Professor Santiago Elena, one of the profs who presented at the Viral Evolution conference I went to last fall, is featured in a nifty video about watching evilution in action!

Evolution of Life: Evolution before our eyes

Just like I use evilution in the lab to understand the population dynamics of HIV-1 to create an HIV-1 vaccine, Dr. Elena uses evolution to understand how viruses evolve and adapt in plants, which will help us protect our crops.

Evolution isnt just about retarded monkey-fish-frogs. Understanding it has a direct impact on your quality of life.

Hat Tip to Teh Evilutionary Biologist!

Comments

  1. #1 Prometheus
    November 4, 2009

    Hat tip to you Abbie.

    I want to use the first comment to say thanks for using Scienceblogs to blog about science.

    I love Arnie reports and the TARD wars, don’t get me wrong, but reading a scientist write about their work in their own field to try and make it accessible rocks.

    I sometimes get the impression that 2/3rds of the “Sciencebloggers” ran some sort of bait and switch by using impressive credentials to get a host where they can devote time to how many times their kid went poopies, who they are going to vote for and to leech Youtube videos of commercials.

    If they bother to post about science it is to link to somebody else who is actually writing about it….usually so they can complain.

    I get PZ’s devotion to the war with TARD and WOO but sometimes I wish even he would shut up and tell me something about evo-devo and cuttlefish.

    ERV=Keeper of the Flame

  2. #2 fsdfsdgdfgfxgfxgs
    November 4, 2009

    Erv – you have a typo in the word ‘evolution’ in this post’s title. I’m sure you didn’t mean to write ‘evilution’, unless you’ve suddenly turned into a creationist.

  3. #3 llewelly
    November 5, 2009

    I get PZ’s devotion to the war with TARD and WOO but sometimes I wish even he would shut up and tell me something about evo-devo and cuttlefish.

    If you aren’t already, I strongly suggest you start reading Darren Naish’s blog, Tetrapodzoology. Of all the science bloggers I know of, (whether with Seed or elsewhere) Darren is the one who most consistently focuses on science to the exclusion of all other things. See also Ed Yong’s blog, Not Exactly Rocket science, Matt Springer’s blog, Built On Facts, and Starts With A Bang.

  4. #4 Rorschach
    November 5, 2009

    I wasnt aware HIV was used in gene therapy ! Abnbie, this might interest you :

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ea-tcs110509.php

  5. #5 impal
    November 6, 2009

    OK here goes

    So what
    -It’s still viruses
    -It’s still single cells
    -It’s still variation within “kinds” or baramin
    -It’s still microevolution
    -Evilution

    That’s why we need scientists to put down the IDiots and Cre(a)ti(o)nists. We need zingers, cannon, bazooka, tanks, needles, etc. Because you see, if you think your children made it through high school in a diverse district (like mine, an exemplar among liberal diverse districts US-wide) and what me worry? – think again. It will be a looooong time before the stupidity of IDiocy and Cre(a)ti(o)nism will be broken up and pulverised. Because tomorrow your scientist daughter could be fighting for funding with a denier of a Cong’man or state rep. And she will need all the ammo she can get. So even if it strains scientists to keep whacking down such stupidity, it must be done. As the general public our job is to take up these points of science and blog, twitter to the max. No Quarter!

  6. #6 Toidel mahoney
    November 15, 2009

    This is intelligent design not Darwinism. The androgynous European planned every step. In order to prove the religion of evolutionism, it all must happen by random chance.

  7. #7 embertine
    November 18, 2009

    Toidel mahoney: Natural selection is the opposite of random. Please to be learning some science before posting on a science blog.

    “The androgynous European”
    Interesting that creotards feel the need to highlight their perception of their opponent’s sexuality/sexual identity when commenting. Almost makes you think that they don’t have a valid point to make about the research. Oh, wait….

  8. #8 Toidel Mahoney
    November 18, 2009

    embertine writes:

    Toidel mahoney: Natural selection is the opposite of random. Please to be learning some science before posting on a science blog.

    If it isn’t random, then intelligent design must be involved. Non-random selection means an intelligent designer planned it that way.

    “The androgynous European”
    Interesting that creotards feel the need to highlight their perception of their opponent’s sexuality/sexual identity when commenting. Almost makes you think that they don’t have a valid point to make about the research. Oh, wait….

    Sodomy and evolutionism go together like worm and spice. Evolutionism is the theory, sodomy is the practice. Since evolutionists deny teleology, they necessarily deny the teleological meaning of the mouth and anus and thus think they are sex organs because they are declared to be so.

  9. #9 Prometheus
    November 18, 2009

    “Sodomy and evolutionism go together like worm and spice. Evolutionism is the theory, sodomy is the practice.”

    Somebody tell Janine Melnitz to hit the big red button on her desk and shout “WE GOT ONE!!!”

    I have soooo missed the unfettered loonies….tell me you are for realsies don’t troll me bro…. it would be cruel, like giving kids toothbrushes and carrot sticks for Halloween.

  10. #10 TotallyUncool
    December 22, 2009

    Walking into the room long after the conversation has ended

    I don’t know — Toidel could be a troll — this line is just a bit too sophisticated and out of character:

    “Sodomy and evolutionism go together like worm and spice.”

    Unless, of course, he really is a character from Dune…

    In his completely wrong-headed way, though, Mr. Toid almost touches on an interesting point:

    He says that the experiment doesn’t really show Darwinian evolution because there’s an intelligent selective principle (Prof. Elena’s actions) rather than randomness. Then he follows it up with this:
    “If it isn’t random, then intelligent design must be involved. Non-random selection means an intelligent designer planned it that way.”

    And that’s where he misses (or more likely, willfully ignores) one of the (if not the) pivotal points of Darwinism. Prof. Elena wasn’t guiding the mutations in the virus — he was only acting as a selective principle (and not even the only one — the alien environment and biological defenses of the Arabadopsis were doing a lot, if not most, of the selection).

    And Darwin, of course, had spent a lot of time studying intelligent selection. What he saw was that it only took the ongoing pressure of a selective principle — whether it was intelligent or natural — to drive evolution, and that in nature, the conditions affecting survival and reproduction provided such a principle, without the need to bring in an intelligent force.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.