Sean Carroll (the physicist, not the developmental biologist) is moving on up to CalTech.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If you've been following the Bloggingheads site, you probably already know that the best thing on it is Science Saturday with John Horgan and George Johnson. Horgan and Johnson are splitting up for the next few weeks, and are getting different heads to make a pair. Next week, George Johnson and the…
We're working through Carroll's book(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) in my developmental biology class, and today we discussed a couple of chapters that included an amusing piece of fan mail Sean Carroll received. I thought I'd include it here because something about it sounds awfully familiar.
The context…
The Discovery Institute has me on a mailing list for their newsletter, Nota Bene. That's probably unwise: usually I just glance at it, see another ignorant bit of fluff from Luskin or Nelson or one of the other usual suspects, and I snigger and hit 'delete', but sometimes they brag about how they'…
I'm pretty sure that for a long time people who were supposed to know what they were talking about were explaining the Higgs Boson wrong. This led other people to think of it the wrong way as well. I'm not even speaking here of the whole "god particle" thing. That's a whole nuther, equally…
I think Brian Greene should change his name to PZ Myers. Why should the Carrolls be the only pair of physics/evodevo twins?
Paul wrote:
"Sean Carroll (the physicist,..."
Speaking of Sean B. Carroll (the developmental biologist) you may have seen this...
Science 7 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton*
What the heck is Sean M. Carroll (the physicist) doing writing a paper on developmental biology?
Am I missing something or is this a huge typo? Or is there yet a third Sean Carroll afoot?
Mystery solved.
There is indeed a third Sean Carroll, Sean M. Carroll who is a graduate student in the Thornton Lab at UOregon. Jamie Bridgham is a post doc at the Thornton Lab. Both George Carroll and Scott Bridgham are tenured professors at UOregon. Perhaps these folks are related to their distinguished fathers?
Thanks, PZ. You wouldn't believe how many papers I get to referee from Cell, presumably meant for the other SC. That's okay, I reject them anyway.
Now to comment on the paper:
It begins:
"The ability of mutation, selection, and drift to generate elaborate, well-adapted phenotypes has been demonstrated theoretically (1, 2), by computer simulation (3, 4), in the laboratory (5, 6), and in the field (7). How evolutionary processes assemble complex systems that depend on specific interactions among the parts is less clear, however. Simultaneous emergence of more than one element by mutational processes is unlikely, so it is not apparent how selection can drive the evolution of any part or the system as a whole. Most molecular processes are regulated by specific interactions, so the lack of exemplars for the emergence of such systems represents an important gap in evolutionary knowledge. As Darwin stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"
Unfortunately, the paper contributes nothing that answers this daunting dilemma. There is absolutely no evidence presented that a neo-darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection created the highly organized structures, processes and systems that are described. The only thing offered is "gene duplication" without any kind of empirical support for this view.
The authors state: "we characterized the functions of the ancestral corticoid receptor (AncCR)--the ancient protein from which GR and MR descend by gene duplication."
While there is sufficient evidence to conclude that these ancient proteins are related to each other and possibly originated from common origins, there is no hint of the mechanism by which this may have occurred.
This is the most important question, the mechanism. That these systems are closely related, there can be no doubt, that they emerged from a common origin similarly, though not as well supported, does not elicit great concern. That they are the product of random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift or chromosome duplication is highly questionable and unlikely.
The more likely scenario is that all of the information that led to the evolution of these structures, processes and systems was already present in the genome from the beginning and what we view as evolution is not the result of random, accidental or non-directed processes, but the unfolding of a carefully planned series of steps that were programmed into the genome at the time of its first arrival on earth.
Noah's ark, so to speak. Not a wooden boat filled with actual animals, but a seed (or seeds) planted on the earth in the form of DNA that took root on a fertile, water body and evolved into the complexity and diversity we see today.
"Life comes from space because life comes from life."
BTW, I added the boldface. It was not that way in the original.
"Caltech", not "CalTech"! I mean, come on, I agree with you, PZ, way too often, so at least I can be a nitpicky little bastard :)
Dave Bacon is right: The cognoscenti do not use interior capitalization in "Caltech".
As for the multiplicity of Sean Carrolls, why are all of them distinguished science types? Lucky dogs! The guy who shares my real name is a registered sex offender in the next town over (he doesn't even have the good grace to live in another state). Damn. At least he's not a fellow Caltech alumnus.
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.
Hills, that is.
Swimmin' pools, movie stars.
The guy who shares my real name is a PORNSTAR for crying out loud. The first time I googled myself, I almost died from laughing. My mother was less pleased.