Comments for BETWEEN TWO CITIES

Comment on What is a Force? by Susan Larkin

Susan Larkin — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:44:17 +0000

Right on!

Comment on Evolution “Invents” a New Photoreceptor in Humans by delayed2sleep

delayed2sleep — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:42:54 +0000

That’s a fascinating review (at http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=f2362238-e0a0-4917-a56c-4d59bc456462 ) — makes one want to read the book. The knowledge gained in the 20th century is extensive and remarkable about the “common mechanisms–built of different concrete parts–in circadian systems and photoperiodic effects everywhere,” as Pittendrigh put it mid-century. As Harman says, figuring out the ancient basic workings of all living beings’ internal rhythms “has been one of the most impressive journeys in the recent history of science. Showing that, since many of the genes and proteins that tell time are similar in mice and flies, there must have been an ancestral clock for insects and mammals going back seven hundred million years–and a much, much earlier one for bacteria–is an extraordinary accomplishment.”

Good as the review is, its author and not the book must be blamed for causing the misconception that melanopsin-containing ganglion cells in the mammalian retina are “new”. Harman uses the word “invented” strangely also in his book title “The Man Who Invented the Chromosome”. There, in the introduction, he blames the use of the word on the Honorable Dame Miriam Rothschild. I do wish he wouldn’t perpetuate it.

So, no, a new complex protein molecule didn’t “suddenly appear” in mammals!

Comment on Evolution “Invents” a New Photoreceptor in Humans by davidlarkin

davidlarkin — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:58:34 +0000

Certainly the photoreceptor was newly discovered, a trite point, but the point the author of the review was making was that it was a new complex protein molecule suddenly appearing in the mammalian species, “invented by evolution.” There are non-sight-related photoreceptor molecules in other classes of the animal kingdom, like fish, for example, that may be used in entrainment. The mammalian photoreceptor molecule itself is a melanin/ospirin protein. Ospirins are types of proteins sensitive to light that exist in rods and cones in birds, fishes and mammals, i.e., animals with eyes. The “new” photoreceptor was new in natural history. My point was that the it takes great faith to believe that this new complex protein was the result of a random modification of genetic structure in DNA that solves a survival problem for the mammal, regardless of whether there were other photoreceptor proteins in other animals that served non-sight functions. How did mammals survive prior to the just right random mutation to a complex set of genetic code that produced a new melanin/ospirin protein molecule that allowed the mammal to survive and exist as mammals?

Comment on Evolution “Invents” a New Photoreceptor in Humans by delayed2sleep

delayed2sleep — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:52:17 +0000

New? I’d suspect that entrainment to the light/dark cycle in nature is one of the oldest capabilities of all living things including unicellular ones. Much, much older than vision. The only thing “new” about the “new class of photoreceptors” is that they are newly discovered. We learned about rods and cones in middle school; light sensitive retinal ganglion cells hadn’t been discovered yet.

Comment on Time, Time, Time, See What’s Become of Me by David Nix

David Nix — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:42:31 +0000

Dave — Thanks for a very interesting posting. It’s hard to think of Updike as being concerned about not enough time — he was so prolific: 21 novels, 18 story collections, a dozen books of poetry, another dozen books of essays and criticism, and even some children’s books. He wrote poetry pretty much up to the day he died. (One of his last poems, published in The New Yorker earlier this year, was about a dinner at the Arizona Inn in Tucson.) It’s incredible when you compare Updike’s output (and Mailer’s, and Roth’s, and … ) with renowned novelists who struggle to publish once a decade. (Hey, Pynchon, I’m talkin’ to you!)

Comment on On Turning 60 by CJ

CJ — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:38:13 +0000

I was looking for information on turning 60, which I will do next year. I have a group of friends, several of whom have been my friends for more than 54 years, and wanted to find each of them a gift which celebrates reaching the 60 milestone.

Comment on Origins of Life by Samuel L.

Samuel L. — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:13:07 +0000

Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is a lot more than I expected for when I stumpled upon a link on Digg telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.

Comment on Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter by Who’s a Leftist Creationist? « BETWEEN TWO CITIES

Who’s a Leftist Creationist? « BETWEEN TWO CITIES — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:44:15 +0000

[...] Posts Stephen Jay Gould’s Dissent Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter Origins of Life Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Origins of LifeFrancis Collins: [...]

Comment on Who’s a Leftist Creationist? by Origins of Life « BETWEEN TWO CITIES

Origins of Life « BETWEEN TWO CITIES — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:05:37 +0000

[...] Posts Stephen Jay Gould’s Dissent Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter Who’s a Leftist Creationist Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The non-believers review of “The Case for [...]

Comment on Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter by Origins of Life « BETWEEN TWO CITIES

Origins of Life « BETWEEN TWO CITIES — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:05:29 +0000

[...] Posts Stephen Jay Gould’s Dissent Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter Who’s a Leftist Creationist Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The [...]