An interesting first day of class....

As with much software, the groups function of highlighter was not ready for class, so a little duplicating and copying produced 12 Biofundamentals sites, with students assigned to each in groups of six.  

The real test will come on Wednesday, when we start into the materials.

No cancer, but at what cost?

Based on a paper published in ScienceTranslationalMedicine by Guevara-Aquirre et al on a group of Ecuadorian dwarfs, Nicholas Wade has a very interesting article in the NY Times on the effects of mutation in the growth hormone receptor (GRH) gene on the development of cancer and diabetes - this mutation essentially eliminates both (see also this paper).  Unfortunately, in addition to dwarfism, these mutations are also associated with childhood mortality, death associated with convulsions, and impaired mental function.  All of which serve to inform us that (as Ray Troll would say), there is apparently, no free lunch.  

At the same time, it is probably worth noting in the light of standard scientific/news hype, that this is a highly isolated population, and that it is likely that genetic variations at other genetic loci, are likely to make important contribution - things are likely to become more complex.  This could be, yet another case, of where the "truth wears off."

Thanks to Nicholas Wade for clarification and helpful direction. 

Taking scientific education seriously

In this month's ASMBM Today

Darwin Day Talk @ UC Boulder

While there is no sound (perhaps, I will add a soundtrack later), these are the slides I used for my talk for the Skeptical Students groups at UC Boulder:  "Why understanding evolution is hard and hard to accept". 

It dawns on me (rather belatedly) that one can use a blog ....

as a place to store various thoughts and web references - something of an intellectual (rather than emotional diary.)

So after a bit of a hiatus, I am back, using the web site post various references and observations, in large part so that I can find them again.   

Bill O'Reilly and the Galaxy Song

After giving a Darwin week talk for the Secular Students and Skeptics Society at UC Boulder, I was thinking about the meaning of the recently posted youtube video by Bill O'Reilly about tides and intelligent design.  A little too late I recognized that the correct response was the Galaxy Song by Monty Python.  

Authority in science

Watching recent posts on the NSTA Biology Listserv, an perennial topic appears to have resurfaced, namely the conflict or lack of conflict between science and religion. Typically, these conversations rest on which scientists, dead or living, profess religious beliefs. interesting post here

Oh please! – The fact (or assertion) that a particular famous scientist (such as Isaac Newton) did (or did not) believe in the concept of god (assuming that we can actually know what a particular person meant by that, or actually believed) has nothing to do with science itself. The assertion that it does shows a fundamental
misunderstanding of how science works, and what has made it so effective as a toolfor explaining and manipulating the physical world. It signals a serious
problem for a teacher and (perhaps more importantly) their students.

The question of whether science and religion are actively (or passively) antagonistic is a different issue again, and can be argued. That there are religious scientists does not settle the issue - since it is possible for people to hold self-contradictory views.

In point of fact, the simple and demonstrable efficacy of science cannot help but erode a practical belief in the supernatural in general. Science, not religion, explains why planes fly and provides the tools to make them more efficient and safer.

A simple consideration of whether prayer or antibiotics is a more effective treatment for life-threatening bacterial disease should tell the tale. How this impacts religious belief is for individuals to decide.