Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Book Club - Chapter 1

In the preface and the first chapter, Carroll spells out his intentions for the book. He makes the point that DNA evidence is used in courts to convict criminals. This technology works because of subtle differences in the sequences of DNA amongst different individuals. These same differences when read as sequences can reveal relatedness amongst individuals too. The further back in time we go, the less we share with parents, grand parents and great grandparents. This time line goes all the way back to the hypothetical Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all species. The result is that the more related that we are to a species, the more similarity we have in our DNA sequences.

Carroll points out the main points of Darwinian evolution; that are descent with modification and the selection of the best adapted for the environment. This occurs through random mutations and selection of these mutations over large periods of time. Organisms are shaped by their environments – both physical and biological. They can therefore be seen as solutions to problems. To illustrate this principle of physiological ecology, the author uses the examples of ice fish. Their ancestors had to deal with the problem of a cooling ocean. To adapt to this, they evolved some antifreeze proteins (discussed in more detail in this post). These came about through the random mutation of part of the trypsinogen gene. This provides evidence for the capacity of organisms to create new genes from old ones (discussed here and here). That is descent with modification and is an essential feature of evolution that religious fundies often misrepresent. They claim that complex structures like eyes are supposed to have evolved in a generation or two. This however is not how evolution works. It works through many small cumulative (undirected) steps that use genes that are already there. A proper model for eye evolution can be found here. Around the same time, their genes for tubulin became modified in such a way that allowed them to tolerate lower temperatures. This allows their cells to retain their normal architecture and function at lower temperatures than would otherwise be tolerable.
One problem, which is not fully discussed is that the presence of antifreeze proteins increases the viscosity of the blood. This would strain the cardiovascular system. However, cold water carries more dissolved oxygen than warm water. This meant that the fish could get large quantities of oxygen from solution. This allowed the fish to decrease the number of circulating red blood cells (which carry oxygen) allowing them to decrease the viscosity of their blood. A reduced demand for red blood cells meant that there was no need for haemoglobin – the oxygen carrying component of red cells. This lead to the loss of these genes (see here). Other adaptations include a loss of scales and an increase in capillary number in the skin – this allowed the skin to take up oxygen as well as the gills. Finally, some species also lost their genes for the oxygen storing myoglobin. This is an other principle of evolution – you lose what you don’t need through random mutation (see here). The non-functional remnants of these genes can still be found in these fish. This tells a nice story of how genomes can change in response to environmental conditions

Carroll then goes on to outline his plans for the book, and finishes with a ca bit on why evolution matters. He concentrates on food production, but I felt he could have spent a bit of time on the evolution of antibiotic resistance, the role of animal models in medicine and the fact that it is important in its own right regarding the origins of species.

Happy Darwin day.

10 comments:

Diacanu said...

Psst, dude, the title of the book?

Lee said...

Psst, dude, the title of the book?

What, you mean you didn't know? :-)

Lee said...

This time line goes all the way back to the hypothetical Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all species

I've often wondered about a silly question...

BUT (assuming I know my Star Trek TNG) if Captain Picard went back 3 billion years and killed the 'whatever it is called' that was to go onto being us... would that mean 'we' (as humans) would not be here?

I think probably... in the same way if the dinosaurs didn't catch the meteorite (or whatever it was that killed them)

Again, 'we' would not be here.

Though, I assume something else would take our place (after all, we took the place of the dinosaurs without much trouble).

Would there be a driver for intelligence for this 'other being'... if there is (well, it worked once for us after all) then given the right starting conditions (Earth, Moon, Sun, Jupiter etc) then intelligent life is a given.

So, evolution is great, it means we are not alone in the universe.

Oh, this had nothing to do with the book... sorry.

Lee

Lee said...

On the chapter... (I think, it might have been the preface)

The strong point I though Carroll made was that DNA is good enough to convict criminals (as you mentioned) so is good enough in some states/countries for it to condemn a man to death for a crime.

However, for some 'unknown' reason the conclusion on what the evidence actually 'means' is ignored. Rejected in fact.

If DNA evidence does not work, why should a man be put to death on its evidence?

The fact is the evidence IS strong, very strong – hence the conviction.

Yet still, some, reject the conclusions.

I think this is going to be a fun book.

When do I have to have read chapter 2?

Lee

Billy said...

Hi Diacanu, it is the making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution by Sean B carroll

http://basketofpuppies-
billy.blogspot.com/2009/01/book-club.html

Lee

would that mean 'we' (as humans) would not be here?


Almost certainly. It may even be the case that if an ancestor turned right one day instead of left, we may not have been here. It is the chance and randomness of events that lead to all the species alive to day. If you could re run time (and the events are truly random) then a different group of species would be here.

As for intelligence, lots of other species display different levels of inteligence, so it is definately possible. Whether there would be an intelligent species like us at this particular point of time though is not guaranteed.


I think why the evidence is rejected is principally a religious reason. Most creationists get their ideas from a dodgy book. If you actually looked at the evidence without religious bias, then I doubt that you would come up with the notion of 6 days of creation and a talking snake as an explanation for nature.

I plan to wait a week between posts, although on occasion, it may be longer. I am flexible though if people need more time.

Mark_W said...

Happy Darwin Day, indeed...

I can't really add anything to your examplary summary of the start of The Making of the Fittest, so for now will just say that I really liked the quote from Sir Peter Medawar that ended this first chapter:

"The alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all"

And, from a literary point of view, that I really liked the use of the (really rather beautiful) bloodless ice fish and Bouvet Island (that Captain Cook couldn't find) as an introduction to the book - it really evokes the sense of wonder, and the marvellousness of life, in the way that (despite what thimble-brained idiots claim) Richard Dawkins's books do too...

Mark_W

Rian said...

The book sounds good. I'd better run out and buy it else I'll fall way behind :-)

Lee said...

Hi Billy,

It may even be the case that if an ancestor turned right one day instead of left, we may not have been here.

Amazing isn’t it :-)

However, I don’t think it is as bad as all that (since the fundie would just jump down on us and say ‘look you admit the odds are against it… therefore God’ )

You know this more than me of course… since the difference between me, you, and every other human on this planet today isn’t that much – me turning left instead of right (or was that right instead of left) would not really make a differnce. At least, not one we will know about.

It is just fun to think about it I find…

As for intelligence, lots of other species display different levels of inteligence, so it is definately possible. Whether there would be an intelligent species like us at this particular point of time though is not guaranteed.

Off a little on a tangent - I was watching a documentary (or 'doco' as the locals call them) last night called ‘guns, germs and steel’ (based on a book by Jared Diamond which I have come close to buying for years)

Anyway… his idea was trying to answer why the New Guineans didn’t invent the helicopter (well, why the West is more advanced)

The ‘conclusion’ from the 1st show seems to be placed on geography (and luck)… that makes a lot of sense.

A kind of technology evolution… man in the west had the grains to farm, plus the animals to domesticate (both to eat and to help pull the plough)

The New Guineans didn’t stand a chance.

It is the chance and randomness of events that lead to all the species alive to day. If you could re run time (and the events are truly random) then a different group of species would be here.

I wonder how random plate tectonics, the Sun and the moon really are… my point being that some conditions might be more or less the same over long periods (if we could re-run the clock)

And as evolution has shown, the same ‘things’ keep coming up time and time again…. Maybe there could have been a talking dinosaur – given time and the meteor missing the Earth?

I suppose this is why we have science fiction…

I think why the evidence is rejected is principally a religious reason.

I’ve not seen any other reason… oh, sorry I have “philosophical”… people want a meaning to life, therefore evolution is false.

What bolloxs

If you actually looked at the evidence without religious bias, then I doubt that you would come up with the notion of 6 days of creation and a talking snake as an explanation for nature.

You would not come up with 6 days and stuff – but you still might get the argument from design.

Lucky for us we have Hume and Darwin…

Hey, I think we should have a Hume day… any idea when he was born?

I plan to wait a week between posts, although on occasion, it may be longer. I am flexible though if people need more time.

If you can post once a week, I can read a chapter once a week.

Lee

Mark_W said...

Hey, I think we should have a Hume day...any idea when he was born?

26 April according to Wiki. This year would be his 298th, which is very nearly a nice milestone...

Mark_W

Billy said...

Hi Mark, it is a good example. Shame hehad to wait so long though.

me turning left instead of right (or was that right instead of left) would not really make a differnce. At least, not one we will know about.


I was thinking more in terms of very distant ancestors - like a Pikia. Althogh, your children are lucky that you went where you did the day you met Lotti.

The ‘conclusion’ from the 1st show seems to be placed on geography (and luck)… that makes a lot of sense.

Yep, evolution works like that. Thats why related animals are similar. Animals for example dont make chlorophyll because their ancestors never had a set of genes that could evolve to make it. We however have colur vision because our ancestors had genes that couldevolve in that derectin (with appropriate selective pressure). This however does not mean that evolution is directed, the muations are random afterall, but a starting material is necessary (ancestral opsin genes).

I wonder how random plate tectonics, the Sun and the moon really are… my point being that some conditions might be more or less the same over long periods (if we could re-run the clock)


I think we would still have plates - maybe not the same plates though. I think it is more the random mutations that would not be repeated (statistically , the could, but perhaps at different times)

I’ve not seen any other reason… oh, sorry I have “philosophical”… people want a meaning to life, therefore evolution is false.


Yeah, the argument from a need to feel special.