Oh, piffle. I seem to have acquired an annoying leech-like pet creationist loon. Phil Skell has written me again.

Once again, he's written to insist—as we've all come to expect from him—that biologists really have no use for evolution. As evidence, he sent me the list of Science magazine's top ten breakthroughs of the year, taken from the Boston Globe, with the assertion that not a single one resulted from the application of evolutionary theory. I agree that the Mars rovers (#1), the creation of an ultracold condensate (#4), the discovery of a pair of neutron stars (#6), and new ideas about the binding of water molecules (#8) don't have a thing to do with evolution. They aren't even about biology, although it would be easy to argue that searching for water and evidence for life on Mars is driven by evolutionary theory. I'm even going to grant that cloning human embryos (#3) might be something we'd try even in the absence of evolutionary theory, although honestly, it's hard to imagine having the tools to do so in the absence of comparative embryology. Breakthrough #9, about new partnerships in treating health problems, is also very much an item in applied science. But again, it wouldn't happen without an understanding of evolution (does anyone seriously believe microbiologists studying bacterial and viral pathogens don't consider evolution?).

But take a look at the #2 discovery that Skell insists has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

2. LITTLE PEOPLE: The discovery on the Indonesian island of Flores of fossils from a species of tiny humans who stood about 3 feet tall and had a brain less than a third the size of modern humans. The diminutive hominid lived about 18,000 years ago, which suggests that Homo floresiensis shared the Earth with Homo sapiens, or modern people. Science said some described the find as "the biggest discovery in a half-century of anthropological research."

Is Skell crazy? Sure thing. Why were Brown and Morwood and all those others out there digging for old bones in Indonesia in the first place? Because they were looking for further evidence of human evolution. How were the bones interpreted? In the light of evolutionary theory, island biogeography, known rules for evolutionary transformations, and the body of hominid fossils. This whole story is driven by and understood as an evolutionary case history. Take a look at what Science says about it:

The discovery of H. floresiensis marks the first evidence that humans might also have been subject to drastic evolutionary pressure on islands. Many avenues of research suggest that throughout prehistory, humans followed the laws of evolution like any other creature, but this dramatic demonstration remains humbling for those of us who like to see ourselves as the masters of our own fates. Indeed, some skeptical researchers have found this claim of evolutionary downsizing too much to swallow and suggest that the Flores hominid is really a pathological microcephalic modern human.

But Skell wants to claim evolution has nothing to do with it. What a maroon.

5. THE VALUE OF TRASH: Scientists discovered that "junk DNA," the base pairs between known genes in the human genetic structure, aren't junk after all. Several research teams have found that DNA between genes helps determine how vigorously and often the genes are activated, and shapes the coding for protein production.

The Globe is misstating the story. Outside of the coding sequences, there is an increasing appreciation of the importance of regulatory regions, which have not been classified as junk DNA. Regulatory DNA is a key element in our understanding of evo-devo; this simply has to be regarded as a part of the story driven by evolutionary theory. The Science article also points this out:

Several reports this year have implicated activators as the source of genetic changes leading to the emergence of new species.

Wow. Sounds kinda like evolution to me.

Within junk DNA, there are also tracts of transposable elements. Some of these regions can affect rates of transcription of coding sequences, and transposable elements are also important in generating evolutionary novelties.

They also help make new genes by hopping into existing ones, thereby altering the protein code. One such event involved a key gene for nerve function.

Skell wants to claim that not only does this story not involve evolution, but that it contradicts evolutionary theory. The man is utterly clueless.

7. AMPHIBIANS AT RISK: Naturalists tracking the fate of wild species worldwide reported bad news. A survey of amphibians found that of 5,700 known species, about 30 percent, were at risk of extinction. A survey in the United Kingdom found that butterflies, songbirds and native plant species are all losing ground in the battle for species survival.

Earth to Skell: extinction is part of the global evolutionary process. I suppose that even if we were all creationists, we'd still be interested in this ongoing event…but since we are more than taxonomic stamp collectors, it is people from Ecology & Evolution departments around the world who are doing this work.

Here's one last piece of important research that Skell believes owes nothing to evolutionary biology:

10. EXTREME GENES: Researchers have developed techniques to identify genes in ocean water or in specimens recovered from deep underground. Thousands of new genes have been found. By sequencing these genes, researchers hope to identify new species and, perhaps, learn how organisms survive in harsh and forbidding locations on Earth.

No evolution, huh? Let's turn again to the account in Science of this work. I'll put the important words in bold to help poor blind Phil puzzle it out.

Ecologists and evolutionary biologists have tapped such molecular techniques to study the genetic relationships of species they can't grow in the lab. Now ambitious genome sequencers are isolating whole genomes instead of single genes. The genomes provide not only clues about an organism's identity but also a glimpse of how a particular species survives. The work is also turning up thousands of new genes.

One team of biologists sailed across the Sargasso Sea, deciphering genomes from life in 1500 liters of water samples. They turned up more than 1 million new genes. To compensate for the Sargasso's paucity of phosphorus, its denizens had evolved many genes for taking up this mineral. Furthermore, many species are using rhodopsin pigment in lieu of chlorophyll to process carbon. The researchers are now retracing Charles Darwin's voyage on the Beagle to explore diversity around the globe.

You can stop sending me e-mail now, Phil. We've pretty much settled how much biology you understand.