Eppur si muove!

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

The Harvard multimedia team that put together that pretty video of the Inner Life of the Cell has a whole collection of videos online (including Inner Life with a good narration.) Go watch the one titled F1-F0 ATPase; it’s a beautiful example of a highly efficient molecular motor, and it’s the kind of thing the creationists go ga-ga over. It’s complex, and it does the same rotary motion that the bacterial flagellum does; it has a little turbine in the membrane, a stream of protons drives rotation of an axle, and the movement of that axle drives conformation changes in the surrounding protein that promote the synthesis of ATP. It’s a molecular machine all right. Makes a fellow wonder if possibly it’s “irreducible”, doesn’t it?

Well, it’s not. It can be broken down further and it still retain that rotary motion.

[Read more…]

You can’t wish the conflict away

Uh-oh. Chris Mooney has roused the wrath of both Brian and ERV with his argument that people on the science side should avoid reacting to the anti-science ranters, because we’re just promoting their lies for them.

I sort of agree — it is true that we can’t criticize these loons without simultaneously bringing them to wider attention. But that’s the operational dynamic, and if Chris could come up with a strategy to educate and rebut that doesn’t actually involve mentioning the stupid things people say, I’d like to hear it. I don’t think it exists.

We do have a real problem. Science is providing a perspective that does not support tradition, that often reveals an uncomfortable reality like global warming or our familial relationship with worms, and it’s difficult — there are no simple, intuitive paths to understanding the details of our disciplines. Religion, creationism, climate skeptics, the whole spectrum of ideologies that deny reality are easy: they are selling comfortable lies, the lies your parents and grandparents and whole darn family hold, the lies that make promises that the whole universe likes you personally and will help you out, the lies that require no intellectual engagement to support. You don’t even need to be able to read a bible, as long as you can thump it.

And now we’re supposed to ignore those easy liars, and simply set up our own little science clubhouse, make it look all spiffy and beautiful and lively, and wait for the hoi polloi to rush to join our side. Get real. Reality and hard work vs. wishful thinking and pretty reassurances? Who do you think will win the membership drive?

We must counter the superficial advantages of the anti-science side by directly countering their claims. Look at it this way: if one side is promising a million dollars for free, and my side is promising an opportunity for hard work, I don’t win by announcing that I don’t have a million dollars, but I do have some tools. What I have to do is show that they don’t have a million dollars — I have to go straight for the dishonest advertising practices of my competition and expose them.

This is the flaw in Chris’s proposal. It allows falsehood and error to stand unquestioned. That won’t work. It’s how we got to the situation we’re in today — by allowing generations of people to dwell in their hothouses of dishonesty, never intruding, never confronting. We’re not going to succeed by continuing a policy of neglecting the fraudulent hucksters.

That was also a theme of Nisbet’s awful AAAS panel, an advocacy of cowardice, either avoiding all conflict or trying to coopt the grifter’s ways. That’s a disaster in the making. Those of us who are already on the side of science can see the beauty in the natural world and we can too easily delude ourselves into believing that everyone else will, too … but it’s not true. We are battling people who promise their adherents immortality in paradise, a world of perfect plenty that will never fail, and while there may be horrible diseases out there, they only strike immoral wicked sinners. If there were any truth to those promises, heck, I‘d be joining them.

The conflict is necessary, as is bringing the battle right to them and confronting them with their failures. You don’t persuade people to shun liars by letting the lies pass.

Expelled will have some competition

Prepare yourself for some neutronium-density stupid, and do not watch this video clip if self-confident, blithering idiots make you want to slap someone. It’s the trailer for a new movie, The Moses Code, “the most powerful manifestation tool in the history of the world”.

If you must know but don’t want to be enlightened by a series of pompous twits, this is from some guy who made a movie about “the secret” and now wants to milk money from more suckers. A “manifestation tool” is an entirely imaginary phenomenon in which people just wish for things, and by a nonsensical “Law of Attraction,” it will just appear in their lives.

In this case, it’s New Age inanity wed to Old Age superstition.

I can think of one double-feature, though, that would have the combined power to rip out people’s brains and turn them into mindless zombies.

Reproductive history writ in the genome

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

Fossils are cool, but some of us are interested in processes and structures that don’t fossilize well. For instance, if you want to know more about the evolution of mammalian reproduction, you’d best not pin your hopes on the discovery of a series of fossilized placentas, or fossilized mammary glands … and although a few fossilized invertebrate embryos have been discovered, their preservation relied on conditions not found inside the rotting gut cavity of dead pregnant mammals.

You’d think this would mean we’re right out of luck, but as it turns out, we have a place to turn to, a different kind of fossil. These are fossil genes, relics of our ancient past, and they are found by digging in the debris of our genomes. By comparing the sequences of genes of known function in different lineages, we can get a measure of divergence times … and in the case of some genes which have discrete functions, we can even plot the times of origin or loss of those particular functions in the organism’s history.

Here’s one example. We don’t have any fossilized placentas, but we know that there was an important transition in the mammalian lineage: we had to have shifted from producing eggs in which yolk was the primary source of embryonic nutrition to a state where the embryo acquired its nutrition from a direct interface with maternal circulation, the placenta. We modern mammals don’t need yolk at all … but could there be vestiges of yolk proteins still left buried in our genome? The answer, which you already know since I’m writing this, is yes.

[Read more…]

Even in death, he sets an example for us all

For everyone who complained that I didn’t say anything nice about Arthur C. Clarke in yesterday’s very brief note (I can’t help it, I don’t believe in burying my opinions along with the corpse), here’s some information that made my opinion of Clarke shoot up a couple more notches:

The famed science fiction writer, who once denigrated religion as “a necessary evil in the childhood of our particular species,” left written instructions that his funeral be completely secular, according to his aides.

“Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral,” he wrote.

I’d say the same thing about my funeral, with the added stipulation that if anyone tries to preach, at word one I want my friends and family to rise up and carry the jerk bodily out the door, and throw him or her into the street.

Paging Randy Olson

This bad propaganda film for creationism is going to come out soon, so I can sympathize with this call to put together an honest science movie in reply. However, I have huge reservations, particularly with the idea that we need to get people who understand science to write the movie. People who understand science might very well be the worst possible people to write it; the first priority ought to be get people who understand movies to write it. Someone like, for instance, John Rogers or Randy Olson — somebody who knows the movie business and also knows the science.

Then you run into another problem: these guys are professionals. You don’t go up to a pro and tell them that you’ve got a really important idea for a movie, could they please write it for you? For free? And, by the way, we don’t have a budget or any capital lined up, we just think it’s the right thing to do.

I’m afraid the place to start isn’t with soliciting manuscripts from scientists — it ought to be with an idea, something more specific than simply countering some other film that’s going to be a box-office flop, and getting backing so you can do it right, and do it professionally. And that means no amateurs from the ranks of scientists trying to do a job they aren’t trained for.

Can you imagine if Charles Darwin were asked to write the movie of his work? It would be five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds.

P.S. I don’t mean to be discouraging, but there really is expertise in the entertainment industry, and it does not help our cause of trying to emphasize the importance of knowledge of science to be so cavalier about other people’s knowledge.

Dicyemid mesozoa

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

You know how people can be going along, minding their own business, and then they see some cute big-eyed puppy and they go “Awwwww,” and their hearts melt, and then it’s all a big sloppy mushfest? I felt that way the other day, as I was meandering down some obscure byways of the developmental biology literature, and discovered the dicyemid mesozoa … an obscure phylum which I vaguely recall hearing about before, but had never seriously examined. After reading a few papers, I have to say that these creatures are much more lovable then mere puppy dogs. Look at this and say “Awwwww!”

i-67abe67694eea42539187c64ab322994-dicyemid.jpg
Light micrograph of Dicyemid japonicaum rhombogen. AX, axial cell; C, calotte; IN, infusorigen; P, peripheral cell.

O dicyemid mesozoan, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

[Read more…]

Archbishop flames on

A while back, I posted about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury had unambiguously condemned creationism. While I appreciated the sentiment, I had my doubts about his sincerity, and mentioned that I preferred my religious authorities to say “crazy stupid things”. Perhaps the Archbishop reads my blog, because he has obliged.

The Archbishop hit out against the "two extremes" in the range of theories of how the world began in his Holy Week lecture on Faith and Science last night. He said "Science has more to do than is simply covered by these theories."

Creationists believe in the literal version of creation as told in Genesis, and argue that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.

Dr Williams admitted that Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, is "most problematic" to theology, but he called it "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology."

In a sideswipe at evolutionary scientists such as Professor Dawkins, Williams warned "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims."  He added "Neo Darwinism of Dawkins’ kind carries with it a rather subjective agenda…It is as vulnerable as Christianity". Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn’t.

Thattaboy, Archbishop. I appreciate the help in exposing the inanity of religion.

For those following along, Rowan Williams clearly has no idea what the neo-Darwinian synthesis says, because nowhere does it claim that evolution will weed out religion; even I, brutal opponent of all things godly, can see reasonable arguments for the adaptiveness of religion, or the absence of selection against religion, or that there are acceptable rationales for religion as an exaptation. But otherwise, the admission that science is a problem for theology, and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy.