The molecule is the potassium ion channel from rat brain cells. Roderick MacKinnon solved this structure and he got the Nobel Prize in 2003 for his work on the structure and function of the potassiunm ion channel [see Nobel Laureat: Roderick MacKinnon]
The Nobel Laureates for this week are Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann for working out a technique to measure the voltage changes during ion transport.
The winner is Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Identify this molecule. Be as specific as possible. Briefly describe what it does
There's a Nobel Prize indirectly connected to this molecule. The prize was for developing a technique that could be used to study the function of molecules like this one.
The first person to identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s) wins a free lunch. Previous winners are ineligible for six weeks from the time they first won the prize.
There are only five ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Ben Morgan of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Schmidt of the University of Missouri, Joshua Johnson of Victoria University in Australia, Markus-Frederik Bohn of the Lehrstuhl für Biotechnik in Erlangen, Germany, and Jason Oakley a biochemistry student at the University of Toronto.
Frank and Joshua have agreed to donate their free lunch to an undergraduate. Consequently, I have an extra free lunch for a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to award an additional prize to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch. If you can't make it for lunch then please consider donating it to someone who can in the next round.
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(s) and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Prizes so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings by clicking on the link in the theme box.
Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.
Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.
One of the problems with adaptationist just-so stories is that they often sound so plausible that everyone just assumes they must be true and stops thinking critically. One of the classic examples is the adaptationist explanation of menopause.
The "Grandmother Hypothesis" says that menopause arose in primitive hominids because it prevented pregnancies in older women thereby freeing them to assist in the care of their grandchildren. This extra care had a significant effect on the survivability of the grandchildren thereby increasing the probability that the frequency of the menopause allele would increase in the population.
Over the course of thousands of generations, the allele for menopause became fixed in our ancestral populations because it conferred a significant adaptive advantage.
Razib Khan believes in this adaptationist explanation for menopause. He quotes from a recent study that seems. on the surface, to lend support to the idea. See the recent posting on Gene Expression: Menopause as an adaptation.
The study by Virpi Lummaa looked at the presumed benefit of grandmothers among Finnish families. She reports that children with the support of a grandmother are 12% more likely to survive than children without such support.
The prompts Razib to write.
12% is a very big effect and would lead to rapid evolutionary change (on the order of thousands of years in the most simple population genetic model of a single locus of dominant effect).
I posted a comment on his blog. I'm reproducing it here in order to get more feedback.
12% is, indeed, a very large effect but what does it have to do with evolution?
We're looking at a study where every single woman underwent menopause so one of the things we certainly aren't doing is testing to see whether menopause has an effect on the survivability of grandchildren.
Let's think about reasons why some families have grandmothers to help out and some don't. First, there's the relative proximity of living grandmothers. Then there's the question of the relationship between parents and grandparents. Let's not forget possible financial help that has nothing to do with direct caregiving. Finally, there's the issue of whether a family even has a surviving grandmother.
None of theses things are affected in any way by the fertility or non-fertility of the grandmother, right? The 12% difference has nothing to do with menopause.
Now let's think about a time in the past when menopause was presumably evolving. You had two kinds of females in the population, those who underwent menopause and those who didn't. There will still be all kinds of families who experience the help of a grandmother irrespective of whether she can still have kids or not. That's the background that a presumed adaptation has to deal with.
If there are non-menopausal women who live into their fifties, are close to their grandchildren, and whose husband is dead, then they will presumably help raise thier grandchildren. Same thing applies to non-menopausal women who simply don't risk getting pregnant any more even though their spouse is alive. (Just say "no." It's probably more common than you think. Women are not stupid.)
In fact, the adaptationist just-so story only really applies to that small subset of women who have the following characteristics.
They live past 50 years old.
They have grandchildren who are young and still need care.
They don't have too many grandchildren in different families so their caregiving can be effective.
They live near their grandchildren and can help out.
They have a good relationship with their children and their spouses.
Their husbands are still living.
They choose to get pregnant.
That's the only group that menopause affects. It eliminates #7 but has no effect on any of the other factors. It certainly doesn't have any effect on whether the grandmother was dead or alive at 50 years old.
Given that there were many families that received no help from grandmothers, whether they had the menopause allele or not, and given that there were many families who received help even if the grandmothers did not have the menopause allele, the question is "what is the adaptive value of menopause under those circumstances."
What does the Lummaa study have to say about that?
Since you are a supporter of this adaptationist explanation can you describe for me the kind of society where you think this allele became fixed in the population? Was it a hunter-gather society of small bands or a large agricultural society of small towns? Or something else?
I'd like to hear more details about how this grandmother hypothesis actually worked in Australopithicus or Homo erectus societies. Please include your estimate of how many grandmothers survived past the age where menopause could make a difference as you estimate the fitness coefficient.
[Image Credit: "Rudyard Kipling’s illustration for The Elephant’s Child from Just So Stories (1902)." From Encyclopedia Britannica
Identify this molecule. Be as specific as possible. Briefly describe what it does
There's a Nobel Prize indirectly connected to this molecule. The prize was for developing a technique that could be used to study the function of molecules like this one.
The first person to identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s) wins a free lunch. Previous winners are ineligible for six weeks from the time they first won the prize.
There are only five ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Ben Morgan of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Schmidt of the University of Missouri, Joshua Johnson of Victoria University in Australia, Markus-Frederik Bohn of the Lehrstuhl für Biotechnik in Erlangen, Germany, and Jason Oakley a biochemistry student at the University of Toronto.
Frank and Joshua have agreed to donate their free lunch to an undergraduate. Consequently, I have an extra free lunch for a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to award an additional prize to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch. If you can't make it for lunch then please consider donating it to someone who can in the next round.
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(s) and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Prizes so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings by clicking on the link in the theme box.
Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.
Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.
A Day of General Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the bountiful harvest with which Canada has been blessed … to be observed on the 2nd Monday in October.
The modern holiday dates from about one hundred years ago and it is heavily influenced by the American tradition that was beginning to become well known at that time.
However, the original celebration clearly descends from harvest festivals celebrated in Europe hundreds of years ago. The first Europeans to come to North America brought this celebration with them and it likely became more popular because several East coast aboriginal tribes celebrated a harvest festival.
Canada claims that the first thanksgiving in North America was in 1578 when Martin Frobisher organized an autumn celebration in Newfoundland.1 Samuel de Champlain frequently celebrated thanksgiving feasts in the early French colonies in Nova Scotia and Quebec beginning in 1604. The local natives joined in these celebrations [see L’Ordre de Bon Temps (Order of Good Cheer)].
Further south, the English settlers in New England began to celebrate a harvest festival in 1621. A tradition that they brought with them from Europe. It's this version of the English festival that has come down to us as the prototypical thanksgiving day. That part of the tradition was imported to Canada in the late 1700s when thousands of settlers fled north from the new United Sates of America to take up residence in the British Colony of Canada.
1. The other contender is a festival on September 8, 1565 in Saint Augustine, Florida. Is Florida part of North America? :-)
Some people in the intelligent design community don't like it when we refer to their beliefs as "Intelligent Design Creationism." They claim they aren't creationists when they talk about an intelligent designer who createdspoke designed life.
Nick Matkze got involved in a discussion with one of those people. It's worth reading his comments on Panda's Thumb: The truth hurts. Check out the comments as well. The posting pretty much covers the main issues in the debate.
As usual, the Intelligent Design Creationists (a.k.a. IDiots) don't have a rational leg to stand on.
I'll just post this without comment because I can't, for the life of me, figure out the logic [Denyse O'Leary on Uncommon Descent; Serving the Intelligent Design Community: Off topic: Single payer health care]
Here I was recently treated to an interesting display of Darwinist logic.
A commenter demanded that I provide proof that in a single-payer health system like Canada’s, older people are being abandoned to die. Another suggested I just shut up about it.
Sorry. Go here for how bad it can get.
It’s a matter of simple logic, really. Sarah Palin’s death panels are alive and well in Canada because we have a single government payer health system.
I believe that universities are special places. The primary objective of the university community is to learn and investigate. That goal should not be restricted or impeded by outside concerns, especially if those "concerns" are ideologically or politically motivated. Society relies on universities to harbor unconventional and unusual opinions. It's where the minority viewpoint can be protected until it becomes the majority, as happens so often in a progressive society.
The other objective of a university is disseminating knowledge. That's why students come to a university to learn and it's why universities offer public lectures. It's why students and faculty members are encouraged to speak out on controversial topics. Universities thrive on diversity and that's why the most extreme opinions can be heard on campuses. It's part of the deal.
We're all familiar with the attempts to censor unpopular opinions. Mostly we get upset when left-wing protests are suppressed as happened during the 60s when the anti-war demonstrations were opposed [see Kent State Shootings]. We know about attempts to fire communist and gay professors and we are outraged to learn that women are being discriminated against in the universities.
What about opinions that don't fall into the liberal camp? Are we upset when those opinions are suppressed in the universities? No, not so much. I'm constantly surprised and disappointed when I hear some of my colleagues urging the dismissal of creationist professors or trying to block IDiots from lecturing on campus.
That's stupid and hypocritical. The value of a university is only protected when all opinions are respected.1 You can't pick and choose which ones deserve protection and which ones should be censored. Universities don't function once you start down that path.
The McGill student newspaper has started down that path with an article about a student pro-life club: EDITORIAL: Choose Life crossed the line with Ruba event. The editors seem to have set themselves up as sole arbitrators of some kind of imaginary "line" that can't be crossed.
At 6 p.m. tonight, Choose Life, the Students' Society's pro-life club, will host a presentation by Jose Ruba, a co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, titled "Echoes of the Holocaust." Ruba's speech will attempt to draw parallels between abortion and the Holocaust, by arguing that "dehumanization and denial of personhood has justified some of the greatest affronts to human dignity that the world has seen." The presentation refers to abortion as a "mass human rights violation" and includes graphic imagery such as photos of dead bodies at concentration camps followed by photos of supposedly aborted foetuses.
On Thursday night, SSMU Council voted to censure the event and to make Choose Life ineligible to receive funding if they go through with tonight's presentation. We commend them for that decision. The comparison of abortion to the Holocaust is not only horribly offensive and inaccurate, it is deliberately designed to be inflammatory. This event is not intended to foster debate - it is designed to be provocative and to distract from meaningful discussion of abortive rights.
These are the sorts of issues that test our mettle. Either you support freedom of expression on the campus or you don't. There's no middle ground where you support some expression but not others.2
The editors of The McGill Tribune have just failed the test.
The SSMU Executive is incredibly concerned and upset about the response of McGill University to the recent "Echoes of the Holocaust" event, hosted by the SSMU club Choose Life. We feel that McGill University has not only disrespected the rights of the SSMU as the accredited representative body of all McGill undergraduate students, but also failed to protect students' rights.
McGill University has not respected SSMU Council and the SSMU Executives as representatives of the McGill undergraduate student population. When the SSMU Council passed a resolution officially and publically censuring the event "Echoes of the Holocaust", the SSMU Council clearly stated that for Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson to permit it to go forward would disregard the desire of the Council. In response Professor Mendelson argued that this resolution is a tyranny of the majority. Firstly, this is an offensive misrepresentation of the purpose of SSMU Council. The SSMU Council was acting on behalf of all undergraduate students, both in its representative capacity and in reaction to many conversations with students. Secondly, it is worrisome that the Deputy Provost interprets a large percentage of students being outraged and appalled at an event to be a tyranny of the majority. The SSMU had hoped that he would consider the impact as well as content of the presentation instead of ignoring the formal intervention of students' representative body by using the rhetoric of academic freedom.
So we're reduced to the point where academic freedom is just "rhetoric"?3
I remember the days when it was students who were advocating freedom of expression and administrators who were trying to suppress it. Now those students are administrators and we have a whole new generation of students who don't understand the meaning of freedom on a university campus. How times change.
Incidentally, a large group of students succeeded in preventing Jose Ruba from speaking at the event according to a report in The National Post: Tim Mak: McGill abortion advocates block opposing opinions. They sang songs for three hours until the organizers gave up and went home.
Here's a video of the first part of the event so you can see for yourselves what transpired. The students do not earn my respect for their behavior. They have the right of freedom of expression and they have the right to express their disagreement but they do not have the right to prevent contrary opinions from being expressed on a university campus.
The event prompts Tim Mak, a former employee of the Fraser Institute, to write ...
But these are university campuses nowadays, ruled by an arrogant minority on the left, who despite their paucity, believe they speak for everyone. "I don't think that this type of talk should be allowed to happen at McGill," said Eisenkraft Klein, one of the protestors arrested, in the McGill Tribune. "This is student space. This is not public property."
What conceit. Klein’s implication was that her opinions represented those of all McGill students, that student space was only for activities that conformed to her parochial political views. I’m by no means a supporter of the pro-life movement. But I am a supporter of the modern conservative movement – a movement that believes that freedom of speech means free speech for all. On the other hand, the left has found it convenient to hide behind the tenets of free speech when they want to, say, condemn Israel, but have found it much harder to extend the protections of free speech to positions they disagree with.
I’ve always found that the most interesting lecturers are those with whom I have the least in common. Who wants to spend a couple hours nodding affirmatively at PowerPoint slides? But we’ll never know what Ruba might have said, and all reasonable students have left to do is sing the free speech blues.
Some of you might be afraid that the world is coming to an end when I agree with someone like Tim Mak. Not so, there really are open-minded conservatives who defend freedom of expression. I'm proud to ally with them on this issue.
Call me an accommodationist ...
A good case can be made that exposing stupid ideas to the light of day—and to serious debate in the university community—is the best way to discredit them. (Ignoring them works, too.) Trying to suppress them is the best way to give them the publicity they thrive on and it has the exact opposite effect to what the protesters desire. So, in addition to objecting to the student's behavior on the grounds of protecting freedom of expression, I object on the grounds that it's a tactically stupid way to oppose kooks.
1. "Respected" doesn't mean you have to agree. You can vigorously oppose any idea that's expressed on a campus but you can't muzzle it on the grounds that you disagree.
2. Don't quibble about this. Yes, we can all think of some examples of expression that must be excluded—yelling "fire" in a crowded classroom—for example.
3. I'm aware of the fact that the term "academic freedom" can be misused. If Morton Mendelson used "academic freedom" to permit the event to go forward then that's unfortunate. There are better ways to describe the principle I defend—it's "freedom of expression on university campuses."
[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic. I strongly disagree with him on this one.]
Here's a chart of the average annual global temperature change over the past 150 years. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be a bit of a trend.
The highest recorded temperature was in 1998 and last year the temperature was 0.08° lower than the year before. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thinks that the temperature has to increase every single year in order to demonstrate global warming.
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
It's actually not quite as bad an article as it sounds. There's some interesting discussion about short-term trends and how to predict them. Unfortunately the author leaves the impression that global warming may not be caused by humans. In seven of the past eight years the global temperature has been higher than it has ever been except for 1998. Isn't that worth mentioning?
The interesting thing about this is that the exact quotation above is presented on Uncommon Descent under the same scary title: What happened to global warming?. There's no additional information to put the headline into context.
Why is there a correlation between the rejection of evolution and the rejection of other scientific discoveries? Isn't it obvious? The IDiots are not in the business of promoting the scientific theory of Intelligent Design Creationism. Their goal is to discredit science and they'll try anything at all to advance that goal.
A discussion about human races has broken out in the comments to The Problem of Race .... Again. One of quesitions on that thread has come up many times in the past so I'm devoting a separate posting to the answer.
Hopefully, this will stimulate discussion and debate about the scientific data and evidence for genetically distinct humans populations. I want to get away from the other aspects of the debate about races since they always seem to devolve into accusations of racism and/or political correctness. (mea culpa)
anonymous asks,
i always feel in these discussions people are talking past each other, especially when they have differing definitions of words like 'race'. so to clarify matters for me, i would like Dr. Moran to give the likely number of races that currently exist, say something on the stability of such groupings,give examples (if possible) of these racial groupings along with their differing genetic markers e.g. race 1 - geographically located in region A & B, with unique (almost Unique) gene combination 1,3,4,5 occuring at frequencies A,B,C,E.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is a joke.
Are you one of those people who want to deny the existence of races just because your question can't be answered precisely in the manner you phrase it? That sounds very much like the kind of thinking I encounter when dealing with creationists.
Biology is messy. There are no nice and tidy boundaries around terms like race, species, or even higher taxonomic levels. You may not like it but you have to deal with it. If you understand evolution then it all makes sense and you know why things are so messy.
Our species is subdivided into many different genetically isolated(1) populations ranging from very small ones, such as the residents of Tristan da Cunha, to very large ones, such as Africans and Asians.
The term "race" usually refers to the largest populations within a species. In the case of humans, the group who migrated out of Africa founded a genetically isolated population that subsequently split into several different populations. The main ones are Asian, European, Australian, and American.
These are reasonable examples of races. Each of them can be subdivided into numerous examples of demes and populations. Their genetic distinctiveness is so obvious that most of us would have no difficulty identifying their members if we encounter them on the streets of a major cosmopolitan city.(2)
The African group from which the migrants split is "polyphyletic" and deciding how to divide it into races is problematic. However, it's clearly a group that's genetically distinct from the other races so it's not unreasonable to refer to the Africans as a race, as long as you keep in mind that there are subdivisions and that this group is much more genetically divers than the others.
The genetic distinctiveness of Africans is pretty obvious to me. I'm constantly surprised by those who pretend it doesn't exist. People of African ancestry certainly don't have any trouble recognizing that I'm Caucasian and that some of my other neighbors are Asian.
There are dozens of phylogenetic trees on the web showing these major splits and subdivisions. Probably the most famous is the mitochondrial tree but others show roughly the same tree. It would be hard to imagine anyone denying the existence of human races unless they completely reject that kind of analysis.
There are several commercial, for-profit, companies that are more than willing to take your money (and your DNA) and provide you with an analysis that identifies where your ancestors came from. They are able to do this because certain haplotypes evolved in certain parts of the world. The mitochondrial haplotypes are shown on the map above and the Y-chromosome haplotypes are shown on the map on the left.
Given all the publicity about tracing your genealogy by haplotyes and all the scientific papers on the genetic differences between races, it surprises me that in 2009 there are still people who question whether these genetic differences even exist.
1. "Genetically isolated" does not mean that there's no genes flow between populations. It means restricted gene flow. If gene flow was zero they the populations wouldn't be populations. They would be species.
2. This does not mean that there won't be examples where the identification is difficult and it doesn't deny the existence of interbreeding between races. If you're looking for that kind of example then you won't find it in humans or in any other species where the biological term race is commonly used.
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was announced today by Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. It goes to President Barack Obama, a man who has been President of the United States for about nine months and is currently conducting two simultaneous invasions and occupations of foreign nations.
The United States "peaceably" threatens both Iran and North Korea with possible military strikes if they do not stop developing a nuclear weapons program. The United States deploys the largest, most deadly, military force the world has ever seen and is in no hurry to reduce its size.
I think Obama is a wonderful choice for President of the USA. He is far, far, better than many others who have sought that office. However, it does not follow from that that he merits the Nobel Peace prize. He doesn't. The Norwegian Nobel Committee should be ashamed of themselves.
Here's the press release. The committee is confusing hope and hype with actual results. Let's hope the promise of a better world works out over the course of the next few years or we might look back on this award with shock and awe. At the very least, we should expect a serious reduction in the American nuclear weapons stockpile, right? And we should expect UN Nuclear inspection teams to be visiting the USA, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel.
Who's holding their breath?
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.
What does the White House have to say? Surprisingly, Obama is being very candid.
"I am both surprised and deeply humbled," Obama said at the White House.
"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action."
Obama said he did not feel he deserves "to be in the company" of past winners, but would continue to push a broad range of international objectives, including nuclear non-proliferation, a reversal of the global economic downturn, and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He acknowledged the ongoing U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that he is the "commander in chief of a country that is responsible for ending" one war and confronting a dangerous adversary in another.
The Associated Press story seems to be typical of the responses from around the world [President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize]. I think this is going to make Obama's life more difficult, not easier. It may have the exact opposite effect to what well-meaning members of the prize committee expected. This will go down as one of the most controversial awards in recent memory.
Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
The University of Toronto is in the process of reorganizing its introductory biology courses. The new proposal is to offer two half courses in first year and two in second year. The expectation is that all life science students will take all four courses.
To give you an idea of the numbers, the anticipated enrolment for the first year courses is 1920 students and for the second year courses about 1500 students. These are the courses that will make the biggest impact on our students when it comes to understanding basic biology.
Here they are ....
BIO120H: Adaptation and Biodiversity BIO130H: Molecular and Cell Biology
BIO220H: From Genomes to Ecosystems in a Changing World BIO230H: From Genes to Organisms
There's a lot that's wrong with this proposal but I'm focusing on the teaching of evolution. Everyone agrees that it's important to teach evolution and teach it correctly. I don't think a course entitled "Adaptation and Biodiversity" is going to do an adequate job, especially since the fossil record is completely ignored and there's no serious attempt to teach the history of life. Population genetics gets only a single lecture in the middle of the course.
I'm trying to start a revolution by convincing my colleagues to vote down these proposals on the grounds that we can do much better. At the very least, the decision should be postponed for a year so we can debate the issues. The proposals were first circulated last week and the recommendation of the Life Sciences Curriculum Committee is going to be decided today. If they recommend in favor of adopting the proposals, then it's highly unlikely that the recommendation will be overturned at the next level. That's no way to run a university.
Yesterday I bumped into my colleague, Paul Hamel, as I was on my way to Tim Hortons. He asked me what I was up to and I told him I was trying to start a revolution. His advice? "Don't quit your day job!"
(In order to appreciate this comment, you probably need to know that Paul is one of the most radical members of our faculty and he's been fighting to change the system, and our society, for several decades.)
I think most of you can see the problem with the BIO120H course title. The first sentence of the course description is, "Principles and concepts of evolution and ecology related to origins of adaptation and biodiversity." Since much of the biodiversity around us is not due to adaptation, it seems like a strange way to describe "principles and concepts."
That's not the only thing wrong with the courses but this isn't the place to go into more detail. The problem I face is that it is very difficult to convince my colleages that there's something wrong with the way we propose to teach evolution since very few of them understand evolution. In my case the problem is compounded by the fact that the course instructor, Spencer Barrett, is a highly respected evolutionary biologist with lots of publications in prestigious journals.
I'm not optimistic. Making changes at a big university is like trying to herd together a bunch of cats and get them to cooperate in turning a full loaded supertanker. It can be done but it's a lot of work.
Anyway, this is a long-winded introduction to the real reason for this posting. I want to highlight a posting by Ryan Gregory who explains why it's important to teach evolution and what level of detail is needed [How detailed an understanding of evolution do we need?]. Here's a teaser, get on over to Genomicron and read the whole thing.
If you mean “students enrolled in science programs,” either undergraduates or grad students (as in our study), then I would say that a good working knowledge of evolutionary theory, though not a full understanding of all its nuances, should be a major goal. Again, evolution is the unifying principle of biology, and without grasping how it works, one cannot make sense of the history and current diversity of life on this planet.
UPDATE: The committee met and the courses were approved without much debate.
Here's an excellent example of the fallacious argument referred to as "guilt by association." The idea is that you develop an association between some evil person and the position you want to attack.
For example, suppose you wanted to show that fundamentalist Christianity was bad. What you do is find some fundamentalist Christian who behaved immorally—not hard to do—then allow readers to draw the "obvious" conclusion.
Or, you could do the same thing with those who accept evolution as Barry Arrington does on Uncommon Descent [Darwin at Columbine Redux].
As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”
Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.
It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”
I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.
For the record, I reject all attempts to discredit Christianity by pointing to priests who molest children; the fact the Kent Hovind is in prison; or the tribulations of Jimmy Swaggart. We can gloat about those incidents and revel in the hypocrisy but they say nothing at all about the truth of Christianity.
Similarly, I do not apologize for nor condone the behavior of stupid people who accept evolution. It's irrelevant to the debate over the facts of evolution.
Everyone should adopt this position. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people on the other side who get all uppity whenever a Christian is caught with his pants down but see nothing wrong with blogging about evil evolutionists.
The word you're looking for is "hypocrisy." It seems to be quite common on that side of the debate.
I strongly support the concept of junk DNA and I reject the idea that a significant percentage more than 10% of the DNA in our genome has a function. This is my informed opinion.
This is a genuine scientific controversy, one that I bring to the attention of my students. We are discussing controversies, misunderstandings, and frauds. This one counts as a scientific controversy.
Of course, it's also part of the rationalism vs superstition debate since creationists have a hard time explaining junk DNA. The Intelligent Design Creationists, in particular, are almost duty-bound to oppose the concept. For an excellent example of how the IDiots exploit a genuine scientific controversy see: How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 by Richard Sternberg .
THEME
Genomes & Junk DNA It all sounds very much like science. The trick is to put as much science into the discussion as possible, while keeping the distortions and misrepresentations to a mimimum. It's best to omit all references to other points of view 'cause that gives the impression that the scientific community is opposed to junk DNA.
The molecule is the potassium ion channel from rat brain cells. Roderick MacKinnon solved this structure and he got the Nobel Prize in 2003 for his work on the structure and function of the potassiunm ion channel [see Nobel Laureat: Roderick MacKinnon]
Identify this molecule. Be as specific as possible. Briefly describe what it does
