Yes indeed,
Glenn explained all this to me offline -- so as not to waste the time of
everybody else.
I did however note how barbaric I thought it was to require that kind of
indirect measurement of a fundamental quantity. How much neater it would be if
we could first establish the mutation rate and then use it for dating the
distant past --- instead of going by the age of the material in which fossils
are found.
J Burgeson wrote:
> Walt wrote, about a posting by Glenn: " You say here that a fossil
> discovery "will slow down the rate of mutation".
> Amazing! Will it also alter the rate radioactive decay and other physical
> phenomena that have nothing to do with archaeology?"
>
> I thought Glenn's post was most interesting. Glenn, like me, does not always
> write precisely -- obviously what he meant by the above is that the current
> theories of rates of mutation will have to take these findings into account
> and he expects that those theoretical rates will necessarily have to be
> smaller than now envisioned.
>
> I think he is right.
>
> Burgy
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 23:47:27 EDT