How Many Different Cell Types in an Adult Human?

We're having a little discussion about complexity in the comments from my post of last Friday [Vertebrate Complexity Is Explained by the Evolution of Long-Range Interactions that Regulate Transcription?]. I pointed out that many scientists just can't come to grips with the idea that humans aren't much more complicated than other animals. We are not special. I call this The Deflated Ego Problem.

One of the minor arguments in favor of human exceptionalism is the idea that we (mammals?) have more cell types that other species. Therefore, we are more complex. The number that's often bandied about is 210 cell types. PZ Myers debunks this myth (once again) in Methinks it is like a fox terrier". I love it when people like PZ make oblique references to Stephen Jay Gould as he does in the title. If you don't know what this has to do with fox terriers then you're in for a double treat.

---

Read More

Mina Cvetkovic - Allure Russia - October 2013

Photography: Robert Erdmann

Stylist: Robin Page

Hair: Romina Manenti

Makeup: Denise Markey

Read More

Vertebrate Complexity Is Explained by the Evolution of Long-Range Interactions that Regulate Transcription?

The Deflated Ego Problem is a very serious problem in molecular biology. It refers to the fact that many molecular biologists were puzzled and upset to learn that humans have about the same number of genes as all other multicellular eukaryotes. The "problem" is often introduced by stating that the experts working on the human genome project expected at least 100,000 genes but were "shocked' when the first draft of the human genome showed only 30,000 genes (now down to about 25,000). This story is a myth as I document in: Facts and Myths Concerning the Historical Estimates of the Number of Genes in the Human Genome. Truth is, most knowledgeable experts expected that humans would have about the same number of genes as other animals. They realized that the differences between fruit flies and humans, for example, didn't depend on a host of new human genes but on the timing and expression of a mostly common set of genes.

This isn't good enough for many human chauvinists. They are still looking for something special that sets human apart from all other animals. I listed seven possibilities in my post on the deflated ego problem:
Read more »

Read More

Marikka Juhler - Intermission - Fall/Winter 2013

Photographer: Gregory Harris

Stylist: Tony Irvine

Hair: Rutger

Makeup: Sil Bruinsma

Read More

Frida Aasen - Elle Norway - October 2013

Photography: Isabel Watson

Stylist: Petra Middelthon

Hair: Nikola Grozdic

Makeup: Anne Cecilie Olavesen

Read More

Giedre Kiaulenaite - Vogue Russia - October 2013

Photography: Mariano Vivanco

Stylist: Natasha Royt

Hair: Ward Stegerhoek

Makeup: Ayami Nishimura

Read More

A "Perfect Painting" Proves that Beneficial Mutations Are Impossible and Neutral Mutations Are Impossible

There are times when the stupidity of creationists just makes you gasp. This is one of those times. The creationist is Denyse O'Leary, who holds some kind of record for stupidity.

In this case she can be partially excused since she seems to be quoting someone named Laszlo Bencze. You can read the whole thing at: Is there no such thing as a neutral mutation? Art explains why there probably isn’t.

Denyse quotes Laszlo Bencze (I think) talking about a painting by French artist Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867).

Here is a famous and gorgeous painting by Ingres which I just saw in person at the Frick Museum in New York.

Let’s imagine we can improve it by adding a dot of paint 1mm in diameter to it. In evolutionary terms we will give it a “point mutation,” the smallest possible change. If we add this dot randomly, the odds are pretty high it will damage the painting by creating an obvious, intrusive speck. So let’s give evolution every advantage. Let’s make the process far more likely to succeed by having the great contemporary painter, David Hockney, add the speck wherever he thinks it will “do the most good.”

Now I happen to know that Hockney is a great admirer of Ingres and would be shocked and dismayed at any such request. But if a cruel tyrant under pain of death forced him to do it, Hockney would understand that there is no place he could possibly place a dot of paint that would improve the painting. Like a living thing, the painting is so well crafted that anything he might add to it could only be neutral at best. So Hockney would strive to place the most neutral dot he could by choosing a pigment that matched some dark portion of the painting and hope to hide his speck there.

But would such a speck be truly neutral? No matter how well it matched the color, wouldn’t it be visible as a raised dot under the right lighting conditions? And wouldn’t that actually damage the painting even if ever so slightly? And this is precisely Sanford’s point. In the world of biology it is impossible to create a neutral mutation. The change may be extremely slight, even invisible, yet always a degradation no matter how small.

When you think about it, it's really very sad this this is the best the Intelligent Design Creationists can offer. They are so ignorant that you can almost feel sorry for them.

---

Read More