Originally posted on 31 December 2010, we thought this post was relevant to the social context of the Ham-Nye debate on evolution versus creationism, in particular the value of being “right” on the evidence.
Mixed emotions over PZ Myers’ condescending response to a 12-year-old child‘s email supporting creationism, reminded of a very interesting conversation I had with my father at a dinner this holiday season. Lemons and lemonade, people.
During our conversational meanderings, we touched on the debate between creationism and evolution. We did not directly discuss the political/social issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in schools. Rather, we discussed the difficulty of convincing individuals that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. Continue reading
Like a DNA nucleotide, this LOLcat is capable of playing multiple roles. It is good for creation vs. evolution, and so much more. Global warming vs. something else? You are covered. Homeopathy vs. physics? Done. Duons vs. the genetic code? In the bag.
Duons vs. the genetic code? What is a duon?
Good question. A duon is a DNA nucleotide that can do two roles. This perhaps makes it a rather lame nucleotide. DNA nucleotides have a lot of potential tasks they can do (eg, help encode an amino acid, be part of a protein binding site, indicate a splice site, etc) as part of their role storing information in our cells. The idea that a nucleotide might be subject to evolutionary pressure from several different tasks simultaneously is nothing new.
There is, as Emily Willingham points out at Forbes, no real “duon” controversy outside the minds of the folks that wrote the press release (and, perhaps, John Stamatoyannopoulos, if the press release quote is accurate, which I suspect it might be based on his advocacy for the ENCODE Consortium’s “junk DNA is functional” boondoggle). These researchers have provided some evidence to support the hypothesis that evolutionarily conserved codon bias (using one codon, of the several possible for an amino acid, in the genetic code more than expected by chance) is due to selection to maintain transcription factor binding sites.
This is not an unreasonable hypothesis, but it is hardly shocking, hardly requires a new term, and is hardly a controversy.
The rejection of R.A. Fisher’s groundbreaking paper defining variance seems to be one of the bigger mistakes of peer review:
Fisher completed his paper on Mendelism and biometry by June 1916 and submitted the paper to the Royal Society of London for publication. The referees suggested it be withdrawn. He subsequently submitted the paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which with his financial assistance published it on 1 October 1918 under the title “The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.”
- The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, William Provine (1971), p. 144
This paper has 2439 citations according to Google (which sounds extremely low), as well as its own Wikipedia page. I’d call that a success.
In addition to its importance in statistics, the paper was a key landmark in the synthesis of genetics, evolution, and biometry.
A few days ago, a colleague of mine was visiting. When I say colleague, I clearly mean friend that is also a biologist, but I like to pretend that we’re not just up all night drinking and talking about polyandry in frogs. Amidst the usual back and forth game of “no way…did you see that new species they found in wherever”, he mentioned a backwards butterfly. “Did you know about the butterfly that has coloration on its wings to make it look like it’s backwards?” …”uh…no…is that really a thing?”
Photo Credit:Rick Cech
Tambopata Research Center, Peru
When my friend shared the picture I had no reply (which almost never happens). Damn. Evolution you are amazing. High five natural selection…high fives all around.
Behold the Zebra Hairstreak (Panthiades bathildis)… Not only are the stripes on the wings going the wrong way, but the ends of the wings look like antennae. Continue reading
Happening at the U of Chicago today is the ASBMB meeting “Evolution and Core Processes in Gene Regulation”. The attendees here are an eclectic mix of evolutionary geneticists, systems biologists, developmental biologists, and hard core biochemists. So far the result has been fascinating, as Ian Dworkin over at Genes Gone Wild tells us.
Follow the meeting over at #genereg, where Ian has done a great job summarizing the talks in real time.
I’ll try to chime in occasionally during today’s talks (@genologos) and put up some more in depth thoughts on my favorite bits here.