My brain is most wonderfully agitated, which is the good thing about going to these meetings. Scientists are perverse information junkies who love to get jarred by new ideas and strong arguments, and meetings like this are intense and challenging. I’ve only got a little time here before the next session, so let me rip through a short summary of my morning.
Hopi Hoekstra talked about Golden mice in them thar hills: the molecular basis of crypsis in Nebraskan deermice. This was an excellent example of the kind of approach Coyne advocated the previous evening: she has a very cool system in mice of the genus Peromyscus in which populations living in the Sand Hills of Nebraska have a more golden fur color than those living in nearby regions, and they have a handle on the genetic mechanism behind this. So on the one hand they have a trove of deep molecular information — the wideband mutation in the golden mice is a variant of the very well known agouti locus — and on the other they are looking at its distribution in wild populations. She’s able to cover quite a bit of breadth, talking about both the sequences and molecular consequences of different alleles in promoter regions of the gene, and looking at the golden, brown, and intermediate populations along the borders of the Sand Hills.
Leonie Moyle talked about plants (and I think she’s the only plant evo-devo person talking this weekend; sorry, vegetableophiles) in Attack of the tomato killers: genetics of reproductive isolation in Solanum. I did not know tomatoes were so interesting and so relevant to evolution. Their native source is on the steep Pacific side of South America, and there are 10-13 closely related species, all diploid, and all intercrossable. This means that they represent an opportunity to study mechanisms of speciation. What genetic mechanisms are responsible for the reproductive isolation of these species? She’s been doing quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping, identifying regions of the tomato genome that are responsible for reduced viability or fertility in hybrids, and has been working through combinations of hybrid QTLs to identify more specific interactions that are responsible for the problems. It was a bit preliminary, but one of the important points she made was a comparison with similar work that has been done in Drosophila, and finding some significant differences; for instance, the plants tended to have small numbers of QTLs associated with sterility, each with fairly modest effects, while Drosophila QTLs associated with barriers to hybridization tended to be more numerous, and more likely to be found in males. The differences are likely to be a consequence of different reproductive strategies in plants and animals, with these plants being hermaphrodites with low levels of sperm competition.
Stephan Schneider discussed Annelids, ancestors, and asymmetries:
Reconstructing bilaterian evolution in a talk that was a fairly conventional representative of the evo-devo tradition: lots of comparisons of patterns of molecular expression in diverse groups, used to reconstruct a likely distant ancestral form. In particular, he described β-catenin and the Wnt genes. The Wnt genes are important cell signaling genes that play a role in multiple events in embryogenesis; the Wnt family contains 13 canonical members, a diverse group that arose long, long ago in the metazoan ancestor. Schneider was studying an annelid worm, Platynereis, which seems to be genomically conserved, retaining 12 Wnt genes (many other species have lost individual members of the Wnt family, for instance, so it’s a bit unusual). The coolest part of this talk was that he followed β-catenin expression through the early developmental lineage of the dividing Platynereis embryo, and observed a consistent pattern: it formed a binary cell fate specification system. At each division, the more vegetal daughter cell would retain or switch on β-catenin, while the more animal side of the division would switch it off. It formed a kind of simple system for distinguishing sister cell fates in an embryonic lineage, with the idea being that maybe this was the original function of this molecule, which has since become an important determinant of vegetal fates in even us organisms that don’t rely on a well-defined cell lineage.
Mark Martindale talked about Developmental changes associated with
body plan evolution, but it was largely about smacking us around with a metaphorical clue-bat to correct some bad practices in evo-devo (Mark is always an entertaining and iconoclastic speaker, so don’t miss opportunities to listen to him when you get a chance). He railed against attempts to define the properties of the ancestral urbilaterian from 600 million years ago by comparing the genes of a fruit fly and a mouse and basing our models on that highly limited comparison. He turned Dobzhansky’s dictum on its head and told us that “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology”, and that what we need to do is identify the common properties of all nodes of the metazoan cladogram before leaping from a few extant forms directly to the last common ancestor.
He described the project of a large group of protostome biologists to assemble a more diverse and more accurate collection of genomic data to make better predictions. As an example, he described the work on Nematostella (I’ve mentioned some of this before), a cnidarian. He pointed out that one of the implications of that work is that there was a reversal of the site of gastrulation at some distant point in the past; Nematostella gastrulates at the animal pole, not the vegetal pole, as both deuterostomes and protostomes do. He also argued that the urbilaterian was probably less like the segmented worm that people like Gerhart and Kirschner have popularized, and more like a ctenophore. But really, the main point of his talk is that evo-devo people need to consider more diverse forms and avoid getting hung up on misleading interpretations drawn from a very small set of model organisms.
By the way, one of the emerging conventions that was a source of some amusement is that just about every talk begins with a slide illustrating organismal diversity — that’s definitely a theme. We build a stronger case that we’re getting at general principles if we’re building from a foundation that includes tomatoes and flatworms and cnidarians in addition to flies, mice, and zebrafish.
OK, gotta run now … the afternoon session begins in a few minutes. Don’t you wish you were here?
(By the way, there is a long break between 4 and 6 today. If any Eugenians wanted to join me, I might just hang out at the bar at the Valley River Inn at that time — look for the guy with the laptop trying to condense his notes into a short blog post.)
Evolution in action – fascinating stuff. But, of course, the religionists will ignore the findings of science, & continue to believe in their magical entities, & stupid crap like the bible.
They wouldn’t recognize intellectual dishonesty if it bit them on the ass.
Now that sounds like a fun morning.
But aren’t you guys forgetting the microbes?
[grumble, grumble, all about the megafauna, grumble ooh! we’re multicellular! la tee dah!]
If deuterosomes came from ctenophores, why are there still ctenophores?I have nothing intelligent to say, here. But science is cool.
Interesting . . . I don’t understand all of it, but some I’ll have to delve a little deeper into.
Unfortunately, alot of it is too technical for the general population, even those with a background in the life sciences like myself, to understand. It may then go unappreciated in lieu of its foundational meaning towards evolution, life itself.
It’s easier to not have to think, just shrug one’s shoulders and think in simpler ‘big picture’ terms towards a design standpoint – I don’t want to be one of those people.
Thanks, PZ.
I don’t have a clue what half the words you used mean, but it just sounds like a great time.
Yay! It’s science!
Hey PZ: Anyone mention that given the assumption of evolution there is as William Provine (evolutionary biologist) put it – “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
No? Didn’t think so.
Not one mycologist in the bunch. Bah humbug.
Gastromycetization is irreversible.
The choanoflagellates shall rise again!
Etc.
Dammit, PZ, these posts end up taking me hours to read. I have to Google every other word and then read a passage that’s equally as long as the original post.
The cool thing is that I can say, “I learned a couple of hundred things today!”
I’m getting there, very slowly. Oh, yes. *nods head*
both the leading candidate genes for dyslexia (paper soon to be published, shameless plug) were found using QTL mapping. It’s a great method.
Who is Provine and why should we care?
Evolution is true, so if you believe Provine, you are out of luck, troll.
Rushdooney the founder of Xian Dominionism and Robertson’s mentor wants to kill 99% of the US population. So troll do you think killing 297 million Americans is worthwhile? You do? Great, what will you do with all that meat or should I ask.
For extra credit, how many disobedient children have you stoned to death like it says to do in Deuteronomy?
Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes – we used to watch that at the sci fi cons when I was a kid… Now it’s the Tomato Killers? How cool – gotta love science!
From NCSE: Interim victory in California creationism case
April 1 2008
This involves the University of California system.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/CA/774_interim_victory_in_california__4_1_2008.asp
Have a nice conference.
#8 Damian
Hyperwords plugin for Firefox is your friend. You can right click every word you need to see in Google/Wikipedia and a little screen pops up with the definition AND you can translate all of the German Blogs with a right click as well.
Re: raven (#10),
Will Provine is an evolutionary biologist and science historian at Cornell University who was at the forefront of the evo-creo wars when intelligent design wasn’t even a catchphrase. He’s a very strong proponent of teaching evolution, and doesn’t back away from a good argument with creationists (he’s debated Philip Johnson numerous times). He’s also an outspoken atheist. So he’s on our side.
I have no idea what the point of the original comment (#6) was. But Provine does like to make strong statements about the conflicting world views of science (natural materialism) and religion. He’s a good guy.
Just to follow up, Provine’s comments (if they are quote-mined correctly) were intended to say that there is no “ultimate” basis for ethics, reason, or free will. All of these have evolved, but do not exist as pure entities imbued upon us by a creator. They are all illusions. After all, we are all just a bunch of chemicals following the laws of physics.
Pseudomonas everywhere.
I have to Google every other word and then read a passage that’s equally as long as the original post.
Yea learning! On a related translation note, am I the only one who randomly and frequently gets a list of Scienceblogs’ Top Five/Most German rather than Top Five/Most Emailed articles in the sidebar? That syntax always makes me giggle – who determines which ones are the most German? (I am more German than you!)
Provine’s views are beliefs just as much as Xianity.
I don’t believe much of what he says and neither do many or most people.
About the time someone “proves” there is no free will, I’m reminded of the “proofs” that consciousness doesn’t exist, and the Postmodern BS that reality doesn’t exist either. You can be a kook and an atheist just as easily as a kook and a religionist.
Raven,
I disagree. Provine’s view is not a belief like christianity. It’s a philosophical view, sure. But it’s a reasoned, logical argument that he makes. It’s not received information like religion. I guess you would think I’m a kook too, since I agree with Provine, for the most part. I wouldn’t quite say that there is no free will, but I would say that free will is an emergent property. Free will doesn’t exist without a certain level of neural complexity. But it’s not a magical quality that humans possess. I’d say the same for consciousness. For that I take Dennett’s view, which is similar. That is, there is no special thing called consciousness. It’s just the activity of the higher sensory integration and decision-making areas of the brain. Perhaps he’s a kook too.
Now, I do agree that the view that reality doesn’t exist is a kooky position. Conflating Provine’s view that there is no a priori reason for existence, or free will, with the view of people who say reality doesn’t exist, is unfair. You can disagree with Provine’s line of argument, but it’s a valid line of argument based upon reason and logic.
Thanks for the update. I really like Hoekstra and Moyle’s work. Are there any fly people there? The timing of the meeting seems slightly bad, as it is directly opposite the Drosophila meeting.
Sounds fucking fascinating, especially the Martindale talk!
I just toss the no free will, no consciousness, and no reality folks into the Kook bin and don’t bother to worry about it. Dumb waste of time when life spans are finite.
But you can use your nonexistent free will and your imaginary consciousness to believe anything you want since it doesn’t matter because reality doesn’t exist.
@Murf, #6
Nothing like quote mining.
Here’s what Provine said, from a debate with Phillip Johnson of “Wedge” fame, in 1994:
Old news.
Martindale’s thesis reminds me a bit of the difference between krank etymology and proper comparative linguistics (no surprise, really).
Since I’m too lazy to Google/Wikipeek, could someone be so kind as to briefly explain that animal/vegetal dealy. We’re not talking about horrible ‘plantimal’ abominations against Nature, are we?
OK, Raven, I’ll just agree to disagree with you. Seems I’m not able to make you see my point. Now, let’s return to our regularly scheduled thread.
About Martindale’s talk, I’m really interested in what he’s saying. As an evo-devo’ophile who has a sabbatical scheduled for next year to learn more molecular techniques to use on non-model insect systems, I support his view 100% Drosophila is such a derived species (as is C. elegans… how may free living nematode species are there, anyway?). We need a lot more comparative data within more closely related groups to get the general concepts of the ur-insect, ur-hexapod, ur-arthropod, ur-protosome, etc. before we can really say a lot about the ur-bilaterian.
If deuterosomes came from ctenophores, why are there still PIGMY AND DWARF ctenophores?
Fascinating stuff. Are conventions like this taped?
Sili: technical evo-devo terms. I think PZ has an old post somewhere covering the basics.
Sure, no problem. Most eggs have a natural polarity to them before fertilization. In species with lots of yolk in the egg, the yolk often asymmetrically distributed into one end of the egg. This end, by definition, is considered the vegetal end. In deuterostomes, the vegetal hemisphere often contributes cells to the endoderm and/or mesoderm, while the animal hemisphere contributes to the ectoderm (and some mesoderm). There are different “determinants” that are unequally distributed in these two hemispheres as well. Usually, these are mRNA molecules deposited in the egg from the maternal genome that direct early development. beta-catenin is one of these that is found in nearly all deuterostomes at least. Though, in more derived deuterostomes, its exact distribution can vary significantly.
Hope this helps.
Raven, I’ll put on my Annoying Atheist Hat:
You’re the one proposing that human beings have this property called “free will.” What is? How is it defined? What behaviors would you claim evidence its existence?
When cornered, most free will proponents who don’t embrace a spooky and nefarious “action at a distance” dualism will cough up a definition of free will compatible with biochemical determinism. The claim is usually something like, “When confronted with a choice I had made before, I have the power to choose otherwise.” Well, of course you do. The question is, why do you make those choices the way you do? What leads you to them? Without appealing to some spooky soul-thingy, the only thing you have left is biochemistry and contigency– which is all evolutionary biology has going for it otherwise. You may well, in the future, be presented with a scenario similar to some previous and choose differently, but time has passed and you have learned from that previous experience, and your biochemistry has adjusted itself accordingly. You feel it was free, and in the cybernetic sense it is– no conscious agent pushed you in that direction against existing inclination. That’s compatibilism.
Most of PZ’s fans have at least heard of Dennet’s Darwin’s Dangerous Ideas. A much more brilliant book is his work on free will: Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.
I’m just making a note here: I discovered something interesting about googling your name. My discovery (that’s probably ancient but new to me) is at my blog on my latest Expelled related post.
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/expelled-pt-iv-name-drop-and-drop-names/
Enjoy.
Thank you, rjb.
That was fast. I love this place.
Yes, I think that makes sense of it. In as much as a biology can make sense to a failed crystallographer.
How classical. Salvini-Plawen will be pleased to read about this.
Not normally. The organizers of some conferences would even get angry at you if you tried — most of the stuff presented at conferences is in press, so you shouldn’t give people an opportunity to scoop each other.
No, everyone gets that.
The athiest of us all, obviously!
The vegetal pole is where the yolk is. The animal pole is where the cell divisions happen or at least start.
Untold tens of thousands! More importantly, that’s the original condition for nematodes, and parasitism is derived, so C. wasn’t as bad a choice as Ascaris would have been.
How classical. Salvini-Plawen will be pleased to read about this.
Not normally. The organizers of some conferences would even get angry at you if you tried — most of the stuff presented at conferences is in press, so you shouldn’t give people an opportunity to scoop each other.
No, everyone gets that.
The athiest of us all, obviously!
The vegetal pole is where the yolk is. The animal pole is where the cell divisions happen or at least start.
Untold tens of thousands! More importantly, that’s the original condition for nematodes, and parasitism is derived, so C. wasn’t as bad a choice as Ascaris would have been.
Thanks David, I didn’t know that, although I guess that would be the most logical assumption. It’s just that when I think of nematodes, I think of scary things having a gazillion offpsring in my bowels… er, not MY bowels, but in the bowel, and, er, oh hell…
you get the point…
I guess I’m a bit insect-centric.
Sorry. I am in Corvallis (just up the road a bit as you know) and would have loved to drive to Eugene for a beer with you. But my son had a soccer game at 4pm – just ended a bit ago. Let me know of other opportunities to meet!
Enjoy, I hope the rain lets for tomorrow. Although, I guess it doesn’t much matter since to the conference. Enjoy.
I love this stuff! Wish I was there. Thanks again PZ!
cool stuff. thanks for the synopses, much appreciated.
Unspeakabley Violent Jane said:
Thanks, lady with the unquestionably brilliant name. It looks fantastic. :>)
Ditto to #35 and #36.
I appreciate the summaries even though my knowledge of biology is pretty limited. It is just plain fun to see the discussion in the comments by those who know science, not to mention all the humor. I find I’m learning more and more about biology all the time by reading Pharyngula. And I have even started to expand to checking out astronomy at Phil’s blog after being led there by links from Pharyngula.
This is (just) a bit OT here, but….
Considering that the “Expelled” propaganda film will start showing in a week or so in “selected” locations, perhaps someone can find a bit of “educational” funding and book some “pre-movie Ad” time for those cinemas.
Don’t worry about putting a “pro-science” ad together – just book some time right before “Expelled” and show that You Tube vid that was posted by RandomSlice last week!
It can’t hurt!
Murf said:
Actually none of this is true when it’s put so simply.
Re 1., evolution causes further problems for defending a loving and providential deity, but is certainly not inconsistent with th eexistence of meaningful deities of various kinds. Poseidon may exist, exert vast powers over storms, earthquakes, the sea, etc., and may intervene in human affairs from time to time, whether evolution is true or not.
Re 2., this is not a consequence of evolution, though evolution provides some additional grounds for thinking that metaphysical substance dualism is false. Still, the main arguments against life after death are not related to evolution and would be strong even without it.
Re 3., it’s very difficult to imagine what a single ultimate foundation for ethics could be, evolution or not. The divine command theory won’t do the job – it’s been known since antiquity to be incoherent (and this has nothing to do with evolution). The best theistic theories of ethics depend on such concepts as human flourishing and end up being quite pluralistic. The role of God in such theories is merely to provide us with information about human flourishing that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. Evolution or not, God can play that role in a theory of ethics (even if we evolved, God presumably knows all about us and what our needs are, since He’s supposed to be omniscient). The foundation of ethics in such theories is exactly the same as in similar non-theistic theories, though the latter require that we do more work for ourselves rather than relying on the putative wisdom of a holy book. Evolutionary theory does potentially give us some insight into human nature and hence into what it might be for a human being to lead a flourishing life, so in principle it could help us identify the foundations of human ethics. However, information from other disciplines, such as cognitive neuroscience, is likely to be more helpful IMHO.
Re 4., I’m not sure why we would want life to have an “ultimate meaning”. If this expression has something to do with the plans of a providential deity, then, yes, evolution does tend to undermine ideas of ultimate meaning. But what matters is that life is experienced as meaningful to us. If life does not have any ultimate meaning, that seems to me to be a good thing: we are free to find meaning in our own ways; we are not part of someone else’s totalising meaning-making system. Thank Zeus for that.
Re 5., it’s difficult to see how evolution poses any special problem for libertarian free will. It may help drive the nails in the coffin, but the idea of libertarian is very difficult to describe coherently and plausibly in any event, evolution or not (and whether God exists or not). I suspect that theists are motivated to attack compatibilist free will and to defend libertarian free will because the latter is more likely to be useful in justifying their overall philosophical position – e.g. it’s a useful piece in the theodicy game. However, with or without evolution, it’s most implausible that we possess anything like libertarian free will, or that we would even want to, on thinking it through. I have no idea why compatibilist free will isn’t enough: I can deliberate, make decisions based on my own values, and act in ways that are just as efficacious as if I had libertarian free will. That’s enough for me.
PZ, I must say, I find nothing so thrilling as scientists disagreeing on frontier topics. When the subject is still in it’s exploration stages and we’re still being blindsided by new insights, I find that I can’t help but be inthralled by it. Nothing is more enrapturing than figuring something out that has never been known. Keep arguing, and keep testing!
“Since I am too lazy” at comment #24.
If you’re too lazy, you don’t really expect us to do your research for you do you?
And, if you do, I suspect you belong to either the creationist and/or stupidly home schooled group. Either way, if you want to ask intelligent questions, do your own research, or I will group you with the Stein grouping
When I think of nematodes, I think of soil. Soil consists mainly of an incredible (and drastically underresearched) diversity of nematodes… errr… well, of bacteria that are eaten by nematodes… OK, so I probably exaggerate, but you get my point. :-)
C. elegans eats bacteria; in the lab it’s unsurprisingly fed E. coli.
There are lots and lots of lots of plant-parasitic nematodes, too…
Come on. Evidently you don’t know that Sili is a frequent commenter here, that she’s from Denmark where cre_ti_nists are hard to find in the first place, and that she isn’t one, but — to the contrary — keeps making intelligent comments. Don’t shoot from the hip.
When I think of nematodes, I think of soil. Soil consists mainly of an incredible (and drastically underresearched) diversity of nematodes… errr… well, of bacteria that are eaten by nematodes… OK, so I probably exaggerate, but you get my point. :-)
C. elegans eats bacteria; in the lab it’s unsurprisingly fed E. coli.
There are lots and lots of lots of plant-parasitic nematodes, too…
Come on. Evidently you don’t know that Sili is a frequent commenter here, that she’s from Denmark where cre_ti_nists are hard to find in the first place, and that she isn’t one, but — to the contrary — keeps making intelligent comments. Don’t shoot from the hip.
When I think of nematodes, I think of soil.
When I think of nematodes and soil, I am reminded of the coolness of nematode-strangling fungi.
For some reason I read that as “someone else’s totalizing demeaning-making system”. Must be my spooky action-at-a-distance free will.
Okay, given that the discussion is iffy since some (as shown by commenters here) equivocate between the putative behavior/feeling, a biological basis, the philosophical meaning and the theological meaning, it was my understanding after several arguments that something like a “compatibilist free will” was inadmissible in philosophy because it isn’t (idealized) free will, i.e. deliberation isn’t enough if it isn’t “free”.
It would be great if it is, since as you say the idealized concept (libertarian free will?) doesn’t seem coherent. I’m just baffled that philosophy isn’t as dogmatic as I experience at this end (i.e. layman).
For some reason I read that as “someone else’s totalizing demeaning-making system”. Must be my spooky action-at-a-distance free will.
Okay, given that the discussion is iffy since some (as shown by commenters here) equivocate between the putative behavior/feeling, a biological basis, the philosophical meaning and the theological meaning, it was my understanding after several arguments that something like a “compatibilist free will” was inadmissible in philosophy because it isn’t (idealized) free will, i.e. deliberation isn’t enough if it isn’t “free”.
It would be great if it is, since as you say the idealized concept (libertarian free will?) doesn’t seem coherent. I’m just baffled that philosophy isn’t as dogmatic as I experience at this end (i.e. layman).
Russell Blackford:
Cf. any one of N Star Trek episodes in which the Enterprise comes across a planet where a Sufficiently Advanced Alien is being worshiped as a god. (Remember the one where they find Apollo living on some distant planet, and Apollo gets the hots for Scotty’s girlfriend?) Likewise, the monolith-makers in Clarke’s Space Odyssey series are powerful and mysterious enough to qualify as “godlike”, but they evolved, too.
Sorry I missed the chance to drop by. We were off delivering grandchildren to PDX following an afternoon at OMSI in Portland.
Torbjörn, some of the other positions have been making a comeback, but I think you’ll find that most philosophers in the analytic tradition are still compatibilists (me included, but there are far more prominent people like Daniel Dennett). They are probably not the ones who are writing the most papers on free will at the moment, though, because compatibilism is such a widely-held position among philosophers that it’s considered boring.
It’ll be libertarians, hard determinists, hard incompatibilists, and the like who are probably publishing the most stuff, but that’s because compatibilism is the orthodoxy … and philosophers love to challenge philosophical orthodoxy.
It’s a bit like atheism; most Western philosophers are atheists. Among philosophers in general, it’s almost the orthodoxy, but you wouldn’t know it if you went to a philosophy of religion conference – especially in the US.
Russell, thanks, very helpful.
Russell, thanks, very helpful.
Greetings! Just dropped by to say HELLO, and read over your blog. Nice set up. Your welcome to visit mine as well. Have a Great Day !!!
http://atheist-theory.blogspot.com
Cell: (305) 831-4548
Greetings! Just dropped by to say HELLO, and read over your blog. Nice set up. Your welcome to visit mine as well. Have a Great Day !!!
http://atheist-theory.blogspot.com
Cell: (305) 831-4548