Or I would, if I actually had a land squid.
Does anyone know where I could pick up one of those babies? Petco, Petsmart?
Or I would, if I actually had a land squid.
Does anyone know where I could pick up one of those babies? Petco, Petsmart?
The Hox genes are a set of transcription factors that exhibit an unusual property: they provide a glimpse of one way that gene expression is translated into metazoan morphology. For the most part, the genome seems to be a welter of various genes scattered about almost randomly, with no order present in their arrangement on a chromosome — the order only becomes apparent in their expression through the process of development. The Hox genes, on the other hand, seem like an island of comprehensible structure. These are all genes that specify segment identity — whether a segment of the embryo should form part of the head, thorax, or abdomen, for instance — and they’re all clustered together in one (usually) tidy spot.
Within that cluster, we see further evidence of order. Look at just the Drosophila part of the diagram below: there are 8 Hox genes in a row, and their order within that row reflects the order of expression in the fly body. On the left or 3′ end of the DNA strand, lab (labial) is expressed in the head, while Abd-B (Abdominal-B) is expressed at the end of the abdomen.

Knocking out individual Hox genes in the fly causes homeotic transformations — one body part develops into another. These genes are early actors in the cascade of interactions that enable the development of morphologically distinct regions in a segmented animal — the activation of a Hox gene from the 3′ end is one of the earliest triggers that leads the segment to develop into part of the head.
Now look at the mouse part of the diagram above. We vertebrates have Hox genes that are homologous to the fly Hox genes, and they’re also clustered in discrete locations with 3’→5′ order reflecting anterior→posterior order of expression. There are differences — the two most obvious that we have more Hox genes on the 5′ side (these correspond to expression in the tail—flies do not have anything homologous to the chordate tail), and vertebrates also have four banks of Hox genes, HoxA, HoxB, HoxC, and HoxD. This complicates matters. Vertebrates have these parallel, overlapping sets of Hox genes, which suggests that morphology could be a product of a combinatorial expression of the genes in the four Hox clusters: there could be a Hox code, where identity can be defined with more gradations by mixing up the bounds of expression of each of the genes.
This would be something like Reason #5,422.
Another reason is that there’s no such thing as “Talk Like a Ninja Day”. (Psssst…19 September. Arrrr.)
We’ve all heard how the Creation Science Evangelism, Kent Hovind’s organization, has been strongarming YouTube to suppress criticisms of his bad science. Well, check this out: now CSE has been caught red-handed revising their licensing. Where before they declared everything free and good to disseminate, now they are retroactively claiming copyright.
I take that as an admission that they can’t stand the heat.
It’s that time of the month again, when we try to acknowledge the work of some commenter (or inanimate carbon rod) who has most delighted us by bestowing admission in the grand Order of the Molly. Just leave a comment here naming your favorite commenter or random object intended to mock the proceedings, and I’ll tally them up at the end of the week.
Also, I maintain this mega-blogroll, and I’m appallingly generous in putting blogs on it — of course, I’m also appallingly ruthless in expunging blogs that haven’t had an update in 30 days. All you have to do is:
See? It’s easy! Do all that and I’ll put you on the blogroll. Let’s be realistic, though — it’s not the greatest honor in the world, and it’s also diluted by the fact that there are so darn many of you on the list right now. But hey, it’ll get you a link for at least a little while.
Oh, and note that leaving a comment in this thread will also put you in Seed’s 500,000th comment contest! You can’t lose!
Remember, we’re supposed to be pushing for the restoration of the Office of Technology Assessment. Have you written or phoned your senators and representatives yet?
Larry Moran gives his take on the Nisbet AAAS panel. I suspect Matt is getting a little more controversy than he anticipated.
That’s good, right? It’ll stir up more interest in the discussion!
I’m a little late to this tea party, since Jason Rosenhouse and Larry Moran have already trampled on the biscuits and kicked over the teakettle, but I have to register my disagreement with this
polite and sincere article by Jake Young. It’s got several elements that bug me badly.
Andrew Brown suggests that we shouldn’t suppose that religious belief is irrational, and I’m going to have to agree in part with him. I think theology is actually an exercise in reason — it is an activity that has engaged some of the greatest minds of the ages, and it is a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice. It is a towering skyscraper constructed of finely honed girders of deductive logic, and I can appreciate how so many people respect it and admire it and want to protect it. I can also see how those who have dedicated much effort to working closely on the craftmanship of the structure are aghast at the idea that anyone should fail to see the work of the mind invested in it.
Perhaps it was just poor framing when Cardinal Joachim Meisner said:
“Wherever culture is separated from the worship of God, the cult atrophies in ritualism and culture becomes degenerate,” he said.
The word “degenerate” is hardly ever used in Germany today because of its known association with the Third Reich.
Well, yes, I can imagine that there is some sensitivity to the use of the word … but perhaps they should also consider the substance of his remarks. He has basically just said atheists are incapable of producing art: no music, no beauty, no poetry, none of the great works of the human mind.
He has made the usual disclaimer that his words were taken out of context — he didn’t mean to associate his position with a term used by Nazis. He has not, however, repudiated the sense of his words — the dehumanization of those who do not believe in his superstition.
