Show Me The Science Month, Day 2

How do two populations change genetically when they are subjected to different evolutionary pressures? To answer this question, many intrepid evolutionary biologists have trudged out into the field to painstakingly study wild populations, but in many cases, we can learn more by studying evolution in the lab. In a paper published the February issue of Nature Genetics, a group of Portuguese and US researchers report a study of 28 years of evolution in a set of lab fruit fly populations. Their results are an example of how studying evolution in the lab, even for a short time, can provide insight in to how natural selection shapes the genetic contours of a population.

Show me the science: 30 days of evolution blogging, day 1

Birds are the modern day descendants of dinosaurs, or as paleontologist Kevin Padian likes to say, birds are dinosaurs. But how did birds evolve from grounded, naked reptiles into plumed aviators? Evolutionary biologists have been piecing together the details for nearly 40 years, and this month, a major prediction about feather evolution has been vindicated.

Xing Xu and colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences report the discovery of 120 million-year-old primitive fossil feathers, whose structure matches a prediction about the evolution of feathers made 10 years ago. With this fossil discovery, all major stages of feather evolution predicted by evolutionary biologists have been found in the fossil record.
Xu, et al., Figure 1, copyright PNAS

Via Pharyngula, some non-scientist MD thinks that ~21,000 protein-coding genes aren't nearly enough to make a human (which of course then means that evolution is wrong):

4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes. These are not enough to account for the complexity of the organism. What is the other 98% of the genome's function? We don't know.

(BTW, the count of human genes has gone down since the genome sequence was first released; the latest number I hear from my gene-finding colleagues is about 21,000.)

PZ points out the absurdity of this claim that we're short on genes: