Carl Zimmer has posted a spiffy summary of the word usage in his book Microcosm using the super cool Wordle site. For fun, I put in the text of two recent papers (one in press, one in review).  I guess you can kinda see what they are about.  

A very brief comment on a complicated topic...

New Scientist has a story in the current issue about epigenetics -- differences in gene expression that are not due to changes in the gene sequences themselves -- and how non-genetic variation can be both influenced environmentally and, in some cases, inherited.

The New Scientist story, which is entitled Rewriting Darwin: the new non-genetic inheritance, is another example of the "reporting on a revolution" and "underdog vindicated" fallacies so common in science reporting.

In today's issue of Science there is a piece by Elizabeth Pennisi on the "Altenberg 16" who will be attending what overhyping journalist Suzan Mazur calls the "Woodstock of Evolutionary Biology", only it "promises to be far more transforming for the world".

Puh-lease. People have been saying that the Modern Synthesis is neither modern nor a synthesis and needs to be expanded for some time. And there are a lot more than 16 people saying it.

Thankfully, Pennisi uses the nonsensical hype to discuss some relevant issues, and even points out that the people involved themselves do not see it as a revolution.

In case anyone is new to the blog, here are some ways that you can explore content.

Browse the content on the new blog

The best of Genomicron (links to posts on the old page)

I have previously been pleased to announce on Genomicron the release of the first two issues of Volume 1 of Evolution: Education and Outreach. I am equally pleased to point out that Issue 3 is now available free online.

As a special treat, I note that editors-in-chief Greg and Niles Eldredge mention Genomicron in their editorial.

Here are the contents of Vol 1, Issue 3

Some time ago, I lamented a precipitous drop in subscriptions to the Genomicron RSS feed from a high of more than 500 (RSS woes). My preferred explanation is that a number of people had subscribed directly to the RSS feed from Blogger rather than the one I later started through Feedburner, and when I moved to Scientific Blogging, they were dropped off because only one feed can go to Feedburner.  Anyway, I am happy to note that we are now back up close to 400 (though Feedburner has odd dips throughout the week).