the surface marking of diatoms. We aren't talking about saltations when we look at punctuated equilibria patterns. People who think that the normal pattern of punctuated equilibria represent big leaps in evolution are confusing two different aspects of evolution.
Daniel Dennet wrote a book in 1995 where he tried very hard to destroy the reputation of Stephen Jay Gould. One of the chapters in his book was "Punctuated Equilibria: A Hopeful Monster". Dennet lays out the case for confusion between saltation and puncturated equilibria as follows; "So it seemed to many biologists that Gould was arguing that punctuated equilibrium was a theory of Goldschmidtian speciation through macromutation" (Dennett 1995 p.288). When Gould (and Eldredge) denied any such thing these biologists "scoffed in disbelief. " After all, they knew what Gould had said. Dennet goes on to say,
I'll close with one of my favorite quotations from Eldgredge (1995 p.99).
The first organism to exhibit this new phenotype is a "Hopeful Monster." If it has aselective advantage, then the mutation will be passed down to its progeny and in a short time the species will be transformed in a single jump.
The term "Hopeful Monster" is associated with the views of Richard Goldschmidt. These views were thoroughly discredited in the 1940's at the time when the Modern Synthesis was being forged. The sudden leap in evolution due to macromutations was called "saltation" and we now know that this is not a common mechanism of evolution.
That does not mean that saltations never happen. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay in 1980 called Return of the Hopeful Monster in which he gave some examples of sudden changes. One of them is the acquisition of fertility by the axolotl of Lake Xochimilco. This amphibian never transforms into a normal-looking salamander but reproduces as a tadpole with external gills. The idea that mutations affecting development can have such effects is entirely in line with Gould's interest in the subject. His first book was Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977).
Another example is the lobster Scyllus in which the second pair of antennae have been transformed into uropods in a manner highly reminiscent of homeotic mutations in Drosophila melanogaster (Dawkins, 1996 p. 252). Dawkins (1996 p. 103) also mentions the evolution of snakes, which have hundreds of vertebrae.
The number of vertebrae in different species of snakes varies from about 200 to 350. Since all snakes are cousins of each other, and since vertebrae cannot come in halves or quarters, this must mean that from time to time, a snake is born with at least one more, or one fewer, vertebra than it its parents. These mutations deserve to be called macro-mutations, and they have evidently been incorporated in evolution because all these snakes exist.I think it's safe to say that the concept of macromutations and saltations is not ruled out in evolution although it is certainly rare. Gould makes the point in his essay that this kind of evolution, while dramatic, is Darwinian.
Jerry Coyne does not like macromutations or hopeful monsters and he has written a strong rebuttal of Olivia Judson's article. Carl Zimmer published it on his blog [Hopeless Monsters--A Guest Post from Dr. Jerry Coyne].
I don't want to get into the details of the Judson article. I think Coyne makes some very valuable points about the specific examples used in the article and I agree that the general tone of the New York Times piece is wrong. Macromutations are not common.
I want to make another point. Coyne says,
The idea of macromutational hopeful monsters, or "saltations," had a prominent resurrection in 1980 when Stephen Jay Gould, as part of his and Niles Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed that macromutations could explain the "jumps" in the fossil record. After getting a severe drubbing from geneticists, Eldredge and Gould retreated in 1993, claiming that they never suggested the idea of saltations.The idea that Gould's example of hopeless monsters was connected to punctuated equilibria is not correct. This is the same mistake that Greg Laden makes in his discussion of the topic [Hopeful Monsters and Hopeful Models]. Greg says,
The second reason is that the fossil record seems to have the property whereby many species stay roughly similar for long periods of time, then suddenly, there is lots of evolutionary change. You've heard of this, it's called "punctuated equilibrium." If hopeful monsters ... also called saltational (dancing, leaping) evolution ... occurred generally, we might postulate that these moments of dramatic change, these punctuations, are periods in time where for some reason a lot of hopeful-monstering was going on all at once. That would be cool.Let's be very clear about what punctuated equilibria are and what they aren't. The pattern of punctuated equilibria show that speciation by splitting (cladogenesis) is associated with morphological change. The actual speciation event is relatively rapid (in geological time) and the end result is a morphologically distinct sibling species where the changes were not evident in the population before the split. The most common explanation is that variants in the larger population were enriched in a small founder population that went on to speciate. It's an example of random genetic drift, or possibly selection, but no new mutations have occurred.
What kind of changes are we talking about here? Very small changes. So small, in fact, that it often takes an expert to recognize them in the fossil record. We're talking about the differences between snails in the same genus, or different species of trilobites, or changes in the surface marking of diatoms. We aren't talking about saltations when we look at punctuated equilibria patterns. People who think that the normal pattern of punctuated equilibria represent big leaps in evolution are confusing two different aspects of evolution.
Daniel Dennet wrote a book in 1995 where he tried very hard to destroy the reputation of Stephen Jay Gould. One of the chapters in his book was "Punctuated Equilibria: A Hopeful Monster". Dennet lays out the case for confusion between saltation and puncturated equilibria as follows; "So it seemed to many biologists that Gould was arguing that punctuated equilibrium was a theory of Goldschmidtian speciation through macromutation" (Dennett 1995 p.288). When Gould (and Eldredge) denied any such thing these biologists "scoffed in disbelief. " After all, they knew what Gould had said. Dennet goes on to say,
But did they? I must admit that I thought they did until Steve Gould insisted to me that I should check all his various publications, and see for myself that his opponents were foisting a caricature on him.Dennett checked, and found that Gould was right. To his credit, he reports that this claim about saltation being part of punctuated equilibria is wrong. Dennett concludes on p. 289-290.
"Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation" (Gould 1982, p.88). Confusion on this score still abounds, however, and Gould has had to keep issuing his disclaimers [as has Eldredge, LAM]: "Our theory entails no new or violent mechanism, but only represents the proper scaling of ordinary events into the vastness of geological time" (Gould 1992b p.12).I'm quoting Dennett here instead of quoting Gould and Eldredge1 directly because Dennett is one of Gould's fiercest opponents. If Gould's worst enemy can see the truth then why is this myth still being propagated?
So this was the false-alarm revolution that was largely if not entirely in the eyes of the beholders.
I'll close with one of my favorite quotations from Eldgredge (1995 p.99).
Nonetheless, we were accused of being saltationists. Steve Gould wrote two consecutive essays in Natural History in 1977. Among other things, Steve speculated that the recent (sic) discovery of regulatory genes—genes that turn other genes on and off—raised the possibility that mutations in the regulatory apparatus might occasionally have the sort of effect Goldschmidt had in mind with his notion of 'macromutations.' These macromutations had the large-scale effects of the sort he posited for his 'hopeful monsters.' Nowhere in either article did Steve mention punctuated equilibria.
But it was enough, it seems, that he, champion of a new model positing bursts of relatively rapid change, would, a few years later, discuss Goldschmidt in favorable terms. Mayr was one of the first to level the charge that punctuated equilibria was nothing but old saltationism in new guise. Our debt to Mayr's concept of species and speciation, so central to the idea of punctuated equilibria, eventually induced him to do an about face. Mayr came to prefer taking credit for punctuated equilibria rather than seeing it linked to his old nemesis Goldschmidt.
Dawkins, R. (1996) Climbing Mt. Improbable W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin. John Wiley & SOns, Inc., New York
Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
That's the question asked by Irwin Tessman in the January/February 2008 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Tessman is a Professor Emeritus in the Biology Department at Purdue University. You can see a podcast of his lecture, "A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist" at [The Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University].Tessman is interested in comparing the views of the so-called "militant atheist," Richard Dawkins with the religious views of Charles Darwin. He concludes that their views are not very different. The biggest difference between the two men is that Darwin choose to hide his lack of religion from the public in deference to his wife Emma, who was a devout Anglican.
With the publication of the compete text of Darwin's autobiography in 1958, we now have much greater insight into Darwin's thoughts about religion. Here's how Tessman puts it,
Where does Darwin stand on the matter of a personal God? "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which seemed so conclusive, fails now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by a man" (Darwin 1958, p.87). Darwin seems to reject the idea of a personal God and, therefore, theism too. His religious views are difficult to pin down (Browne, 2006, p.46), but something close to deism would seem to fit.There seems to be general agreement that Darwin did not subscribe to the tenets of any organized religion. There is debate over whether he believed in supernatural beings. His Grandfather, father, and brother were non-believers so it's reasonable to suppose that Darwin was too.
Theism is a belief in a personal God, one who responds to prayers and interferes in daily events; atheism is the opposite of theism. Deism is the belief in a God who set the universe in motion whit all the physical laws and both sacred and learned commentaries, but was absent after that. In practice, deism is much like atheism.
He may have been comfortable with agnostic, a term that was invented by his friend Thomas Huxley. This would have been far more acceptable to Emma than atheist. I suspect that if Darwin were alive today he would be an atheist ... unless Emma were also alive.
Browne, Janet (2006) Darwin's Origin of Species: A biography. Douglas & McIntyre Vancouver/Toronto.
Darwin, Charles (1958) The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Nora Barlow ed. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.
Junk DNA Poll
Just a reminder to vote in the junk DNA poll seen in the left sidebar. Check out A Junk DNA Quiz and comments for more information.Take the junk DNA quiz in the left sidebar to let me know what you think of your genome. How much of it could be removed without affecting our species in any significant way in terms of viability and reproduction? Or even in terms of significant ability to evolve in the future? In other words, how much is junk?It's important to register your choice now. You'll get another chance to vote on a similar topic in February and it will be fun to compare the two polls.
[Image Credit: The junk DNA icon is from the creationist website Evolution News & Views.]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)