Talks in Kentucky, a single origin of life, and other stuff

If you happen to live anywhere near Murray, Kentucky—and the chances of that are almost nil—I’ll be giving two lectures at Murray State University this Thursday and Friday. I leave tomorrow, flying to the Paducah, Kentucky airport (one flight a day from Chicago O’Hare) and will return Saturday, so posting may be light, though the noms will be heavy. Here’s the information if you are connected with Murray State or live within striking distance.

Picture 3

I like the description in the first post (“World-famous biologist and cat-lover”, though only the second bit is true)—but they should have switched the pictures!

I believe the first talk will be followed by a book signing, and the secret word, if you want a cat drawn in your copy, is “ailurophile.”

I’ve received word from an anonymous (and hostile) student that my posters were probably defaced because many students don’t like the title of my anti-accommodationist talk and aren’t overly fond of the Murray State secular organizations, either.  And I’ve been asked if I want security. I don’t think that’s necessary, for Ceiling Cat will protect His eponymous Professor.

Ceiling Cat

Here’s one of those non-believers, showing his ignorance in a tw**t forwarded to me by reader Barry:

Screen Shot 2013-11-19 at 7

(Yirrell appears to be a British Biblical literalist who has been pwned in a YouTube video.)

Talk about snake oil salesmen: can Mr. Yirrell demonstrate that Jesus was resurrected? Can he demonstrate, as Yirrell has apparently claimed, that all of humanity descend from two people: Adam and Eve?

In fact, we have very strong evidence that life originated only once, for we can make protein-sequence-based phylogenies pointing strongly to a single origin of life as opposed to multiple origins (see reference below). There is other evidence as well, including the use of L-amino acids by all species and the universality (with a few trivial exceptions) of the genetic code and the RNA translation mechanism. As Douglas Theobold, author of the protein sequence paper cited below, notes: “UCA [the hypothesis of a single Universal Common Ancestor] is 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis.”
___________

Theobald, D. L. 2010.A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465:219-222.

31 Comments

  1. Diana MacPherson
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure you mean ailurophile. Yes, this is why I don’t get invited to parties.

    • Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      Yep, a typo. I’ve corrected it, thanks.

    • Kevin
      Posted November 19, 2013 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

      Well it is not exactly a warranted disqualification for being invited to parties…at least it shouldn’t be.

  2. francis
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    //

  3. rikkigumbs
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Good old Martin Yirrell. The biggest idiot on Tw*tter.

    • bric
      Posted November 20, 2013 at 3:06 am | Permalink

      Wow that’s quite a claim

  4. eveysolara
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Koonin has an interesting criticism of that paper.

    http://www.biologydirect.com/content/5/1/64

  5. Wolfkiller
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    You should give a talk closer to home. A little under 200 miles to the west, slightly south. Any of the Quad Cities will do!

  6. Posted November 19, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    If you have any time in Paducah, grab a quick sandwich at Starnes Barbecue! Yum!

  7. Jesper Both Pedersen
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Rats, I get a “page not found” page when i click the Theobald link.

  8. Posted November 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    All the best with your lectures, Dr.C. Enjoy your time there.

  9. lisa parker
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Comment 1. I think it would be very wise of you,as you have waived armed bogy guards, to at least hang out with a couple of really big mean-looking guys. The nuts seem to be out in force lately and I just have uncomfortable feeling about your talk.
    Comment 1a. I have never, in all my reasonably long life, had an ‘uncomfortable feeling’ that turned out to more than badly fitting undies, so you can probably leave the flack jacket at home.

    Question 1. Where does snake oil come from? Do they produce it themselves (which is difficult to picture as they are pretty much limbless.) Or is it made from squashing them, which sounds dangerous and unpleasant for both the snake and the squasher if they are using vipers. Or is it something that the snakes themselves use for dry scalp or any other lubricating needs?

  10. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    “I’ve received word from an anonymous (and hostile) student that my posters were probably defaced because many students don’t like the title of my anti-accommodationist talk and aren’t overly fond of the Murray State secular organizations, either.”

    Huh, and here I thought it might have been because some people are childish and engage in cowardly vandalism.

  11. Golan
    Posted November 19, 2013 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Interesting, as usual :)
    The single origin of life issue isn’t addressed enough, at least as far as popular science goes.
    In geological terms, life started quite quickly once the conditions on earth allowed it. Of course, statistically, this does not say much, but intuitively, it’s tempting to conclude that in the right conditions, the probability of the beginning of life is a actually not so small. In turn, this leads to the question how it happened only once.
    Can anyone provide a good enough answer for a curious layman?

    • John Scanlon, FCD
      Posted November 20, 2013 at 4:40 am | Permalink

      The standard answer (perhaps first given by Mr C. Darwin in the “warm little pond” letter to Hooker in 1871) is that as soon as life had originated once, it would quickly assimilate the available raw materials that might otherwise produce a second origin.

      ‘Zat good enough?

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted November 20, 2013 at 8:37 am | Permalink

        Shorter version: “Winner take all.”

      • Golan
        Posted November 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Not really, to be honest.
        It does not sound reasonable to me that the very simple first organisms, all from the same “creation” event, spread so fast to consume all the raw materials necessary to begin life as to not allow another such event.
        Don’t get me wrong. With the evidencea single origin of life, I don’t question it. It’s just the explanation that I am missing.

        • John Scanlon, FCD
          Posted November 21, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

          Reproduction (or replication) is an intrinsically exponential process, with rate determined by resource availability. Life expands to fill the space in which it can exist, which doesn’t leave room and/or resources for subsequent abiogenesis.

          Really, dude, it’s not that hard. Two minutes out of a lecture series, get it or fail.

    • jimroberts
      Posted November 20, 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      All life forms that we have so far investigated have a common ancestor. But the boundary between life and complicated chemistry is is vague. Maybe “life” did arise more than once, but descendants of only one lineage survive to this day. Who knows? But if we do happen to find, in some obscure niche, life not clearly related to life as we know it, I don’t see it as any sort of challenge to evolutionary biology. And if we find, for example in the oceans of Europa, life related to Earthly life, we will be very surprised.

  12. Dominic
    Posted November 20, 2013 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    Talking of the Origin of Life, any WEIT readers in central London tonight get yourselves to UCL for two lectures, one by Nick Lane & Anthony Devine
    http://londonevolution.net/
    Alas! I cannot go :( but next week there is the other one – the Medawar lecture with Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum. Last night there was the annual Grant Lecture by Dr Paul Upchurch – how life was distributed in the past – not concentrated on the tropics except in interglacials. Fascinating.

    One day I hope you will do a lecture in London!

  13. Stephen Wilson
    Posted November 20, 2013 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    I find it fun, yet at the same time frustrating, when I’m asked questions like Martin Yirrell’s. I usually answer, “Well, yes!” then try to simplify and summarize commonalities of genetics and the concept of natural selection. That’s the fun part. The frustrating part is when I see that dear-in-the-headlights look the questioner displays and I realize he/she hasn’t even the basic scientific literacy needed for the most simple discussion.

    • Stephen Wilson
      Posted November 20, 2013 at 6:10 am | Permalink

      DEER…missed that one.

      • Matt G
        Posted November 20, 2013 at 7:03 am | Permalink

        Good. You have to drive attentively in heavily wooded ares, especially at dusk.

      • Posted November 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        Maybe, “old dear in the headlights”?

        /@ | LAX

  14. Hempenstein
    Posted November 20, 2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    UCA’s also a codon for serine :-) . But glad you mention the protein evidence!

    • Matt G
      Posted November 20, 2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      Oh, UGA with your nerdy jokes!

  15. Vicki
    Posted November 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    I thought it was the creationists who insisted that life on Earth had all started within the same week, not the biologists.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25,565 other followers

%d bloggers like this: