Edward Larson at Chautauqua

 
Edward J. Larson is University Professor and Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University. He has a law degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Larson is a prolific writer. He is the author of seven books including Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (1997) for which he received the 1998 Pulitzer Prize. Many of us know him for his more recent books, including Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004) and The Creation-Evolution Debate: Historical Perspectives (2007).

Larson gave an interesting and informative talk about the evolution-creation controversy in America. His ideas about the real battle in the Scopes trial are very interesting. He claims that the main dispute was about the social implications of evolution and the conflict between science and religion has been overplayed—especially in the movie Inherit the Wind.¹

I've heard this before. William Jennings Bryan was a populist who thought that social Darwinism is what led to the First World War. He was afraid that teaching evolution in the schools would encourage social Darwinism. Of course, he was also religious and feared that evolution was a threat to religion.

For many in the audience the history of the trials was new information and Larson did a good job of explaining both the scientific issues and the legal ones. He cautioned the audience that things could deteriorate rapidly with only one or two changes on the Supreme Court.

Someone from the audience asked what would have happened if the Dover case had been appealed. Larson said he was confident that the decision would have been upheld at the district court but he's not so sure about the current Supreme Court. If he had to bet, he would put his money on the decision being upheld but he's not very confident.

The one thing that troubled me about his lecture was that he always referred to the conflict between creationism and the Theory of Evolution. My students picked up on this since I was emphasizing the differences between evolution as a fact and a theory. As most of you know, creationists are as much opposed to the facts of evolution as they are to evolutionary theory. It would be better, in my opinion, to refer to the conflict as a fight between creationism and the fact of evolution. To use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" seems to be catering to creationist misconceptions.

On Thursday afternoon the schedule called for a discussion with Diane Ackerman, the author of The Zookeeper's Wife. Unfortunately, Ackerman couldn't make it so Edward Larson filled in with a fascinating (according to Ms. Sandwalk) talk about his latest book A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. Apparently religion played an important role in that election with Jefferson being accused of lacking belief.

---

1. The theater class took a course on the play Inherit the Wind. Apparently, the staging of the original play is remarkable. That group also discussed the differences between the real trial and the one in the play and the influence of McCarthyism. I wish I could have taken that course last week, and many others.

Monday's Molecule #85

 
This week marks the beginning of a new term at many colleges and universities in the USA. To mark the occasion, I've chosen a simple molecule that should be familiar to every undergraduate taking an introductory biochemistry course. Your task is to indentify the molecule and give me its correct common name—the one required on an exam—and the complete, correct IUPAC name.

There's a direct connection between today's molecule and a Nobel Prize. We are looking for the single person most responsible for identifying this molecule as part of a metabolic pathway. This person didn't know the exact structure but got the basic chemistry correct. Be careful, there are several possible candidates who haven't already been featured on Sandalk. I want the one person who best meets the criterion.

The first person to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate, wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are four ineligible candidates for this week's reward. You know who you are.

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 and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) 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. I reserve the right to select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: This week's winner is Bill Chaney of the University of Nebraska. He correctly identified the molecule as β-D-fructofuranose 1,6- bisphosphate and he chose [(2R,3S,4S,5R) -2,3,4 -trihydroxy-5- (phosphonooxymethyl) oxolan-2-yl] methyl dihydrogen phosphate as the correct IUPAC name [but see IUPAC]. That's probably more information than we needed but Chaney was the first to reply (by several hours). The Noble Laureate is Arthur Harden.

---

Check Your Irony Meters

 
John Lynch has a wonderful comment on the train wreck at Uncommon Descent. Read what DaveScot has to say about people who post comments without identifying themselves [Just another day of “discourse” for the peanut gallery].

Don't follow the links from John's postings unless you have a Mark VIII Irony Meter or better.

---

Stephen Matheson's Critique of Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution

 
I've been meaning to write up my own critique of Michael Behe's latest book The Edge of Evolution but there always appear to be more important things to do. Stephen Matheson at Quintessence of Dust has posted a number of articles on the topic. You can find the links in his latest posting Why I'm not a Behe fan, Part IIB: abusing genetics.

I'm in complete agreement with Stephen on one thing ...

These clarifications are important, because much of the criticism of EoE has been botched significantly. The book is bad, really bad, but it can't be honestly characterized as an anti-evolution argument.

Many reviews of The Edge of Evolution are not as good as one might expect from scientists who have read the book.

Stephen Matheson gets the essence of Behe's argument so his review is much better than others. However, I'd like to comment on a few things he says ...

I. Behe's assumption of a particular mutation rate is both absurdly oversimplified and inappropriately extrapolated into the entire tree of life.

The basis of all of Behe's calculations is a mutation rate of 1 in 100 million. This is the estimated rate at which misspelling-type mutation occurs in each generation, averaged over the entire genome, in humans. (The number doesn't consider other types of mutation, now known to be more common than previously thought.) Behe uses this number in all of his (flawed) probability calculations. Even if we knew nothing about mutation rates, the notion of extrapolating from an human (or even mammalian) characteristic to the whole of the biosphere (past and present) is ludicrous enough that it would by itself cast doubt on the credibility of the author.

I don't think this is very important. Behe uses a mutation rate of 10^-8 per generation and that's pretty accurate for mammals. A better mutation rate would be 10^-10 nucleotides per DNA replication (cell generation) [Mutation Rates]. Yes, it's true that different species have different numbers of cell divisions per generation, so Behe should have mentioned this. Bacteria, for example, have a mutation rate of 10^-10 per generation because there's only one cell division per generation. (In mammals there are about 100 cell divisions, hence the mutation rate per generation is 100 times greater.)

Stephen argues that mutation rates vary from species to species and over time. I don't think so. I think the rate 10^-10 per nucleotide per replication has probably been pretty constant over several billion years and I doubt that it differs very much in different species. It's a property of the DNA replication machinery and that's always been the main source of mutation over the long term.

III. Behe claims that huge population sizes automatically generate more evolutionary opportunity than smaller ones do. This is incorrect.

It seems so obvious. More organisms means more mutations means more beneficial mutations means more and faster evolution. It's the kind of obvious, simplistic, intuitive claim that forms the bedrock of any folk science. But it's wrong.

On the contrary, very large population sizes lead to a so-called "speed limit" on adaptation that results from competition among beneficial mutations. The phenomenon is called clonal interference and it's particularly well understood in asexual organisms such as bacteria. The basic idea has been around for decades, but measurement and modeling of the phenomenon has been increasing in the last ten years. A very recent report, the subject of an upcoming post here, showed that the beneficial mutation rate in bacteria is 1000 times higher than previously thought – and the underestimation is due entirely to clonal interference.

The effect is not limited to asexual organisms; in fact, the problem of clonal interference is thought to constitute one of the major driving forces behind the evolutionary development and maintenance of sexual reproduction. The idea is that the genetic shuffling that accompanies sexual reproduction can bring beneficial mutations together and increase the effectiveness of selection.

I thought Behe was right about this. There are more mutations, and more variation, in large populations than in small ones. I thought that one of the flaws in Behe's argument is that he doesn't take into account the existence of abundant neutral and nearly-neutral alleles in a large population. Many of these contribute to the double mutations that he requires.

I'm not familiar with this idea of "clonal interference" that seems to increase the number of beneficial mutations and explains the evolution of sex. It sounds fishy to me but I'll have to read up on it—whenever I find the time. Stephen provides the appropriate references.

---

Chautauqua Buskers

 

---

Darwin vs. Newton

 
I claimed that Charles Darwin is the greatest scientist who ever lived. slc posted a comment on Carl Zimmer at Chautauqua.

According to Neil Tyson, Issac Newton was the greatest scientist who ever lived. Dr. Tyson, who is about the size of an NFL linebacker, is not a man I would care to have a disagreement with.

I don't want to engage in a wrestling match with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Surely we can settle this issue peacibly?

DeGrasse Tyson is an astronomer. What would you expect him to say? Astronomers and physicists don't understand biology and they don't understand that biology is much harder than physics. Darwin is the better scientist because his subject was much harder.

Let me give you an example. Back in 1687 people didn't know very much so it was pretty easy to come up with some simple laws. Gravity was kinda obvious, don't you think? Getting hit on the head by an apple doesn't compare with collecting data by traveling about the world for five years on a small boat.

How many different laws can there be? We know that f (force) has to equal something. Does it equal m²b? Nope, that doesn't work. How about a-m. Nope. Let's try m/a ... the experiments rule that out as well. Hmmm ... maybe it's f = ma? Viola! Newton just discovered the second law of motion. Now let's invent calculus to make life miserable for undergraduates.

What about those nasty little exceptions where the planets don't seem to obey the laws? No problem, God did it.

Newton didn't even write in English! This is DeGrasse Tyson's example of the greatest scientist who ever lived?

---

[Image Comment: The woman in the photograph is the only living descendant of Jesus. How appropriate that she's almost standing on the tomb of Charles Darwin!]

Nobel Laureate: Rosalyn Yalow

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1977.

"for the development of radioimmunoassays of peptide hormones"

Rosalyn Yalow (1921 - ) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing an assay to detect small quantities of peptide hormones. Her coworker and collaborator, Solomon Berson, died before the prize was awarded; otherwise he would have been included.

Yalow shared the Nobel Prize with Roger Guillemin and Andrew V. Schally.

The presentation speech was delivered in Swedish by Professor Rolf Luft of the Karolinska Medico-Chirurgical Institute.

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The word "hormones" and associated terms have always stimulated our fantasy. The mystery in connection with hormones has been, from the beginning, equally overwhelming to the researcher and the layman. It is easy to understand why. These were chemical substances with often very powerful actions at concentrations which for a long time seemed so low that they were impossible to measure. However, mystery and belief lead nowhere, at least not in scientific research and medicine. Once one learned to identify the active chemical substances - in this case hormones - and to measure their rate of synthesis, only then did one establish a firm basis for turning fantasy and mystery into reality.

This year's three Nobel laureates in medicine have all made contributions which are outstanding examples of this kind of activity. Rosalyn Yalow's name is for ever associated with her methodology of measuring the presence of hormones in the blood at concentrations as low as one thousand billionths of a gram per milliliter of blood. This was a necessity, since a great many hormones, primarily the so-called protein hormones, are present in the blood in such small quantities. Before Yalow, these hormones could not be determined quantitatively in the blood, and therefore, active research in this field had stagnated.

Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson, her late coworker, discovered by chance that one small protein hormone, insulin, following injection into man resulted in a production of antibodies against insulin. All diabetics who receive insulin develop similar antibodies against the administered insulin. The discovery by Yalow and Berson was unacceptable at first - their first scientific paper concerning this observation was even refused publication - since it was commonly believed that proteins as small as these protein hormones were unable to stimulate antibody formation. However, Yalow and Berson did not give up, and furthermore, after a couple of years of intensive work, they presented in 1960 a methodology for the determination of protein hormones in the blood, the fundamental principle of which utilized the ability of these hormones to stimulate antibody formation in man. This methodology, known as the Yalow-Berson method, is genial in all its simplicity, and can even be described in simple terms.

As a result of mixing in a test tube a known quantity of radioactive insulin with a known quantity of antibodies against insulin, a specific amount of the insulin becomes attached to these antibodies. Subsequently, if one adds to this mixture a small amount of blood which contains insulin, the insulin of the blood becomes similarly attached to the antibodies and a certain portion of the radioactive insulin is detached from the antibodies. The higher the concentration of insulin is in the blood sample, the larger is the amount of radioactive insulin that will be detached from the antibodies. The amount of radioactive insulin thus removed can easily be determined, providing an exact measure of the amount of insulin present in the blood sample.

The Yalow-Berson method which makes it possible to determine the exact amounts of all hormones present, represented a real revolution in the field of hormone research. A field where one refers to the time period before Yalow, and the new epoch which began with her achievement. Her methodology and the modifications thereof, subsequently made their triumphant journey far beyond her own field of research, reaching into vast territories of biology and medicine. It has been said that Yalow changed the life of a multitude of researchers within these fields. Rarely have so many had so few to thank for so much.

Roger Guillemin and Andrew Schally have also contributed greatly to this field of research, exploring protein hormones. It is justifiable to say that they have uncovered a substantial part of the link between body and soul.

For decades, one has talked about the indivisible homo sapiens, maintaining that our body and soul can not be separated since they form an entity. Emotional and psychic phenomena do influence our bodily functions. Let me give you an example. When American soldiers were sent to the European war scene, thousands of female companions who were left behind, stopped menstruation. They were completely healthy, but the emotional stress had an influence on certain body functions, causing these functions to cease. Through which mechanisms did the psyche thus influence the body?

Psychic phenomena as well as input from the entire body bring about electrical impulses in the brain. This is the language of the nervous system, the brain speaks "electrically". The brain informs some of its centers of what is going on, and these centers relay the message further. Those centers which pass on the information to the hormone producing organs of the body are situated in the midbrain, an area on the base of the brain. Delicate blood vessels in turn connect the midbrain with the pituitary, an important hormone producing gland, often referred to as the hypophysis. This sequence provides the pathway for transmission of information from the surroundings to the brain, to the midbrain, to the pituitary, and thus to all those bodily functions which are influenced and controlled by hormones.

By the mid 1950's it was evident - also here through the contributions of Guillemin and Schally - that the midbrain produces chemical substances which are transported to the pituitary via the delicate blood vessels just mentioned. Once in the pituitary, they determine the exact quantities of the various hypophyseal hormones which must be produced at a given point in time. But which were these substances in the midbrain, evidently passing the information from soul to body?

Guillemin and Schally worked independently in different parts of the U.S.A. together with their large staff of coworkers, trying to isolate one of these chemical substances, and both researchers concentrated on the same substance. Each started with five million pieces taken from the midbrain of sheeps and pigs - half a ton - and in 1969, after years of arduous labor, they each came up with 1 milligram of the purified hormonal substance. Rarely have so many gained so little from so much.

Guillemin and Schally were the first to isolate several of the communicating chemical links between the brain and the pituitary, and they also determined their structure and succeeded in synthesizing them.

The discoveries by Guillemin and Schally brought on a revolution in their own field of research. Still other protein hormones have subsequently been isolated from the midbrain, this wondrous organ of control and guidance which today - more than ever - emerges as part of the link between the body (soma) and the soul (brain).

Rosalyn Yalow, Roger Guillemin, Andrew Schally: the road of every scientist is paved by frustration. But some reach the goal they have set up and enjoy the pleasure and excitement of having learned something that no one knew before, and for that enjoy imperishable honor in the learned world.

Few ever reach the point at which you have arrived: to undertake a formidable task and to come to a solution, which not only attracts the admiration of your scientific colleagues, but which - in the best spirit of Alfred Nobel - also contains a possibility to understand the structure of human life and human behaviour.

The Karolinska Institute is happy to be able to award you this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for your contributions and congratulates you. May I now ask you to receive the insignia of the Nobel Prize from His Majesty, the King.

---

The Olympics Is Over: Who Won?

 
I haven't been following all that closely so I appreciate the effort made by John Wilkins to summarize the data. I hope he doesn't mind that I stole his graph from The real Olympic performers. All we have to do now is integrate the medals from the summer and winter olympic games to see the overall winners.

Congratulations to Jamaica for a well-deserved victory in Beijing.

---

There Was no Timmy's at Chautauqua

 
There was no Tim Horton's at Chautauqua. The local coffee kiosk served coffee made by someone called Starbuck—or something similar. Every time I visit America I have to re-learn the language. I think I've almost got it. "Tall" means small. "Grande" means regular. And I've already forgotten what "vente" means.

I was so glad to get back to civilization yesterday and get a decent coffee in an extra large cup. (And a Boston creme donut.)

---

Carl Zimmer at Chautauqua

 
Carl Zimmer gave a talk in the Hall of Philosophy on Tuesday afternoon. The photo isn't very good because I forgot my camera and had to use my cell phone.

Carl posted his talk on The Loom [Darwin, Linnaeus, and One Sleepy Guy]. He said many important things about Darwin and evolutionary biology. As a matter of fact, of all the speakers who talked about evolutionary biology, Carl was one of only two speakers who got the basics correct.¹

Here's what he said in the first minute ...

We are now descending into a frenzy of Darwin celebrations, and you’re not going to escape it until the end of 2009. We’ve got his 200th birthday in February, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species in November. The spotlight is going to be on Darwin, and Darwin alone.

I think this is a mistake. Darwin deserves celebrating, but that doesn’t mean we should fall prey to a cult of personality. Darwin did not invent biology. Darwin did not even find most of the evidence that he used to back up his theory of evolution. And he certainly did not discover all there was to know about evolution. Biologists have discovered many new things about evolution since his time. In some cases, they’ve challenged some of his most important arguments. And that’s fine. That’s the great strength of science.

This reflects one of the main themes in the two courses that I taught at Chautauqua; namely, that Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived but we have moved far beyond what Darwin knew in 1859.

The other important point is that we risk over-emphasizing Darwin during the celebrations next year. According to Stephen Jay Gould, this is what happened in 1959 during the 100th anniversary celebrations. The result was a hardening of the Modern Synthesis and the rise of adaptationism.² I'm so glad Carl made this point. I think we all have to be careful judging by what I saw during the rest of the week and what I witnessed at a celebration of Darwin here in Toronto [Darwinism at the ROM]. Please, let's try and keep things in perspective. Whenever we praise Darwin we should also mention that modern evolutionary biology has incorporated his important contributions but added much more.

Later that night I met Carl for a few beers (three for me and decaf coffee wine for him). We had a wonderful three hours discussing evolution with Beth Shapiro and her husband—an informed engineer! Turns out, Carl is not quite as nice as he appears on his blog. In person, he actually has firm opinions about some of things he avoids discussing on The Loom.

Please don't tell him I said that. And whatever you do, don't tell him that I actually agree with some of the things he said.

We also talked about writing trade books. He convinced me that I should give it a try even though it's not nearly as rewarding³ as writing a textbook.

---

1. The other one was Genie Scott.

2. The original Modern Synthesis of the 1940's was pluralistic.

3. Financially.

Beth Shapiro at Chautauqua

 
Beth Spiro is a Professor at Pennsylvania State University: Her field of expertise is the study of ancient DNA (fossil DNA) in order to learn how organisms, and species, responded to changes in the environment [Molecular Evolution]. She told us about her field work in Siberia and how she collects material from fossilized wooley mammoths and other species that lived there before, during, and after the last ice age.

Beth is an entertaining lecturer. She's a little bundle of energy on the stage, wandering back and forth sharing her obvious joy in doing science (except for the mosquitoes). Although she is best known for How to Make a Dodo, on Tuesday morning she described ways in which she might bring a wooley mammoth back to life. The experiment was illustrated with 56(?) colored ribbons representing the wooley mammoth chromosomes. Many members of the audience got to hold a "mammoth chromosome." As it turns out, the experiment might be possible but it won't be easy.

Beth Shapiro is as bright and interesting in real life as she is on the stage. That evening I met Beth and her husband when Carl Zimmer brought her along for drinks after dinner. (She drinks beer. Carl doesn't.) It was a delightful evening. I'm so happy to have met her. I was even happier to learn that she actually reads blogs!

---

A Blog for Secular Students

 
Check out Edger, a Center for Inquiry student initiative.

About

Edger presents hard-hitting and reasoned news, views, and event promotion on issues pertaining to secularism, atheism, science, humanism, and the cosmos, and actively promotes and celebrates international freethought activism. Written in a youthful tone, but mature in content, Edger is sure to be a driving force in the new intellectual enlightenment.

Mission

To create an outlet for prominent young freethought leaders to express their views and get them heard. Blogs are becoming very commonplace, and alone many blogs fail, but together, with the proper direction and an engaging and professional site, these blogging leaders can come together to make an impact far beyond what they could have achieved on their own.

---

Convergence

 
Convergence is a hot topic these days because several theistic evolutionists are using it as scientific evidence for the existence of God.¹

The most prominent scientists to fall into this trap are Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris. Both of them are impressed by certain similarities between Australian marsupials and mammals in the rest of the world. Nobody seems to have noticed that there are no antelope-like or elephant-like species in Australia and no kangaroo-like species in Africa. And what about primates? If primates are so important then how come there are no intelligent primate-like marsupials?

I was going to write a lengthy article about the teleological fallacy behind these attempt to prove intelligent design but, as usual, PZ Myers beat me to it. (Does he ever sleep? Is there more than one of him?) Check out We don't need teleology — so why bother?.

The bigger question is whether scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris (and Francis Collins) are (mis)using science to try and prove the existence of God. I think they are.

---

1. Strictly speaking, they are using it as evidence that there's a plan or purpose that's built into the laws of chemistry and physics. They may not specifically mention that the "grand design" is the work of God but nobody is fooled.

[Image Credit: BACKGROUNDERS]

Citation Classic: The Bible

 
This week's citation classic on The Evilutionary Biologist is the Bible. But it's not the bible you're thinking of.

---

Not Just Education

 
The Chautauqua Institution isn't just about education. It has outstanding programs in dance, art, theater, and music. Every night there's some kind of performance going on in the amphitheater. Here's the lineup for this week.

Monday: 4:00 Chautauqua Wind Quintet, 8:15 PHILADANCO: The Philadelphia Dance Company

Tuesday: 8:15 Chautauqua Symphony Orchestra. Stefan Sanderling, conductor; Julie Albers, cello

Wednesday: 8:15 '100th Anniversary of the Great Automobile Race of 1908'

Thursday: 8:15 An Evening with Jim Brickman

Friday: 8:15 Special Acoustic Evening with Vince Gill

I'm going to everything, even Vince Gill. After all, when else do you get a chance to experience these things? It's not just because Ms. Sandwalk makes me go.

I couldn't resist taking a photo of this lady painting a picture of the Hall of Philosophy. It's soooo Chautauqua. (She gave me permission to take her picture.)

---

On the Waterfront

 
Views of the Chautauqua waterfront and some of the inns and houses that overlook the water.

---

Science, Religion, and Separate Magisteria

 
In a recent interview, Daniel Dennett was asked about Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria. Here's his excellent reply [Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man] ...

The problem with any proposed detente in which science and religion are ceded separate bailiwicks or "magisteria" is that, as some wag has put it, this amounts to rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which Caesar says God can have. The most recent attempt, by Gould, has not found much favor among the religious precisely because he proposes to leave them so little. Of course, I'm certainly not suggesting that he should have left them more.

There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can't consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusively—"beyond a reasonable doubt"—against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.

What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don't. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedom—we wouldn't accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instance—shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.

Most people don't understand that Gould advocated a very small magisterium for religion.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Ken Miller at Chautauqua

 
The Chautauqua Institution is the ideal place for Ken Miller. Almost everyone here is religious and accepts science. I'm surrounded by theistic evolutionists.

Miller gave his usual talk about Intelligent Design and why it's not science. He described his role in the Dover trial. He spent some time explaining why Americans are more inclined to reject evolution. Basically it's the reason he explains in his book Only a Theory; namely that Americans are more independent than the citizens of other countries. This independence, and lack of respect for authority, is what makes America the greatest scientific nation in the world but, ironically, it also leads to the rejection of scientific authority by a majority of citizens. He didn't mention how scientists like Darwin and Linnaeus managed to do so well without ever visiting America.

He mentioned that he is religious and that science is compatible with religion (in his opinion). He did not explain his version of theistic evolution.

---

Monday's Molecule #84

 
Continuing with our Olympics theme, this is another molecule that many athletes fear. As with last week's molecule, the competitors in Beijing do not want to be caught with too much of this in their bodies. You probably won't recognize this molecule from the structure so there's a really big clue below.

You need to identify the specific molecule shown here and explain why this might be an important molecule at the Olympics. Be careful to get the name correct as there are several close relatives that might confuse you.

MATGSRTSLLLAFGLLCLPWLQEGSAFPTIPLSRLFDNAMLRAHRLHQLAFDTYQEFEEA
YIPKEQKYSFLQNPQTSLCFSESIPTPSNREETQQKSNLELLRISLLLIQSWLEPVQFLR
SVFANSLVYGASDSNVYDLLKDLEEGIQTLMGRLEDGSPRTGQIFKQTYSKFDTNSHNDD
ALLKNYGLLYCFRKDMDKVETFLRIVQCRSVEGSCGF

The connection between today's molecule and a Nobel Prize is quite indirect. The Nobel Prize was awarded for developing a very sensitive assay to detect these types of molecules. We don't know if the same assay is being used in the Olympics—probably not.

The first person to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s), wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward. You know who you are.

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 and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) 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. I reserve the right to select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: This week's winner is Mike Fraser who wrote, "The molecule is human growth hormone 1, which can be (mis)used to enhance
muscle mass and strength in athletes. Obviously, this would constitute
illegal doping at the Olympics; athletes would not want to be caught with too
much hGH.

The Nobelist is Rosalyn Yalow, 1977 (Medicine) for the development of the
radioimmunoassay of peptide hormones, such as hGH."

Congratulations Mike!

---

Classroom at Chautauqua

 
This is Hultquist Center where many of the classrooms are located. It's also the headquarters of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle, a book club that's more than 120 years old.

---

Chautauqua Bookstore Is Ready for Evolution

 
The Chautauqua bookstore is ready for a week of evolution. There's going to be a lot of talk about the compatibility of science and religion so it's a bit disappointing to see that the atheist perspective isn't represented. A few weeks ago they had The God Delusion and God Is Not Great on display but now they are missing.

---

Ready for Church

 
Sunday morning in Chautauqua and almost everyone goes to the main amphitheater for a Protestant church service. This is the amphitheater where morning lectures are held. Here's what it looks like from the outside.


Here's a view of the inside—it holds about 1500 people.


The choir is assembling ...

---

Intelligent Design Creationism Is Just Anti-Evolutionism

 
Intelligent Design Creationists are fond of telling us that they have a real scientific theory. They are not just attacking evolution, they are providing real evidence for intelligent design.

Yeah, right.

Let's see how one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism actually performs when given the chance to make her case. Denyse O'Leary has an op-ed piece in yesterday's issue of The Calgary Harald [ My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject Darwinian evolution]. To me it looks like the typical anti-science rant that we've come to expect from creationists. I don't see any attempt to promote the virtues of Intelligent Design Creationism. Am I missing something?

---

Evolution at Chautauqua

 
I'm at the Chautauqua Institution for a week on Darwin and Linnaeus: Their Impact on Our View of the Natural World.

It's going to be a busy week. From 9-10:30 every morning I'm teaching a course, and leading a discussion, on evolution for a group of 35 Elderhostel students. Then there's the morning lecture from 10:45-12. In the afternoon I teach a course called "What Is Evolution." This is followed by the afternoon lecture. From 3:30-5 I'm taking a course on "Evolution and Christianity."

Here's the line-up of speakers. I'll try and blog something every day on what they had to say but given the busy schedule I'm not making any promises.

Monday, August 18

10:45 Kenneth Miller, prof. of biology, Brown University; author, Finding Darwin's God

2:00 Rev. Bruce Sanguin (Evolution and Christianity)

Tuesday, August 19

10:45 Beth Shapiro, asst. prof. of biology, Penn State Univ.; researcher in field of ancient DNA

2:00 Carl Zimmer, science journalist, author, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea

Wednesday, August 20

10:45 Edward Larson, prof. of law, Pepperdine Univ; Pulitzer Prize-winner for Summer for the Gods

2:00 Barbara J. King, prof. of anthropology, College of William & Mary; author, Evolving God

Thursday, August 21

10:45 Spencer Wells, population geneticist; director of Genographic Project

2:00 Eugenie C. Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education

Friday, August 22

10:45 Mattias Klum, National Geographic Society photographer; documentary filmmaker, "The Linnaeus Expedition"

2:00 Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy, Florida State University; director of program in history and philosophy of science, Bristol Univ.

---

Superstition vs Rationalism Charts

 

---

[Image Credit: My[confined]Space via Friendly Atheist]

Dust-Up in Dover

 
The Devil in Dover by Lauri Lebo, The New Press, New York (2008)

This is a book about the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania (USA) between a group of parents (Tammy Kitzmiller et al.) and the Dover Area School District (Kitzmiller v. Dover). The school board decided to introduce intelligent design creationism into the high school curriculum by requiring students to listen to a statement that was to be read to them by their science teacher when evolution was covered in class.¹ The statement said, in part,...

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually offers.

In the USA, the introduction of intelligent design, or any other form of creationism, into the schools is blocked on the grounds that it is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment prevents the establishment of religion by government, and by extension, the public school system. You can't teach religion in public schools.

All proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism know that the intelligent designer is God and that IDC is an attempt to demonstrate scientific proof of the existence of God. Similarly, all science supporters know that Intelligent Design Creationism is religious. The court case consisted of Intelligent Design supporters pretending that this wasn't the case while science supporters attempted to prove that IDC was based on religion. It was hardly a surprise that the creationists lost. After all, they were promoting a lie and everyone knows it.

The Devil in Dover is an entertaining and highly readable account of the events leading up to the trial and of the trial itself. The author, Lauri Lebo, was a reporter for a local newspaper and her account of the trail is greatly enhanced by her knowledge of the participants—many of whom, on both sides, became her friends. She also takes us on a journey of personal discovery as she moves farther and farther away from the religious convictions of her childhood. We follow the conflict between her and her fundamentalist father as the trail approaches.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the evolution/creationist controversy. Ms. Lebo devotes most of her story to the conflict within the community and the mentality of those who back creationism. It is fascinating to read of school board members who talked openly of God and creationism while denying that their motives were religious. We are introduced to Christian fundamentalists who are absolutely convinced that science is wrong and evolution is a lie. Nobody in the community is confused about the fight—it's science vs. religion and no amount of pretending by the lawyers for the school board was going to change that.

For those who are expecting a blow by blow description of the trial, this is not the book for you. Ms. Lebo tells us all we really need to know: the lies of the school board members were exposed and intelligent design creationism was shown to be based on religion and, incidentally, completely non-scientific.It's interesting that the author only picks out a few salient bits of testimony and one of them is Kenneth Miller's response to a question from the lawyer for the plaintiffs (the good guys). The lawyer asked whether science considers questions of meaning and purpose. Miller replied,

"To be perfectly honest,no," Miller said. "Scientists think about all the time about the meaning of their work, about the purpose of life, about the purpose of their own lives. I certainly do. But these questions, as important as they are, are not scientific questions."

"If I could solve the question of the meaning of my life by doing an experiment in the laboratory, I assure you, I would rush off and do it right now. But these questions simply lie outside the purview of science. It doesn't say they're not important, it doesn't say that any answer is necessarily wrong, but it does say that science cannot address it. It's a reflection of the limitation of science."

Lauri Lebo knows that this is the issue that divides the community. Science teaches us that we are "only" animals.²

Many supporters of intelligent design creationism were extremely confident as the trial began. They believed they had finally succeeded in constructing a scam that would stand up to assault from the lawyers. On the other hand, the real experts at the Discovery Institute knew they were in trouble. That's why they distanced themselves from the trial and that's why some of the big guns, like William Dembski, refused to testify on behalf of intelligent design creationism.

Unfortunately, they didn't tell their supporters to shut up. I'll close with one of the best quotations in the book but in order to do so it requires a bit of explanation. The judge in the trail—as I''m sure you all know by now—was Judge John E. Jones. Jones is a conservative appointed by George W. Bush. He is friends with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a right-wing, religious Republican. The quotation is from a comment by DaveScott on Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent.

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E., and Assistant Scout Master... extensively involved with local and National Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turnis deep in George W. Bush's circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW himself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvannian in the same circles (author of the "Santorum language") that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn't going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won't be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.³

The naivety and stupidity of Intelligent Design Creationists isn't lost on Lauri Lebo but instead of telling us outright what she learned in Dover, she lets their own words and actions speak for them.

---

1. As it turned out, the teachers refused to read the statement so school board members came to class and read it to the students.

2. This is the main theme of Kenneth Miller's latest book Only a Theory. In that book he seems to be saying something very different from what he says in his testimony at the trial in Dover. Miller argues that science reveals purpose in the universe. Such meaning and purpose is evident from the fact that the universe is fine tuned to produce intelligent beings. He criticizes those who say that science reveals a meaningless universe; "... this bleak view is actually at variance with what we know about the nature of our universe and the nature of evolutionary change." (p. 154)

3. I can't help but wonder if there are many Americans who think like this. Notice that the concept of justice isn't a factor in DaveScott's analysis. The judge's decision only depends on politics and ambition. DaveScott was very wrong but that's hardly a surprise to those of us who read the creationist blogs. He has a perfect track record.

A Junk DNA Quiz

 
I'm a little busy right now with real world issues so I thought I'd pass alone this abstract posted by Ryan Gregory on Genomicron [And the junk DNA train rolls on...].

Mallik, M. and Lakhotia, S.C. 2008. Noncoding DNA is not "junk" but a necessity for origin and evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Section B - Biological Sciences 77 (Sp. Iss.): 43-50.

All eukaryotic genomes contain, besides the coding information for amino acids in different proteins, a significant amount of noncoding sequences, which may or may not be transcribed. In general, the more evolved or biologically complex the organisms are, greater is the proportion of the noncoding component in their genomes. The popularity and success of "central dogma of molecular biology" during the last quarter of the 20(th) century relegated the noncoding DNA sequences to a mortifying status of "junk" or "selfish", even though during the pre-"molecular biology" days there were good indications that such regions of the genome may function in as yet unknown ways. A resurgence of studies on the noncoding sequences in various genomes during the past several years makes it clear that the complex biological organization demands much more than a rich proteome. Although the more popularly known noncoding RNAs are the small microRNAs and other similar species, other types of larger noncoding RNAs with critical functions in regulating gene activity at various levels are being increasingly,identified and characterized. Many noncoding RNAs are involved in epigenctic modifications, including imprinting of genes. A comprehensive understanding of the significance of noncoding DNA sequences in eukaryotic genomes is essential for understanding the origin and sustenance of complex biological organization of multicellular organisms.

How many things are wrong with this abstract? Hints: The Deflated Ego Problem, The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, Epigenetics Revisited, The Difference Between Fishand Humans.

The most important question is, how did such a paper ever get published in a peer reviewed journal?

---

Denyse O'Leary Thinks Intelligent Design Creationism Is Winning!

 
Here's what Denyse O'Leary say on Uncommon Descent [Looking back: Why I think ID is winning] ...

Having reported news on the ID scene for about five years now, I could give a number of reasons why I think ID is slowly winning the intellectual battle, but let me focus on just one for now ...

Poor Denyse. There are times when I really feel sorry for her.

---

Nobel Laureate: Archibald Hill

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1922.

"for his discovery relating to the production of heat in the muscle"

Archibald Vivian Hill (1886 - 1977) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on heat production in muscle. He related the heat produced when glycogen was broken down to lactate to the heat generated in frog muscle. Hill was one of the first scientists to relate chemical thermodynamics to biological work.

Hill shared his Nobel Prize with Otto Fritz Meyerhof.

The presentation speech was delivered by Professor J.E. Johansson, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine of the Royal Caroline Institute on December 10, 1923(Note that the 1922 prize was awarded at the same time as the 1923 prize.)

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The object of physiology is to endeavour to recognize in the vital processes well-known physical and chemical processes. Accordingly it has to give answers to such questions as these: what is it that takes place in a muscle that contracts, in a gland that emits a secretion, in a nerve when it transmits an impulse? In former times these processes were explained as being the work of what were called «life spirits» - beings who in their mode of existence possessed an unmistakable resemblance to the person who spoke of them. If the muscles of a recently killed animal were seen to twitch when cut or pierced, this was explained by saying that the life spirits had been irritated. From this way of looking at things there still remains the expression «irritation», which we use to denote the starting - or, as we also put it, the liberation - of an active process in an organ. It is a long time, however, since we learnt to regard living organs, muscles, nerves, etc., as mechanisms; and the expression «muscular machine» will probably not strike any educated person in our days as being strange or offensive.

In order to render clear the working of a mechanism it is customary to give a «simplified model» of it. A schematic drawing or an imaginary model may perform the same service, and is at any rate cheaper. The first model that was made of muscular mechanism had the steam-engine as its prototype. Very soon, however, it was perceived that the adoption of an engine of this type presupposes the existence of substances in the muscular fibres capable of sustaining temperatures far exceeding 100°C. The efficiency of muscular work can in fact amount to 20-30%; and such values cannot be obtained by a heat-engine unless the temperature in certain parts of the engine is raised to a considerable height. Hence the muscular machine cannot be referred to that group of motors that transform heat into mechanical work and that are based on the equalization of different temperatures. Theoretically, however, differences in osmotic pressure, surface tension, electrical potential, and so on, offer the same possibility of developing work; and consequently any chemical process whatever that takes place «spontaneously» and that gives rise to such differences in «potential», might be employed in a model of a muscular machine. Thus there is no lack of material for the construction of such a model. The difficulty is to select. In this case there was also a further difficulty, namely that of being able to emancipate oneself, in the design of such a model, from the old and discarded model of a heat-engine. One need not be a physiologist to recognize that muscular activity is essentially bound up with the development of heat, or even with combustion. Now as it is impossible to regard the muscle as a heat-engine, how is it possible to fit these phenomena into the course of action?

This problem has been successfully solved by the two investigators to each of whom the Professorial Staff of the Caroline Institute has this year resolved to award half of the Nobel Prize for 1922 in Physiology or Medicine, namely Professors Archibald Vivian Hill of London and Otto Meyerhof of Kiel. These two men have each worked independently and to a large extent with different methods. Hill has analysed, by means of an extremely elegant thermoelectrical method, the time relations of the heat production of the muscle; and Meyerhof has investigated by chemical methods the oxygen consumption by the muscle and the conversion of carbohydrates and lactic acid in the muscle. Both have made use of the same kind of experimental material, namely the surviving muscle excised from a frog - in fact, the classical frog muscle preparation.

Such a preparation remains alive for several hours, or even days. A suitable stimulus liberates a contraction or develops a state of tension, both of short duration. The twitch takes only one or two tenths of a second. If the stimulus be repeated, the muscle makes a new twitch, apparently resembling the preceding one; and if the muscle is attached to a suitable connecting lever, the several twitches give the same effect as the strokes of a piston in a steam-engine. What was more natural than to regard the muscular twitch as the expression of a circular process in the muscular elements? This process makes itself known in another way also, namely in the form of a development of heat in the muscle preparation. The amount of heat is very insignificant. It is measured in millionths of the usual unit of heat and is recorded in a thermoelectrical way in the form of readings on a galvanometer. Armed with technical resources for observing both the mechanical process and the development of heat in the twitch of an isolated muscle, investigators tried to penetrate more deeply into the muscular process proper. Our countryman Blix showed that everything that impedes the contraction of a muscle during the twitch - that is to say, impedes the diminution of surface of the muscular elements - increases the formation of heat, and from this concluded that the process sought is localized to the surface of certain structural elements which, owing to changed conditions in surface tension, acquire a tendency to pass from an ellipsoidical to a more spherical form. If the load of the muscle gives way to the tension thus created, external work is done. Hence the muscle is mainly to be regarded as a machine that converts chemical energy into tension energy.

In the first experiments that Hill carried out on this subject in 1910 he made use of a thermo-galvanometer designed by Blix. Here he noticed that the reading not only gives the total amount of heat developed, but also is to some extent affected by the period of time taken in the development of heat. He was able to distinguish between an «initial» and a «delayed» development of heat. A subsequent work contained the starting-point for a new method of investigation, which made it possible to trace the development of heat in muscular movements in their various stages. This technique may be described as having been completely developed by 1920; but some of the results that I shall mention had been obtained as early as 1913, that is to say before the outbreak of the World War.

The development of heat in the contraction of the muscle - which to preceding investigators appeared to be «one and indivisible», that is to say, was lumped together as a single phenomenon - can be divided by Hill's method into several periods, the last of which comes long after the end of the mechanical process, that of the twitch. To this must be added the fact that this delayed development of heat entirely fails to appear if the supply of oxygen to the muscle be cut off, while the development of heat during the actual twitch - tension and relaxation - is completely independent of the presence of oxygen. The process of combustion, which it had been customary to connect immediately with the contraction of the muscle, does not actually take place until afterwards. In the experimental arrangements with which we are now dealing (isometrical work) the development of heat during the actual twitch also includes the amount of energy which under other circumstances appears as external work.

Hill's discovery has had a veritably revolutionizing effect as regards the conception of the muscular process. The ordinary view of this process as divided into two phases, tension and relaxation, can, it is true, be retained with regard to the mechanical process, but with regard to the chemical process another division must be adopted - the working phase proper, independent of the supply of oxygen and corresponding to the whole of the mechanical process, and following it an oxidative phase of recovery. If previously in their speculations as to the muscular process physiologists had mainly shown an interest in the actual twitch, investigations now became directed towards the muscle in rest and especially the muscle after preceding exhaustion. Chemical considerations now attracted attention as well as the physical ones.

The earliest known chemical process in the muscle is the formation of lactic acid. This is mentioned as early as 1859 by Du Bois-Reymond. He had found that an excised muscle becomes acid on repeated stimulation even when the rigor mortis sets in. He supposed the cause of this to be the formation of lactic acid - owing, it is stated, to a communication from Berzelius, who had found great quantities of that acid in the flesh of a deer that had been killed in the chase. Since that time lactic acid has played a very important part in discussions as to rigor mortis and the fatigue of the muscle. Some years before Hill began his investigations, two of his countrymen, Fletcher and Hopkins, had shown that the excised muscle not only forms but also converts lactic acid, this depending on whether the muscle is shut off from oxygen or whether oxygen is supplied to it. Some observations also suggested that when the lactic acid disappears from the muscle, only part of it is burnt up, while the rest is re-transformed into the mother substance of lactic acid. In consequence of this there was reason to surmise that the part played by lactic acid in the muscles is not completely represented by such expressions as «by-product of the metabolism», «fatigue substance», «cause of rigor mortis», etc. In this connection Hill proposed that lactic acid should be included as a part of the actual muscle machine.

The formation of lactic acid in the muscle, according to Fletcher and Hopkins, and this development of heat in the muscle during its working phase, according to Hill, exhibit the striking accordance that they take place independent of the oxygen supply. According to Blix, the twitch came about due to the fact that along the surface of certain structural elements there suddenly appears some substance, the nature of which is not stated. If we suppose this substance to be lactic acid - formed either directly or with some intermediate stage from the muscles' well-known store of glycogen - we have a model which combines in itself the most valuable contributions of the investigations of the last few decades on this question. We make the stage of recovery, accompanied by the supply of oxygen, follow the working phase together with Hill's delayed development of heat and Fletcher's conversion of lactic acid. The fact is that lactic acid, when it has done its work, must be got rid of somehow in order that the machine may be kept going.

By a well-known calculation Hill tried to find support for the recently quoted supposition of Fletcher and Hopkins with regar d to a reversion, in conjunction with the lactic acid combustion, of lactic acid to glycogen during the phase of recovery. It is easy to see that the correctness of this supposition forms a condition that the model cited should be acceptable from the point of view of energetics. But objections were made against the analyses and arguments of Fletcher and Hopkins. Moreover, there were adduced, from what were considered to be extremely competent quarters, direct observations which seemed to show that the lactic acid formed in the working phase was completely used in the process of recovery - a piece of wastefulness on the part of Nature which could only be explained by means of auxiliary hypotheses in the presence of which it would have been the simplest thing to let the whole of the attractive model take part in the combustion.

It is at this stage in the development of the question that Meyerhof's contribution comes in. In his investigations concerning the respiration of the tissues (1918) he came to devote his attention to the things that take place in the surviving muscle, and in this connection also to the objections that had been raised against the conclusions of Fletcher and Hopkins and their interpretation of the «lactic acid maximum» of the muscle. He showed that these objections do not really affect the result of the recently cited calculations of Hill. Most important of all, however, was his parallel determination of the lactic acid metabolism and the oxygen consumption during the recovery of the muscle, which yielded the result that the oxygen consumption does not correspond to more than 1/3 - 1/4 of the simultaneous lactic acid metabolism. Evidently the greater part of the lactic acid disappears in some other way than through combustion. In another parallel determination - the development of heat and the oxygen consumption - the development of heat exhibited a deficit in comparison with what could be calculated from the simultaneously observed oxygen consumption. From this the conclusion may be drawn that the combustion of lactic acid in the muscle is combined with some other process, an endothermic one, in the course of which part of the heat developed in the combustion is used up. Meyerhof also made a parallel determination of the carbohydrates and lactic acid in the resting and in the working muscle, also in the recovery period after fatigue; he found: when lactic acid is stored in the muscle, an equivalent quantity of carbohydrates, chiefly glycogen, disappears, while when lactic acid disappears, the quantity of carbohydrates in the muscle is increased by an amount equivalent to the difference between the total amount of lactic acid that has disappeared and the quantity oxidized corresponding to the oxygen consumption.

Hence the processes which we have to take into account in the muscles are: (1) the formation of lactic acid from carbohydrates; (2) the combustion of lactic acid to carbonic acid and water; and (3) the reversion of lactic acid to carbohydrates. But these processes are not confined to the uninjured muscle. Meyerhof has also traced them in finely chopped muscle substance kept moist in a suitable liquid, and in that case found them take place 10-29 times more rapidly than in the well-known muscle preparation. In such a dilution it is also possible to study the effect of different factors such as the concentration of hydrogen ions, the presence of phosphates, etc.; and in particular it has been possible to make clear to what extent the various processes are connected with one another or can be varied in relation to one another. A matter of extremely great interest is the establishment of the fact that the combustion of lactic acid in the muscle cannot take place without a simultaneous formation of lactic acid from carbohydrates, and that the combustion of lactic acid is connected with the formation of carbohydrates in such a way that out of four molecules of lactic acid one is oxidized, while the three others are reverted to carbohydrates. lt is not inconceivable that the reversion does not always extend so far as to produce carbohydrates; but the ideal course of the process may be regarded as precisely defined by Meyerhof, and it has been represented by him in the form of a scheme of chemical reaction. In this scheme, too, can well be fitted the lactacidogen discovered by Embden as a connecting link between glycogen and lactic acid.

The chemical processes just cited have to be fitted into the model of the muscle machine. Ignoring other considerations than those of energy, we can express the course of action in the following way: the change in the muscle which forms the basis of the mechanical process (the external work) presupposes a certain quantity of lactic acid, which comes from the muscle's store of glycogen. When this lactic acid has done its work, 1/4 is burnt into carbonic acid and water, while 3/4 return to the store of glycogen. The upper limit of the efficiency of the machine, calculated according to this scheme, will be 50%, which fully corresponds to the real state of things.

The combustion of lactic acid demands oxygen. The muscle preparation, however, can work even if the supply of oxygen is cut off. The lactic acid formed at every twitch spreads in the muscle out from the places where it is formed until the muscle substance finally becomes so impregnated with lactic acid that it is not relaxed between the twitches, and the impulses applied do not give rise to any further formation of lactic acid. The muscle is exhausted or, as one might also put it, poisoned with lactic acid. In the body the muscle is transfused with blood, which supplies oxygen in far greater abundance than that which the excised muscle preparation can obtain from its environment. Owing to its store of alkali, moreover, the blood itself provides room for a certain quantity of lactic acid from working muscles - a quantity of lactic acid that the blood can afterwards get rid of during a subsequent interval in the work. The possibility of thus distributing the combustion of lactic acid during a period that is longer than the work itself, provides us with an explanation of the immense amount of work achieved, especially in the sporting competitions of our day. Even with a volume per minute corresponding to the extreme working capacity of the heart there is not obtained in these cases a supply of oxygen corresponding to the formation of lactic acid in the muscles; and consequently the individual exposes himself to an accumulation of lactic acid in the blood and in all the tissues or the body - an accumulation that must be characterized as poisoning. When we are dealing with competitions for children and young people who are not yet grown up, there is good reason to think about this detail with regard to the muscle machine.

Professors Hill and Meyerhof. Your brilliant discoveries concerning the vital phenomena of muscles supplement each other in a most happy manner. It has given a special satisfaction to be able to reward these two series of discoveries at the same time, since it gives a clear expression of one of the ideas upon which the will of Alfred Nobel was founded, that is, the conception that the greatest cultural advances are independent of the splitting-up of mankind into contending nations. I also feel confident that you will be glad to know that the proposition which has led to this award of the Nobel Prize originated from a German scientist who, in spite of all difficulties and disasters, has clearly recognized the main object of Alfred Nobel.

In conferring upon both of you the sincere congratulations of the Caroline Institute, I have the honour of asking you to receive from His Majesty the King the Nobel Prize for 1922 in Physiology or Medicine.

---

Science and the Question of Purpose

 
Lawrence Krauss has a column in the Aug. 2 issue of New Scientist [Why God and Science Don't Mix].¹ The article is mostly about why scientists should not support the Templeton Foundation but I want to focus on one particular statement.

Krauss says,

Science must follow nature wherever it leads us. If it turn out to suggest that we are alone in a universe without purpose, we must accept that.

Let's not quibble about the "alone" part. I think that science does, indeed, reveal a universe without purpose. In particular, it strongly indicates that humans have no special place in the universe and no special role to fulfill. This is one of the reasons why science and religion are in conflict.

Theistic evolutionists and soft intelligent design creationists claim that the universe was set up by God in a way that makes intelligent life inevitable. Many of them claim that the goal is to evolve humans—or something like humans—whose purpose is to discover God and worship Him.

Here's the question. Does science really tell us that there's no purpose and humans aren't special? I think it does suggest exactly that and anyone who chooses to think otherwise is in concflict with science. It's one of the reasons why I think that science and religion are in conflict.

Now, I admit that the inference of purposelessness isn't obvious to the average person but I think it's plain to those people who study science for a living. Perhaps it explains why so many scientists are nonbelievers and perhaps it's why religious scientists such as Ken Miller, Francois Collins, and Simon Conway Morris have to develop such convoluted arguments to rationalize the conflict [Does the Univese Have a Purpose?].

---

1. It's interesting that the print version of this essay is titled "Let's Listen to What Nature Says." A much better title IMHO.