
Carl Zimmer has a
post up about his
new article in the November 2006 issue of
National Geographic. The article surveys recent research on the origin of multicellularity, segmentation, the vertebrate head, eyes, limbs, feathers, flowers, and the new kid on the block...the flagellum! And he even bases it on
Pallen and Matzke 2006.
Mark Pallen is interviewed -- unfortunately there is nothing about
the Genomic Dub Collective, but I'm sure that's destined for
ReggaeTimes.
Famed flagellum researcher
Howard Berg is also interviewed. Sadly, there is nothing about the ID movement's frequent claim that one of the spiffy design features of the flagellum is that it is "water-cooled" -- a claim which they usually attribute to Berg (googling "
water-cooled flagellum" brings up only ID/creationism websites). In my humble opinion, a fish has a far stronger claim to being "water-cooled", given that the heat-retention capabilities of nanometer-scale molecular system are essentially nil (I read once that the heat energy
radiates away dissipates in picoseconds at that scale). Someone should ask him about that some day.
22 Comments
Torbjörn Larsson · 19 October 2006
"I read once that the heat energy radiates away in picoseconds at that scale".
Friction and heat transfer is different for nanoscale devices. I found a discussion with references confirming picosecond order cooling for proteins @ http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-18-t-000005.html .
"http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/3/874
Although we have focused on ATP synthesis, we note that the results are also of interest for the mechanism of the gamma-subunit rotation during hydrolysis by F1-ATPase. The dissipation of the energy from an exothermic reaction (ATP/H2O to ADP/Pi), which is on the subnanosecond time scale in proteins" (With thanks to yersinia.)
Gerard Harbison · 19 October 2006
Torbjörn Larsson · 19 October 2006
Gerard, I immediately regretted saying "picosecond order" about (one) subnanosecond dissipation observations. I stand corrected.
Nick (Matzke) · 19 October 2006
David vun Kannon · 19 October 2006
A nice article, though the section on bacterial flagella was the weakest, IMHO.
One of the sources Carl ever so helpfully references at the end of his blog entry is "The unicellular ancestry of animal development." Developmental Cell 2004. which seems to shed a bit of light on flagellar evolution in the section "The Flagellar Synthesis Constraint".
If some flagella share MTOC structures with other intracellular processes, where is the argument that they are irreducibly complex? Similarly, if bacteria can dismantle flagella when attached to surfaces (as I think is hinted at by Niehoff in Language of the Life) there would seem to be plenty of opportunity to develop flagella from simpler systems and co-option.
wamba · 19 October 2006
I've got that issue waiting at home. I can't wait to see if they use the "fair and balanced" approach, with interviews of Minnich and Behe. Methinks Zimmer knows better.
Torbjörn Larsson · 19 October 2006
"Doesn't going below one nanosecond put you into picoseconds?"
Sure, but it 999 picoseconds is still on the order of (one) nanoseconds.
I thought only the best was good enough for PT, so I was aiming to be precise. ;-)
Nick (Matzke) · 20 October 2006
Gerard Harbison · 20 October 2006
Nick:
Cooling of a heme by heat transfer to the rest of the protein is a good bit faster than cooling of an entire protein by transfer to the solvent. Heat conduction is very non-linear.
The IDers are right only to the extent that on the length scale of biological molecules, under normal conditions, everything is water-cooled with near perfect efficiency! If you take a completely synthetic platinum catalyst on finely divided carbon, it too will be perfectly solvent cooled!
Actually, the discussion got me thinking that if you ran a diffusion-controlled enzyme fast enough, by overloading it with substrate, back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate you might get a detectable, non-equilibrium heating of the active site. Overheating an enzyme might be interesting enough to make the experiment worth trying.
So while ID might not lead to a research program, if you take the assertions of IDers and invert them, you might come up with something interesting! It's sort of the reverse mask of a scientific theory!
Torbjörn Larsson · 20 October 2006
"So while ID might not lead to a research program, if you take the assertions of IDers and invert them, you might come up with something interesting!"
So are they the devil's advocate or (scientists) useful idiots?
Gerard Harbison · 20 October 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 October 2006
Yep. Just idiots.
Gerard Harbison · 20 October 2006
Aaargh, that was proviso, not priviso!
Carl Zimmer · 24 October 2006
Grady, what's your point? Does my not being a scientist somehow make my article automatically wrong on all counts--despite the fact that it is based on interviews with leading scientists in these areas, and despite the fact that the staff of National Geographic then carefully checked the accuracy of the article with scientists? If, as a non-scientist, I write, "Gravity is an attractive force between aggregates of matter," does gravity cease to exist?
Joe McFaul · 26 October 2006
"Carl Zimmer is not a scientist."
No, the Discovery Institute got all the good ones: Jonathan Witt, Casey Luskin, Bruce Chapman and John West.
Carl's ability to translate technical scientific language into terms understandable to other non-scientists like me is a rare gift.
Anton Mates · 26 October 2006
Michael Suttkus, II · 26 October 2006
Well, I wouldn't bring up National Geographic given it's checkered record with regard to science...
Still, "He's not a scientist" is nothing but an empty ad hominem. Especially given that everyone on the other side forfeited their right to be called scientists the day they put conclusion before fact.
Joseph Alden · 22 November 2006
Nice try Carl.
Your data was very amusing, yet also typical of most evos propaganda pimps. Let's review your delusional rants.
First, you quote Sean Carroll's lame example of a building appearing to be constructing itself, because if one walks by late in the day, they wouldn't see all the workers, etc. etc.
One small problem.
Those workers are utilizing the blueprints of an "intelligent designer", i.e. an architect, to get everything correct. They don't just show up each day & start pounding nails, welding sheet metal and pouring concrete. Thousands of specific details are required, for little things like proper weight distribution, among others.
Sorry, your regurgitation of Mr. Sean therefore becomes bogus.
Second, you also make a lame attempt at another classic evos " fairy tale " ; the evolution of the eye. Hey Carl, if an easily detached retina disproves ID, then I've got even more ammo for your next rant. Share with your NG readers this example. If Nick whacks Lenny over the head, with say, a Louisville slugger, poor Lenny most likely becomes worm food, within a few days. Therefore, since ID did not mandate a football helmet, for each human skull, this proves ID cannot exist, right ? The eyeball HAS to have come into existence by mere chance, right Carl ? NOT !
Somehow, you & your evos in-breds got the notion that Intelligent Design always has to dictate perfection. Not quite. We have automobiles that get recalled, planes that crash, people that become ill and die, etc. etc. Just because something is not perfect, does not mean it wasn't designed.
Next, you also made a failed attempt, at solving the mysteries of the plant kingdom. Here's another classic evos double-standard. You say that flowers have established into existence for themselves, " brilliant pigments and sweet nectars to lure insects, blah, blah, blah." However, we have a slight problem Carl. Mr. Gary Hurd of Talk Origins, says plants have no ability for intelligent thought or cognitive reasoning. They cannot possibly know of animals and insects looming about. Therefore, your point becomes pointless. Thus the evos propaganda becomes, once again, nothing more than idiot's logic.
Here's a thought Carl. Since you're not a valid scientist, you might suggest to your fellow in-breds at NG, to add a cartoon section to the magazine. This may better suit your writing ability. Cheers.
Steviepinhead · 22 November 2006
Bleh.
Uh, maroon, the plants don't have to "know" that there are animals and insects out there. Those plants who do get nibbled or who don't achieve pollination won't have as many descendants as do those whose heritable variation "happened" to construct phenotypes that were less likely to be eaten or more likely to be pollinated.
This is all pretty simple stuff, yet it has managed to elude your mental grasp.
Perhaps too many plants among your ancestors have interfered with you own ability to mentate.
stevaroni · 22 November 2006
Anton Mates · 22 November 2006
Charles Tharp IV · 6 January 2007
Sean Carroll, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin---Madison, likens the body-building genes to construction workers.
The way I think this analogy should read is like this.
"If you walked past a construction site at 6 p.m. every day, you'd say, Wow, it's a miracle---the building is building itself, evolving out of nothing. But if you sat there all day and saw the workers and the tools, the blue prints, the architects, engineers, supervisors, and every one else adding their intelligence to the overall design, you'd understand how it was put together. We can now see all the prior planning, workers and the machinery. And the same machinery and workers can build any structure as long as they are given a new set of blue prints developed by intelligent architects and engineers."
A limb, a feather, or a flower is a marvel of intelligent design, but not a miracle as you may have attributed to the building before correctly interpreting all the evidence.