1. Comment #2956 by Jonathan Dore on October 24, 2006 at 11:42 pm

JohnC writes: "The preponderance of religious belief in the US is not the result of people being shielded from the evidence or being inherently stupid."

I'd certainly agree with the second proposition, but I'm not too sure about the first. As far as I'm aware, surveys in the US have shown quite a startling level of basic ignorance of what terms like evolution, natural selection etc. mean, and what mechanisms they operate through. People are *not* being exposed to the information with sufficient clarity in schools, and in the wider culture it's almost invisible, while theist assumptions and rhetoric permeate every kind of discourse. And yes, in a country with such a large proportion of fundamentalists, a large number of people are indeed actively "shielded" from this information, or actively shield others from it, as the contributions from the ones who venture onto this website attest. Tens of millions of Americans effectively inhabit a parallel society in which private schooling ensures they are never exposed to factual information about evolution. So there are huge deficits of factual ignorance to be made good before anyone need evoke more distantly responsible historical and cultural factors.

2. Comment #2977 by William on October 25, 2006 at 3:58 am

What a great broadcast!

I may have to get a copy of this book...!

Kind Regards, William.

3. Comment #3079 by robzrob on October 25, 2006 at 11:42 am

Am I right in thinking that a fossil is a kind of pattern, in minerals, not bones, of the original animal, ie that it's not the actual remains of the animal?

And are 'fossil' genes real live genes, actually there, which are inactive?

If so, isn't calling them 'fossil' genes misleading and confusing?

4. Comment #3101 by robzrob on October 25, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Billy

Hmm. Not really. I still think it would be misleading to someone trying to understand genes: what they are, the fact that some are switched on in some organisms and others aren't, some used to be switched on in some ancient animals but are off now, in their descendants, etc.

A fossil is something other than the animal, a so-called 'fossil gene' isn't something other than a gene, it's still a gene, it's just off and, as you say, can come back on again sometimes.

Is 'fossil gene' a recognised term, commonly used by biologists? If so, I think they should stop!