Digital Microscope

Reviews

I expected to get a dinky microscope, given the 55% discount. I searched around and found it listed elsewhere with prices that would indicate an even larger discount. Very suspicious. It looked like the product was imported from Thailand or Japan (the label says distributed in California, made in China, shipped from Canada). I just hoped that it would be good enough to get buy. The product arrived on time. And was I surprised! This model could definitely be a $900 university or laboratory microscope. The functions are smooth, the optics unusually clear and bright, there are true professional features, and the feature set is very well thought out. As a product designer I know how easy it is to scrimp on hidden details, but this microscope doesn't seem to have done so. For example, the mechanical stage as well as the focus stage runs on hardened rods, so not only is everything silky smooth, it looks as though they will stay that way for a long time. The concentric mechanical stage controls are smooth, even the slide holder is damped. The illumination is a well-implemented 3W blue-white LED, which is pretty much state-of-the-art (halogen turns yellow when dimmed and fluorescent doesn't dim). The condenser iris (which is for controlling contrast, not brightness) is continuously variable. But the best, and most important, part is the excellent optical quality no doubt because of the four semi-plan objectives (don't settle for cheaper achromats)--first rate construction and performance. The difference in value between this microscope and a $200 monocular student microscope is astounding. You'll easily get more than double the performance and the CM401 is much easier to use. All the little annoyances that frustrate microscopy are gone. The only are accessories are a small bottle of immersion oil, a vinyl dust cover, and a spanner to adjust the tightness of the focus knobs. There was no invoice or packing slip in the box. There's no pointer in the eyepieces, but they are nicely widefield, with diopter adjustments on both though only one is necessary. And the User Guide, though clearly written, is minimalist. If you are going for a microscope with the features and quality of the CM401 you'll want to get additional instruction on how to take advantage of all its capabilities. Overall, it exceeded my expectations in every regard; highly recommended.

Reviews

Review. Swift, David W. 2002. Evolution under the microscope. Stirling University Innovation Park: Leighton Academic Press. The book's main thesis is that random processes are inadequate to explain the informational content of biomolecules. Examples include the origin of cytochrome c, actin, rubisco, hemoglobin, and others. The importance of non-random amino acid sequence for folding and molecular interactions is described. The problem of the origin of genetic information is commonly discussed in the context of the origin of life, but this is not the main emphasis here (although a chapter is devoted to it). The need for new genes to arise during evolution means that the problem of information is not confined to the origin of life. New proteins must interact with existing proteins in useful ways, a point often overlooked. This effectively eliminates chance as an explanation for the origin of new protein-coding genes. This is not a new insight; many scientists have come to similar conclusions, although the problems remain unresolved. The author apparently accepts the geological time scale and the reality of natural selection, but concludes that most evolutionary change is due to reshuffling of genes rather than to generation of new genes. He does not attempt to relate the evidence to religious faith, but does suggest the evidence points to some kind of designer. There are a few errors in the book, so one should read with care, but they do not significantly detract from the force of the argument. The book, albeit with some shortcomings, deserves more attention than it has received.

Large italic print on the back cover of this book claims that it contains: "A clearly-written presentation of a major problem with evolution" Most of the book is indeed clearly-written. Swift explains the standard text-book account of protein synthesis very well and illustrates it with excellent diagrams. However, the alleged "major problem with evolution" turns out to be little more than a sophisticated version of Astronomer Fred Hoyle's graphic but long since discredited attempt at equating the evolutionary explanation of life as we see it with a "Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747" . Life depends on proteins and they are assembled as linear chains of the 20 amino acid building blocks. For a protein of length "n", the number of different sequences that are possible is easily calculated as 20 raised to the power of n (20^n). This quantity is what one protein researcher termed the "Evolutionary scare number" and the chance of a specific sequence arising spontaneously via the random selection of each amino acid residue is 1 in 20^n. In presenting his version of Hoyle's argument, Swift attempts to leave his readers with this: PAGE173:"Finally, a brief comment is in order about the suggestion that large multifunctional proteins might have been built up by combining functional domains. Whether or not this has occurred, the important point to note is that domains are generally at least as large as small proteins - typically around 150 amino acids, but often larger. We have already seen that proteins of this size are very improbable structures, so there is no need to discuss this option further in the present context." The "logic" of this "brief comment" is very revealing. Swift's conclusion is that there is no need to discuss the "suggestion" that large proteins evolved via the concatenation of smaller, independently evolved, sub-units. His reason for this is that the scare number 20^150 makes the spontaneous appearance of the sub-units far too improbable. Consequently, Swift invites us to accept his implicit assumption that only "typical" small proteins can be candidates for the sub-units. He emphasises this as an "important point to note" and moves rapidly on to his conclusion. However, just three pages earlier on Page 170, Swift reminds us that the small protein proinsulin folds into a stable 3D shape and is only 86 amino acids long. His "brief comment" invites us to conclude that evolution is somehow prevented from using proteins as short as that as sub-units for concatenation. Any suggestion that such atypical oddities somehow don't count is rather like arguing that because average house size is now 5 rooms, two-room flats are impossible and our ancestors could never have lived in caves, igloos, tents or, like chimps, in nests made of a few twigs. Evolution has been famously "opportunistic" in adapting existing structures for new roles as the environment changes. To suppose that Natural Selection is incapable of, as one famous phrase puts it, "tinkering together such contraptions" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and demonstrable history of the process. Recent advances in the mathematical modelling of protein folding have been spectacular and Trp-Cage (the shortest known protein that folds spontaneously into a stable 3D shape) is only 20 residues in length. Also on page 170, Swift acknowledges the current existence of short unfolded proteins that act as hormones, transmitters and regulators. He then tries to suggest that only folded enzymes can be concatenated to form larger enzymes. Again, Natural Selection sees no such constraint. There is nothing in nature that prohibits the combination of unfolded short proteins to make a longer one that does fold. In terms of the house analogy, such a restriction would be like saying that a row of separate but adjoining high-street cottages could never be "knocked together" to form a large trinket and souvenir shop. Such an action would completely change the function performed by the cottages in response to the arrival of large numbers of tourists whose ancestors never had the money or access to a suitable transport infrastructure to visit the area. The shortest known protein that can be seen to be biologically active is Lambda-bar. It is of length 2 and it inhibits protein synthesis in e-coli bacteria when they are invaded by the Lambda virus. The corresponding evolutionary scare number is 20^2 = 400 and that many proteins would hardly cover the head of the proverbial pin let alone a whole planet. In support of his central Hoyle style fallacy, Swift correctly argues that gene duplication and subsequent evolution of new functions is "unlikely". However, the yeast genome has recently been sequenced and it shows strong evidence for 53 gene duplications leading to the hypothesis that the whole genome was duplicated at some time in the past. This was a "highly unlikely" one-off event but it does seem to have happened. HOX genes are highly conserved and they also strongly indicate multiple gene duplications. There are many other examples. Winning a lottery is "unlikely" but winners do exist. The life-forms we see are all winners descended from long, long lines of winners. That's how evolution by cumulative natural selection works. Swift would have his readers conclude that "Unlikely" really means "Impossible". The evidence and theoretical considerations demonstrate otherwise. Finally, a brief comment is in order about genes not being able to acquire new "useful" information. Swift seems not to know that antibodies in his circulation are proteins that are "matured" in their ability to bind to disease causing organisms. The process that achieves this remarkable feat involves the cumulative natural selection of random point mutations to his DNA. Swift insists that such a mechanism is "impossible". So the reality (as indicated by the evidence) is that the scare numbers don't scare, "unlikely" gene duplications often result in new functions and our antibody DNA constantly acquires new information for use in the fight against disease.

While the spirit of this book is quite similar to "Darwin's Black Box", the well-connected web of facts goes much deeper. This work is so extraordinary that I looked it up again on amazon.co.uk, thinking that since you can actually BUY the book from them for 10 pounds, it being published over there, that there should be lots of nice reviews, but there is only ONE review (?) Therefore I am especially thankful to Professor Emeritus Dr. Lodge for evidently importing the book personally so as to make it available over here for $25 USD. I probably would not have paid $70.00, the next-best-price, so this charitable offer made the difference for me. You can easily find his personal-page-opinion by Googling on >

In this book, Swift brings some order to the rather fraught and emotive debate about the validity of the theory of evolution. One of its particularly helpful contributions is to separate out two forms of evolution, and to narrow down the field of controversy: the first type of evolution is that resulting from gene separation and gene mixing; the second is evolution resulting from genuinely new genetic information being produced through mutations. The two types of evolution are considered and analysed from the viewpoint of molecular biology, whereby inheritable changes in an organism or species require new macromolecules to be generated and coded in the DNA. Swift reveals the surprising amount of variation in a population which can result from the processes of gene mixing and separation, even to the extent of a population diverging into separate `species'. There is substantial, documented evidence that this form of evolution (which some call `micro-evolution') happens. Swift's presentation is helpful, because it identifies considerable common ground which objective evolutionists and non-evolutionists can agree on. (It so happens that practically all the commonly quoted examples of evolution in its broadest sense turn out to be cases of micro-evolution, including Darwin's finches, peppered moths and resistance to antibiotics.) The real controversy, of course, is whether genuinely new genetic material can be generated in an evolutionary way by mutations (`macro-evolution'). Swift looks at this in terms of molecular biology, and insists on investigating how the various macromolecules necessary for life in the cell could have evolved. Swift argues that, if an evolutionary developmental path is proposed, it must be supported by an explanation of how the necessary molecular machinery could have evolved - not simply by pointing out gradual physical changes on the outside. Given what we now know about the operation and structure of proteins and other macromolecules in the cell, Swift argues in detail that it is impossible for macromolecules to have evolved in a series of small steps. He is not saying that because the cell is so complicated it must have been designed; he is instead explaining and illustrating why the very large and specific molecules (such as proteins) in cells could simply not have evolved. This book brings new research and knowledge to bear on arguments which were put forward in the past when the facts were not known. Swift's presentation is refreshingly objective, courteous and detached. The first few chapters, on the history of the development of modern science, could be skipped without missing any of the key arguments. At the end, although Swift has presented a strong case for why evolution appears untenable, he appears resigned to its continuance simply because there is no prospect of an alternative theory of origins - at least, no naturalistic alternative. His analysis is sensible and sound; but it does not flatter the scientific community. I would recommend that this book be read not only by non-evolutionists who will agree with much of it, but by evolutionists who may not: I found myself wishing to read a similarly objective, detailed and courteous response by an evolutionist to the arguments from molecular biology presented by Swift, rather than simply forceful statements of disagreement or dismissal.

The author of this book set out to give a scientifically objective treatment of the theory of evolution and certainly did a wonderful job. This book is definitely written for biologists and other scientists even though a scientifically educated layperson can get a lot out of it. Since I am a chemist, who has also taught biochemistry, I had no problem understanding and accepting his assertions about chemistry and biochemistry since they are consistent with my own training and experience. The biology sections were more dificult, but even there, I could follow his arguments. The author did a great job of pinpointing the aspects of current evolution theory which are supported by factual evidence and which are not. Specifically, he showed how morphological changes and even the formation of new species can arise from the segregation of an existing pool of genes (microevolution). The author quite effectively explains the main problem with current evolution theory - the production of new genetic material to generate the biochemical apparatus needed to generate new morphological structures. He also gives an excellent treatment of the origin of life problem and the deficiencies of the current evolutionary explanations. I especially hope that this book is read by biologists since it also is quite free of the polemics that one finds in many other books on both sides of this topic.