I’ve got all this work to get done right now, and what happens? Electronic Arts sends me the Creature Creator for their upcoming Spore video game (which is not going to be about evolution, no matter what their PR says — I’ve read the blurbs, and it’s all non-evolutionary). It is fun, though. And of course I quickly whipped up a pharyngupod:
Now I’m putting the game away. No more playing until I get back from my meetings this weekend.
As I said I would, I’m watching this History Channel documentary about the origin of life. How about a little live-blogging?
8:00. Ugh. It begins with a bunch of tripe from Coyne and Polkinghorne, claiming we need religion to understand the meaning of life. This is a bad, bad start, but I’m hoping it’s nothing but a weasely preliminary that they will then abandon to get to some real science.
There are lots of gimmicky special efects, but OK, let’s get the general audience interested. I’m not too keen on the parade of talking heads, though: they keep trotting out different investigators, letting them say a sentence or two, and then zipping off elsewhere. I know you don’t want some guy sitting and droning at you, but this seems like a poor compromise.
8:15. It’s a quick tour of the complexity of the cell. They’re using this special effects analogy of a “factory of life” where chemistry is going on.
First important element of life: metabolism. Second: life is cellular, with compartments. Third: life can replicate.
Now we get a parts catalog of polymers: lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids.
Very weird: in their factory analogy, they point to something hidden behind a big red curtain and say that that’s where all these bits and pieces come together to make something that’s alive; it seems a bit of a cop-out, a way to pretend there’s something hidden where the viewer can imagine anything they want. Come on, bite the bullet and admit it: life is chemistry, and there is nothing more.
Now we get a fairly lengthy discussion of the idea of emergence. At least they clearly state that emergence is nothing magical, but is just a consequence of the execution of the laws of nature. This is a rather pointless digression, I think.
OK, now we get a timeline of the origin of life: it appeared about 3.8 billion years ago, on a very hostile planet with no oxygen in the air, and just cooling after the last of the great meteor bombardments. This leads naturally into a discussion of extremophiles, with a tour of Mono Lake.
Segue to commercial by mentioning that life will change the environment of the earth.
8:30. Conditions on early life are hostile to us, but chemical energy is abundant. Life would have existed as single-celled forms only, which may have been unrecognizable to us (why are they showing video micrographs of nematodes while they tell us this?)
Stromatolites are introduced, as organisms that grew on chemical energy sources. What are those energy sources?
The camera crew goes spelunking. They’re collecting rock-eating microbes, which the scientists argue is a kind of primitive chemistry that evolved before photosynthesis.
Nice reminder that single-celled life was the only form of life here for 80% of the history of earth, but then they make the mistake of using the past tense in saying they were the dominant form of life on the planet.
Wait…now they’re saying that the ability to reproduce is a property of DNA? That’s kind of cutting off the possibility of an interesting discussion of alternative paths.
Suddenly, boom, they’re talking about Leeuwenhoek. Hang on, this is a bit jumpy. Can we talk more about extremophile chemistry before we start on 17th-18th century microscopy?
Now it’s all about photosynthesis. We’ve moved way, way beyond the period of early abiogenesis already, and they’ve scarcely touched on any of the major theories.
Before the commercial, we get talk about multicellularity and oxygen chemistry. Either they’re going to be jumping about an awful lot and scrambling the story, or we’re not going to get anything about abiogenic chemistry…
8:45. Oops, I had to miss part of this section to run some real-world errands. I come back to see the Burgess Shale and a discussion of the Cambrian explosion. This is long, long after the origin of life!
It’s an excuse to show some computer animations of Anomalocaris, anyway.
George Coyne does a good job now saying that life doesn’t need a designer; Polkinghorne pops up to make excuses for the metaphorical nature of the book of Genesis. Bugger off, Polkinghorne, you bother me, ya twit.
Now we get a summary of the importance of selection and sex. I don’t think we’re going to get a good review of biogenesis anymore — sex is not an important issue in that field.
I am completely baffled. Before the commercial, they say the big question was how human life arose…then they ask, “What was the specific mechanism that caused non-living chemistry into living biology?” Weird. These are very different questions. They seem to be muddling up the origins of life with the origins of the only important form of life, humans.
9:00. We’re back to animals. Come on, animals are peculiar latecomers.
Maybe it’s an excuse to return to a historical survey of ideas about the origin of life. I hope.
Aristotle proposes the idea of spontaneous generation, an idea that hangs on for centuries but is relatively easy to disprove…as Redi and Spallanzani do. This stuff isn’t bad, but it feels like introductory material they should have brought up at the beginning.
Actually, I’m enjoying this part best of all so far. They’re actually talking about the experiments done to disprove spontaneous generation, so it’s a useful summary of how scientists actually do science.
Our closing question: so how did life arise from chemistry? The second half is off to a good start, I think.
9:15. I’ve got to say…the actor playing Charles Darwin looks nothing like him, and that beard looks cheesy and fake.
We get the early concepts: “warm little pond”, “primorial soup”. There the questions are about what kind of chemicals and conditions existed at the beginning of life. They mention Oparin’s ideas about the chemical monomers available, and the idea that these chemicals would accumulate in the oceans. It seems like a very low probability sort of exercise.
The Miller/Urey experiment at last. This is well done, with a very nice illustration of the apparatus and techniques. They get it right, too — it was nice work that showed that the natural chemistry that would produce organic substrates for life was relatively trivial. It also set up unrealistic expectations for how easy it would be to create life.
Closing premise: now there is a race to figure out prebiotic chemistry.
9:30. Let’s consider other sources of organic matter!
Space-borne debris. Complex organic molecules are found in metorites and in space. We get to see scientists extracting organic molecules from ground-up meteorites. Panspermia is mentioned, but they aren’t doing a good job of distinguishing chemicals from life. At least Bob Hazen is razor sharp in pointing out that panspermia is a cop out.
Hazen also clearly explains bottom-up (exploring basic principles about biochemistry to replicate the events at the origin) vs. top-down (working in reverse from extant life backwards to the origin). He also explains that we need a multiplicity of approaches, and the origin may also have been generated from diverse sources.
Hmm. Commercials seem to be coming more frequently as we get close to the end.
9:40. It’s deep-sea vent time, with nice shots of black smokers and squid. Then Bob Hazen shows us how his experiments on the chemistry at high pressure and temperature are done. Cooking a little pyruvate for a while generates substances that form micelles.
Clays! Clays are shown as potential catalytic surfaces that would concentrate organic compounds and promote reactions that form, for instance, RNA. RNA monomers will polymerize in the presence of clays.
Transition: are scientists on the verge of creating artificial life in the lab?
9:50. It’s “3000 years after Aristotle”? What?
Never mind. Now we get pretty crystals growing and changing. This bit is a little fluffy.
All right: Jack Szostak. They describe his efforts to try and create a protocell. Cool video of creating cell membranes — beautiful little droplets bubbling out of an electrode. Some good cautionary statements: if they succeed, this will still only be a model, not a demonstration of how it actually happened 3.8 billion years ago.
They don’t really say much about the mechanisms in the closing minutes, but they do have a nice statement by Neil de Grasse Tyson about how the search is the important thing, even if we don’t get an answer.
Summary: the first hour was a muddle, and not worth watching. If you’re going to catch it later, just watch the second half.
The last half wasn’t bad. It at least talked very briefly about the actual science and how it is done. It was all painfully abbreviated and only touched lightly on the subject, but I think that is simply a limitation of the medium. I imagine it’s a seriously difficult balancing act to try and meet the needs of real nerds (like us!) and the more casual viewer, so I’ll accept the compromise.
Something at the end to lead the interested viewer to more in-depth sources would have been a good idea — they could have at least mentioned Hazen’s Genesis as a plug.
In addition to the abiogenesis program on the History Channel, it looks like Ken Miller is going to be on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. I hope you’ve got cable!
By the way, if you don’t have cable, and you still want to see Ken Miller, the HHMI offers a DVD of Miller lecturing on evolution and ID for free to North Americans. I’m reviewing it right now for consideration in our introductory biology class.
(I actually don’t use a television, I’ve got one of these tuner gadgets for my laptop, so I’ll probably record both programs tonight.)
There seems to be a lot of interest in theories of abiogenesis around here — and it looks like The History Channel is showing a program on How Life Began tonight. Is the History Channel actually trying to ramp up some good science content, or have I been missing some good stuff on that channel?
I can’t believe people are actually going to see Shyamalamadingdong’s new movie, The Happening. Just as George Lucas ought to be hogtied and gagged anytime he tries to write a single line of dialog, Shyamalan needs to be slapped silly next time he tries to invent a plot. The man has some artistic talent, but unfortunately, it’s imbedded in a brain that is simply not very bright, and sees Portents and Significance in inanity, which really gets in the way of composing a good story. What makes it even worse is when he starts pontificating on his version of Science — it was disastrous stupidity in Signs, and his new movie seems to be in the same vein.
Now I’ve read a review (warning: spoilers therein), and my worst suspicions are confirmed. The review claims the movie is about intelligent design, but I have my doubts about that: I think it is just vacuous and muddle-headed, which gives it a strong family resemblance to ID. But yes, they are at least in the same phylum, in which ignorance is promoted and vaguely wishful thoughts pining for a heavenly sky daddy are treated as evidence.
Oh, and Shyamalan and Wahlberg are jesus kooks? That’s disappointing, but I suppose it isn’t surprising. ERV seems to be unhappy with the prospects, too.
Would you like to host a TV series?
Leading cable television network is casting for female scientists (professionals or grad students) to host a reality/documentary series. Smart, energetic, charismatic candidates wanted. No previous media experience required.
“Reality series” always means “mindless” to me, but hey, maybe you can inject some intelligence into it.
These shows always want someone who is not me, though, which is always a bit depressing, even if I’m personally not at all interested in doing anything like this.
People have been asking me what’s up with that potentially interesting television series called Evolve that is supposed to be shown next week — it’s not showing up on anyone’s schedules. I wrote to the executive producer, and she said the History Channel has delayed it to sometime in July. She’ll let me know more when the schedule firms up more.
Randy Olson has a new movie that is premiering today: Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy. We all know it’s going to be funny, and that because it will also criticize the scientists studying climate change, it will be infuriating and annoying and will draw lots of fire from both sides.
Go ahead and start sharpening your knives, but do keep this in mind: Olson is the only guy we’ve got trying to widen the market for science documentaries beyond the gray-haired, PBS-watching, NPR-listening audience. He’s opening this thing at Outfest, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, rather than as a collection of droning heads airing in some godforsaken hole of blandness right after the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, so give him some credit, too. While he doesn’t sing in tune with the rest of the chorus, he’s going to force us all to think, which is something we’re supposed to like. If you’re in LA, go to it and give us a review.
Besides, it’s got Muffy Moose in it. How awful can it be?
You all know how the Indiana Jones movies are written, don’t you? Let me recreate for you the day Steven Spielberg sat down with his head writer to put together the outline of what would be the fourth installment in the franchise.
Spielberg: Guys, here it is: the secret formula for a successful Indiana Jones movie. [Spielberg waves a tattered 3×5 index card around] Take this, and let’s get to work.
Writer: Steve…this is just a scribbled sentence with some blanks.
Spielberg: Right. Haven’t you ever played Mad Libs?
Writer: OK, but don’t you kind of have this memorized? Why go through the motions?
Spielberg: I’ve forgotten everything on that card, so don’t worry, it’ll be new and fresh. Hollywood does this to you after a while—first it sucks the creativity out of you, then the memory goes, and you become a creature of short-term instinct. Go ahead, ask me questions to fill in the blanks, and we’ll get this picture started!
Writer: Umm, name a “villainous group”.
Spielberg: Easy. Naz…no, wait. I think we did that one. Let’s see, uh, Communists. Yeah, we’re already thinking out of the box!
Writer: Good one, sir. It reminds me of the second Indy movie, when you made the bad guys a mostly forgotten and entirely neglected Indian religious cult. That one surprised everyone with its freshness.
Spielberg: Right! We’re on a roll! Next!
Writer: Name a “famous historical artifact”.
Spielberg: This is always the hard part for a shark-like mind with no long term memory. Hmmmm. OK, Crystal skull.
Writer: “Crystal skull”? What’s that? I’ve never heard of it.
Spielberg: I think I saw something about it on late night cable. It sounds cool, anyway, and it’ll look eerie on film.
Writer: But it does say “famous historical artifact” here…
Spielberg: I‘ve heard of it, so it must be famous. Besides, I bet you never heard of sankara stones before, either, and we made them famous. Now everyone talks about them.
Writer: Oh, right. That second movie again. We really are treading in the footsteps of greatness, this movie is going to be fabulous. OK, last one: name a “dangerous power”.
Spielberg: Yeah, let me think. This is getting hard, I’m just about burnt out here. Are you getting hungry? No? I think I need a little nosh, let me call out for something.
Spielberg [to his office intercom]: Carol, get me a quick bite. An arugala salad, I think. Yeah, that’s what I said. Write it down. You heard me, write it down, an arugala [writer starts scribbling]. Thanks.
Spielberg: Now where were we?
Writer: We’re done! It’s going to be a blockbuster!
Spielberg: Read it back to me.
Writer: “Indiana Jones must race evil COMMUNISTS to acquire the fabulous CRYSTAL SKULL before they can use its power of ARUGALA to rule the world!”
Spielberg: Wow. We have outdone ourselves. I want to see this movie already.
Writer: We’ll be packing ’em in. I’ll just plug in some of the usual plot devices and flesh it out in the script a little bit.
Spielberg: Yeah. But you know, that last bit might be a little…weak…
Writer: Now that you mention it…
[Spielberg and Writer stare at 3×5 card for several seconds, brows knit in thought.]
Spielberg: Aww, screw it. Don’t worry about what the crystal skull does, or why anyone would want it. We’ll just go with the flow.
Writer: Second movie?
Spielberg: You got it. We made that whole damn thing, concocted an all powerful religious cult using thousands of child slaves, all in order to acquire magic rocks that had the power to set leather handbags on fire. And nobody cared! Any MacGuffin will do if you’ve got Harrison Ford.
Writer: Right. I’ll get you 200 pages by, say, tomorrow noon?
Spielberg: Great. Oh, and remember to stick in a couple of scenes with insects crawling all over people. And show Indy with some human weakness with a snake scene. And, oh yeah, that face-melty thing in the first movie was really popular — could we have someone’s eyeballs burst into flame?
Writer: Love it, boss.
I think you can guess…I was a little disappointed. Ford was great, I think he’s become a real icon of the swashbuckling hero genre, and I enjoyed his performance. The movie kept things moving with lots of action, but ultimately, it was the writing or the lack thereof that crippled the movie. There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it.
All right, everyone else who saw it can have at it in the comments. Be warned, everyone: spoilers may emerge herein. Click through only if you are prepared to be disillusioned, if you aren’t already.
And you all know what that means…the premiere of the new Indiana Jones movie. It’s opening here in Morris at 12:01 am, and Skatje and I will be there…and since it is Morris, the line will be negligible, and we’ll get the best seats in the house, and we’ll have a grand time.
I’ve been looking forward to this one for a while. It’s so reassuring to know that even an old geezer can be an action hero.
Who else is mobbing the theater tonight?
