Banner
Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth

From Melville's under-appreciated Mardi: On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor...

Non-coding DNA Function... Surprising?

The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great...

Yep, This Should Get You Fired

An Ohio 8th-grade creationist science teacher with a habit of branding crosses on his students'...

No, There Are No Alien Bar Codes In Our Genomes

Even for a physicist, this is bad: Larry Moran, in preparation for the appropriate dose of ridicule...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Wes Sturdevantpicture for Ian Ramjohnpicture for Patrick Lockerby
Michael WhiteRSS Feed of this column.

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist

... Read More »

Blogroll
How proteins recognize specific stretches of DNA is one of the key questions of gene regulation. One would like to be able to look at the regulatory DNA sequence adjacent to a gene, and predict which regulatory proteins bind there, and control the adjacent gene. In other words, we want to, just by running a few computer programs over a genome, know how the genes in that genome are regulated.

Jeffery Dach, MD claims that this argument is persuasive:
An interesting phenomenon in growing random networks:

The number of 3-node, 3-edge connected subgraphs in a random, scale-free network of N nodes scales as N0 (=1). No matter how big your network grows, you're going to have a roughly constant number of 3-node, 3-edge  subgraphs that depends only on the ratio of edges to nodes.

Let's back up a minute before we see why this counterintuitive result is so and what it means.  Imagine that we have a network made up of N nodes connected by E edges. You can start out with two nodes connected by one edge:


David Brooks takes on evolutionary psychology and gets it sort of right:

The first problem is that far from being preprogrammed with a series of hardwired mental modules, as the E.P. types assert, our brains are fluid and plastic. We’re learning that evolution can be a more rapid process than we thought. It doesn’t take hundreds of thousands of years to produce genetic alterations.
By honest I don't mean that you only tell what's true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind. 


    - Richard Feynman "Cargo Cult Science", Caltech Commencement 1974








Some of this is just too much: (from The Guardian):