Thursday: Hili dialogue

August 6, 2015 • 5:30 am

And so the week slowly worms its way to the end, with nothing to distinguish it from other weeks. Soon it will be fall, and then the snow. . .  Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is exhausted from climbing and mousing, and has little appetite for her editorial duties.

Hili: Can we go to bed now?
A: We still have plenty of work to do.
Hili: So I will wait beside Cyrus until we’ve done the work.

P1030174

In Polish:
Hili: Czy możemy już pójść spać?
Ja: Mamy jeszcze mnóstwo pracy.
Hili: To ja poczekam koło Cyrusa aż to zrobimy.

Humans are so weird

August 5, 2015 • 3:30 pm

by Matthew Cobb

A Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy on theremins concealed inside Russian dolls. That’s it really. Eat your hearts out, space aliens – this is why we will control the universe.

Who/what/where/when: “Symphony No.9 and No.9 Boogie” by Matryomin ensemble “Da” (274 players) and Masaki Matsui (Piano) at Create Hamamatsu in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan on 20 July 2013.

h/t @jenlucpiquant

Mormons release photos of Joseph Smith’s magical “seer stones”

August 5, 2015 • 2:30 pm

Well, although the religious often say they don’t need empirical evidence to support their beliefs, they get really excited when such evidence turns up, and tout it widely. Here’s one case: according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Mormon church has released a photo of one of the “seer stones” (also called “peepstones”) used by church founder Joseph Smith to “translate” the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon.

The translation began in 1828, and, according to the Mormonism Research Ministry (which appears to be critical of the church), went like this:

Harris’ description [Martin Harris was one of the scribes who wrote down Smith’s “translation”] concurs with that of David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation. On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

This of course is dubious, since the plates were written in an unknown language, and nobody takes this as a serious manifestation of the divine save the Mormons themselves.

Be that as it may, here’s the Tribune’s pictures and explanation:

The LDS Church provided a new glimpse of its origins Tuesday by publishing the handwritten “printer’s manuscript” of the Book of Mormon and photos of the “seer stone,” a dark, egg-size polished rock founder Joseph Smith claimed to have used to produce the faith’s sacred scripture.

Both items are included in the just-released “Revelations and Translations: Volume 3,” the 11th publication in the groundbreaking Joseph Smith Papers Project, as part of an effort to be “more transparent” about Mormonism’s past, LDS Church Historian Steven E. Snow said at a news conference.

. . . Smith also used two bound stones — known as the Urim and Thummim — as “interpreters.”

But enough. You’re surely dying to see these items and the stone, so here are some pictures provided by the newspaper. Note that the stones themselves were not displayed, just the pictures and the transcript of the printer’s manuscript:

Screen shot 2015-08-05 at 2.17.26 PM

Screen shot 2015-08-05 at 2.21.42 PM

Screen shot 2015-08-05 at 2.20.56 PM

Presumably the stones are still in the Church’s custody, as color photographs didn’t exist when the manuscript was published. But of course examining them will prove nothing.

The whole story is of course fakery, although 12 witnesses, including Cowdery, signed affadavits testifying that they actually saw the golden plates. Note that this testimony, including identifiable witnesses, should be far more convincing than the simple testimonies of Jesus’s words and deeds given in the New Testament and lacking independent confirmation. But far more people find the words of the Bible more convincing than signed affadavits!

As we all know, the reason for this disparity is that the origin of Mormonism occurred in historical times, and thus is more easily debunked, as it has been, than the historical stories that gave birth to Christianity.

Ignorant celebrities lobby U.S. Congress against GMOs

August 5, 2015 • 11:30 am

One thing I despise: ignorant celebrities having undue influence on the conduct of American science and technology by virtue of their fame alone. Here’s a tw**t, with the meeting described below confirmed by the Washington Post (Blythe Danner is Paltrow’s mother):

Screen Shot 2015-08-05 at 9.28.53 AM

The movie stars will also lobby other legislators and then hold a press conference.

And, as the Post notes:

In an e-mail, [Claire] Parker offered a litany of Paltrow’s most famous quotes often trotted out as evidence of the “Iron Man” actress’s status as Not A Regular Human, including “I would rather die than let my kid eat Cup-a-Soup” and “I’d rather smoke crack than eat cheese from a tin.”

Seriously, she’d rather die than let her kids eat “Cup-a-Soup”? That’s one dumb woman, but of course Paltrow has been spouting woo, including “cleansing regimes” of the colon, for years.

Both Paltrow and actor/screenwriter Lena Dunham have made many statements in favor of putting warning labels on GMO foods, despite the lack of evidence that any GMO food poses a danger. Their statements have one aim: to get people to stop buying and eating genetically modified foodstuffs. Geneticist Layla Katairee of the Genetics Literacy Project addresses Dunham and Paltrow’s misapprehensions, making several good points:

To date, there is no solid research that has demonstrated that eating GMOs cause harm. I’ve read a few of the studies that are held up by anti-GMO activists as evidence of harm and the vast majority have been very poorly designed. Scientific organizations around the world have stated that GMOs pose no more of a risk than crops bred using other methods.

Many anti-GMO advocates fight for labeling based on the opinion that labeling is not about food safety: rather it is about their “right to know”. As I’ve followed this story, the editorial boards for major news publications across the country, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, have questioned the arguments behind “right to know” campaigns based on the fact that it simply does not offer any important information.

Labeling foods containing GMOs does not tell you if pesticides or herbicides were used. It does not tell you if fair-labor wages were paid. It does not tell you if the crop was produced by large agricultural companies. It does not tell you if the ingredients came from a large or small farm. Each one of these arguments applies to other forms of crop breeding: traditionally bred organic crops can be safely treated with pesticides, large farms that use seeds derived through mutagenesis can pay their workers poor wages, Monsanto produces seeds used by organic farmers, and GMOs can be grown in smaller family farms.

The diagram below shows that there are in fact at least six commonly used ways to genetically modify crops, but only one (“transgenesis”) bothers no-nothings like Dunham and Paltrow. Hybridization (“cross-breeding”) and polyploidy, for instance, are forms of genetic modification that has been pivotal in developing many of our foods, like wheat, as well as ornamental plants and animals. If you’re going to lobby for GMO labeling, then lobby for labeling based on wage fairness, farm size, or what pesticides were used.

Crop-Modification-Techniques-Vertical-HQ

Frankly, I’m tired of science being influenced by ignorant celebrities like Dunham and Paltrow, who have unwarranted influence on legislators only because they’re famous. I know at least as much about GMOs as either of these women, but I wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of meeting with legislators about it, much less holding a press conference. Paltrow (and Dunham) deserve severe criticism and mockery for what they’re trying to do. GMOs hold great promise for human welfare, as in golden rice, and Organic Gwyneth, in her ignorance, is impeding that progress. Catiraee has a suggestion for these women:

So, here’s my request. The two of you have been blessed with being in a position where you can impact a lot of people. Your voices are heard and the ridiculous paparazzi write about your every move. At the beginning of this article, I wrote that I was crest-fallen that you’d taken up this cause, and it’s because I really wish you had dedicated your valuable time and effort to something that could really change things in our society, like reducing gun-violence or getting more girls involved in STEM. But since it would be incredibly impertinent of me to decide what you do with your time, this is my request: I’d like to ask that you chat with a few respected scientists about this. Not me. Hellz no. I’m a human geneticist writing about this stuff as a hobby. Go to whatever respected university is closest to where you live, and chat with a professor of agronomy or plant genetics. And not somebody who is recommended by GMO-Free USA or Food Democracy Now. Ask a normal everyday specialist in crop breeding. Ask her what she feeds her family. Ask him if he’s worried about GMO labeling.

Life’s Greatest Secret shortlisted for book prize!

August 5, 2015 • 11:00 am

JAC: I am so pleased that Matthew’s book has gotten this honor. It’s a terrific read, especially if you have any interest in genetics or biology in general (and, if you visit here, you should). As I said in my cover blub on Life’s Greatest Secret, I see it as the logical successor to Jim Watson’s The Double Helix. Watson’s book recounts how DNA was identified as the molecule encoding hereditary information; Matthew’s book tells the much more complex story of how a larger group of scientists, working independently, figured out how DNA actually coded for proteins as well as regulating its own activity. It’s a great read, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed—a superstition, of course—that Matthew wins the prize, which is nicely accompanied by a check for £25,000. (He’s already received £2500 for making the shortlist, but of course the major reward here is the recognition.)

*******

by Matthew Cobb

A bit of trumpet-blowing: my book, Life’s Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack the Genetic Code (Profile Books in the UK, Basic Books in the US), bits of which got their first run-outs on this website, has just been shortlisted for the Royal Society Winton Science Book Prize!

This is a very big deal, and I am immensely proud of the recognition. Thanks to Jerry for reading various drafts, and to you, the readers of WEIT, for your stimulating comments on my posts.

There are five other books shortlisted – it’s a pretty tough field! Here are the spines of the shortlist:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/news/2015/Royal%20Society%20Winton%20Prize%20for%20Science%20Books%20Shortlist%20Stack.jpg

If you don’t recognise them, they are, in alphabetical author order:

• The Man Who Couldn’t Stop by David Adam

• Alex Through the Looking-Glass: How Life Reflects Numbers and Numbers Reflect Life by Alex Bellos

• Smashing Physics: Inside the World’s Biggest Experiment by Jon Butterworth

• Life’s Greatest Secret: The Story of the Race to Crack the Genetic Code by Matthew Cobb

• Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe Mcfadden and Professor Jim Al-Khalili

• Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet we Made by Gaia Vince

The science journalist Adam Rutherford is one of the judges, and he tw**ted back in the summer that the jury was like the Bloomsbury Group meets the Avengers… The jury is:

Chair of judges Professor Ian Stewart is a mathematician and Royal Society Fellow, also known for his Science of Discworld series which he co-wrote with Terry Pratchett and Jack Cohen. He is joined on the judging panel by Guardian Books Editor Claire Armitstead, Channel 4 lead anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Electronic Engineer and recipient of a Royal Society University Research Fellowship Dr Jo Shien Ng, science broadcaster and author Dr Adam Rutherford, and award-winning novelist Sarah Waters.

The winner will be announced on 24 September. We’ll keep you posted!

Prestigious doctor attributes antibiotic resistance to “development” rather than “evolution”

August 5, 2015 • 9:15 am

On the Public Broadcasting System news last night, reporter Gwen Ifill did a six-minute interview with Dr. Michael Bell, a deputy director at Atlanta’s renowned Center for Disease Control and an infectious disease specialist. The topic was antibiotic-resistant microbes. Bell clearly discussed the problem and origin of these resistant “superbugs”, but one aspect of his interview bothered me and my undergraduate advisor Bruce Grant. That was Bell’s use of the word “developing resistance” instead of “evolving resistance” (see his statements at 1:02, 2:28 and, a similar statement 4:36).

Now I’m not sure that this was a deliberate avoidance of the “e word”, but it’s clearly misleading to use the term “developing” resistance instead of “evolving resistance.” The former implies that organisms can somehow adapt physiologically to antibiotics. The latter, which is what really happens, is that some individual microbes have genes conferring resistance to antibiotics and those subpopulations leave more offspring than others, so that the population adapts genetically. Saying, as Bell does, that “the germs continue to develop new ways of getting around the antibiotics”, is thus ambiguous as well as misleading.

This distinction is important, for one of the big misconceptions about evolution is that it occurs by individuals changing physiologically rather than populations changing genetically. By using the term “development,” Bell avoids what I see as a valuable teaching moment—here we actually see evolution in action! But of course 40% of Americans adhere to young-earth creationism when it comes to human origins, though I suspect many of those might accept the notion of evolution in microbes. After all, that’s just “microevolution.” But it’s easier to avoid the whole issue by making antibiotic resistance seem similar to forming calluses on a well-used hand: a physiological response. (I recognize that the potential for forming calluses is based on evolved genes.)

I’m not sure if Bell’s avoidance of the term “evolution” is deliberate, but it is suspicious. Bruce, even more suspicious, sent me the following email (reproduced with permission):

I just watched a segment on PBS news about antibiotic resistance in superbugs. The expert was Dr. Michael Bell from the CDC. He was articulate and knew his subject well, no doubt. But he consistently used the word “developed” when he should have said “evolved.” He gave the impression that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a developmental process rather than a product of natural selection. I have seen/heard others do this again and again. In some cases the speaker/writer doesn’t know any better, but this guy surely does. I am wondering if this avoidance of using the word evolution is deliberate. Might people like Dr. Bell worry that if they dared use the word evolution then the government will cut their funding? Unlike f- and n-words, evolution doesn’t even get an “e”: it gets a “d” for development. Political correctness, I wonder?

PS. I’d bet that if an investigative reporter took the time to search office memos or emails at the CDC they’d find a policy directive warning their spokespeople to avoid using the e-word.

Well, watch the video and judge for yourself:

There may be some who approve of Bell avoiding the “e word,” for hearing that would, they’d argue, turn off creationists to his medical message. To those people I say: “Grow up.” The truth is the truth, and we can’t continually cater to religious sensibilities under the misguided notion that this will help get our message across more effectively.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

August 5, 2015 • 7:15 am

We have a curious fish today from reader Lou Jost in Ecuador, who seems to regularly encounter all things bizarre and beautiful:

If the earth’s land surfaces weren’t already full of vertebrates, you can bet this guy’s descendants would soon be everywhere! It has four muscular fins and it even has something like hairs on the front pair (see detail). It is an armored catfish (family Loricariidae) and was found on our Rio Anzu Reserve by Ernesto Rodriguez, who is doing a study of our fish. It lives in fast streams and uses its spines and suction-cup mouth to cling to rocks and go up rapids and waterfalls. Apparently it also uses that mouth to rasp algae from rocks.

These photos are not by me but by our reserve staff; Luis Recalde photographed the fish on the rocks and Juan Pablo Reyes photographed its underside.

DSC_4829

P1050286

Note the “hairy” outgrowths at the distal (outer) end of the front fin:

P1050286crop3

This fish can even maneuver on nearly vertical surfaces, as in this video I found on YouTube:

And just to placate the bird-lovers, we have a vociferous Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) from the intrepid Stephen Barnard:

Swainson's hawk