John Brockman is a famous literary agent. Over the years he has assembled a group of intellectuals, and people who aspire to be intellectuals. Every year they publish short articles on the question of the year at the Edge. Here's this year's question: annual question.
Science advances by discovering new things and developing new ideas. Few truly new ideas are developed without abandoning old ones first. As theoretical physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) noted, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." In other words, science advances by a series of funerals. Why wait that long?
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?
Ideas change, and the times we live in change. Perhaps the biggest change today is the rate of change. What established scientific idea is ready to be moved aside so that science can advance?
There was a time—about a decade ago—when reading the answers to the question was exciting and stimulating.
Jerry Coyne picks two answers that deal with evolution: The Edge question: two bad answers about evolution. Roger Highfield's answer to the question of what idea should be retired is "Evolution is true." Kevin Kelly thinks that the idea of "Fully random mutations" should be tossed in the scrap heap of history.
Jerry shows us why these guys are not intellectuals. Read his blog post.
Lest you think that Jerry found the only bad examples, let me point out another one. Athena Vouloumanos is a psychologist at New York University. The idea that she wants to retire is "Natural Selection is the Only Engine of Evolution." Excellent, I thought, at last somebody has a good answer. Alas, here's what she says ...
Epigenetic control of gene expression contributes to cells in a single organism (which share the same DNA sequence) developing differently into e.g. heart cells or neurons. But the last decade has shown actual evidence–and possible mechanisms–for how the environment and the organism's behavior in it might cause heritable changes in gene expression (with no change in the DNA sequence) that are passed onto offspring. In recent years, we have seen evidence of epigenetic inheritance across a wide range of morphological, metabolic, and even behavioral traits.
The intergenerational transmission of acquired traits is making a comeback as a potential mechanism of evolution. It also opens up the interesting possibility that better diet, exercise, and education which we thought couldn't affect the next generation–except with luck through good example–actually could.
If I had to give a reason why natural selection is not the only engine of evolution I would have picked something very different—something that's been around, and proven, for decades. Epigenetics requires DNA sequences and proteins and if epigenetic modification of a specific DNA site provides a selective advantage under some circumstances then that's natural selection in action.
The Centre for Inquiry Canada is promoting an upcoming debate between Justin Trottier and Philip Cleevely on the topic "Is There a God."
We know the answer but it still promises to be a fun evening. All the cool people will be there. I'm going to be there too. Email me if you want to join us for dinner before the event. I'll invite some of the cool people like Veronica Abbass and Kevin Smith.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
At the first event of the series, Fr. Philip Cleevely (Catholic priest and philosophy professor) and Justin Trottier (founder of the Centre for Inquiry Canada) will argue the question, "Is There a God?" The debate will be moderated by Stephen LeDrew (host/commentator of CP24).
Date: Friday, February 7 from 7:00-9:30pm
Venue: Isabel Bader Theatre (Victoria University)
93 Charles Street West, Toronto
Registration: Limited seating. Tickets cost $10. Click here to register.
Biographies:
Fr. Philip Cleevely, C.O. was born in England in 1966. Educated in English Literature and Philosophy at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (UK) and in Toronto, he joined the Catholic Church in 1989. For years later, he entered a religious community in Birmingham, England called the Oratory of St. Philip Neri. Following theological studies in Rome, he was ordained to the priesthood in 2001. At the beginning of 2011, he transferred permanently to the Oratory community in Toronto, where he teaches Philosophy and Theology at St Philip’s Seminary.
Justin Trottier is Founder and Ambassador for the Centre for Inquiry Canada, an educational charitable organization advancing science and secularism. He is a board member of the Canadian Secular Alliance and a regular spokesperson on church-state separation, skeptical inquiry and fundamental freedoms. He hosts Think Again! TV, appears regularly on the John Oakley Show’s Culture War on AM640 Toronto radio and the Conspiracy Show on Vision TV, and publishes on the National Post’s religion blog. He ran as a candidate in the 2011 Ontario provincial election. With a passion for science education, Justin also hosts The Star Spot, a space sciences themed podcast and radio show
After-party:
After the event, all of our atheist, freethinking, and skeptical members, guests and friends are invited to join us at:Gabby’s Bar & Grill
192 Bloor Street West
Toronto
ON M5S 1T8
Keep the discussion going on our Facebook Page.
Rufina Kim has re-started the discussion group we had last year. Join us for an evening of interesting conversation in room 5243 on the 5th floor of the Medical Sciences Building at the University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada). Bring your own food and beverage. The date is Wednesday, January 29, 2014 and the time is 6pm.
Everyone is welcome. You don't have to be a student or a faculty member to attend. Add your name to the list on Facebook at The Biology of Faith and Religion.
Is there a God? Why is the majority of the global population religious (and why are some not)? Why does religious faith lead to resistance in the face of scientific evidence? Why are research findings in evolutionary biology and cosmology still contentious among the public, while those in chemistry and physiology are not? What are the implications of religious belief in scientific progress?
These are some of the questions we will delve into at our next Thoughts on Science (TOS) meeting. Individuals of all worldviews are encouraged to attend to enlighten and be enlightened.
I live in Canada. It's winter. It gets cold. During the night it's about -20°C1.
It seems like everyone in the city of Toronto is yacking about the "extreme" cold weather we're having.
People in Saskatoon and Edmonton are laughing at us. So are people in Ottawa and Montreal. It's embarrassing.
1. That's -4°F if you live in Belize or the United States of America.
John Wilkins linked to essay by someone named William Reville on "Philosophers must oppose arrogance of scientism." Reville is not a philosopher—he's a retired biochemist and Public Awareness of Science Officer from the University College Cork in Ireland.
He writes a regular column for The Irish Times on the relationship between science and religion. He's a Roman Catholic.
I'm interested in the conflict between science and religion and I usually pay attention to anything that John Wilkins recommends so I looked at this article. I think it might be fun to examine it to see how some theists think about the issue. Let's see how he starts out ...
There's a little kerfluffle in the blogosphere because an anonymous blogger has been outed. Michael Eisen posted an interesting comment of the episode and I want to add my 2 cents to something he says at: On anonymity in science and on Twitter. Here's the part I want to address ...
A lot of people who I interact with on Twitter, and whose blogs I read, have chosen to tweet and write under pseudonyms. This puzzled me at first, but I have come to realize that there are a LOT of good reasons for people to mask their real identities online.
Anonymity allows people to express their opinions and relate their experiences without everything they say becoming part of their personal permanent record. It affords people who are marginalized or in tenuous positions a way to exist online without fear of retribution. Pseudonyms help create a world where ideas matter more than credentials. And they provide some kind of buffer between people – especially women – and the nastier sides of the internet.
The myriad and diverse pseudonymous voices out there make the internet a richer and more interesting place. Maybe it’s weird, but I consider many of these people whom I’ve never met and whose real identities I don’t know to be my friends.
Here's the problem. I agree with everything that Michael says but there's still something about hiding behind a pseudonym that makes me uneasy. I much prefer dealing with people who use their real names. I grew up believing that it was admirable to stand up and be accountable for your beliefs and opinions no matter what the consequences.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that it's a lot easier for a tenured professor to say this than for someone who is in a much more vulnerable position. Michael Eisen also knows this—read his post. That's part of the problem. We understand that the "consequences" of speaking out against authority can be quite severe and we both understand that there's value in hearing from certain anonymous voices.
I guess where I differ from Michael Eisen is that right now I don't think I follow any blogger whose identity isn't known to me. It may be true in theory that ideas matter more than identity but, in reality, there just aren't very many examples. On the other hand, there are lots of examples where people use anonymity to say things they would never say in public even if their identity was concealed.
Does the upside of anonymity make up for the downside? That's the real question. I don't know the answer but I'm leaning toward "no."
I'd like to live in a society where you could never be punished for anything you say or believe. It makes me uneasy to live in a society that accepts the idea that you will be punished for your opinion and sets up ways of permitting people to say whatever they want without having to face any consequences. It seems like that's a way of giving up on the fight for freedom of expression and legitimizing the idea of systemic intolerance.
I try to get my students to speak up during class and express their views and opinions. I think it's an essential component of learning how to think critically. I try and get them to write essays where they defend a controversial idea, even if it's unpopular. I don't think it's a good idea if it becomes the accepted norm that you can only do this if you can be assured that nobody will find out who you are.
(I know most of the people who comment on Sandwalk but there are some who use pseudonyms. There's a good correlation between people who comment anonymously and those whose ideas don't deserve respect. There's also a powerful correlation between those who use their real names and those ideas are worth listening to even if they disagree with mine.
That's doesn't mean you shouldn't comment using a pseudonym. Just be aware of the company you're keeping.)
Last week's molecule was NADP⊕ or nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate. That was an easy one [Monday's Molecule #228 ]. The winner was Tom Mueller.
This week's molecule (below) is going to be a bit of a challenge because you can't see all of the hydrogen atoms. It's a very common molecule. All you have to do is supply the common name and NOT the IUPAC systematic name that correctly identifies the exact molecule shown in the image. However, if anyone wants to supply the systematic name, feel free to do so.
Email your answer to me at: Monday's Molecule #229. I'll hold off posting your answers for at least 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post the names of people with mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
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 email message.)
I've been teaching my students about random genetic drift, phylogenetic trees, and the molecular clock. It's hard for undergraduates to understand that trees based on sequences are reflections of the fixation of nearly neutral alleles by random genetic drift. That's because they, like almost everyone else, think of evolution in terms of natural selection and adaptation.
It's even harder to grasp the idea of a molecular clock even though it's been around for fifty years. It was back in the 1960s that scientists like Emanual Margoliash noted that the rate of substitution of amino acids in every lineage was remarkably similar [The Modern Molecular Clock]. We now know that this is because the alleles are fixed by random genetic drift and that the rate of fixation by drift depends only on the mutation rate. It looks like the mutation rate is relatively constant in all lineages (bacteria, protozoa, plants, animals, etc.). This isn't a big shock since the vast majority of mutations are due to errors in DNA replication and the fundamental biochemistry of DNA replication and repair are similar in all species.
There's a big difference between publishing the complete sequence of a genome and having a highly accurate "finished" version that's fully annotated. You may be surprised to learn that there aren't very many high quality genomes of eukaryotes—especially vertebrates.
That's why I was interested in a paper published last April on the zebrafish genome. The authors have produced a high quality reference genome that will serve the scientific community (Howe et al. 2013).
Sequencing and assembly are highly automated and there are several programs that will find genes and other interesting bits of a draft genome. It's a lot more work to finish off the sequence by filling the gaps and it's even more work to annotate and check the sequences. Much of this work is labor intensive and expensive and that's why there are so many unfinished sequences in the literature.
I wasn't surprised to see that the original paper on the annotated zebrafish genome had 171 authors although that did seem a bit excessive. It meant that each author contributed an average of 0.6% to the final result. Some of them must have made a much smaller contribution. I wonder if every author read and approved the paper before publication?
Apparently there weren't enough authors. The January 9, 2014 edition of Nature contains a Corrigendum (correction) to the zebrafish paper. Five other authors were "inadvertantly ommitted" from the list bringing the total to 176 authors. In addition, the names of three other authors were spelled incorrectly in the original publication last April. I don't know why it took eight months before anyone noticed.
That just goes to show you that modern scientists have to deal with problems that us old fogies never encountered. I never had to spent more that a few seconds writing down the names of the authors on any of my papers. Today you need data management software to keep track of your authors.
Howe, K. and 171+5 others (2013 The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature 496:498–503. [doi: 10.1038/nature12111]
Some of us have been trying to educate the IDiots for over twenty years. It can be very, very, frustrating.
The issue of junk DNA is a case in point. We've been trying to explain the facts to people like Casey Luskin. I know he's listening because he comments on Sandwalk from time to time. Surely it can't be that hard? All they have to do is acknowledge that "Darwinians" are opposed to junk DNA because they think that natural selection is very powerful and would have selected against junk DNA. All we're asking is that they refer to "evolutionary biologists" when they talk about junk DNA proponents.
We've also pointed out, ad nauseam, that no knowledgeable scientist ever said that all noncoding DNA was junk. We just want the IDiots to admit that there were some smart scientists who knew about functional noncoding DNA—like the genes for ribosomal RNAs, origins of replication, and centromeres.
There's plenty of evidence that most of the DNA in mammalian genomes is junk [Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate]. There's also plenty of evidence that as much as 10% of these genomes are functional in some way or another. This is a lot more DNA than the amount in coding regions but that shouldn't surprise anyone since we've known about functional noncoding DNA for half a century.
Lot's of genes specify functional RNA molecules. The best known ones are the genes for ribosomal RNAs, tRNAs, the spliceosomal RNAs, and a variety of other catalytic RNAs. A host of small regulatory RNAs have been characterized in bacteria over the past five decades (Waters and Storz, 2009) and in the past few decades a variety of different types of small RNAs have been identified in eukaryotes (see Sharp, 2009). These include miRNAs, siRNAs, piRNAs, and others (Malone and Hannon, 2009; Carthew and Sontheimer, 2009).
I recently described a really bad paper published in Science by Stergachis et al. (2013). The principle investigator is John Stamatoyannopoulos of ENCODE notoriety [see The "duon" delusion and why transcription factors MUST bind non-functionally to exon sequences].
The group mapped millions of transcription factor binding sites in the human genome and discovered that 1.8% of them were in exons (coding regions). They assumed that these were functional—they play a role in regulating gene expression. Thus the nucleotide binding sites are also codons meaning that the sequence specifies two different kinds of information. The workers named these sequences "duons."
Michael Egnor is a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism. He's a neurosurgeon practicing on Long Island (New York, USA) and a frequent contributor to creationist blogs. He also likes to comment on Sandwalk from time to time even though it makes him look foolish.
Speaking of looking foolish, he recently got upset about the idea that science and religion are in conflict. He decided to explain how science shows us that God exists. Read it on his blog at: God, in Larry Moran's nose.
This is not comedy or satire. He really believes what he writes.
The proof of God's existence is in Larry Moran's nose, and everywhere, in every atom.
The fact that any subatomic particle moves in a predictable fashion-- let alone in a fashion as mathematically elegant as quantum mechanics-- is straightforward evidence for God's existence. It is, in fact, God's handiwork, manifest everywhere and always.
Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has yielded a number of interesting results over the past two decades. Back in 1988, he set up twelve flasks of E. coli B growing in minimal medium. The cultures were diluted 1/100 every day. There were 6.64 generations per day or almost 2,500 per year. By now, the cultures have evolved for 60,000 generations.
All twelve cultures are under strong selection for rapid growth and all twelve cultures have evolved. One, and only one, of the cultures evolved to utilize citrate as a carbon source (normal E. coli cultures cannot use citrate but it's in the medium as a chelating agent). You can read about the mutations that gave rise to this phenotype in: Lenski's long-term evolution experiment: the evolution of bacteria that can use citrate as a carbon source.
Last week's molecule was arachidonate, one of the key intermediates in the synthesis of complex lipids, especially protaglandins in mammals [Monday's Molecule #227 ]. The winner is Bill Gunn.
This week's molecule (left) is an easy one for all of the undergraduates who are just beginning a new term. This is one of those molecules that everyone should recognize. Just be sure you pay attention to all the groups and the part in red. All you have to do is supply the common name and NOT the IUPAC systematic name that correctly identifies the exact molecule shown in the image. However, if anyone wants to supply the systematic name, feel free to do so.
Email your answer to me at: Monday's Molecule #228. I'll hold off posting your answers for at least 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post the names of people with mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
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 email message.)
