I retired after 39 years and they gave me an old used book

... but it was a rather special book ...

---

John Mattick still claims that most lncRNAs are functional

Most of the human genome is transcribed at some time or another in some tissue or another. The phenomenon is now known as pervasive transcription. Scientists have known about it for almost half a century.

At first the phenomenon seemed really puzzling since it was known that coding regions accounted for less than 1% of the genome and genetic load arguments suggested that only a small percentage of the genome could be functional. It was also known that more than half the genome consists of repetitive sequences that we now know are bits and pieces of defective transposons. It seemed unlikely back then that transcripts of defective transposons could be functional.

Part of the problem was solved with the discovery of RNA processing, especially splicing. It soon became apparent (by the early 1980s) that a typical protein coding gene was stretched out over 37,000 bp of which only 1300 bp were coding region. The rest was introns and intron sequences appeared to be mostly junk.

On the evolution of duplicated genes: subfunctionalization vs neofunctionalization

New genes can arise by gene duplication. These events are quite common on an evolutionary time scale. In the current human population, for example, there are about 100 examples of polymorphic gene duplications. These are cases where some of us have two copies of a gene while others have only one copy (Zarrie et al., 2015). Humans have gained about 700 new genes by duplication and fixation since we diverged from chimpanzees (Demuth et al., 2006). The average rate of duplication in eukaryotes is about 0.01 events per gene per million years and the half-life of a duplicated gene is about 4 million years (Lynch and Conery, 2003).

The typical fate of these duplicated genes is to "die" by mutation or deletion. There are five possible fates [see Birth and death of genes in a hybrid frog genome]:

1. One of the genes will "die" by acquiring fatal mutations. It becomes a pseudogene.
2. One of the genes will die by deletion.
3. Both genes will survive because having extra gene product (e.g. protein) will be beneficial (gene dosage).
4. One of the genes acquires a new beneficial mutation that creates a new function and at the same time causes loss of the old function (neofunctionalization). Now both genes are retained by positive selection and the complexity of the genome has increased.
5. Both genes acquire mutations that diminish function so the genome now needs two copies of the gene in order to survive (subfunctionalization).

Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory

Austin Hughes (1949 - 2015) died a few years ago. He was one of my favorite evolutionary biologists.

Chase Nelson has written a nice summary of Hughes' work at: Austin L. Hughes: The Neutral Theory of Evolution. It's worth reading the first few pages if you aren't clear on the concept. Here's an excerpt ...

When the technology enabling the study of molecular polymorphisms—variations in the sequences of genes and proteins—first arose, a great deal more variability was discovered in natural populations than most evolutionary biologists had expected under natural selection. The neutral theory made the bold claim that these polymorphisms become prevalent through chance alone. It sees polymorphism and long-term evolutionary change as two aspects of the same phenomenon: random changes in the frequencies of alleles. While the neutral theory does not deny that natural selection may be important in adaptive evolutionary change, it does claim that natural selection accounts for a very small fraction of genetic evolution.

A dramatic consequence now follows. Most evolutionary change at the genetic level is not adaptive.

It is difficult to imagine random changes accomplishing so much. But random genetic drift is now widely recognized as one of the most important mechanisms of evolution.

I don't think there's any doubt that this claim is correct as long as you stick to the proper definition of evolution. The vast majority of fixations of alleles are likely due to random genetic drift and not natural selection.

If you don't understand this then you don't understand evolution.

The only quibble I have with the essay is the reference to "Neutral Theory of Evolution" as the antithesis of "Darwinian Evolution" or evolution by natural selection. I think "Neutral Theory" should be restricted to the idea that many alleles are neutral or nearly neutral. These alleles can change in frequency in a population by random genetic drift. The key idea that's anti-Darwinian includes that fact plus two other important facts:

1. New beneficial alleles can be lost by drift before they ever become fixed. In fact, this is the fate of most new beneficial alleles. It's part of the drift-barrier hypothesis.
2. Detrimental alleles can occasionally become fixed in a population due to drift.

In both cases, the alleles are not neutral. The key to understanding the overall process is random genetic drift not the idea of neutral alleles—although that's also important.

Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.

I would just add that it's Neutral Theory PLUS the other effects of random genetic drift that make evolution much more random than most people believe.

Austin Hughes was a skeptic and a creative thinker who often disagreed with the prevailing dogma in the field of evolutionary biology. He was also very religious, a fact I find very puzzling.

His scientific views were often correct, in my opinion.

In 2013, the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project published results suggesting that eighty per cent of the human genome serves some function. This was considered a rebuttal to the widely held view that a large part of the genome was junk, debris collected over the course of evolution. Hughes sided with his friend Dan Graur in rejecting this point of view. Their argument was simple. Only ten per cent of the human genome shows signs of purifying selection, as opposed to neutrality.

---

I coulda been an astronomer

A long time ago I used to belong to the Royal Astronomical Society (amateur astronomers) in Ottawa (Canada). That's me on the right with some of my friends. We were testing our sun filters and getting ready to see Venus when the sun went down.

In spite of this promising beginning, I decided to go into biology because it was harder and more interesting.

---

June 6, 1944

Today is anniversary of D-Day—the day British, Canadian, and American troops landed on the beaches of Normandy.¹

For baby boomers it means a day of special significance for our parents. In my case, it was my father who took part in the invasions. That's him on the right as he looked in 1944. He was an RAF pilot flying rocket firing typhoons in close support of the ground troops. During the initial days his missions were limited to quick strikes and reconnaissance since Normandy was at the limit of their range from southern England. During the second week of the invasion (June 14th) his squadron landed in Crepon, Normandy and things became very hectic from then on with several close support missions every day.

Stephen Meyer "predicts" there's no junk DNA

Here's an interview with Stephen Meyer on the Evolution 2.0 website: Stephen Meyer Debates Perry Marshall – Intelligent Design vs. Evolution 2.0. I'm posting some remarks by Stephen Meyer in order to preserve them for posterity. Meyer should know by now that the evidence for junk DNA is very solid and the ENCODE declarations are wrong. The fact that he persists in spreading false information about the ID "prediction" is revealing.

Cafe Scientific Mississauga

We had a great time last night discussing Can You Tell Real Science News from Fake News?

---

Imagine 7

I'll be at Imagine 7 this weekend. Are you going? Contact me if you want to get together.

---

We are scientists

You can tell we are scientists because we're all wearing lab coats.

Left to right: David Isenman, Larry Moran, Marc Perry, Kim Ellison, Trevor Moraes, Mike Ellison.

The photo was taken in the biochemistry department labs at the University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada).

---

Three generations of scientists

Bottom row, left to right.

Marc Perry: Bioinformatics researcher and former graduate student in my lab.
Mike Ellison: Professor, University of Alberta (Alberta, Canada) and former graduate student in the lab of my colleague David Pulleyblank.
Trevor Moraes: Professor in my department at the University of Toronto and former graduate student with Mike Ellison.
Kim (Bird) Ellison: Professor at the University of Alberta, former undergraduate student in my lab (where she met Mike Ellison), Ph.D. at MIT.

---

Denis Noble writes about junk DNA

I have read Dance to the Tune of Life. It's a very confusing book for several reasons. Denis Noble has a very different perspective on evolution and what evolutionary theory needs to accomplish. He thinks that life is characterized by something he calls "Biological Relativity." I don't disagree. He also thinks that evolutionary theory needs to incorporate everything that has ever happened in the history of life. That's where we part company.

I'm working slowly on a book about genomes and junk DNA so I was anxious to see how Noble deals with that subject. I tend to judge the quality of books and articles by the way they interpret the controversy over junk DNA. Here's the first mention of junk DNA from page 89. He begins by saying that it's difficult to explain development and the diversity of tissues in multicellular organisms. He continues with,

Jonathan Wells illustrates zombie science by revisiting junk DNA

Jonathan Wells has written a new book (2017) called Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. He revisits his famous Icons of Evolution from 2000 and tries to show that nothing has changed in 17 years.

I wrote a book in 2000 about ten images images, ten "icons of evolution," that did not fit the evidence and were empirically dead. They should have been buried, but they are still with us, haunting our science classrooms and stalking our children. They are part of what I call zombie science.

I won't bore you with the details. The icons fall into two categories: (1) those that were meaningless and/or trivial in 2000 and remain so today, and (2) those that Wells misunderstood in 2000 and are still misunderstood by creationists today.

"The Perils of Public Outreach"

Julia Shaw is a forensic psychologist. She is currently a senior lecturer in criminology at the London South Bank University (London, UK). Shaw is concerned that we are creating a culture where public outreach is being unfairly attacked. Read her Scientific American post at: The Perils of Public Outreach.

Shaw's point is rather interesting. She believes that scientists who participate in public outreach are being unfairly criticized. Let's look closely at her argument.

What scientists write in academic publications is generally intended for a scientific community, full of nuance and precise language. Instead, what scientists say and write in public forums is intended for lay audiences, almost invariably losing nuance but gaining impact and social relevance. This makes statements made in public forums particularly ripe for attack.

Debating philosophers: Pierrick Bourrat responds to my criticism of his paper

I recently criticized a paper by Lu and Bourrat on the extended evolutionary synthesis [Debating philosophers: The Lu and Bourrat paper]. Pierrick Bourrat responds in this guest post.

---

by Pierrick Bourrat
Research Fellow, Department of Philosophy
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia
Both Qiaoying Lu and I are grateful to Professor Moran for the copious attention he has bestowed on our paper. We are early career researchers and didn’t expect our paper to receive so much attention from a senior academic in a public forum. Moran claims that our work is out of touch with science (and more generally works in philosophy of biology), that the paper is weakly argued and that some of what we write is false. But in the end, he puts forward a similar position to ours.