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

If you had one hundred unlabeled DNA samples, taken from people all around the world, could you use that DNA to determine where the original donors came from?

With major improvements in genotyping technology, geneticists are now getting better and better at this game, and a recent paper in Science reports the largest study to date of human genetic diversity: 650,000 genetic differences scrutinized in nearly 1000 different individuals from 51 different populations.

Studies like this one lay important groundwork to help us understand how human genomes differ around the world, how differences in our genes and environments together make us healthy or sick, and how very ancient migrations led to the structure of today's human populations around the globe.

In the popular science arena, we occasionally (and in the case of evolution vs creationism, frequently) debate just how likely it is that those who aren't trained scientists can competently evaluate an area of professional science. I love Richard Feynman's somewhat idealistic answer, given in his 1966 talk to the National Teachers Association:
"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it.
This is why politicians shouldn't choose what science projects get funded: John McCain puts his science ignorance on display by knocking a population genetic study on bears he knows nothing about. All he knows is that it was bears, DNA, and 3 million dollars. (Link is to Sean's post at Cosmic Variance, where he takes on the specific issue more in depth. And yes I know that on some major projects there is direct legislative intervention, and in massive financial commitments - much more than $3 million - it's appropriate.

Wild sex is a staple of nature films, but there is one sex scene David Attenborough has never narrated: the mating ritual of yeast. That's right: yeast. Sex isn't just limited to lions, birds of paradise, and aphids; single-celled fungi do it too. Although most people don't like to hear the words 'fungus' and 'sex' used in the same sentence, yeast mating is a remarkable phenomenon and worth a closer look.

You can see this amazing scene, played out billions of times every day in wine vats and under oak trees, captured on film. As is the case with most wild mating rituals, filming yeast sex requires great patience - yeast are slow to commit and even when they do, they don't rush things. The beginning of foreplay itself takes several hours, as you can see below:

There is a particular narrative about science that science journalists love to write about, and Americans love to hear. I call it the 'oppressed underdog' narrative, and it would be great except for the fact that it's usually wrong.

The narrative goes like this:

1. The famous, brilliant scientist So-and-so hypothesized that X was true.

2. X, forever after, became dogma among scientists, simply by virtue of the brilliance and fame of Dr. So-and-so.

3. This dogmatic assent continues unchallenged until an intrepid, underdog scientist comes forward with a dramatic new theory, completely overturning X, in spite of sustained, hostile opposition by the dogmatic scientific establishment.

We love stories like this; in our culture we love the underdog, who sticks to his or her guns, in spite of heavy opposition. In this narrative, we have heroes, villains, and a famous, brilliant scientist proven wrong.

Interested in the strange, turn-of-the-century science and math in Thomas Pynchon's novel Against The Day? In part 2 of my primer on Pynchon's science read about the obscure conflict among mathematicians over quaternions, before modern vector analysis largely won the day. (If you missed part 1, read it here).

Science and Against The Day Part 2: Vectors and Quaternions

I. The need for algebra in more than one dimension

In Against the Day, Pynchon frequently refers to a relatively obscure conflict in the mathematics and physics community that took place in the early 1890's between advocates of quaternions and proponents of the newer vector analysis. This conflict is tied in to major themes in the book, such as the tensions between the old and the emerging world that culminated in the conflict of World War I, and the ability to perceive and describe the world in more than the three dimensions of Euclidean space. Quaternions, like the luminiferous aether discussed in Part 1 of this essay, became superfluous and obsolete, mostly unnecessary in the efforts of physicists to describe the natural world after the advent of modern vector algebra and calculus.