Free Online Course: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution
| October 5, 2012 | Posted by Jonathan M under Education |
Critics of modern evolutionary theory have an intellectual responsibility to strive to understand the paradigm that they are critiquing, preferably to a level where they can clearly articulate the key propositions of evolutionary theory and offer a standard defense of them.
Richard Hoppe, at the Panda’s Thumb blog, drew my attention to a free online course on the subject of genetics and evolution. You can, as I have done, sign up for (and read about) the course at this link.
The course description states,
“Introduction to Genetics and Evolution gives interested people a very basic overview of the principles behind these very fundamental areas of biology. We often hear about new “genome sequences,” commercial kits that can tell you about your ancestry (including pre-human) from your DNA or disease predispositions, debates about the truth of evolution, and why animals behave the way they do. This course provides the basic biology you need to understand all of these issues better and tries to clarify some misconceptions. No prior coursework is assumed.”
Topics that will be covered in this course include:
- Evidence for evolution
- Introduction to basic genetics
- Recombination and genetic mapping simple traits
- Complications to genetic mapping
- Genes vs. environment
- Basic population genetics and Hardy-Weinberg
- Gene flow, differentiation, inbreeding
- Natural selection and genetic drift
- Molecular evolution
- Evolutionary applications and misapplications
- Adaptive behaviors and species formation
Dr. Mohamed Noor, who obtained his PhD, I am told, under Jerry Coyne, will be the instructor of the course:
“Dr. Mohamed Noor is the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University. His expertise is in molecular evolution, and a large part of his research has been devoted to trying to understand the genetic changes that ultimately lead to the formation of new species. More recently, his research team has used fruit fly species to understand the causes and evolutionary consequences of variation in rates of genetic recombination/ exchange.
Dr. Noor has received several awards for research, teaching, and mentoring, and has been active in the scientific community, including serving as president of the American Genetic Association, chair of the NIH study section in Genetic Variation and Evolution, and editor of the journal Evolution.”
The course lasts 10 weeks and begins on October 10th. The description page also notes that “The class will consist of watching multiple lecture mini-videos which are roughly 10-15 minutes in length. These contain 1-3 integrated quiz questions per video. There will also be 3 test assessments, including a non-cumulative final exam.”
I particularly recommend that those among us who don’t have a strong biology background take this course. It is very important that we ID proponents make sure we have a robust grasp of what evolutionary theory is saying and why it says it, so that no one can say we haven’t given it a fair hearing. Go here to register!
63 Responses to Free Online Course: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Finally Jonathan, after all your studies, you finally made it to the top-secret hideout where Darwinists keep all their overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution that they keep telling us IDiots about but never producing for us! 🙂
Thanks for sharing. I’ve been looking for something exactly like this and will likely be signing up. Will anyone else?
I think David Klinghoffer’s A piece of Unsolicited Advice to Students may be appropriate to keep in mind:
Thanks JM! And good point JoeC. I think I will sign up.
Does this mean I can toss my “Evolution for Dummies” and “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Evolution” books?
CAVEAT EMPTOR:
There’s nuts and bolts about biology; and, then, there’s “evolution.” That’s the only part that concerns me. And what invariably you find, no matter what book you pick up, there is no way that they can use all the stuff they’ve told you about and then explain evolution to you. I’ve looked everywhere. Doesn’t exist.
So, if you want to learn “nuts and bolts” stuff, assuming you aren’t already familiar, then this is a good class for you. But don’t expect that in the end they will come up with an explanation for ‘evolution’ that even comes close to making any kind of sense. If you do, then you’re just wasting your time.
Perhaps those considering the course should note the following
“The present version does not cover macroevolution or the diversity of life. There will not be anything about dinosaurs. The evolution topics covered in the present course are largely confined to “microevolution,” though we hope to add some new topics spanning macroevolution to future course iterations.”
No doubt it will be quite interesting, but that seems to ignore a major area of concern. Isn’t the question whether evolutionary processes, such as they are, have the POWER to drive speciation? Wasn’t that the core of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution?”
Somebody help me out. Thanks
But macroevolution is just the result of repeated microevolution!
Oh, wait! I thought creationists made up the micro/macro distinction.
Semi OT:
I think Ian Juby does a excellent job in the following video, with one of the more complex subjects in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, making the subject very accessible to the layman:
PaV @4:
No doubt you are correct. I notice he lists as part of the supplemental reading Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True book.
Looks like an interesting course, however, so with your caveat in place it might be worth checking out.
Funny. One of the FAQ questions reads:
I completed a small set of Google taught Python classes on youtube. If you can track this guys talking speed, Noor will be a a piece of cake:
Google Python Class Day 2 Part 3
See if you can understand him on the first run. 😉 If you are not familiar with any coding jargon you have a more difficult time.
JGuy
Evidence for common descent is not the same thing as evidence for the view that “everything” in biology is the result of non-teleological processes. So what do you mean by “evolution” in this context?
That said, there is a trace of a refreshing change going on among ID proponents. Slowly but surely, it seems like mainstream ID proponents are willing to actually learn about the theory that is being critiqued, and willing to critique the arguments made by other ID proponents (e.g., Sal’s criticism of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.).
Evidence for evolution ‘in this context’? I don’t know, perhaps the same evidence I’ve been asking for for years?!? Perhaps, a single novel functional protein arrived at by purely neo-Darwianian processes??? or better yet a molecular machine arrived at by purely neo-Darwinian processes??? or perhaps best yet, a demonstration of the awesome power of evolution to create ‘layered transcription and overlapping coded programming’ within the genome that computer programmers can only dream of imitating?
notes:
Further note:
Verse and music:
Then you’re not asking for evidence of common descent, or evidence for evolution for that matter. You’re specifically asking for evidence that Neo-Darwinian processes can generate all the biological complexity we see today. I know it might seem like the semantics are unimportant, but we need to be careful to use the correct terms in the discussion over biological origins.
Not meaning to be annoying, but what exactly does this have to do with the subject of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution, and biological origins as a whole?
Genomicus:
Not all. any.
difference
Well, establishing if evolution by Darwinian processes is even possible IS the first step to take in ascertaining if you are on the right path scientifically, but once the crucial point is established that Darwinian processes are not even in the right ballpark as to being realistically plausible, then the supposed (read contrived) evidence for common descent proffered by Darwinists quickly falls apart upon closer inspection!
Au Contraire, I asking specifically for any evidence of ‘vertical’ evolution, i.e. of gain in functional complexity above what is already present!
Darwinian processes completely fail to explain the origin of functional information and you wonder why ‘The Word’ (Logos) of John1:1 would be relevant???
I’m pretty sure all of us ID proponents would agree that Darwinian evolution can account for some of the biological complexity in our world.
Please fell free to cite just one novel functional protein arising by Darwinian processes.
And the evidence for common descent explained by ID proponents like Prof. Behe, true? My point is this: if you’re going to say that there is no evidence for evolution, you have to define what you mean. If you mean “common descent,” then a lot of us around here will strongly disagree with you. Just saying, you know.
Yes. Quoting passages of a theological nature is relevant to biological origins in which way, again?
(Note that I’m no Darwinian – I’m an ID proponent)
That’s not the only kind of biological complexity. Speciation can be considered an example of new biological complexity.
“Yes. Quoting passages of a theological nature is relevant to biological origins in which way, again?”
I guess you can ask God, who is the source of all life, when you see Him when you die.
As to, your theological concern, perhaps you could question Darwinists as to why they use predominantly theological arguments as a starting point, instead of reasoning to a theological end point as I did?
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....037038134/
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html
From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought – May 2011
Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....riter.html
“One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks”,,,”
Eric – UD Blogger
That’s not the only kind of biological complexity. Speciation can be considered an example of new biological complexity.
A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html
Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter – July 2012
Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....badly.html
ba77 @7:
Interesting video. Started off slowly, but he did a decent job providing a description for the lay person. Unfortunately he went off the rails a bit at about minute 22 when he started trying to identify the designer . . .
Genomicus @16:
I understand what you are saying and I agree the terminology is important. I also agree that a Darwinian process can account for some of what we see in the world: average beak size fluctuations in a population of finches; insects and insecticide (possibly); the malaria/sickle-cell example Behe reviewed in his book; the antifreeze [broken] protein in that Antarctic fish species; a few more examples along those lines. Interesting stuff to be sure; but in the broader context, pretty minimal stuff.
My expectation is that the course will provide a good primer on genetics and also some decent examples of these microevolutionary changes we see. I agree with PaV that caveat emptor is in order as to the broader concept of “evolution” and any attempts that may be made to indoctrinate the student, particularly in light of the professor’s recommendation of Coyne’s book.
In terms of terminology, part of my interest will be to watch the use of the word “evolution” and see when it shifts and changes meaning throughout the course (I would like to be polite and say “if” but I’ve had enough experience to know that it is not “if” but “when”). Will be interesting to see . . .
footnote:
boragain77-
If we have natural selection then we have evolution by Darwinian processes. That said natural selection doesn’t do anything, so there would still be major issues for evolutionism.
But anyway the course looks interesting and I am trying to set aside some time to take it.
Genomicus:
What is it you have in mind when you say this?
Joe Coder stated:
That’s a agreeable ‘play nice’ long term strategy, but then again if you are, like me, a little like poor little Johnny (the butt of so many jokes) who is always raising his hand and asking questions and can’t seem to keep from getting into trouble with the teacher in class, perhaps it would be good to have a little primer on where some of the major weaknesses of ‘the overwhelming evidence for evolution’ actually are?!!
As to natural selection:
Species are regarded as complex (e.g., we’d all agree that elephants are complex creatures). Therefore, the rise of a new species means the rise of a new form of biological complexity.
That’s not a scientific statement, though, is it? I mean, if I were to quote passages of the Koran, or the Vedas, or the Iliad and the Odyssey, or perhaps the Declaration of Independence – wouldn’t you consider all that irrelevant to biological origins? Sure, they’re interesting but really have no place in discussion about science IMHO.
Genomicus:
New species can have the same form as the parent species. So it would all depend on how one defines “a new species” and “speciation”.
Genomicus:
I’m presuming that you’re not in any way suggesting that this has been brought about by RM+NS. Correct?
In agreement with Professor Behe, and others, I am suggesting that random mutation coupled to natural selection is perfectly capable of giving rise to new species.
How much time each should I plan to devote to this course?
Nevermind. I see now that the workload on the page is listed as 5-6 hours a week.
as to:
And yet even though Dr. Behe may give far more credence to the supposed (contrived) evidence for common descent than is warranted, the fact is that, whatever views Dr. Behe personally has on common descent, he, in his book Edge of Evolution, adamantly does not hold that the mechanism of ‘random mutation coupled to natural selection is perfectly capable of giving rise to new species’:
In fact, Dr. Behe puts the ‘edge of evolution’ somewhere between species and class:
Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:
Dr. Behe’s subsequent work has only further refined what he had originally found to the severe limitation of what random variation and natural selection could accomplish:
The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy:
Out of the horse’s mouth, Dr. Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Thus, although Dr. Behe may support some form of common descent, he certainly does not think that Random Variation and Natural Selection are the main driving mechanisms behind common descent.
to highlight the monumental problem that Darwinian processes face in generating fundamentally new species (as opposed to a new sub-species of a already existent parent kind):
to reiterate:
And yet, Dr. Behe, on the important Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is,,,
So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein “interactome”, then that gives us a number, for different protein-protein interactions, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough ‘back of the envelope’ calculations, we find that this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe’s estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical single cell (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe). Therefore, at least at first glance from my rough calculations, it certainly seems to be a gargantuan step that evolution must somehow make, by purely unguided processes, to go from a single cell to a multi-cellular creature.
Moreover, there is, ‘surprisingly’, found to be ‘rather low’ conservation of Domain-Domain Interactions occurring in Protein-Protein interactions between different species:
Thus Genomicus, whatever you may have imagined for the ease of Darwinian processes to give rise to new species,,,
,,, the fact of the matter is that Dr. Behe’s work, despite what you may have imagined it to suggest, is completely antagonistic to the belief that RM and NS can do as such!
As well, Dr. Behe’s empirical research, that had found extreme difficulty for Darwinian processes to create just two binding sites, agrees with the extreme difficulty that is found for scientists trying to purposely design just a single protein-protein binding site:
Further notes:
Verse and music:
‘It’s not at all that you need a PhD to hold a dissenting view, but age, thought and experience count for a lot.’
I don’t think so, JoeCoder. Max Planck summed it up all too epigrammaticaly: ‘Science advances, one funeral at a time.’
The teacher – assuming the youngster is correct – rightly feels his status is threatened, doesn’t he? Your point is really tangential, indeed, another issue. It all hinges on who is correct.
Nobody likes a smart Alec. Sure. But on such an occasion, the truth may dwarf personal feelings. Einstein was apparently a cocky student.
Axel:
I concur. To quote from Thomas Kuhn:
“Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change.”
Damn, I was really hoping this course had evidence of macro evolution, who is arguing about micro? I don’t think anybody on the planet denies adaptations….
G:
But taht doesn’t mean anything wrt biological complexity.
That is very interesting, Genomicus – especially, ‘new to the field.’
It is odd though that it should tend (my impression is, ‘very pronouncedly), to be the young. I hadn’t spotted, ‘very young’, which seems yet more remarkable. The more so, perhaps, in the light of a remark of the atomic physicist, Oppenheimer, which seems to bear on the subject:
‘There are children playing in the streets who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago.’
That latter point, his explanation, is also interesting in terms of the course of the mundane course of our lives. I believe our brain routinely prioritizes the retention of what we remember and what skills we have learnt, according to our present needs, in terms of the more recent course of our lives.
I believe that was why an Australain woman said to me anxiously that, when she thought of the work she had been doing as an accounts manager with an oil company, it kind of scared her, as she couldn’t imagine being able to do it now – evidently fearing a pathological (if modest, in the scheme of things) loss of her cognitive powers. But she presumably, feared the loss was due to some medical, demential condition.
Also, if you spread out a pack of cards, or an appreciable number of them, on a table – there is a game in which this takes place, a young child will normally, I believe, have a far better memory of the location of the cards. It was certainly the case with a young cousin of mine.
But then, are not young children the truest of intellectuals, motivated purely by a desire to learn, to know. The world and its pressures and exigencies has not yet affected their outlook. They want to learn everything, on a far more undiscriminating basis than we.
This site is a goldmine. Thanks a lot, im gonna try the epigenetics course too!
Hmm he recommends Jerry Coyne? He’s not very fair nor open minded. See an expose of him here in one incident:
http://jerrycoyne.blogspot.co......dness.html
Genomicus:
Are Chihuahuas and St. Bernards different “species”?
PaV:
It doesn’t look like it:
St. Bernard: Canis lupus familiaris.
Chihuahua: Canis lupus familiaris.
Genomicus:
Does this mean their “allele frequencies” are identical?
Genomicus, I would be interested in a statement from Behe that RM+NS can result in new species. That is very different from my understanding of his position.
Jonathan, could I suggest that the Intelligent Design scholars make an effort to produce a video course. Some of us live off these types of courses, but http://www.thegreatcourses.com for example have no Intelligent Design friendly courses that we know of.
Genomicus:
I hope you reply to my last post. I suspected that we would see things differently when it came to what constitutes a species. We’re very close to discovering where we differ, so I hope the conversation can continue.
PaV:
No. Allele frequencies of particular genes can differ within a species.
Well IIRC, if you take a look at one of the figures in The Edge of Evolution,you’ll find that Michael Behe suggests that the edge of evolution lies between species and class (with some ambiguity there). Which means that species are within the limits of non-teleological evolutionary processes. I don’t have a clear idea of this figure because I read the EoE from a library copy, so I don’t have it with me.
Genomicus @52:
Yeah, OK, I know the graph you are talking about. And I remember thinking when I hit that page that he was giving away the store. After all, he had spent the whole book demonstrating that even in a massive population with huge selection pressure you would only get a small handful of nucleotide substitutions, possibly only 2 or 3.
But we have to remember that he was trying to establsh an absolute boundry and wasn’t willing to put species outside that boundry. (I’m not sure I would be either, particularly given the rather fluid definition of species in particular circumstances.)
Also, Behe doesn’t state that all species can result from RM+NS, just that it is possible that some species could.
Thus, I think I understand where you are coming from. But rather than saying that Behe thinks RM+NS “is perfectly capable of giving rise to new species” we should say something more along the lines of: “Behe doesn’t dispute the possibility of RM+NS producing new species under certain circumstances.”
Genomicus:
At long last: what constitutes a ‘species’?
Jonathan M, having recently completed your master’s in evolutionary biology (congrats BTW), what’s your purpose in taking this course?
PaV:
That’s a good question, but unfortunately there is no truly rigorous definition of what constitutes a species. However, when I say “species,” I typically mean a population of organisms capable of producing fertile offspring.
Genomicus:
I’m currently reading The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. We find out that the “Grants,” working with the Galapagos finches on the island of Daphnea, could isolate ‘seven’ different species of ground finches. But, then, surprisingly, out of nowhere, two of the finches produced full-fertile hybrids. And, not only that, but the hybrids are increasing at a much higher rate than the crossed species. So they’re “really” fertile.
But, wait a second, this is a hybrid from ‘two’ of the ‘species.’
Per your definition, this looks like we don’t have ‘seven’ species, but perhaps only ‘six’. Or is it even fewer. But, taxonomically, these ‘species’ are considered separate ‘species.’ So, when you say that Darwinian processes can bring about new species, how can that be so given we have such a hard problem deciding what does, or does not, constitute a new ‘species’?
And, should I mention that the untrained eye couldn’t tell the difference between any of these supposed ‘seven’ species, yet, I have no problem at all telling a Poodle from a Dalmatian, which are considered the SAME species.
What a mess. In the end, I don’t know how we can be justified in saying that RM+NS has brought about new and separate ‘species’, while freely admitting that, indeed, there are separate ‘species.’
BTW, Weiner’s book is a really good read, full of very interesting information, and gives a great overview of “evolution in action.”
However, a careful read of it leads one to clearly see that Darwinian mechanisms have nothing at all to do with ‘speciation.’ It’s a great book for disproving Darwinian evolution—contrary to the author’s purpose.
Genomicus, we’ll just have to disagree on all of this.
Ah, PaV, you’re just too skeptical. Don’t you know that any change over time from generation to generation is ‘evolution’ in action? Why, just today in our very first day of class we were reminded of this by the good professor.
I was frankly astounded — 20 years after Philip Johnson’s disection of the peppered moth story the example of evolution in action that was used by the good professor was, you guessed it, the peppered moth story.
BTW, he seems to be a very likeable guy and I think this will be an interesting course if we can manage to survive the scheduled indoctrination of the first week (evolution is a mathematical certainty; only dupes dispute it; there is no debate in the scientific community; etc.). I hope the thought police don’t track me down . . . 🙂
Eric Anderson posted this:
Could you (for my benefit, if not for anyone else) explain your astonishment by providing a brief summary of the salient features of Johnson’s rebuttal, and why you think those features remain valid today? A few dot points covering the headland arguments would help me.
I have read The Wedge of Truth and I am assuming that the book contains the dissection to which you refer. I am seeking to understand whether and why you think Johnson’s arguments still stand.
timothya,
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out if you have a population of light and dark colored moths and you kill off more light colored moths that the relative numbers of dark colored moths will increase, and vice versa.
If that’s what you guys mean when you say evolution is true, grats to you.
Mung posted this:
The only mistake you make is in the use of ther term “you” (there is no conscious “you” involved). In the case of the peppered moth, the “killing off” was done by the blind, impersonal pressure of the environment that the moths lived in.
In the early, smoggy phase the lichens die off revealing the light coloured moth variant. Predators selectively pick them off, so the population moves inexorably towards an average dark colour.
After the Clean Air Act, and the concomitant reduction in industrial pollution, the light coloured lichens return. The predator species find the dark variant easier to locate, and the selective pressure of the environment changes the moth colour allele in lockstep.
No design required. Just natural selection doing what it does.
Little steps, my friends, little steps.
You evidently understand how natural selection actually works. Now ask the next question . . .
(Meanwhile avoiding the pitfall of claiming more than you know)
timothya:
Well, surely the lichens evolved too then.
Natural selection does not do anything.
You evidently understand how natural selection actually works.
Saying natural selection works implies a force of some kind. Natural selection does not “work,” it is not a “force.” It’s not a cause, it’s an effect.
Oh, look, more dark moths!
If that’s what you guys mean when you say evolution is true, grats to you.
If you went around killing light colored moths I’d call that selection.
So they were choosing to eat light moths rather than dark moths?
Mung posted this:
You are getting close, but are still fixated with the teleological thing.
The birds selectively eat the light-coloured variant on dark-coloured trees because they are easier to see. The melanised moths enjoy a reproductive advantage as a result. Once the industrially induced darkening of the trees is reversed, the selective pressure of predation moves to the variant that is more obvious.
I think the light moths tasted better. I think that’s why the birds ate them.
And any self-respecting bird population would have evolved better eyesight so they could see the dark moths better. That way they could eat more and live longer and leave more offspring.