In a message dated 10/29/2000 5:35:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Reflectorites
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:35:33 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>HX>I have no dispute, I was just curious if any mention of nuclear DNA
>>mutation rates had been mentioned.
SJ>I posted the whole article, so if by "What about nuclear DNA mutation
>rates?" Huxter was "just curious if any mention of nuclear DNA mutation
>rates had been mentioned" he could have read it for himself!
HX>Amazingly astute. Yes, I could have - and I did. I was really just
curious
>if you were familiar enough with what you posted to answer the question.
Huxter should make up his mind what he is "curious" about! First he says
he "was just curious if any mention of nuclear DNA mutation rates had
been mentioned". Then he says he "was really just curious if you were
familiar enough with what you posted to answer the question"?
=========================================
I had asked originally if the nuclear DNA clock information had been
mentioned in the article that you posted. My point there was to see if you
had read the article. Simple train of thought, actually.
==========================================
Once again, I freely admit that I am a *layman* and my knowledge in any
particular field is *limited*. I post scientific articles to *learn*.
===========================================
You keep saying that but I see no effort. You post an article or a bit of an
article, make an occasional commment, and that is it. Where does the
learning come in? I was not aware that there is some implicit query whenever
you post an article.
==========================================
If this is Huxter's field I would appreciate him imparting some genuine
scientific knowledge, rather than trying to score cheap points by trying to
put-down laymen.
=========================================
Questioning my motivations again. :) I will gladly impart knowledge
should it be asked for. I do not know what you would like to know since you
have yet to actually ask anything! I did try to impart some unsolicited
information and you rebuffed it:
"Thanks to Huxter, but what I mean was post the *details*, in particular
how it relates to the article I posted about mtDNA's clock."
I am not sure where you see me trying to 'put down' a layman. I think you
are confusinging frustration with condescension.
================================================
I would remind Huxter what a *real* scientist said about the right
scientific
*attitude* in dealing with laymen:
[...]
===================================
I would remind Steve that I am a *real* scientist, regardless of Steve's
attempt to put me down. Again, I would like to know where I can get the
*real* scientist's handbook that tells me exactly how I should respond to
messages on internet discussion groups such that an anti-materialist would
consider me a *real* scientist.
===================================
>HX>It appears that 1) they were not and 2) you are
>>unfamiliar with the concept of using nuclear DNA in molecular clock
>>calculations. Do you know why mtDNA is preferentially used in such studies?
SJ>Again, I was just posting A "New Scientist article (based on a SCIENCE
>journal report)". If Huxter thinks that "they" (i.e. the authors of the
>New Scientist and SCIENCE articles) were "unfamiliar with the concept of
>using nuclear DNA in molecular clock calculations" he should take it up
>with them.
HX>Why, Steve? I was asking YOU. They were not mentioned.
Huxter said: "1) they were not ...". So "They were" in fact "mentioned."
And what is Huxter's point trying to see if I am "unfamiliar with the
concept of using nuclear DNA in molecular clock calculations"
=================================
Simple. Were one unfamiliar with the fact that nuclear DNA is also used in
molecular clock calculations, one may be lead to believe that the inferrence
of divergence dates has been done solely via the use of mtDNA, and that any
anomalies in that methodology would be 'big trouble' for "evolutionism".
That is not so. I suggest not reading so much into simple statments and
instead asking for clarification if you do not see what my point is.
==================================
and if I "know why mtDNA is preferentially used in such studies"? I had
already
said (twice from memory) that my understanding was it was because
mtDNA are selectively neutral, not coding for any bodily parts.
=================================
mtDNA is not selectively neutral, as anyone with with a disorder associated
with mtDNA disorders can tell you. Body parts are not the only thing that is
subject to selection.
=================================
If this is not correct I would appreciate Huxter saying so and why,
preferably with a quote from the literature I can check up on.
=================================
I do not have a quote handy, but the logic is there.
==================================
HX>I am a bit
>surprised that they were not mentioned in the article, but many in the
field
>have preferred using mtDNA BECAUSE of its relatively rapid mutation rate
and
>the belief that mtDNA is inherited from only the female line. YOU presented
>the material, did you not?
I did, but my understanding was that both are less important to the
molecular clock hypothesis than the assumption that mtDNA is selectively
neutral.
====================================
mtDNA is not selectively neutral. There is less TO select, certainly, but
cellular metabolism is not exactly a throw-away function.
====================================
>SJ>My understanding is that the molecular clock hypothesis is based on the
>>*neutral* mutation rate. Mitochondrial DNA is therefore used instead of
>>nuclear DNA because mtDNA is thought to be selectively neutral since it
>>does not code for any phenotypical features.
>HX>Actually, there isn't really "a" molecular clock hypothesis, at least
not
>>insofar as it focuses on mt or nuclear DNA. The MCH was originally aimed
at
>>proteins, way back in the early 1970s, and nuclear DNA has been used as
far
>>back as the late 1980s (if not sooner). Your understanding is apparently
>>limited.
SJ>I am a layman. There is no "apparently" about it. My "understanding" *is*
>"limited"!
HX>I know it is.
So do I! So what is Huxter's point?
===================================
My point is that one should refrain from making matter-of-fact statements
when one is isn't really certain.
===================================
Mind you, so is Huxter's. Even in his own field, his "understanding" would
be "limited". And once out of his specialty, Huxter is just another layman:
"Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with
a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific
disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing
scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside
his field of expertise is just another layman." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.13).
==========================================
Of course Philip Johnson, professor of law, would write that. He is a layman
on any scientific topic, as his writings clearly show. I certainly would not
engage in an in depth discussion of, say, physics, or law for that matter.
My 'field' is sufficiently broad that I will freely admit that I am far from
an authority on all aspects of biology. Of course, that cuts both ways,
doesn't it?
==========================================
HX>It seems reasonable then that one in such a predicament should
>refrain from 'siding' with anyone on technical issues.
There is no "predicament" and I am not "'siding' with anyone"? I quoted a
New Scientist article, and expressed a *tentative* view. Here it is again.
================================================
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 06:37:35 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Here is a New Scientist article, based on a SCIENCE report, which says
>that molecular clocks, the rate of neutral mtDNA mutation, is possibly 100
>times faster than previously thought.
>
>If this turns out to be really the case, it would bring any "Mitochondrial
>Eve", the last common female genetic ancestor, which has been variously
>dated from ~ 400-60 kya, into closer contact with Biblical time-frames.
>
>I have also attached another New Scientist article from the same issue,
>which claims that the maximum human life-span might be much longer than the
>current estimate of around 120 years.
>
>If this holds up, it could not be ruled out that the ages of the
antediluvians
>in Genesis 5 (e.g. "Methuselah lived 969 years" -Gn 5:27); were literally
>true.
>
>I would imagine that Hugh Ross and the ICR will *love* these!
>
>Whatever happens, this shows that scientific `fact', especially in the
field of
>human origins, is only as good as the next discovery.
================================================
Note "If this turns out to be really the case..."; :"If this holds up..."
and
"Whatever happens...".
==================================
Noted.
==================================
SJ>But OTOH, how do I know that someone who goes under the
>*pseudonym* "Huxter4441" knows what *he* (or she) is talking about?
>Perhaps Huxter can tell us who he/she is, and what his/her qualifications
>are, so we can judge his/her ability speak authoritatively in this or any
>field?
HX>Sure. My name is Scott L. Page, Ph.D.
Thanks to Scott for this. I will still call him "Huxter" and "HX" to avoid
confusion.
=====================================
Easier that way.
====================================
HX>My graduate major was Anatomy and Cell
>Biology, my minor was Physical Anthropology. My undergraduate major was
>Health Sciences with an emphasis in Exercise Science.
I respect Huxter's qualifications in the above fields.
HX>I am an honorably
>discharged Army veteran. While in the service, I was a paratrooper and
>served as my battery's assistant Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare
>noncommissioned officer.
Again I respect Huxter's experience here.
HX>I did my graduate research under the tutelage of Morris Goodman, who is
>widely recognized as the world's leading expert on the molecular evolution
of
>primates.
As *the* world's leading expert on the molecular evolution of primates?
Leakey & Lewin say that Goodman is-he started the field of molecular
phylogeny in anthropology, but Wilson and Sarich eclipsed him:
"In the early 1960s Morris Goodman, at Wayne State University,
introduced this kind of molecular evidence into anthropology when
he demonstrated the close genetic relationship between humans and
African apes, the chimpanzee ant gorilla, and the distance between
humans and the Asian great ape, the orangutan. But it was the
Berkeley biochemists Allan Wilson and Vincent Sarich who really
caught the anthropological community's attention by suggesting, in
1967, that molecular evidence showed humans and apes to have
diverged from each other some five million years ago. At the time,
anthropologists believed that this divergence took place much
earlier, at least fifteen and possibly as much as thirty million years
ago." (Leakey R. & Lewin R., "Origins Reconsidered," 1993, p.76
====================================
Wilson and Sarich are more popularly known, certainly. I said 'wildly
recognized', not 'is'. As seen in your quote above, it was their timescale
that 'caught the attention' of the anthropological community. Much has taken
place since 1967. I suppose whether or not he is thought of that way depends
on whom one talks to.
====================================
The anthropology text I have does not even mention Goodman but it does
mention Walker and Sarich:
"Another method used to contrast proteins in different species is
not as precise as a detailed protein analysis but is less time-
consuming and less costly. By measuring the strength of reaction to
specially prepared antisera, similarities in proteins are calibrated on
a relative scale, indicating antigenic distance. This approach,
developed by Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson at the University of
California, Berkeley, has enabled many more proteins to be
compared among a wide variety of different primate species. The
results again generally tally favorably with traditional
classifications." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction to Physical
Anthropology," 1991, p.255).
========================================
I have a newer version of the Jurmain text: 6th Edition, 1994.
Goodman is mentioned. I shall look it up when I have the chance.
========================================
HX>My publications include:[note: the greek letters did not
>translate when I pasted these - I'm sure you can get the gist]
>
[...]
Thanks to Huxter for these. I must say I am disappointed though that
someone with Huxter's expertise, rather than posting helpful information
from his field, tried to use his expert status to put down a layman.
===========================================
Please note that I have not claimed 'expert status' in anything. I do not
consider myself an expert in any field, even my own. I am not so
presumptuous. Again, I do not see where I have attempted to put down a
layman. On the occasions that I have tried to impart knowledge, it is
rebuffed. Ask a question, I shall answer it if I can.
============================================
HX>I now am employed at a
>small private university, where my research is limited.
Which tends to dilute Huxter's jibes at Wells for no longer doing
"research"!
==================================
Limited, not nonexistent. And again, I am not paid to travel the country
spewing anti-evolution rhetoric. I am not paid to write anti-evolution
books. I did not get a doctorate for the express purpose of 'destroying'
anything. And I do not allow anyone to refer to me as 'cutting edge' or the
like.
====================================
HX>I have been
>reluctant to use my name - anywhere on the internet - for the following
>reasons:
>
>1. I normally do not have the time to produce lengthy replies to posts, and
>so usually 'resort' to short 'quip-like' posts.
I cannot see why short replies cannot be helpful and informative rather than
nasty, as most of Huxter's posts are.
====================================
It seems that your definition of 'nasty' and mine are at odds. Of course, I
could say something like you have the *attitude* of a *true* antimaterialsit
creationist.... something like that.
====================================
Besides, Huxter's posts *are* often "lengthy" so this does not seem to hold
much water.
=====================================
Which ones? The 'length' comes from my line-by-line responses, when I do so.
Sometimes I have more time than others.
====================================
end part 1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 17:02:38 EST