A Sense of Smell: Olfactory Receptors

 
The sense of smell in vertebrates is mediated by proteins called olfactory receptors (OR). In the case of mammals, these proteins are embedded in the membranes of sensory neurons in the nasal cavity. Each neuron is thought to contain a single type of olfactory receptor responding to a single type of odorant.

When an odorant binds to the outside of the olfactory receptor it transmits a signal to the interior of the cell. This signal triggers a response that excites the neuron and causes it to pass a message back along the axon to the brain. The brain then interprets the excitation as a specifc odor.

Olfactory receptors belong to a class of proteins called G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR). These proteins possess a characteristic bundle of seven membrane-spanning α-helices forming a tube within the membrane. The binding site for the specific odorant is located within the tube.

It has not been possible to crystallize any of the GPCR's that have been identified but the structures of some similar proteins are known. This enables workers to predict the structure of olfactory receptors using computer models. The models are then tested in various ways to confirm the predictions. We have a pretty good idea of what the olfactory receptors look like.

An example is shown in the figure on the left from a paper by Hall et al. (2004). This is the predicted structure of a mouse olfactory receptor that binds octanol. (Octanol is a sweet-smelling alcohol.) The bound molecule is shown as a red stick model in the side view (left) and the top view (right). The outside of the cell is at the top and that's where the odorant penetrates to the binding site.

The seven coils that you see in the structure are the seven α-helices that span the membrane. When the odorant binds, it changes the structure of the protein a little bit and this slight change includes the part of the receptor at the bottom, which is inside the cell. The change is enough to affect the binding of another protein, called a G-protein. This is what triggers the response.

Many different kinds of receptors activate a signalling pathway in the same manner as the olfactory receptors. A typical example is shown in the diagram below. In this case the signal is triggered by a hormone, but the same principle applies to signals triggered by odorants.


Look at the stimulatory pathway on the left. This is how the olfactory receptors work. When an odorant binds, the conformational change is transmitted through the receptor (R_s) to the inside surface of the membrane. G-protein (green) normally binds to the bottom surface of the receptor but when the receptor is triggered, G-protein is released and moves over to bind to another membrane protein called adenylate cyclase. The release and movement of G-protein is coupled to exchange of GDP for GTP. (GTP is a nucleotide like ATP. The proteins are called G-proteins because they bind GDP/GTP.)

Adenlyate cyclase is an enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of ATP to cyclic AMP (cAMP). cAMP in turn activates an enzyme called protein kinase A. Kinases are enzymes that attach phosphate groups to proteins. In this case, protein kinase A phosphorylates a protein within the neurons converting it from an inactive to an active form. Eventually the signal is transmitted to membrane pumps that are stimulated to alter the flow of charged ions into and out of the cell. This results in an action potential that passes up the axon to the brain.

This is a classic signal transduction pathway. The example shown in the figure is a simplified version with only a single protein kinase phosphorylation. In most cases there is a cascade of phosphorylations (and dephosphrylations) involving a number of different proteins. The study of signal transduction cascades is a major focus of hundreds of biochemistry labs.

The net result of all this biochemistry is that the presence of an odorant in your nose will eventually cause your brain to recognize it, as long as you have a receptor for that odorant. We have 388 different olfactory receptors so we can detect lots of different smells, including cat urine. Mice have 1037 different olfactory receptors so they can probably smell things that we can't. Maybe they can smell cats directly.

The olfactory receptor genes were discovered by Linda Buck and Richard Axel in 1991. They got the Nobel Prize in 2004 (see tomorrow's "Nobel Laureates").

The evolution of these genes in vertebrates raises some interesting questions about mechanisms of evolution. We'll learn about birth-and-death evolution later on this week.

Hall, S., Floriano, W.B., Vaidehi, N. and Goddard III, W.A. (2004) Predicted 3-D Structure for Mouse 17 and Rat 17 Olfactory Receptors and Comparison of Predicted Odor Recognition Profiles with Experiment. Chem. Senses 28: 595-616.

The Smell of Cat Pee

 
Most mammals have a keen sense of smell. That's why urinary odorants and pheromones are used to attract mates and mark territory. In most cases we can't detect these odors but there's one major exception.

The urine of cats contains chemicals that are easily detectable by humans. The smell is not pleasant. Mature cats will spay almost anything to stake out their territory, especially males). This isn't a problem if it's outdoors but it can be a major problem for indoor cats because carpets and spraying are not a good mix.

The urine of mature cats contains a chemical known as felinine (2-amino-7 -hydrozxy-5, 5-dimethyl-4-thiaheptanoic avid). Felinine excretion is stimulated by the hormone testosterone, which isn't produced until the cat reaches maturity. Both male and female cats excrete felinine in their urine but males typically excrete twice as much.

Felinine is odorless, to us. A recent paper (October 2006) describes how it is made and how it is converted to more pungent compounds.

The biochemical pathway leading to felinine begins with 3-methylbutanol- glutathionine (3-MBG) (compound A in the figure below). 3-MBG is a normal precursor in the synthesis of cholesterol but in cats some of it is converted to 3-methylbutanol-cysteinylglycine (3-MBCG) (compound B) by a pepdidase activity that removes glutamate. This reaction takes place in the bloodstream and 3-MBCG is excreted in the urine in cats of from the time they are born.

Mature cat urine contains high levels of protein, 90% of which is a medium-sized protein (70kDa) called cauxin. Cauxin levels rise as the cats reach maturity because transcription of the gene is stimulated by sex hormones. Cauxin is produced only in kidney cells and is secreted directly into the urine. The novel finding is that cauxin is a peptidase that cleaves 3-MBCG producing felinine (compound C). What this means is that production of felinine from 3-MBCG takes place in urine, probably in the nephrons before urine is released into the bladder.

Felinine breaks down into a number of smaller compounds that give rise to the characteristic smell of cat urine. The main breakdown product is 3-mercapto-3-methy-1-butanol formed by splitting felinine at the sulfur atom. Other breakdown products are formed. The complex mixture of derivatives is probably produced by a combination of unknown enzymatic act ivies and spontaneous reactions. The characteristic odor of domestic cats differs from that of lynx and bobcats and the differences are due to the concentrations of the various breakdown products of felinine.

Miyazaki, M., Yamashita, T., Suzuki, T., Saito, Y., Soeta, S., Taira, H., and Suzuki, A. (2006) A Major Urinary Protein of the Domestic Cat Regulates the Production of Felinine, a Putative Pheromone Precursor. Chemistry & Biology 10: 1071-1079.

Appeasers, Spaghetti Monsters, and NCSE

 
John West, one of the IDiots at the Discovery Institute, has posted an interesting article [Why Does National Center for Science Education (NCSE) Spokesman Think "Mocking Traditional Religion" is OK?].

West is referring to a newspaper article published in last Sunday's Toronto Star (see Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Makes Front Page of The Toronto Star). In that newspaper article, Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defended the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. West asks, why does NCSE think it's okay to mock religion in this case and yet go out of their way to defend religion in other cases?

We've heard for years from Branch's boss Eugenie Scott that evolution and religion are perfectly harmonious (indeed, the NCSE has helped use our tax dollars to promote the message that true theology endorses evolution, and its director Eugenie Scott has recommended that students study theological statements endorsing evolution during biology class). But now it turns out that mocking religion in the name of science is "probably healthy" and that it is illegitimate for proponents of ID even to question such anti-religious diatribes.

Good point. Does anyone know the answer? The people over at NCSE (and their allies like Ed Brayton) go apoplectic whenever some atheists criticize the silly superstitions of Ken Miller and Frances Collins. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster mocks all superstitious beliefs, including those of theistic evolutionists. Why is one so bad but not the other?

As far as I'm concerned, it's just as much fun to mock theistic evolution directly as it is to do it through the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Phases of the Moon

 
I've added the phases of the moon to the bottom of the left sidebar. This is in response to a request from somone who is really interested in astronomy and really interested in knowing whether my mood is affected by the phases of the moon. (It isn't, by the way. )

Some examples of the phases of the moon are shown below for viewing from Canada or Chile. Can you tell which is which? Do you know why they're different?

CURRENT MOON

lunar phases

CURRENT MOON

lunar phases

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

 
Steve Reuland at Sunbeams from Cucumbers writes On the Wonders of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs. He makes a compelling case. I'm going to switch 10 light bulbs tonight.

Are Science Blogs Really About Science?

 
Greg Laden has posted a summary of the number of comments on articles put up on Pharyngula [Where's the beef(ing)?"]. As you might have guessed, there are way more comments on articles about creationism and religion than on articles about science.

This confirms my observation as well. I've also noted that straight reporting about, and praise for, the latest "breakthrough" seems to go down better than critical analysis and skepticism. In general, articles that challenge pre-conceived notions don't get as much attention as those that reinforce current dogma.

This raises the obvious question: are science blogs really about science?

Sometimes they are. Here's a list of the 50 best science posts as determined by an expert panel of judges [Science Blogging Anthology - The Council Has Spoken!]. Congratulations to the winners!

Why Are So Many Engineers and Physicians IDiots?

 
Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID is an answer the the question of why are there so many engineers who believe in intelligent design, and why are there so few scientists. Meyer says it's because engineers are better able to recognize design. That's only part of the answer. The other, more important, part is that they don't know how to recognize good science because they're not scientists. They can't tell the difference between engineering and science.

The Cost of Mistakes address the observation that a higher percentage of doctors fall for ID compared to scientists. DaveScot explains that it's because doctors recognize the cost of mistakes. They know that an error will most likely have bad consequences so they see through the modern concept of evolution and recognize that errors can't lead to improvement. That's only part of the answer—and not a very important part. The real reason is that Doctors aren't scientists so they don't understand science even though they think they do because they passed biochemistry in medical school. That's why so many of them are IDiots.

Engineers and doctors play with science but they are not trained to be scientists. They are not biologists. They are not geneticists. They are not experts in evolution. It's about time we recognized that the vast majority of people who believe in intelligent design don't understand the first thing about science and how it's supposed to be done. That's why a higher proportion of non-scientists (doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, politicians) are IDiots.

If the Horse Is Dead, Why Keep Kicking It?

 
Bill Dembski notes the publication of two new book that demolish the arguments for intelligent design (Living with Darwin by Philip Kitcher and Darwin and Intelligent Design by Francisco Ayala). Dembski then asks If the horse is dead, why keep kicking it?.

I'm reminded of a quotation from a 1965 paper by Emil Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling. They were publishing the first sequence based phylogenetic trees. When commenting on why we need more evidence for evolution they said ...

Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, where here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.

Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L. (1965) in EVOLVING GENES AND PROTEINS, V. Bryson and H.J. Vogel eds. Academic Press, New York NY USA

Science Teaches Skepticism: That's a Good Thing

Monday's Molecule #8

 
Name this molecule. You must be specific. We need the exact chemical name and the common name. The chemical name isn't that hard but finding the common name and the function of the molecule is a lot more difficult. Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

Comments are now open. Since I don't expect anyone to get the correct answer, I'll be posting the explanation in a separate article.

Most Important Medical Advance

 
Here's a poll that will make you think. The medical journal BMJ asks you to identify the single most important contribution to medicine since 1840 [Medical Milestones Poll].

It's a tough choice. I think I'll have to choose "sanitation."

[Hat Tip: Hsien Hsien Lei who wants you to vote for DNA.]

Opening Tomorrow

 
This is a picture of the Tim Horton's in my building on the university campus.

Timmy's has been closed for three weeks but it opens tomorrow when the students return. I can hardly wait (for Timmy's to open).

15 Questions for "Militant" Atheists

 
Oh, goody. A quiz. I love quizzes. This one comes from R.J. Eskow over at The Huffington Post [15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion"].

Here are my answers (yes, I know he didn't request answers, but what the heck; and, no, I'm not admitting to being a militant atheist, I just like quizzes) ....

1. somewhere in between
2. other forces
3. no
4. considerable
5. no
6. additional action
7. neither
8. no
9. both
10. not all and not just fundamentalists
11. yes
12. yes, no
13. both are needed
14. the latter
15. eradication of religion will improve mental health

[Hat Tip: PZ Myers, who only got 1 out of 15 correct]

Questionable Mission

 
Questionable Mission is the title of an editorial in the Washington Post. Here's an excerpt.

"THERE ARE over 25,000 Department of Defense leaders working in the rings and corridors of the Pentagon. Through Bible study, discipleship, prayer breakfasts, and outreach events, Christian Embassy is mustering these men and women into an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ," a narrator explains toward the start of a promotional video for Christian Embassy, an offshoot of Campus Crusade for Christ that focuses on diplomats, government leaders and military officers. As a uniformed Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr. explains, "I found a wonderful opportunity as a director on the joint staff, as I meet the people that come into my directorate, and I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is . . . and my first priority is my faith in God, then my family and then country. I share my faith because it describes who I am."

This is really scary. It's one of the reasons why we need to speak out against religion before it's too late.

[Hat Tip: Richard Dawkins]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Makes Front Page of The Toronto Star

 
Well, not exactly the "front"-front page. It's on the front page of the IDEAS section (Section B) of today's paper [In praise of an alternate creation theory: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster gains infamy and faith.

Leslie Scrivener does a pretty good job of explaining what it's all about. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was set up to make fun of some of the arguments for the existence of God. If your argument for God also applies to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (as most do), then how good is it?

The Toronto Star even has the picture (above) of the famous Michelangelo painting that's on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I wonder what the appeasers have to say about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I wonder if the agnostics are sincerely undecided about His existence?

Blogging

 
I'm still getting used to blogging. There are lots of tools available to help figure out what's going on. (Thanks to PZ, and others for helping me get established.)

One of the tools reveals where readers are located. This is pretty amazing. Each dot stands for someone who looked at my blog in the last few hours.

Have Humans Stopped Evolving?

Yesterday's Quirks & Quarks radio show had a segment on human evolution. Here's the description from their website:

January 6, 2007: Are Humans Still Evolving?

Evolution has made us what we are today, and we're increasingly learning what made modern humans different from our ancestors. But many scientists think that we have now removed nature's control over our genetic legacy. Our technology allows us to control our environment and survival to the degree that we may have stopped human evolution altogether. Is our growth and development as a species at a standstill? If not, what will we become in the future? Find out this week on Quirks & Quarks.

Listen to the podcast. The segment on human evolution starts about one third of the way through the show.

The idea that humans have stopped evolving is ridiculous. It reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Fortunately, the blurb on the website doesn't reflect what was broadcast. The host, Bob McDonald actually does a very good job of sorting through the rhetoric and the show is an excellent summary of current scientific thinking. It's by far the best thing about the rate of human evolution that I've ever heard on public radio.

One of the people interviewed on the show is Steve Jones from University College, London. Jones claims that almost everyone is reproducing these days so natural selection isn't affecting humans any more. He contrasts the situation today with that in Shakespeare's time when 2 out of 3 babies didn't survive to adulthood.

This is one of the weaker parts of the show. The claim that natural selection isn't working on humans is false. It is refuted by Jones himself later on in the broadcast, and by Noell Boaz from Ross University in Dominica.

Let's deal with the increase in longevity that we've seen in some societies over the past 500 years. We'll dismiss the obvious bias in equating what happens in Caucasian societies with evolution of the entire species. What about the fact that people in London live longer today that they did in 1600? Does this have anything to do with evolution?

Jones thinks so. He says,

Now a lot of those deaths in the old days were due to genetic differences but if everybody stays alive, everybody gets through, no more natural selection.

I don't think so. It isn't obvious to me that people were surviving in 1600 because they had better genes. People died for all kinds of reasons that had nothing to do with genes. A famous example from the nineteenth century was the London cholera outbreak. In that case, you died if you were close to the contaminated Broad Street Pump and not because you had bad genes.

If you died of infection or malnutrition in 1600 it was probably due to bad luck and not bad genes. As living conditions improved, everyone benefited equally, not just those who might have been genetically susceptible. Thus, natural selection wasn't all that important back then and most of the improvements in health in developed countries have affected evolution directly. (The quibblers are waiting to pounce, so let me address two objections to that statement. First, there are other, more modern, medical advances that do affect selection—wait for them. Second, there are some examples of genetic effects on whether you survive disease. Some people might have been more resistant to the Black Plague, for example. Such examples are exceptions to the rule. The common assumption that most deaths in the past had something to do with natural selection is what I'm addressing here.)

So, let's be skeptical about the specific argument that Jones is making, namely that increased longevity, per se, is proof that the effect of natural selection is diminished in modern societies. A lot of negative selection—selection against less fit individuals—is still taking place in utero just as it always has. Lethal mutations result in spontaneous abortion or failure to produce viable sperm and eggs. This form of natural selection hasn't changed significantly. Also, even though severely handicapped children born today may survive longer, they probably won't reproduce.

On the other hand, there are medical advances that do affect natural selection. The most obvious one is the invention of eyeglasses. As Jones points out in the show, people with a genetic disposition for bad eyesight can now survive whereas back in the hunter-gatherer days it might have been much more difficult. Thus, natural selection in favor of good eyesight has been relaxed because of eyeglasses.

What does that mean for human evolution? To its credit, the Quirks & Quarks show doesn't jump to the false conclusion so common among the general public. Evolution hasn't stopped, it has increased! The removal of negative selection causes previously detrimental alleles to survive in the population; therefore, their frequency increases. Thus, evolution is happening today but was blocked by negative selection in the past.

The same argument applies to all medical advances that allow for previously handicapped individuals to survive in modern society. Human evolution is being accelerated. This is a point worth emphasizing because the opposite conclusion is so common. Most people think that removing strong negative selection means that evolution has stopped when, in fact, the exact opposite is true! The misconception arises because the general public thinks of evolution as a progressive improvement in the gene pool. Modern medicine is allowing "defective" individuals to survive. This can't be evolution according to that false understanding of evolution. (There are other things wrong with that false argument; namely, the concept that people with myopia or diabetes are somehow lesser citizens. This isn't the place to get into that discussion.)

Strong negative selection acts as a brake on evolution. It slows evolution down. Remove the brake, and evolution speeds up.

There's more to evolution than natural selection. Bob McDonald interviews Katherine Pollard from the University of California, Davis. She points out that much of evolution is due to random genetic drift. Drift has nothing to do with natural selection, so whether or not selection has decreased will play only a minor role in whether humans are evolving. You can't stop drift and you can't stop mutations. You can't stop human evolution. As McDonald puts it, "we still will evolve ... it's not the kind of evolution we imagine."

Evolution is not just the result of survival of the fittest. Furthermore, it is not progressive in spite of the fact that this misconception is widespread. As McDonald says in closing, "... this is an illusion about the way that evolution works. Evolution has never guaranteed improvement or progress, just change."

Change is good. It's good that humans are evolving. Things can only get better, right?

Abolish the Death Penalty

 
Italians are spearheading a worldwide campaign to abolish the death penalty. I support their efforts. Citizens of all countries that retain the death penalty should petition their govenrment to abolish it immediately.

The Italian government outlawed the death penalty in 1948. Whenever a death sentence is commuted, or a country abolishes capital punishment, Rome changes the color of the colosseum's lighting to deep gold. There are 68 countries that retain the death penalty. Let's try and change the colors 68 more times.

[Reuters: Rome to light Colosseum in death penalty protest][Amnesty International: Light a city for life]

Lip Balm Addiction

 
Recently some friends and relatives (you know who you are) revealed that they are "addicted" to Blistex or other lip balms.

Help is available. Lip Balm Anonymous is an organization set up to help addicts overcome their problem. Their website contains a ton of useful information about the necessity of lip balm. Many normal people need it to get through the day because otherwise they'll surely die of dry lips. Lip balm is even more important for those who can't lick their lips if their tongue is firmly planted in their cheek—like the people who created the website!

If you're still not convinced, here are Ten Signs You're Addicted to Lip Balm. Hard core addicts should take the Lip Balm Addict Quiz to see if there's any hope.

Addiction to lip balm is an urban legend. You may really, really like the taste and feel of Blistex but that's not a physical addiction. It's all in your mind. Here are some debunking sites that cover most of the myths. [Snopes, Are Lip Balms Addictive?]

There are ways of telling whether a rumor is true or not. One way is to assume that it's true and imagine the consequences. For example, let's assume that Blistix, or whatever, is physiologically addictive. If that were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have been sued by now? Wouldn't you expect to see warning labels on your tubes? In fact, wouldn't lip balms have disappeared off the shelves by now?

None of those things have happened, so you can conclude that your assumption is wrong. Either that, or there's a massive cover-up under way. But if you believe that then you've already passed beyond the stage where rationality is going to make a difference, right?

Maud Menten and the Michaelis-Menten Equation

 
The other day, when I was taking a picture of the insulin plaque on the side on my building, I also got a photo of the Maud Menten plaque at the front of the Medical Sciences Building opposite Queen's Park.

Menten is famous for the Michaelis-Menten equation

the bane of all biochemistry undergraduates.

Michaelis and Menten are responsible for establishing the fundamental principles of enzyme kinetics and for putting biochemistry on solid mathematical ground. They were never recognized by the Nobel committee for their important contributions.

Me and a Friend

 
I was cleaning up some of my files last night and I came across this photo taken in the garden of Richard Dawkins' house in Oxford last October. PZ Myers took the picture.

PZ posted a similar , but much better, photo (taken by me). I didn't have a blog back then so here it is now, better late than never. I got my copy of The God Delusion signed while I was there.

Secret Room

 
This is a photo of a door in the corridor just outside my office. I've never seen it open. What do you suppose is behind the door?

a dead Professor secret evidence that intelligent design is correct appeasers lots of dirt the Stanley Cup student lab reports that have never been graded Narnia the random genetic drift generator the graduate student lounge

Insulin Voted #1 Canadian Invention

 

CBC viewers have voted insulin the Greatest Canadian Invention. The plaque is on the side of the Medical Sciences Building where I work.

Banting and Macleod got the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1923. Collip and Best were excluded in one of the most notorious omissions in Nobel history.

The top ten inventions were covered on the TV show. What about the other nine? They're almost as exciting (see below). Personally, I think #10 should have been ranked much higher.

1. insulin


2. telephone


3. lightbulb


4. five pin bowling


5. wonderbra


6. pacemaker


7. Robertson screw


8. zipper


9. electric wheelchair


10. poutine

TV Ontario's Best Lecturers

 
It's time for TV Ontario's second "best lecturer" contest. The top ten finalists have been selected. Their lectures will be televised beginning January 13th. Lecturers from all over the province and from many different disciplines will be featured in the run-off.

Saturday, January 13 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Jacalyn Duffin, Medicine, Queen's University
Steve Joordens, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, January 20 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Kenneth Bartlett, History, University of Toronto
Michael Persinger, Psychology, Laurentian University

Saturday, January 27 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Nick Mount, English, University of Toronto
Rupinder Brar, Physics, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Saturday, February 3 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Bryan Karney, Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
Marc Fournier, Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Saturday, February 10 4:00 PM (repeated Sunday at 4:00 PM)
Allan C. Hutchinson, Law, Osgoode Hall Law School
Maydianne Andrade, Biology, University of Toronto at Scarborough

This is a popularity contest. The last one was very disappointing because some of the most important aspects of being a good university lecturer were ignored.

I'm talking about accuracy and rigour. It's not good enough to just please the students. What you are saying has to be pitched at the right level and it has to be correct. Too many of the lectures were superficial, first-year introductions that offered no challenge to the students. (One, for example, was an overview of Greek and Roman architecture by an engineering Professor.) The students loved it, of course, and so did the TV producers because they could understand the material. Lecturer's in upper level courses need not apply.

Some of last year's lectures were inaccurate. The material was either misleading or false, and the concepts being taught were flawed. Neither students nor TV audiences were in any position to evaluate the material so accuracy was not a criterion in selecting the best lecturer of 2006.

I wrote to the producers about this, suggesting that the lecturers be pre-screened by experts in the discipline. TV Ontario promised to do a better job this year. I'm looking forward to seeing if they kept their promise.

The fact that Michael Persinger is one of the finalists doesn't bode well. In case some of you don't know, Persinger is the guy who puts a motorcycle helmet full of solenoids on your head to make you become religious [This Is Your Brain on God]. Persinger used his machine to try and make Dawkins have a religious experience [God on the Brain]. It didn't work.

Persinger was not disheartened by Dawkins' immunity to the helmet's magnetic powers. He believes that the sensitivity of our temporal lobes to magnetism varies from person to person. People with TLE may be especially sensitive to magnetic fields; Prof Dawkins is well below average, it seems.

What the Heck Is Darwinian Morality?

 
John G. West is one of the chief IDiots over at the Discovery Institute. He has posted an article on Darwinism and Traditional Morality. It appears that West wrote a book about this stuff called Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest. I haven't read it, and I don't intend to.

Here's what West says in the online article at Evolution News & Views (sic). I'm not making this up.

In my book, I challenge the attempt to locate a non-relative justification for morality in Darwinism. According to a Darwinian conception of ethics, every behavior regularly practiced by at least some subpopulation of human beings is ultimately a product of natural selection. Thus, while the maternal instinct is “natural” according to Darwinism, so is infanticide. While monogamy is “natural,” so are polygamy and adultery. Because of this uncomfortable truth, even some noted Darwinists such as Thomas Huxley have recognized the difficulty of grounding ethics in a Darwinian understanding of nature.

Huxley was no idiot. Like every other rational being, he recognizes that you can't base a code of ethics on Darwinism, or any other part of science. Talk about a strawman! What the heck goes on in the minds of these IDiots? Is it religion that makes them so stupid?

Fahrenheit 451 in 2007

 
Fahrenheit 451 is a movie about a future society where books are banned. The main protagonist is a fireman who burns books. (Apparently, books catch fire at 233°C, which translates to 451°F using the quaint, old-fashioned, way of measuring temperature that was common back in 1966.)

A new version of the movie is scheduled for 2007. Don't wait for it. If you haven't seen the Truffaut version, rush out to your video store right now and rent it. You won't regret it.

On a completely unrelated issue, () there is a movement to ban the sale of some books at the Grand Canyon National Park.


Read the full story on the NCSE website [Renewed concern about creationism at Grand Canyon National Park]. It looks like lots of people have their knickers in a knot over the sale of a creationist book that promotes Young Earth Creationism. Since the American National Park Service is a government agency, the sale of creationist books on government land is a major threat to the union.

A group called the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) wants the National Park Service to ban the creationist book; Grand Canyon: A Different View. The issue is complicated because it's tied up with the claim that park rangers are being muzzled by the Bush administration. There's a suggestion that rangers aren't allowed to tell visitors the real age of the Grand Canyon for fear it will insult YEC's. Wesley Elsberry does a pretty good job of getting to the truth over on The Panda's Thumb.

Of course, park rangers should promote the truth about science and the formation of the Grand Canyon. If this offends YEC's then let them go somewhere else for their vacation. (Las Vegas isn't far away.)

However, I'm troubled by book banning. I'm against it. Not only does it not make sense (have the book banners been in any other bookstore recently?), but it sends the wrong message. As a scientist, I don't fear anyone who wants to challenge science. We have truth and rationality on our side and that should be the tools we use to defeat the anti-science forces. Exposing their stupidity is part of the objective and for that we need to make their books available.

Using the law to suppress our opponents is not the best strategy. It won't achieve the objective we seek, which is to win the hearts and minds of the people. It's time to put aside the legal wranglings and concentrate on promoting rational thinking.

Reverse PIN at ATM Summons Police

 
Friday's Urban Legend

Did you get an email message like this?

I just found out that should you ever be forced to withdraw monies from an ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in reverse. The machine will still give you the monies you requested, but unknown to the robber, etc, the police will be immediately dispatched to help you. The broadcast stated that this method of calling the police is very seldom used because people don't know it exists. It might mean the difference between life & death. Hopefully, none of you will have to use this, but I wanted to pass it along just in case you hadn't heard of it. Please pass it along to everyone possible.

It's not true according to snopes.com, although some legislators have tried to pass laws making the reverse PIN signal mandatory. Banks don't like the idea. Besides, what are the chances that you can smoothly key in your reverse PIN number with a thug holding a gun to your head? I don't think I could. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure I could remember my real PIN number under those circumstances!

Flying Mammals

 
Flight has been independently invented by reptiles, insects, fish, birds, and mammals. Did you know that bats aren't the only mammals that fly? Back in the 1960's every kid on the block knew about these other flying mammals.

How times have changed ....

The University Exit Exam

 
The primary goal of a university education is to teach students how to think. This is not a cliché. It really is the objective that many Professors strive for.

There are several secondary objectives—these are not universal. One goal that is widely shared is scientific literacy. We want university students to graduate with a minimal level of understanding of the natural world. Another important goal is to teach students how to express themselves in writing. We also want students to take an active interest in the world around them and learn to apply their thinking skills to current controversies.

In our free time we sometimes amuse ourselves by designing an exit exam. This is a test that all university students must pass before we give them a degree. It would require them to sit down and write 10 essays on various topics. I like the idea that they can answer any five of the questions in the morning exam from 9-12, then take a 2 hour break where they can chat with their friends about the questions, and answer the remaining five questions during the afternoon exam from 2-5.

Would you pass this exam?

Students have to write short essay answers to 10 questions. In many cases, there's no right or wrong answer. Students will be evaluated on their logic and how well they write. If they're discussing a controversial issue, the grade will depend on how well they represent both sides.

There will be a different set of questions every year. Here's an example. Can you think of any other questions that you'd like to see on the exit exam?

1. Describe and evaluate the main arguments for the existence of God(s).


2. Explain, with diagrams, how eclipses of the sun occur.


3. List ten books you have read outside of class in the past four years and tell why you liked, or didn't like, them.


4. What is your favorite music? Why?


5. What is the theory of evolution and why is it important?


6. Are you for or against abortion?


7. Is there a difference between law and justice?


8. Is socialism better than capitalism?


9. Explain earthquakes and volcanoes and how they relate to plate tectonics.


10. Is there anything wrong with genetically modified food?

ReGenesis

 
ReGenesis is a TV show produced in Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto. (I live there.) The scientific advisor is Aled Edwards, a colleague at the University of Toronto.

One of the remarkable features of the show is the reality of the biotech lab. It has all the latest equipment and gadgets and none of the scientists wear lab coats. The set was recently featured in a Toronto Star article [Putting the gee in genome].

Visit the ReGenesis website and click on "Lab Tour" then click on "NorBac Tour" to try and solve a problem using the latest biotech tools. The simulation will show you what the set looks like. The website has been nominated for several awards.

The first season's episodes are coming to The Movie Network. Watch for it.

Play the GM Quiz Game

 
How much do you know about genetically modified foods? Take the GM Quiz and find out. I scored 10/10.

[Hat Tip: Genetics & Health]

Gerald Ford

 
One of my theist friends, Denny Cochran, took this picture of the planes that flew over the Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids during the funeral on Wednesday. The flight is following the Grand River from Lake Michigan. According to Denny, the lead planes are right over the Museum.

The services were very moving even for a Canadian. I was living in the USA when Ford became Vice-President and I always thought he was good for the country.

One of the things that surprised me about the funeral sevices in Washington was the prominent presence of the military. I guess that's to be expected when a former commander-in-chief dies.

Iraqis say they were better off under rule of Saddam Hussein

 
Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies/Gulf Research Center conducted face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults living in major cities. The interviews were conducted in November 2006. The margin of error in such a poll is 3.1%.

According to GlobalResearch.ca the results for the question "Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?" are:

                    Better today      5%
                    Better before    90%
                    Not sure            5%

Let's hope this puts an end to the oft-repeated myth that the Iraqis are better off after the American invasion than they were under Saddam Hussein. They don't think so.

[Hat Tip: Rhosgobel: Radagast's home]

Prostaglandin Synthesis

Eicosanoids are a class of compounds that mediate a variety of cellular responses. One group of eicosanoids is called prostaglandins. These compounds are produced by all cells and they cause the inflamatory reponse to injury and the production of pain and fever. They act like hormones and are often called hormones. They differ from true hormones in that they are produced by all cells and act locally.

Prosaglandins are made by cyclizing a 20 carbon polyunsaturated fatty acid called arachidonate. Recall that arachidonate is made from lineolate and we need to absorb linealoate from food because we can't make it ourselves. The most important reaction is the first one in the pathway. It is catalyzed by prostaglandin H synthase (PGHS) a key target for pain relief.

PGHS is a bifunctional enzyme, which means it carries out two separate reactions. The first reaction is a cyclization reaction converting arachidonate to a hydroperoxide called prostaglandin G₂. This activity is often called a cyclooxygenase (COX) activity. The second reaction is catalyzed at a different site, the hydroperoxidase site, and the final product is prostaglandin H₂.

Subsequent reactions lead to the synthesis of other prostaglandins and other eicosanoids. This is the pathway that earned Bergström, Samuelsson, and Vane the Nobel Prize in 1982.

How Painkillers Work

One way to reduce pain and fever is to inhibit prostaglandin synthesis. The ancient Greeks did this by chewing on the bark of willow trees. It turns out that willow tree bark is a natural source of salicylates and these compounds inhibit the COX acivity of prostaglandin H synthase (PGHS) by modifying the enzyme to prevent arachidonate from binding to the active site.

Unfortunately, most salicylates taste horrible and cause inflammation of the mouth, throat, and stomach. Furthermore, they block the synthesis of other prostaglandins that promote blood clotting so an excess of salicylates will lead to bleeding of ulcers and other problems.

Aspirin is a modified salicylate. The active ingredient is called acetylsalicylic acid. It was introduced as a commercial drug in 1887. It doesn't taste as bad as most other salicylates and doesn't produce severe side effects.

Although it's better than natural salicylates, aspirin can cause dizziness, ringing in the ears, and bleeding or ulcers of the stomach lining. The stomach problems are caused by inhibition of a different COX activity from the one leading to prostaglandin synthesis.

There are two different forms of PGHS or COX. COX-1 is a constitutive enzyme that regulates secretion of mucin in the stomach, thus protecting the gastric wall. COX-2 is an inducible enzyme that promotes inflammation, pain, and fever. Aspirin inhibits both isozymes.

There are many other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) that inhibit COX activity. Aspirin is the only one that inhibits by covalent modification of the enzyme. The others act by competing with arachidonate for binding to the COX active site. Ibuprofen (Advil®), for example, binds rapidly, but weakly, to the active site and its inhibition is readily reversed when drug levels drop. Acetaminophen (Tylenol®) is an effective inhibitor of COX activity in intact cells.


Physicians would like to have a drug that selectively inhibits COX-2 and not COX-1. Such a compound would not cause stomach irritation. A number of specific COX-2 inhibitors have been synthesized and many are currently available for patients. These drugs, while expensive, are important for patients with arthritis who must take pain killers on a regular basis. In some cases, the new NSAIDS have been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and they have been taken off the market. X-ray crystallographic studies of COX-2 and its interaction with these inhibitors have aided the search for even better replacements for aspirin without the cardiovascular side effects.

[Modified from Horton et al. Principles of Biochemistry ©Pearson Prentice Hall]

A Confused Philosopher

Darwinism and Its Discontents, by Michael Ruse, Cambridge University Press (2006)

Ruse defines Darwinism as the idea that natural selection is the chief causal process behind all organisms (p.2). He identifies a whole list of people who oppose Darwinism. Some of these are creationists—this book is not about them.

The main "discontents," according to Ruse, are misguided social scientists with their irrational fear of genetic determinism; philosophers who "can't handle the awful truth;" and evolutionary biologists whose objections "cannot be grounded purely in theory or evidence" (p.3). Many of discontent evolutionary biologists are (gasp!) Marxists.

I am one of those scientists who question Darwinism, so this book is all about me.

What does Michael Ruse have to say about us "discontents?"

At the risk of damning myself in the eyes of sound scholarship and of God, let me be categorical. All of the critics of Darwinism are deeply mistaken.

Wrong. It is Michael Ruse who is mistaken and this damn book is full of sloppy scholarship.

Chapters 1-4 cover the basic facts of evolution. Ruse establishes the important contribution of Darwin in discovering natural selection. He points out that natural selection is the "single best idea anyone ever had" (Dennett, 195). I agree.

The "fact" of evolution is explained and the history of life is briefly described. None of this is controversial as far as scientists are concerned but Ruse is setting the stage for the most important part of the book.

Before continuing, it's worth pointing out one of the major failings of the book: the lack of any solid definition of evolution. It seems clear that Ruse is confused about the difference between evolution and one of the main mechanisms of evolution, namely, natural selection. This confusion haunts the last part of the book and makes it very difficult for Ruse to come to grips with the ideas of the "discontents."

Chapter 5 ("The Cause of Evolution") is all about natural selection. Ruse builds the case for natural selection using all the old examples that we are familiar with. Only in Chapter 6 ("Limitations and Restrictions") does he begin to address the objections to classical Darwinism.

First in the dock is adaptationism as a flawed strategy. The adaptationist fallacy is a direct frontal attack on old-fashioned Darwinian thinking. The attack was first launched by Gould and Lewontin in the famous Spandrels of San Marco paper (1979). What does Ruse have to say about this?

Now, what is to be said by the Darwinian in response to this charge? Simply this: whoever doubted the point that Gould and Lewontin are making? It has always been recognized by evolutionists—certainly from the "Origin of Species" on—that however common or ubiquitous adaptation may be, it is only part of the story. (p.135)

Bravo! In two sentences Michael Ruse admits there's more to evolution than natural selection and, therefore, the discontents have a good case. Now let's see if he understands what these other things are and why they are important. (Don't hold your breath.)

Several examples follow. In all of them, Ruse makes the case that adaptation isn't necessarily optimal. Sometimes there just hasn't been enough time for adaptation to succeed, this is why some bird species haven't yet adjusted to being parasitized by cuckoos. Sometimes natural selection has done a good, but not perfect, job; as in the circuitous route followed by mammalian sperm ducts that loop over the ureter. Sometimes natural selection is even maladaptive, as in the large antlers of the extinct Irish Elk. All of these examples are intended to show that Gould and Lewontin were wrong.

What about group selection? That's a major challenge to Darwinism and natural selection. Not a problem. Hamilton solved it by coming up with kin selection. Kin selection has been the greatest gift to adaptationist thinking since natural selection itself.

What about random genetic drift? Now, that's a real issue since there's very little doubt about its importance. (It's by far the main mechanism of evolution, properly defined.) Does Ruse agree? Nope. Ruse notes that random genetic drift was first proposed by Sewall Wright back in 1931 and expanded by Moto Kimura in 1968. But after some initial excitement Ruse concludes,

Wright's theory is not very Darwinian. Natural selection does not play an overwhelming role. Genetic drift is the key player in Wright's world. However, although many of these ideas were taken up by later thinkers, especially by Theodosuis Dobzhansky in the first edition of his influential "Genetics and the Origin of Species," drift soon fell right out of fashion, thanks to discoveries that showed that many features formerly considered just random are in fact under tight control of selection. Today no one would want to say that drift (at the physical level) is a major direct player, although in America particularly, there has always been a lingering fondness for it. (p.150)

There you have it. One of the most decisive and well studied alternatives to natural selection is dismissed as a fad. This is sloppy scholarship. Ruse clearly does not know what he's talking about. He's probably read too much of Richard Dawkins and his fellow philosopher Daniel Dennett, and not enough evolutionary biology textbooks.

Now we turn to punctuated equilibria. If Ruse is an opponent of Gould you would expect to see the standard references to saltation in this part of the book. You won't be disappointed. Although saltation and hopeful monsters have nothing to do with punctuated equilibria—and certainly nothing to do with the challenge to Darwinism—they are obligatory strawmen whenever you want to discredit Stephen Jay Gould. It's another indicator of poor scholarship.

Species selection, the real hierarchical challenge to Darwinism, isn't even mentioned. This omission is all the more remarkable since Ruse recognizes that in order to make a case for evolution at higher levels a non-Darwinian mechanism is needed; one that will decouple macroevolution and microevolution.

[Gould proposes] that at upper levels there are other mechanisms that the microevolutionists miss. Which of course might be so, but until some convincing alternatives are supplied, Darwinians continue to argue that in important respects macroevolution is microevolution writ large. Natural selection working on random mutation is the key to evolutionary change, long term as well as short term. (p.159)

What a remarkably crude way of dismissing all the work done by a large number of paleontologists, not to mention a 1433 page book called The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Ruse may have good reason for rejecting species selection but we'll never know. Sloppy scholarship, Ruse should be ashamed.

Chapter 6 is the most important chapter since it covers the main objections of the discontented. Ruse fails to meet any of those objections; indeed, he fails to understand most of them. The rest of the book doesn't get any better.

I'll finish this off by quoting from the concluding paragraph of Chapter 6.

What is our end point? It is just plain silly to say that Darwinism is an exhausted paradigm or that selection is a trivial cause of change—or even that it calls for significant revision or augmentation. It is a powerful mechanism and has proven its worth time and time again. It is not all-powerful. Natural selection has its limits—limits that have been recognized since the time of Darwin (he himself noted many of them)—but taken as a whole, it is the key to understanding the organic world. There is no call for theory change yet, nor is there any prospect of such change in the near future. (p.165)

Speaking for the discontents, I beg to differ. Random genetic drift is by far the most common mechanism of evolution and modern evolutionary theory fully acknowledges this fact. Darwinism (natural selection) is important but it ain't the only game in town. Darwin knew nothing about random genetic drift. That's why it's wrong to describe modern evolutionary theory as Darwinism.

Gould and his colleagues have proposed a hierarchical theory of evolution in which natural selection is only one mechanism and it operates at only one level (individuals within a population). Hierarchical theory may not be correct but you'll never know from reading this damn book.

Happy Perihelion Day!

Today's the day we are closest to the sun.

It's the warmest day of the year.

Read about it on Bad Astronomy [Approaching the Sun].

You're On Notice

From The Stephen Colbert "On Notice Board" Generator. (Bears should also be on the list but I didn't have room.)

A Prayer for Appeasers

Greg Laden posted a A Boxing Day Prayer for all those who are afraid to speak out aganst supersition. I reproduce it below the fold but you need to read the complete article that goes with it on Greg's blog.

A Prayer to the Faith Based

I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to offend you,
And you didn’t even ask for this but
I’m going to put in a plug for your beliefs
So that you won’t get too mad at me as I utter words
With which you or someone you know may not agree,
(No matter how utterly wrong you may happen to be)

It is good that you are religious
And I will personally defend your right to believe
Whatever it is you do in fact believe,
And I affirm that it is OK to put
Phrases regarding your beliefs on my money
And for you to assume that
I will swear to your god

when I am on jury duty
when I am drafted into the army
when I am elected to office
when I am in the witness stand
and whenever else I must affirm
that I am moral and will not lie.

i Will Capitalize Your Word for God
And the Name of Your Holy Book
And Other Entities and Documents
As You Dictate These Rules To me.

I offer this pandering to your particular beliefs,
regardless of what they may happen to be,
despite the fact that your cultural ancestors,
the mavens and leaders of one church or another,
burned at the stake or otherwise humiliated mine,
The early scientists and freethinkers,
I affirm this because I cannot at the moment
Remember where I put my spine.

Amen.

Nobel Laureates: Bergström, Samuelsson, and Vane

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1982.

"for their discoveries concerning prostaglandins and related biologically active substances"

Sune K. Bergström (1916-2004), Bengt I. Samuelsson (1934-), and John R. Vane (1927-2004) received the Nobel Prize for discovering prostaglandins and working out their structure. In additon, Vane discovered the role of aspirin in inhibiting prostaglandin synthesis.

Prostaglandins are homones that mediate pain, inflamation and swelling. They also control blood clotting and and arterial constriction. See Why You need Linoleate and tomorrow's articles ("Prostaglandin Synthesis", "How Painkillers Work") for more information.

Why You Need Linoleate

Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are long chain fatty acids with multiple double bonds. Monday's molecule was linoleate or cis, cis -Δ^9,12- octadecadienate. It's an 18-carbon fatty acid with double bonds at positions 9 and 12. PUFA's are essential components of many biochemical pathways. (Note that this fatty acid is a normal cis fatty acid and not a trans fatty acid.)

The standard route for synthesis of PUFAs requires specific enzymes that create the double bonds at fixed positions. These enzymes are called desaturases. Other enzymes can extend the fatty acid chain from 18 carbons (18 carbons are the longest chains made by the normal fatty acid synthesis pathway). These enzymes are called elongases.

The combination of various desaturases and elongases will result in the synthesis of a wide variety of complex polyunsaturated fatty acids. One of these, arachidonate, is the precursor for synthesis of many eicosanoids—a class of compounds that includes the hormones prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and thromboxane.

Arachidonate is made from linoleate.

The first step in the pathway is activation of linoleate by attaching a cofactor called coenzyme A. The result is linoleoyl CoA, which is then converted to arachidonoyl CoA by the action of two desaturases and an elongase.


Now, here's the catch. Most eukaryotes contain a variety of desaturases that can create double bonds as far as 15 carbons away from the the carboxyl end of a fatty acid (i.e., at position 15). Mammals have lost some of these desaturase enzymes so they can't make any PUFA with a double bond beyond position 9. They (we) can't make linoleate even though it is absolutely required for life. We need to get it from our diet.

Tomorrow we'll learn how arachidonoyl-CoA is converted to prostaglandins and how aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and other NSAIDS block the synthesis.

Shelley Batts in Toronto on New Years Eve

Shelley Batts of Restrospectacle describes her Toronto New Years and a Sad Rose Bowl. Apparently it went pretty good except that she couldn't get a cab at 3:30 am on Sunday night/Monday morning and she didn't like the Rose Bowl game.

Shelley, I can't do anything about the Rose Bowl but next time you need a cab in Toronto give me a call.

Edge Question for 2007

John Brockman runs an interesting "blog" called the Edge. He has assembled a cadre of intellectuals, and people who aspire to be intellectuals. Most of them are authors and Brockman is their agent.

This year's question is ...

The Edge Annual Question — 2007
WHAT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT? WHY?

As an activity, as a state of mind, science is fundamentally optimistic. Science figures out how things work and thus can make them work better. Much of the news is either good news or news that can be made good, thanks to ever deepening knowledge and ever more efficient and powerful tools and techniques. Science, on its frontiers, poses more and ever better questions, ever better put.

What are you optimistic about? Why? Surprise us!

The results are fascinating [THE WORLD'S LEADING THINKERS SEE GOOD NEWS AHEAD]. I haven't picked a favorite 'cause there are so many good ones. Many of them focus on issues that we have been discussing here: issues such as the fight between rationalism and superstition, the meaning of science, and science education.

Do you have a favorite?

Why European Countries Don't Have the Death Penalty

The recent discussion of capital punishment in another thread prompted me to look for opinion polls to see what kind of support for the death penalty there was in Europe and Canada. It turns out that a majority of citizens in those countries actually favor the death penalty in spite of the fact that their governments have abolished it.

Death penalty proponents make a big deal of this contrast. They claim that European societies are just as barbaric as American societies—although they don't actually put it in those words.

Are you interested to know how some American websites interpret this result? If so, read on, but before clicking on the "Read more" link I want to warn all Europeans that you may not like what you read. If you have high blood pressure you'd better skip it.

Here's an explanation written by Wesley Lowe on the Pro Death Penalty Webpage. Remember, he's trying to explain why European governments have abolished the death penalty in spite of the fact that a majority of Europeans support it.

Differences between European parliamentary government and the American separation-of-powers system also play a role. Parliamentary government may provide voters with more ideological variety, but it is much more resistant to political newcomers and fresh ideals which may support different political views. In parliamentary systems, people tend to vote for parties, not individuals; and party committees choose which candidates stand for election. As a result, parties are less influenced by the will of the people. In countries like Britain and France, so long as elite opinion remains sufficiently united (which, in the case of the death penalty, it has), public support cannot translate into legislative action. Since American candidates are largely independent and self-selected, they serve as a much more direct conduit between public opinion and actual political action.

Basically, then, Europe doesn't have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic, or at least more insulated from public opinion, than the U.S. government.

This is so astonishingly ignorant that it leaves me speechless. Let's hear from other Americans on this point. Do you really believe that the government of the USA is more democratic and more open to fresh ideas than governments in Europe? Do you really believe that the US Congress is more responsive to public opinion than governments that have a parliamentary system? (While replying, keep in mind the frequency with which incumbent American politicians are turfed out of office. Contrast this with parliamentary systems where it's not uncommon for 50% of the seats to change hands in a general election.)

Brits Losing After American Invasion

According to recent reports red squirrels in Britain are facing extinction. There may be only 30,000 left in England, 10,000 in Wales, 10,000 in Northern Ireland, and 121,000 in Scotland [Red Squirrel Facts]. The European Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) are being out-competed by American or Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) introduced into Great Britain in 1876.

Human Brits are banding together to help the red squirrels fight off the foreign invasion [Friends of the Red Squirrel] but the prospects are dim. It looks like curtains for the reds.

This clearly has something to do with evolution. When one species out competes another and drives it to extinction we think of this as part of the process of evolution. But which process is it? It doesn't really count as natural selection, strictly defined, since that process involves differential success of individuals within a population. What do we call it when two species go head-to-head and only one survives?

Monday's Molecule #7

Name this molecule. The common name will do but there will be bonus points for finding the correct scientific name. This compound is essential in human diets. You will die if you don't get it in your food. Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. You can post your answer in the comments.

Appeaser Ed Brayton Asks Dawkins to Back Off

There's been a bit of trouble over the fact that Richard Dawkins signed a petition he shouldn't have signed. Ed Brayton attacked Dawkins and Dawkins explained that it was all a mistake.

Now, Ed Brayton has published his letter of apology to Dawkins. In that letter Brayton criticizes Dawkins for making it more difficult to oppose American creationists. This is the classic appeasement position and I'm delighted that Brayton has made his position clear. I reject it entirely. Writing to Dawkins to ask him to tone down his criticism of religion is a really, really stupid thing to do. Among other things, it shows us that Brayton doesn't understand the fight between rationalism and superstition.

It shows us something else as well. Ed Brayton needs to learn that the world does not revolve around the USA. People who live in other countries don't react well when they're told to put a muzzle on because their ideas might not play well in America.

Here's what Brayton says,

Let me address, as well, a more general subject. You and I agree on a great many things and disagree on a few. We are both staunch defenders of evolution against the ignorant attacks of creationists of every stripe, but I genuinely do believe that your aggressive anti-theism makes it more difficult for those of us engaged in the daily fight to protect science education to make our case. I hope that you understand what I believe to be the single most important aspect of this dispute, which is that the vast, vast majority of those who reject evolution do so solely because they believe it disproves their religion. The average person knows as little about evolutionary biology as I know about Sumerian architecture, which is to say virtually nothing. The only thing they know, on an almost reactive level, is that evolution = no god = no morality. Now, I think it's important to attack this misconception at the levels you do as well, by pointing out that atheism does not lead to immorality, and I make that argument loudly and often. But I assure you that for those of us "on the ground" in the battle, so to speak, every anti-theistic statement you make is amplified by our opponents and used as a sort of prophylactic to guard against the infiltration of not only evolution but of virtually all scientific thought.

I am in full agreement with Dr. Tyson, in his admonition to you at the recent Beyond Belief conference, that if you would just be more circumspect in your hostility toward religion, at least in regards to those who are largely on our side in the evolution conflict, it would help a great deal. I hope you will accept that criticism from me as graciously as you accepted it from him at the time ( and I say that with full recognition that I could also learn a thing or two about being more reserved and less bombastic from time to time). I can tell you with no hesitation that it would make my work in this regard a good deal easier and would help avoid the kinds of emotional distractions that are fed and amplified by the anti-evolution movement.

I'd like to make one more point. I find it very offensive for Ed Brayton to state that he is "on the ground" in the fight against creationism, implying that Richard Dawkins isn't. Brayton is not a scientist and he is not an expert on evolution. Yet Brayton is lecturing Dawkins on the proper strategy to pursue in order to defeat the forces of superstition and anti-science. That's hubris.