1. Note to IDiots and other creationists ... Gandalf is a fictional character, he doesn't exist. There are many fictional characters who appear to be powerful and menacing but that's only in stories and myths.
The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong.The article attracted the attention of Jerry Coyne who effectively dismantles the strange ideas promoted by Dobbs. Read all about it at: David Dobbs mucks up evolution, part I and David Dobbs mucks up evolution, part II.
The selfish gene theory is Darwin's theory, expressed in a way that Darwin did not choose but whose aptness, I should like to think, he would instantly have recognized and delighted in. It is in fact a logical outgrowth of orthodox neo-Darwinism, but expressed as a novel image. Rather than focus on the individual organism, it takes a gene's-eye view of nature.Lot's of people misunderstand the selfish gene metaphor. They think it means that organisms behave selfishly but that's not what Dawkins meant at all.
As Dawkins shows clearly, the "selfish" gene is a metaphor for how natural selection works. Genes act as if they're selfish molecules: those that produce better adaptations act as if they're elbowing out other genes in the battle for future existence. And, to be sure, selfish genes can produce selfish behaviors. But there is also a huge scientific literature on how evolution can favor genes that lead to cooperation, altruism, and even morality.There are two main criticisms of the selfish gene metaphor and both of them are quite valid. It's the reason why Dawkin's view hasn't caught on the the evolutionary biology textbooks. It usually merits nothing more than a footnote.
Let me add one thing, though. I’m constantly puzzled these days by how often people argue that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is wrong, and that we need a new paradigm. Genetic assimilation, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer—all of these buzzwords are evoked as reasons to jettison our “conventional” view of evolution. But always, when you look at the data, the evidence that these phenomena will overturn neo-Darwinism is nonexistent.The problem here is that Jerry doesn't really say what he means by "neo-Darwinism." Most of his writing suggests that he's talking about natural selection, albeit updated by a knowledge of genetics. He does mention, from time to time, random genetic drift and other aspects of modern evolutionary theory but I'm not sure if he appreciates the fact that some legitimate evolutionary biologists really do think that neo-Darwinism is dead.
I’ve already written a lot on the epigenetics hype, and have shown that there’s no evidence that a single adaptation in nature involves the fixation in the DNA of an epigenetic alteration of the genome that isn’t initially inherited. Yet people keep banging on about epigenetics.
I’m not sure why the hype continues, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that the main paradigm of evolution—the neo-Darwinian synthesis—is largely consolidated, and is correct. Sure, there are surprises to come, and interesting new phenomena, but there’s no “quantum mechanics” of evolution on the horizon. Some theories don’t need to be overthrown because they’re generally right. Perhaps people don’t like working in a field where there’s no new “paradigm” to forge, and Kuhn has ruined us all!
The "neo-Darwinism is dead" trend may have to do with ambition, or perhaps with boredom. I don’t know. What I do know is that the many recent challenges to neo-Darwinism have all failed to hold water, but people keep pouring liquid into that sieve.
Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, the latter being a set of primary tenets specifying that evolution involves the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through the mechanism of genetic transfer, rather than the 'blending process' of pre-Mendelian evolutionary science. Neo-Darwinism can also designate Darwin's ideas of natural selection separated from his hypothesis of Pangenesis as a Lamarckian source of variation involving blending inheritance.I think we should refer to modern evolutionary theory as "modern evolutionary theory" in order to make sure we're not talking about "Darwinism," "neo-Darwinism," or the hardened version of the "Modern Synthesis." Modern evolutionary theory includes an important role for random genetic drift, Neutral Theory, and population genetics.
Heinz, S., Romanoski, C., Benner, C., Allison, K., Kaikkonen, M., Orozco, L. and Glass, C. (2013) Effect of natural genetic variation on enhancer selection and function. Nature 503:487-492. [doi: 10.1038/nature12615]
Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. Dr. Havas received her Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, completed Post-Doctoral research at Cornell University, and taught at the University of Toronto before going to Trent University in Peterborough, Canada.Here comes the fun part. She has made a video in which she explains why we need to pay attention to all the scientific studies showing harmful effects of power lines, cell phones, WiFi etc. She uses Popper's criterion of falsifiability to justify her rejection of all articles that show no harmful effect and she turns cherry-picking completely upside down to support .... cherry-picking!
...
Dr. Havas’s research since the 1990s is concerned with the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, and ground current. She works with diabetics as well as with individuals who have multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and those who are electrically hypersensitive. She also conducts research on sick building syndrome as it relates to power quality in schools.
Since the mid 1990s Dr. Havas has taught about electromagnetic pollution in several courses at Trent University and has supervised Reading Courses and Honours Thesis Projects in this area. One of the courses deals specifically with the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation. This is one of the few courses available in North America at a senior undergraduate level critically examining the effects of non-ionizing radiation.
The mention of ID seems to give many writers and commentators what they regard as a green light to blather on without taking a moment to grasp what they're writing about. Denouncing ID is one thing. Denouncing it without comprehending what the phrase refers to, which is amazingly common, is quite another.Gee, I wonder what other subject causes apparently smart people to behave like IDiots? What other subject gives people a green light to blather on when they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about? Is there another subject that some people denounce without comprehending what it means? Hmmm .....
I continue to find this amazing. What other subject, both controversial and somewhat recondite, seems to license apparently smart people to write and speak in such an uninformed way?
Louis Agassiz was great in the abstract but not in the concrete.1Actually, it would be even better to say that Agassiz looks better in the concrete than in the abstract [see Agassiz in the Concrete and Persecution of Religious Scientists]. By the 1920s (earlier in Europe) Agassiz's reputation had been severely damaged by his willingness to let religious convictions dictate his science.2
1. The story is apocryphal (a polite word for "false"). The quotation has been attributed to several men, including the President of Stanford, but all have denied it. Nevertheless, it's too good a story to abandon just because it happens to be untrue!
2. Stephen Jay Gould held the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology Chair at Harvard from 1982 until his death in 2002. Alexander Agassiz was Louis Agassiz's son. Alexander served as President of the National Academy of Sciences.
I was eight years old in late November 1963. I didn’t pay much attention to the TV news – some guy had been shot or something, and I wasn’t to know that C. S. Lewis had died until much later – but I was instantly taken by the eerie sound of the opening music of a new show. Yes, it was the very first episode of Dr Who, in glorious monochrome! I was a Whovian from the beginning, before it was cool. I’m so hip…
Lenski's humble E. coli have shown, among other things, how multiple small mutations can prepare the ground for a major change; how new species can arise and diverge; and that Gould was mistaken when he claimed that, given a second chance, evolution would likely take a completely different course. Most recently, the colonies have demonstrated that, contrary to what many biologists thought, evolution never comes to a stop, even in an unchanging environment.Let's talk about two issues in that paragraph.
… I wanted to wish everyone a really really Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, all the holiday… all you infidel atheists out there, I want to wish you the very best, also. I don’t know what you celebrate during the holiday season — I myself celebrate the birth of Christ — but it’s your choice, and I respect your choice. If you wish to celebrate nothing and just get together with friends, that’s good, too. All the best.
)[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
... we're also grateful for guys like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne who provide a rich source of unintended comedy. See, for example, our colleague Dr. Michael Egnor's always entertaining mining of Coyne's writings.*Well, I gotta tell you, David, that I'll be eternally grateful to the Discovery Institute for sending us Dr. Michael Egnor. It's the gift that just keeps on giving, and giving, and giving ....
* Admittedly we'd be even more pleased to have a worthy opponent on the Darwin side of the debate who did not run from a fight every time but answered our best arguments and evidence in a lucid, trenchant and informative style.
I recently discovered a new book called The Princeton Guide to Evolution. It looks pretty authoritative so I ordered a copy. The logic behind natural selection is unassailable. If some trait variant is causally related to greater reproductive success, then more members of the population will have that variant in the next generation; continued over many generations, such selection can greatly change the constitution of a population.I never heard to this idea before (that natural selection may not lead to evolution). I thought that natural selection was DEFINED as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to selection. Doesn't it have to have a genetic component?
But there is a catch. Natural selection can occur without leading to evolution if differences among individuals are not genetically based. For natural selection to cause evolutionary change, trait variants must be transmitted from parent to offspring; if that is the case, then offspring will resemble their parents and the trait variants possessed by the parents that produce the most offspring will increase in frequency in the next generation.
However, offspring do not always resemble their parents. In some cases, individuals vary phenotypically not because they are different genetically, but because they experienced different environments during growth (this is the “nurture” part of the nature versus nurture debate; see chapters III.10 and VII.1). If, in fact, variation in a population is not genetically based, then selection will have no evolutionary consequence; individuals surviving and producing many offspring will not differ genetically from those that fail to prosper, and as a result, the gene pool of the population will not change. Nonetheless, much of the phenotypic variation within a population is, in fact, genetically based; consequently, natural selection often does lead to evolutionary change.
The scientific enterprise stands or falls on the legitimacy of making inductive inferences, from cases of which we have experience to cases of which we have no experience. The aim of this post will be to show that there can be no scientific knowledge if there is no God, and that there is no way of justifying inductive inference on a systematic basis, in the absence of God.Well, that does it for me. Either I stop being a scientist or I have to become a believer in God in order to continue doing science.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, etc. etc. etc.
I alluded above to the troubling fact that even if we assume that objects somehow instantiate rules, there remains the epistemic problem of knowing whether we’ve chosen the right model, or identified the right mathematical equation (i.e. laws of Nature) for characterizing the rules that define a certain kind of object – be it a tiny electron or a star, like the sun. But if we make the two assumptions about God which I referred to in the preceding section – that God wants to make intelligent beings, and that God wants these intelligent beings to reason their way to God’s existence – then we can infer that the rules which are embodied by objects in the natural world must be tailor-made to fit the minds of intelligent beings that are capable of contemplating their Creator. In other words, the universe is designed to be knowable by us. Hence we don’t need to concern ourselves with the theoretical possibility that the rules which characterize things might be too complicated even in principle for us to grasp.
God, then, is the ultimate Guarantor that science can work.
1. Some atheists will never like this song because it mentions God. That sort of thing doesn't bother me. I can still sing God Save the Queen and the Canadian national anthem without batting an eyelash. There are much more important things to fret about.
2. I just read in the Wikipedia article that he was inspired by the Lovin' Spoonful song You Didn't Have to Be So Nice. That song is also one of my personal favorites but I never twigged to the similarity until now.
Thought leaders in the Darwinian movement, such as Dawkins, Prothero, Shermer and so on, inculcate and advocate incivility by their own example. Look at the way biologist James Shapiro and philosopher Jerry Fodor have been treated. It's ugly.The video was produced by Mike Booth. Decide for yourself if the evolution side of the debate behaves like the IDiots. (Apologies to Richard Dawkins for propagating this nonsense but people need to see the depths to which the Intelligent Design Community can sink.)
Question for readers here: Is it a sign of weakness in the Darwinians’ position that they can’t acknowledge that they made mistakes? They seem to have to defend, then deny.Oops! Did I forget to tell you to turn off your irony meters? Sorry.
The demographics of Camelot: As you will no doubt have heard by now, today is the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. I've also been repeatedly informed that everyone is still shocked and saddened by it, and that "we" will never forget how we felt when we heard the news.Just for the record, I understand how my parents felt on May 5, 1945 (VE Day) even though I wasn't born yet. I understand how they felt when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs. I think I know how they felt on March 29, 1945 when President Roosevelt died.
Dear newscasters: Most Americans were either not alive yet, or too young to notice. Only 25% of Americans are over 55 (http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/demographics_profile.html), and some of them were living in other countries in 1963. To most of us, the shooting in Dallas was about like what happened in Ford's Theater, with the exception that our teachers seemed to feel *really* strongly about it. Let it go.
Dear Andrea,
The world did not begin when you were born. Listen and learn from your elders. You will be a better person.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
1. The musical, Camelot had been playing on Broadway since 1960 and everyone was familiar with the music from the LP (record album). The Kennedy family and the Kennedy administration were intimately associated with the idea of Camelot.
2. The other was Sept. 11, 2001.
As we frequently hasten to emphasize about daring writers and researchers in science, I have no reason to think Pennisi is a Darwin skeptic much less a proponent of ID. Still, she's a reporter who is open to promoting "evolution heresy." She's unafraid to challenge the old guard. More than once she has stuck her finger in the eye of ancient régime. Now you know why she ticks off guys like Graur and Moran.Yep. He got that right. Graur and I are definitely part of the old regime and we don't like people who promote evolution heresy ... or their sycophants.
In a recent article entitled “On the immortality of television sets: "function" in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE”, Graur et al. dismantle ENCODE’s evidence and conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional. However, the article by Graur et al. contains assumptions and statements that are questionable. Primarily, the authors limit their evaluation of DNA’s biological functions to informational roles, sidestepping putative non-informational functions. Here, I bring forward an old hypothesis on the evolution of genome size and on the role of so called ‘junk DNA’ (jDNA), which might explain C-value enigma. According to this hypothesis, the jDNA functions as a defense mechanism against insertion mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous inserting elements such as retroviruses, thereby protecting informational DNA sequences from inactivation or alteration of their expression. Notably, this model couples the mechanisms and the selective forces responsible for the origin of jDNA with its putative protective biological function, which represents a classic case of ‘fighting fire with fire.’ One of the key tenets of this theory is that in humans and many other species, jDNAs serves as a protective mechanism against insertional oncogenic transformation. As an adaptive defense mechanism, the amount of protective DNA varies from one species to another based on the rate of its origin, insertional mutagenesis activity, and evolutionary constraints on genome size.It's not a good idea to attack someone who; (a) is an expert in the field, (b) is intelligent and outspoken, and (c) has a blog. But that never stopped Claudiu Bandea before so why should it now?
The first problem with this hypothesis is that big eukaryotic genomes consist mostly of very few active transposable elements and numerous dead transposable elements. So, big genomes seem to need little protection. Moreover, a positive correlation exists between genome size and number of transposable elements. In 2002, Margaret Kidwell published a paper entitled “Transposable elements and the evolution of genome size in eukaryotes.” In it, she showed that an approximately linear relationship exists between total transposable element DNA and genome size. Copy numbers per family of transposable elements were found to be low and globally constrained in small genomes, but to vary widely in large genomes. Thus, the major characteristic of large genomes is the absence of selective constraint on transposable element copy number.I can't count the number of people who have tried to explain to Claudiu Bandea that his idea is ridiculous. Hopefully, this last embarrassment will silence him.
Given that the vast majority of transposable elements are dead, the most parsimonious explanation is that the continuous accumulation of dead transposable elements is the reason for genomes becoming large. Let me spell it out: the “large” part in “large genomes” is made of transposable elements. Genome do not become large first and then protect genetic information by becoming sinks of transposable elements.
The other problem with the protection-from-mutation hypothesis is that it assumes selection on mutation to be effective. Selection on mutation is referred to in population genetics as second-order selection. The reason is that this type of selection is anticipatory. It protects against a possibility, not an actuality. Second-order selection on mutation (mutability) requires huge effective population sizes, so huge in fact that they are only found in a few bacteria and viruses. Unfortunately for the protection-from-mutation hypothesis, genome size is known to be inversely correlated with effective population size. In other words, huge genomes are found in species that have very small effective population sizes. So small, in fact, that even regular selection (first-order selection) is not very effective.
Thomas Huxley was proven right again: "The great tragedy of Science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Several ugly facts in this case.
