PZ has posted this video, and I liked it so much that I thought I would share it as well. It is meant to contrast “biblical science” with science, but really this is a minor point. The more relevant aspect is the, quite frankly, thrilling tour of a tiny portion of what science has achieved.

I mentioned once before that Genome Technology Online is confused about non-coding DNA. Today they confirmed this: The Semantics of “Junk” DNA — We’re Confused, Too.

Greg Laden points out a recently published paper in PNAS that gives credence to the theory that non-coding RNA has specific function. The work identified 849 ncRNAs (of 1,328 examined) that are expressed in the adult mouse brain, the majority of which they also found were associated with and expressed in specific regions, cell types, or cellular compartments. He’s blasted here and here for his supposed naivety, but he maintains that the “paper is interesting and the evidence for ncRNA having some function is reasonable.”

Funny, that’s pretty much what I concluded about the paper too:

I am not about to claim that the study hasn’t shown evidence of function for these non-coding regions. I think it’s quite interesting, and it wouldn’t surprise me if lots of non-coding RNA turned out to have a regulatory function.

Greg wasn’t “blasted” by me, but I did point out his misinterpretation of the evidence for function in non-coding DNA, of which these non-coding RNAs are a tiny fraction. The extrapolation from this to “junk DNA” in general is what I was noting. I think aggregating services like Genome Technology Online are useful, but not when they do little more than give inaccurate comment.

*In bacteria.

But seriously, don’t you hate it when you read a headline that makes some intriguing claim that you think is about humans, only to discover that the research in question was based on mice, or yeast, or a computer simulation?

________

Update:

Here is a good example.

Aggression As Rewarding As Sex, Food And Drugs, New Research Shows

New research from Vanderbilt University shows for the first time that the brain processes aggression as a reward – much like sex, food and drugs – offering insights into our propensity to fight and our fascination with violent sports like boxing and football.

The study was based on mice.

I think I should clarify my position on the human evolution acceleration issue, because I don’t want my comments about nonsense in the press to be misconstrued as a rejection of the study. The basic theoretical arguments make good sense, and I am eagerly awaiting (peer-reviewed) commentary regarding the particular method and dataset. As far as whether I accept the possibility of recent selection among humans, allow me to start by showing three slides that I use in my section on human history. These were presented three weeks ago, before I knew anything about the Hawks et al. paper.

If the Hawks et al. study holds up by next fall, I will add some slides about it specifically, because I think it nicely brings together ideas about adaptive peaks, population size, and selection.

My problem, as noted, is with the hype in the press, most of it direct quotes of the authors. Over at evolgen, Hawks suggests that “Most [bloggers] seem to be reacting viscerally to the idea that evolution could ‘accelerate’ by as much as we claim. That’s a deficiency of theory and/or knowledge about human history, which we’re trying as hard as we can to make a dent in.”

Maybe so. But that’s not the case with me, as should be obvious from above. But let’s evaluate how well these authors are succeeding in clarifying misconceptions about human evolution.

“History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.”

Now imagine you’re not a biologist. Your concept of “mutant” is based on what you know from science fiction. And a scientist tells you that human history really did include stampeding hordes of mutants, right out of science fiction. Does this help you to understand that it is an *allele* that is a mutant, and what really happened is that some of us, though more than in the past, are descendants who carry these alleles?

“Five thousand years is such a small sliver of time – it’s 100 to 200 generations ago,” he says. “That’s how long it’s been since some of these genes originated, and today they are in 30 or 40 percent of people because they’ve had such an advantage. It’s like ‘invasion of the body snatchers.’”

Again with the science fiction. I have absolutely no idea how allele frequencies changing *over many generations* by normal vertical inheritance is anything remotely like body snatchers.

“We found very many human genes undergoing selection,” says anthropologist Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah, a member of the team that analyzed the 3.9 million genes showing the most variation. “Most are very recent, so much so that the rate of human evolution over the past few thousand years is far greater than it has been over the past few million years.”

A few million years ago there we no humans. Six (or so) million years ago, there would have been one species that eventually branched into the lineage of which humans are currently the only representative, and the one of which chimps and bonobos are the only extant examples. The *rate* of allele frequency change may be the highest it has ever been, but these statements are unbelievably misleading.

“In the last 40,000 years humans have changed as much as they did in the previous 2 million years.”

Modern humans, as a species, have existed for about 200,000 years or so. More than 90% of the history covered in this claim includes Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Allele frequency changes *may* be faster and more abundant now than during all that time, but this is hardly as significant under the normal conception of “evolutionary change” as the actual origin of two new species, including our own.

Their paper may be great. What they have been stating about it is irresponsible.

There is a lot of buzz about the recent (but still unavailable [update: link]) PNAS paper by John Hawks et al. reporting an accelerated rate of natural selection in humans. This time, I am not going to pick on the media who, predictably, are selling this as a conclusive finding when those of us in the scientific community have not even had a chance to read the paper yet, let alone for anyone to try to critically assess it. It may be fantastic work, and if it holds up I will certainly give it a significant place in my lecture on human evolutionary history. My complaint is about what the authors themselves have been telling the press.

“Ten thousand years ago, no one on planet Earth had blue eyes,” Hawks notes, because that gene—OCA2—had not yet developed. “We are different from people who lived only 400 generations ago in ways that are very obvious; that you can see with your eyes.”

Interesting idea. But I suppose at no time in history could there have been another variant that caused blue eyes? Is this really the sort of thing that can only evolve once and in one way?

“We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants.

Um, ok. I wonder if blue eyes make you peaceful?

Harpending says genetic differences among different human populations “cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren’t predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group.”

And, by implication, the groups are not utterly equal. Care to speculate on which groups are more equal than which others?

The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.

No comment.

“History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.”

Michael Crichton’s latest: LACTASE, the harrowing story of a small mutation that conferred a slightly better ability to digest milk and reached a higher frequency in some human populations. Expect the movie in summer 2010.

“Five thousand years is such a small sliver of time – it’s 100 to 200 generations ago,” he says. “That’s how long it’s been since some of these genes originated, and today they are in 30 or 40 percent of people because they’ve had such an advantage. It’s like ‘invasion of the body snatchers.’”

Genes, alleles. Tomayto, tomahto. Either way, they’re out to take us over!

“We are always trying to outrun disease.”

And body snatchers.

“Natural selection cares about how many children you have. People will have kids younger and younger.”

Where’s Bart Simpson when you need him? Natural selection is not conscious. Natural selection is not conscious. Natural selection is not conscious. Natural selection is n…

“Genetic engineering will make all this irrelevant. If people want green-haired kids they will go to the doctor and get them in 100 years.”

No they won’t, because people will be marrying robots by then.

“We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.”

MNSdfnklcn. Oops, sorry… that was Coke sprayed all over my keyboard.

“In the last 40,000 years humans have changed as much as they did in the previous 2 million years.”

Nxjbjbecbc. Dammit… again!

“We found very many human genes undergoing selection,” says anthropologist Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah, a member of the team that analyzed the 3.9 million genes showing the most variation. “Most are very recent, so much so that the rate of human evolution over the past few thousand years is far greater than it has been over the past few million years.” [emphasis added]

Really? A few million years ago there were no humans at all.

The online edition of The Scientist is presently running their Laboratory Web Site and Video Awards. Sixty lab websites were nominated, and the judges have chosen 10 finalists. The winner will be chosen by vote, which is open to everyone.

My lab website is among the 10 finalists, so I would very much appreciate it if you throw a vote our way. 🙂

You don’t have to choose just one favourite as it is a rank vote.