The 37th edition of Gene Genie has been posted at The Genetic Genealogist [Gene Genie 37: Human Genomes Are a Dime a Dozen]. Welcome to the September 14, 2008 edition of Gene Genie! Bloggers have begun to pick up posting with the end of summer, and it seems like everyday there’s a bunch of new interesting posts about the human genome.The beautiful logo was created by Ricardo at My Biotech Life.
Michael Reiss is a practicing priest in the Church of England. He is also director of education in The Royal Society. Reiss wrote an article about teaching creationism in schools. The complete article was posted on guardian.co.uk [Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design]. I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.
So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.
For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."
I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.
However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.
The other approach is the one I call the "Ostrich" approach. It would ban all mention of creationism and refuse to even discuss any objections to evolution that students might have. This approach avoids the controversy altogether by claiming that creationism isn't science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science class. [Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net where you'll find plenty of discussion in the comments.]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) describes itself as ...The American Association for the Advancement of Science,AAAS has taken a position on religion. It's position is that science and religion are compatible and it has no qualms about promoting religious scientists as spokepersons for their position. As far as I know, they do not have any publications representing the view of the majority of their members who are non-believers. The idea that science and religion may not be compatible isn't presented.
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.
The Royal Society is a similar organization in the UK and the Commonwealth.The Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress.In Great Britain, unlike in America, there is at least debate on the issue of whether The Royal Society should take a position on religion. The latest round is an article posted on The Observer website, Our scientists must nail the creationists.
We support many top young scientists, engineers and technologists, influence science policy, debate scientific issues with the public and much more. We are an independent, charitable body which derives our authoritative status from over 1400 Fellows and Foreign Members.
It is the duty of scientists to fight such onslaughts and be examples of rationality in a darkening world, it is argued. Hence the anger at the Royal Society for failing to firmly nail its colours to its mast. The organisation has a motto: 'Nullius in verba' (roughly, 'Take nobody's word for it'). In other words, verify everything by experiment and think for yourself. Both are noble aspirations. It is therefore baffling how an ordained minister - a man committed to believing the word of God without question - could have been asked to play a senior role in the society. Equally, the society's acceptance of money from the Templeton Foundation raises further concerns.Hear, hear.
The Royal Society - which should set the fiercest of examples in its commitment to rationality - has shown worrying signs of spiritual sloppiness. (Its current president, Lord Rees, is a cosmologist who attends church 'as an unbelieving Anglican', it should be noted.) Those of a religious persuasion might welcome this softening. I would sound a note of caution, however. Britain is still a broadly secular society which guarantees freedoms not just to atheists but to all religions, no matter how few its adherents. If we follow the example of America then all are threatened by the rise of a powerful Christian right.
We badly need our premier scientific society to stand firm and present a clear vision of how our planet, our species, and the cosmos came into existence. It needs to be unequivocal about the wonders of nature as revealed through rational, scientific investigation. As Douglas Adams put it: 'Isn't enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
This just in from BBspot.Dallas, TX – Scientists from the Evolutionary Acceleration Research Institute (EARI) announced that the first test of the Giant Animal Smasher (GAS) will begin on December 19, 2008, the 41st anniversary of the premiere of Dr. Dolittle.Go to BBspot for more information.
Squirrel SmasherDr. Thomas Malwin, head of the research project, said, "The first test runs will only accelerate microscopic life-forms like bacteria and viruses to high speeds, but theoretically the GAS can handle animals as large as squirrels, hence the squirrel smasher moniker."
Biologists from around the globe hope the GAS will unlock the secrets of the so-called "Darwin particle" that could unlock the secrets to life.
"If we discover the Darwin particle we could possibly create new life-forms, or accelerate evolution to unimaginable levels," said Malwin.
[Hat Tip: John Hawks]
Opposing Views has posted a debate on the question Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?. Here's the complete question ...With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.All the players are there so this is a good chance for everyone to see what the "debate" is all about. For the "yes" side we have the Discovery Institute (Casey Luskin), Michael Behe, and Jay Roberts. On the "no" side there's the National Center for Science Education, Americans United, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
PZ Myers will be giving a talk in Toronto in an event sponsored by the University of Toronto Secular Alliance (UTSA) and the Toronto Center for Inquiry.1CFI ONTARIO HOSTS PZ MYERS IN TORONTO
TICKETS AVAILABLE FOR WORLD LEADING ATHEIST & SCIENCE BLOGGER"SCIENCE EDUCATION: THE WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION!"2 Friday, October 31, 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm
location - MacLeod Auditorium Medical Science Building, 1 King's College Circle, Room 2158, Toronto, ON, M5S1A8Centre for Inquiry - Ontario and the University of Toronto Secular Alliance present the popular biologist and author of the stimulating blog Pharyngula. Pharyngula is the world's leading blog dealing with science, atheism, religion and education, especially the creationism-evolution controversy. Dr. Myers was featured prominently in the recent film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, dealing with the supposed conspiracy to keep ID out of American universities. Dr. Myers was famously "Expelled" from the premiere screening of the very same film.
Dr. Myers is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He obtained his B.S in zoology from the university of Washington and his Ph.D. in biology from the Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon.
TICKETS and PRICES!
*NEW AND RENEWING CFI MEMBERS: FREE!!
By becoming a CFI member you will gain free admission to our events, discounts on conferences at all branches, 15% discount on selected Prometheus books, access to FREE MEMBERS ONLY receptions with selected speakers, and reduced subscription rate to Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer. Upcoming events include JAMES BISS - Magician and Mentalist, NICA LALLI - Author, 9/11 DEBATE, DAN FALK - Science Journalist, and many more!*STUDENTS AND MEMBERS: $5
*REGULAR ADVANCED: $8
*REGULAR AT THE DOOR: $10
Get your tickets in advance to ensure a spot! Buy early as prices may rise. You may:Please note that you WILL NOT be given a physical ticket. Your name will be added to a ticket list. Thus you should *arrive early* at the event location to find the appropriate line-up and gain access to the event. Please arrive at least a half an hour before the event. Box Office opens at 6pm.
- Buy tickets online through paypal at PZ Myers Comes to Toronto.
- Buy tickets in person at the Centre for Inquiry - Ontario (216 Beverely St.) during our opening hours (1-9pm Mon-Fri, 1-5pm Sat-Sun).
- Buy tickets through a cheque to: Centre For Inquiry 216 Beverley St. Toronto, ON M5T 1Z3
*Please note if you are sending a cheque please send it before October 24th
Full event info: PZ Myers Comes to Toronto.
Please Note: The J.J.R. MacLeod Auditorium is located in the Medical Sciences Building, University of Toronto on the north-west corner of College and University Ave. The closest subway station to the Medical Sciences Building is the Queens
Park exit.
1. We will be sponsoring a number of parties and social events in honor of PZ's visit to Toronto. Watch this blog for more information as the date approaches. We may even invite PZ to some of the events so you can meet him in person. He's actually a pretty nice guy when you get to know him.
2. Here's what PZ says about this talk as he leaves for Denver, "I'm going to gargle some tabasco before giving it, because this one needs to contain some bile and pepper, sorry to say. I'm going to say exactly what's wrong with the state of science education today, and it's all those weasely suck-ups who make excuses for religious idiocy. Anyway, if you can't make the talk, now you know what I'm going to say. It should be fun. It's OK if people argue with me, too. I expect people to fight back."
More and more biologists are beginning to realize that the history of life is not as determined by natural selection as they once thought. They are beginning to take to heart the idea that if you rewind and rerun the tape of life it will not turn out the same. A lot of the history is due to chance, luck, and accident.
Recent work has revealed that the crurotarsans were as diverse and abundant as the dinosaurs 200 million years ago. The authors explain the problem ...The critical interval to consider is the Late Triassic, especially the Norian and Rhaetian (Fig. 1), a 28-million-year span between the CNEE [Carnian-Norian extinction event] and TJEE [Triassic-Jurassic extinction event]. The key "competitors" of the early dinosaurs were the crurotarsans, the "crocodile-line" archosaurs, which show a range of morphologies and adaptations during this time: long-snouted fish- and flesh-eating phytosaurs, armored herbivorous aetosaurs, and large to giant carnivorous "rauisuchians." The crurotarsans even replicated many dinosaurian body plans (large terrestrial predators; small swift predators; mid- to large-bodied low-browsing herbivores; agile bipedal herbivores). Several new discoveries show striking convergences between crurotarsans and dinosaurs (10), and many Triassic crurotarsans were previously erroneously identified as dinosaur ancestors (11) or even as true dinosaurs (12). Such morphological convergence suggests that dinosaurs and crurotarsans were exploiting similar resources in the Late Triassic. In some Norian faunas, crurotarsans were numerically more abundant than dinosaurs (3) and seem to have exploited a wider range of body plans. However, by the end of the Triassic all crurotarsans were extinct, save a few lineages of crocodylomorphs.
The key question is why the major dinosaur lineages survived the TJEE, ushering in the 135-million-year "age of dinosaurs," while most crurotarsan groups went extinct.
Brusatte et al. measured evolution rates, speciations, and morphological disparity for the two groups (crurotarsans and dinosaurs) before the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event. They found no evidence that the dinosaurs were evolving more quickly or were becoming better adapted than the crurotarsans. "If we were standing in the Late Triassic, 210 million years ago or so, and had to bet on which group would eventually dominate ecosystems, all reasonable gamblers would go with the crurotarsans. There was no sign that dinosaurs were eventually going to succeed so why did they? The answer is two mass extinction events: the dinosaurs not only got lucky, but they got lucky twice.This paper is relevant for a number of reasons unrelated to the history of dinosaurs.
"They first weathered the storm during the Carnian-Norian event 228 million years ago, but so did the crurotarsans. In contrast, many other potential competitor groups went extinct. Then dinosaurs weathered a second, much bigger, storm 200 million years ago. This was the end Triassic extinction event, which was a sudden and catastrophic extinction caused by rapid climate change, possibly facilitated by an asteroid impact. Strangely, and suddenly, all crurotarsans except for a few lineages of crocodiles went extinct. On the other hand, the dinosaurs did not. They survived and then radiated in the Early Jurassic, and very quickly established themselves as the dominant vertebrate group on land across the world.
"Why did crurotarsans go extinct and not dinosaurs? We don't know the answer to that, but we suspect that it was nothing more than luck, plain and simple.
[Image Credit: The drawing of a crurotarsan archosaur is from the Palaeos website, specifically Archosauromorpha: Rauisuchiformes]
Brusatte, S.L., Benton, M.J., Ruta, M. and Lloyd, G.T. (2008) Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs. Science 321:1485-1488. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1161833]
S. L. Brusatte, M. J. Benton, M. Ruta, G. T. Lloyd (2008). Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs Science, 321 (5895), 1485-1488 DOI: 10.1126/science.1161833
You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.Yes, it's true. But Connie Meskimen is lawyer whose hobby is writing sarcastic letters to the local newspaper according to Snopes.com [Daylight Exacerbates Warming].
This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?
Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.
CONNIE M. MESKIMEN
Hot Springs
Canada is in the middle of an election campaign. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that Canadian troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan when the current mission is up in 2011. This is a change in policy since previously Harper had argued that setting a deadline for withdrawal was a bad idea.Earlier Thursday, Davis said it would be ideal to have Canadian soldiers home by 2011 but setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission."I think we should cut and run right now. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as long as we continue to occupy their country and bomb them.
He said the deadline makes it difficult for Canadian soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people if they know troops will be gone in two years.
"I would never want to see another soldier go in harm's way so I can justify my son's death," Davis told CTV's Canada AM.
"But at the same time if we pull up stakes and come home when we're not ready to -- when the mission is not complete -- if we did that then my son died in vain."
Most of you know Richard Lewontin as one of the authors on a paper that every student of evolution must read [The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm]. Suzan Mazur: Is it your opinion that natural selection is here to stay?
Richard Lewontin: Natural selection occurs. The problem for the biologist is that natural selection is not the only biological force operating on the composition of populations. There are random forces because after all population is only finite in size. And even if there’s no natural selection, everybody does not have exactly two children. Every couple doesn’t exactly have two children to replace it. And there’s randomness in which sperm fertilizes which egg. So things change for that random reason. And things change because species go extinct. Nobody knows why any particular species ever went extinct. But every species goes extinct.
In both essays, I draw attention to the confusing messages that scientist pundits such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers continue to send to the wider American public. By combining their attacks on religion with their defense of evolution, they blur the lines between science, religion, and atheism, providing fodder to creationists who claim that evolution is part of a larger atheist agenda. These confusing messages are only likely to be amplified next year during the anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin, as Dawkins goes on a publicity tour for his new book and Myers is reported to also have a book in the works.Poor old Matt. He just doesn't get it. There's no confusion. Dawkins and PZ (and me) are on the side of rationalism in the war between rationalism and superstition. Evolution is part and parcel of the rationalism perspective while religion and creationism are on the other side.
Nils Reinton of The Sciphu Weblog has just posted an article entitled Junk, DNA, RNA, Brain, Biology and Possible Solutions. New ideas, approaches and tools are needed to explain how this seemingly chaotic system works. Dismissing reasons for the obvious complexity using terms like “junk-DNA” is not going to get us anywhere.This statement combines two of my pet peeves. First, our use of the term "junk" DNA is not based on ignorance in spite of what Nils implies. We know, for example, that 50% of our genome consists of defective transposons. That looks like junk to me [Genomes & Junk DNA]. It makes me really, really annoyed when fellow scientists assume that junk DNA supporters are basing their entire argument on lack of knowledge about biology. Instead, it appears that the other side is the guilty party.
Instead, let’s start by acknowledging that we know very little. All we know is that function comes out of an apparent chaotic mixture of DNA protein and RNA. Let’s assume that everything is there for a reason. Without reason you loose hope and visions and those are qualities that science is vitally dependent upon.
That hyperbole has reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community, putting Pigliucci and the 15 other participants at the forefront of a debate over whether ideas about evolution need updating. The mere mention of the "Altenberg 16," as Mazur dubbed the group, causes some evolutionary biologists to roll their eyes. It's a joke, says Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago in Illinois. "I don't think there's anything that needs fixing." Mazur's attention, Pigliucci admits, "frankly caused me embarrassment."That's a pretty accurate commentary on how the Alternberg 16 are viewed by most evolutionary biologists. They don't think the Modern Synthesis needs fixing. But—and this is a big "but"—they are referring to the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis; the version that can be described as ultra-Darwinian. The version that Stephen Jay Gould and others have been trying to change since 1970.
Modern traditionThis is definitely not the pluralism promoted by Gould and others and it's not even the original version of the Modern Synthesis published in the 1940's. Two of the key principles of the original Modern Synthesis were ...
The modern synthesis essentially represents a marriage of the 19th century concept of evolution with Mendelian genetics, which was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century; the birth of population genetics in the 1920s added to the intellectual mix. By the 1940s, biologists had worked out a set of ideas that put natural selection and adaptation at evolution's core. Julian Huxley's 1942 book, Evolution: The modern synthesis, brought together this work for a broad audience.
Simply put, the modern synthesis holds that organisms have a repertoire of traits that are passed down through the generations. Mutations in genes alter those traits bit by bit, and if conditions are such that those alterations make an individual more fit, then the altered trait becomes more common over time. This process is called natural selection. In some cases, the new feature can replace an old one; in other instances, natural selection also leads to speciation.
5. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions or frequencies) or individual organisms with different genotypes (hence, often with different phenotypes) within a population. One genotype may gradually replace other genotypes over the course of generations. Replacement may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species.The hardened version of the Modern Synthesis only talks about natural selection and random genetic drift barely gets mentioned. It's too bad that Pennisi only interviewed adaptationists and it's too bad that she didn't bother to read an evolution textbook.
6. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift a population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principle processes; random fluctuations in proportions (genetic drift), or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes with others (i.e., natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously. (Futuyma, 2005)
Krauss: Both you and I have devoted a substantial fraction of our time to trying to get people excited about science, while also attempting to explain the bases of our current respective scientific understandings of the universe. So it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion. I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place? I suspect that I want to concentrate more on the first issue, and you want to concentrate more on the second.
I say this because if one is looking to teach people, then it seems clear to me that one needs to reach out to them, to understand where they are coming from, if one is going to seduce them into thinking about science. I often tell teachers, for example, that the biggest mistake any of them can make is to assume that their students are interested in what they are about to say. Teaching is seduction. Telling people, on the other hand, that their deepest beliefs are simply silly—even if they are—and that they should therefore listen to us to learn the truth ultimately defeats subsequent pedagogy. Having said that, if instead the primary purpose in discussing this subject is to put religion in its proper context, then perhaps it is useful to shock people into questioning their beliefs.
Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions. I agree with you that teaching is seduction, and it could well be bad strategy to alienate your audience before you even start. Maybe I could improve my seduction technique. But nobody admires a dishonest seducer, and I wonder how far you are prepared to go in “reaching out.” Presumably you wouldn’t reach out to a Flat Earther. Nor, perhaps, to a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But perhaps you would reach out to an Old Earth Creationist who thinks God started the whole thing off and then intervened from time to time to help evolution over the difficult jumps. The difference between us is quantitative, only. You are prepared to reach out a little further than I am, but I suspect not all that much further.
...
Dawkins: I like your clarification of what you mean by reaching out. But let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.
