I was alerted to this video by a post on Facebook. I had never seen it before. The occasion is the celebration of the 20th anniversary of McLean v. Arkansas— one of the legal victories of Americans who are fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom.
It's a 30 minute presentation by Stephen J. Gould on the fossil record. The event took place in February 2001, just a year before he died. You should watch it for many reasons—too many to mention them all here but here are some of the most important ones.
There are several different kinds of genes. Some of them encode proteins, some of them specify abundant RNAs like tRNAs and ribosomal RNAs, some of them are responsible for making a variety of small catalytic RNAs, and some unknown fraction may specify regulatory RNAs (e.g. lncRNAs).
This jumble of different kinds of genes makes it difficult to estimate the total number of genes in the human genome. The current estimates are about 20,000 protein-coding genes and about 5,000 genes for functional RNAs.
Aside from the obvious highly conserved genes for ubiquitous RNAs (rRNA, tRNAs etc.), protein-coding genes are the easiest to recognize from looking at a genome sequence. If the protein is expressed in many different species then the exon sequences will be conserved and it's easy for a computer program to identify the gene. The tough part comes when the algorithm predicts a new protein-coding gene based on an open reading frame spanning several presumed exons. Is it a real gene?
In my first post [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism] I established that Barry Arrington's version of "Darwinism" is actually "Neo-Darwinism" or the "Modern Synthesis." We all know why Intelligent Design Creationists would rather use "Darwinism"—this explains why they deliberately change the meaning to make it look like they understand evolution
Arrington's version of "Darwinism can be seen in the Uncommon Descentglossary. It focuses on natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and doesn't mention Neutral Theory of random genetic drift.
OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.
Today I'm feeling optimistic—life is good and this evening we're going to a nice restaurant for dinner with our favorite nephew.1 Let's try, once again, to convert this into a teaching moment. Hopefully, at least one or two ID proponents will learn something.2
Turn off your irony meters. Really ... I'm not kidding. They will never survive if you leave them on and follow the link to this post by Barry Arrington on Uncommon Descent.
The answer, of course, is “nothing.” Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.
One of the most frustrating things about the current crop of Intelligent Design Creationists is that it's impossible to pin them down on what they really think happened in the history of life. We know that some of them are closet Young Earth Creationists so we can guess what they think. They may be arguing that bacterial flagella reveal the actions of a designer but they actually don't believe any of the data used to make that argument. They think that all species (or kinds) were created at once just a few thousand years ago.
Other Intelligent Design Creationists seem to believe in a different form of creation but who knows what it is? Take Stephen Mayer, for example, you can read his books from cover to cover and still not know what he thinks about the history of life. It's clear that the Cambrian Explosion is a big deal for him and it's clear that he thinks god is behind it all but he's remarkably noncommittal about what actually happened according to his interpretation of the evidence.
Let's think about the biochemical cost associated with adding some new piece of DNA to an existing genome. Michael Lynch has been thinking about this for a long time. He notes that there certainly IS a cost (burden) because the new bit of DNA has to be replicated. That means extra nucleotides have to be synthesized and polymerized every time a cell replicates.
This burden might seem prohibitive for strict adaptationists1 since everything that's detrimental should be lost by negative selection. Lynch, and others, ague that the cost is usually quite small and if it's small enough the detrimental effect might be below the threshold that selection can detect. When this happens, new stretches of DNA become effectively neutral (nearly neutral) and they can be fixed in the genome by random genetic drift.
The key parameter is the size of the population since the power of selection increases as the population size increases. Populations with large numbers of individuals (e.g. more than one million) can respond to the small costs/burdens and eliminate excess DNA whereas populations with smaller numbers of individuals cannot.
Canada has a new government under the Liberal Party and a new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. I'm very excited about this change. I'm a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and I voted for the Liberal Candidate in my riding.
One of the big changes is supposed to be increased transparency of government, more openness with the press, and a promise to base decisions on evidence and science. In other words, truth is supposed to be the new buzzword on Parliament Hill. Trudeau's new cabinet even has a Minister of Science, unlike previous cabinets.
This is our new Canadian Prime Minister walking to Rideau Hall with his new cabinet ministers for the swearing in ceremony where he officially takes over the government. It's very exciting. No Prime Minister has ever done this before today.
Now I may be wrong, but the more I read this, the more I think that reader Ant was right in his interpretation. What’s more galling is that the BBC is taking what “many scholars believe” as the gospel truth—pardon the pun—despite the fact that close scrutiny gives virtually no extra-Biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. I’m still convinced that the judgement of scholars that “Jesus was a real man” comes not from evidence, but from their conviction that the Bible simply couldn’t be untruthful about that issue. But of course we know of cases where myths grew up that weren’t at bottom derived from a historical individual.
There's nothing particularly wrong with what Jerry says. As far as I know the evidence that Jesus actually existed is not strong and, even more importantly, there's no independent evidence that he rose from the dead or performed miracles.
One of my wife's relatives just had her DNA tested by Ancestry.com and the results show that she is 61% Irish.1 She was (pleasantly) surprised so she shared the information with her relatives, including Ms. Sandwalk.
I was also surprised because I have a pretty extensive genealogy of my wife's side of the family and there's no ancestor from Ireland. Her grandparents—the aunt's parents—have typically Scottish surnames and they are the product of several generations of Scottish ancestors from a small community in Eastern Ontario.
I know of all the ancestors of the aunt (and my wife's mother) for five generations. That's 32 ancestors—their great-great-great-grandparents (Ms. Sandwalk's great4-grandparents). There were four ancestors born in England and 28 born in Scotland, mostly around Glasgow. The original settlers of this district all came from Scotland. That means that to a first approximation about 87% of the aunt's DNA comes from Scotland.
I'm one of those scientists who don't think that science as a way of knowing is restricted to investigating natural causes [John Wilkins Revisits Methodological Naturalism ]. I think that science can easily investigate supernatural claims and show that they are wrong. In theory, science might even show that the supernatural exists. Some (most?) philosophers agree. Maarten Boudry is the best known [Is Science Restricted to Methodologial Naturalism?].
This year is the tenth anniversary of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. At that trial, the plaintiffs successfully convinced Judge Jones that intelligent design isn't a science because it invokes supernatural causes. The expert witnesses testified that, by definition, science is limited by methodological naturalism. I disagree with the expert witnesses at the trial and I agree with many leading philosophers that science is not restricted to methodological naturalism [Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews? ].
For those of you who are interested in the evolution of the major animal phyla, let me introduce you to the topic.
See the little red circle on the phylogenetic tree on the right? That's what we're talking about.
Most of the major animal phyla are first observed as primitive fossils in the Cambrian about 540 million years ago. The fossils cluster around dates that only span a few million years (about 10 million years). This is the Cambrian Explosion (see little red circle).
There's considerable debate among evolutionary biologists about what caused this relatively rapid appearance of diverse and disparate large fossils. Intelligent Design Creationist, Stephen Meyer decided that such a debate casts serious doubt on evolution as an explanation for the history of life so he wrote a book called Darwin's Doubt.
The Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & View (sic) doesn't allow comments. They're beginning to feel a bit guilty about that so there have recently been two posts on the topic.
The problem from their perspective is that their opponents are rude, crude, and abusive so they have to ban all comments. Here's how David Klinghoffer puts it.
So what are we supposed to do when, under a free-for-all commenting policy, Darwinists like Moran -- who is far from scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as online evolutionists go -- post abusive, defamatory, and false comments on our own news site? Should we delete their comments? Edit them? But then we would be accused of "censorship."
Should we perhaps allow them to say whatever they like, fouling the carpet in our own living room? When they have every opportunity to write what they like where they like and receive an answer from us, if the challenge rises to the level of being worthy of a reply? Why in the world would we do that?
If we can't accept providing a free forum for a great deal of nasty, false, and vacuous chatter, the only alternative is to devote significant time to moderating the forum, policing the sandbox, and then defending that moderation at every step as it is challenged. That would require staffing that we can't afford.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that there already is an ID blog that allows comments. Check out Uncommon Descent to see who's fouling the carpet.
What they're really worried about isn't the "Darwinists." It's Mung, bornagain, Vy, Andre, Virgil Cain, Upright BiPed, Mapou and others like them who will dominate the comments section and give the Discovery Institute a bad reputation.
