Does Religion Always Lose?

A common debating tactic, and a successful one in the eyes of many, is to say that whenever religion and science have a dispute about some question of fact, religion always loses.1 The implication is that religion should never make any factual claims, and it is even implied that religion has no contact with reality. Supporting evidence for this claim is said to include the physics of Galileo, the geology of Hutton and Lyell, the biology of Darwin, and the psychology of Freud and others. Religion, especially
supernatural religion, has always lost in the past, and it will always lose
in the future. We should either abandon it or at least adopt a liberal version
that makes no testable claims.

There are several problems with the above scenario. First, strictly
speaking, the disputes were not really between science and religion; there
were scientists on the “religion” side, and theologians on the “science”
side. It would be more proper to make the claim that the argument was
between naturalistic and supernaturalistic philosophies.
If so, the Galileo affair does not really belong with the other examples.
The Galileo affair resulted from the reaction of the Catholic Church,
which had just been rocked by the Protestant Reformation, to the
cosmology of Copernicus. The only issues which might impact the conflict
between naturalistic and supernaturalistic philosophy were whether
incidental details in the Bible were to be treated as ontologically (really)
accurate, or merely phenomenologically (only describing appearances)
accurate, and the authority of the Catholic Church. As far as I know, it
does not even involve the authority of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, as
I know of no such pronouncement of the Pope on the Galileo affair.
It could be (and has been) argued that the other “advances” listed
above were not really advances. Certainly a creationist will not find them
very persuasive. But there is a more basic flaw in the argument. Specifically,
there are important counterexamples to the argument. Religion does
not always lose.

We need to rephrase the above statement to give it more empirical
content, because we can never be completely certain that science has a
particular theory. Even if a theory appears to be well ahead of another, it
is always possible that more evidence will tip the scales in favor of the
currently out-of-favor theory. Thus a believer in naturalism could always
claim that in a given subject where a supernaturalist explanation fits best
with the known facts, more facts will tip the scales. Just wait a while;
your supernatural explanation will turn out to be wrong or unnecessary.
Of course, a supernaturalist could argue in a similar manner. And both
statements are basically faith statements. The only evidence we can have
for them is that the same process has occurred in other areas of knowledge
in the past.

So we will rephrase the proposition more carefully. Scientific and
historical hypotheses arising from and/or compatible with supernaturalistic
philosophy sometimes have considerably more empirical support
than hypotheses arising from and/or compatible with naturalistic philosophy.
Perhaps more importantly, this support has, in some cases increased
with time.

In the domain of history, one counterexample to the “religion always
loses” argument is the reliability of the chronology of the books of Kings
and Chronicles in the Bible. For a long time, skeptics believed a “Biblical”
chronology did not exist, and that what confused pieces of chronology
did exist were totally incompatible with the “real”, secular chronology.
After Thiele,2 the chronology of Kings and Chronicles was (and is) seen
not only as coherent, but able to serve as a corrective to secular chronology.
A Biblical approach has won, or at least has shown itself to be
much better at explaining the data. Religion did not lose in this case, and
it appears unlikely to lose in the future here.

Another counterexample is the book of Daniel, where skeptics originally
confidently stated that Belshazzar never existed, that the chronology
was hopelessly confused, and that since the entire book was fiction, there
was no point in looking for the characters in history. With time, that view
of history has been forced to change. Belshazzar not only existed, but
also turned out to be the crown prince (also king in Hebrew parlance),
able only to offer the third rulership in the kingdom. The chronology of
Nebuchadnezzar taking captives from Jerusalem turns out to have been
precisely correct. Perhaps most interesting, the names of Daniel4 and his
three friends5 have been found in Babylonian documents. This does not
mean that every statement in the book of Daniel has been confirmed.
The identity of Darius the Mede is still in doubt (although we have not
eliminated all candidates). But the case for the historicity of Daniel is
clearly better than it was in the past. Religion is winning here.

These cases are from history. Can the same be said of science? If one
is a Seventh-day Adventist, it can. For over a century, Adventists defended,
on the basis of what they believed to be inspiration, the view that tobacco
was an insidious but deadly poison. At the time this view was not shared
by the scientific community, but over the last 50 years the evidence has
become overwhelming that the hypothesis originally associated with religion
was correct. Religion did not lose here. The same comments, although
not quite as vigorously, can be made about vegetarianism.
But it could be countered that these supernaturalist positions were
sectarian, and in any case did not deal a major blow to naturalism. Are
there any cases more directly relevant to the creation-evolution controversy?
It turns out there are. The first example is in cosmology. The question
at issue was whether the universe extended backwards in time indefinitely
or if there was a finite limit to the age of the universe.

The former was strongly favored by most scientists, often with an explicit anti-supernatural
bias expressed as the reason for their preference. This bias formed a
major part of the objection to Big Bang cosmology. If the universe had a
beginning, it at least suggested that it might require a Creator. The desire
to protect an eternal universe was so great that in attempting to do so,
Einstein made what he later called his “greatest mistake”, introducing a
cosmological constant into the equation for the universe to keep it roughly
static. However, the weight of evidence now is solidly behind the concept
that the universe did have a beginning. Religion is not losing here.
Another example is the existence of vestigial organs. Vestigial organs
have been used as an argument against design, and therefore against a
designer, since Darwin. In the classical exposition, Wiedersheim listed
over 150 structures that he considered vestigial. He was careful to note
that some of them, such as the thyroid and adrenal glands, probably had
some function, in which case they might not be truly vestigial, and that
this could be the case with other organs. But some of his followers were
not so cautious, and it was not uncommon for such organs as the thymus,
the pituitary, and the appendix to be written off as completely useless.

This lack of caution was necessary if vestigial organs were to be used
against believers in design, because if there was some function that could
be attributed to them, then their existence in a designed organism would
not count as evidence against a designer.8 However, this lack of caution
was ill-advised, as further investigation has found a reasonable function
for all these structures, destroying, sometimes dramatically, the argument
against design. It could be argued that in this case anti-supernaturalist
prejudice actually was detrimental to science, tending to cause scientists
not to investigate possible functions for a structure because the prejudice
was that it had no function.

It could be further argued that anti-supernatural prejudice actually
killed people. Although the spleen was not on Wiedersheim’s list, when
I went to medical school it was commonly written off as a practically
useless organ that we would be better off not having, as it tended to bleed
when it got injured. Its only use was to show that humans and dogs, for
example (where it stores blood for autotransfusion in case of bleeding),
shared a common ancestor. As a result, when it did get injured, it was
commonly removed, without any attempt to preserve its function. It was
only later that it became apparent that not having a spleen predisposed
one to overwhelming pneumococcal infections. Surgical practice today
is to preserve splenic function whenever possible, either by repairing the
spleen, or failing that, by leaving small bits in the abdomen and hoping
that they attach themselves.

History repeated itself with the “junk DNA” controversy. When DNA
was discovered, many evolutionists predicted that there were vast quantities
of totally useless DNA in the genome of various organisms including
humans. As noted by Standish,9 they were perhaps ignoring evolutionary
theory in their anti-supernaturalist bias. But the point remains that supernaturalists
generally made a better prediction about the extent of “junk
DNA”, and that in this case an anti-supernaturalist bias actually hindered
research (the reverse of what is usually claimed).

This brings up an important point. One of the reasons “science”
(naturalism) claims not to lose is that it incorporates findings which were
originally thought to favor “religion” (supernaturalism). Thus the temporality
of the universe, and some other ideas such as the harmfulness of
tobacco, are simply incorporated into the naturalistic model, and the modern
believer in naturalism often may not be aware of the religious overtones
to the previous controversies. The topic is viewed as simply another
example of the steady advance of science.

The same could have been true for religion. For example, most theologians
have incorporated a heliocentric view of the solar system into
their theology. But the believers in naturalism will not let them forget
that at one time the majority of Christians (not all; note Philip Melancthon)
disagreed with the heliocentric theory, and the Catholic Church disagreed
strongly enough that it forced Galileo to recant and banned his books, an
action it has been forced to repudiate. The Church was in error here. But
if one can hold modern Christianity accountable for the mistakes of the
majority of its predecessors, one can also hold naturalism accountable
for the mistakes of the majority of its predecessors.

This brings us to a final point. The argument that “religion always
loses” is used to avoid having to deal with some subject where supernaturalism
is apparently winning at present, and where if it wins, naturalism
is dead. Naturalism can survive the historicity of the numbers in
Kings and Chronicles, or the toxicity of tobacco, or even (as deism) the
Big Bang. Naturalism cannot survive without a naturalistic explanation
for the origin of life. And yet there is not such an explanation, not even a
remotely plausible one. The more we know, the worse it looks.
Naturalism implicitly recognizes this.

The best evidence for this is the insistence on the monophyletic origin of life.
In the face of the Cambrian explosion and different genetic codes for some organisms (e.g., Paramecium), naturalists continue to insist that all organisms on Earth share
a common ancestor. If they really believed that life were that easy to
start, they would simply accept the hypothesis that it started a number of
different times. The fact that they insist on the monophyletic origin of
life is testimony that they implicitly recognize that it is extremely difficult
to get life started even once, let alone multiple times.

But believers in naturalism are absolutely committed to a naturalistic
origin for life. Some idea of the strength of the commitment can be
gathered from a passage in an excellent (and still accurate) book by Robert
Shapiro entitled Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on
Earth.10 In it he points out the flaws of the various theories, finally opting
for a theory of short non-modern peptides as the least problematic. But
on p 130 he displays his own viewpoint:

Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical
experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed
unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a
sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have
explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes
leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might
choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself
included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable
scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still
more likely than the remainder.

So naturalism requires a defense against the obvious. And the best
defense is, “We have never lost yet. You always do if you wait long
enough.” In the case of the origin of life, it appears that naturalism would
have lost a long time ago if its adherents had not refused to recognize the
loss. The major problem with the “religion always loses” defense is that
it is not true. Even in hindsight it is not true without distorting the record,
and from a prospective point of view (the only point of view from which
we can currently view the future), it is certainly not true. It should be
recognized as what it is, a faith statement disagreeing with the apparent
lessons of history. Religion does not always lose.

P.A.G.

ENDNOTES

1. See, for example: (a) Yandell KE. 1986. Protestant theology and natural science in the
twentieth century. In: Lindberg DC, Numbers RL, editors. God and Nature: Historical
Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, p 448-471. Berkeley and
London: University of California Press; (b) White AD. A history of the warfare of science
with theology in Christendom. 2 vols. NY: Dover Press.
2. Thiele E. 1983. The mysterious numbers of the Hebrew Kings. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
3. Strand KA. 1996. Thiele’s biblical chronology as a corrective for extrabiblical dates.
Andrews University Seminary Studies 34:295-317.
4. Shea W. 1988. Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar. Andrews University Seminary Studies
26:67-81.
5. Shea W. 1982. Extra-biblical texts and the convocation on the Plain of Dura. Andrews
University Seminary Studies 20:29-57.
6. Robert Jastrow (1978. God and the astronomers. NY: W. W. Norton and Co.) notes the
phenomenon. Although the supernaturalists were not always on one side, or the naturalists
on the other, as noted by Helge Kragh (1999. Cosmology and controversy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, p 251-268), there was still a tendency to line up on the
side most compatible with one’s evaluation of theism.
7. Bernard H, Bernard M, translators. 1895. The structure of man: an index to his past
history. Howes GB, editor. London: MacMilllan and Co.
8. For an anti-supernaturalist argument to succeed, it is important for the structure under
consideration to have no function. It is not enough simply for it to have minimal and
easily compensated function. Otherwise, such structures as little fingers or toes could be
considered unnecessary, as there are very few functions that cannot be performed equally
well by humans who have lost their little fingers and toes, and yet it seems unreasonable
to claim that they could not have been designed.
The attractiveness of such an argument is such that it is still not completely dead. It
surfaces, for example, in: Miller KR. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God. NY: Cliff Street
Books, p 100-101.
9. Standish TG. 2002. Rushing to judgment: functionality in noncoding or “junk” DNA.
Origins 53:7-20.
10. Shapiro R. 1986. Origins: a skeptic’s guide to the creation of life on Earth. NY: Summit
Books.

Creation and the Law

Attempts to implement a two-model approach to the teaching of origins in the public school science curriculum have been blocked by those who have branded the inclusion of creation in the classrooms as an establishment of religion. Struggles over the teaching of creation, especially in connection with the use of a textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, prepared by the Creation Research Society (CRS), have taken place with school boards and textbook commissions in the states of Tennessee, California, and Texas.

Last year in Indiana, the textbook battle was taken to the courtroom. Hopes of seeing a favorable decision for the two-model approach died when a Marion County Superior Court judge ruled the required use of the CRS book to be a violation of the constitutional provisions of separation of church and state.

As in many other religion-related legal suits, the underlying problem centers on the interpretation of the opening clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."

The ambiguity of the wording that has plagued both plaintiffs and defendants seems to revolve around the definition of "religion" and "religious." Once, "religion" was confined solely to theistic connotations, implying a definite belief in the deity. But the definition was changed in 1961 when the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that non-theistic religions are also protected under the First Amendment's provision of "free exercise." This broader interpretation and definition of "religion" includes non-theistic concepts such as "Ethical Culture" and "Secular Humanism."
When in 1963 the Supreme Court ruled state-required prayer and Bible reading in the public schools to be establishments of religion, it seemed that God was banned from the classrooms. In explaining the ruling, Justice Tom C. Clark stated that its intent was merely to correct abuses or coercion and preference by the state. In other words, the state must remain neutral, not opposed, to religion.

In an article entitled "Has the Court Really Outlawed Religion in Schools?" (Worldwide Challenge, November 1977, pp. 9-13), John W. Whitehead argues that in actual practice, however, the state has sanctioned the religion of secular humanism over other religions. He proposes that the state has a duty to balance this trend by allowing a place for the teaching of theistic religion objectively.

Carrying this proposal one step further, Wendell R. Bird applies this idea to the teaching of creation in the science classrooms. In "Freedom of Religion and Science Instruction in Public Schools," an article which appeared in the January 1978 issue of the Yale Law Review (pp. 515-570), Mr. Bird questions the validity of the Indiana textbook ruling. He examines the current practice of teaching only the general theory of evolution (naturalistic evolution from simple organisms to man) and concludes that the state is violating the free exercise of religion by its refusal to present alternative views. He proposes that this abridgement be neutralized by the incorporation of creation into the teaching of origins, and maintains that a non-religious approach to creation should be followed. Even though some aspects of creation are related to religious beliefs, the entire theory cannot be banned from the classroom solely because of religious reasons, for creation can be taught objectively, based on scientific evidence.

It is probably not easy to practice the distinction between presenting information about religion and indoctrinating the students in those beliefs. But the distinction is allowed by the First Amendment. Justice Clark has stated that religion may be taught within public schools if it is taught objectively. Even if creation ideas are ruled to be religious by the courts, they should still be allowed in the classroom.

K.C.

Cell phones: Precautions recommended

Several government bodies around the world suggest that anyone who uses a cell phone (and these days, who doesn’t) would be well advised to keep a little distance between that phone and their body. And when people need to make a call, they should minimize radiation exposures by phoning only where reception is really good.

In justifying these and other precautions at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Monday, several scientists observed that recent studies have begun linking heavy use of cell phones over a prolonged period with an increased risk of cancer. Especially in the head, and on the same side that people normally hold their phones.

Of course, if such a link were robust, cell phones would be sold with little warning labels, much as cigarettes are today. That link is not robust. On the other hand, they argued, it’s also not going away. Quite the contrary.

SOURCE

For instance, Olga Naidenko, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a research/advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., led a team that just completed a 10-month analysis of 200 peer-reviewed studies on cell-phone safety.

“We found that the studies amassed during the first two decades of cell-phone use produced conflicting results and few definitive conclusions on cell-phone safety,” Naidenko said. “But, the latest research, in which scientists are for the first time able to study people who have used cell phones for many years, suggests the potential for serious safety issues.”

She and others at the hearing argued that in light of the accumulating — though still far from strong — indications of health risks, people would be wise to adopt the precautionary principle. Israeli physician and cell-phone researcher Siegal Sadetzki put it succinctly: “Better safe than sorry.”

People can and should adopt simple practices that reduce their exposure to cell-phone radiation, said this researcher from the Gertner Institute (affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine at Tel-Aviv University). Nearly all of the researchers and scientists who spoke at the hearing similarly advocated a precautionary approach.

The lone holdout: Linda Erdreich, who spoke at the behest of CTIA-The Wireless Association®. This international group represents, among others, cell-phone makers and wireless-service providers. Erdreich, a consulting epidemiologist, saw no reason to take precautionary measures, she said, because her reading of the scientific literature suggests wireless phones pose no harm.

“The currently available scientific evidence about the effects of radiation emitted by mobile phones is contradictory,” admits Dariusz Leszczynski of Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, in Helsinki. “There are both studies showing effects and some studies showing no effect.”

Rather than view this uncertainty as reason for complacency, he says, it makes more sense to consider as “premature” any interpretation that cell phones are safe. In fact, Leszczynski contends, “Current [cell phone] safety standards are not supported by science because of the very limited research on human volunteers and on children.” Rather, he says, “This uncertainty calls not only for precautionary measures but also for further research.”

His agency has issued two cell-phone advisories suggesting what such precautions might include — like limiting children’s use of cell phones. And texting, when possible, instead of actually talking on a cell phone (to keep that phone away from direct contact with the body).

Last year, Sadetzki’s team reported finding a 50 to 60 percent increased risk among certain Israeli adults of parotid-gland tumors (mostly benign tumors of the salivary gland). The affected group: heavy users of cell phones who did not listen to their calls via a hands-free device (such as a wired earphone or wireless ear piece). Writing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, she and her colleagues noted: “A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.”

At the hearing, Sadetzki said her group’s findings were consistent with research by others linking cell phone use for 10 or more years to tumors in the brain and to acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor affecting the nerve that connects the ear to the brain).

In the July International Journal of Oncology, Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg of Orebro University Hospital in Sweden reported an update of their cell-phone studies looking at brain-cancer risk. Here, phone habits were analyzed for some 3,600 people, both individuals with cancer and healthy controls. And people who had developed astrocytoma — a type of brain cancer — were five times as likely to be heavy cell-phone users who got their first mobile phone during their teen years, at least a decade earlier. Cordless home phones did not show a similar link.

It may not be surprising that some of these links to cell phone use are only now emerging, Sadetzki said at the hearing, because there can be long latency periods separating exposures to carcinogens and the development of tumors. For instance, she pointed out that the first reports of brain tumors linked to radiation from the atomic-bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t show up until a half-century after the bombings.

“Since widespread cell-phone use began only in the mid-‘90s,” she notes, “the followup period in most published studies is only about 10 years.”

Cell-phone technology “is here to stay,” she acknowledges, so “the question that needs to be answered is not whether we should use cell phones, but how.”

For instance, she noted that the French health ministry has warned against excessive cell-phone use by children because their bodies may still be undergoing developmental changes that render them especially susceptible to radiofrequency emissions. Moreover, cell-phone radiation penetrates their brains proportionately more deeply than it does in adults. The Israeli health ministry recommends that cell-phone users employ speakers, earphones or hands-free technologies and limit use of these phones where reception is weak.

Naidenko has yet another recommendation: “Buy low-radiation phones.” Identifying which emit the lowest radiation can be difficult, she acknowledged. That’s why her group developed a free, interactive online guide that provides manufacturer-stated radiation-emissions values for more than 1,200 different phones.

The Great Galileo...

"In question of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." [Galileo Galilei, 1632, a quote signaling that what follows is surely by a crank and so it souldn't be believed blindly but judged only on its own merit]

When cells run out of fuel

Parkinson's disease is caused by the degeneration of neurons in the midbrain. The mechanisms leading to the loss of these neurons, however, are largely unknown. Recent research revealed that about ten per cent of cases are caused by defects in so-called Parkinson-associated genes. Furthermore, mitochondria, the cellular powerhouses, seem to play a major role.

New results from researchers at the LMU Munich under the lead of associate professor Dr. Konstanze Winklhofer and Professor Christian Haass connect both phenomena, showing that two Parkinson genes maintain the function of mitochondria. "Diseases like Parkinson's where at least some cases are unambiguously related to the dysfunction of specific genes offer a promising research opportunity," explains biochemist Dr. Konstanze Winklhofer "When we understand the function of these genes, we can learn a lot about the causes of the disease, its progress and possible new therapies." Professor Wolfgang Wurst and his group of the Institute for Developmental Genetics at the Helmholtz Center Munich also contributed to this work.

(Journal of Biological Chemistry, 21 August, 2009)

Four million individuals are estimated to suffer from Parkinson's disease worldwide. This neurodegenerative disorder is characterized by rigid muscles, uncontrollable tremor and slowing - or even loss of - voluntary movements. It is caused by the death of nerve cells in a midbrain area called substantia nigra. These neurons secrete dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in the control of movements. Thus, a loss of dopamine-producing neurons causes a dysbalance in the regulation of movements.

"Functionally impaired mitochondria have been recognized to trigger Parkinson's disease already in the early eighties," Dr. Konstanze Winklhofer says, an associate professor at the Adolf-Butenandt Institute of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) in Munich. At this time it was discovered by accident that mitochondrial toxins can induce Parkinson's disease. The relevance of mitochondria to the loss of neurons seems plausible - after all, mitochondria supply the cells with energy in form of adenosine triphosphate and play a substantial role in the regulation of cell death.

The scientists' results now combine both observations on a genetic basis. They found that the Parkinson-associated genes PINK1 and Parkin functionally interact to maintain mitochondrial function. Loss of Parkin or PINK1 function impairs the morphology and activity of mitochondria, which then produce less adenosine triphosphate. "Our results also confirm the high neuroprotective potential of Parkin", Winklhofer says. "We observed that Parkin can compensate a loss of PINK1 function, but not the other way round". Winklhofer and her colleagues have shown earlier that Parkin can protect neurons under various stress conditions.

Until today, there is no possibility to prevent or cure Parkinson's disease. All pharmacological approaches are merely symptomatic and aim at replacing the neurotransmitter dopamine. Insight into the function of Parkinson-associated genes can help to identify new targets for therapeutic strategies in order to prevent or halt the loss of dopamine-producing neurons. So far, six Parkinson-associated genes are known whose functions remain to be elucidated in detail. In the case of Parkin and PINK1 scientists have made significant steps forward and now aim at uncovering the molecular mechanisms of their functions.

More information: "Loss of parkin or PINK1 function increases DRP1-independent mitochondrial fragmentation"
Lutz, A.K., Exner, N., Fett, M.E., Schlehe, J.S., Kloos, K., Laemmermann, K., Brunner, B., Kurz-Drechsler, A., Vogel, F., Reichert, A.S., Bouman, L., Vogt-Weisenhorn, D., Wurst, W., Tatzelt, J., Haass, C., and Winkelhofer, K.F. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 21. August 2009. Vol. 284, Issue 34, 22938-22951

Source: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Dynamic changes in DNA linked to human diabetes

A study in the September issue of Cell Metabolism, a Cell Press publication, may give new meaning to the adage, "You are what you eat."

The DNA isolated from the muscles of people with diabetes bears chemical marks not found in those who respond normally to rising blood sugar levels, according to the report. The epigenetic marks in question are specifically found on a gene that controls the amount of fuel, in the form of glucose or lipids, that cells burn. Those marks also show up in the skeletal muscle of people with prediabetes, suggesting that the DNA modification might be an early event in the development of the disease.

Those changes rapidly reprogram the gene's activity without altering the underlying DNA sequence at all. They suggest a way that environmental factors—what we eat or how active we are—may perhaps influence our genes, for better or for worse.

Indeed, the researchers show that the hypermethylation of the gene known as PGC-1{alpha} for short (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor coactivator-1{alpha}) also takes place in isolated muscle fiber cells when they are exposed to an inflammatory factor or to free fatty acids.

"These changes take place when you expose muscle to systemic factors that mimic the diabetic condition," said Juleen Zierath of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden.

Such changes to the epigenetic imprint have been seen before, explain Zierath and Romain Barrčs, the study's first author. For instance, chemical modification of genes are responsible for developmental changes that take place as cells differentiate. They are the reason that keratin is produced in the skin but not in blood, for instance. In contrast, the changes they've now revealed take place in cells of the body that are fully mature.

"It's a much more dynamic process than we thought," Zierath said. "The genetic causes of diabetes are important, but this shows us that epigenetic changes, which take place on top of our genes, can alter our physiology in critical ways."

Evidence that dietary factors might influence epigenetic gene control in diabetes had been suggested previously by a generational study in humans, which showed that the nutritional status of the grandparent is closely linked to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids. In mice, researchers have demonstrated the crossgenerational effects of nutrition on DNA methylation status directly.

Whether epigenetic modifications could have more immediate effects in other tissues of the body wasn't clear before now. The researchers say they don't yet know whether these epigenetic changes are reversible, but they do have evidence that they might be prevented.

They were able to block hypermethlyation of PGC-1? by silencing a gene that encodes one of a few enzymes that transfer extra methyl groups to DNA. Drugs that prevent hypermethlyation might find clinical use, they say, particularly if they could be made to work only on specific tissues.

"There's room for this in terms of drug discovery," Zierath said.

In a broader sense, the discovery shows that we are not "victims of our genes," she adds. "It's exciting because there may be ways for us to lower disease risk if physical activity or other lifestyle factors can positively influence our epigenome and improve metabolism."

Further studies are needed to see whether different diets or exercise habits can alter DNA methylation in beneficial ways, she said.

Source

Myers...please take genetics course 101

Well, now our friend Myers is trying to persuade us saying that creationists think that all mutations are harmful or dangerous (at least from a creationist view...) Wrong my friend! Of course creationist scientists know that there are mutations, but there are different mutations and he must know that. Probably the guys commenting in his blog know anything about biology (...and I think it's true), but there is a course called Genetics 101 friends...

The BBC has an article on the recent direct measurement of human mutation rates, and while it's not a bad article, it does seem to express the view that the result is something novel. It's not; it's a confirmation of a standard measure that scientists have known about for a long, long time. We have estimated the number of novel mutations in newborn human individuals to be somewhere between a hundred and a few hundred (best estimates were on the order of 150) based on a couple of facts.

We've had measurements of the fidelity of the enzymes that catalyze replication, and since we know both the per nucleotide rate and the number of nucleotides, it's straightforward to calculate the average number of errors per replication event. We've also had estimates from the measured frequency of spontaneous mutations in human disease genes that have given answers in the same ballpark. The only thing new in this recent study is that they sequenced the Y chromosomes of a group of related men and directly tallied up the new mutations, confirming that the previous calculations were roughly correct.

Like I say, it's not a bad article, but if you really want the best summary of the work, you should be reading Sandwalk.

It's useful information for the next time you're in a debate with a creationist, too. They often assert that all mutations are harmful, but clearly, they can't be: they're almost entirely neutral. That creationist is carrying over a hundred new mutations that his parents lacked, and his children will each have over a hundred more, and his grandchildren a hundred yet again. What we have going on is a great churn of frequent change, just change, not a pattern of directional variation that either degrades or elevates us.

Have a good day!

Source

Good try Myers...but you lose this one

This peculiar little email is nothing special, but is actually rather representative. It's interesting because most atheists will read it one way, where I suspect (PZ Myers), he actually means it another way.

Professor Myers,

My name is Jack Heidman and I am an F15 pilot and commercial airline pilot for American Airlines. I am not a biologist. I was too busy flirting with my cute lab partner to pay attention in high school biology class (by the way, I went to Wayzata High - I bet you know where that is).

I would seriously like your opinion on another stupid creationist question I have. I know that you know your origins view is correct and I am wrong. I also know that you know us creationists (especially young earth creationists) are incredibly misinformed and/or stupid. I am not trying to be sarcastic. You are obviously a very educated individual and I am quite certain you are much more intelligent than I am.

My stupid creationist question is simple: What if you're wrong? Pascal once said "Are you willing to wager eternity?" Is it possible that where you go when you die might be as important as where you came from (in your case - primordial soup)? Don't you think your eternity might be worth a little consideration? I've seen your picture on the internet and I notice a few grey hairs in your beard. Unfortunately I'm getting a few myself which reminds me every morning when I shave to consider my post-death living quarters (you might want to ask yourself…smoking or non?)

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

Sir, please think about my stupid creationist question. I eagerly await your reply.

Respectfully,

Lt Col Jack Heidman
F15 Pilot and…
A Colossally Stupid Bible Believing Creationist

As Malcolm Muggeridge says:

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Source

Chaos In Physics

New developments in science that come under the general heading of "chaos" have been described as revolutionary and the basis for a genuinely new paradigm. It has brought about the realization that instead of understanding most of nature in principle, science has really addressed only the very restricted subset of phenomena that can be analyzed by simple methods. Chaos has had a broad impact in diverse disciplines, influencing mechanics, astronomy, solid-state physics, ecology, meteorology, and biology, as a few examples. For those interested in a popular book on the subject, Chaos: Making a New Science (Gleick 1987) is probably the best, with Fractals in Your Future (Lewis 1991) being particularly appropriate for teaching high-school level students. At a slightly more advanced level is Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws: Minutes from an Infinite Paradise (Schroeder 1991).

Photos of the Mandelbrot Set (FRACTINT. PROGRAM), a classic example of chaos.

To understand the revolutionary nature of chaos requires some history. In the 1600s Newton developed classical mechanics to describe the motions of bodies in our solar system. In the 1800s Laplace extended the ideas of classical mechanics to suggest determinism — the motion of every body in the universe is completely determined. As a result, "Universal, immutable laws, absolute precision, and strict predictability were ideas that were habitually believed to characterize science." Newtonian physics assumed "that the initial data determine the future, unambiguously, uniquely, and forever ... [and] that the qualitative aspects of the motion are not too sensitive to the precise initial data." Newton's laws could be solved exactly for 2 bodies, such as the sun and the earth. For a system containing more than 2 bodies, such as the earth-moon-sun system, accurate approximations were used. More involved problems were — so was the common belief — only technically different from the special examples. Newtonian physics was a dramatic success in predicting the return of Halley's comet in 1757 after its observation in 1682, and in predicting a new planet (Neptune) based on the observed irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. "These ideas were so successful and suggestive that they stimulated the search for similar laws in all of physics (and most of science)" (Dresden 1992).
Unfortunately, "the general attitude toward classical physics was based on an uncritical, unanalyzed acceptance of the ideology of Newtonian physics." "It is not clear whether physicists and astronomers were aware of the tenuous mathematical basis of their (often unspoken) beliefs, but it is pretty clear that they didn't worry too much about it" (Dresden 1992). At the turn of the last century, Poincare in his The New Methods of Celestial Mechanics wondered about the stability of solar systems. He "discovered that with even the very smallest perturbation, some orbits behaved in an erratic, even chaotic way. This was true even for a closed system, that should be particularly amenable to analysis by classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle yielded indeterminacy in another area a few years later, and Poincare's ideas were forgotten for a time. "Small wonder, since even Poincare had abandoned the ideas, saying, 'These things are so bizarre that I cannot bear to contemplate them'" (Briggs & Peat 1989). Poincare's ideas have only come to the forefront again in the last 15 years or so.
Now classical mechanics is being reevaluated. It has been found that "properties were inferred from the detailed examination of very few examples — maybe five or six altogether." "... all the general features attributed to classical mechanics are in general wrong. The exactly soluble examples are not generic; they are in fact quite atypical." "... chaotic behavior, contrary to earlier beliefs, was a rather general property and not a pathological feature of some contrived system," and even relatively simple systems can exhibit frightfully complex behavior (Dresden 1992).
For chaotic systems a slight imprecision results in indeterminism. This slight imprecision may result from uncertainty in the initial data, or from approximate calculations based on perturbations of an exact solution. For such systems, predictive errors develop exponentially with time and an initial, small imprecision eventually results in total loss of predictability (Davies 1990).
Examples of chaotic behavior are numerous. The famous Butterfly Effect suggests "that a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York" (Gleick 1987). Population dynamics of rabbits can be affected in unpredictable ways by small changes in food supply. Earthquakes, snow avalanches, and dinosaur extinctions have been studied using chaos methods. One simple example involved adding sand to a sand pile on a 4 cm plate, one grain at a time. Sand avalanches would occur after as few as one or as many as several thousand grains were added to the pile. The addition of a sand grain would cause an avalanche in unpredictable ways (Bak & Chen 1991).
Chaos theory brings attention to the fact that errors in describing the future based on present approximate data in classical mechanics develop exponentially with time. It is possible that errors in extrapolation from present earth-history data into the past also develop exponentially with time and therefore, less is known about the past than previously realized.

Benjamin L. Clausen

Selected References

• Bak, P. and K. Chen. 1991. Self-organized criticality. Scientific American 264(1):46-53.
• Briggs, J. and F. D. Peat 1989. Turbulent mirror. Harper & Row, New York, pp. 26-29.
• Davies, P. 1990. Chaos frees the universe. New Scientist 128(1737):48-51.
• Dresden, M. 1992. Chaos: a new scientific paradigm — or science by public relations? The Physics Teacher 30(1):10-14.
• Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: making a new science. Viking Penguin. New York. 352 pp.
• Lewis, R.S. 1991. Fractals in your future. Media Magic, Nicasio, California. 265 pp.
• Schroeder, M. 1991. Fractals, chaos, power laws: minutes from an infinite paradise. Freeman, New York. 429 pp.