What Does Change Look Like?

 
I'm glad Barrack Obama won the election. He is much less conservative than John McCain and much more likely to do good things for America.

Change is in the air, everybody is talking about a new direction for America under Barack Obama. What kind of changes can we expect? Here's a sample from last night's vote on several propositions [CNN.com].

This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2006 but failed.

According to the exit poll [Arizona Prop.102], 67% of Protestants voted to ban gay marriage as did 51% of Catholics. About 13% of voters said they had no religion and 69% of them voted against Proposition 102.

This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.

According to the exit poll [Arkansas Initiative 1], the voters are evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Democrats voted against the initiative (52%) but the other two groups voted in favor of the ban. A majority of college graduates (52%) and those with postgraduate education (54%) voted in favor of the ban on adoptions.

This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state. If passed, the measure would trump a May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.

According to the exit poll [California Proposition 8], a majority of whites (53%) and Asians (53%) voted against Proposition 8 while a majority of African-Americans (70%) and Latinos (51%) voted in favor of the ban. Democrats (65%) and Independents (56%) were against the ban but 81% of Republicans voted in favor of the ban on gay marriage.

This measure would amend the state constitution to define the term "person" to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization." This definition would be applied to all aspects of the state constitution, including the provisions that ensure that no person has his or her life, liberty, or property taken away without due process of law. Thus, the measure would essentially have the effect of banning abortion.

According to the exit poll [Colorado Amendment 48], this amendment should have been approved by a substantial majority.

This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In order to amend the Florida constitution, 60 percent of voters must vote in favor of the amendment.

According to the exit poll [Florida Amendment 2], 71% of Protestants and 66% of Catholics voted in favor of the amendment to ban gay marriage. A majority of Whites (60%), African-Americans (71%), and Latinos (64%) voted for the ban.

This measure would prohibit all abortions in the state except in cases where mother's life or health is at risk or in cases of rape or incest for pregnancies of less than 20 weeks. A similar measure that did not include exceptions for rape or the health of the mother was on the ballot in 2006, but was rejected by voters 44 to 56 percent.

According to the exit poll [South Dakota Initiative 11], only evangelical born-again Christians and conservative Republicans supported the initiative. A majority of all other groups voted against it.

This measure would allow terminally ill, competent, adult residents of the state to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician. The person requesting to end his or her life must be medically predicted to have six months or less to live.

According to the exit poll [Washington Initiative 1000], this initiative was supported by liberals (81%) and moderates (63%) and opposed by conservatives (66%). There are more liberals (29% of the voters) than in most states. Republicans (63%) voted against the initiative while Democrats (75%) and Independents (59%) voted for it.

---

Asses on Panda's Thumb

 
It's probably not a coincidence that Panda's Thumb published a photo of a pair of asses today. See them at Equus asinus.

---

Ken Ham and Jesus Visit Toronto

 
I forgot to mention that "Ken Ham" and "Jesus" were at P.Zed's talk on Friday night. Theo Bromine has photographic proof on the blog Thinking for Free [PZed Myers comes to TO].

---

Anonymous Students and Their Grades

 
In Ontario we have to conform to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). What this means is that we cannot publish student names and grades. The University of Toronto guidelines are very clear on this matter [Q and A for Instructors under FIPPA]. We shouldn't even be publishing student numbers with grades.

I just checked with one of my colleagues to find out what the policy was when she graduated in 1949. She showed me the booklet put out by the university in 1949. Her name and grades were listed there. Furthermore, the names and rankings of all student were published in the newspaper.

I asked one of my students who attended high school in Europe. Her name and grades were published in the newspaper. I'm told that this practice continues in some European countries. Another of my colleague learned his medical school grades by reading the Glasgow newspaper in the early 1950s.

Assuming that FIPPA does not apply to the publication of university grades (an invalid assumption), should we publish student names and grades? What are the non-legal arguments for and against this policy?

I like the idea of publishing student's names and grades because it helps make them take responsibility for their activities at university. Very few people agree with me. They all think that a student has a right to privacy. Most of these people don't have a problem with publishing Professor's salaries and course evaluation results because the public has a right to know this information.

---

[Photo Description: This is a photograph of the wall on the ground floor of my building. You can see the names and photographs of every student in the medical school graduating class.]

Today Is a Very Important Day

 
It's Sandwalk's second birthday. It was two years ago today that I posted the first message on Sandwalk [Welcome to my Sandwalk].

I started Sandwalk when PZ Myers convinced me that blogging wasn't just a fad. There was a real opportunity to discuss science, and other things, in the blogosphere. Since Nov. 4, 2006 I have published 2,253 postings—some of them have been quite popular and a few of them have been quite good (IMHO).

Sandwalk has grown into a moderate-sized blog with a number of regular readers. I'm particularly excited about the people who comment. They teach me a lot. I'm impressed by the quality of the discussion that goes on in the comments section of Sandwalk postings. This was something that I was hoping for when I started this blog.

A big thank-you to everyone who reads and comments. You've made it all worthwhile.

Here are the latest numbers.

---

Please Help Me with My Homework

 
I get email messages like this on a regular basis ...

Hi Mr. Moran, My name is XXX and I am a student at YYY and I would like your help in my English Research Paper.

My task is to write a research paper about something that matters in America today, and I believe the situation surrounding the ID movement is something that really matters. I was wondering where would I be able to get the best information pretaining to the anti-ID, and I thought, why not get it from talk origins?

So Mr. Moran, I would greatly appreciate you helping me in my research paper by outlining and detailing why ID should not be allowed in classrooms or directing me to some one who can.

Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated.

I wonder how his teachers define "research"? Back in the olden days we used to read books and articles in order to prepare to write a research paper. Some of you may be familiar with books.

Why have things changed? Why do today's students think they can ask someone else to do all the work for them? Has it got something to do with entitlement, or is it more closely related to intelligence?

---

A Canadian Perspective on Tomorrow's Victory

 
Read Is It Wednesday Yet? by psa on Canadian Cynic.

---

Goodbye PZ Myers

 
There were about eighteen people at the farewell dinner for PZed and Skatje on Saturday night. We really enjoyed his visit.

---

In Search of Spandrels

While looking for postings on the Maynard Smith fumble (Maynard Smith on Stephen Jay Gould) I came across this one, posted on talk.origins on Aug. 20, 1998. I had forgotten about my second search for the Spandrels paper.

This is a paper that every student of evolution should read. I can't think of a paper by Maynard Smith that falls into that category.

I recently found myself in the catacombs of the library archive far away from the stress of students writing their summer exams. It was very peaceful. It was also a place where creationists never go.

I must confess that my primary motivation for being there was work avoidance - I hate marking exams - but there was another reason as well. My secondary mission was to retrieve a pristine copy of the "Spandrels" paper so I could hand it out to my students. (My own copy had some embarassing margin notes that weren't fit for young eyes.)

There were many bound volumes of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series B). Did you know that this journal goes back over one hundred years? (That's even before I was born.) Did you know that you have to look in the stacks under "R", for "Royal", and not "P", for "Proceedings"? Did you ever wonder why librarians do that? My own theory is that they really don't want us to take out their books so they make it as difficult as possible to find something.

I was looking for volume 205 (1979). As usual, it was on the bottom shelf; way down at the level of my shoes. I had to get down on one knee and that's a lot of work. But at least volume 205 wasn't missing. With trembling hands I flipped the pages looking for the sacred text. Would it be there or would the pages have been cut out with a razor blade? Chances were good - pre-med students don't read about evolution.

Yes! There it was: "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme" by S.J. Gould and R.C. Lewontin. They even spelled "programme" correctly! Off I went to the photocopy machine. Off I went to buy a new photocopy card. Back I came to the photocopy machine. Let's see now ... how much magnification will I need to fill an 8x11 page so I don't have to close the damn lid every time I copy a page? 125% should do it. Wrrrrr .... flash .... swish .... splat.

Maybe 120% would work ...

At last, page 598 was perfect. (Anyone want extra copies of the references from this paper?) I worked my way forward to page 581 fending off the librarian who insisted that I had to close the lid or I would ruin the photocopier - and my eyes (I'm not sure which was more important to her).

I was lucky there were three or four students to distract her. Behind my back I heard some mumblings about "eccentric" and "stubborn" but unfortunately I couldn't see exactly what was going on.

Hope I didn't miss anything interesting.

I knew that Gould had presented the paper at a meeting in London in December, 1978. Lewontin wasn't there because you have to fly to get to England and Lewontin thinks that if humans were made to fly then we would have evolved wings. So, who else was at the meeting? Did they publish papers in the same issue of the journal? Let's see ...

My thoughts were interrupted by some shouting in the line behind me. Guess I'd better get away from the photocopier. The machine seems to be making people angry.

Off I went to find a desk to sit down at. Found one. Off I went to the photocopier to retrieve my photocopy card. Back I came to the desk.

Someone was there. Found another desk. It had a banana peel on it.

Cool. All the papers are here. The meeting was called "The Evolution of Adaptation by Natural Selection" and it was organized by John Maynard Smith and R. Holliday. Orgel has a paper on evolution in vitro. The Charlesworths write about sex in plants. There's a paper by Maynard Smith on game theory and the evolution of behaviour. George Williams was present (more about him later). And guess who else? - Richard Dawkins!

The Dawkins' paper is titled "Arms races between and within species" (R. Dawkins and J.R. Krebs). It goes on and on about the adaptive significance of arms races and the optimization of animals. I bet the Gould talk was not well received by Dawkins in 1978. :-)

The Williams paper is very interesting ("The question of adaptive sex ratio in outcrossed vertebrates"). He examines two popular theories of the adaptive control of sex ratio (why there are 50% males and 50% females). After looking at the detailed models and the available data he concludes,

Evidence from vertebrates is unfavourable to either theory and supports, instead, a non-adaptive model, the purely random (Mendelian) determination of sex.

Good for him. I wish I could have been at the meeting. Maybe there was a discussion. Flipping to the back of the book I find a petulant summary of the meeting written by A.J. Cain. You can tell he's really annoyed at something that went on in the meeting,

Ever since natural selection appeared on the scene, there have been those who voiced an a priori and dogmatic dislike of it. One classic example is George Bernard Shaw ... I suspect from my own work that natural selection may have been very much more important than anyone has realized up to now. If so, can these emotional and other rejections of it, or, more generally, the tendency of the human race to take a non-objective view of evolution and kindred topics, be explained by natural selection?

There is a possible evolutionary explanation, as yet untested, and no other scientific one that I know of.

Whew! The discussion must have been exciting. Let's see, it should be right at the end. Ah, here it is,

[It has not been possible to include the general discussion in this publication.]

Damn.

Gotta go, the banana peel is making me ill - it looks like it's been here since the day before yesterday. Is that a fruit fly? Off I go.

Back again. (Forgot my pen.) See ya.

Larry Moran

---

Maynard Smith on Stephen Jay Gould

 
Someone resurrected an old quotation by John Maynard Smith in a comment on Good Science Writers: Stephen Jay Gould.

Here's how I replied on March 26m 2002 on the newsgroup talk.origins. It was at least the tenth time I had addressed this silly comment by Maynard Smith.

This is not a universally held view. LAM is no doubt familiar with John Maynard Smith's famous remarks about Gould:

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

As an aside, isn't that beautifully written?

Genes, Memes, & Minds JOHN MAYNARD SMITH November 30, 1995, New York Review of Books (the essay was a review of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life" by Daniel C. Dennett).

Unfortuantely JMS drops the issue at that point and has, so far as I know, never taken it up again.

He probably thought he had better things to do.

Either that, or he was very embarrassed by his inappropriate remarks and hopes that most people will forget about them. I wonder what Maynard Smith thinks of all those idiots in the AAAS who elected Gould President of the largest scientific society in the world? What in the world could Maynard Smith have been thinking when he invited Gould to Oxford to give a prestigious series of lectures on evolutionary theory?

For those interested in the background to all this, I can do little better than suggest reading Segerstråle's book "Defenders of the Faith", where she discusses the history of all this, the arguments between people like Lewontin, E.O. Wilson, Gould, Dawkins, etc. JMS comes out of it well - he was sat in the middle trying to makes sense of both sides.

Do you really think that Maynard Smith's remarks quoted above represent someone who's trying to make sense of Gould's side? Maynard Smith is firmly on the side of Dawkins in this debate. Like Dawkins, he has never given any indication that he understands the main issues. When Maynard Smith says that Gould is presenting a "largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory" you should appreciate that what Maynard Smith is really saying is that Gould presents a picture that Maynard Smith disagrees with. Only Maynard Smith and his friends know about the *true* picture of evolutionary theory.

Gould is not nearly as arrogant as his opponents.

I've also noted on several occasions that just because Maynard Smith can't understand the complications of modern evolutionary theory doesn't mean that his simplistic version is correct.

In addition I've pointed out that Gould is often referenced in evolution textbooks for his contributions to pluralism, heterochrony, punctuated equilibria, progression, disparity, the tape of life, species selection, and spandrels. You have to look hard to find references to Maynard Smith.

To me that suggests that Maynard Smith is a man hardly worth bothering with.

---

[Image Credit: Photograph of Stephen Jay Gould by Kathy Chapman from Lara Shirvinski at the Art Science Research Laboratory, New York (Wikipedia)]

Monday's Molecule #95

 
This is a very famous molecule, featured in all biochemistry textbooks. You have to identify the molecule—be careful there are several possibilities and it's easy to go wrong. You don't have to tell me the species. (Hint: the three red amino acid side chains are aspartate, histidine, and serine.)

This week's Nobel Laureate(s) won the prize for his work with this molecule (and several others).

The first one 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 only two ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Haruhiko Ishii, and Bill Chaney of the University of Nebraska.

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: The molecule is chymotrypsin, not chymotrysinogen or pepsin or elastin. These proteins are called serine proteases because they have a catalytic serine residue in the active site. The Nobel Laureate is John Howard Northrop, the first person to purify and crystallize chymotrypsin. The first person to get it right was Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, who just recently fell off the ineligible list.

---

Conservatives Approve Physical Violence

 
Normally I don't pay much attention to the Blogging Tories, a group of conservative Canadian bloggers. Canadain Cynic usually does a good job of finding the most ridiculous postings so we can all have a good chuckle from time to time [see She's so adorable, with that folksy racism of hers]. The average IQ of these blogging Tories seems to be significantly below 80.

"Hunter" is a female blogger from Alberta—Canada's version of Texas. She really doesn't like Barack Obama and has taken it upon herself to warn all Canadians about the perils of socialism. Here's an example of her latest posting [Coming to America].

Are Americans going quietly into socialism? Here is a good take on freedom of speech, and the 2nd Amendment:


Kind of says it all doesn't it.

Just in case some non-Americans are confused about the reference to the 2nd Amendment, let me remind you that it's the amendment Americans use to justify their right to have guns and shoot people who disagree with them.

It does say it all. Conservatives on both sides of the border seem to think it's acceptable to shoot someone who steals campaign signs. That says a lot about their mentality. Who wants to live in a society where such people have guns?

There are days when I secretly hope that McCain wins the election. Then maybe some of our conservative citizens from Alberta could move to Texas. This would benefit both Alberta and Texas.

---

Mendel's Garden #25

 
The 25th edition of Mendel's Garden has just been posted on evolgen [Mendel's Garden #25].

After a few months¹ off, here's the return of Mendel's Garden.

---

1. Six, to be exact.

A New Customer for Tim Hortons

 
PZ Myers has posted a video of his daughter Skatje having breakfast at Tim Hortons.

This is the first step toward becoming Canadian. We welcome everyone, even the godless. [You Will Be Assimilated!]

---

David Berlinski Says Evolution Is Wrong: Wayne Eyre of the National Post Falls for It

 

Yesterday Wayne Eyre wrote a column for the National Post entitled 'Darwin? That's just the party line'. Here's how it starts ..

For example, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, says that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid or insane." Oxford professor Peter Atkins, another ardent atheist, recently denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that "scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest." Geneticist Emile Zuckerkandl -- writing on whether biological facts suggest an intelligent designer -- terms the notion of intelligent design an "intellectual virus" and its advocates "an offensive little swarm of insects ... [who] feed like leeches on irrational beliefs."

That these gentlemen go on like this in the wake of, for example, biochemist Michael Behe's masterful Darwin's Black Box, in which he sets out a devastating case for the "irreducible complexity" of human systems, truly makes one wonder about the confidence they have in their own convictions.

Anyone who would describe Behe's argument as "devestating" has obviously not been paying attention.

But this isn't a column about Behe. Instead, it's a homage to another IDiot named David Berlinski,¹ especially his recent book The Devil's Delusion: Atheism And Its Scientific Pretensions.

Now you'd expect to see a nice summary of the most powerful arguments for Intelligent Design Creationism, wouldn't you? That's not what this column is about. What impresses Wayne Eyre is all the hype about evolution being wrong and that's what he picks out from Berlinksi's book. (In fairness, that's all there is in the book.)

He's the best example that impresses Eyre.

"Suspicions about Darwin's theory arise for two reasons," he writes. "The first: The theory makes little sense. The second: It is supported by little evidence ... The theories that we do have do what they can do, and then they stop. They do not stop because a detail is missing; they stop because we cannot go on. Difficulties are accommodated by the magician's age-old tactic of misdirection."

Berlinski -- who argues that computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not -- says the unpersuasiveness of the literature on the subject is well known. He tells how a Nobel laureate once said to him in a faculty lounge: "Darwin? That's just the party line."

In his dissection of Darwinists and Darwinism, Berlinski notes that "if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life, and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything."

Little wonder, then, that so many of them do indeed protest so much.

That's it folks. David Berlinski, who is not a biologist, says that evolutionary biologists are wrong about evolution and that's all it takes to impress Wayne Eyre.

And you wonder why we call them IDiots?

---

1. Described by Eyre as "a highly respected member of the scientific elite." You can't just make this stuff up ... or can you?

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

PZ Myers in Toronto

 
P.Zed¹ Myers gave a wonderful talk last night. He and his daughter Skatje arrived at 2pm and we had time for snacks and drinks at the Faculty Club before he was whisked off to the Center for Inquiry for a reception at 6pm. About 10 fans joined us at the Faculty Club.

Here's P.Zed just before his talk with Justin Trottier, Director of CFI, Ontario and Katie Kish, Assistant Director. I'll try and get another picture of PZed with Kate Fairbrother, President of the University of Toronto Secular Alliance.


Here's a fuzzy picture of P.Zed describing the Cracker Affair. There were about 500 people in the audience including some of your favorite bloggers and regular commenters. Canadian Cynic was there but he/she was well disguised—after all, it was Halloween. My friend, the Jesuit priest, was there. I'll be anxious to find out what he thought of the cracker desecration!


After the talk, about 30 people joined P.Zed and Skatje at O'Grady's Pub for a glass of water. Here's P.Zed talking to some of the people who came out to see him. That's Skatje in the background.

---

P.Zed tells me that he prefers the English version of his name to the American version (P.Zee) because the English version sounds so much more sophisticated.

Proposition 8

 
Last May the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry according to the California Constitution. Since then 16,000 same-sex couples have been married in California [California Proposition 8 (2008)].

On November 4th voters will decide on whether or not to change the California Constitution to block the marriage of same-sex partners. This is Proposition 8:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The latest polls indicate that the "yes" side has a slight lead. If the "yes" side wins next Tuesday, it will be illegal for same-sex couples to marry in California.

This is California, folks. In the United States of America. In the 21st century. Gay couples are getting married but that right might be withdrawn.

What the heck is going on?

---

[Photo Credit: BBC News]

Tangled Bank #117

 
The latest issue of Tangled Bank has been published on Pro-Science [Tangled Bank #117].

Welcome everybody to the 117th edition of the blogosphere’s premiere science and medicine blogcarnival, Tangled Bank. Tangled Bank started out as a sort of Carnival of the Vanities for science bloggers taking it’s name from Charles Darwin’s famous metaphor:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.

It’s fitting that this edition should itself present such a tangled bank of blog posts intertwining many different fields of science and medicine. Unfortunately, that means it becomes almost impossible to find a common theme or even group together the posts in any meaningful way. So I’m going to take the easy way out and simply list them in no particular order, although we’ll try to group related posts together.

---

Send an email message to host@tangledbank.net if you want to submit an article to Tangled Bank. Be sure to include the words "Tangled Bank" in the subject line. Remember that this carnival only accepts one submission per week from each blogger.

The Best Invention of 2008

 
According to Time magazine it's "The DNA Retail Test." Especially the one marketed by 23andMe.

We are at the beginning of a personal-genomics revolution that will transform not only how we take care of ourselves but also what we mean by personal information. In the past, only élite researchers had access to their genetic fingerprints, but now personal genotyping is available to anyone who orders the service online and mails in a spit sample. Not everything about how this information will be used is clear yet — 23andMe has stirred up debate about issues ranging from how meaningful the results are to how to prevent genetic discrimination — but the curtain has been pulled back, and it can never be closed again. And so for pioneering retail genomics, 23andMe's DNA-testing service is Time's 2008 Invention of the Year.

1. It's not an invention. The technology has been in place for years. It depends on the work done by hundreds of labs who are investigating the human genome. They deposit their results in public databases.


2. The profit making company is emphasizing genealogy as much as health. For $1000 (now $399) you can find out how your haplotyes compare to others. This is the best invention of 2008?


3. There are serious ethical concerns about genetic testing that have not been resolved.


4. Other companies are selling tests that are just as good and The Genographic Project from National Geographic deserves just as much, if not more, credit than any private company.


5. Many of the people who buy these products are scientifically literate, and responsible, adults. But there's plenty of opportunity to exploit others who might not understand what the test means.

---

What the Heck Is This?

 
You must go to Botany Photo of the Day to find out. Be thankful that we can't reproduce smells on our blogs.

---

32 Nearby Stars

 
Check out this interactive star map of the 32 nearest stars [32 Nearby Stars].

Imagine that humans could establish colonies on several of these stars in the next 10,000 years. This means that we would have reached out 10 light years in that time. Continuing at that pace, in one million years we would have colonies that are 1000 light years away. In one hundred million years we will have covered more than half the galaxy.

If there are other civilizations like ours, they would have to be less than one hundred million years older than us or they would likely be here by now. Maybe we are alone in the galaxy/universe?

UPDATE: I've been reminded that this argument against the high probability of life is known as the Fermi Paradox.

---

[Hat Tip: Bad Astronomy]

On Assuming that God Obeys the Laws of Physics and Chemstry

 
John Pieret admires a recent posting by Steven Novella on NeuroLogica Blog where he (Novella) writes about More on Methodological Naturalism.

This methodoligical approach also deals with the problem of whether or not science can deal with God. The answer is - yes and no. If a supernatural (meaning inaccessible to science) power were meddling with our universe (with stuff science could access), science could detect it, document it, and even describe it. We could say that something was happening.

However (by the premises of this hypothetical situation) if the ultimate cause of these physical effects were beyond scientific methodology, the best science could do would be to describe anomalies. Science comes across anomalies all the time, and the typical approach is to assume (because we really have no choice) that the anomalies are due to either errors in observation, errors in our current theories, or incompleteness in our current theories, meaning there is some new phenomenon to discover.

So far the scientific approach (assuming anomalies will lead to a deeper understanding of reality) has worked out pretty well. This is the best evidence we have that our universe if mostly rational and does not include “supernatural” (by my definition) forces that will remain forever “mysterious.” If it did, then we would run across anomalies that we could never explain scientifically. All we could do would be to describe them, but we could never come up with a testable theory of mechanism.

I pretty much agree with what Steven Novella says here, although I note that he gets a bit fuzzy in other parts of the same posting. The basic point is that scientists are capable of detecting things that are not explainable by naturalistic explanations. In other words, if something isn't obeying the laws of physics and chemistry,¹ then we''ll know about it, even if we have to put it down as an unexplained anomaly.

The fact that there aren't any known mysteries that fall into this category means that there is no evidence for a God that acts in a supernatural manner. This is not the God of Francis Collins. Collins is a scientist who presents "evidence" that God exists.

The fact that most other scientists do not find such evidence is not proof that all types of God don't exist. It merely defines limits to the types of God that are possible if you use scientific reasoning.

John Pieret seems to knows this since in his posting Natural Method he asks:

I would quibble that divine action would not necessarily produce anomalies. For example, how could we tell the difference between a random mutation and a miraculous one?

Claiming that we can see no pattern in mutations, or the evolution it powers, does no good because that requires that you make an assertion about what God wants to do and how he, she or it would go about it -- and how could you know that?

John is doing exactly what he says is wrong. In light of the fact that several testable hypotheses about God have been refuted, John then speculates about what God might be doing to get around the conflict between science and religion. He imagines that God could, if he so wished, disguise his actions so that they were indistinguishable from actions that were entirely natural.

None of us can refute that possibility but I note that the goalposts have moved just about as far as they can go. We're left with a God who is so careful to avoid revealing himself that he might as well not exist. What's the point?

Why in the world did anyone start believing in such a God in the first place?²

If we weren't talking about religion, this kind of "logic" would be quickly dismissed. Imagine, for example, that someone claimed the stock market was being manipulated by clever gremlins. Pointing out that there was no evidence of such manipulation provokes the response, "These are very clever gremlins who go to extraordinary lengths to disguise their manipulations. That's why we can't detect them."

Since we can't disprove the existence of such gremlins, is that a reason to believe in them? Should we treat the gremlin-believers in the same way that we treat everyone else or are we right to be a little concerned about their psychological well-being? Is it okay to tentatively conclude that they are deluded?

Why does belief in God always get special privileges that we never grant to any other superstitions?

---

1. It's a metaphor, John, not the be taken literally.

2. The answer, of course, is that nobody ever believed in such a God. This sort of God is merely the last refuge of those who used to believe in a personal, interventionist God but now find that they can't defend such a belief in a modern skeptical society. It's also the fallback position for those strange people who call themselves true agnostics. They have almost as much at stake in trying to show that we can't "prove" the nonexistence of God. They desperately want to avoid being a non-believer (atheist).

Citing Blogs

 
Some of my students have been asking how to cite blogs and other internet sources. I found a set of instructions on the NCBI website and I thought Id share them with you [26. Electronic Mail and Discussion Forums].

According to those instructions, you should cite Pharyngula like this:

Myers PZ (University of Minnesota, Morris, MN). Pharyngula [blog on the Internet]. New York: ScienceBlogs LLC. [2006 Jan] - [cited 2007 May 16]. Available from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/.

I'm not sure I agree with everything that's there. For example, I don't think it's useful to have the date when the blog started (2006, Jan). I don't think we need the affiliation of the author, or where the blog is published—unless it's part of a collective. I think it's important to cite a specific posting if that's what you're referring to.

Here's how I would cite today's posting on worshiping golden cows.

Myers, P.Z. (2008) Pharyngula [Internet blog] - "Where's Charlton Heston when you need him?" (Oct. 29, 2008) [cited Oct. 30, 2008]. ScienceBlogs LLC, New York. Available from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/wheres_charlton_heston_when_yo.php

Here are some examples of how to cite comments on blogs [Examples of Citations to Blogs]. In the first example the author is unknown. In the second example the comment author is identified by affiliation.

Teresa. Comment on: "Flo's pledge: deal or no deal?" 2007 May 12 [cited 2007 May 16]. In: Kim. Emergiblog: The Life & Times of an ER Nurse [Internet]. San Francisco: Emergiblog. c2005-2007 - . [about 1 screen]. Available from: http://www.emergiblog.com/2007/05/flos-pledge-deal-or-no-deal.html scroll down to comments.

Lanard J (Western Pacific Regional Office of the World Health Organization, Manila, Philippines). Comment on: "This blog can save your life!" and "Health Communication: Science and Art." 2006 Oct 15 [cited 2007 May 17]. In: Bernhardt JM. Director's Blog [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), National Center for Health Marketing. [2006 Jul 13] - . [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/healthmarketing/blog_101106.htm scroll down to locate comment.

---

The Meat-Robots Are Stirring

 
The mind-body problem is one of the more serious problems in philosophy. At the risk of over-simplifying, the two main camps can be described as dualism and monism. A dualist thinks that there's more to the mind than just neurons—the word that comes up most often is consciousness. The monist rejects the idea that there is some vitalist component to the mind. It can all be explained by the structure of the brain and the laws of physics and chemistry.

Monists are materialists, for the most part. Dualists often believe in supernatural beings.

Michael Egnor writes articles on Intelligent Design Creationism for the Evolution News & Views website at the Discovery Institute. He thinks the materialists have been winning but it's time for the zombies meat-robots to strike back.

As a general anti-science strategy, it's easy to see why the mind-body problem is resurfacing. The IDiots have lost the battle over evolution so they have to look around for something else to attack. We (scientists) don't understand exactly how the mind works. That's a perfect gap to shove God into, for now.

The materialist project to explain the mind reads less like a compendium of scientific and philosophical investigation than like a psychiatrist’s case log. Succinctly, the materialist project is batsh*t. The mind is a catastrophe for materialism. Materialism doesn’t explain the mind, and it probably can’t explain the mind. Materialism flounders on the hard problem of consciousness — the problem of understanding how it is that we are subjects and not just objects. Now a number of scientists and other academics are challenging this repellent materialist nonsense. There’s no scientific or even logical justification for the inference that the mind is merely the brain, without remainder, and the philosophical and sociological implications of the materialist view of the mind are abhorrent. Now there’s a reality-based push-back to materialist superstition, and the materialists have an insurrection on their hands.

The meat-robots are stirring.

I wonder if the meat-robots have something substantial to contribute to the discussion or whether they'll just be complaining about science, as they always do?

---

Voting Machines

 
We just had a Federal Election in Canada. We used paper ballots and the results were in by midnight. I had only one choice to make.

This isn't possible in the USA because American vote for many different candidates when they have an election. The ballots can be very complicated but you can always vote "straight Republican" or "straight Democrat" to simplify the process. Here's how voting machines work .... or not.

---

[Hat Tip: Mike the Mad Biologist]

Nobel Laureate: Albrecht Kossel

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1910.

"in recognition of the contributions to our knowledge of cell chemistry made through his work on proteins, including the nucleic substances"

Albrecht Kossel (1853 - 1927) won the Noble Prize for his studies on proteins, especially those proteins that bind to nucleic acids. He was the first to characterize protamines and histones.

The significance of Kossel's work was not fully appreciated because at the time proteins were thought to be the information carrying molecules and nucleic acids were merely structural components of the nucleus. One gets the impression that the simplicity of the protamines, and to a lesser extent, the histones, was a disappointment.

The flavor of thinking in 1910 is captured by the presentation speech on the Nobel rize website.

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

There are several kinds of proteins. One group which is included here are the so-called protamines obtained from the milt of fish. Kossel has made a detailed study of these. For these a relatively simple structure has been discovered inasmuch as the number of dissimilar atom groups in them is not very great. They therefore present simpler relationships than proteins in general, and consist mainly of substances belonging to the group which I have just called basic breakdown products of protein. For certain protamines Kossel, thanks to his methods of determination, has in fact been able to establish the quantitative relationships of the building blocks making up these protamines, a goal which we seem to be far from attaining where the other proteins are concerned.

Work on these most simple protein bodies, i.e. the protamines, is however not only of great importance because it has explained the structure of such protein bodies. The protamines are also of direct interest for the knowledge of certain cells and their life, because they are in fact characteristic of certain transformation products of the cells and are formed from ordinary protein.

One protein group, first observed by Kossel, consists of the so-called histones. They stand between the protamines and what is termed ordinary protein. This group, again, is important because of its occurrence as a component of certain cells, and has also been studied in detail by Kossel.

Professor Kossel has made an extensive and important study of the problem of the protein compounds in cells. As we have already mentioned, the proteins are very complex bodies. Within the cells the relationships are further complicated by the fact that the proteins there are combined in varying degrees with other substances such as those grouped under the name of «nucleic acids.

It is clear from Kossel's Nobel Lecture that he recognized the importance of chromatin in heredity but was unclear about which component corresponded to genes.

If we now summarize the results of the investigations of loosely bound nuclein substances, the result is a follows: A composition of the chromatin substance of the cell nucleus from two components, the one rich in bound phosphoric acid and having the qualities of an acid; the second showing a protein with the qualities of a base. In their chemical structure both components show a notable similarity based on the remarkable accumulation of nitrogen atoms and because of this chemical structure the chromatin formations can be sharply differentiated from the remaining cell components; and this quality must obviously be associated with the function of the chromatin substances. These atom groups rich in nitrogen and containing phosphorus are those whose deposits in the chromosomes are first set in motion during cell division and whose transmission to other cells forms an essential part of the reproductive process.

---

Translation at CSH

 
My co-author, Marc Perry, is at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories on Long Island (NY, USA). He sent me this photograph. I think it may be a Henry Moore.

---

This Book Don't Need Reviews

 
Book Description (from Dembski at Uncommon Descent):

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, writes Richard Dawkins, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere decisively demonstrating the need for intelligence in explaining life’s origin. This is the best overview of why traditional origin-of-life research has crashed and burned and why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell.

Author William A. Dembski worked closely as an advisor with the producers of the Spring 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein. How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not) is the intellectual argument that helped inform significant elements of the movie. This controversial feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution is one of the top twelve highest grossing documentary’s of all time. It has attracted both praise and controversy in its challenge against Darwinism.

If you liked the previous books by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski then you'll love this one. If you didn't, then you won't.

Did he really say "Ben Stein" and "intellectual argument" in the same sentence?

---

Junk DNA Opponents Are at It Again

 
Nils Reinton has just posted a provocative piece on Sciphu entitled Hammering nails in the “junk-DNA” coffin. Here's what he says,

Below you will find a list of references that I hope will contribute to the fall of the term “junk-DNA“, - some of it may (currently) lack a known function, but it is not junk !!!

Disclaimer: This is a list of useful references when arguing against the common overestimation of the amount of “junk”-DNA. By listing these I am not claiming anything beyond what I have already posted on this blog or in a comment somewhere. Also and importantly, I have not myself had the time to review these articles as thoroughly as I would have wanted to, - some have been read carefully, others lightly and yet others just skimmed through. Thus, you are more than welcome to comment on these references if you have opinions on any of them, or find them unsuited for this list.

You are more than welcome to visit Sciphu and make comments. I can't be bothered.

The articles are just the same-old, same-old, litany of occasional discoveries of functional bits of DNA coupled with a fanatical belief in the biological significance of every single transcript that has ever been reported in the literature.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Nils also throws in some papers about the number of binding sites for transcription factors. I guess he hasn't read any of my postings on the importance of non-specific binding [see Transcription Factors Bind Thousands of Active and Inactive Regions in the Drosophila Blastoderm].

THEME

Genomes & Junk DNA

Total Junk so far

    54%
I think there's good reason to assume that up to 90% of our genomes consist of junk DNA where the word "junk" means that it does not have a biological function. I haven't been able to keep up my series of postings analyzing the human genome but so far there's very good reason to believe that more than half is junk.

I've never seen an anti-junkie address the genetic load argument. Has anyone else? I wonder how they think we can survive if a substantial amount of our DNA is essential?

---

Schizophyllum commune Has 28,000 Distinct Sexes

 
This is the Botany Photo of the Day from The University of British Columbia Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research. The organism is the fungus Schizophyllum commune which is reported to have 28,000 sexes according to Tom Volk's Fungus of the Month for February 2000. Check out the Botany Photo of the Day blog for a much better picture.

In some parts of the world sex is legally restricted to arrangements involving single members of specified gender. I wonder which sexes of Schizophyllum commune would qualify? Personally, I think that members of sex 408 should be allowed to marry members of sex 12,105 but all other marriages are immoral and should be illegal.

---

Definitions Matter: Negative Selection and Postive Selection

 
In recent issues of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) we have an interesting example of misuse of a key term in evolution.

The paper in question is by Sun et al. (2008a) of the University of California, San Francisco. The title of the paper is important: "Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene." Here's how they describe this negative selection in the abstract,

Yersinia pestis, the agent of bubonic plague, evolved from the enteric pathogen Yersinia pseudotuberculosis within the past 20,000 years. Because ancestor and descendant both exist, it is possible to infer steps in molecular evolution by direct experimental approaches. The Y. pestis life cycle includes establishment of a biofilm within its vector, the flea. Although Y. pseudotuberculosis makes biofilms in other environments, it fails to do so in the insect. We show that rcsA, a negative regulator of biofilms that is functional in Y. pseudotuberculosis, is a pseudogene in Y. pestis. Replacement of the pseudogene with the functional Y. pseudotuberculosis rcsA allele strongly represses biofilm formation and essentially abolishes flea biofilms. The conversion of rcsA to a pseudogene during Y. pestis evolution, therefore, was a case of negative selection rather than neutral genetic drift.

Hmmm ... something about this form of "negative selection" seems puzzling. Does anyone see what it is?

The article was published online on June 3, 2008 and appeared in the June 10, 2008 issue of PNAS. It was communicated by National Academy member Stanley Falkow of Stanford University.

In this week's issue (Oct. 21, 2008) we see a letter from Jianzhi Zhang of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan (Zhang, 2008).

There are two types of natural selection in biological evolution: Positive (Darwinian) selection promotes the spread of beneficial alleles, and negative (or purifying) selection hinders the spread of deleterious alleles (1). Pseudogenization is normally detrimental and prevented by negative selection. However, changes in genetic background or environment may render a formerly useful gene worthless, leading to the relaxation of the negative selection. Consequently, mutations disrupting the gene are fixed by genetic drift, and the gene becomes a pseudogene. This is the common type of pseudogenization by neutral evolution. Sometimes, however, a previously useful gene may become harmful to an organism. In this case, mutations destroying the gene would be beneficial and would be fixed by positive selection. Thus, pseudogenization can be adaptive (2). Recently, Sun et al. (3) reported an excellent example of adaptive pseudogenization, convincingly demonstrating that gene loss can also serve as an “engine” of evolution (4). Nevertheless, instead of calling it “positive selection,” they mistakenly used “negative selection.” The case involves Yersinia pestis, the agent of bubonic plague that is frequently transmitted by fleas. The authors found that the rcsA gene of Y. pestis became a pseudogene in the last 20,000 years (3). Replacing the rcsA pseudogene with its functional version represses the formation of biofilms in fleas (3), which would reduce the transmission rate of the bacteria. That is, the pseudogenization of rcsA allowed the formation of Y. pestis biofilms, which enhances the transmission of the bacteria, and hence was likely driven by positive selection.

That looks like a pretty devastating criticism to me. I'm convinced that the title of the paper was inaccurate. They were publishing an example of positive selection and not negative selection as claimed.

The authors replied in the same issue (Sun et al., 2008b).

In our article (1) we used “negative selection” to succinctly convey that a previously functional allele became deleterious and therefore was removed by natural selection. However, Zhang (2) is correct that our usage was contrary to the usual meaning. Olson's term, “adaptive gene loss” (3), would have been more appropriate. We are gratified that Zhang agrees with our conclusion that the pseudogenization of rcsA was adaptive.

Translation: "We really screwed up."

How did this happen? Normally, before a paper is published the work is presented at meetings and in lab group meetings. Was there nobody who recognized that the authors were using the wrong term? Clearly the authors themselves (all three) never questioned what they were putting into the title. Clearly the person who communicated the article didn't either, and neither did any of the reviewers.

What's happening to science these days? Now, don't get me wrong. These sorts of things happened in the "olden days" as well but I'm convinced that the problem is much more serious today. There is too much stuff being published that should never have made it past the lab group, let alone past reviewers.

Here's a question for everyone who has read this far. What should be done with the original paper? The title is wrong. How do we alert people to the fact that the authors have agreed that they made an error?

---

Sun, Y-C., Hinnebusch, J.B. and Darby, C. (2008a) Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 105:8097-8101. [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803525105]

Sun, Y-C., Hinnebusch, J.B. and Darby, C. (2008b) Reply to Zhang: Adaptive gene loss in Yersinia pestis rcsA pseudogenization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 105:E70; published ahead of print October 15, 2008. [doi:10.1073/pnas.0807434105]

Zhang, J. (2008) Positive selection, not negative selection, in the pseudogenization of rcsA in Yersinia pestis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 105:E69; published ahead of print October 15, 2008 [doi:10.1073/pnas.0806419105]

Guns and Kids Don't Mix

 
From an Associated Press report: Boy, 8, shoots himself to death at Mass. gun show.

WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.

It was his first time shooting a fully automatic machine gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shooting himself in the head.

I'm mostly interested in the comment further down in the press release.

"This accident was truly a mystery to me," said Bizilj, director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford, Conn. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."

Canadian Cynic says exactly what we all must be thinking.

Yeah, it's a puzzler, all right. A real stumper. Children and fully automatic weapons -- what could possibly go wrong?

This is why I love Canadian Cynic!

---

A Rainy Day in Toronto

 
The large white building is part of the MaRS complex of research buildings. It houses the labs of my colleagues who are based in the Hospital Research Institutes. Many of them are in my Department. I wonder if a pot of gold has appeared in one of their offices?

---

Gene Genie #39

 
The 39th edition of Gene Genie has been posted at Genetics & Health [Gene Genie #39: Personal genomics, health and evolution].

Welcome to the 39th edition of Gene Genie, the carnival of clinical genetics and personalized medicine.

Personalized genomics are all over the news lately, so let’s jump right and see what’s going on.

The beautiful logo was created by Ricardo at My Biotech Life.

The purpose of this carnival is to highlight the genetics of one particular species, Homo sapiens.

Here are all the previous editions .....

1. Scienceroll
2. Sciencesque
3. Genetics and Health
4. Sandwalk
5. Neurophilosophy
6. Scienceroll
7. Gene Sherpa
8. Eye on DNA
9. DNA Direct Talk
10. Genomicron
11. Med Journal Watch
12. My Biotech Life
13. The Genetic Genealogist
14. MicrobiologyBytes
15. Cancer Genetics
16. Neurophilosophy
17. The Gene Sherpa
18. Eye on DNA
19. Scienceroll
20. Bitesize Bio
21. BabyLab
22. Sandwalk
23. Scienceroll
24. biomarker-driven mental health 2.0
25. The Gene Sherpa
26. Sciencebase
27. DNA Direct Talk
28. Greg Laden’s Blog
29. My Biotech Life
30. Gene Expression
31. Adaptive Complexity
32. Highlight Health
33. Neurophilosophy
34. ScienceRoll
35. Microbiology Bytes
36. Human Genetic Disordrs
37. The Genetic Genealogist
38. ScienceRoll
39. Genetics & Health

---

The Spaghetti Harvest

 
The Spaghetti Harvest in Switzerland was first broadcast by the BBC on April 1, 1957. I'm old enough to have seen it on television in 1957—it was on the The Tonight Show with Jack Parr [On This Day].



I'm not sure that you could broadcast something like this today in North America. Most people wouldn't understand. New Scientist lists it as one of Seven of the greatest scientific hoaxes.

---

Monday's Molecule #94

 
Most of you should recognize this molecule. You must describe both parts of the molecule, making sure to state clearly what you are seeing. As an extra challenge, you have to specifically mention something that is not shown even though it might be normally considered part of the complex.

It's a short step from there to this week's Nobel Laureate(s) but you need to be careful. There are two possible answers and one of them has already been chosen. You have to pick the other one.

The first one 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: Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, Haruhiko Ishii, and Bill Chaney of the University of Nebraska.

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: Several people recognized that the molecule is a nucleosome. The figure on the left show the conformation of the histone core consisting of histones H2A, H2B, H3 and H4. The figure on the right shows the same protein core (rotated) with DNA wrapped around it to form the nucleosome core particle. The fifth histone, H1, is part of the linker region and it isn't shown.

Nobody guessed the Noel Laureate. It is Albrecht Kossel. There is no winner this week.

---