Carnival of Evolution #45

 

This month's Carnival of Evolution (45th version) is hosted by Adrian, a Canadian from Edmonton, Alberta who blogs at Splendor Awaits: Carnival of Evolution #45.

Here at last is the Carnival of Evolution. Because there were so few bug-based submissions, I had to change my plans and think of a new approach. I decided this would be a good time to try the new Google Presentation. This plays for me in the latest edition of Firefox, let me know how it works on your browser.

On with the Carnival! It’s awkward, a bit goofy and tongue-in-cheeky, but it does have bugs.

The next Carnival of Evolution (April) needs a host. Contact Bjørn Østman at Carnival of Evolution if you want to volunteer. Meanwhile, you can submit your articles for next month's carnival at Carnival of Evolution.

---

We Are Stardust

Helena Curtis was an amazing writer. She's famous for her introductory biology textbook published by Worth beginning in 1968 [Good Science Writers: Helena Curtis]. Here's the opening paragraphs.

Our universe began, according to current theory, with an explosion that filled all space, with every particle of matter hurled away from every other particle. The temperature at the time of the explosion—some 10 to 20 billion years ago—was about 100,000000000 degrees Celsius (10¹¹ °C). At this temperature, not even atoms could hold together; all matter was in the form of subatomic, elementary particles. Moving at enormous velocities, even those particles had fleeting lives. Colliding with great force, they annihilated one another, creating new particles and releasing great energy.

As the universe cooled, two types of stable particles, previously present only in relatively small amounts, began to assemble. (By this time, several hundred thousand years after the "big bang" is believed to have taken place, the temperature had dropped to a mere 2500°C, about the temperature of white-hot wire in an incandescent light bulb.) These particles—protons and neutrons—are very heavy as subatomic particles go. Held together by forces that are still incompletely understood, they formed the central cores, or nuclei, of atoms. These nuclei, with their positively charged protons, attracted small, light, negatively charged particles—electrons—which moved rapidly around them. Thus, atoms came into being.

It is from these atoms—blown apart, formed, and re-formed over the course of several billion years—that all the stars and planets of our universe are formed, including our particular star and planet. And it is from the atoms present on this planet that living systems assembled themselves and evolved. Each atom in our own bodies had its origin in that enormous explosion 10 to 20 billion years ago. You and I are flesh and blood, but we are also stardust.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson tops that in his spontaneous answer to the question, "What is the most astounding fact you can share with us about the Universe?"


If you're going to sing "we are stardust" then you can't do it any better than this group. The song was written by Joni Mitchell (another Canadian) but her version is not as good.

---

[Hat Tip: Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy: Neil Tyson’s most astounding fact.]

Who Is This Man?

 

I saw this portrait in the Huntington Library in San Marino (near Pasedena) California, USA. This man was the friend of a kite flyer, a pottery maker, and Erasmus Darwin. One of Ms. Sandwalk's direct ancestors worked for him.

He's very famous. You'll recognize the name instantly even if you don't recognize his face. Who is he?

I'll keep the comments invisible for 24 hours so you can post your guesses.

---

Monday's Molecule #160

 

This is a very important molecule for some species. It's important to me, for example, because I worked with it in an undergraduate research project forty-nine many years ago.

UPDATE: The original structure was missing a methyl group at the bottom right. This has now been corrected.

Identify the molecule—the common name will do but make sure you get it right because there are quite a few similar molecules. You must also say why it's important for some species.

Post your answer in the comments. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post correct answers to avoid embarrassment.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisable for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is a gibberellin-like molecule. It was intended to be gibberellin GA1 but I left off a methyl group. This is similar to Monday's Molecule #102 (gibberellin GA3). Defects in one of the genes for gibberellin GA1 synthesis gave rise to the tall/short phenotype studied by Gregor Mendel [Mendel's Stem Length Gene (Le)]. Gibberellin GA1 was one of the molecules synthesized by Elias James Corey, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1990. The winner this week is Albi Celaj.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody

---

Rosie Redfield Talks About Arsenic

 
Way to go Rosie! We'll soon turn you into a biochemist! I love it when you say the textbooks are still right.

---

The God Helmet: Your Brain on Religion

 

The Centre for Inquiry (Toronto) is trying to get back on track after CFI fired two National Executive Directors and the director of CFI Ontario/Toronto. We've lost our facility on Beverley Street so we now have to meet at various other locations in different parts of the city.

The Freethinkers Skeptics and Atheists (Free[SAY]) at York University have organized a talk on "The God Helmet: Your Brain on Religion" featuring Michael Persinger and his God Helmet. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.

During the 1980s he stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room". This research has received wide coverage in the media, with high profile visitors to Persinger's lab Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins reporting positive[8] and negative[9] results respectively.

The only published attempt, by a research group in Sweden, to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding.[10] Persinger responded that the Swedish group had an incorrect computer setup,[11] a claim that the Swedish group dispute,[12] and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind,[13] although the Swedish group have also disputed this.[12]

Persinger is also famous for suggesting that "extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves may be able to carry telepathic and clairvoyant information" and for his "1975 Tectonic Strain Theory (TST) of how geophysical variables may correlate with sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) or Marian apparitions." He also claims that women are far more susceptible to his God Helmet than men [Evolution Makes Women Stupid].

To my great embarrassment Michael Persinger won the contest for TV Ontario's Best Lecturer in 2007.

Here's your chance to meet Michael Persinger on Friday March 9, 2012 at York University. The Centre for Inquiry is co-sponsoring the event.

What if we could recreate a religious experience by simply flipping a switch in the brain? What if we could produce the feeling that someone or something is watching over us on demand? According to neuroscientific research conducted with The God Helmet, this may be possible.

The God Helmet, invented by Stanley Koren and used primarily by Dr. Michael Persinger, has forced us to reconsider the neurological basis of religion in the brain. The headgear is controversial because when electromagnetic waves are sent through a subject's temporal lobe, it can create the feeling of a religious experience, or a sense of belonging. “We basically imitate what happens within the brain itself during a mystical experience,” says Dr. Persinger.

In this engaging lecture with guest speakers Trevor Carniello and Dr. Michael Persinger, learn about how The God Helmet works and discover the origin of religious experiences in the brain. Join us in this exclusive opportunity to be able to ask Dr. Persinger questions and find answers to your curiosities about God, the brain and religion.

The lecture takes place on Friday, March 9th at York University. Tickets are available at freesay.wordpress.com. This event is brought to you by Free[SAY]: Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York in collaboration with the Center For Inquiry.

---

Do Human Races Exist?

This is a question that's come up many times in the blogosphere. My own answer is "yes," humans races/populations/demes/subspecies do exist.

Human Races Populations
Is Race a Biological Concept?
Genetically Speaking All Races Are Equal
Changing Your Mind: Maybe Human Races Do Exist After All
Matt Nisbet Asks an Embarrassing Question
Genetics and Race
Greg Laden on "Race" (Again)
Anne Wojcicki's Politically Correct View of Race
The Problem of Race .... Again
Human Races

Davey Jones (1945-2012)

 
Davey Jones of the Monkees died yesterday. He was 66 yeas old. Here he is singing Daydream Believer, a song that hit #1 in the USA in December 1967.

---

Exam Question #7

 
Today is the day of the midterm test in my course on molecular evolution. Here's one of the possible question on the test. Almost every student should get full marks on this one.

Imagine that a new mutation gives rise to a beneficial allele with a selection coefficient of 0.1 (s = 0.1) . What is the normal fate of this allele in a population of 10,000 individuals? Explain your answer.

Sandwalk readers should try and put this selection coefficient into perspective. It's probably at the high end for new beneficial alleles. What this means is that most adaptive explanations need to postulate a significant benefit to each individual in order to make the probability of fixation come out to some reasonable number.

Exam Question #1
Exam Question #2
Exam Question #3
Exam Question #4
Exam Question #5
Exam Question #6

---

Exam Question #6

 
This is an easy question. Here are the others: Exam Question #1, Exam Question #2, Exam Question #3, Exam Question #4, Exam Question #5.

To a first approximation, the rate of fixation of neutral alleles in a population is independent of effective population size. Why?

---

Exam Question #5

 
Did you try and answer Exam Question #1, Exam Question #2, Exam Question #3 or Exam Question #4? Were they too hard? Try this one.

Steven Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist at Harvard. He wrote ...

Are we still evolving? Biologically, probably not much. Evolution has no momentum, so we will not turn into the creepy bloat-heads of science fiction. The modern human condition is not conducive to real evolution either. We infest the whole habitable and not-so-habitable earth, migrate at will, and zigzag from lifestyle to lifestyle. This makes us a nebulous, moving target for natural selection.

What definition of evolution do you think he has in mind? Is he correct?

---

Exam Question #4

 
Now that you've tried Exam Question #1, Exam Question #2, and Exam Question #3, let's see how you do with this one.

Many evolutionary biologists think that population genetics is the key concept in understanding evolution but biology students often complete several years of courses without ever learning about effective population sizes, mutations rates and the importance of random genetic drift. Why? Is it because population genetics is not a necessary key concept in evolution?

---

A "Simple" Argument for Intelligent Design Creationism

 
Once again, it's time to remind people of a famous quotation by Isaac Asimov—a biochemist— from his 1981 essay, The “Threat” of Creationism [see Bill Dembski, Isaac Asimov, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics].

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens. [my emphasis - LAM]

Now, let's look at this video from: Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design?]. Keep in mind that one definition of a "simple" argument is one that is suitable for kindergarten students (and IDiots).



This video was posted on the leading IDiot blog Evolution News & Views. It tells us a lot about the quality of their science and their commitment to truth.

---

The Ugliness of the Leaf-Nosed Bat

 

Here's a photo of the head of a leaf-nosed bat. I was posted on Jerry Coyne's blog website today [A new leaf-nosed bat]. Jerry is discussing an article in National Geographic: Strange New Leaf-Nosed Bat Found in Vietnam. You'll probably be curious about the strange appearance of this bat's face. How did that happen?

Well, there are several possibilities that account for the evolution of ugly bats. I wonder what Coyne says ....?

Leaf-nosed bats are found in both the New and Old World, and the New World ones are the most numerous group in the order Chiroptera (bats), which itself is one of the most diverse order of mammals, second only to rodents (40% of mammal species are rodents; 20% are bats). A probably aprocryphal story relates evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane’s answer when asked what one could infer about the Creator from surveying his creation. ”An inordinate fondness for beetles,” Haldane supposedly said. (Of the roughly 1.7 million described species on Earth, 300,000-400,000 are in the order Coleoptera—beetles.) If that question were asked about mammals, one could reply that God showed an inordinate fondness for rodents and bats, and a notable distaste for primates.

The function of the “leaf” isn’t fully known, but it’s suspected to be important in receiving the echolocation signals emitted by bats.

You may find this beast ugly, but that’s speciesism! I find all animals beautiful because they’re products of evolution, embodying all the mechanisms that drive the process. The ugliness, in this case, is probably a byproduct of natural selection.

Why should we assume that the ugliness is a byproduct of natural selection? Lot's of humans are ugly, is that also a byproduct of natural selection? :-)

Seriously, we don't know why these bats have such faces. Why couldn't it just be an accident of evolution? I'm not saying that this is necessarily true. What I AM saying is that it's wrong to just ASSUME, without evidence, that such an appearance is probably due to natural selection. I bet I would get lots of flak if I said that it was probably due to random genetic drift.

---

American Roman Catholics and "Religious Liberty"

 

There's a major kerfluffle going on in the United States. It's exacerbated by the year-and-a-half long campaign for President.

Most outsiders are puzzled by the complaint of the American Roman Catholic churches so here's a bit of background as I understand it. In most civilized countries, universal health care provides all services to all citizens regardless of their personal beliefs. Thus, everyone can get "free" blood transfusions paid for by your taxes. Jehovah's Witnesses are under no obligation to get a blood transfusion if they prefer to die instead.

Similarly, birth control pills are covered by basic health insurance in most (all?) civilized states, as are abortions under a variety of circumstances. Nobody is forced to use contraceptives and nobody is forced to have an abortion but your taxes support these options, as they should.

Things are different in America because the cost of health insurance has to be paid, in part, by employers. This creates a conflict. Let's consider the hypothetical case of a group of employees working for the Jehovah's Witnesses. The church wants to remove blood transfusions from the coverage because blood transfusions are against their religious beliefs. Apparently, forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to fund blood transfusions for their atheist, Catholic, and Muslim employees is a violation of religious freedom!

That's a hypothetical case. The real case involves funding contraception and abortion coverage for employees of Roman Catholic churches. Here's a copy of the letter that was read in many Roman Catholic churches last Sunday. This sort of convoluted logic could only make sense in America.

The solution is obvious: universal single-payer health care is the best way to enforce tolerance. You can't count on tolerance from the Roman Catholic Church. (The irony is that a majority Roman Catholic employees would make use of health care coverage that included abortion and contraception, in spite of what the church says.)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be "of, by, and for the people," has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people -- the Catholic population -- and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees' health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those "services" in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration's decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net: Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church]