Woah. This is what science is about. The cut and thrust of informed debate. Elegant hypotheses slain by the dragons of empiricism.
Clinical, evolutionary, and molecular evidence refutes their hypothesis.
Conclusions […] are uninterpretable and untenable
— from a letter by Joachim Herz et al. in PNAS, addressing perceived (alleged?) deficiencies in a paper by Ozcelik et al. , entitled Mutations in the very low-density lipoprotein receptor VLDLR cause cerebellar hypoplasia and quadrupedal locomotion in humans.
Pass the popcorn, Charles. I’m going to watch this one.
And no retraction or other formal correction?
Maxine, I got an email from another member of this community that says, essentially, that certain things in this world are errant nonsense. That may or may not have anything to do with anything.
Certainly, as demonstrated by a few recent comments on a couple of your blog posts, Richard! I didn’t realise you were
so magneticsuch a magnet.{laughs}
Oh dear. I think I need to lie down for a while…
I think you meant arrant rather than errant, though the former was once used in the sense of the latter. Hearty wassails for the OED and the joys of archaistic pedantry.
Funny you should say that Henry — I was just about to correct myself before you so kindly pointed it out.
Better you than the egregious Dr Rohn, of course.
What has happened to the
egregiousfragrantkatabaticekpyroticestimable Dr Rohn? It’s all gone quiet lately.Actually I was also going to correct errant to arrant, but I didn’t want to be pedantic or risk a “Slapdown!” (last time, I was called "mum")
But I rather like the idea of nonsense, charging around on a five-legged steed, with “Stop evolution now!” emblazoned on its shield, roaming the world looking for a home.
Ouch, the other letter is pretty damning too. It looks like Ozcelik et al. don’t have a leg to stand on.
Sorry.
It looks like Ozcelik et al. don’t have a leg to stand on
But I rather like the idea of nonsense, charging around on a five-legged steed, with “Stop evolution now!” emblazoned on its shield, roaming the world looking for a home.
What was that? Oh, yes.
Bob, what other letter? There seems to be only one referred to here, criticising Ozcelik et al.
Or is it like the bifurcating Norfolk Police and their form of Turkey (see thread kit)? {a thread that made even me laugh, I have to say.}
In the immortal words of MP, I’m not dead yet.
Just a bit snowed under.
I have, however, at least thought of the title of my next blog post. (Hint: it starts with “In which…”)
Proof that Dr Rohn has not gone quiet…
“In which I star in Lord of the Rings remake, and am here practicing in front of a blue screen”?
… Or maybe doing a remake of the “Desperate Seeking Susan” or some other late 80ies/early 90ies movie if I got the lyrics correct :)
back to subject> Richard, it seems interesting. Kind of “what happens when we have a different theory in our research group?” Sometimes I think there is a good thing in bringing these discussions into the light since after all, we are talking about theories and we all know that they can be changed (especially when newer techniques come along…)
Well, Asa, there was a conversation about bras on Jenny’s blog the other day, and DSS is where the fashion for wearing them outside one’s clothes began…but I think she’s more Eowin-like in that shot, than Madonna-like.
Maybe Richard will wake up soon and offer a view, or get the conversation back onto its allotted track in any event.
Maxine> True, that thing with the Galliano [cone] fashionstatement if I remember my fashion history correctly, which I might not do.
Anyhow, the blue screen seems to point in the direction of “tLotR” though – with all those various creatures.
I think he needs to wake up, or he’ll find his blog moving to discuss bras and fashion (although I think I have discussed Choo with him on another occasion… ;) )
I saw a documentary about this inherited mutation recently. The gait of the affected people didn’t look at all like a natural “de-evolved” (i.e. animal-like) motion, but rather an awkward adaptation to congenital deformities. The narrator kept talking about devolution and a return to a more primitive human state, but all the scientists who were interviewed were exceedingly careful not to say that.
You realize, of course, that this means war.
DefCon 2:
Is this Karaoke blogging?
Um, no Martin. We
re supposed to be dissing devolution.
Maxine, I got an email from another member of this community that says, essentially, that certain things in this world are errant nonsense. That may or may not have anything to do with anything.
Since when did you turn into Alistair Campbell?
“tipp tipp”… I don’t really recognize the song …
Sorry Richard!> Regarding the devolution, would their argument be that this mutation makes it better for the people for ‘devolve’ into quads?? And how long time would this have taken?
I think still that the discussion and the letter against one another might be reviving for the research groups? (or maybe I am just a tad bit too optimistic here?!)
Oh, sod it.
If you can’t beat them
what’s the point of teachingjoin them.I think it is Tan U who is the one pushing the devolution idea (and for some years now). I have only looked at abstracts so it is hard to tell if it is just wrong, or not even wrong. In any case PNAS is not the appropriate place for it.
I think the individuals involved are at pretty serious risk of being badly exploited by those pushing the devolution idea.
Haha, fantastic Richard. If it’s a Lord of the Rings remake, as Maxine suggests, then this is the Queen of Rohn-an.
Asa – the tipp…tipp is the ‘tippy-tay, tippy-tay’ from the crap bit of ’That’s Amore’.
These are shots from a recent science bloggers’ karaoke. As well as me and Jenny, a couple of folk from Science Blogs came along, plus Karen James from the Beagle Project.
We wanna do it again, so anyone else in the London area who’d like to come along, let me know.
OK, let’s get serious. I was the
mohelcorrespondent who gave Richard his anonymous tip-off, but I didn’t want to come out for reasons which shouldn’t be too hard to guess.Devolution, though, is arrant nonsense. It’s nonsense because, as a concept, it is built on the misguided assumption that evolution follows a particular course that can be mapped, and therefore can be followed not just forwards but backwards. Once again, in the cause of promoting
my citation ratingthe general understanding, I point to my essay in which the idea of progressive evolution is debunked.By the use of secret communications technology known only to the residents of Cromer, I can reveal that in the photo above Dr Rohn is declaring “Now for wrath! Now for Ruin! And a Red Bull!”
Red Bull? I had her down as a Theakstons gal.
There was another letter in PNAS, basically they looked at the cases a bit closer and came to a similar conclusion to Dr. Gee.
And to keep to the topic (sort of), Scotland is a good example of devolution, isn’t it?
Devolution? I thought that was a recent U2 track !!
I don’t have strong
mild cheddarviews about devolution, but my Uncle Ian Hamilton QC does hatheth a thing or two to say and a film due out very soon.Whilst IH QC and I are blood related for real (Father’s side), we have never connected/spoken (yet).
I have got totally confused by this conversation, so will go off and check out PNAS for the other letter (thanks, Bob).
Nice sword, Jenny ;-). Matt looks as if he has pinched Gimli’s dagger to puncture a couple of orcs with perms. I must definitely make the next social evening to witness these strange events (and will Charles Darwin be there, with Yoko Ono in tow?).
Did you find the other letter, Maxine?