tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post4087568653941990053..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Science without hypotheses? Not exactly penis-spine tinglingAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-12961224918141569902011-03-15T09:18:30.156-04:002011-03-15T09:18:30.156-04:00Yes, and you did a good job of it!Yes, and you did a good job of it!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-61522742514827318872011-03-15T09:16:20.229-04:002011-03-15T09:16:20.229-04:00Just in case any readers are totally confused.
(I...Just in case any readers are totally confused.<br /><br />(I'm sorry if my post was confusing.) <br /><br />There actually are scientists out there who leave their hypotheses out of proposals, papers, articles, and presentations. I'm talking about the actual hypotheses that they're testing with their research. <br /><br />And I think that's a mistake on many levels. Emphasized here is on the level of engagement with the public that's compromised if hypotheses are ignored.<br /><br />I used the McLean et al article (on penis spines, whiskers, and brain size) as a tool to help illustrate two different ways of presenting research. I couldn't help but talk about the "why" for penis spine loss (as they did in their paper), but it's not directly to do with the point of my post. Also, I am not a geneticist (like Ken is), so I could not (and did not aim to) critique their methods in determining that the deletions were linked to these human-specific traits. And I didn't even attempt to touch on just how big or small the effects of these deletions are.<br /><br />My point was to show how stating some hypotheses (from my imagination: see where I listed 4 items) makes a more engaging report than one without hypotheses. <br /><br />And I thought that using a recent and interesting article was a great tool for that.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-63537892801229638892011-03-15T08:58:44.362-04:002011-03-15T08:58:44.362-04:00The more serious and (to me) legitimate issues are...The more serious and (to me) legitimate issues are the way in which relatively rapid evolution of seemingly complex traits can occur. Getting rid of penis spines may be simple, but what about not just bigger brains but 'smarter' ones... or is just bigger all it took for us?<br /><br />In the early '70s King and Wilson argued, basically on principle (no data) that regulation rather than new construction would be responsible for things like human-chimp differences. Maynard Olsen in the genome-sequence age (about, say, 10 years ago) once said to me (maybe he published this, too, I can't recall but if he did it would likely have been in PNAS), that gene inactivation was likely to be responsible.<br /><br />The underlying reason is that making up a new trait by having to assemble a bunch of new genes is very unlikely to explain major, rapid changes. Even then, it would almost have to be in some small, local population and almost impossible for us to reconstruct in terms of the proximate causes.<br /><br />More likely is just knock out a gene or a context of its expression, and if it has a major effect, then selection could quickly favor it.<br /><br />But even in that case, all other variation that affects the trait---and there's almost always a lot of it, as experimental breeding has clearly shown--will also be favored. But most of the genes involved will have so little individual impact as to be undetectable (see my comments about this in Evol. Anth. a couple of issues ago). <br /><br />The simple-hypothesis hunters see the one or few genes that have a detectably strong effect, and make Big Stories out of that. But this could be a statistical artifact of the way selection works.<br /><br />These issues are separate from ones like pleiotropy, drift, and so on. <br /><br />I'm working on some simulations to try to show these things, but haven't got anything specific to cite at the moment. But I believe we will come to realize that they are relevant.<br /><br />But the hunger for juicy stories won't stop wild hypothesizing even then, I predict.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-91354305077970251532011-03-15T08:47:07.927-04:002011-03-15T08:47:07.927-04:00Well, Holly, I think taking issue is a bit strong,...Well, Holly, I think taking issue is a bit strong, but I would say that responsible speculation--that heeds what is known about evolution--is what's missing.<br /><br />There are so many alternatives and obvious questions. You touched on a few. If big or 'hard working' organs (at either end) are important in humans for the reasons you mention, it seems very forced (to me) to argue that they would not be similarly important in many other species. This raises the question of our tendency to invoke human exceptionalism.<br /><br />I know I tend to be a spoil-sport, but the integrity of science is important to guard. The issues are not at all new: showman-science goes back at least to the Enlightenment. Even at the time, Galileo published in Italian rather than Latin. He learned of telescopes when the early models were being used as toys in Holland. Boyle, Edison, and others I forget went around giving science shows, often for self-promotion.<br /><br />On the other hand, this leads, in my view, to hyper-determinism and when that is mixed with evolution, you get eugenics. That is my main concern, and history shows it's not exaggerated.<br /><br />History, being last November, for example, when the 91 year old just elected to the New Hampshire legislature argued that the weak and defective should be dispensed with because they're a burden on society: that is exactly the argument that fed the eugenics movement and, quite explicitly, the Nazi's.<br /><br />So, it's not all just good clean fun, and all size-matters innuendos aside, there are legitimate reasons to be a stuffed...shirt.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-63743823501632389242011-03-15T08:44:47.885-04:002011-03-15T08:44:47.885-04:00I'm really truly referring to the actual hypot...I'm really truly referring to the actual hypotheses being tested in the research. That's what I want to see and that's what I believe spices up science presentation... <br /><br />I'm NOT referring (at least not primarily) to the kinds of hypotheses that you're referring to, like their explanation for why humans lost penis spines. That's not a hypothesis that's being tested in their study.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-80236867947413048322011-03-15T08:37:38.306-04:002011-03-15T08:37:38.306-04:00Ken, I quoted a passage from McLean at all that of...Ken, I quoted a passage from McLean at all that offers what you say in your first paragraph. (it's near the end of Number 1, above). <br /><br />And I had a hunchpothesis that you'd take issue with my post today!! :)Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-66712536073787782532011-03-15T08:29:10.527-04:002011-03-15T08:29:10.527-04:00Or maybe it didn't matter for either trait, so...Or maybe it didn't matter for either trait, so the lost enhancer was just lost and those who carried the mutation had no disadvantage (or some other advantage not yet known).<br /><br />The problem with juicing up science stories is that the facts tend to be left behind as the titillation is stressed, and it can lead to too-easy acceptance of Just-So stories.<br /><br />Often, what go as 'hypotheses' are just wild-guesses, and to me therein lies the problem. It should be fine to label such ideas as 'one can speculate that....', but even then our society tends to ignore the caveat and treat the ideas as having much more specific support than they actually do.<br /><br />But making a story about a tiger ravaging some young damsel boring, that takes even _more_ skill, perhaps....Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.com