Dan Graur has suggested some changes to the classification of DNA. It’s one more pile of terminology to keep straight, but the distinctions are conceptually useful — I particularly appreciate literal vs. indifferent DNA as subdivisions of functional DNA.
We’ve all noticed that, in the Spiderman movies, the hero ejaculates tremendous amounts of protein constantly to make those spider threads he’s swinging on and splattering all over the bad guys. Part of that is plausible; spider silk is amazingly strong stuff, and if you could produce it, sure, thin strands would support your weight. The problem is the volume. Mark Lorch calculates how much protein Spiderman would have to consume to make the thread for one scene in the movie.
This is the head of a tapeworm that takes up residence in people’s skulls.
You aren’t trying to eat dinner right now, are you?
I hate textbook churn. Gotta sell a new and slightly different edition every year.
Hint for science journalists: if the hook to get readers to pay attention to your story is to warn them to sit down because a 19th century “law” of evolution has been shown to be wrong, you’re going to irritate scientists, who will then write rude blog posts sneering at your writing. That’s the case with this story titled The Wrists of Birds Reveal Evolution Undoing Itself
, which is also subtitled Contrary to earlier claims, a new study shows that evolution may be reversible
.
It’s describing a paper on the re-emergence of a wrist bone in birds, and it touts Dollo’s Law.
The 19th-century biologist Louis Dollo taught that evolution is irreversible; once a structure is lost, that pathway is closed forever. It’s a principle now known as Dollo’s law.
Just yesterday, Japanese fishermen caught a 6m long giant squid, and it lived for a few hours before expiring. Here’s a video of the rare beastie swimming about, with shots of the tragic corpse afterwards.
If this stuff were in a fantasy movie, you’d snort and say that’s all impossibly unrealistic.
(via The Mary Sue)
I’ve been puttering away on my talk for CFI LA on 15 February — it’s all about how bad adapationist thinking corrupts good science. This is going to be easy, because examples just keep falling into my lap, all the time. Here’s one from just yesterday.
