Comments on: Biology Will Never Be the Same Again: Scott Lanyon

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:20:33 +0000

Pete: How old are you?

By: Pete Dunkelberg

Pete Dunkelberg — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:02:58 +0000

BuzzwordinessGenomics replaces simple conceptions of the genotype. We have a more holistic understanding of the genome, ……. Greg adds in comments:This can lead us to shun explanation s that are complex even when dealing with phenomena that are complex. This could help explain (in part) the bankruptcy of the reductionist shool of thought.===huh? so far as I can tell, the same scientific methods are in use and working well.

By: windy

windy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:01:48 +0000

There are NO traits (phenotype) which can be explained by the operation of a single gene, in any system on Earth.Since there are no organisms with only a single gene in their genome, that’s rather obvious. And “single gene” is yet another issue. Even if someone holds the “one genotype one phenotype” view, which I doubt anyone does, they can still think that each trait is affected by several genes.

By: Freddie G

Freddie G — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:31:18 +0000

John B,It is good to know that the T Rex program works for 7th grade students. Do you let them go through the folders on their own or do you provide something for them to fill out as they go?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:09:13 +0000

Windy … yea, but, I think a different issue is being addressed here. Try this on:There are NO traits (phenotype) which can be explained by the operation of a single gene, in any system on Earth.I hear good things about the T Rex thing.

By: John B

John B — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:31:57 +0000

Comment 1 Freddie GI have been using the “What did T-Rex” taste like with 7th grade students the last couple of years.The changes for biology and what to teach (certainly not maintained well in our CA state standards) at times seems daunting task.Another idea I have recently been introduced to is that of “slab pull” and gravity as the main “force” driving plates.My point being that the diverse evidence from different fields for evolution is important to share with younger students and as teachers we have the greatest job in the world trying to keep somewhat abrest of portions of it.

By: windy

windy — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:04:48 +0000

The one-gene : one-phenotype “falsehood” is not a lack of understanding of phenotypic plasticity.

Of course it is; if someone knows that phenotypic plasticity happens, they cannot at the same time claim that a genotype always results in the same phenotype. Rather obvious when you think about it.

By: Not Uri Geller

Not Uri Geller — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:35:44 +0000

The one-gene : one-phenotype “falsehood” is not a lack of understanding of phenotypic plasticity. It is exactly what it says it is, a belief in one gene linked to one phenotype and visa versa. Which is a falsehood.

By: windy

windy — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:04:44 +0000

I just read an article yesterday in Science News about how the study of SNP’s illustrates that reductionism across populations leads to misleading analysis […]
I am not sure how that relates to phylogenetic mapping, but it does dovetail nicely with your statement that “the genotype-phenotype one-to-one correspondence has weakened in its explanatory power…”

Actually, no it doesn’t. Focusing on individuals, not populations, helps the researchers to zoom in on the right SNPs. The “suspicious snips” article is neutral on the question of how strong the SNP-disease correspondence is. (Towards the end it says: “And there’s still a nagging question: After you’ve bagged your gene, what do you do?”)”One genotype – one phenotype” is an easy strawman to bash on, but saying that evolutionary biologists have been attached to it until fairly recently is strange. Norms of reaction (first named 99 years ago!) have been textbook fare for over half a century. “Phenotypic plasticity” is getting on in years as well. What evolutionary geneticist in the last couple of decades has been unaware of these concepts?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:51:47 +0000

It is not really a matter of being against or for Parsimony/'Occam's Razor' ... My assertion is that it is used in a particular way (regardless of how all us smart people THINK it should be used) very commonly. In the last 48 hours at this conference I've seen it used twice, both exactly the same way...Given two hypotheses that are before us, determine that one is simpler and pick that one as more likely true ... in other words, reject a hypothesis (the one you did NOT pick) because the other hypothesis has fewer steps.This can lead us to shun explanation s that are complex even when dealing with phenomena that are complex. This could help explain (in part) the bankruptcy of the reductionist shool of thought.Yet, the principle has value. But again, I personally would prefer to think of it as stated above.