Unexpected Results
by BradfordMany of you are probably already familiar with the story referenced by the linked article Mendel Upended which tells of an unexpected find having potentially enormous implications for inheritance concepts. Researchers Susan Lolle and Robert Pruitt encountered phenotypic traits not according with inheritance concepts derived from Mendel; leading them to contemplate whether the plants they were working with might revert to their grandparents' allelic frequency. As the article indicates there are plenty of doubters one of whom believes that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." Apparently adaquate evidence is not enough. This notable quote from another researcher:
"The evidence for some kind of massive programmed rearrangement upon environmental induction in flax is unequivocal," he writes, "but inheritance of acquired changes has been an anathema to evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin's time."
Speculating about mechanisms is part of the fun. So is the possibility of upending apple carts.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Nice article. It reminds me that I need to blog about soft-wiring with RNA.
Comment by MikeGene — February 27, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I sure wish they explained more about how they ruled out this seemingly mundane explanation. Pollen contamination would certainly be the most obvious way of correcting a mutation like this, its a big part of why things sexually reproduce after all. The comments from Virginia Walbot asking why other researchers haven't seen this certainly raise legitimate doubts, but Steve Jacobsen's conflicting results are even more damaging to this idea.
Regardless, the notion that some sort of multi-generational RNA cache can inject itself back into the DNA sequence would be a powerful new evolutionary mechanism. Even the other alternate explanations offered are fascinating possibilities. The more tools in evolution's toolbox the easier it is for evolution to explain the massive diversity we see in life.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 1:19 am
February 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Evolutionary theory needs to generalize, to include non-Mendelian modes of inheritance. What was once regarded as the signal achievement of the Neo-Darwinian theorists, the formal synthesis of Darwin and Mendel (combining the worst of Darwin and the worst of Mendel), now looks like a significant theoretical shortcoming.
Comment by Rock — February 28, 2008 @ 11:27 am
February 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Why does Jacobsen think that he gets to be so dismissive? Who is acting like the real scientist here? Jacobsen shows the same kind of dismissive attitude that the scientific community shows to all issues of intelligent design.
Comment by bFast — February 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Non-Mendelian modes of inheritance are already incorporated into evolutionary models (e.g. epigenetics).
Comment by hrun — February 28, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Rock:
No it doesn't, Rock! Why, just look at how easily the True Believers right there in working biology can make up a just-so story to explain away the 10-40% reversion rate Lolle and colleagues have measured thus far (the 40% occurring in isolated plants), then flippantly claim no further research need be done. Case closed.
Makes me wonder once again what the initiation rites for this NDS cult involve. Often I suspect some version of lobotomy.
bFast:
Because He R a Sci-guy and Lolle and all her colleagues are not as important as he R! Don't ask that question again or you'll get kicked out of the cult.
hrun:
This isn't epigenetics unless epigenetics has a write-to-genome function. The original findings were discussed here long ago and brought up a few times, but I can't find them in a search. Oh, well. This is a direct write-back function of some sort, possibly involving ancestral RNA as the rewrite template. The genes change. Not expression, not post-translation modification. The parent plants do not have the ancestral genes. Somehow, the reverted offspring do. Lolle and Co. have done the DNA looking, Jacobsen and other nay-sayers have not.
Do you believe their obviously biased opinions about the sanctity of NDS override the actual research? If so, why? Do some sheepskins automatically outweigh others in the same field?
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Joy:
Get your facts straight for a change.
The explanation of Lolle et al for their observations is also a "just-so story" because they haven't actually identified any mechanism. So far the hypothetical cache of ancestral RNA hasn't been found. Yet you call alternative hypotheses just-so-stories.
The 40% that you quote hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Who "flippantly claimed" that no further research need be done?
Don't you think that experiments should be repeated by other labs, especially if they yield controversial results? Ever heard of cold fusion?
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Raevmo:
Read the linked material for a change.
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Joy:
I did. Respond to questions for a change.
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Raevmo, "Who "flippantly claimed" that no further research need be done?"
Jacobsen did — see my post above. "saying only that his group stopped studying it since they determined that outcrossing was at the root of the phenomenon."
Comment by bFast — February 28, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
The burden is on Lolle to prove there is something worth investigating here. Keep in mind that science is supposed to be highly skeptical of everything (especially their own work). Jacobsen tried to reproduce the results and failed thus concluding his research in this area. He's not claiming that Lolle or others shouldn't continue their work.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
bFast, what Todd said. Jacobson was speaking for himself.
I'm sure others will try to repeat the experiments. Lolle might well be onto something, and that would be great, but I'll reserve judgment until more independent experiments have been done.
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
And, indeed, Jacobsen took the research seriously enough to try and duplicate the results. The next step would be for Lolle to take Jacobsen's objections just as seriously and find a way to eliminate that possible source of error. Often, the best way to do that is to find a completely independent way to test the hypothesis, such as by determining the exact mechanism.
It's important to remember that peer review is just the first step in the scientific conversation. Everything must ultimately be verified against repeatable observations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
If we recall the dialog, Lolle contacted Jacobsen to get details of his findings, and she was, well blown off. Lolle is obviously carefully continuing the process of scientific exploration. However, Jacobsen demonstrates a dismissiveness that seems to be common within the scientific community. Further, the fact that a respected scientist has "found nothing here", is likely to make it harder for Lolle to publish her next stage of research. Does she (or her piers) need to seek a mechanism? Absolutely. Does she need to find a mechanism to validate her general findings? Nope. Does she need to rule out Jacobsen's alterantive — absolutely. Does it help her in her exploration of the matter when Jacobsen will not detail his methodology when he found alternative data? Oh, of course it does. That's why he chose this path.
Comment by bFast — February 28, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Joy, I didn't claim that this is epigenetics. I merely refuted Rock's implied assertion that modern synthesis fails to include non-Mendelian modes of inheritance.
Who says anything about anything overriding actual research. Is any research being suppressed on this topic. As far as I know there are three independent groups studying the phenomena and attempting to confirm it, while at the same time testing if pollen contamination could be an explanation for the observations.
Furthermore, the fact that the results (and the subsequent discussions) were published in one of biology's most prominent journals again squashes this notion that the scientific community is trying to suppress anything.
Ask Lolle if she is being suppressed in her research. Ask anybody if they are prevented from studying it. If it is confirmed that this is a novel mechanisms loads of labs will study it happily. If it is confirmed that pollen contamination is the cause, then science has done its job yet again.
Comment by hrun — February 28, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Jacobson ran experiments to test if outcrossing was at the root of the phenomena. He came to the conclusion that it was. Should he continue studying the phenomena? Is Jacobson keeping anybody else from studying it?
Comment by hrun — February 28, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Jacobsen took Lolle's contention seriously enough to test it and then publish. But he didn't continue the study when he thought he had enough data.
When Jacobsen published, Lolle was given an opportunity to publish a response"”which she did. Again, this is normal scientific discourse. When she finishes her followup study, it will almost certainly be published.
No, but it would add considerable support, and eliminate many sources of error. However, she has decided to go with larger numbers and more careful controls instead.
My guess is that Jacobsen thought it would be a fruitless endeavor to pursue it further. He could be wrong, but it's very doubtful he is attempting to stymie Lolle's research.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I would have guessed that whatever graduate student actually did the real work obtained his PhD and thus Jacobsen no longer wants to pursue this research ;). There seems to be some sort of assumption among the "science-is-flawed" camp that researchers are required to dedicate their entire life to any experiment they choose to run.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
My book review of Mike Gene's "The Design Matrix" is now posted on Amazon. Look for "The Middle Way."
Comment by Stephen — February 28, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
hrun:
Stop it, hrun. Don't be putting words in my mouth so you can tilt at scarecrows. I said nothing about "suppressed." Neither did anyone else. bFast mentioned "dismissed." Obviously, this is exactly what Jacobsen did and is doing, and doesn't mind being public about it.
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 12:25 am
In the midst of much uncertainty one thing seems like a sure bet. At some point in the not too distant future there will be a resolution identifying responsible mechanisms. At that point shifts in perspectives will occur. New data will be incorporated into existing frameworks whose supporters will remain entrenched in their views.
Comment by Bradford — February 29, 2008 @ 12:25 am
February 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
So what do you mean when you talk about the "sanctity of NDS overrid[ing] the actual research" Or what does bfast mean when he talks about the comments making it hard for Lolle to publish?
Or what could you possibly have meant by "Because He R a Sci-guy and Lolle and all her colleagues are not as important as he R! Don't ask that question again or you'll get kicked out of the cult."
Or why would you write something like "Makes me wonder once again what the initiation rites for this NDS cult involve. Often I suspect some version of lobotomy."
It sure sounds to me like you believe that parts of science are a cult- a cult that Lolle is not a part of, but Jacobsen (a well established scientist) is. And it seems like you believe that even asking certain questions gets you kicked out of this cult of established science.
So, you are right. Nobody used the word "suppressed". Somebody just said things about lobotomies, getting kicked out for asking questions, opinions overriding research, and research being difficult to publish due to the actions of established scientists.
In the end, I really don't understand what all the hubbub is about. THe research is being published in some of biologies most eminent journals. Multiple research groups are trying to replicate and confirm the experiments. THere is a lively debate going on about the research. It seems reminiscent of so many past events.
Somebody makes a remarkable discovery. The established scientific community is skeptical. Lots of experiments are done to replicate and confirm the results. Sometimes the results are confirmed and Nobel Prizes are awarded one or two decades later. Sometimes the results are not confirmed and the experiments land on the scrap heap of history.
Comment by hrun — February 29, 2008 @ 1:29 am
February 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am
hrun:
It appears to me - a non-biologist - that the NDS die-hards indeed do have a cult-like mindset. It's the very one that less brainwashed researchers announce they're challenging per the various "dogmas" and "tenets" belonging to that cult "orthodoxy." These are the words most often used whenever research findings are published for work that doesn't support NDS orthodoxy, and more often of late contradicts its predictions directly.
I did not invent the designations "orthodoxy," "central dogma" or "tenets" of the faith. I just read the science news and occasional abstracts and papers using these terms in their issue of challenge. And before you or one of your teammates tries to assert that I cannot criticize because I am not a biologist, until biology manages to get exempted from public reporting, no one cult in the fields can legitimately claim the authority to dictate what I must think about any of it.
As for "kicked out" of the cult, I am more inclined to believe there are many working biologists who were never initiated in the first place, and don't much care about its dogma or tenets.
What I said was that "True Believers" [in the orthodoxy] "flippantly claim no further research need be done." Which is precisely what Jacobsen did. Indicating to me that he believes himself to be more of an authority on the issue at hand than the equally-credentialled biologists who did the original work and are continuing along further avenues of approach despite his opinion.
Nowhere did I say that the research is "difficult to publish," since it obviously WAS published and the more in-depth research will likely be published as well - no matter what Jacobsen thinks. This informs us that his 'orthodox' opinion does not hold censorial sway in biology.
The public is quite used to such displays - they characterize True Believers-in whatever rigidly defined faith is at issue today. Politics and religion most often, obviously science as well. "Scientific consensus" is not nearly as unanimous as some here would like us believe. Even better, the defenders of the establishment faith cannot silence dissent in the ranks (though they're ever-willing to try hard). That's heartening.
Comment by Joy — February 29, 2008 @ 10:28 am
February 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ideology is a better term.
Which reminds me of some Russians and Ukrainians I used to work with. They all grew up under communism, which by just about anyone's estimate was a pretty strongly ideologically based system. There were not many "dissenters" prior to the "fall" of the Soviet empire. It could get you in trouble in various ways. But as soon as the "fall" occured, there was quite a lot of "dissent", in the form of many scientists and engineers fleeing their homelands for greener pastures. They dissented with their feet. My Russian and Ukrainian friends love the USA, and particularly south Florida where they reside and work.
Moral of the story, never assume there are not a lot of quiet dissenters in the ranks of biology. I know a few myself. They keep their mouths shut.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 29, 2008 @ 10:40 am
February 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Where skeptical observation and discussion are suppressed, the truth is hidden. The proponents of such borderline beliefs, when criticized, often point to geniuses of the past who were ridiculed. But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
"” Carl Sagan
Comment by Zachriel — February 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am
February 29th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I hate to be the dude to get people off topic, but I read a comment by Mike Gene to Thought Provoker which raised a good question in my mind, that maybe Mike Gene or one of you could give me some insight on.
As I was reading The Design Matrix (still not quite done), I wondered why I haven't heard some of these arguments before. Mike Gene even said in the other post "If I didn't write this book, who would?" That is a good question, why is it that these ideas of front loading evolution have recently been brought up? Has there been no scientists who have taken a stand for this issue? My super athiest friends even found the arguments enlightening.
I have noticed that Mike Gene provided a few quotes from Ken Miller, what do you guys think his view would be over this? I know he is totally against ID, however from the quotes Mike Gene provided made me wonder what Ken Miller would say about it. For example, I even remember reading from "Finding Darwins God" Miller a statement something to the effect of "Evolution was onced used as an argument for the existance of a God, that shows his creative nature on how he does things". Sounds to me not too far off of the points Mike Gene made in his book. What do you guys think? I know its easy to access his email online (its easy to find nearly any college professor), should anyone write him and prompt him to read the book and give his 2 cents? It would be pretty cool to pick up a copy of The Design Matrix, and see a positive review from Ken Miller on the back cover!
Comment by gore — February 29, 2008 @ 11:20 am
February 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
The very fact that you think there is a cult that some are initiated into, possibly by getting lobotomies, shows your bias.
So you say that trying to repeat the experiment, publishing the results in a science journal and then deciding to not further study the issue adequately described as a flippant claim?
And what do you think should Jacobson have done after he tried to repeat the experiment and did not reach the same result as Lolle? Should he encourage others to continue studying the issue? In his opinion, based on his experiments, there really IS no need to perform further research. He is not making this claim on his authority, but based on the results of his research.
I clearly said in my post the bfast talked about her research now becoming more difficult to publish.
But it just too funny, that you maintain to call this stuff 'orthodox opinion', 'dogma', 'cult' … and so forth. But at the same time, the research counter to that 'dogma', 'cult' or 'orthodoxy' gets published in a high impact journal — which supposedly is controlled (through peer review) by those very same cultiststs — and the research gets discussed and repeated by the cultists.
And there it is again: you are impugning that there are some cultists that are TRYING HARD to silence dissent. Dissent in this context can only mean research/results on specific topics in biological sciences. And yet, you get outraged when I characterize this as claiming that research is being suppressed.
Joy, why don't you spell out for us what you mean by: the establishment trying hard to SILENCE DISSENT in the ranks?
Comment by hrun — February 29, 2008 @ 11:27 am
February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Joy:
Who is claiming the authority to dictate your thoughts?
He did not. Several commenters have already exposed this falsehood.
I'm glad you came to your senses.
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 11:29 am
February 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
gore:
Hi, gore. I don't know how 'new' or 'revolutionary' front-loaded evolution may be out there in working biology-land. Seems to me the evidence is very recent, coming with investigations of recently-identified "toolbox" genes and even more recent discoveries that they are present in the most 'primitive' of unicellular organisms. We have not long had the technology to "look harder" (as Rafiki would say) at the details of genes and genomes. Pretty much a 21st century project, and we're not yet a decade into it.
Yet we have seen the NDS 'orthodoxy' have to back off several of its tenets in recent years, and its central dogma has been under challenge for quite awhile too. You will find, depending on what questions you ask, that defenders of the orthodoxy will jump between asserting NDS pablum [RM-NS] and calling their paradigm "Modern Evolutionary Theory" that embraces all sorts of previously frowned-upon sub-theories. Evo-Devo, Punk-Eek, Neo-Lamarckism, RNA and histone 'codes', epigenetics, etc., etc., etc.
As for front-loading itself, I don't think it offers any great solace for either religion or atheism. Seems fairly neutral to me, just another way of looking at the phenomenon of evolution. Unhindered by the rigid formulaic simplicities enshrined by the Neodarwinian Synthesis. It's clear that biology doesn't have the Final Absolute Answer about life and evolution, and didn't have it in 1859 either. If that were true biology would be a done deal and nothing of it would remain apart from its several useful application technologies.
But front-loading can possibly eliminate the long established misuse of NDS as an atheist weapon against religions and religious beliefs. NDS wasn't neutral on the subject, evidenced graphically by the [anti]theistic arguments found throughout most biology textbooks until they were purged in the last few years. Further evidenced by the books of Richard Dawkins, the polemical blog of PZ Myers, and the very existence of evangelistic atheism using evolutionary biology as some sort of 'scientific proof' that deities do not exist.
Mike will probably give you his personal opinion when he has time. This is just how I happen to see it. §;o)
Great Tag:
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons… for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup.
Comment by Joy — February 29, 2008 @ 11:46 am
February 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Just want to point this out: (from the article)
For Jacobsen to attribute the genetic reversions to outcrossing despite the fact that Lolle's experiment produced results that can't be explained by outcrossing is at best flippant and dismissive, and at worst, shoddy science.
He should have simply said that his lab was unable to replicate the experiment.
Comment by chunkdz — February 29, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Joy:
Joy:
It's just amazing: Its a close-minded cult, with lobotomized automatons trying hard to defend orthodoxy that nonetheless embraces all sorts of previously frowned-upon sub-theories.
Comment by hrun — February 29, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
chunkdz:
If you want to call it that, I have no problem with that. There's plenty of animosity among competing scientists. This could be such a case.
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
hrun:
Not so amazing. Merely convenient. Just like the recent push to "reclaim" design terminology from those who suspect design. Once you claim that "evolution *is* design" you've nothing to argue about. So why do we still see the same old same arguments from the same old same ideologically invested nay-sayers?
I predicted years ago that science would end up embracing an EAM-ish version of telic design. I am not surprised that it is beginning to do so in spite of orthodox resistance. Science may be able to stop the rust that threatens its foundation before that foundation collapses of sheer weight of corruption. That would be a positive development IMO.
Comment by Joy — February 29, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Heh. It's not amazing that a cult is closed-minded, yet embraces sub-theories that were previously frowned upon. How is embracing these sub-theories consistent with a closed-minded cult?
??? Where is science embracing EAM-ish versions of telic designs. I fear you have to wait a little longer for that prediction to come true.
Comment by hrun — February 29, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Joy:
I'm sure it's a brilliant prediction, but what is EAM?
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
hrun:
Raevmo:
As explained innumerable times previously, EAM is Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis - the organism directly responding to environmental conditions (selective pressure) by altering its own internal systems - gene expression, and in some cases, genes themselves - for the teleological purpose of fulfilling the Prime Directive - survive and reproduce. This may include rejecting new mutations in favor of older, more reliable genes (allowing adaptability and experimentation, reversion if a development doesn't work). There's a write function in the loop as well as a 'disable' function.
As for "EAM-ish versions of telic design," here's a press timeline on just this particular "controversy"…
Plants Defy Mendel's Inheritance Laws, May Prompt Textbook Changes March 23, 2005
Reappearance of Missing Genetic Information Poses Exception to the Rule March 28, 2005
Charting Ever-changing Genomes July 23, 2007
One Species, Many Genomes July 23, 2007
Comment by Joy — February 29, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Raevmo,
I didn't say that. Dismissiveness is just as easily attributable to smug self righteousness as it is to animosity.
Who can tell what motivated Jacobsen's irrational conclusion? Not me.
Comment by chunkdz — February 29, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I suspect your questions could be encompassed within an even broader one which would ask what prompts some individuals to perceive new ways of looking at things? Mike's FLE concept is one of a long line of conceptual innovations that have occurred throughout history. My own view is that a certain analytical bent is wed to a flexibility of thinking allowing for the questioning of accepted norms. Thomas Edison attributed his inventions to 98% inspiration and 2% perspiration. He did not mention adherence to conventions.
As for Miller, why don't you drop him a line? If he responds (he probably will to a reasoned, respectful message) then report back to us.
Comment by Bradford — February 29, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The "classical" Neo-Darwinian argument against epigenetics is stated succinctly by George Williams in "Natural Selection," (1966?).
Inspired by the creationist George Price's wrestlings with the problem of Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, Hamilton attempted to explain evolution occurring in an environment (at least partially) consisting of genes, all related.
Williams dissents. Hamilton has won the argument. The theoretical argument was decided more than forty years ago!
So where, hrun, is the theoretical synthesis?!
Where is the "epigenetic" theory?
(Btw, It's not clear that the reversion is non-Mendelian. Other than it is highly unexpected. Evolution is supposed to be effectively irreversible.)
Comment by Rock — February 29, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
And "improbable"! LOL
Comment by Rock — February 29, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Rock:
What nonsense. George Price became religious after his work on what is now known as the Price Equation (aka Price-Li-Robertson equation, since Li and Robertson discovered the same result independently before Price). After getting religion, he gave away all his earthly possessions and committed suicide. I guess he wanted to meet his maker real bad. Hamilton used Price' framework to further develop his theory of kin selection and more general hierarchical selection models (including group selection).
Of course, all this has nothing to do with epigenetics. Check out Mary-Jane West-Eberhard's book for a modern evolutionary treatise, including epigenetics and what have you. But if you're looking for a "unified theory" that encompasses all, you'll be looking in vain.
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
You've got it backwards, Bradford.
He is saying that it - a worthwhile need to be met - takes hard work, not self-satisfied scoffing from your arm chair.
Except for moths, right Joy?
Why is it highly questionable that moths would recognize their environmental conditions, and why don't they have the ability to change their gene expressions?
Comment by JAllen — February 29, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
So… Raevmo and hrun, let's back up a moment to ask a couple of questions.
1. Do you accept that Lolle's original findings deserved space in Nature?
2. Will her current work (and methodology) deserve space in Nature if her results support the original findings (or stronger, given that now they're measuring 40% reversions in some cases instead of just 10%)?
I ask, because Lolle is very clear in the OP's linked article about why she has to refute Jacobsen's dismissal before seeking mechanism -
Comment by Joy — February 29, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Joy:
Absolutely.
No. The novelty has worn off a bit by now. Nature probably wouldn't be interested in publishing a replication. But it would certainly be publishable in a very good journal (e.g. PNAS, Current Biology, PLOS).
Justified doubts will remain until another lab manages to replicate her results. Remember Pons & Fleischmann?
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
1) yes
2) yes
You misread the article. Lolle did not state that she HAS to refute Jacobsen before going after a mechanism. Lolle stated that a sizeable portion of the reversions are not due to outcrossing, and she wants to find out what that portion is.
The article merely states that she studied how much outcrossing occurs. It does not state the reasoning of WHY Lolle is doing this. It is merely your interpretation.
If Lolle would have found an actual mechanism for the reversion (for example an RNA cache) she could have easily published this, rather than a study on what percentage of the reversions is caused by outcrossing.
Comment by hrun — February 29, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I had the inspiration/perspiration reversed and Edison was indeed a hard worker. So are most IDists. I derive no satisfaction from watching misplaced and exaggerated claims about life's origins. If there is any scoffing it is justified by the difference between results and the faith based claims of OOL adherents.
Comment by Bradford — February 29, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Bradford:
That's hilarious. How do you know most IDists are hard workers?
Hey, I figured out the code for Bradford's brain:
char WhatToSayWhenCornered (char YourWrongBradford)
{
Ignore(YourWrongBradford);
return "OOL";
}
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I had the inspiration/perspiration reversed and Edison was indeed a hard worker. So are most IDists.
I know some of them. How do you know most Darwinoids are hard workers? Takes a lot of energy to repeat cliches right?
I derive no satisfaction from watching misplaced and exaggerated claims about life's origins. If there is any scoffing it is justified by the difference between results and the faith based claims of OOL adherents.
Yeah, the inspiration/perspiration thing was a grave error.:roll: When I mention OOL why not prove me wrong by practicing some of that well honed Darwinian faith?
Comment by Bradford — February 29, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Bradford:
I didn't know you know some of them. Now I understand why you said most IDists are hard workers. My bad.
I don't know what a Darwinoid is, let alone their work ethic.
If you say so.
It would be a full-time job. As a hard-working Darwinoid I don't have the time. But you're doing a fine job proving yourself wrong, so you don't really need me anyway.
Comment by Raevmo — February 29, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
When I mention OOL why not prove me wrong by practicing some of that well honed Darwinian faith?
Aw c'mon. You could at least point and click us toward papers indicating how functionally sequenced genomes arose out of that putative prebiotic soup oh so many years ago. Or failing that point to papers indicating how peptides formed those oxidoreductases, tranferases and lyases that must have lent the soup some flavor. If it's about empirical results then where's the beef? Or must we content ourselves with a contentless broth?
Comment by Bradford — February 29, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 29th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
BRADFORD and JOY:
Thanks for the good input to my question. I just finished writing Ken Miller, to see if he would be interested in reading the book.
Comment by gore — February 29, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Well I don't know about any of y'all personally, and you don't know about me. But I assure you I work very hard. So there! LOL!!!
Comment by Joy — March 1, 2008 @ 12:14 am
March 1st, 2008 at 12:59 am
Joy,
Of the four articles you linked above, the first two are coverage of Lolle and Pruitt's original Nature article, and the last two have no relationship to "EAM" at all as far as I can tell. So this controversy involves one experiment from Lolle et-al with several followup experiments. So far only one group, Lolle's group, has seen this gene-reversion phenomena. The Weigel and Planck study simply suggests that genes mutate at a faster rate than expected and that even a compact genome contains significant redundancy. It doesn't suggest what mechanism "triggers" this evolution and it doesn't suggest this evolution only occurs in response to environmental changes and it certainly doesn't suggest the plant intentionally mutates itself somehow. It only says that plants very quickly evolve which helps them optimize survival to their environment. Optimization to the environment certainly sounds exogenous to me.
In short, I'd have to agree that you'll have to wait for your predictions about EAM to materialize.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 1, 2008 @ 12:59 am
March 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am
gore:
You're welcome gore. It would be good to see Miller read The Design Matrix and even better to get some input from him.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2008 @ 7:56 am
March 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Yep. No need to fix it though. If corrected it would be a non sequitir. Besides I am sure you are working too hard on the OOL to bother with silly little details like proper quote attribuition. You've made your point that MG's FLE is one of the great conceptual innovations in history, just leave it at that.
Thank you. I mean, look at the dearth of results from the "hard working" ID community versus their faith based claims of what can and can't happen and what will and won't work. This thread is another case of comedy that writes itself - IDists complaining about "flippant" dismissal of published research.
Comment by JAllen — March 1, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Yes.
Comment by mcromer — March 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I did mention that it was Thomas Edison who attributed his inventions to inspiration and perspiration. While it was actually genius he was explaining his inventions were the evidence of his genius.
Why would I just leave it at that when it is inaccurate? I did not write that FLE was "one of the great conceptual innovations in history." What I actually wrote was "Mike's FLE concept is one of a long line of conceptual innovations that have occurred throughout history."
I don't flippantly dismiss research. I have not done so with respect to any research relevant to the thread topic. I have however criticized OOL beliefs as faith based and related research results as empirically inadaquate many times. The critiques are not flippant. They are carefully thought out and I'm more than willing to engage OOL enthusiasts in discussions about specific research findings. A pattern has emerged over the years. When actual papers are analyzed we find the researchers making careful claims as to what is indicated and what is not which contrasts sharply with the claims of OOL ideologues.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The central, unresolved, problem with Fisher's Fundamental Theorem is parsing the heritable (Mendelian) factors from the uninheritable "environmental" factors. Hamilton, by transposing genes to the environment wrecks this categorical quotient: Heredity/Environment.
But in theory only Mendelian factors count as heritable. Even though Fisher's Theorem requires environments to be heritable too! In theory there is no such thing, defintively, as a heritable non-genetic factor. Existing multiple, parallel, and sequential systems of non-Mendelian inheritance are "theroetically" excluded.
Neo-Darwinism is bunk.
Regardless of whether Price (or Fisher!) was a lapsed evolutionary theorist or Born Again Creationist, or a lapsed Creationist converted to evolution. You are correct, Ravemo; it is utterly irrelevant if Price made his contribution to theory as an evolutionist, creationist, or suicidal madman.
Comment by Rock — March 1, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Uh, its irrelevant because Fisher's "Fundamental Theorem" is irrelevant–empirically false and theoretically stultifying.
Comment by Rock — March 1, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Rock:
Both Fisher's Fundamental Theorem (FFT) and Hamilton's Rule can be derived from the Price Equation. The latter is in that sense more "fundamental", and it allows for non-Mendelian inheritance and non-genetic heritable factors as well.
FFT is not considered very fundamental at all by most evolutionary biologists (if they are even familiar with it).
If you equate Neo-Darwinism with FFT, then your view is rather limited.
Yes indeed.
Comment by Raevmo — March 1, 2008 @ 6:23 pm