Adding a little bit of spicy strangeness along those lines, is the phenomenon of ‘convergent evolution’. This is one of those not-so-rare cases when species that aren’t very similar or closely related , turn out to have a feature that is strikingly, almost awe-inspiringly, similar. Wikipedia has a pithy list of examples of convergent evolution, my favorite one being the case of the human eye, and the Octopus eye. See how similar* they look, even though Cephalopods(them) and Vertebrates(us) diverged in evolution millions of years ago, before any eyes of similar nature were invented by the ubiquitous tinkering of evolution.

There are many explanations for why convergent evolution might occur, but they are circumstantial at best, speculative at worst and usually not very convincing. If you are a biologist, you will know that finding out the truth in such cases is intensive enough to just suffice ourselves with Orgel’s Second rule “Evolution is cleverer than you are”, and leave it at that.

But it’s starting to turn out, that while evolution may be a clever tinkerer, there aren't too many ways to skin a cat. A couple of papers published in the last few weeks show that while evolution may create similar characteristics in unrelated organisms, it tends to use the same mechanism at the molecular level to do so. Chan et al report in Science, that sticklebacks in different isolated populations tend to lose a feature of their anatomy: the pelvic girdle, by the same molecular event – the loss of a genetic regulatory element called the Pitx1 enhancer. Now you may say that these are the same species, and not nearly as spectacular as the Octopus-Human comparison, but remember that these populations do not interbreed, and not all populations have sticklebacks lose their pelvic girdle. It is pretty astounding that three populations who lose their pelvic girdle do so in the same manner – by eliminating Pitx1.

More exciting was a paper published in PloS Genetics by Counterman et al. , who examine the genes that produce the color in Heliconius butterflies. In contrast to the earlier paper, Counterman et al. study populations of a species of butterfly called the Small Postman (H.erato), that is a Muellerian mimic of its poisonous relative , the Postman butterfly (H.melpomene). The idea is that birds know that the Postman butterfly is poisonous , and will not eat it. H.erato will try to mimic the appearance of the its toxic cousin, so that birds leave it alone in a case of mistaken identity.  Both H.erato and H.melpomene are poisonous, and have independently evolved similar appearances despite having diverged millions of years ago. The mimicry is a huge benefit to both species, since it ensures that predators have one thing firmly entrenched in their collective memory – if it looks like  Postman butterfly, do not eat it .

[The author of the paper has educated me about the nature of interaction between these two species. See comments for details].

                 Heliconicus melponeme                            Heliconicus erato

Of course, the various populations of H.erato are not all equal, some seem to be better make-up artists and look much more like their miasmatic relative. Counterman et al. perform a population genetic analysis of these, and find, to their surprise that all of them show a dependence on only one site (locus) in the genome of these butterflies.

By doing more intensive analysis on this locus, they are able to determine that in fact, it is only one gene – kinesin, that seems to make most of the difference between a good mimic , and a bad one. Once more, the appearance and nature of a rather complex trait, is shown to be linked to a rather small region of DNA. If you want to look like the Postman butterfly it seems, you need to mess with the Kinesin gene.

In the light of these findings, a hint of a molecular explanation for convergent evolution begins to emerge. As the authors of either paper suggest, there may be evolutionary hotspots in our genome for a given trait. Whenever natural selection pressures the species into changing the trait, it is this genomic hotspot that feels the brunt. At the molecular level, evolution seems to be much more constrained than the medley of phenotypic outcomes lead us to believe.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one day we found that the developmental genes or regulatory programs that make an octopus eye and a human eye are more akin than their tentacles and our hairy heads seem to suggest.

*Note : It is interesting that despite the compelling similarity, the eyes are not completely identical. The retina of the Octopus eye actually has the reverse order of cell layers , when compared to the Human eye. This actually makes the Octopus eye somewhat better, since its optic nerve does not have to penetrate the retina – thus, an Octopus eye has no blind spot! Morever, because its photoreceptors have no obstrcutive cell layer (unlike us), it probably has a higher sensitivity to light as well.

References

Chan, Y., Marks, M., Jones, F., Villarreal, G., Shapiro, M., Brady, S., Southwick, A., Absher, D., Grimwood, J., Schmutz, J., Myers, R., Petrov, D., Jonsson, B., Schluter, D., Bell, M., & Kingsley, D. (2009). Adaptive Evolution of Pelvic Reduction in Sticklebacks by Recurrent Deletion of a Pitx1 Enhancer Science, 327 (5963), 302-305 DOI: 10.1126/science.1182213

Counterman, B., Araujo-Perez, F., Hines, H., Baxter, S., Morrison, C., Lindstrom, D., Papa, R., Ferguson, L., Joron, M., ffrench-Constant, R., Smith, C., Nielsen, D., Chen, R., Jiggins, C., Reed, R., Halder, G., Mallet, J., & McMillan, W. (2010). Genomic Hotspots for Adaptation: The Population Genetics of Müllerian Mimicry in Heliconius erato PLoS Genetics, 6 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000796

You see, this is why you begin to mistrust journalists. The passive sensationalism is, ironically blatant. I am referring to an article in the Indian Express .

Before I begin I’ll reproduce the article here….

China considered India ‘bottomless pit’ for foreign aid

Agencies Tags : Jawaharlal Nehru, Richard Nixon, Indira Gandhi

Posted: Sunday , Jan 24, 2010 at 1217 hrs

New Delhi:

While former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru coined the famous slogan ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’, China considered him ‘discourteous’ and India to be ‘bottomless pit’ for foreign aid.

It also held the view that it was a ‘pity’ that late prime minister Indira Gandhi "has also taken as her legacy the philosophy of her father embodied in the book Discovery of India," which China believes revealed his idea of a great Indian empire encompassing Malaysia, Ceylon among others.

The comments were made by former Chinese Prime Minister Chou En Lai to former American President Richard Nixon, who famously called Gandhi a ‘bitch’ and a ‘witch’ while his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger called Indians ‘bastards’.

The comments are now a part of the book ‘Nixon, Indira and India: Politics and Beyond’ written by a senior journalist Kalyani Shankar.

What this article is actually talking about, is a Cold-War-era conversation between a United States president and a Chinese Prime Minister, about India. India was all buddy-buddy with the Soviet Union at this time, much to the dismay of the US, and of course, China had already gone to war with India over territorial ambitions. In effect, these two political figures were talking about their counterparts in what they essentially considered to be a hostile country. It is rather tame language when talking about someone you think is your enemy, no?

Yet, this article (and that is it in its entirety) , provides only the juiciest tit-bits, without any context whatsoever – no doubt to rile up the sentiments of those Indians who read it upon seeing their leaders being insulted.

Of course, this is excellent promotion for the upcoming book, although if Mr.Shankar has a shred of decency as a political writer, he will want to give the journalist a piece of his mind, and I hope that includes some expletives.

Disclaimer : The following is an excerpt from Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses". This particular excerpt is , to my knowledge , in the public domain.

At the oasis of Yathrib the followers of the new faith of Submission found themselves landless, and therefore poor. For many years they financed themselves by acts of brigandage, attacking the rich camel-trains on their way to and from Jahilia.

Mahound had no time for scruples, Salman told Baal, no qualms about ends and means. The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound — or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? – should one say Al-Lah? – became obsessed by law. Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind. It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free.

The revelation – the "recitation" – told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which sexual positions had received divine sanction, so that they learned that sodomy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top. Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch. He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand that life has been real, and not a sort of dream. And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that sounded so much like a businessman.

This was when he had the idea that destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if non-corporeal, God.

After that Salman began to notice how useful and well timed the angel's revelations tended to be, so that when the faithful were disputing Mahound's views on any subject, from the possibility of space travel to the permanence of Hell, the angel would turn up with an answer, and he always supported Mahound, stating beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was impossible that a man should ever walk upon the moon, and being equally positive on the transient nature of damnation, even the most evil of doers would eventually be cleansed by hellfire and find their way into the perfumed gardens, Gulistan and Bostan. It would have been different, Salman complained to Baal, if Mahound took up his positions after receiving the revelation from Gibreel; but no, he just laid down the law and the angel would confirm it afterwards; so I began to get a bad smell in my nose, and I thought, this must be the odour of those fabled and legendary unclean creatures, what's their name, prawns.

The fishy smell began to obsess Salman, who was the most highly educated of Mahound's intimates owing to the superior educational system then on offer in Persia. On account of his scholastic advancement Salman was made Mahound's official scribe, so that it fell to him to write down the endlessly proliferating rules.

"All those revelations of convenience", he told Baal, "and the longer I did the job the worse it got. Anyway," Salman said near the bottom of the bottle, "finally I decided to test him."

"Little things at first. If Mahound recited a verse in which God was described as "all-hearing, all-knowing", I would write, "all-knowing, all-wise". Here's the point, Mahound did not notice the alterations. So there I was, actually writing the Book, or rewriting, anyway, polluting the word of God with my own profane language. But, good heavens, if my poor words could not be distinguished from the Revelation by God's own Messenger, then what did that mean? What did that say about the quality of the divine poetry?

Look, I swear, I was shaken to my soul. It's one thing to be a smart bastard and have half – suspicions about funny business, but it's quite another thing to find out that you're right. Listen, I changed my life for that man. I left my country, crossed the world, settled among people who thought me a slimy foreign coward for saving their, who never appreciated what I, but never mind that.

The truth is that what I expected when I made that first tiny change, "all-wise" instead of "all-hearing' – what I wanted -was to read it back to the Prophet, and he'd say, "What's the matter with you, Salman, are you going deaf? "And I'd say, "Oops, O God, bit of a slip, how could I", and correct myself.

But it didn't happen; and now I was writing the Revelation and nobody was noticing, and I didn't have the courage to own up. I was scared silly, I can tell you. Also, I was sadder than I have ever been. So I had to go on doing it. Maybe he'd just missed out once, I thought, anybody can make a mistake. So the next time I changed a bigger thing. He said "Christian", I wrote down "Jew".

He'd notice that, surely; how could he not? But when I read him the chapter he nodded and thanked me politely, and I went out of his tent with tears in my eyes. After that I knew my days in Yathrib were numbered; but I had to go on doing it. I had to. There is no bitterness like that of a man who finds out he has been believing in a ghost. I would fall, I knew, but he would fall with me. So I went on with my devilment, changing verses, until one day I read my lines to him and saw him frown and shake his head as if to clear his mind, and then nod his approval slowly, but with a little doubt. I knew I'd reached the edge, and that the next time I rewrote the Book he'd know everything. That night I lay awake, holding his fate in my hands as well as my own. If I allowed myself to be destroyed I could destroy him, too. I had to choose, on that awful night, whether I preferred death with revenge to life without anything. As you see, I chose, life. Before dawn I left Yathrib on my camel, and made my way, suffering numerous misadventures I shall not trouble to relate, back to Jahilia. And now Mahound is coming in triumph; so I shall lose my life after all. And his power has grown too great for me to unmake him now."

Baal asked, "Why are you sure he will kill you?"

Salman the Persian answered, "It's his Word against mine."

This is just a quick post to warn people that Twitter messages are being used for phishing people's Twitter passwords.

I recieved a "Direct Message" on Twitter from @AccessDNA that went as follows : 

"hi. this you on here? http://blogger.djhxkcs.com " (Warning! Do not enter details on the linked page)


Of course, out of curiosity I visited the link , and waiting for me was a page that looked exactly like Twitter's Sign in page – except that it was posting the information to a different address , and would thus send any details I entered to some database. In time, I would expect my Twitter account to be usurped.

Watch out for suspicious messages and pay attention to the address, secure-connection icons and such, people.

Locale : Muehlbachweg 13, Rottach-Egern, Germany

To everyone who is expecting a Google Wave Invite, this is a copy of the Invitiation Wave from my account.

As it clearly states, invites WILL NOT be sent immediately.

Sorry , folks who are waiting!

Oct 18

Invite others to Google Wave

Google Wave is more fun when you have others to wave with, so please nominate people you would like to add. Keep in mind that this is a preview so it could be a bit rocky at times.

Invitations will not be sent immediately. We have a lot of stamps to lick.

Happy waving!

0 0 Invitations left

Enter an email address

Add to invitation list

People you've nominated:

• devavr…com
• tommyleeh….com
• amarghai….com
• kaumud….com

Twitter however was buzzing, and Google was bombarded with searches for “Google Wave invites”, as evidenced by the spike in the graph below.

Search for “google wave invites“

I tried foraging for some invites, but I quickly gave up. Mainly because, with only a hundred thousand invites, some chaps even thought of selling them on eBay, fetching as much as $70.  Obviously, anyone who now had an invite was not going to let it go to the masses just like that.

So, much as I would like to try Wave to explore its uses in scientific communication, I think I will sit this one out – when Google decides to make it public.

Sean Caroll proposes that science itself is an ‘empirical behavior practiced by humans’ . Of course, this means that science is plagued by at best disagreements within the community , and at worst , agitated controversies like the ‘religion’ issue.

In my personal opinion, the problem lies in the way science is projected to the public – it is projected like it is mathematics, like a conjoint twin of the blue-blooded mathematics, but destined to ‘get its hands dirty’. But then , consider this quip from (the) Einstein :

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

                                                                                                      Albert Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921

You can imagine that this becomes a major peeve for science, which claims to be in the business of studying and revealing the workings of reality. I do understand that very important role that mathematics plays in making science tangible – but mathematics is a player of the abstract – numbers are ideas that are arranged in equations to reflect reality. In effect , calculus and arithmetic based mathematics is the ultimate simulation of reality.

Science , therefore, uses mathematics only as a tool. Yet, all too often it is dismissed by the populace as a dry, dispassionate subject- exacting, never completely applicable to reality, and working as it should only on a Professor’s blackboard. This view, whether valid or not, is more applicable to mathematics, and science suffers under the transferred epithet.

Science, I conclude then,  needs a new metaphor, and the only part of mathematics that lends an appropriate one is Probability theory.

Bear with me for a moment, and assume that reality (or more appropriately , reality as we understand it) is a collection of probability distributions on increasing orders of complexity and scale. Quite obviously, the most basic of these distributions are those of quantum mechanics – the Schroedinger equation and so on. At the other end of the scale , are the observed cosmic probability distributions – such as the chance of star formation, supernovae, spatial inflation (given the WMAP data) etc. Everything else, from ecology, sociology to music lies in between.

The job of science is to fill up the actual values that determine these distributions. It is apparent in this picture that nothing is impossible or possible – just very likely or unlikely. It is now left to the informed public to decide whether they are going to place their bets on what is a likely or something that has almost no chance of occurring.

This mental model of science provides two major advantages :

Firstly, it makes science overtly non-judgmental – as it should be. It doesn’t say walking on water , virgin births and resurrection from the dead is impossible – just something that isn’t very likely. In fact, it makes it just about as unlikely as thin air transforming into gold bullion. I said overtly earlier because in fact, it lumps together all the ‘unlikeliest , thereby accentuating the ridiculousness of belief in them. If you think walking on water is possible, then you must also believe that fish have developed civilization and are now (put your favorite mockery here) simply taking a break this millennium. Science as a probability function-finder is a way of enabling Stephen Jay Gould’s Magisteria, without causing science to lose it ‘power’ to say something about the world.

Secondly, it makes science more versatile and in many ways, a better representation of reality. Most theories in science, especially in biology, geology and cosmology provide ball-park figures, and rarely the precision of numbers available in physics. Considering a probabilistic spread of values provides a much better assessment of the theory’s power for explaining reality. Of course, even today science does use this premise, especially when applying statistical analysis. Statistics is a useful discipline and yet scientists sometimes think as of statistics is some sort of compromise.

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

                                                                                            Ernest Rutherford

The reason, I think, is that scientists have let the mathematicians mislead them with the false glorification of a single , elegant equation that explains everything. Murray Gell-Mann even proposes that the elegant beauty of an equation is in some ways an indication of its correctness. That may be so, but from what we have learnt from every other field of science, is that at least such elegance is NOT scalable. Any set of rules that describes a living cell with its ~100,000 thousand or so different types of molecules does not exhibit the elegance of Maxwell’s equations , or general relativity. It possesses a different kind of beauty – the chaotic charm of a pulsating ménage, a Rube Goldberg machine that has found a purpose – to ensure its existence using the the very thermodynamic laws that is fighting to stay one step ahead of.

Beauty at varied scales Left : Maxwell’s equations – a complete description of all electromagnetic phenomenon Right : a genomic map of the simplest known organism Mycobacterium genitalium, indicating its various functional genetic elements.

With that in mind, in an era when science branches out into unknown territory as a matter of routine, there is a chance to alter its image in the public eye.  It begins with scientists giving up the glorification of elegance, and acceptance of the messy uncertainties whose existence is the only certainty in the complex, dynamic world we find ourselves in.

Perhaps then, and ironically so, by relaxing its own expectations of the precision of reality, and by distancing itself in ideology from its quantitative associate, science will befriend the masses and find the credibility it has lacked throughout history.

He has a unique style of reciting his poetry, and as for this particular one , you can hear him recite it, or watch him recite in video here .

I was the better at getting and keeping,
You were the better at spend and spend;
I was the better at grubbing and heaping,

But who was the better man in the end?
Yes, who was the better man, my friend?
Who was the better man?

You were the better with lords and ladies,
I was the better at pillaging Troy;
You were the better at kissing the babies,
I was the better at search and destroy.

But who was the better man, old boy?
Who was the better man?

I was the better at improvisation,
You were the better at spinning the plate;
I was the better at procrastination,
You were the better at quiet debate.

But who was the better man, old mate?
Who was the better man?

You were the better at rolling a reefer,
I was the better with coke and rum;
Remember that night on the beach at Ibiza?
The Maori twins with the tattooed bum?

So who was the better man, old chum?
Who was the better man?

Now we come down to it, relatives grieving
Out in the hall with their crocodile tears;
Now that you’re out of it, now that you’re leaving,
Now that they’ve sealed your arse and your ears,
What I’ve been meaning to tell you for years,
And years, and years, and years, old friend…
Is that you were the better man, in the end;

You were the better man,
My friend.

- Felix Dennis

And VW’s ad.