Exactly -- thanks for saying it succinctly, Dave.
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>wrote:
> The question of an immaterial soul gets us into metaphysics, about which
> science can say nothing. Only if mind is purely the product of brain can
> science deal with mind comprehensively. Even then there may be some
> problems if mind is emergent.
>
> Consider a problem that comes up with causation. Generally, causes are
> transitive, so that, if A causes B and B causes C, we conclude that A
> causes C. Thus, if the reduced intensity of light at sunset caused the
> sensor to close the relay, and the closed relay caused the light to go
> on, we'll agree that the sunset state caused the lighting. But we'll not
> say that the reduced light caused Al to flip a switch. Al's mind is not
> viewed as a mechanical device in a causal chain. Materialists will argue
> that this is because the brain is so complex that we do not yet
> understand its working, but that is a deduction from a metaphysical
> position, not a scientific conclusion.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:13:25 +1800 David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Opderbeck
> > <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dave Clounch, I'm not sure about what your concern is.
> > Personally, my view
> > > of human nature is one of "holistic dualism." I think human
> > beings have a
> > > "spiritual" nature -- the "soul" -- that is more than the aspects
> > of the
> > > "human" that are reducible to biology. At the same time, I think
> > human
> > > beings are a "whole," not merely "embodied souls." Given this, I
> > think it's
> > > likely that there are aspects of human nature that simply cannot
> > be
> > > investigated by science. I would suggest that, at the very least,
> > the first
> > > true humans -- Adam and Eve -- were imparted this spiritual nature
> > and that
> > > it was subsequently propogated throughout the biological human
> > species. I
> > > don't think this has anything to do with genetics.
> >
> > Surely PZ Meyers and other materialists would beg to disagree? And
> > wouldnt they say they do this on scientific grounds? Why would they
> > be wrong merely because some theologians say they are wrong? What
> > sort of belief system is dualism? Is it a
> > secular idea? Or something reserved for church?
> >
> > Thinking just a bit out of the box for a moment,
> > let me ask this: Could this imparted spiritual nature have been
> > given
> > to Chimpanzees or some other species rather than homo sapiens? Or
> > did
> > homo sapiens have some supporting resources that other species
> > didn't
> > possess?
> >
> > Think of it as software. One wouldnt be very successful trying to
> > run
> > a higher level desktop operating system (such as Vista or RedHat
> > Enterprise Linux) on a linkysys wireless-G router because the 200
> > MHz ARM processor is too slow and there just are not enough
> > resources
> > there in the box. So homo sapiens may possibly be the physical
> > prerequisite of the human mind or race. Doesn't genetics have a lot
> > to do with that? Genetics might not be the cause but it might be the
> > prerequisite to the "imparting" of special cognitive abilities.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > However, there is a robust debate even within evangelical circles
> > at the
> > > moment about monism-vs-dualism. In a recent and very engaging
> > book, Joel
> > > Green of Fuller Seminary argues for an essentially monist position
> > based on
> > > both the Biblical and scientific evidence ("Body, Soul and Human
> > Life").
> > > John Cooper of Calivn College is a key proponent of holistic
> > dualism ("Body,
> > > Soul & Life Everlasting"), while William Hasker argues for
> > emergentism ("The
> > > Emergent Self"). It should be noted that even Christians who are
> > monist or
> > > emergentist with respect to the "soul" are not reductive
> > materialists. In
> > > other words, all of the foregoing theologians agree that human
> > beings are
> > > more than biology -- that we have some capacity to exercise agency
> > and free
> > > will -- and that God is spiritual and yet ontologically personal
> > and real
> > > apart from any biology.
> > >
> > That is interesting. But....
> > Doesn't that really only apply only in the field of theology? I
> > mean,
> > it goes toward answering Christian theological questions. But does
> > it
> > do anything from the viewpoint of science? I suspect it does
> > nothing
> > from a scientific perspective. So I would expect Dawkins and Meyers
> > to
> > reject it all as religion. And why shouldn't they?
> >
> > And this of course is what bothers me about the whole idea of saying
> > human psychology is a study of the supernatural. If one is going to
> > reject *anything* purely because it is religious then why would this
> > rejection not apply across the board to anything that stems from
> > religious thinking?
> >
> > To list some items commonly rejected by list members:
> >
> > A. Some people reject creationism merely because it is religious.
> > B. Others reject ID merely because (they claim) it is religious.
> > C. Others reject anything theistic (even TE) because it comes from
> > religious thinking.
> >
> > The invocation of the supernatural is widely claimed as being the
> > kiss
> > of death to any idea that otherwise may possibly be addressed by
> > science. And many members here champion that it should be the
> > kiss
> > of death. So I find it a bit shocking that anyone can claim human
> > minds are supernatural phenomena and go completely unchallenged.
> > Someone who does want to challenge this claim of the supernatural
> > of
> > course will then say it does all come from genetics - it all comes
> > from nature and natural processes. But the onus is then upon that
> > person to explain how a design recognizer appears in the human
> > brain
> > in the absence of the alleged supernatural influence.
> > At the very least it implies there ought to be a mathematics
> > undergirding the design detection. The fact we may not have
> > discovered the math is no proof the math doesn't exist. Wishing
> > the
> > phenomena onto a supernatural basis seems to me to be more of a God
> > of
> > the gaps type thing to do.
> >
> > And there we go. People reject ideas because they smell of being a
> > God
> > of the gaps type of idea. And why is the human mind suddenly ok to
> > be delegated to the gap when it is not ok for other things to be in
> > the gap?
> >
> > I would be happier with someone trying to propose a "mathematical
> > proof" of the impossibility of a design detection algorithm. That
> > at
> > least would be a rational approach! Instead, invoking the
> > supernatural to explain the human mind's abilities seems to me to be
> > sort of brushing it under the rug to get rid of it. Very easy for a
> > religionist to do. Its the last thing I would expect a scientist to
> > do. I've been waiting for members to reject the notion and they
> > haven't (AFAIK).
> >
> > But if one could show that a design recognition algorithm is
> > mathematically impossible, and if one also rejects supernatural
> > influence, then one has a _real_ _mystery_ on one's hands. Horns
> > of
> > a dilemma?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > David W. Opderbeck
> > > Associate Professor of Law
> > > Seton Hall University Law School
> > > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Clounch
> > <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I don't know quite _where_ to ask my question. But I am
> > bothered
> > >> by the notion that some on the list seem to have taken the
> > position
> > >> that the human mind's ability to recognize design patterns does
> > not
> > >> come from genetics or from nature.
> > >> Instead some seem to feel the ability comes from God and is thus
> > >> supernatural in origin. That seems to go along with the idea that
> > the
> > >> human mind is supernatural in general.
> > >>
> > >> First, a disclaimer. I didnt originate the ideas I am referring
> > to.
> > >> List members did that. Second, I'd prefer to focus on the
> > biology, not
> > >> on the human mind and other subjects. But, when talking about
> > Adam
> > >> and Eve the very nature of what a human being is comes into play.
> > Is
> > >> that beyond biology, or not?
> > >>
> > >> I'm not taking any position on this, but I find it interesting as
> > an
> > >> idea. The idea that human psychology is a study of the
> > supernatural?
> > >> (of a supernatural phenomena as opposed to a natural phenomena?)
> > I
> > >> suspect most psychologists would reject that notion. Wouldn't
> > they?
> > >>
> > >> But, if it *were* true, then is it worth asking what folks
> > believe
> > >> about the population from whence came the first true humans? Was
> > >> this "embellishment" with a supernatural mind (or whatever one
> > would
> > >> call it - and I am uncertain as to what the concept should be
> > >> labelled) was this embellishment applied to a group (a whole
> > >> population), or was it applied to a single pair as some
> > theological
> > >> views would claim? If to a single pair, then did the rest of
> > the
> > >> population not get it at all? (meaning, perhaps, that the
> > non-humans
> > >> in the group did not have a soul? But Adam and Eve did have a
> > soul?)
> > >>
> > >> And the big question is why is this cognitive ability not passed
> > down
> > >> genetically? Are any reasons put forth?
> > >>
> > >> One also has to ask whether the ability to recognize design
> > patterns
> > >> perhaps precedes the first humans and was in the general
> > population,
> > >> or even in the population of non-human primates or even other
> > species.
> > >> Is it really associated only with soulful minds?
> > >>
> > >> I suspect some may think this line of inquiry not worthy of
> > >> investigation. But it seems to me that for James's concern to be
> > >> addressed one must look at the issue of just what it really is,
> > in
> > >> the minds of members, that made modern humans human. At what
> > point did
> > >> humans get truly human abilities and even souls? Are souls real?
> > Do
> > >> they correlate with cognitive ability? In other words, what
> > criteria
> > >> would one use to set aside notions of deism and move toward a
> > >> naturalistic theism? The answer to that is surely affected by
> > >> whether one believes what one is interacting with across the
> > dinner
> > >> table is a supernatural phenomena or a purely natural phenomena.
> > >>
> > >> And again, if the essentials of the human mind don't spring forth
> > from
> > >> the genes, then how can science even investigate human origins
> > >> whatsoever? Can anyone see why I have difficulty with the list
> > >> discussion here at the beginning of 2009?
> > >> I am worried about the ASA because it seems the list has stumbled
> > into
> > >> territory, both theologically and scientifically, that I had
> > never
> > >> even heard of previously.
> > >>
> > >> -Dave
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM, James Patterson
> > >> <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> > David wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > -- do you accept the evidence for an old universe and earth?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, absolutely.
> > >> >
> > >> > If so, aren't you being inconsistent in rejecting the
> > conclusions
> > >> > population
> > >> > geneticists draw from the MHC data based on the presumption
> > you've drawn
> > >> > from the Bible that there must have been only one pair from
> > whom all
> > >> > present
> > >> > humans directly are genetically descended? The YEC's, after
> > all, make
> > >> > exactly the same argument about the "days" of creation, the age
> > of the
> > >> > earth, and the nature of Noah's flood.
> > >> >
> > >> > No, I don't think so, not at all. First, and as I said, I don't
> > think
> > >> > MHC
> > >> > data should be used much, if at any, for this kind of thing. I
> > am also
> > >> > not
> > >> > sure how that ties into the next part of your statement. But
> > the
> > >> > evidence
> > >> > for the Big Bang, the age of the universe, the age of the
> > earth, that's
> > >> > all
> > >> > "hard" science – physics and cosmology. It is much more defined
> > and
> > >> > clear
> > >> > than the biological sciences. It's very hard to argue with
> > mathematical
> > >> > equations like those that define our universe. However, the
> > math used in
> > >> > Ayala's paper is *much* less clear, and the math used in the
> > entire
> > >> > field of
> > >> > population genetics isn't nailed down yet…just look at some of
> > the
> > >> > references. We don't understand this field well enough in
> > general, and I
> > >> > don't accept or understand the science well enough to take a
> > position
> > >> > that
> > >> > it is impossible to have an n=2. I think that some very good
> > evidence
> > >> > for
> > >> > their being an n=2 is that is what the Bible tells us, and it
> > seems
> > >> > reasonably clear that an n of 2 is what is indicated – I don't
> > see a way
> > >> > around that. The strongest argument I see for there being some
> > other
> > >> > answer
> > >> > to this is Dick Fischer's argument that it was an n=2, but they
> > were the
> > >> > first ancient Hebrews, not the first man. However, I have to
> > state that
> > >> > I
> > >> > don't accept that position (although I haven't read his book
> > yet, it's
> > >> > on
> > >> > order Dick). The Bible seems generally clear that it refers to
> > the
> > >> > origins
> > >> > of mankind – all of mankind.
> > >> >
> > >> > The essential foundation of my argument is that in general,
> > what the
> > >> > Bible
> > >> > says and what science says agree. YOM doesn't mean a literal
> > day. The
> > >> > Hebrews didn't mean a global flood. How Genesis is interpreted
> > is
> > >> > obviously
> > >> > not easy, and not clear, or we wouldn't be here talking about
> > it.
> > >> >
> > >> > -- you say, ". . . we see the emergence of man in the correct
> > *general*
> > >> > location, from (at least) a small population, sometime in the
> > past." I
> > >> > used
> > >> > to find this kind of argument from RTB et al. somewhat
> > persuasive.
> > >> >
> > >> > However, let's be honest: central Africa is not the same
> > "general
> > >> > location"
> > >> > as Mesopotamia,
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, it is. First off, I think it' East Africa. But I'm not
> > going to
> > >> > split
> > >> > hairs. And even if you draw that circle down to Tanzania and
> > Ethiopia,
> > >> > it's
> > >> > still in the same general location. We do not understand mans
> > origins
> > >> > well
> > >> > enough to put him in anything other than Africa. That's fine.
> > It's not
> > >> > Europe, it's not Australia, it's not America, it's not Russia,
> > it's not
> > >> > China, or India. God said he created man west of Eden. Africa
> > is west of
> > >> > Eden. Sure, most of it is also south…but it's still west. I
> > don't really
> > >> > think that's worth belaboring…it agrees well enough. Science
> > puts the
> > >> > origins of man in Africa, and the first civilizations in
> > Mesopotamia.
> > >> > The
> > >> > Bible put's the creation of man west of Eden, and Eden in
> > Mesopotamia.
> > >> > That
> > >> > agrees well enough for me. Here's the map again, since it
> > wasn't in this
> > >> > email. http://www.pattersonhistory.net/map01.jpg
> > >> >
> > >> > and "sometime in the past" -- if that is 150 kya or so even for
> > >> > Mitochondrial Eve -- doesn't fit with the Bible's description
> > of the
> > >> > culture
> > >> > into which Adam's immediate descendants were placed.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am working on that presently…and answering this thread is
> > detracting
> > >> > me
> > >> > from that work…
> > >> >
> > >> > Moreover, "(at least) a small population" isn't two
> > individuals. I am
> > >> > no
> > >> > expert either, but my sense is that for the MHC data to be
> > accounted for
> > >> > by
> > >> > a single pair, you'd either have to have (a) diversification of
> > the MHC
> > >> > at a
> > >> > truly astonishing (not just 'fast') rate; or (b) a whole set of
> > miracles
> > >> > not
> > >> > mentioned in scripture.
> > >> >
> > >> > Not mentioned???? God creates man and woman, breaths their
> > spiritual
> > >> > nature
> > >> > into them, and you tell me that's not mentioned? Come now. He
> > doesn't
> > >> > give
> > >> > out details on how He did it…or what He did. If so the world
> > would be a
> > >> > much
> > >> > simpler place. But I think it's clear – He did something.
> > >> >
> > >> > Isn't it more parsimonious to suggest, as John Stott did in his
> > Romans
> > >> > commentary, that the "image of God" and "original sin" are
> > essentially
> > >> > spiritual qualities rather than genetic ones? It seems to me
> > that this
> > >> > removes much of the burden of trying to tie Adam to the genetic
> > record.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's not a bad point, but parsimony can be taken only so far.
> > Occam's
> > >> > razor can slice down to the bone of metaphysical naturalism, if
> > you let
> > >> > it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Perhaps Adam lived in (or was removed from the "garden" into) a
> > context
> > >> > where there were other "humans," but this says nothing of the
> > spiritual
> > >> > aspects of those other homo sapiens who shared the physical
> > world with
> > >> > Adam
> > >> > and his descendants for a time.
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, I don't like that either, but I haven't been able to
> > conceive of a
> > >> > way
> > >> > to pull these threads together more tightly without resorting
> > to
> > >> > presuppositional logic that ultimately leads to YECism.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't deny that PC is a tough position. The one thing that
> > brought me
> > >> > here
> > >> > to this position is the strong Biblical foundation, and the
> > thing that
> > >> > keeps
> > >> > me here is that there is a model. Models can be revised based
> > on new
> > >> > data,
> > >> > and other opinions and interpretations can be incorporated.
> > This is not
> > >> > true
> > >> > of YEC – the entire foundation of their position is based on a
> > >> > unbalanced
> > >> > premise that only the Bible is true, and not science (at least
> > not
> > >> > anyone's
> > >> > science but their own). The PC position is balanced: both Bible
> > and
> > >> > science.
> > >> > The TE position is (in my opinion) a bit unbalanced the other
> > way – too
> > >> > much
> > >> > reliance on only natural explanations. I know most of you don't
> > agree
> > >> > with
> > >> > that, but hey if I wasn't here testing your positions, you
> > wouldn't be
> > >> > having so much fun. J
> > >> >
> > >> > God bless, JP
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> >
> > >> > David W. Opderbeck
> > >> > Associate Professor of Law
> > >> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > >> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, James Patterson
> > >> > <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > All,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I've finally been able to get back to this thread (and
> > sub-threads) and
> > >> > read
> > >> > them. I wanted to go read the Ayala manuscript first. I have
> > read it as
> > >> > well
> > >> > as the comments on the article, and a few other related
> > articles.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I must also classify myself as "not an expert" in this field.
> > However, I
> > >> > find it quite interesting to look at how often the words
> > "presume" and
> > >> > "presumption" are used in the Ayala article. If you look at
> > this article
> > >> > specifically and the field as a whole, there is significant
> > controversy
> > >> > over
> > >> > the various models and how to interpret the results…more so
> > than I am
> > >> > comfortable with. This is reflected in the comment in reply to
> > the Ayala
> > >> > article, as well as several other articles (see below).
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > All that as an aside. The main issue is the size of the "n"
> > required to
> > >> > pass
> > >> > thru a bottleneck. Ayala argues there wasn't even a bottleneck,
> > but I
> > >> > think
> > >> > most would agree there is plenty of evidence that there was at
> > least one
> > >> > if
> > >> > not more bottlenecks. So I am not going to belabor that issue.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ayala's point is that, for a given chunk of DNA, including
> > mtDNA chunks,
> > >> > you
> > >> > may be able to trace that chunk back to a common ancestor.
> > However, the
> > >> > next
> > >> > chunk of DNA will be from a *different* ancestor, not the same
> > one,
> > >> > implying
> > >> > not one, but a population of "Eves". I am NOT familiar enough
> > to state
> > >> > for
> > >> > certainty, but I thought that the mtDNA was looked at more as a
> > whole
> > >> > than
> > >> > other DNA? It's size is about 15-17 kbp, and codes for 37
> > genes.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > When we get to the point of whether there was a n=2 vs an n=X,
> > Ayala
> > >> > puts X
> > >> > at ~100,000. He describes how it would be impossible for all
> > the alleles
> > >> > of
> > >> > the MHC to survive a population smaller than (I think) about
> > 10,000
> > >> > sexually
> > >> > active humans, which equates to a total population that is of
> > course
> > >> > larger.
> > >> > The issue here of course is the MHC region. If one is going to
> > look at
> > >> > comparative regions and molecular clocks, it seems to me that
> > the MHC
> > >> > has
> > >> > got to be the *worst* possible choice to use. Within the field
> > of
> > >> > immunology, this region of the genetic code is sometimes called
> > the
> > >> > G.O.D.
> > >> > (interesting, yes?) region, for Generator (or Generation) Of
> > Diversity.
> > >> > Mutation rates here can be quite rapid. See the Hogstrand or
> > Carrington
> > >> > articles below.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Given that, Ayala's work does not seem to distinguish itself
> > any greater
> > >> > than other studies on this topic. And that gets to the heart of
> > the
> > >> > matter:
> > >> > From a strict, naturalistic, population genetics viewpoint, a
> > bottleneck
> > >> > of
> > >> > an n=2 is unacceptable. The only way to have an n=2 bottleneck
> > is if
> > >> > this
> > >> > couple were quite special in some way or ways, and that isn't
> > "natural".
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank God, I am not a strict naturalist. J
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The integration of science and faith is why we are here. You
> > may want to
> > >> > find a strict natural explanation of everything, because you
> > think
> > >> > that's
> > >> > the way God works at all times. If you extrapolate this to the
> > extreme,
> > >> > the
> > >> > TE viewpoint becomes the DE viewpoint. I think I mentioned this
> > in
> > >> > another
> > >> > thread recently. At the very least, I think you should at least
> > consider
> > >> > this to be a prime example of Russell's OSP hard at work. You
> > may be
> > >> > able to
> > >> > track the lineage of the descent of man genetically, but
> > tracking the
> > >> > hand
> > >> > of God is another matter.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > It becomes very difficult, very quickly, to reconcile God's
> > creation of
> > >> > our
> > >> > spiritual selves (as well as original sin) with a (large)
> > population of
> > >> > humans that evolved slowly. No matter how you slice it, God's
> > handiwork
> > >> > is
> > >> > present. And if we are going to presume the hand of God being
> > involved,
> > >> > then
> > >> > strict naturalistic explanations will ultimately fail.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > However, if you *presume* that God was involved, and that God
> > created
> > >> > Adam
> > >> > and Eve (as the Bible tells us), and look at what the natural
> > sciences
> > >> > show
> > >> > us, we see the emergence of man in the correct *general*
> > location, from
> > >> > (at
> > >> > least) a small population, sometime in the past. How exactly,
> > may remain
> > >> > unclear. We will have to save the time question for later, tho.
> > J
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved
> > with the
> > >> > creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice.
> > As for me
> > >> > and
> > >> > my family, we choose God.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > God bless,
> > >> >
> > >> > James P
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > A few interesting references:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Gibbons A, (1993). Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die. Science,
> > >> > 259(5099):1249-1250.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ayala F, (1995). The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human
> > Origins.
> > >> > Science, 270(5244):1930-1936.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Erlich HA, Bergstrom TF, Stoneking M, and Gyllensten U (1996).
> > HLA
> > >> > Sequence
> > >> > Polymorphism and the Origin of Humans (in reply to Ayala's
> > article).
> > >> > Science, 274(5292):1552-1554.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Watson E, Forster P, Richards M, Bandelt HJ, (1997).
> > Mitochondrial
> > >> > footprints of human expansions in Africa. Am J Hum Genet,
> > 61(3):691-704.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Carrington M, (1999). Recombination within the human MHC.
> > Immunological
> > >> > Reviews, 167(1):245-256.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Gray M, Burger G, Lang BF, (1999). Mitochondrial Evolution.
> > Science,
> > >> > 283(5407):1476-1481.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Högstrand K, Böhme J, (1999). Gene conversion can create new
> > MHC
> > >> > alleles.
> > >> > Immunological Reviews, 167(1):305-317.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Cann R, (2001). Genetic Clues to Dispersal in Human
> > Populations:
> > >> > Retracing
> > >> > the Past from the Present. Science, 291(5509): 1742-1748.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Stumpf M and Goldstein D, (2001). Genealogical and Evolutionary
> > >> > Inference
> > >> > with the Human Y Chromosome. Science, 291(5509):1738-1742.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Zimmerman S, (2001). Population size at the time of
> > mitochondrial eve.
> > >> > Human
> > >> > Evolution, 16(2):117-124.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Curnoe D, Thorne A, (2003) Number of ancestral human species: a
> > >> > molecular
> > >> > perspective. Homo, 53(3):201-224.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Hagelberg E, (2003). Recombination or mutation rate
> > heterogeneity?
> > >> > Implications for Mitochondrial Eve. Trends Genet, 19(2):84-90.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_evoluti
> on_and_allelic_diversity
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> Like to make your own jewelry? Then do it for less by clicking here!
>
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIWztMVSucfBUIFyo34WEswT3LXjwDcBnPMTqmbWdayyO0ZNCTiiU/
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 24 16:36:16 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 24 2009 - 16:36:16 EST
