Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
It’s always fun when a new Simon’s Cat appears. In the latest animation, called “Nut Again” (is that a British expression?), the long-suffering moggie chases a squirrel but is ultimately defeated:
The Wikipedia entry on Simon’s cat is both comprehensive and hilarious (he’s the “titular character”!).
h/t: Michael
by Matthew Cobb
The US National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office (you could work on the title, folks!) reports that on Friday evening, shortly after sunset, their radar picked up some unusual signals in Wisconsin, near Milwaukee (insert beer joke here). Although some of these blobs may have been snow flurries, the Weather Service suggests that these are more likely to have been migrating birds. The site adds:
The loop below shows the local radar image from 4:53 pm through 5:41 pm. Notice, the strong returns that appear at 5:02 pm and how they spread out and diminish with time.
YouTube has this rather cool video showing
“nocturnal migrating birds, bats, and insects in the continental U.S. from sunset to sunrise Oct. 1, 2008. The blocky green, yellow, and red patterns, especially visible on the east coast, represent precipitation; but within an hour after sunset, radar picks up biological activity, as seen in the widening blue and green circles spreading from the east across the country. The birds, bats, and insects take off, fly past, and get sampled by the radar beam. Note, the black areas on the map do not represent places without birds, necessarily, but rather places where radar does not sample.”
If you want to understand the physics of it all, read this.
h/t @JacquelynGill on Twitter, who also tweeted: “A mass migration of birds is not unusual, as yesterday saw the cessation of southern winds that had made migration conditions unfavorable.”
I’m about to describe one of the worst examples of science journalism I’ve seen in ages. It is a lesson on how the popular press overblows interesting scientific findings into world-shaking discoveries.
miRNAs, or “microRNAs”, are small molecules of RNA, produced by the DNA, that have recently been discovered to play an important role in gene regulation, usually by binding to a “regulatory portion” of a gene and silencing that gene (i.e., preventing its expression).
A new paper in Nature Communications by Hai Yang Hu and others (some of them from the University of Edinburgh) report a new miRNA that is specific to the human lineage: it’s not present in our closest relative, chimpanzees, or in 10 other species. By looking for miRNAs specific to humans, their clear hope was to find genes important in “humanness”: those traits that set us off from other species.
And indeed they did find one, which is what their report is about. But the popular press has distorted this finding to an unbelievable length, claiming that this is THE gene responsible for “humanity,” the one moiety of DNA that is what makes us human.
First, what did Hu et al. find? Here’s the abstract of their paper:
MicroRNA-mediated gene regulation is important in many physiological processes. Here we explore the roles of a microRNA, miR-941, in human evolution. We find that miR-941 emerged de novo in the human lineage, between six and one million years ago, from an evolutionarily volatile tandem repeat sequence. Its copy-number remains polymorphic in humans and shows a trend for decreasing copy-number with migration out of Africa. Emergence of miR-941 was accompanied by accelerated loss of miR-941-binding sites, presumably to escape regulation. We further show that miR-941 is highly expressed in pluripotent cells, repressed upon differentiation and preferentially targets genes in hedgehog- and insulin-signalling pathways, thus suggesting roles in cellular differentiation. Human-specific effects of miR-941 regulation are detectable in the brain and affect genes involved in neurotransmitter signalling. Taken together, these results implicate miR-941 in human evolution, and provide an example of rapid regulatory evolution in the human linage.
So the facts are that this miRNA, miR-941, is not found in our closest relatives, but emerged in our genome between 6 and 1 million years ago—the period of human evolution. It is highly expressed in our brain compared to other miRNAs. Other analyses show that the early Denisovans had the gene, and modern human populations vary in copy number, with individuals having between 2 and 11 copies. Finally, the number of potential binding sites of this regulatory molecule has decreased in humans, which the authors suspect means that some of the binding sites that remain are important in humans (but not other species’) gene regulation. There’s one more interesting observation. As the authors note:
Another hint for the potential involvement of miR-941 and its host gene in neuronal functions comes from studies of a microdeletion in chr20 q13.33 chromosomal region containing pre-miR-941. Individuals containing this microdeletion display mental retardation, developmental delay, as well as speech and language defects.
True, but as the authors note, that “microdeleted region” contains a lot more genes than just miR-941:
Besides the pre-miR-941 cluster, the deleted region usually contains more than 20 protein-coding genes. Still, it remains possible that miR-941 might be responsible for or contribute to the disease phenotype.
“Remains possible”! Indeed, but it also remains possible that deletetion of any of the other 20-odd genes, or a combination of them, could also cause the syndrome. Indeed, I suspect that since the effects of the deletion include developmental delay and speech defects, more than one gene might be responsible. DNA sequencing of this region, and comparison to the sequences of chimps, would be most enlightening here.
The upshot: we have a human-specific molecule, miR-941, that regulates gene expression in our brains, and some of the genes it might have regulated have dropped out of the pathway. What does that mean? We don’t really know. We don’t know what the miRNA does; only that it does something in the human brain that it doesn’t do in the brains of other mammals. And when the region containing it and many other genes is deleted, we get humans with mental retardation, developmental problems, and speech defects. The authors engage in some speculation about the importance of this gene in human evolution, but are very careful to hedge their conclusions:
In conclusion, we show that the emergence and rapid expansion of miR-941 precursor sequence took place in the human evolutionary lineage between six and one million years ago, and was accompanied by an exceptional increase in miR-941 expression level. The emergence of miR-941 was accompanied by accelerated loss of its binding sites, presumably due to deleterious effects of miR-941-guided regulation. Functionally, miR-941 could be associated with hedgehog- and insulin-signaling pathways, and thus potentially has a role in the evolution of human longevity. Furthermore, human-specific effects of miR-941 regulation are detectable in the human brain and affect genes involved in neurotransmitter signaling. Deletion of the genomic region containing pre-miR-941 results in disruption of human-specific cognitive functions including language and speech. Taken together, the unusual features of miR-941 evolution, as well as its potential association with functions linked to human longevity and cognition, suggest roles of miR-941 in the evolution of human-specific phenotypes.
Note: their results “suggest roles of miR-941 in the evolution of human-specific phenotypes.”
So what does the “popular press” do with this finding? They conclude that miR-941 is THE ONE GENE that makes us human, and differentiates us from the other apes. In a breathless piece called, erroneously, “Scientists reveal single gene is the difference between humans and apes,” (there are of course many genetic differences between humans and other apes), the website Medical Daily claims that this is the Gene For Humanity. The Medical Daily report:
Now, researchers believe that they have found the definitive difference between humans and other primates, and they think that the difference all comes down to a single gene.
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland [JAC note: and other places, like China, which is where Hu works!] attribute the split of humanity from apes to the gene miR-941. They say that the gene played an integral role in human development and contributed to humans’ ability to use tools and learn languages.. .
Hu et al. do nothing of the sort. Read their paper (free at the link below)! Medical Daily continues with its litany of exaggeration and errors:
Humans share 96 percent of their genes with other primates. Of the 4 percent that humans alone have, a significant portion of it has been widely labeled “junk DNA”. Researchers have since [said] that “junk DNA” is functional, even though it does not code. This is the first time that a gene that humans and other primates do not share has been shown to actually have a specific function within the body.
First of all, not all “junk” DNA is functional. Larry Moran has written extensively about this on Sandwalk (e.g., here and here.) There is no basis for implying that all, or even most, junk DNA actually does something.
The claim that this is the first novel human gene that has a specific function may well be right (that conclusion is above my pay grade), since miR-941 does appear to regulate the insulin and “hedgehog” (a gene involved in development) pathway, but it may have many other functions that we don’t know. And there are other genes that are unique to humans and not other apes; we just don’t know their function yet. Those, too, can be “humanness” genes. I suspect, in the end, there will be dozens to hundreds of genes that explain our differences from other apes: genes involved in bipedality, loss of hair, delayed infant development, cognition, and so on. But that’s not what Medical Daily wants it readers to think: there must have been one gene:
The gene is highly active in the regions of the brain that control language learning and decision making, indicating that it may play a significant role in the higher brain functions that make humans, well, human.
It’s hard for me to believe that cognition and language all come down to the evolution of a single miRNA, and, indeed, the authors never make such a suggestion. That would imply that cognition and language arose relatively suddenly, during the period when the new miRNA arose and became “fixed” (i.e. spread to all humans). Yet our increase in brain size took place over several million years and, I think, our mental capacity increased apace.
This is an appallingly bad example of science journalism. It’s not the fault of the authors, who are careful with their suggstions. It’s the fault of Medical Daily, which wanted to make a big splash. Shame on them. In the end, miR-941 may play a role in the difference in cognition and speech between chimps and humans. But I’d bet thousands of dollars that it doesn’t play a huge role in that difference.
This all reminds me of the gene FOXP2, once also touted as the “humanness” gene because it evolved rapidly in the human lineage and mutations in the gene affect language ability. That gene, too, hasn’t panned out as a critical factor in the evolution of “humanness.” We differ from our closest relatives in many, many genes, and singling out one of them as a “humanness” gene is, and will always be, a mug’s game.
_________
Hu, H. Y. et al. 2012. Evolution of the human0-specific microRNA miR941. Nature Communications 3, Article number: 1145 doi:10.1038/ncomms2146
Nine days ago the cat-food maker Friskies held a “best cat video” award ceremony. Yahoo News reports the doings:
More than 1,400 videos were submitted to the Friskies awards this year. A panel of judges and online voters narrowed the selection to 12 finalists in four categories.
And to honor the finalists, Friskies brought out a roster of cat-world celebrities to entertain a live audience both in person and over the Web. The festivities included a professional ballet dancer and violinist performing an ode to the Nyan Cat, an a cappella choir performing all “meow” renditions of classic songs, the creator of the Henri Le Chat Noir videos and Animal Planet’s “Must Love Cats” host John Fulton singing acoustic cat songs that included lines such as, “The Internet was made for kittens, the Internet was made for cats and I don’t have a problem with that.”
And good stuff for kittehs:
Most important, Friskies announced it had donated 250,000 cans of cat food to 25 animal shelters across the country to help celebrate the awards show.
And the winner of the first-ever Friskies award was Mick Szydlowski for his video, “Oskar’s First Toys.” Oskar is a cat born without eyes, and Mick and his girlfriend, Bethany, captured video of the newborn cat playing with a toy ball.
Szydlowski received a year’s supply of cat food and a check for $15,000, which he says will be used to buy toys for Oskar and to help pay for their upcoming move from Omaha, Neb., to Seattle.
“It’s an incredible feeling,” Szydlowski told Yahoo News. “Cats deserve a show like this. And Oskar deserves some of the winnings, maybe all of the winnings.
“Oskar is completely blind, but he doesn’t let that slow him down one bit,” Szydlowski said. “He’s healthy, he’s happy, he does everything a regular cat would do.”
Szydlowski says he hopes all the attention his Oskar videos have received will help convince people that cats with disabilities can still make great pets. “A lot of people assume it’s a death sentence, which is not the case,” he said.
Here’s the winning video (note: lachrymose music),which makes me tear up a bit. It’s touching to see Oskar playing like a normal cat, and, never having had eyes, he won’t know what he’s missing. Kudos to his owners for adopting a blind cat.
Here are the other winners, none of which approach Oskar’s video or, for that matter any, Henri’s oeuvre.
Other “catuette” winners each received a year’s supply of Friskies and $2,500:
An alert, anonymous,and cat-owning female reader reports that this cartoon resonates deeply with her:
Oh dear. Uncle Karl Giberson, formerly of BioLogos, and someone I thought had long since stopped osculating the rump of creationism, is back again at PuffHo with a spirited defense of Americans’ right to be ignorant about evolution.
Four days ago Greg Mayer reported on the inanities of Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator from Florida who made the following creationist statement in an interview with GQ:
I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
There was strong pushback from writers, including Paul Krugman, Andrew Sullivan, and even conservative columnist Ross Douthat, who argued that identifying conservatism with anti-evolutionism is a losing strategy:
But the goal of Christianity is supposed to be the conversion of every human heart — yes, scientists and intellectuals included — and the central claim of Christianity is that the faith offers, not a particular political agenda or an economic program, but the true story of the world entire. The more Christians convince themselves that their faith’s core is identical withthe modern innovation of fundamentalism, and in direct conflict with the best available modern biology and geology, the less attainable that goal and the less tenable that central claim.
(I’ll ignore Douthat’s false claim that the idea of a young earth, or creationism as a Biblical claim that’s literally true, is a “modern innovation.” That’s just wrong, no matter how many times you cite—as does Douthat—St. Augustine on literalism.)
Enter “Uncle” Karl Giberson (who is about to lose his affectionate nickname)—the one person willing to defend Rubio’s ignorance. In a piece at PuffHo, “Marco Rubio’s geological cliff,” Giberson excuses Rubio’s ignorance and then blames it on—wait for it—us atheists!
He first claims that Rubio is honestly ignorant rather than wilfully or deceptively so:
We need to step back and ask how these “controversies” might be adjudicated by conservative religious people who are not members of the scientific community — people like Rubio. What does evolution, the Big Bang and the age of the earth look like to lay people who are not investigating such questions from a scholarly perspective?
(I am giving Rubio the benefit of the doubt here about his honesty. I have no reason to believe he was lying to GQ in the interview. In fact, what little I know about Rubio suggests that speaking truthfully is probably important to him, although not without its political challenges.)
I wouldn’t be as charitable as Karl. Is there any intelligent person out there who doesn’t know the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, and that it’s about 4.6 billion years old? If there is such a person, then he’s either lying about the issue or, if genuinely ignorant, is too ignorant to hold an important elected office. It’s not hard in this day and age to find out how old is the planet on which we stand.
But then Karl goes on to show how easy it is for intelligent people to believe in a young earth. All you have to do is listen to what religion says, and simply stop your ears and go “nah-nah-nah-nah” when science speaks:
For starters, it is simply not true that “all educated people accept evolution, the Big Bang, and the great age of the earth,” and only ignoramuses think otherwise. Groups like Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research aggressively market the impressive academic credentials of their staff scientists. The Discovery Institute has compiled a list of hundreds of scientists with Ph.D.s who “dissent from Darwin.” Answers in Genesis has a former college biology professor on staff and publishes a “peer reviewed” journal. One of America’s best-known anti-evolutionists is tenured in biochemistry at Lehigh University. There are entire universities — Liberty, Bob Jones, Patrick Henry, Cedarville — where faculty sign faith statements rejecting evolution.
Correction: I believe Michael Behe of Lehigh University, as do most of the Discovery Institute people, accept that the earth is old. But Karl continues:
Answers in Genesis spends $20 million a year assuring conservative Christians that evolution, with its ancient earth, is a decaying fossil of a theory, that scientists are abandoning it, and that the evidence is clearly on the side of the biblical story of creation. They also argue that evolution and an ancient earth contradict Christian beliefs and undermine the authority of the Bible.
This is what people like Rubio are likely to hear in their churches, read in their Christian literature, learn in their Christian schools, consume in their Christian media.
Well what the hell do they hear in their science classes, or on television or in the newspapers? Do they limit their education to the “Christian media”? If so, then then have no right to hold elected office—indeed, to be considered “educated people” at all! Karl, what are you thinking: that an “educated” person can be called such if he listens only to religious authorities?
But of course this is not the fault of those religious people who lie about the age of the earth, or their minions who choose not to learn about what science tells us. No, it’s those bloody atheists who turn Christians off to science!:
But suppose that Rubio decided to pursue these questions in more detail and, not knowing any actual geologists, went to a well-stocked bookstore and purchased a cross section of popular science books explaining evolution, the Big Bang, and the age of the earth. In all likelihood the authors of these books would be some of America’s most vocal and anti-religious atheists — Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Vic Stenger. And the books would argue with a suspicious passion that belief in God must be rejected if one is to take science seriously. Some of the books would have titles like “God: The Failed Hypothesis. “
This is bullshit. There is nowhere in WEIT, for instance, that I say that belief in God must be rejected if science is to be taken seriously. Elsewhere, but not in my book, I’ve argued that belief in a theistic God and science creates cognitive dissonance, but what Karl says about WEIT is simply a lie, and I call on him to retract that claim.
And doesn’t Giberson know that there are plenty of straight science books, or books by accommodationists like Ken Miller (a Catholic) or even Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian), that accept both evolution and an old earth?
Finally, Giberson loses all claim to the title “Uncle” by telling this whopper:
Even a diligent search would turn up but a few books explaining how contemporary scientific ideas can be understood within the framework of traditional Christianity.
That is about the biggest falsehood I’ve ever heard come out of Karl’s mouth. For every book by someone like Stenger claiming an incompatibility between science and faith, there are at least two dozen showing how faith and science are compatible. Here are some of their authors: John Polkinghorne, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Ian Barbour, John Haught, Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Nicholas Humphrey, and so on and so on and so on. Believe me: I’ve perused the shelves of the University of Chicago Library for “science and religion” books, and the vast majority are acommodationist ones. And I’ve read all of the authors cited above. Books claiming incompatibility of the two areas are very thin on the ground.
Karl, you must retract your entire column or you will no longer be called “Uncle.” That was a very bad piece of journalism, full of misrepresentations—deliberate or otherwise. And you should be ashamed, after all your work trying to convince Christians to accept evolution, that you now excuse the ignorance of those Christians, blame it on atheists, and argue that there aren’t many books reconciling faith and science. All of those claims are, pure and simple, falsehoods. You should know better.
h/t: Doc Bill and Kink
I’m always astonished by the number of people who misunderstand what the First Amendment really means about religion (and how the courts have subsequently interpreted it) and are ignorant about the history of how that amendment came about. It’s as if that Jefferson, Madison, et al. (granted, many of them deists) didn’t really mean to keep religion out of government, but rather to put it in. Those same people always mention that our country was founded on Christian principles (false: it was on Enlightenment principles), and that the First Amendment wasn’t in the least intended to erect a wall between churches and the U.S. government.
In a post on Santa Monica banning nativity scenes, I replied to a commenter who said something along the lines above, and I responded:
Yeah, so should we put up nativity scenes on public land? Is it okay to put Christian slogans in schools?
Yes, we can mention those religious traditions, but NOT IN PUBLIC VENUES, or if they’re part of a comparative religion class.
This stuff about us being a “Christian nation” is not only untrue (the founding fathers wanted to deliberately un-Christianize it), but makes me ill.
Well, happy Thanksgiving to me, for a commenter (who names himself) tried yesterday to publish the following. Needless to say, his name-calling has prevented him from ever commenting here again, but I put this up to show the abysmal ignorance of Americans about their own Constitution—and their own history:
raymond mollica commented on Victory for first amendment: judge rules that Santa Monica can ban nativity scenes
Sorry to hear you are ill. Maybe its because you are stupid. The founding fathers did not want to un-christianize this country. They didn’t want one religious denomination to be the official religion of the land because the church of england was the official religion of england and others couldn’t worship the way they wanted to. If you read about the writing of the constitution and the founding fathers you will see there is alot about religion in it and why the first amendment is about religion. Someone with so little knowledge of this country should not be commenting on it’s founding.
The comment discredits itself. If you don’t know why, read this.
Mollica tried two other posts, both equally insuting and neither worthy of mention, but one makes this statement:
There are alot of dumb people on these posts. First of all there is nothing in the constitution that says you cannot make a religious statement on government property
Mollica apparently doesn’t know that it’s the job of the Supreme Court to determine which laws violate the Constitution, and the Court has deemed that, with very few exceptions, placing religious statements on government property is unconstitutional.
Finally, I can’t resist something that seems endemic in every benighted person like Mollica (whoever he is): they can’t make the distinction between “its” and “it’s”. The population of creationists, for instance, is highly enriched with people who make this error.
You were expecting biology while I’m on a trip? Sorry, but you get food, beer and football for another week.
Yes, I didn’t call it “soccer” this time because some nit-pickers (who always begin their posts by saying, “I don’t mean to nitpick but . . . “), would patiently explain to me that I must call it football. But I digress. On October 30 our resident football expert, Seamus Malin, named Lionel Messi the best football player of all time. This is no snap judgement: Seamus broadcast football for 40 years, and has seen all the greats of our era.
As reported by the New York Times, and as most of you football buffs know, Lionel Messi of Barcelona is closing in on a long-standing record:
With two controlled swings of the deadliest left foot in soccer, Lionel Messi moved two steps closer to breaking a 40-year-old goal-scoring record that, until recently, looked as if it would not be challenged.
Messi’s contributions not only helped Barcelona maintain its unbeaten start to the Spanish league season — his two goals setting up Saturday’s 3-1 victory over Real Zaragoza — but also propelled him to within seven goals of matching Gerd Müller’s world record for goals in a calendar year.
Müller, the great striker who won a World Cup, European Championship and four West German titles during his career with West Germany and Bayern Munich, scored 85 goals in 1972. Messi, with a maximum of eight matches left in 2012, has 78.
Remember, too, that Messi is only 25 years old! The Times ponders whether Müller’s record might be stronger, given that he played in fewer games, but such comparisons are subjective at best.
Despite his lack of bulk, the 5-foot-7 Messi bullies defenders with his grace and unrivaled close control of the ball, which at times make it appear as if the ball is glued to Messi’s feet. By contrast, Müller was a squat and powerful 5-9.
The cleverness of Messi’s play is matched by a lethal accuracy in front of goal; Messi, who scored only one goal in his first 14 games for Barcelona, now regularly shatters scoring records.
In addition to his five Spanish championships, three Champions Leagues titles and numerous individual awards, Messi has already smashed Müller’s record of 67 goals in a single European season — scoring 73 times during the 2011-12 season. He is also Barcelona’s career scoring leader.
Barcelona Coach Tito Vilanova recently said of Messi: “His goal tally is spectacular. It takes other great players seven or eight seasons to score the amount of goals he scores in one season.”
But for all the records, there is one left to break. With eight more goals in his final eight games, Messi can achieve perhaps the ultimate goal-scoring feat.
Let’s forget about the comparison and just see some of their highlights: it’s a traditional American custom to watch sports after Thanksgiving dinner.
Lionel Messi (the goal beginning at 7:40 is unbelievable, reminiscent of Maradona’s second goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarter-final):