As reported in Science Daily, Dr. Joe Thornton at the University of Oregon has reconstructed an evolutionary sequence of an “irreducibly complex” system – alosterone and its receptor.
“Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism,” said Thornton. “New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation — old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions.”
As a dancer and choreographer I’ve spent a tremendous amount of my life defending something that’s very hard to see. I mean, people see dance, they see the dancers, but they have trouble understanding why it’s valuable, what you are trying to say. And in some ways I feel that’s reflected in what I learned initially from the physicists. It’s very abstract, it’s hard to see, people have trouble trying to understand it. It has tremendous value to us as a civilization but it’s not easy to explain.
This story from New Scientist illustrates the power behind the complexity of living things. It was once thought that all new genes had to come from modifications of existing genes. This is of course great fodder for creationists, who then ask “where did the first genes come from?” A few years ago, de novo genes – genes that arose from scratch from previously non-coding DNA – were found in fruit flies. It now turns out that humans, too, carry de novo genes. Three genes carried by humans, but no other primates, appear to be the result of mutations in nonsense, or non-coding sequences of DNA. The fact that these genes are active in all sequenced human genomes implies that they do perform a beneficial function, though what that is, is as yet unknown.
This is somewhat off topic from my usual posts, but it is something I feel rather strongly about. With the current US administration discussing socialized health care, the conservative critics are once again screaming that this would raise the cost, limit accessibility, stifle innovation, infringe on personal rights, yada yada.
Let me just say this: BULLSHIT.
Those in the US with scads of cash who can afford premium health care and premium insurance have access to some of the best medical care in the world. And the most expensive. These people are the minority. The majority of the population has access to public clinics, or limited-insurance sponsored clinics that get paid extra for not referring patients to the tests they need. Oh, and they can’t afford the outrageous cost of prescription meds, which can be many times the cost of the same meds in other countries.
Let me make a comparison with other state-operated social services, such as, say, police and fire departments.
Imagine the following scenario:
You get mugged at knifepoint, the thief steals your wallet and runs into an alley. You call for help, a policeman shows up, but refuses to help until you have paid up front. You protest that the whole point is that you just had your wallet stolen with all your money, and the thief is standing right over there. Still, he refuses to assist until a deposit is given.
Or imagine your house catches fire, you get your family out, the fire truck arrives, and the driver says they cannot begin until they are paid. You explain that your money is inside the burning house, and would they be able to bill you afterward. They could, says the fireman, but they would need some collateral. Like your house. Which is rapidly loosing value…
These same scenarios are panning out in emergency rooms and medical offices across the country. But it’s an issue of liberty. My ass.
Properly run healthcare is cheaper, with greater accessibility for more people. And as for innovation, most of it comes from research institutions (ie universities), not private medical offices.
These arguments are simply smokescreens from idealogues who are rabidly allergic to anything even remotely resembling socialism. But socilaized medicine is not communism. And if you think it is, well, we can just tell that to the police and fire departments as well the next time you run into trouble.
For a while there I got right into the arguments with Dawkinswatch, but eventually I realized that nothing I said ever actually sunk in. In fact it barely registered. DW kept applying non-sequitors and changing the subject by way of argument, and I realized that all I was doing was increasing traffic to his nonsense. So I dropped it, in hopes that maybe ignoring the stupidity would decrease the attention it was getting.
And then he posts this, blathering on, once again, about how evolution is just racism.
In reply to this, I have little recourse but to draw on the wisdon of lolcats:
For much of it’s history, the discovery institute has been pushing for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, claiming that the reason is scientific and not religious. Evidence, such as the Wedge Document, has been dismissed by the DI as a smear campaign and an urban legend.
The Discovery Institute has maintained all along that their focus on Intelligent Design is a viable, scientific alternative to “Darwinism”, and is not based on a religious viewpoint. The DI has a branch called the Center for Science and Culture, which in turn has a division called Faith + Evolution. This site comes right out and explains that the reason for ID research is that evolution and faith are incompatible, and of course faith is correct, and thus evolution is not. In other words, the Discovery institute, in a round about sort of way, is coming out and finally admitting that their science-bashing is religiously motivated.
Ironically, it seems that their incentive for this claim of incompatibility is a response to BioLogos, a Christian website promoting evolution (it is not the only one, by the way. There is also the ASA). So now we have the Christian motivation of the DI out in the open, in an effort to put down another Christian organization, presumably for not being “christian enough” to ignore the evidence for evolution.
In the movie Expelled, as well as a number of other sources, it is repeated over and over that Hitler’s eugenic and antisemitic views were influenced by Darwin, and thus Darwin and his work on Natural Selection are inherently evil.
Allow me to illustrate with an example of a made up scheme of Social Newtonism:
According to Newton’s law of gravitation, tall people have more potential energy than short people. Now, everyone knows that having potential is a good thing, and having energy is a good thing, so clearly any tall person – with greater potential energy – is superiorto any short person. As such, it could be suggested that only tall people should be allowed to reproduce, in order to ensure the future improvement of the human race. And because this is so clearly based on physical laws, I will call this Newtonics, or Social Newtonism.
Now, should the response to this be:
Since Social Newtonism is clearly misguided and evil, we will call Newton the Antichrist, and stop teaching Physics in school.
or:
So called “social Newtonism” has nothing to do with Newton’s laws other than hijacking his name, is a complete misrepresentation of physics, is merely an excuse to promote prejudice, and should be exposed as such. Newton’s laws should be taught more and better, to ensure this type of gross misrepresentation should never happen again.
Which is the correct response? Clearly not the first. So please tell me why it is that this is precisely what is happening with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection? I understand the motivation (discredit Darwinism so fundamentalist Christianity can be rammed into the school system to indoctrinate children when they are young and susceptible), I mean why are people letting it happen?
To put it plain and simple, blaming Darwin for Hitler is a lie. Isn’t there something in the bible about not telling those?
David Quammen on his book, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: an Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution.
Dr. Steve Jones on his latest book Darwin’s Island, The Galapagos in the Garden of England.
Dr. Olivia Judson on Darwin’s insights into the operations of the natural world, and how they raised questions that scientists are still exploring today.
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
