For Once, Chris Mooney Talks Sense

 
Read Chris Mooney's latest posting on The Intersection where he addresses the framing controversy [A Dialogue on Framing, the F-Word, and the Future of ScienceBlogs, Part I: Framer Culpa].

When I teamed up with Matthew Nisbet a year ago to talk about the subject of framing science--which I still believe to be a very important one--it was not my goal to alienate or outrage a group that I consider one of my most important audiences, namely, ScienceBlogs bloggers and readers. And yet when you look at the latest blowup over what I have posted, Sheril has posted, and Nisbet has posted about Expelled, it's undeniable that there is now an audience that reacts very negatively even to any basic mention of the concept of framing.

And there's just no other way to spin it--this is a painfully ironic communication failure on the part of those of us who wanted to introduce what I view as a very important communication tool to the science world. If we can't explain something so useful to an important segment of our own audience, how can we possibly hope to use it to counter the other side?

Good for you Chris. The irony has been apparent to many of us and it's really good to see you confess to having created the problem. My respect for you just went up several notches.

Let me just correct one little thing. There are plenty of science bloggers out there who don't like your views on framing science. Not all of us belong to the ScienceBlogs^TM consortium.

Now, to be sure, the concept of framing has been quite influential already for many people who care about science, but who are not seemingly well represented on ScienceBlogs. When I go around lecturing with Matt Nisbet, we constantly encounter enthusiastic, receptive scientist-laden audiences at universities. There is simply nothing like the response that we've seen here over the last week. Indeed, I believe the reactions at lectures may have skewed my perceptions, and made me neglect or dismiss, to a significant extent, the way our ideas were faring in the science blogosphere.

But no success on the lecture circuit can change the fact that somehow--and I'll have ideas about how it happened in later posts--the concept of framing has been blackened on Scienceblogs, which I consider a truly tragic occurrence. And while I'm hardly the only guilty party here, I certainly played a role in that, whether actively or by omission.

It's very common for people on the lecture circuit to get an exaggerated—and false—impression of their message. This is because the only people who come to your talks are the true believers. When dissenters do show up it's often hard for them to debate the speaker just by posing questions from the audience.

I'm not surprised that the Nisbet/Mooney road show fooled you into thinking that your ideas were widely accepted in the scientific community. The other way of fooling yourself is to organize a conference where the only people invited are those who agree with you. This is what Nisbet did at AAAS.

Allow me to re-iterate the point I made earlier. It's not just on ScienceBlogs^TM that the concept of framing has been blackened. I've met many scientists who think that your views on framing¹ are an unacceptable way to teach science. A good many of those scientists have never read a single posting on any ScienceBlogs^TM blog and, furthermore, they have never even heard of Seed and the group it supports.

I admire the fact that you confess to poor framing of your ideas. Now. how about discussing whether they are even correct? Up to now all you've done is reject any criticism on the ground that we don't really understand framing. Maybe we do, but we're still opposed. Have you ever thought of that?

Your message still seems to be that you just made the mistake of not presenting your ideas correctly. In other words, you didn't frame properly. I hope that subsequent postings won't continue in that vein. It's time to realize that it was not only the medium that was flawed but also the message.

---

1. Framing is deliberately altering what you want to say in order to make it more acceptable to your audience.

Is Faith Inevitable?

 
Last Thursday evening I watched a panel discuss the question "Is Faith Inevitable?" Unlike previous shows on TV Ontario, this one had a balance of believers and non-believers.

Two of the non-believers, Robert Buckman and Ronald de Sousa, are well-known in Canada (see below). You can watch the entire show at The Agenda.

I agree with the comments made by an undergraduate here at the University of Toronto when he says that the discussion got sidetracked [The Unexamined Life ...]. The real question is not whether faith is valuable, it's whether there is a God that you should have faith in.

Furthermore, I was very disappointed in Buckman and de Sousa because both of them bought into the line that we have evolved a need for religion. This is ridiculous. There is no gene for believing in supernatural beings and there's no reason to think that atheists need to overcome their genetic makeup in order to reject the notion of God. I wish we could put an end to this silly meme before it spreads any further.

---

Gene Genie #28

 
The 28th edition of Gene Genie has been posted at Greg Laden's Blog [Gene Genie #24]. (It really is number 28, in spite of what Greg says. See Gene Genie.)

Welcome to Gene Genie #24: with a heavy emphasis on Personal Genetics.

The beautiful logo was created by Ricardo at My Biotech Life.

The purpose of this carnival is to highlight the genetics of one particular species, Homo sapiens.

---

Canada Wins World Championship!

 
I'm sure you've already heard the news. The Canadian women's team of Dawn Askin (lead), Jill Officer (second), Cathy Overton-Clapham (third) and Jennifer Jones (skip) beat China yesterday to win the World¹ Women's Curling Championship.

Most of you were probably watching the game so I don't need to remind you how exciting it was.

---

1. Just to clarify for my American friends ... this was not a tournament where only teenagers in colleges like UNC could play and it was not a tournament confined to a single country. This is a world title. The USA didn't even make the playoffs.

[Photo Credit: Ford World Women's Curling Championship]

Stuff White People Like

 
Check out the blog Stuff White People Like, especially, Paris, San Francisco, and Having Gay Friends.

---

[Hat Tip: Jane at Beer with Chocolate.]

Monday's Molecule #66

 
This is a very important enzyme. Most living organisms on this planet could not survive if this enzyme didn't do its job. Very few species have this enzyme but we depend on those few species for our very existence.

Your task for today is to identify the enzyme (1) and the species from which this particular enzyme was isolated (2). You also have to write out the complete reaction that is catalyzed by this enzyme (3).

In addition you have to identify the Nobel Laureate who is associated with the reaction that is catalyzed by the enzyme. (Hint: the Nobel Laureate studied the chemical reaction, not the biological one.)

The first person to correctly identify the enzyme and species, write the chemical equation, and name the Nobel Laureate. wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There is only one ineligible candidate for this week's reward.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk (at) bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly answers the questions and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureates so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings.

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: We have a winner! The enzyme is nitrogenase from Azotobacter vinelandii. It fixes atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia by catalyzing the following reaction ...

The Nobel Laureate is Fritz Haber (1918) who worked out a chemical method of synthesizing ammonia from nitrogen.

Bryant Ing of the University of Toronto was the first person to get it right.

---

[Image Credit: Dixon and Kahn (2004) based on the structure PDB 1n2c by Schindelin et al. (1997)]

Dixon, R. and Kahn, D. (2004) Genetic regulation of biological nitrogen fixation. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2, 621-631. doi:10.1038/nrmicro954

Schindelin, H., Kisker, C., Schlessman, J.L., Howard, J.B. and Rees, D.C. (1997) Structure of ADP x AIF4(-)-stabilized nitrogenase complex and its implications for signal transduction. Nature 387: 370-376 [PubMed]

W.V. HARRIS, The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans

Publisher's blurb:

The only up-to-date account of the problems concerning both Greek and Roman money. Links the disciplines of economics and history. Offers contrasting and challenging points of view, representing the various current approaches to the subject. Most people have some idea what Greeks and Romans coins looked like, but few know how complex Greek and Roman monetary systems eventually became. The contributors to this volume are numismatists, ancient historians, and economists intent on investigating how these systems worked and how they both did and did not resemble a modern monetary system. Why did people first start using coins? How did Greeks and Romans make payments, large or small? What does money mean in Greek tragedy? Was the Roman Empire an integrated economic system? This volume can serve as an introduction to such questions, but it also offers the specialist the results of original research.


List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Introduction by W. V. Harris 1
1 The Monetary Use of Weighed Bullion in Archaic Greece by John H. Kroll ...12
2 What Was Money in Ancient Greece? by David M. Schaps...38
3 Money and Tragedy by Richard Seaford...49
4 The Elasticity of the Money-Supply at Athens by Edward E. Cohen...66
5 Coinage as 'Code' in Ptolemaic Egypt by J. G. Manning...84
6 The Demand for Money in the Late Roman Republic by David B. Hollander...112
7 Money and Prices in the Early Roman Empire by David Kessler and Peter Temin...137
8 The Function of Gold Coinage in the Monetary Economy of the Roman Empire by Elio Lo Cascio...160
9 The Nature of Roman Money by W. V. Harris...174
10 The Use and Survival of Coins and of Gold and Silver in the Vesuvian Cities by Jean Andreau...208
11 Money and Credit in Roman Egypt by Peter van Minnen...226
12 The Monetization of the Roman Frontier Provinces by Constantina Katsari...242
13 The Divergent Evolution of Coinage in Eastern and Western Eurasia by Walter Scheidel...267
References 287
Index 323

Fourth International Society for Arabic Papyrology Conference, Vienna, March 26-29, 2009

Fourth International Society for Arabic Papyrology Conference, Vienna, March 26-29, 2009

The fourth ISAP conference will be hosted by the Papyrussammlung of the National Austrian Library in Vienna.

The conference will start on the evening of Thursday, March 26, and continue through Sunday, March 29. The programme will include 20-minute lectures presenting text editions or studies based on documentary material from the Islamic medieval world, workshops in which unedited Arabic documents will be presented, and evening lectures. There will also be the opportunity to visit the Papyrussammlung and the Papyrusmuseum in the National Library.

We invite the submission of abstracts of 150 words in electronic format by July 1, 2008, to cornelia.roemer{at}onb.ac.at or petra.sijpesteijn{at}irht.cnrs.fr.

The final programme should be known by September 2008.

Source: Papy-L

Make Your Own Phylogenetic Tree

 
Sandra Porter at Discovering Biology in a Digital World has prepared a short video presentation on how to make your very own phylogenetic tree from DNA sequences [A beginner's guide to making a phylogenetic tree].

---

Namen in koptischen dokumentarischen Texten 2007

Monika Hasitzka, Namen in koptischen dokumentarischen Texten (Stand 22. 1. 2007).

The links to the older version (2004) no longer seem to work.

The referring page is here .

Nisbet Reveals His True Colors

 
Framing is about spin, censorship, and, above all, it's about agreeing with Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney. If you don't agree with them then it's because you just don't understand framing.

It's about time we started to ignore Nisbet and Mooney. Fortunately, they are making it easy by posting drivel like Why the PZ Myers Affair is Really, Really Bad for Science and PZ Myers, Mind Your Manners (see comments).

I'm opposed to censorship of any kind but I really wish Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney would voluntarily decide to keep their stupid mouths shut for a few years. I'm with PZ Myers on this one [I'm supposed to sit down and shut up?].

If anyone is really interested in seeing exactly what the blogosphere thinks of Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney you need only check the links that Greg Laden has posted at The Framing Critique (Dawkins-Myers-Expelled! -Gate). I really hope this spells the beginning of the end for the Nisbet/Mooney tag team.

---

Wells Takes a Rain Check on Apology

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsI challenged Jonathan Wells to agree to a simple statement that, I believe, might reflect his true beliefs about evolution [A Challenge to Jonathan Wells].

In one of the biggest surprises of the 21st century (not!) Wells has backed off [What’s in a Word?].

Darn. I guess I’ll have to take a rain check on that apology – because I don’t agree with this – and not just because Maurice et al. (2008) are cited incorrectly. Here’s why.

"Evolution" has many meanings. It can mean simply "change over time." The present is different from the past. The cosmos evolves. Technology evolves. No sane person denies evolution in this sense.

Biological evolution never means just change over time, but that's not the real problem with Wells' post. You're going to have to scoot on over to Evolution News & Views and read the whole thing.

I can't make head nor tail of it. I wonder if Wells actually thinks it makes sense?

John Pieret takes on the task of dissecting the Wells definition of evolution on Thoughts in a Haystack [Falling in the Wells]. He's a braver man that I.

---

Archimedes Student Project at the College of the Holy Cross

A team of Holy Cross students, together with students from Furman University, will be helping to create an electronic edition of a tenth century manuscript of the great mathematician Archimedes.

The manuscript was recycled when the original text (the palimpsest) was scraped off, and overwritten to create a prayer book in the 13th century. The discovery of the palimpsest in 1906 created a sensation in the scholarly world because it includes works of Archimedes that are nowhere else preserved. The manuscript disappeared during the First World War, and only resurfaced in the 1990s. For the past decade, the Archimedes Project, made up of an international team of scholars, has worked on the conservation of the badly damaged text. With the aid of digital imaging processing, the project has been able to bring out parts of the palimpsest not previously legible.

Now, 10 Holy Cross classics majors (and a group of undergraduate Greek students at Furman University) will work with digital photography and initial transcriptions of the palimpsest by classicists at Oxford and Stanford universities. After adding accents and punctuation to the bare letters recorded in the manuscript, the students will create documents structured in XML following the guidelines of the Text Encoding Initiative. The resulting electronic texts can be used to generate print editions and web pages, or can be queried and manipulated interactively. etc. at Holy Cross Publical Affairs website

source: Ioannis Kokkinidis (per email) from Google News.

Convegno internazionale sull'antica famiglia degli Apioni

Click to enlarge the program.


Papirologi europei e statunitensi di fama internazionale si incontreranno all’Università di Udine venerdì 28 e sabato 29, con inizio alle 9, nella sala Atti di palazzo Antonini, in via Petracco 8 a Udine, in occasione del convegno “Potere e ricchezza nell’Egitto bizantino: la famiglia degli Apioni. Sviluppi e prospettive della ricerca papirologica”, organizzato dai dipartimenti di Glottologia e Filologia classica e di Storia e Tutela dei Beni Culturali dell’Ateneo. Nel corso del convegno saranno discussi i vari aspetti ancora misteriosi del tema e «l’auspicio – annuncia Giuseppina Azzarello, docente di papirologia all’università udinese e coordinatrice dell’iniziativa – è che l’incontro sfoci in un progetto di collaborazione internazionale coordinato dall’università di Udine».

Il tema del convegno, aperto a studenti, studiosi e interessati, «riguarda – spiega Azzarello – uno dei più discussi e significativi ambiti di ricerca della giovane e promettente scienza della papirologia: i numerosi documenti di un’antichissima famiglia vissuta tra il V e VII secolo d.C. in Egitto e a Costantinopoli». I suoi membri, che portavano a generazioni alternate i nomi di Apione e Strategio, possedevano immense proprietà nella città di Ossirinco e raggiunsero le cariche più alte alla corte degli imperatori bizantini.

Gli studiosi (Amin Benaissa, Nikolaos Gonis, Brendan Haug, Todd M. Hickey, Roberta Mazza, Bernhard Palme, Fabian Reiter) che si riuniranno a Udine sono tra i più esperti del settore e provengono da ben cinque nazioni (Austria, California, Germania, Inghilterra, Italia). L’Università di Udine sarà presente con quattro docenti (Giseppina Azzarello, Paolo Coppola, Franco Maltomini, Arnaldo Marcone) e una studentessa (Valentina Covre). Inoltre, nel corso dell’incontro, Manuela Croatto, capo Ripartizione ricerca dell’Ateneo di Udine, illustrerà le possibilità di finanziamento previste dalla Commissione Europea per i progetti culturali.

21/03/2008

Source: Papy-L
About the Dossier of the Apion family, see Trismegistos Archives

Watch and Weep

 
ABC News follows a group of home-schooled Christian children on a museum tour. The tour leaders are interviewed. They attempt to defend the lies they are telling the children.

---

[HatTip: Friendly Atheist: How to Ruin a Trip to the Museuam.]

Evil and Sin

 
Yesterday's issue of the Toronto Star had an article on The fundamentalist atheists.

I'm getting real tired of hearing this phrase but I haven't completely given up trying to understand what people mean when they use it. In this case, the article is by Stuart Laidlaw, who is billed as the "faith and ethics" reporter. Laidlaw is commenting on a recent talk by Chris Hedges. Hedges seems to be one of those "sophisticated" Christians who have all the answers.¹ Naturally, he denigrates the "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins because they just don't understand serious Christianity.

Serious Christians seem to be very concerned about evil and sin.

Hedges, in Toronto recently to promote his book, attacks both fundamentalists and the new breed of atheists as not only intolerant, but wrong about both the Jesus story and the nature of sin.

Sin, he says, is a personal thing that will always be with us. Humans will never outgrow it through evolution, as the atheist authors contend, nor can anyone (Jesus included) relieve us of it, as fundamentalist Christians believe, Hedges says.

The best we can do, he says, is try to mitigate evil by living a good life, and having democratic institutions in place to ensure that we can get rid of bad leaders from time to time.

Sin, as I understand it, is when you violate a moral rule of some kind. It usually means you are disobeying the wishes of supernatural beings. It's not a word used by atheists.

Evil is something I can understand. People do bad things. Religious people do bad things and atheists do bad things. No atheist that I know would ever claim that humans will evolve to the point where they don't do bad things. What a ridiculous idea. What in the world is Hedges thinking?

For fundamentalists, evil and sin are an external force – often represented by Satan – to be vanquished by giving yourself over to Jesus. For the new atheists, evil and sin are the fault of religion, and can be defeated by getting rid of all religion and giving yourself over to scientific, reasoned thought.

For Hedges, it's the same argument: People are basically good, but external forces make us do bad things. Get rid of those forces, and people will be good.

No more effort is needed to achieve utopia, he says.

Just because religions can be evil does not mean that all evil is due to religion. No atheist believes this, as far as I know.

I believe that people are basically good but they still do bad things and they don't need external forces to do them. People are quite capable of being evil all by themselves. What in the world motivates people like Hedges to make up false stories about athiests? It makes him look very silly.

The question of evil and sin seems to be so intertwined with the existence of God that religious people (Christians?) seem to have difficulty untangling them. They seem to think that atheists are as obsessed about evil and sin as they are when, in fact, most of us don't give it much thought. Perhaps that's because we don't have to deal with the paradox of a good God who allows evil and sin?

Hedges draws a distinction between the new breed of atheists and such past non-believers as Albert Camus or scientists of the Enlightenment, whose skepticism he says helped drive human knowledge and understanding.

But Hedges has few such hopes for the new atheists. Where atheists of the past used their disbelief as a stepping off point to find something else to believe in, the new atheists claim to have already found it in what he calls a "cult of science."

Anything that can't be proved scientifically is simply discounted, Hedges says, warning that such a narrow approach to study thwarts the pursuit of knowledge by denying a voice to those who disagree.

The "new atheists" claim there are no supernatural beings because there's no evidence of such beings. This has nothing to do with evil and sin. When are these sophisticated Christians going to address the real question instead of going off on weird tangents? If they have a good argument for the existence of god then let's hear it. Otherwise, their "sophistication" looks more like "obfuscation" to me. (Or like The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's Reply.)

It's time to stop whining and face up to the real question. Is there a god? Questions about evil and sin are irrelevant until that question is settled.

---

1. In spite of his confusion about religion, he seems to be a pretty good guy. He was right about Iraq, for example.

The Spin Begins

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsThe Discovery Institute website has skirted around the obvious hypocrisy and attacked Dawkins and Myers. Bruce Chapman has posted an article on Evoluton News & Views about the expulsion of PZ Myers from a viewing of EXPELLED [Richard Dawkins, World’s Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled].

Amazingly, the best selling Oxford scientist/author Richard Dawkins also crashed a showing of Expelled in Minnesota last night and he not only was let in, but introduced at the end of the showing.

Dawkins apparently acknowledged that he had not been invited and did not have a ticket. A sophomoric side to his ideological campaign is thus revealed.

Dawkins, understandably is nervous about this film, among other reasons because Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God.

Myers, of course, relished being expelled from Expelled, but objective observers know that Myers is the most vociferous advocate of expelling Darwin critics from academia. Not from movie pre-screenings where he wasn’t invited, mind you, but from their jobs. Too bad the film doesn’t show (and I wish it had), his promotion of advice to attack teachers and professors who dare question Darwin’s theory. The whole point of Myers is that he is a take-no-prisoners, crusading atheist scientist who has made it his purpose in life to harass people who disagree with him. Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.

Those of you who have been following the issue on the various blogs, and in newspaper articles, know full well that Dawkins did not "crash" the movie. People did not have to be invited and there were no tickets. Chapman and his friends must know this too. Therefore, he is lying.

I'm not surprised that most of the IDiots are behaving this way. What will surprise me is that all of them might behave like Bruce Chapman. I expect at least one prominent IDiot to admit that expelling PZ Myers was a mistake and to admit that he should have been allowed to see a movie that featured him.

Let's see if there's at least one IDiot with the guts to speak the truth. Bill Dembski is not going to be that person (suprise!) because he has just posted the Chapman piece on his blog [Discovery News Release on Richard Dawkins Crashing EXPELLED Screening]. I'm hoping that Denyse O'Leary will be the one with the gumption. Or maybe Michael Behe. I expect Jonathan Wells to weigh in with even more lies about the incident.

---

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins Discuss "EXPELLED"

 
New York Times article by Cornelia Dean: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film.

---

[HatTip: RichardDawkins.net]

EXPELLED! - Waiting for the Creationists to repsond ...

 
By now you've all heard the news. PZ Myers was standing in line to see a screening of the propaganda movie EXPELLED when security guards asked him to leave. They didn't bother with his family or his friend, Richard Dawkins. Read PZ's account at EXPELLED!.

Now let's see how the creationists respond to this incident. Remember, the movie is about discrimination by scientists against people who are religious. It will be very interesting to see how they can justify keeping PZ Myers out of the movie when all kinds of other people were let in.

Here's one response, posted on the EXPELLED website [Richard Dawkins crashes the party at a screening of “Expelled”]. The writer is Stuart Blessman, a Christian who was given tickets to see the movie by his pastor. Blessman was present at the theater on Wednesday evening. He is responding to the charge that PZ Myers was prevented from seeing the movie because he (PZ) is an evolutionist. Here's what Stuart Blessman says ...

I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins’ academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn’t, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film’s producers to be found, and the man certainly didn’t identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it’s possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre’s management didn’t want to take any chances.

This sounds very much like a blatant, bare-faced, lie. Anyone who knows PZ Myers would know that he would bot be "hustling" and "bothering" the people waiting in line. Quite the contrary, PZ and his colleague Richard Dawkins would have been trying to keep a low profile.

In his followup posting, PZ responds by saying that Blessman's account is a complete fabrication [A late night quick one].

Now, I'm going to be looking in on creationist blogs to see how they handle this story. So far there has been deathly silence. Is that because the creationists are embarrassed? Is it because they never criticize their own kind? Or, is it because they don't see the hypocrisy? Please let me know of any creationist responses.

---

Communicating Science in a Religious America

 
"Communicating Science in a Religous America" was the title of a session at the AAAS meeting in February. Here's a summary of the meeting from someone who seems to have been paying attention [Puttin Science in a Frame]. Here's a teaser ...

Framing has not been without controversy, as some have viewed it as little more than a form of empty platitude or an attempt to dumb down science. What became clear from Nisbet's talk, however, is that there can also be people left out of the ostensibly-shared values; it should be no surprise they are objecting.

---

Going Public with the Scientific Process

 
Ruth Cronje is a faculty member of the Scientific and Technical Writing Program at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire in Eau Claire, WI (USA). She has written a letter that was published in Science last week [Going Public with the Scientific Process]. Many of you will never get to read it but you should. It is wonderful.

I'm going to take a chance here and publish her entire letter just so it gets as wide a coverage as possible.

The idea of using framing strategies to communicate science to the public has recently been taken up in scientific forums (1, 2), the mainstream media (3), and the blogosphere (4, 5). Most participants in the framing science debate limit their notion of scientific information to scientific facts. However, confining science messages to just the facts interferes with public understanding of science as a systematic, logical process of human inquiry and effaces the distinction between data and scientists' reasoning about data. To communicate successfully, we should focus on scientific process by emphasizing two important elements of scientific rationality: skepticism and dynamicism (6, 7).

Scientists deliberately integrate skepticism into their procedures by trying to refute their own hypotheses, retaining them only when confronted with compelling evidence sought through carefully controlled procedures. Scientists tend to shy away from revealing the intrinsic skepticism of science to the public, fearful that it will open the door to doubt about the validity of their conclusions. But communicating only the facts of science (framed or unframed) destabilizes public confidence in science. A fact doesn't allow science communicators to reveal, justify, and ultimately promote the skeptical reasoning process that helps make scientists more confident that their reasoning is correct.

Science is also dynamic; it is a cumulative enterprise that requires scientists to situate their instrumental activities and interpretations against the evidence that has come before and to alter them in light of new evidence. Insisting that new data be interpreted within the context of past and future data will ferret out and correct error over time, but it means that a fact cannot, by definition, be anything more than the (ephemeral and fallible) consensus of scientists at a given point in time. A "just the facts" strategy can and often does backfire, ultimately fueling public alienation from science. When scientists inform the public of "facts" (like the "fact" widely disseminated in the 1970s that all dietary fats are bad for us), and then that "fact" is refined or altered (now we're told olive oil is good for us), the public is justifiably confused. Studies suggest that the public tends to regard normal scientific refinement and self-correction as equivocation or incompetence (8-10). Instead of sweeping uncertainty under the rug, science communicators should help the public understand the logical and systematic procedures by which scientists confront it.

The true majesty and promise of science lies in its systematic, logical, skeptical, and dynamic reasoning procedures. "Successful" science communication should not be regarded as any message that enlists public support for science. Rather, we should define "success" in scientific communication as achieving a public that celebrates scientific reasoning procedures.

In case Mathews and Nisbet don't get it, the new version of Science journal isn't going to let them get away with distorting science for political ends. Nisbet comments on this letter and hopes to discuss the topic with Cronje when he visits her next week [At Science, Still More Reaction to Framing]. I'd love to be there.

---

Bruce Alberts on Science Education

 
Bruce Alberts, the former President of the National Academies (USA), has now taken over as Editor-in-Chief of Science.¹ Judging by his editorial in this week's issue [Considering Science Education] there could be some interesting times ahead in the Science offices.

Here's part of what Bruce has to say about science education ...

I consider science education to be critically important to both science and the world, and I shall frequently address this topic on this page. Let’s start with a big-picture view. The scientific enterprise has greatly advanced our understanding of the natural world and has thereby enabled the creation of countless medicines and useful devices. It has also led to behaviors that have improved lives. The public appreciates these practical benefits of science, and science and scientists are generally respected, even by those who are not familiar with how science works or what exactly it has discovered.

But society may less appreciate the advantage of having everyone aquire, as part of their formal education, the ways of thinking and behaving that are central to the practice of successful science: scientific habits of mind. These habits include a skeptical attitude toward dogmatic claims and a strong desire for logic and evidence. As famed astronomer Carl Sagan put it, science is our best “bunk” detector. Individuals and societies clearly need a means to logically test the onslaught of constant clever attempts to manipulate our purchasing and political decisions. They also need to challenge what is irrational, including the intolerance that fuels so many regional and global conflicts.

So how does this relate to science education? Might it be possible to encourage, across the world, scientific habits of mind, so as to create more rational societies everywhere? In principle, a vigorous expansion of science education could provide the world with such an opportunity, but only if scientists, educators, and policy-makers redefine the goals of science education, beginning with college-level teaching. Rather than only conveying what science has discovered about the natural world, as is done now in most countries, a top priority should be to empower all students with the knowledge and practice of how to think like a scientist.

Those of you who have been reading Sandwalk know that this is exactly how I think science education should be fixed. We need to teach students how to think like a scientist. The facts of science are important but they aren't nearly as important as the way in which scientific facts are determined. Science is a way of knowing—that's what students need to learn.

I think we have a long way to go. At SciBarCamp last weekend we discussed the ten things everyone needs to know about science. One of the things on my original list was that science is a way of knowing [Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science]. Before the meeting someone had written a comment on the poster to the effect that science may not be the only way of knowing and another participate wrote in that "it kinda was."

When it came time for the discussion the moderator handed out three topics to each of the panel members. One of them got the topic "Science doesn't have all the answers" and I was given the topic "Science has all the answers." When it came time for me to present I said that science doesn't have all the answers and nobody I know claims otherwise.

I changed the topic to "science is a way of knowing" and suggested that it may be the only way of knowing. Considerable debate followed. It was clear that many participants were new to this topic since the old arguments about love and morality came up.

At the end of the session, the moderator wrapped up and concluded that there was consensus on three things everyone needs to know about science. One of them was "science doesn't have all the answers." This is completely wrong, in my opinion. Of course, science doesn't have all the answers. The real question is whether it has all the questions.

---

1. In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that he was also my graduate supervisor. (See Bruce Alberts in Toronto.)

Tangled Bank #101

 
The latest issue of Tangled Bank is #101. It's hosted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy [Tangled Bank #101].

When I first found that I would be hosting this edition of Tangled Bank, I tried to come up with a theme centered on Highway 101. It runs along the West Coast in the US and A and a stretch of it through San Francisco is also known as Van Ness Boulevard. I lived a block away from Van Ness for a year and one of my favorite pubs was an English Local, known as Highway 101. The idea for a clever theme vanished when I started receiving and reading the submissions that people sent. I decided I didn’t want to detract from the entries featured by making the show gimmicky. The Tangled Bank isn’t about me, it’s about science and the excitement of discovery as people unravel the mysteries of the natural world.

---

If you want to submit an article to Tangled Bank send an email message to host@tangledbank.net. Be sure to include the words "Tangled Bank" in the subject line. Remember that this carnival only accepts one submission per week from each blogger. For some of you that's going to be a serious problem. You have to pick your best article on biology.

---

L.W. HURTADO, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins

Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Pp. xiv, 248. ISBN 978-0-8028-2895-8. $20.00.">Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Pp. xiv, 248. ISBN 978-0-8028-2895-8. $20.00.

The author makes extensive use of LDAB.

Chapters:
1. The texts
2. The Early Christian Preference for the Codex
3. The Nomina Sacra
4. The Staurogram
5. Other Scribal Features
Appendix 1: Christian Literay Mss. of the Second and Third Centuries
Appendix 2: Plates

Publisher's blurb:
Much attention has been paid to the words of the earliest Christian canonical and extracanonical texts, yet Larry Hurtado points out that an even more telling story is being overlooked — the story of the physical texts themselves.

Widely recognized for his outstanding scholarship, Hurtado combines his comprehensive knowledge of Christian origins with an archivist’s eye to make sense of these earliest objects of the faith. He introduces readers to the staurogram, possibly the first representation of the cross, the nomina sacra, a textual abbreviation system, and the puzzling Christian preference for book-like texts over scrolls.

Drawing on studies by papyrologists and palaeographers as well as New Testament scholars — and including photographic plates of selected manuscripts— The Earliest Christian Artifacts astutely introduces the distinctive physical features of early Christian manuscripts, illustrating their relevance for wider inquiry into the complex origins of Christianity.

Review in BMCR

Fun in Guelph

 
Katie Kish has a brief description of my visit to Guelph on her blog Liberal Debutante [Larry Moran At Guelph. I stole the photograph from her, I hope she doesn't mind.

The question about the evolution of the bombardier beetle was really a question about irreducible complexity in general and I tried to answer that question rather than the specific question that was asked. I was pretty sure that Dawkins had refuted the bombardier beetle "paradox" with real examples of transitional forms but I wasn't sure about this and didn't know the reference. (I said at the talk that I thought it was in The Blind Watchmaker).

Ryan Gregory, who I met for the first time on Wednesday night, has come to the rescue with a posting on Genomicron [Bombardier Beetles]. He has even found a video of Richard Dawkins "exploding" the myth of exploding bombardier beetles. Go and watch it on Ryan's blog.

There's an important lesson here. It is 2008. The evolutionary "problem" represented by the bombardier beetle was addressed—and refuted—by evolutionary biologists over 20 years ago and yet it's still being raised today by creationists as if it were a serious problem. What does that tell you about creationists?

Dealing with IDiots is very frustrating.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHIE PAPYROLOGIQUE (BP)

BIBLIOGRAPHIE PAPYROLOGIQUE (BP)
fondee en 1932 par Marcel HOMBERT
redigee par Georges NACHTERGAEL et Alain MARTIN
editee par l'Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Le CD-ROM "Subsidia Papyrologica 3.0", utilisable sur Macintosh et sur PC, est a present
disponible. Il contient:

- l'etat au 29 février 2008 du fichier cumulatif "BP 32-07", realise par Georges NACHTERGAEL et Alain MARTIN (avec le concours de Roger S. BAGNALL, Alexandre BUCHET, Annie DEKNUDT, Alain DELATTRE et Paul HEILPORN), qui reunit plus de 41.000 enregistrements. Le fichier couvre les publications des annees 1932 et ulterieures (jusqu'a et y compris les titres signales dans le 4e envoi de la BP courante pour 2007); il est livre en trois versions: FileMaker Pro 2.1, FileMaker Pro 5 et FileMaker Pro 7;
- l'etat au 29 fevrier 2008 du fichier "Concordances" qui etablit la liste des cotes utilisees dans l'indexation des fiches, ainsi que des sigles designant soit des recueils papyrologiques ou epigraphiques, soit des periodiques; il est egalement livre en trois versions: FileMaker Pro 2.1, FileMaker Pro 5 et FileMaker Pro 7;
- un texte qui dresse l'historique du projet d'informatisation et precise le contenu des differents champs que comportent les fiches; il est livre en deux versions: Word98 (doc) et pdf.

Le prix du CD-ROM s'eleve à EUR 60 (EUR 50 pour les membres de l'Association Internationale de Papyrologues) - frais de port en sus. Nous vous prions d'envoyer les commandes a l'adresse suivante:

Association Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth
Parc du Cinquantenaire 10
B-1000 Bruxelles (BELGIQUE)
aere.egke@kmkg-mrah.be

DM: Ross Scaife (1960-2008) ἄωρος

Better known for electronic mediation of the ancient world (stoa.org), once also a student of papyri:

SCAIFE, A. R., Accounts for Taxes on Beer and Natron. P.Austin inv. 34. ZPE 71 (1988) 105.

Petra Sijpesteijn onderzoekt het ontstaan van de islamitische wereld

Petra Sijpesteijn, sinds 1 februari hoogleraar Arabisch in Leiden, brengt een prestigieuze ERC-grant mee voor haar onderzoek naar de eerste 150 jaar van de islamitische geschiedenis op basis van de onaangeboorde bron van de papyri. 26 maart wordt ze, met de andere Nederlandse ERC-winnaars, gehuldigd door minister Plasterk.
etc. at Leiden Univ.

Source: Peter van Minnen (who speaks Dutch better than I). His summary:
Petra Sijpesteijn is the new professor of Arabic at Leiden, that she got 1 mio euro from the European Research Council for a project on the early Islamic state, and that the evidence for it is plentiful (papyri) but by and large unused. And that she is going to do something about it.

Trismegistos Online Publications

TRISMEGISTOS ONLINE PUBLICATIONS
– 1 –

A Chronological Survey
of Precisely Dated
Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic Sources

Version 1.0
February 2007



edited by
MARK DEPAUW

with the collaboration of
CAROLIN ARLT, MARLIES ELEBAUT, AIKATERINI GEORGILA, SVENJA A. GÜLDEN,
HERMANN KNUF, JAN MOJE, FRANZISKA NAETHER, HERBERT VERRETH

and the assistance of
SANDRA BRONISCHEWSKI, BRITTA DERICHS, SAHAR ESLAH AND MELANIE
KROMER


Preface
The aim of this Chronological Survey of Precisely Dated Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic Sources, inspired by Thissen's Chronologie der frühdemotischen Papyri (1980) and Pestman's Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (1967),1 is to provide a chronological survey of all Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic texts dated to a precise year or even month or day. It is to a very large extent based on the Database of Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic Texts (DAHT), consultable here , which has been and still is being compiled as part of the project Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in Graeco-Roman Egypt, sponsored by a Sofja Kovalevskaja Preis of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. As such it is a collaborative effort, with the following task division:

Carolin Arlt mummy labels and ostraca
Mark Depauw early Demotic and Ptolemaic documentary papyri (and ostraca)
Marlies Elebaut graffiti
Aikaterini Georgila Roman period documentary papyri
Svenja Gülden funerary papyri
Hermann Knuf literary papyri
Jan Moje inscriptions
Franziska Naether paraliterary texts

Nobel Laureate: Paul Flory

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1974.

"for his fundamental achievements, both theoretical and experimental, in the physical chemistry of the macromolecules"


In 1974, Paul J. Flory (1910 - 1985) was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the physical chemistry of macromolecules in solution. His work led to an understanding of the dynamics and conformation of proteins and that's why his contributions are covered in biochemistry courses.

The presentation speech was delivered by Professor Stig Claesson of the Royal Academy of Sciences.THEME:

Nobel Laureates

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year's Nobel prize in chemistry has been awarded to Professor Paul Flory for his fundamental contributions to the physical chemistry of macromolecules.

Macromolecules include biologically important materials such as cellulose, albumins and nucleic acids, and all of our plastics and synthetic fibers.

Macromolecules are often referred to as chain molecules and can be compared to a pearl necklace. They consist of long chains of atoms which, when magnified one hundred million times, appear as a pearl necklace. The pearls represent the atoms in the chain. One should realize that this chain is much longer than the necklaces being worn here this evening. To obtain a representative model of a macromolecule all of the necklaces here in this hall should be connected together in a single long chain.

One can readily appreciate that the development of a theory for these molecules presented considerable difficulties. The forms of the chain itself, whether extended or coiled, represents a property difficult to rationalize.

A statistical description is of necessity required, and Professor Flory has made major contributions to the development of such a theory. The problem is more difficult, however. How can one compare different molecules in different solvents?

When chain molecules are dissolved in different solvents they become coiled to different degrees, depending on the interaction between repulsive and attractive forces in the solution. In a good solvent the chain molecules are extended. In a poor solvent, in contrast, the chain molecules assume a highly coiled form.

Professor Flory showed that if one takes a solution of extended chain molecules in a good solvent, and slowly cools the solution, then the molecules become progressively more coiled until they are no longer soluble.

Thus, there must be an intermediate temperature where the attractive and repulsive forces are balanced. At this temperature the molecules assume a kind of standard condition that can be used, generally, to characterize their properties.

This temperature Professor Flory named the theta temperature. A corresponding temperature exists for real gases at which they follow the ideal gas law. This temperature is called the Boyle temperature after Robert Boyle who discovered the gas laws. By analogy, the theta temperature for macromolecules is often referred to as the Flory temperature.

Profssor Flory showed also that it was possible to define a constant for chain molecules, now called Flory's universal constant, which can be compared in significance to the gas constant.

When one, in retrospect, reads about an important scientific discovery, one often feels that the work was remarkably simple. This actually indicates, however, that it was brilliant insight in a new and until then unexplored research area. This is highly characteristic of Professor Flory's scientific discoveries, not only those concerned with the Flory temperature and Flory's universal constant but also many of his other important research studies. Further examples are found in his investigation of the relationship between the reaction mechanism and the length of the chains formed when chain molecules are prepared synthetically, as well as his important contribution to the theory of crystallization and rubber elasticity. These achievements have been of major importance for technological developments in the plastics industry.

In recent years Professor Flory has investigated, both theoretically and experimentally, the relation between rotational characteristics of the chain links and the form of the chain molecules. This is of fundamental significance for the understanding of both biological macromolecules and synthetic chain molecules.

During the time Professor Flory has been active as a scientist, macromolecular chemistry has been transformed from primitive semi-empirical observations into a highly developed science. This evolution has come about through major contributions by research groups from both universities and many of the world's largest industrial laboratories. Professor Flory has remained a leading researcher in the area during this entire period, giving further evidence of his unique position as a scientist.

Professor Flory,

I have tried to describe briefly the fundamental importance of your many contributions to macromolecular chemistry and in particular those concepts introduced by you and now referred to as the Flory-temperature and the Flory universal constant.

On behalf of the Royal Academy of Sciences I wish to convey to you our warmest congratulations and I now ask you to receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.

---

Gene Genie #27

 
The 27th edition of Gene Genie has been posted at DNA Direct Talk [The Gene Genie: Yes, But What About Me?].

Welcome to another edition of Gene Genie, the blog carnival about genes, genomics and gene-related diseases. With Craig Venter and 23andMe and decodeME all over the news, I thought this edition might be appropriately focused on genes and “me.” What does the gene genie have to say about us?

The beautiful logo was created by Ricardo at My Biotech Life.

The purpose of this carnival is to highlight the genetics of one particular species, Homo sapiens.

---

Dawn of Man

 
In his tribute to Arthur C. Clarke, John Dennehy mentions the opening scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey [Goodbye Arthur C. Clarke]. That was a scene that made a big impression on me as well, although I was a good deal older than John when I first saw it. Here it is.

---

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - 2008)

 

Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now.

                                                      Arthur C. Clarke

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God-but to create him.

                                                      Arthur C. Clarke

I don't believe in God but I'm very interested in her.

                                                      Arthur C. Clarke

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

                                                      Arthur C. Clarke

Information is not knowledge¹, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other, and we need them all.

                                                      Arthur C. Clarke

---

1. This simple statement of fact is much more important in today's world than most people realize. Information should not be confused with knowledge.

[Photo Credit: ABCNews - Arthur C Clarke turns 90]

Billboard Censorship

 
According to the Grand Rapids Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is having trouble renting billboard space to advertise its message "Beware of Dogma" [Atheists claim censorship by billboard company].

The group that asked Hudsonville to remove God from the city's mission statement says it is having a hard time placing a billboard espousing its position.

"This is new, that a billboard company is censoring us," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Madison, Wis.-based group, dedicated to the separation of church and state, bills itself as North America's largest group of atheists and agnostics with 12,000 supporters.

The billboard with the words "Beware of Dogma" and the group's Web address has been used around the country, she said.

Gaylor said CBS Outdoor Advertising in Grand Rapids declined to rent a billboard to Freeedom From Religion, telling her it had been through controversy in the past and community reaction would force the billboard down within a day. She is working with other area firms, she said, but their locations are not her first choice.

We discussed this issue before when I declared that this was a "freedom of speech" issue [What Freedom of Speech Really Means]. Many readers disagreed , stating that a private company had the right to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs (or lack of them).

This time there's a very interesting discussion going on at RichardDawkins.net [ Atheists claim censorship by billboard company]. Read the comments on that site.

This is clearly a gray area but, personally, I'd like to live in a society where a private billboard company wasn't afraid to rent space to all kinds of groups—including those groups whose opinions aren't shared by the management of the company. I'd like to live in a society where everyone understood that this was ethical behavior on the part of the billboard company and they didn't hold the company responsible for the message on the billboard. Even better would be to live in a society where the average person celebrated diversity of opinion and looked forward to seeing and hearing about contrary views. They would also look forward to debating and discussing those views.¹

---

1. In case anyone is wondering whether this can be construed as support for teaching the controversy, the answer is yes. I think Christian private schools should be teaching about evolution and the scientific views on the age of the Earth. I think public school students should be discussing the conflict between evolution and creationism (and science vs. religion).

[Photo Credit: More Billboards in Chambersburg PA]

Are You as Smart as a Third Year University Student? Q7

 
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6Choose the INCORRECT statement about protein folding.

a) protein folding is a cooperative phenomenon
b) the energy of the final folded protein is at the bottom of a free energy well
c) most proteins fold extremely rapidly
d) folding is an enthalpy-driven reaction (ΔH)
e) protein folding can be assisted by molecular chaperones

---

Are You as Smart as a Third Year University Student? Q6

 
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Here are the names and structures of the aldohexoses. The common ones in biology are shown in blue.


Identify the monosaccharide shown below in three different views.



               a) D-allose
               b) D-altrose
               c) D-galactose
               d) D-glucose
               e) D-mannose

---

THEME: Protein Structure

 
Jan. 28, 2007
Free Love, the '60's, and Protein Synthesis

Feb. 8, 2007
How Proteins Fold

Feb, 11, 2007
Heat Shock and Molecular Chaperones

Feb. 13, 2007
Disulfide Bridges Stabilize Folded Proteins

THEME:

More posts on
Protein Structure
Feb. 14, 2007
The Anfinsen Experiment in Protein Folding

Feb. 15, 2007
Gene HSPA5 Encodes BiP-a Molecular Chaperone

Feb. 20, 2007
Glycoproteins

Feb. 27, 2007
Collagen

March 12, 2007
How Cells Make Tryptophan, Phenyalanine, and Tyrosine

June 5, 2007
Protein Turnover

July 10, 2007
Fixing Carbon: the Structure of Rubisco

Aug. 1, 2007
Hemoglobin

Aug. 1, 2007
Myoglobin

Aug. 1, 2007
Heme Groups


Oct.13, 2007
HSP90 Structure

March 2, 2008
The α Helix

March 10, 2008
β Strands and β Sheets

March 13, 2008
Loops and Turns

March 13, 2008
Levels of Protein Structure

March 13, 2008
Examples of Protein Structure

March 14, 2008
Evolution and Variation in Folded Proteins


April 3, 2008
The Peptide Bond

April 3, 2008
Ramachandran Plots

April 4, 2008
Levinthal's Paradox

April 6, 2008
One Protein - Two Folds

---

Artemidorus Payrus exhibition opens in Berlin

DER ARTEMIDOR-PAPYRUS KOMMT NACH BERLIN

Ein einzigartiges Zeugnis für Wissenschaft und Kunst der Antike wird ab 13. März 2008 in einer Sonderausstellung im Ägyptischen Museum Berlin zu sehen sein. Zum ersten Mal wird der Öffentlichkeit in Deutschland der Artemidor-Papyrus präsentiert, welcher in mehrfacher Hinsicht von singulärer Bedeutung ist: Er enthält einen literarischen Text, der bisher nicht bekannt war, eine Landkarte sowie Zeichnungen von menschlichen Köpfen, Händen und Füßen sowie von exotischen Tieren. Der Schrift nach zu urteilen stammt der Papyrus wahrscheinlich aus dem 1. Jh. v.Chr. Erhalten sind mehrere Fragmente, die zu einer ursprünglich mehr als 2,50 m breiten und 32,5 cm hohen Papyrusrolle gehörten. Gefunden wurden diese zusammen mit mehreren dokumentarischen Papyri aus dem 1. Jh. n.Chr. im oberägyptischen Dorf Antaiupolis. Ob die Rolle auch dort beschrieben war, ist jedoch unsicher. Angesichts der kalligraphischen Schrift und der hohen Qualität der Zeichnungen könnte man auch an Alexandria denken.

A Challenge to Jonathan Wells

 
On February 29th Jonathan Wells published a short review of a scientific paper by Maurice et al. (2008). You can read the original Wells posting at: The Irrelevance of Darwinian Evolution to Antibiotic Resistance.

Wells was trying to make a point. Concerning the work from Dardel's lab (Maurice et al, 2008), Wells claimed ...

Yet Darwinian evolution had nothing to do with it.

First, some bacteria happen to have a very complex enzyme (acetyltransferase), the origin of which Darwinism hasn’t really explained. Come to think of it, most cases of antibiotic resistance (including resistance to penicillin) involve complex enzymes, and the only “explanations” for them put forward by Darwinists are untestable just-so stories about imaginary mutations over unimaginable time scales.

Second, the acetyltransferase story is about minor changes in an existing species of bacteria. But Darwin’s theory isn’t really about how existing species change over time. People had been observing those long before 1859, and most of the new insights we’ve gained since then have come from genetics, not Darwinism. Yet Mendel’s theory of genetics contradicted Darwin’s, and Darwinists rejected Mendelian genetics for half a century. And although an understanding of genetics is important when dealing with antibiotic resistance, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not.

Third, Dardel and his colleagues made their discovery using protein crystallography. They were not guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory; in fact, they had no need of that hypothesis.

We all know how creationists use the word "Darwinism." Most of the time, it's a synonym for evolution. All of the time, it's an attempt to obfuscate and confuse their audience. What Wells is saying is that evolution had nothing to do with the paper. All that happened was a bit of genetics. According to Wells, "Darwin's theory of the origin of species by natural selection" was not involved.

The senior author of the paper posted a comment on Pharyngula saying, "Actually, we did indeed use darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology)." [see Why the Right People Hate IDiots, and links within that posting].

Michael Egnor gallops to the defense of his hero. Today he posted a rebuttal to my criticism of him and Wells [Dr. Larry Moran, Darwinism, and Vicious Personal Invective]. Here's what Egnor says,

Dr. Wells pointed out that research on antibiotic resistance wasn’t guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory. That evolution occurred — that is, that the population of bacteria changed over time — is obviously true, and obviously was relevant to the antibiotic resistance research. Dr. Wells made the observation that the research owed little to Darwin’s theory that all biological complexity arose by natural selection without teleology.

This is an incredible admission from a creationist. Egnor admits that the bacteria evolved. He then goes on to define some bizarre version of "Darwin's theory."¹ But the cat is out of the bag. What we see here folks, is the recognition that there is a distinction between Darwinism and evolution by natural selection. We're still not clear about the difference but it seems that bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics.

Egnor admits that the paper used evolution but it just wasn't Darwinism.

Now let's see if Jonathan Wells agrees. I'll apologize to Wells if he will post a comment here, or on Evolution News & Views, agreeing to the following ..

I, Jonathan Wells, agree that Maurice et al. (2006) employed evolution by natural selection in their methodology. My position is that evolution by natural selection is not what I mean when I use the word Darwinian.

Note that I'm not asking him to agree that "Darwinism" was involved in the paper. All he has to do is admit that evolution by natural selection is not what he means when he uses the word "Darwinian."

Michael Egnor has indicated that this is what Wells actually means. Now let's see if Wells himself will admit it.

---

1. The standard version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is that populations evolve due to the differential survival of individuals with a fitter genotype.

Maurice, F., Broutin, I., Podglajen, I., Benas, P., Collatz, E. and Dardel, F. (2008) Enzyme structural plasticity and the emergence of broad-spectrum antibiotic resistance. EMBO Rep. 2008 Feb 22 [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]