Good-bye
Julie Thomas
Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
set of replies to talk.origins. I will say that I have
really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
Thank you.
And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
lot of the flame heat off of me. If you have not been
posting here, I doubt I would have stayed as long as I
did. I regret that I can't stick around to give you a hand
(especially since there was so much more so say), but
alas, all good things must come to an end.
I will say that rumor has it that my e-mail box might
be up until the end of September (although it might also
be gone by the first of September).
Well, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
programming........
Be Well All
--
Peter Nyikos
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
>Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
>set of replies to talk.origins.
I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
time to support you in this final month of your
sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
too, which also cut into the time I would have
liked to have spent backing you up.
I will say that I have
>really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
>part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
>I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
>some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
>talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
>people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
>beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
>stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
>but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
>Thank you.
>And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
>lot of the flame heat off of me.
My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
that need will be met some day too.
If you have not been
>posting here, I doubt I would have stayed as long as I
>did. I regret that I can't stick around to give you a hand
>(especially since there was so much more so say), but
>alas, all good things must come to an end.
>I will say that rumor has it that my e-mail box might
>be up until the end of September (although it might also
>be gone by the first of September).
>Well, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
>programming........
>Be Well All
>--
With Julie gone, this time apparently for good, people can
expect a slight shift in my posting emphases as well as
a reduction in volume.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
yojim...@my-deja.com
does this mean that mr. potter is your:
'net ally'
'net boot-licker'
'net buttress'
part of the 'nyikos-potter axis/complex/cadre/cabal/insert-your-
favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
just curious.
yojimbo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Joseph Potter
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu...
<snip>
>
> My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
> and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
>
> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> that need will be met some day too.
>
<snip>
I think that layman are all you are going to get
to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
would greatly damage his/her career if they took
the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
say, Dr. Behe were to post here on his thoughts
as outlined in his book --- every statement that he
made would be twisted and corrupted by
some of our good pack friends and then these
disingenuous corruptions would pass from here
into the "conventional knowledge."
He could not win. And besides, as I understand it
he actually does real research and does not have the
time to post here.
Of course, some "mavericks" may read here once in a while.
Ted Steel (sp?) e-mailed me and someone else after
he saw an exchange between us. I exchanged a
couple of e-mails with Dr. Steel, and he was real pleasant.
I even got a signed copy of his book out of the deal!
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
<yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7psri6$196$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >set of replies to talk.origins.
> >
> > I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
> > time to support you in this final month of your
> > sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> > busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> > too, which also cut into the time I would have
> > liked to have spent backing you up.
> >
> > I will say that I have
> > >really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
> > >part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
> > >I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
> > >some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
> > >talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
> > >people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
> > >beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
> > >stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
> > >but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
> > >Thank you.
> >
> > >And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
> > >lot of the flame heat off of me.
> >
> > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > that need will be met some day too.
>
> favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
>
>
> just curious.
>
All Right! I always wanted to be part of a conspiracy.
Will there be meetings? Dues? Do we get a coffee
mug?
Regards, Joe
Henry Barwood
Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I'll miss you, Julie.
Aww. How sweet.
> I wish I could have had more
> time to support you in this final month of your
> sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> too, which also cut into the time I would have
> liked to have spent backing you up.
Actually, it is not hard to keep Nyikos busy. A simple example of his
inaccuracies is usually good for about 100 gigabytes of rebuttal and
regurgiposts.
Barwood
Joseph Potter
Henry Barwood <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:37C2A8AD...@indiana.edu...
>
>
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > I'll miss you, Julie.
>
> Aww. How sweet.
>
Another example of a pack member showing his
infinite reserve of human kindness.
One hopes you do not waste this great compassion
of yours and that you do volunteer work in your
community.
Perhaps you teach underprivileged youth that being
beat over the head with a club is not really all that
bad. I can see it now, "step up kid --- this will
not hurt all that much," as you grin that
special way.
Regards, Joe
Bernd Pichulik
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7pu8mp$nbd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote in message
> news:7pfsjl$eap$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu...
> >
> >
> > Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
> > really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
> > part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
> > I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
> > some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
> > talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
> > people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
> > beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
> > stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
> > but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
> > posting here, I doubt I would have stayed as long as I
> > did. I regret that I can't stick around to give you a hand
> > (especially since there was so much more so say), but
> > alas, all good things must come to an end.
> >
> > I will say that rumor has it that my e-mail box might
> > be up until the end of September (although it might also
> > be gone by the first of September).
> >
> > Well, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
> > programming........
> >
> > Be Well All
> >
>
>
> of the pack will also miss you.
>
> Good luck, and may you and yours always
> be well.
>
>
> Warmest Regards, Joe Potter
>
>
Yes! I second that. I have learned a lot from reading your posts
Julie, although much of the finer technical points regarding things
biochemical were, (and still are) right above my head.
T.O. will be the poorer for your absence. I am convinced that many
people here, especially those that disagreed with you will miss the
inspiring sparring sessions that they were happy to have with you.
All the best for the future,
Bernd Pichulik
Henry Barwood
Joseph Potter wrote:
> Another example of a pack member showing his
> infinite reserve of human kindness.
Pack member?
> One hopes you do not waste this great compassion
> of yours and that you do volunteer work in your
> community.
I try to work with educationally disadvantaged youth, but their parents
won't let me lecture in the church.
> Perhaps you teach underprivileged youth that being
> beat over the head with a club is not really all that
> bad. I can see it now, "step up kid --- this will
> not hurt all that much," as you grin that
> special way.
No I leave that to their parents. You know the drill: "Spare the rod and
spoil the child". It is a wonderful excuse for sexual sadism among
latent pedophiles who are also deeply religious. You?
Barwood
howard hershey
> >set of replies to talk.origins.
>
> time to support you in this final month of your
> sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> too, which also cut into the time I would have
> liked to have spent backing you up.
>
disagree about some very fundamental things in their respective
arguments wrt to how life appeared on the earth, such as the feasibility
of an RNA world and natural abiogenesis. Julie specifically sets up
conditions that require a supernatural (or at least non-corporeal)
designer. Specifically, in her view DNA replication requires a designer
*and* there is no way for a cell to exist without DNA replication
(because all current cells use DNA replication). Ergo, the designer
cannot be cellular or use DNA replication. Peter, in this regard, is
more scientific, as he merely pushes the abiogenesis event back one
iteration, but considers it likely to have been a natural event not
*necessarily* requiring a supernatural designer (that is, the designer
may have been there, but he/she/it/they was not *necessary* in the sense
of violating natural mechanisms).
[snip]
>
> >And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
> >lot of the flame heat off of me.
>
> and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
Given that Peter's argument is more scientific than Julie's (they
apparently only agree on the 'usefulness' of ID reasoning, which, I
think, is what they really want see accepted in science - space aliens
are merely a temporary shield to deflect the criticism of introducing
the supernatural), I find his *accepting* the role of her sycophant
strange (I think sycophant is the more polite euphamism for
bootl****r). You have your own mind, such as it is, Peter. Peter
should not be deferring his own thinking to support Julie when there are
clear areas of disagrement any more than Julie should have pretended
that she and Peter agree. Nor should Peter be implying that Joe should
be or is *his* sycophant.
>
> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> that need will be met some day too.
And given Peter's level of understanding of science and biology, I, if I
were Joe, would feel insulted and regard this as pure arrogance on
Peter's part. I don't think Joe should accept the role of Peter's
sycophant any more than Peter should have accepted the role of Julie's
sycophant. If you agree with Peter, Joe, do it for your own
*independent* reasoning and don't be afraid to disagree with him when he
is playing the role of poseur.
>
[snip]
>
> >--
>
> With Julie gone, this time apparently for good, people can
> expect a slight shift in my posting emphases as well as
> a reduction in volume.
The later would be a blessing. The former may or may not be.
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C27A...@indiana.edu...
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > [posted and e-mailed]
> >
> > iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> >
> > >Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
> > >set of replies to talk.origins.
> >
> > I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
> > time to support you in this final month of your
> > sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> > busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> > too, which also cut into the time I would have
> > liked to have spent backing you up.
> >
> What is really strange about this is that Peter and Julie actually
> disagree about some very fundamental things in their respective
> arguments wrt to how life appeared on the earth, such as the feasibility
>
What is so strange?
I do not have to agree with everything in another
person's position to appreciate them when
they are honest and polite in talking about origins.
I wish I had Julie's strength of character and did
not slam back at those who first slam me. She
has been a breath of fresh air here on T.O.
<snip>
>
> [...] If you agree with Peter, Joe, do it for your own
> *independent* reasoning and don't be
> afraid to disagree with him when he
> is playing the role of poseur.
>
I do not agree totally with even Dr. Eldredge,
much less anyone here. After all, Dr. Eldredge
has avoided the obvious saltation conclusion
that is inherent in PE. However, I admire and
respect Dr. E. very much. One of his books
signed by him would be a treasure to me.
So Howard, I'll keep reading all those
books that PZM finds so very worthless
--- just popular science, don't you know ---
and I'll adjust my position as time goes on.
After all, it was Dr. Eldredge and Dr. Gould
who taught me that my position in
college --- strict gradualist neo-Darwinianism---
was false.
Regards, Joe
Wade Hines
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
>> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
>> that need will be met some day too.
><snip>
>I think that layman are all you are going to get
>to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
>The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
>would greatly damage his/her career if they took
>the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
Bullpucky. More likely is that they would try to be
friendly and tell Peter he was wrong about peptides
and to move on, and Peter would accuse them of having
some antiNykosian agenda.
But fantasy is a better world for some.
Matt Silberstein
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>:
[snip]
>I do not agree totally with even Dr. Eldredge,
>much less anyone here. After all, Dr. Eldredge
>has avoided the obvious saltation conclusion
>that is inherent in PE.
He has "avoided" it because he has a valid and well-reasoned
alternative to saltination.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Testing the proposition that you can find out anything
if you just say it wrong on the usenet:
I ssertion that no one recorded an a capella version of
_Rhapsody In Blue_ during the 1980s/90s.
howard hershey
>
[snip]
>
> After all, it was Dr. Eldredge and Dr. Gould
> who taught me that my position in
> college --- strict gradualist neo-Darwinianism---
> was false.
Then you learned the wrong lesson. The correct lesson is that evolution
need not always be strictly gradualistic and that when change occurs it
tends to be geologically rapid (not necessarily saltational). Neither
author argued that gradualism was false, only that it was inadequate as
a complete explanation.
I would also go further and say that neo-Darwinism, if by that you mean
selection as the only mechanism of evolution, is also inadequate as a
complete explanation of evolution.
>
> Regards, Joe
yojim...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
> > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> >
> > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > that need will be met some day too.
> >
> <snip>
>
> I think that layman are all you are going to get
> to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
>
> The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
> would greatly damage his/her career if they took
> the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
> as outlined in his book --- every statement that he
> made would be twisted and corrupted by
> some of our good pack friends and then these
> disingenuous corruptions would pass from here
> into the "conventional knowledge."
grasshopper, i can assure you that behe's ideas do not need to be
corrupted and twisted.
every colleague of mine who has read his book or his essays is quite
capable of seeing them for what they are, which is doo-doo of the most
laughable kind.
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7psri6$196$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > > >set of replies to talk.origins.
> > >
> > > I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
> > > time to support you in this final month of your
> > > sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> > > busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> > > too, which also cut into the time I would have
> > > liked to have spent backing you up.
> > >
> > > >really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
> > > >part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
> > > >I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
> > > >some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
> > > >talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
> > > >people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
> > > >beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
> > > >stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
> > > >but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
> > > >Thank you.
> > >
> > > >lot of the flame heat off of me.
> > >
> > > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> > > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > > that need will be met some day too.
> >
> > [...] part of the 'nyikos-potter axis/complex/cadre/cabal/insert-your-
> > favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
> >
> >
> > just curious.
> >
>
> All Right! I always wanted to be part of a conspiracy.
> Will there be meetings? Dues? Do we get a coffee
> mug?
>
>
Great. I guess this all means that Julie is leaving us at the mercy of Nyikos
and Potter.
And yes, some people here have a larger Nyikos-Potter complex than others.
I'm sure these unfortunate individuals would liken the condition to shell
shock.
--
Scott Chase
Joseph Potter
*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7putu5$e3k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Perhaps, Hell Shock?
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
<yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7putgi$dl9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7pu8mo$nbd$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > >
> > > iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
> > > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> > > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > > that need will be met some day too.
> > >
> >
> > I think that layman are all you are going to get
> > to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
> >
> > The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
> > would greatly damage his/her career if they took
> > the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
> > say, Dr. Behe were to post here on his thoughts
> > as outlined in his book --- every statement that he
> > made would be twisted and corrupted by
> > some of our good pack friends and then these
> > disingenuous corruptions would pass from here
> > into the "conventional knowledge."
>
> grasshopper, i can assure you that behe's ideas do not need to be
> corrupted and twisted.
>
Master, I assure you that I was among the first to
mention his book here on T.O and know first
hand that the folk here did twist his statements
out of all possible recognition.
Regards, and may the grass be with you --- Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C29F...@indiana.edu...
> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
> >
> > After all, it was Dr. Eldredge and Dr. Gould
> > who taught me that my position in
> > college --- strict gradualist neo-Darwinianism---
> > was false.
>
> Then you learned the wrong lesson. The correct lesson is that evolution
> need not always be strictly gradualistic and that when change occurs it
> tends to be geologically rapid (not necessarily saltational). Neither
> author argued that gradualism was false, only that it was inadequate as
> a complete explanation.
>
This is the sort of stuff that gets you called
disingenuous.
You <snip>ed the part, without notation, where I stated
that Dr. Eldredge was not saltational. Do not try
to make it look like I am saying this about him.
(even if only a hint)
Mayr did and backed off --- damn if I'll make that mistake!
The lesson I learned --- at a time when undergrads
were taught Dawkinism --- was that the neo-Darwin
paradigm of biology was dead wrong.
>
> I would also go further and say that
> neo-Darwinism, if by that you mean
> selection as the only mechanism of
> evolution, is also inadequate as a
> complete explanation of evolution.
>
No stuff. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is
destroying open and honest research.
Neo-Saltationists may be in error --- but we
need to fund research and let them publish.
Regards, Joe
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> *Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7putu5$e3k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7psri6$196$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > > > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >set of replies to talk.origins.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
> > > > > time to support you in this final month of your
> > > > > sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> > > > > busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> > > > > too, which also cut into the time I would have
> > > > > liked to have spent backing you up.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will say that I have
> > > > > >really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
> > > > > >part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
> > > > > >I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
> > > > > >some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
> > > > > >talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
> > > > > >people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
> > > > > >beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
> > > > > >stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
> > > > > >but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
> > > > > >Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > >And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
> > > > > >lot of the flame heat off of me.
> > > > >
> > > > > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > > > > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > > > > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > > > > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> > > > > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > > > > that need will be met some day too.
> > > >
> > > > [...] part of the 'nyikos-potter axis/complex/cadre/cabal/insert-your-
> > > > favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > just curious.
> > > >
> > >
> > > All Right! I always wanted to be part of a conspiracy.
> > > Will there be meetings? Dues? Do we get a coffee
> > > mug?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Great. I guess this all means that Julie is leaving us at the mercy of Nyikos
> > and Potter.
> >
> > And yes, some people here have a larger Nyikos-Potter complex than others.
> > I'm sure these unfortunate individuals would liken the condition to shell
> > shock.
> >
> > --
> > Scott Chase
> >
>
> Perhaps, Hell Shock?
>
>
yojim...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7putgi$dl9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <7pu8mo$nbd$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > > >
> > > > iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
> > > > and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > > > try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > > > to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > > > but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> > > > more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > > > that need will be met some day too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that layman are all you are going to get
> > > to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
> > >
> > > The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
> > > would greatly damage his/her career if they took
> > > the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
> > > say, Dr. Behe were to post here on his thoughts
> > > as outlined in his book --- every statement that he
> > > made would be twisted and corrupted by
> > > some of our good pack friends and then these
> > > disingenuous corruptions would pass from here
> > > into the "conventional knowledge."
> >
> > grasshopper, i can assure you that behe's ideas do not need to be
> > corrupted and twisted.
> >
>
> Master, I assure you that I was among the first to
> mention his book here on T.O and know first
> hand that the folk here did twist his statements
> out of all possible recognition.
>
please give an example (just one will do) of a behe statement from
'darwin's black box' and how any one t.o. poster twisted it out of all
possible recognition.
just so i can see what i'm dealing with here
thankyou
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
Joseph Potter
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
No guts? No comment?
<snip>
Regards, Joe
--------------
"Current utility may not be equated with
historical origin, or, when you demonstrate
that something works well, you have not
solved the problem of how, when, or why
it arose." --- Stephen Jay Gould
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C29F...@indiana.edu...
> > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > After all, it was Dr. Eldredge and Dr. Gould
> > > who taught me that my position in
> > > college --- strict gradualist neo-Darwinianism---
> > > was false.
> >
> > Then you learned the wrong lesson. The correct lesson is that evolution
> > need not always be strictly gradualistic and that when change occurs it
> > tends to be geologically rapid (not necessarily saltational). Neither
> > author argued that gradualism was false, only that it was inadequate as
> > a complete explanation.
> >
>
> This is the sort of stuff that gets you called
> disingenuous.
>
> You <snip>ed the part, without notation, where I stated
> that Dr. Eldredge was not saltational.
This is simply *not true*, Joe. I included a [snip] above the single
paragraph I retained from this post. It was the very last paragraph of
the post. I do try to be extremely careful to mark my snips. I was. I
think you are confusing which paragraph I kept and which one I snipped.
I did not include any hint in my response that you thought Dr. Eldridge
was saying 'saltation'. I merely pointed out that *you* took the wrong
lesson from it by leaping to the conclusion of saltation yourself and
pointed out what Eldridge did in fact think.
> Do not try
> to make it look like I am saying this about him.
> (even if only a hint)
> Mayr did and backed off --- damn if I'll make that mistake!
>
> The lesson I learned --- at a time when undergrads
> were taught Dawkinism --- was that the neo-Darwin
> paradigm of biology was dead wrong.
Well, your perverted vision of what neo-Darwinism is is probably is
wrong.
>
> >
> > I would also go further and say that
> > neo-Darwinism, if by that you mean
> > selection as the only mechanism of
> > evolution, is also inadequate as a
> > complete explanation of evolution.
> >
>
> No stuff. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is
> destroying open and honest research.
Oh, really? You mean that open and honest research is not reaching the
conclusions you want it to, don't you.
>
> Neo-Saltationists may be in error --- but we
> need to fund research and let them publish.
What do you think neo-saltationism is? Do you think that they cannot be
published if they had good research? Any evidence?
>
> Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C34D...@indiana.edu...
> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:37C29F...@indiana.edu...
> > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > >
> > >
[snip]
>
> [...] I merely pointed out that *you* took the wrong
> lesson from it by leaping to the conclusion of saltation yourself and
> pointed out what Eldridge did in fact think.
>
I did not "leap" to that conclusion. (although, you made
a nice play on words)
I have moved to think saltation is the only answer
after reading many things over many years. In fact,
I think saltation (in some form or the other) will
become the dominate paradigm in biology in the
next generation or two. I could be wrong, as
fortune telling is an inexact science.
[snip]
>
> Well, your perverted vision of what neo-Darwinism is is probably is
> wrong.
>
Possibly. However, the responses I get here from folks
like yourself lead me to think that I have it correct.
[snip]
> >
> > No stuff. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is
> > destroying open and honest research.
>
> Oh, really? You mean that open and honest research is not reaching the
> conclusions you want it to, don't you.
>
No I do not.
I think science should not exclude any avenue
out of hand. If the dominate paradigm was
saltation, and a few maverick gradualists
were not allowed to present their views;
I would be arguing for them.
I just think than any closed door is one too many.
[...]
>
> > Neo-Saltationists may be in error --- but we
> > need to fund research and let them publish.
>
> What do you think neo-saltationism is? Do you think that they cannot be
> published if they had good research? Any evidence?
>
I think it is a similar situation to the "trade secret" of
paleontology prior to G&E coming up with PE.
I recommend you read _Sudden Origins_ by
Jeffery H. Schartz. If he is correct, we may now
have a real saltation mechanism.
Regards, Joe
Ken Cox
> favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
Don't be silly. They just happen to agree with one another. *We*
are the ones who go to the secret meeting every night, put on the
funny hats, drink beer, and plan our next carefully-orchestrated
series of posts.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C34D...@indiana.edu...
> > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > >
> > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:37C29F...@indiana.edu...
> > > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > [...] I merely pointed out that *you* took the wrong
> > lesson from it by leaping to the conclusion of saltation yourself and
> > pointed out what Eldridge did in fact think.
> >
>
> I did not "leap" to that conclusion. (although, you made
> a nice play on words)
>
> I have moved to think saltation is the only answer
> after reading many things over many years. In fact,
> I think saltation (in some form or the other) will
> become the dominate paradigm in biology in the
> next generation or two. I could be wrong, as
> fortune telling is an inexact science.
Now, Joe. I really do not have any objection to 'saltation', per se, as
one way that evolution, *in particular examples*, might have proceded
*in particular instances*. I have already mentioned (and do again) that
the amount of morphological change in an organism is not a linear
function of the amount of genetic change. This is especially the case
for genetic changes that occur early in a developmental cascade (see the
Schwartz book). Indeed, I expect that some features, like, for example,
the limbs of seals, probably did involve some large morphological
changes due to small genetic changes (followed by many small changes as
secondary improvements to make the system IC). I see no reason (and
neither do most evoultionary biologists) why *every* morphological
change must grind away in the biological equivalent of Zeno's paradox.
Indeed, I would argue that the nature of the genetic system (where large
morphological changes can be the result of small genetic changes) argues
against this infinite small steps idea carried to its extreme (changes
in the gene are the equivalent of quantum changes; it is where genetics
ceases to be analog and becomes digital).
As a real example of such 'saltation', we have the several neotonous
salamanders (the most famous being the axolotl). In one genus, this
neotenous state is largely accomplished by a simple loss-of-function
mutation that prevents thyroxin (the hormone that induces metamorphosis)
from being synthesized. [Other secondary changes in other systems have
led to this being a slight exaggeration.] In this genus, one can
actually induce metamorphosis by injecting thyroxin at the appropriate
time.
In another genus, this neotenous state is accomplished by the expedient
of a simple loss-of-function that eliminates the thyroxin receptor
proteins required by cells to bind to and transmit the signal that
thyroxin is present. Obviously, in this genus, injecting thyroxin does
nothing.
And in these cases, one even knows the selective reasons why these
'mutants' were selectively favored. They live in lakes that do not dry
up, but the surrounding land has become arid. Salamanders, as I am sure
you know, require water and moist surroundings on land (where most are
reproductively mature). In the particular surroundings I mentioned,
selection would strongly favor those salamanders who become sexually
mature without metamorphosis.
I strongly suspect that the 'speciation event' in this case, involving,
as it does, a single simple gene mutation in both cases having a
dramatic effect on morphology, occurred *quite* suddenly in geological
terms (probably in a single generation, when, by drift, the recessive
mutation causing the effect reached a point where more than one affected
individual was born in that generation).
And undoubtedly the most important saltation events in biology were the
symbiotic event between an aerobic bacteria and a eucaryote and the same
between a photosynthetic bacteria and a eucaryote. But these initial
events were followed by many much smaller changes that refined that
initial event.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Well, your perverted vision of what neo-Darwinism is is probably is
> > wrong.
> >
>
> Possibly. However, the responses I get here from folks
> like yourself lead me to think that I have it correct.
Your perverted vision of what neo-Darwinism is seems to require that all
evolutionary changes in neo-Darwinism grind exceedingly small. And what
I was saying is that *if* that was what you think of when you think of
modern evolutionary ideas, you are wrong. But if you think that
'saltation' can explain all aspects of evolution, you are equally
wrong. I include the examples I noted above as examples of modern
evolutionary thinking. Would you consider those to be examples of
'saltation' or neo-Darinism? Why or why not? The *mechanism* is the
same in both cases: mutation followed by natural selection. These are
examples of open and honest research. In what way did the neo-Darwinian
paradigm destroy them or try to hide them?
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > No stuff. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is
> > > destroying open and honest research.
> >
> > Oh, really? You mean that open and honest research is not reaching the
> > conclusions you want it to, don't you.
> >
>
> No I do not.
>
> I think science should not exclude any avenue
> out of hand. If the dominate paradigm was
> saltation, and a few maverick gradualists
> were not allowed to present their views;
> I would be arguing for them.
I don't see saltationists being excluded in any way. Every geneticist
and evolutionary biologist knows that there is no one-to-one correlation
between the amount of genetic change and the amount of morphological
change. For God's sake, industrial melanism in moths shows that. So
the question is what you mean by 'saltation' that is not already a part
of neo-Darwinism and already a standard topic of research?
>
> I just think than any closed door is one too many.
>
> [...]
> >
> > > Neo-Saltationists may be in error --- but we
> > > need to fund research and let them publish.
> >
> > What do you think neo-saltationism is? Do you think that they cannot be
> > published if they had good research? Any evidence?
> >
>
> I think it is a similar situation to the "trade secret" of
> paleontology prior to G&E coming up with PE.
Groan. Please think of the implications of what you say. It was *not* a
secret *in* the trade. It was not like 'the rates of evolutionary
change' was hidden away and not being researched, discussed, or
considered within the discipline. It was (and still is), in fact, quite
possible, in most fossil lineages, to hold, looking at the available
evidence, *either* the gradualist or the saltational stand. The
question simply could not be answered until there were enough fossil
lineages of small, shelly things that were complete enough through a
long enough time period to provide the appropriate data. That the
average citizen had only a dim and incomplete understanding of the
nature of the fossil record is about as relevant, in the trade, as the
fact that the average citizen has an erroneous understanding of the
nature of the atom is to the trade of nuclear physics.
>
> I recommend you read _Sudden Origins_ by
> Jeffery H. Schartz. If he is correct, we may now
> have a real saltation mechanism.
Yes. But he is hardly the first to recognize that homeiotic genes (or
genes early in development, more generally) can have a dramatic effect
on later morphology. These are ideas that are as old as evolution.
I think you have flipped sides too incautiously. I know it is exciting
to think that some new idea can explain *everything!!!* (rather than, as
is usually the case, only some things). And it is not that these ideas
are being unresearched or have been unresearched in the past. My
problem is that I find your definition of 'saltation' to be rather
ill-defined (and especially in the sense of how you think it somehow
differs from evolutionary ideas). Perhaps my examples of the neotenous
salamanders doesn't fit your idea of 'saltation'. Perhaps it does. I
simply do not know. It certainly fits my understanding of how evolution
procedes in the sense that it involves simple mutation followed by
selection. It also fits a more 'saltational' idea, because the
morphological effect of the gene was large, without violating the
principles of evolution. BTW, a saltation event that required
simultaneous changes in a large number of genes *would* violate the
rules of evolution, but I know of no evidence for any such events (as
opposed to a step-wise changing of the different genes). But then, my
understanding of how evolution procedes *also* includes neutral drift
(and founder effects) without selection at all.
>
> Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C3BC...@indiana.edu...
Do you then agree with Schwartz when he writes on page
369, " ... there would not have been a string of graded
morphological intermediates between the 'before' and
'after' states of 'not having' and 'having' eyes. Given
the potential of homobox genes to be fully expressed
rather than partially expressed, we can appreciate why
'missing links' are so elusive in the fossil record. They
probably did not exist." ?
>
> Indeed, I would argue that the nature of the genetic system (where large
> morphological changes can be the result of small genetic changes) argues
> against this infinite small steps idea carried to its extreme (changes
> in the gene are the equivalent of quantum changes; it is where genetics
> ceases to be analog and becomes digital).
>
The other extreme as in the quote above?
<snip>
> >
> > I think it is a similar situation to the "trade secret" of
> > paleontology prior to G&E coming up with PE.
>
> Groan. Please think of the implications of what you say. It was *not* a
> secret *in* the trade.
> [...]
Groan, I did not say it was a secret *in* the trade.
Gould called it a secret *of* the trade.
<snip>
.
> >
> > I recommend you read _Sudden Origins_ by
> > Jeffery H. Schartz. If he is correct, we may now
> > have a real saltation mechanism.
>
> Yes. But he is hardly the first to recognize that homeiotic genes (or
> genes early in development, more generally) can have a dramatic effect
> on later morphology. These are ideas that are as old as evolution.
>
Have you read the book? He uses the term homobox genes,
defined as: a class of highly conserved regulatory genes,
or control, genes.
He seems to be under the impression that our knowledge of these
homobox genes is expanding at a very rapid pace.
"With each passing day, another group of articles on homobox
genes appears in scientific journals." (page 349)
>
> I think you have flipped sides too incautiously. I know it is exciting
> to think that some new idea can explain *everything!!!* (rather than, as
> is usually the case, only some things). [...]
<snip>
I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
Regards, Joe
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C3BC...@indiana.edu...
>
> Do you then agree with Schwartz when he writes on page
> 369, " ... there would not have been a string of graded
> morphological intermediates between the 'before' and
> 'after' states of 'not having' and 'having' eyes. Given
> the potential of homobox genes to be fully expressed
> rather than partially expressed, we can appreciate why
> 'missing links' are so elusive in the fossil record. They
> probably did not exist." ?
What kind of "eyes" are you talking about? Do I think that there was a
leap from some photosensitve cell to the eye of the eagle accomplished
in one fell swoop? Of course not. Such a suggestion is silly for
exactly the same reason that any creationist would argue it is silly
(unless, of course, the leap is aided by their favorite HYPE; in which
case it becomes the only possible explanation). Do I think that some
steps involved in the process of going from said cells to said eye were
relatively large morphological changes (say the conversion of a hollow
ball to a double cup) by relatively simple genetic (developmental)
changes occurred rather quickly given the size of the change? Probably
yes (the example I gave could represent a change in the stickiness of
cells). My example (the one you snipped out) of neotenous change in
salamanders shows the sort of change that can happen quickly. BTW, I
asked some specific questions of you wrt to that example. I must have
missed your answers.
I do not expect Mt. Improbable to be leapt in a single leap. Neither do
I expect the alternative gentler slope to be completely uniform and
incremental to an extreme.
>
> >
> > Indeed, I would argue that the nature of the genetic system (where large
> > morphological changes can be the result of small genetic changes) argues
> > against this infinite small steps idea carried to its extreme (changes
> > in the gene are the equivalent of quantum changes; it is where genetics
> > ceases to be analog and becomes digital).
> >
>
> The other extreme as in the quote above?
No, depending on what you think that extreme was.
>
[snip]
> .
> > >
> > > I recommend you read _Sudden Origins_ by
> > > Jeffery H. Schartz. If he is correct, we may now
> > > have a real saltation mechanism.
> >
> > Yes. But he is hardly the first to recognize that homeiotic genes (or
> > genes early in development, more generally) can have a dramatic effect
> > on later morphology. These are ideas that are as old as evolution.
> >
>
> Have you read the book? He uses the term homobox genes,
I hope *he* used homeobox genes rather than homobox genes. Homeobox
genes are examples of homeiotic genes (fundamental pattern forming
genes).
> defined as: a class of highly conserved regulatory genes,
> or control, genes.
Yes, (assuming he meant homeobox genes).
>
> He seems to be under the impression that our knowledge of these
> homobox genes is expanding at a very rapid pace.
>
> "With each passing day, another group of articles on homobox
> genes appears in scientific journals." (page 349)
>
Yes. But I see little in the analysis of these genes that could explain
a leap from photosensitive cell to eagle eye in one swell foop. There
is no single eye gene, there is a (actually several) developmental
process that produces eyes. This *process* involves many genes.
Saltation from nothing to 'the eye' would require more than a single
genetic change producing a large morphological event. And I
specifically ruled out, as unreasonable, saltational events that require
simultaneous changes in many genes.
> >
> > I think you have flipped sides too incautiously. I know it is exciting
> > to think that some new idea can explain *everything!!!* (rather than, as
> > is usually the case, only some things). [...]
> <snip>
>
> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic evolution like
a glove. The fossil record is like a motion picture, a series of stills
that changes over time. It is merely a 'digital' *recording* of an
'analog' history. The quality of the picture (the record) depends
largely upon the frequency of the stills. If the frequency of stills is
low, the record will look jumpy and the observer will see a lot of
'saltational' leaps. If the frequency of the stills is high, there will
be fewer 'saltational' leaps. The only records that can reliably be used
to determine the jumpiness of the underlying reality (the reality of
saltation) rather than the artificial jumpiness of infrequent stills are
those where there are enough stills to ensure that the observed 'jumps'
are, in fact, a condition of the underlying reality rather than an
artifact of infrequent still taking. But I already explained this in
the part you snipped out.
There is no "the fossil record", Joe. There are different fossil
records for different types of organisms and different parts of
organisms. These differ because of the inherent fossilizability of
different organisms and parts.
Think small shelly things if you want a more complete (less gappy)
fossil record and jellyfish if you want a less complete (gappier)
record. Think shells and bone if you want a more complete (less gappy)
fossil record and skin, hair, and feathers if you want a less complete
(gappier) record. Do not confuse saltation indicated by the gappiness
of the record with the gappiness (or lack thereof) of the reality being
recorded.
>
> Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>
Potter is not talking about eyes. Schwartz is doing
the talking. You read the book correct? I gave
the page number correct?
>
> [...] Do I think that there was a
> leap from some photosensitve cell to the eye of the eagle accomplished
> in one fell swoop? Of course not. Such a suggestion is silly for
> exactly the same reason that any creationist would argue it is silly
> (unless, of course, the leap is aided by their favorite HYPE; in which
> case it becomes the only possible explanation). Do I think that some
> steps involved in the process of going from said cells to said eye were
> relatively large morphological changes (say the conversion of a hollow
> ball to a double cup) by relatively simple genetic (developmental)
> changes occurred rather quickly given the size of the change? Probably
> yes (the example I gave could represent a change in the stickiness of
> cells). My example (the one you snipped out) of neotenous change in
> salamanders shows the sort of change that can happen quickly. BTW, I
> asked some specific questions of you wrt to that example. I must have
> missed your answers.
>
I am waiting on you to answer the question on the Schwartz
quote. Will you do so?
>
> I do not expect Mt. Improbable to be leapt in a single leap. Neither do
> I expect the alternative gentler slope to be completely uniform and
> incremental to an extreme.
>
What does this mean? Do you buy the argument
of Schwartz or not?
>
> > >
> > > Indeed, I would argue that the nature of the genetic system (where large
> > > morphological changes can be the result of small genetic changes) argues
> > > against this infinite small steps idea carried to its extreme (changes
> > > in the gene are the equivalent of quantum changes; it is where genetics
> > > ceases to be analog and becomes digital).
> > >
> >
> > The other extreme as in the quote above?
>
> No, depending on what you think that extreme was.
>
I referred to the extreme (in my view) example that
Schwartz gave in the above quote.
Any thoughts on that quote?
>
> [snip]
> > .
> > > >
> > > > I recommend you read _Sudden Origins_ by
> > > > Jeffery H. Schartz. If he is correct, we may now
> > > > have a real saltation mechanism.
> > >
> > > Yes. But he is hardly the first to recognize that homeiotic genes (or
> > > genes early in development, more generally) can have a dramatic effect
> > > on later morphology. These are ideas that are as old as evolution.
> > >
> >
> > Have you read the book? He uses the term homobox genes,
>
> I hope *he* used homeobox genes rather than homobox genes. Homeobox
> genes are examples of homeiotic genes (fundamental pattern forming
> genes).
>
Yes, sorry --- I can not spell. He used the term Homeobox
genes.
> > defined as: a class of highly conserved regulatory genes,
> > or control, genes.
>
> Yes, (assuming he meant homeobox genes).
>
Indeed, he did.
>
> > He seems to be under the impression that our knowledge of these
> > homobox genes is expanding at a very rapid pace.
> >
> > "With each passing day, another group of articles on homobox
> > genes appears in scientific journals." (page 349)
> >
> Yes. But I see little in the analysis of these genes that could explain
> a leap from photosensitive cell to eagle eye in one swell foop. There
> is no single eye gene, there is a (actually several) developmental
> process that produces eyes. This *process* involves many genes.
> Saltation from nothing to 'the eye' would require more than a single
> genetic change producing a large morphological event. And I
> specifically ruled out, as unreasonable, saltational events that require
> simultaneous changes in many genes.
>
That seems to be his argument. Please read the book.
I think he is saying that the eye (only one example of
many he gave) just popped into existence via the Homeobox
gene idea.
I do not think he meant to imply that the bacteria
cell gave rise to the eagle in one generation.
> >
> > > I think you have flipped sides too incautiously. I know it is exciting
> > > to think that some new idea can explain *everything!!!* (rather than, as
> > > is usually the case, only some things). [...]
> > <snip>
> >
> > I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
> > but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> > and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
>
> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic evolution like
> a glove. [...]
>
PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not admit it.
> [...] The fossil record is like a motion picture, a series of stills
> that changes over time. It is merely a 'digital' *recording* of an
> 'analog' history. The quality of the picture (the record) depends
> largely upon the frequency of the stills. If the frequency of stills is
> low, the record will look jumpy and the observer will see a lot of
> 'saltational' leaps. If the frequency of the stills is high, there will
> be fewer 'saltational' leaps. The only records that can reliably be used
> to determine the jumpiness of the underlying reality (the reality of
> saltation) rather than the artificial jumpiness of infrequent stills are
> those where there are enough stills to ensure that the observed 'jumps'
> are, in fact, a condition of the underlying reality rather than an
> artifact of infrequent still taking. But I already explained this in
> the part you snipped out.
>
You explained nothing in the part I snipped, or in this
part.
The reason I say this is; the fossil record is *real*
and if one organism gives rise to another that is quite different
then there will be many forms in between (if neo-Darwinian
thought is correct) and they each have an equal
chance of being in the fossil record. But, they are not there.
The reason? Two are apparent. One, continuous special
creation via aliens or a god --- or naturalistic saltation.
I vote saltation.
>
> There is no "the fossil record", Joe. [...]
>
Make Dr. Eldredge admit this and I will apologize to
you for wasting your time. :-)
>
> [...] There are different fossil
> records for different types of organisms and different parts of
> organisms. These differ because of the inherent fossilizability of
> different organisms and parts.
>
No shit?
>
> Think small shelly things if you want a more complete (less gappy)
> fossil record and jellyfish if you want a less complete (gappier)
> record. Think shells and bone if you want a more complete (less gappy)
> fossil record and skin, hair, and feathers if you want a less complete
> (gappier) record. Do not confuse saltation indicated by the gappiness
> of the record with the gappiness (or lack thereof) of the reality being
> recorded.
>
And perhaps you will get your head out
of the sand and see that saltation is the record.
Regards, Joe
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>> Joseph Potter wrote:
[...]
JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
JP>admit it.
PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens. PE's
message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
character through their time of existence. PE does not say
what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
There is a reason for that.
Then there is the slight difficulty that there does not appear
to be a methodology that is capable of determining that
saltation occurred based solely upon fossil evidence. See
<http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=408708415>. A claim
that saltation fits the fossil record "like a glove" is just
so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
astound us by presenting that methodology. And then again,
perhaps not.
[...]
HH> Think small shelly things if you want a more complete (less
HH> gappy) fossil record and jellyfish if you want a less
HH> complete (gappier) record. Think shells and bone if you
HH> want a more complete (less gappy) fossil record and skin,
HH> hair, and feathers if you want a less complete (gappier)
HH> record. Do not confuse saltation indicated by the gappiness
HH> of the record with the gappiness (or lack thereof) of the
HH> reality being recorded.
JP>And perhaps you will get your head out of the sand and see
JP>that saltation is the record.
And that methodology for identifying saltation based upon
fossil evidence is where?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Ah. Extremely devout. That would be to let the blood run off."-SG
Joseph Potter
Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
> JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
>
> HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
> HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
>
> JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
> JP>admit it.
>
> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
But *not* in Dr. Eledredge's view.
<snip>
>
> ... PE's
> message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
> event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
> character through their time of existence. PE does not say
> what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
> that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
> speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
> There is a reason for that.
>
Missed Dr. E's last book did you?
<snip>
> Then there is the slight difficulty that there does not appear
> to be a methodology that is capable of determining that
> saltation occurred based solely upon fossil evidence. See
> <http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=408708415>. A claim
> that saltation fits the fossil record "like a glove" is just
> so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
> astound us by presenting that methodology. And then again,
> perhaps not.
>
[...]
With or without a mechanism, the record says saltation
even if a little snit (and keeper of lists) says no.
BTW,
Please read _Sudden Origins_ by J.H.
Schwartz --- 1999.
Regards, Joe
R. Tang
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
>> JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
>> JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
>>
>> HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
>> HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
>>
>> JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
>> JP>admit it.
>>
>> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
>> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
>> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
>> [...]
>
>"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
"A word means what I says it means and nothing else."
Temper tantrums like this are not convincing.
><snip>
>> Then there is the slight difficulty that there does not appear
>> to be a methodology that is capable of determining that
>> saltation occurred based solely upon fossil evidence. See
>> <http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=408708415>. A claim
>> that saltation fits the fossil record "like a glove" is just
>> so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
>> astound us by presenting that methodology. And then again,
>> perhaps not.
>>
>[...]
>
>With or without a mechanism, the record says saltation
Hardly.
Fossilization CAN'T capture saltational events; the methods are
not fine enough.
>even if a little snit (and keeper of lists) says no.
As does the measuring instruments.
Your insistence on this (measurements to the contrary) are not
convincing.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Joseph Potter
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:7q45ai$c9i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
> >> JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> >> JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
> >>
> >> HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
> >> HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
> >>
> >> JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
> >> JP>admit it.
> >>
> >> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
> >> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
> >> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
> >> [...]
> >
> >"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
>
> "A word means what I says it means and nothing else."
>
> Temper tantrums like this are not convincing.
>
<snip>
Hmm.
Temper? Where?
I guess another sock-puppet comes forth to have
some fun.
Do you best Mr. Sock.
Regards, Joe
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
WRE> [...]
JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
JP>admit it.
WRE> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
WRE> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
WRE> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
WRE> [...]
JP>"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
And Joe's view is supported by what evidence?
JP>But *not* in Dr. Eledredge's view.
That ought to be a clue.
JP><snip>
WRE> ... PE's
WRE> message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
WRE> event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
WRE> character through their time of existence. PE does not say
WRE> what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
WRE> that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
WRE> speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
WRE> There is a reason for that.
JP>Missed Dr. E's last book did you?
"Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
Perhaps Joe would be so good as to give a page number where
I can find Eldredge's endorsement of saltation as the mode
of speciation. Or perhaps not.
JP<snip>
WRE> Then there is the slight difficulty that there does not appear
WRE> to be a methodology that is capable of determining that
WRE> saltation occurred based solely upon fossil evidence. See
WRE> <http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=408708415>. A claim
WRE> that saltation fits the fossil record "like a glove" is just
WRE> so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
WRE> astound us by presenting that methodology. And then again,
WRE> perhaps not.
WRE>[...]
JP>With or without a mechanism, the record says saltation
JP>even if a little snit (and keeper of lists) says no.
Wow. No mechanism, but I did get a nice ad hominem. Or was
that two ad h.'s? I guess the "perhaps not" covers it.
I wonder what names Joe calls the actuaries at his insurance
companies...
JP>BTW, Please read _Sudden Origins_ by J.H. Schwartz --- 1999.
I've already got a lot of reading and writing to do. Let's see if
Joe's foray into characterization of Eldredge's latest book pans out
first.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"freddy is no more but he died game" - archy
R. Tang
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:7q45ai$c9i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
>> >> JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
>> >> JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
>> >>
>> >> HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
>> >> HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
>> >>
>> >> JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
>> >> JP>admit it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
>>
>>
>> Temper tantrums like this are not convincing.
>>
><snip>
>
>Hmm.
>
>Temper? Where?
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
Methodologically, the geologic record can't record saltational
events.
>Do you best Mr. Sock.
Answer the question, Mr. Potter.
R. Tang
Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>>news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>>> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>>news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>>> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>
>WRE> to be a methodology that is capable of determining that
>WRE> saltation occurred based solely upon fossil evidence. See
>WRE> <http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=408708415>. A claim
>WRE> that saltation fits the fossil record "like a glove" is just
>WRE> so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
>WRE> astound us by presenting that methodology. And then again,
>WRE> perhaps not.
>
>WRE>[...]
>
>JP>With or without a mechanism, the record says saltation
>JP>even if a little snit (and keeper of lists) says no.
>
>Wow. No mechanism, but I did get a nice ad hominem.
And great avoidance of the question.
If you can't determine saltation from the fossil record, you can't
determine saltation. If there isn't a methodology, you CANNOT say "the
record says saltation."
Joseph Potter
> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>
Nope, not his last book.
Joseph Potter
Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
news:1999082619...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>
> WRE> [...]
>
<snip>
>
> "Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
>[...]
> I've already got a lot of reading and writing to do. Let's see if
> Joe's foray into characterization of Eldredge's latest book pans out
> first.
>
Let us first see if the keeper of the lists can
figure out the name of the last book
that a major player like Dr. E has written.
Regards, Joe
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>news:1999082619...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
WRE> [...]
JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
JP>admit it.
WRE> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
WRE> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
WRE> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
WRE> [...]
JP>"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
WRE> And Joe's view is supported by what evidence?
JP>But *not* in Dr. Eledredge's view.
WRE> That ought to be a clue.
JP><snip>
WRE> ... PE's
WRE> message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
WRE> event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
WRE> character through their time of existence. PE does not say
WRE> what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
WRE> that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
WRE> speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
WRE> There is a reason for that.
JP>Missed Dr. E's last book did you?
WRE> "Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
JP> [...]
JP>Nope, not his last book.
That's nice. Let me put it another way: If Joe wants to claim
that Eldredge has asserted that saltation is the mode of
speciation, he will need to document this with a complete
reference, such that the claim can be verified. That
information is conspicuous by its absence from Joe's posts.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"some people i told him inhabit a vacuum all their lives and never know it" -a.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>news:1999082619...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
WRE> [...]
JP><snip>
WRE> "Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
JP>[...]
WRE> I've already got a lot of reading and writing to do. Let's see if
WRE> Joe's foray into characterization of Eldredge's latest book pans out
WRE> first.
JP>Let us first see if the keeper of the lists can
JP>figure out the name of the last book
JP>that a major player like Dr. E has written.
That's a nice dodge, but it is kind of weak. I did put a
question mark after my guess, and I did phrase the second part
above without assuming that my guess was correct. On the
other hand, Joe has made a claim based upon a reference that
he now refuses to specify. If Joe wishes to abandon his claim
concerning Dr. Eldredge already, that is fine by me.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"I don't need you! I can soon find another believer! No problem about that!"-SG
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
> > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > >
> > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:37C3BC...@indiana.edu...
> > > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:37C34D...@indiana.edu...
> > > > > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:37C29F...@indiana.edu...
> > > > > > > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, Joe. I really do not have any objection to 'saltation', per se, as
> > > > one way that evolution, *in particular examples*, might have proceded
> > > > *in particular instances*. I have already mentioned (and do again) that
> > > > the amount of morphological change in an organism is not a linear
> > > > function of the amount of genetic change. This is especially the case
> > > > for genetic changes that occur early in a developmental cascade (see the
> > > > Schwartz book). Indeed, I expect that some features, like, for example,
> > > > the limbs of seals, probably did involve some large morphological
> > > > changes due to small genetic changes (followed by many small changes as
> > > > secondary improvements to make the system IC). I see no reason (and
> > > > neither do most evoultionary biologists) why *every* morphological
> > > > change must grind away in the biological equivalent of Zeno's paradox.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Do you then agree with Schwartz when he writes on page
> > > 369, " ... there would not have been a string of graded
> > > morphological intermediates between the 'before' and
> > > 'after' states of 'not having' and 'having' eyes. Given
> > > the potential of homobox genes to be fully expressed
> > > rather than partially expressed, we can appreciate why
> > > 'missing links' are so elusive in the fossil record. They
> > > probably did not exist." ?
> >
> > What kind of "eyes" are you talking about? [...]
> >
> Potter is not talking about eyes.
Peter Potter posted a pot of perambulations about eyes, not defining
what Schwartz meant by 'eyes' in the quote, leaving me to guess what
specific kind of saltational leap Schwartz means. If the idea that
Schwartz is proposing is the one I mention below, I think I have
responded. If it is closer to the way that neotenous salamanders
evolved (large morphological change from small genetic change), I think
I answered that, too.
> Schwartz is doing
> the talking. You read the book correct?
No. I have not. Never claimed to have. I have vaguely heard some
things about it.
> I gave
> the page number correct?
How should I know?
>
> >
> > [...] Do I think that there was a
> > leap from some photosensitve cell to the eye of the eagle accomplished
> > in one fell swoop? Of course not. Such a suggestion is silly for
> > exactly the same reason that any creationist would argue it is silly
> > (unless, of course, the leap is aided by their favorite HYPE; in which
> > case it becomes the only possible explanation). Do I think that some
> > steps involved in the process of going from said cells to said eye were
> > relatively large morphological changes (say the conversion of a hollow
> > ball to a double cup) by relatively simple genetic (developmental)
> > changes occurred rather quickly given the size of the change? Probably
> > yes (the example I gave could represent a change in the stickiness of
> > cells). My example (the one you snipped out) of neotenous change in
> > salamanders shows the sort of change that can happen quickly. BTW, I
> > asked some specific questions of you wrt to that example. I must have
> > missed your answers.
> >
>
> I am waiting on you to answer the question on the Schwartz
> quote. Will you do so?
I asked first. Besides, I thought I did answer the question (making
certain assumptions about what Schwartz meant by 'eyes' appearing from
nothing). Perhaps Schwartz means something different. Why don't you
explain Schwartz's argument for how a change in a homeiotic gene can do
what he says it does.
>
> >
> > I do not expect Mt. Improbable to be leapt in a single leap. Neither do
> > I expect the alternative gentler slope to be completely uniform and
> > incremental to an extreme.
> >
> What does this mean? Do you buy the argument
> of Schwartz or not?
You have not presented Schwartz's argument.
As I said, IF his argument is that there was a leap that required
simultaneous and multiple genetic changes at the same time, I think this
idea is nonsense. IF his argument is closer to the neotenous salamander
case, then it could have some merit. But I know of no way, short of
predestination, that a single gene change can produce 'morphologically
advanced' eyes in one step, whether that gene is a homeobox gene or not.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, I would argue that the nature of the genetic system (where large
> > > > morphological changes can be the result of small genetic changes) argues
> > > > against this infinite small steps idea carried to its extreme (changes
> > > > in the gene are the equivalent of quantum changes; it is where genetics
> > > > ceases to be analog and becomes digital).
> > > >
> > >
> > > The other extreme as in the quote above?
> >
> > No, depending on what you think that extreme was.
> >
>
> I referred to the extreme (in my view) example that
> Schwartz gave in the above quote.
>
> Any thoughts on that quote?
No further ones until I know more what the argument is. Perhaps you
could explain it.
In that case, I have given my opinion.
>
> I think he is saying that the eye (only one example of
> many he gave) just popped into existence via the Homeobox
> gene idea.
>
> I do not think he meant to imply that the bacteria
> cell gave rise to the eagle in one generation.
Then what sort of 'eye' *is* he talking about? And what sort of
'pre-eye' state is he imagining?
A fossil record is not the events themselves. It is a record of the
events, just as class notes are not the lecture, but only a record of
the lecture. The quality of class notes varies from individual to
individual note-taker. One should not use gaps in the notes to mean
that the lecturer was silent during those gaps. To infer silence on the
part of a lecturer, one needs a record fine enough (say a tape
recording) to ensure that the gap was really there. For most of the
fossil record, we only have poor note-takers.
>
> The reason I say this is; the fossil record is *real*
> and if one organism gives rise to another that is quite different
> then there will be many forms in between (if neo-Darwinian
> thought is correct) and they each have an equal
> chance of being in the fossil record. But, they are not there.
>
> The reason? Two are apparent. One, continuous special
> creation via aliens or a god --- or naturalistic saltation.
>
> I vote saltation.
What do you mean by saltation, Joe? And how do distinguish between that
and a simple gap in the record rather than the reality.
>
> >
> > There is no "the fossil record", Joe. [...]
> >
>
> Make Dr. Eldredge admit this and I will apologize to
> you for wasting your time. :-)
>
Oh, I am sure that he knows that the fossil record is a biased and
partial record of the reality of life in the past. That is why *he* did
not use any old fossil record to try to answer the question about rates
of evolution.
> >
> > [...] There are different fossil
> > records for different types of organisms and different parts of
> > organisms. These differ because of the inherent fossilizability of
> > different organisms and parts.
> >
>
> No shit?
>
Was that particular "No shit?" an expression of genuine surprise? It
certainly should be, given your expressed understanding of the nature of
the fossil record.
> >
> > Think small shelly things if you want a more complete (less gappy)
> > fossil record and jellyfish if you want a less complete (gappier)
> > record. Think shells and bone if you want a more complete (less gappy)
> > fossil record and skin, hair, and feathers if you want a less complete
> > (gappier) record. Do not confuse saltation indicated by the gappiness
> > of the record with the gappiness (or lack thereof) of the reality being
> > recorded.
> >
>
> And perhaps you will get your head out
> of the sand and see that saltation is the record.
You still have not learned the difference between a record and the event
being recorded, have you?
>
> Regards, Joe
mcoo...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> news:1999082619...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> > In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in
message
> > >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> > >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
> > WRE> [...]
> >
questions,
> > JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> > JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
> >
> > HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
> > HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
> >
> > JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
> > JP>admit it.
> >
> > WRE> PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
> > WRE> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
> > WRE> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
> > WRE> [...]
> >
> > JP>"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
> >
> >
> > JP>But *not* in Dr. Eledredge's view.
> >
> >
> > JP><snip>
> >
> > WRE> ... PE's
> > WRE> message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
> > WRE> event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
> > WRE> character through their time of existence. PE does not say
> > WRE> what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
> > WRE> that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
> > WRE> speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
> > WRE> There is a reason for that.
> >
> > JP>Missed Dr. E's last book did you?
> >
>
> Nope, not his last book.
Joe
Do you mean "Dominion"? If so, could you please give me the page refs
that support your conclusion? I have the book right here.
Thanks
Mike "not a sock puppet" Coon
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Will Pratt
mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7q4fpu$d74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7q48eb$hi4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Nope, not his last book.
>
>
>Joe
>
>Do you mean "Dominion"? If so, could you please give me the page refs
>that support your conclusion? I have the book right here.
He probably means _The Pattern of Evolution_ which is listed in Worldcat but
hasn't yet appeared on Amazon.com
Will
--
William L. Pratt, Ph.D., Curator of Invertebrates, Barrick Museum
Mail Stop 4012, Univ. Nevada, Las Vegas 89154-4012
(702) 895-1403; Fax (702) 895-3094; pra...@nevada.edu
Joseph Potter
>
>mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7q4fpu$d74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <7q48eb$hi4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
>>> Nope, not his last book.
>>
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>Do you mean "Dominion"? If so, could you please give me the page refs
>>that support your conclusion? I have the book right here.
>
>
>He probably means _The Pattern of Evolution_ which is listed in Worldcat but
>hasn't yet appeared on Amazon.com
>
>Will
What?
I am nearly positive that I have owned the hardcover edition for
nearly a year now. I think it was out before Christmas last year,
but i could be wrong.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 26 Aug 1999 18:56:46 -0400, "Will Pratt" <pra...@nevada.edu> wrote:
>>mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7q4fpu$d74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>In article <7q48eb$hi4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
MC><snip>
JP> Nope, not his last book.
JP>Joe
MC>Do you mean "Dominion"? If so, could you please give me the page refs
MC>that support your conclusion? I have the book right here.
WP>He probably means _The Pattern of Evolution_ which is listed
WP>in Worldcat but hasn't yet appeared on Amazon.com
JP>What?
JP>I am nearly positive that I have owned the hardcover edition
JP>for nearly a year now. I think it was out before Christmas
JP>last year, but i could be wrong.
And the page number(s) which contain Eldredge's assertion that
saltation is the mode of speciation would be what?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems."-fortune
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> > In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > >> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> > JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
> >
> > HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
> > HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
> >
> > JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
> > JP>admit it.
> >
> > PE is not saltational. Upon reflection, it isn't necessarily
>
> "How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
>
>
> >
> > ... PE's
> > message is that change occurs primarily at the speciation
> >
>
>
> > Then there is the slight difficulty that there does not appear
> > so much smoke without such a methodology. Perhaps Joe will
> >
> [...]
>
> With or without a mechanism, the record says saltation
>
> Please read _Sudden Origins_ by J.H.
> Schwartz --- 1999.
>
>
So what is saltation to you? Schwartz defines saltationism as (Glossary p.
408): "An evolutionary model of large-scale morphological change that occurs
within a very short period of time because of major organismal
reorganization."
In _This is Biology_, Ernst Mayr defines it as (Glossary p. 310): "The belief
that evolutionary change is the result of the sudden origin of a new kind of
individual which becomes he progenitor of a new kind of organism."
In _Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.)_ Douglas Futuyma defines it as (Glossary):
"A jump; a discontinnuous mutational change in one or more phenotypic traits,
usually of considerable magnitude."
I have seen names like De Vries, Goldschmidt and Schindewolf tossed about
here and there as proponents of saltation. I think the basis tends to be with
either ploidy or a systemic mutation. There are likely some important issues
intertwined, such as the geographic basis of speciation and also the
importance of populational thinking which are stressed by Mayr. If a "hopeful
monster" is an individual, it needs to find mating partners as evolution is a
populational (not individual) affair. Also, if saltation occurs, what is its
relative frequency? Saltation *might* explain a couple of things, but does it
apply with your very broad brush?
Schwartz in chapter 12 of _Sudden Origins_ highlights the issues of cooption
and also the importance of location and combinations with homeobox genes
(referencing Rudy Raff). He references a _Natural History_ article by Gould
on Geoffroy's lobster and turning worms (Urbilateria arising from the
evilutionary tequila bottle?) I think I'll need some salt and lime for this
one (now found in Gould's newest book right?)
Schwartz also asks the important question (p. 353): (begin quote) ""How does
more than one individual come to have a novel structure?" Goldschmidt, for
example, was on the right track in terms of recognizing that significant
morphological reorganization could occur. But he was ensnared by his reliance
on major chromosomal rearrangement as the basis of significant morphological
reorganization, and he fell back on the idea of the "hopeful monster": the
chance emergence of an individual bearing major genetic and morphological
novelty waiting and hoping for another individual like it., but of the
opposite sex, to appear on the scene. Hugo de Vries also did not propose a
mechanism for how a genetic mutation and its associated physical
characteristic would arise in more than one individual. Instead, he relied on
his observations of the unexpected appearance in the same generation of a few
"monsters" of the evening primrose to argue that, indeed it could happen in
any species." (end quote)
As an aside, I found Schwartz's discussion of the relationship between
alanine repeats in *Hoxd-13* and the development of tetrapod limbs as quite
intriguing. I guess it goes something like 'less alanine means less little
piggies'. Does this sound about right?
You could expand on your treatment of Schwartz's model for eye evolution. How
does the *Rx* gene for eyes arise and say "Presto, we have an eye."? What is
the *Rx* gene? I've heard of *Pax6* before, but not this one I don't think.
Oh, and BTW, next time you're up near Ocala, stop and ask the pocket gophers
how they got them funny pouches (obligatory reference to Gould's "Return of
the Hopeful Monster"). They might flick you off and send you over to Mr.
Axolotl's house for a recitation of poetry by Mr. Garstang ;-)
And let's not forget Mr. Tortoise with his funny shell and girdles.
--
Scott Chase
Joseph Potter
*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7q4mmb$icc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > BTW,
> > Please read _Sudden Origins_ by J.H.
> > Schwartz --- 1999.
> >
> >
>
> So what is saltation to you? Schwartz defines saltationism as (Glossary p.
> 408): "An evolutionary model of large-scale morphological change that occurs
> within a very short period of time because of major organismal
> reorganization."
>
This would be the one I favor.
<snip>
>
> I have seen names like De Vries, Goldschmidt and Schindewolf tossed about
> here and there as proponents of saltation. I think the basis tends to be with
> either ploidy or a systemic mutation. There are likely some important issues
> intertwined, such as the geographic basis of speciation and also the
> importance of populational thinking which are stressed by Mayr. If a "hopeful
> monster" is an individual, it needs to find mating partners as evolution is a
> populational (not individual) affair. Also, if saltation occurs, what is its
> relative frequency? Saltation *might* explain a couple of things, but does it
> apply with your very broad brush?
>
If you have finished reading the Schwartz book you will note
that he has an answer to who the "monster" mated with.
As to your implications that I might find all
of evolutionary history saltational, I do not. No
reason to suspect that a tad of difference in a finch
beak must come from a saltational change.
>
> Schwartz in chapter 12 of _Sudden Origins_ highlights the issues of cooption
> and also the importance of location and combinations with homeobox genes
> (referencing Rudy Raff). He references a _Natural History_ article by Gould
> on Geoffroy's lobster and turning worms (Urbilateria arising from the
> evilutionary tequila bottle?) I think I'll need some salt and lime for this
> one (now found in Gould's newest book right?)
>
> Schwartz also asks the important question (p. 353): (begin quote) ""How does
> more than one individual come to have a novel structure?" Goldschmidt, for
> example, was on the right track in terms of recognizing that significant
> morphological reorganization could occur. But he was ensnared by his reliance
> on major chromosomal rearrangement as the basis of significant morphological
> reorganization, and he fell back on the idea of the "hopeful monster": the
> chance emergence of an individual bearing major genetic and morphological
> novelty waiting and hoping for another individual like it., but of the
> opposite sex, to appear on the scene. Hugo de Vries also did not propose a
> mechanism for how a genetic mutation and its associated physical
> characteristic would arise in more than one individual. Instead, he relied on
> his observations of the unexpected appearance in the same generation of a few
> "monsters" of the evening primrose to argue that, indeed it could happen in
> any species." (end quote)
>
And you might note that is on the third page of the final chapter
in which he proceeds to answer that very question. I find
his model credible, do you?
>
> As an aside, I found Schwartz's discussion of the relationship between
> alanine repeats in *Hoxd-13* and the development of tetrapod limbs as quite
> intriguing. I guess it goes something like 'less alanine means less little
> piggies'. Does this sound about right?
>
Yes, it was very interesting (page 37, correct?), and his conclusions
about this on page 376 add to it.
>
> You could expand on your treatment of Schwartz's model for eye evolution. How
> does the *Rx* gene for eyes arise and say "Presto, we have an eye."? What is
> the *Rx* gene? I've heard of *Pax6* before, but not this one I don't think.
>
I was unaware that I *had* a treatment on Scwartz's model for
eye evolution. I did ask Howard a question (I was under the
mistaken impression he had the book). The treatment
in the book is on page 369.
Since you have the book, what do you think?
> Oh, and BTW, next time you're up near Ocala, stop and ask the pocket gophers
> how they got them funny pouches (obligatory reference to Gould's "Return of
> the Hopeful Monster"). They might flick you off and send you over to Mr.
> Axolotl's house for a recitation of poetry by Mr. Garstang ;-)
>
> And let's not forget Mr. Tortoise with his funny shell and girdles.
>
I went to the Florida Aquarium in Tampa last week. What
a show! My wife's favorite was the "Dragons of the Sea"
I think it was called. The seahorses are always interesting.
I saw one that mimics seaweed or something. Heck, it
looked like Disney had made it rather than it came from ...
(no, best to stop here) :-)
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
> In article <7q48eb$hi4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
> >> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
> >> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
> >> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
>
>
> JP> I think not. I do not expect saltation to answer all questions,
> JP> but it fits the fossil record like a glove. No need to weasel
> JP> and misrepresent the facts --- the record is saltational.
>
> HH> A lot of the fossil record also fits PE and gradualistic
> HH> evolution like a glove. [...]
>
> JP>PE is saltational --- even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not
> JP>admit it.
>
> WRE> gradualistic, either. PE concerns where species form and how
> WRE> quickly, but doesn't depend upon how speciation happens.
> WRE> [...]
>
> JP>"How quickly," you say. Yes, saltational in my view.
>
> WRE> And Joe's view is supported by what evidence?
>
> JP>But *not* in Dr. Eledredge's view.
>
> WRE> That ought to be a clue.
>
> JP><snip>
>
> WRE> ... PE's
> WRE> event, and that species, once formed, usually have a stable
> WRE> character through their time of existence. PE does not say
> WRE> what the mechanisms of speciation are. Now, one will note
> WRE> that neither Eldredge nor Gould push for saltational
> WRE> speciation processes as the mode of speciation in the past.
> WRE> There is a reason for that.
>
> JP>Missed Dr. E's last book did you?
>
> WRE> "Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
>
> JP> [...]
>
> JP>Nope, not his last book.
>
> that Eldredge has asserted that saltation is the mode of
> speciation, he will need to document this with a complete
> reference, such that the claim can be verified. That
> information is conspicuous by its absence from Joe's posts.
>
Joe made no such claim. Joe wrote, " PE is saltational ---
even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not admit it."
Earlier I stated it is similar fashion.
Now, I think that if you read the entire book
one might get the hint that he is moving closer
to saltation. Especially if one already thinks
saltation is what the record states.
However, and let us be clear here, I do not speak
for Dr. Eldredge, nor have I even spoken to him.
(although, I would like to --- perhaps he lurks here
from time to time? )
Regards, Joe
maff91
[...]
>>Joe
>>
>>Do you mean "Dominion"? If so, could you please give me the page refs
>>that support your conclusion? I have the book right here.
>
>
>He probably means _The Pattern of Evolution_ which is listed in Worldcat but
>hasn't yet appeared on Amazon.com
_Pattern of Evolution_ by Niles Eldredge
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716730464/
>
>Will
--
L.P.#0000000001
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C568...@indiana.edu...
> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
> > > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > > >
I think he is talking about going from no eyes to eyes.
He starts the eye example with these words:
" Another aspect of the model I am suggesting is
that it demonstrates how a mutation involving the
expression of homeobox genes can produce
a morphological, physiological, or behavioral novelty
that would emerge in a full-blown and viable state." (p369)
> > Schwartz is doing
> > the talking. You read the book correct?
>
> No. I have not. Never claimed to have. I have vaguely heard some
> things about it.
>
Sorry. When you wrote, "This is especially the case
for genetic changes that occur early in a developmental cascade (see the
Schwartz book). Indeed, ..." --- I thought this meant
you had read it.
<snip>
Hard to go much further till you read the book I guess.
I can not type in a full chapter of quotes.
Regards, Joe
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>news:1999082621...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> In article <7q48eb$hi4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1999082619...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> >> In article <7q43rj$6ti$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >Wesley R. Elsberry <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:1999082618...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com...
>> >> >> In article <7q3v1i$rj2$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> >> >howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:37C52E...@indiana.edu...
>> >> >> >> Joseph Potter wrote:
WRE> [...]
JP><snip>
If the above is *not* a claim concerning the content of
Eldredge's book on whether Eldredge endorses saltation as the
mode of speciation, what the heck *is* it?
WRE> "Reinventing Darwin"? It's beside me here as I type this.
JP> [...]
JP>Nope, not his last book.
WRE> That's nice. Let me put it another way: If Joe wants to claim
WRE> that Eldredge has asserted that saltation is the mode of
WRE> speciation, he will need to document this with a complete
WRE> reference, such that the claim can be verified. That
WRE> information is conspicuous by its absence from Joe's posts.
JP>Joe made no such claim. Joe wrote, " PE is saltational ---
JP>even if the great Dr. Eldredge will not admit it."
The statement from Joe commented upon above either is such a
claim, or it is a complete non sequitur to what I was
discussing. And Joe can apparently find no support for his
views in either evidence or commentary.
JP>Earlier I stated it is similar fashion.
JP>Now, I think that if you read the entire book
JP>one might get the hint that he is moving closer
JP>to saltation. Especially if one already thinks
JP>saltation is what the record states.
So? That someone who wishes to read something into a book
does actually read their bias in means nothing.
JP>However, and let us be clear here, I do not speak
JP>for Dr. Eldredge, nor have I even spoken to him.
JP>(although, I would like to --- perhaps he lurks here
JP>from time to time? )
If Eldredge were "moving closer to saltation", there should be
some evidence of that available at specific references. As I
have said before, it appears that Joe is abandoning, or at
least disavowing, the assertion that Eldredge claims saltation
as the mode of speciation.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"One for the List Lord on his dark throne"-R Harter
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C568...@indiana.edu...
> Joseph Potter wrote:
> >
<snip>
>
> Peter Potter posted a pot of perambulations about eyes, not defining
> what Schwartz meant [...]
>
Howard, my name is Joe Potter. You will note that unlike
some here, I do try to sign my name on each post. My name
is in my e-mail address as clear as ATT guidelines would
allow when I signed up for the service. Even your own
software got it correct up in the citation --- see above.
I would appreciate you not making cracks like the above.
Of course, I could call you "Howard Myers-Hines" or
some such, but I do not.
Regards, Joe
(Joseph Mark Potter --- Orlando, Fl.)
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C568...@indiana.edu...
> > Joseph Potter wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
>
> Howard, my name is Joe Potter. You will note that unlike
> some here, I do try to sign my name on each post. My name
> is in my e-mail address as clear as ATT guidelines would
> allow when I signed up for the service. Even your own
> software got it correct up in the citation --- see above.
>
> I would appreciate you not making cracks like the above.
Yes. I agree. It was totally beyond the bounds of good taste to call
you...shudder.....Peter (even if merely because it gave a nice allusion
to a well-known tongue-twister rather than intentionally as an insult).
I will never, ever, ever again, swear on a stack of Bibles, insult
someone this deeply again. Peter, as the term is so used on t.o., even
the allusion that someone is somehow like Peter, is just too dreadful an
insult. I should have known this; after all, I know how I would feel if
someone called *me* (the very thought brings shivers up my spine) Peter.
>
> Of course, I could call you "Howard Myers-Hines" or
> some such, but I do not.
Well, that I would have no problem with. After all, we conspirators are
all *supposed* to be mutual boot-lickers, net-lackeys, liars, dishonest
dissemblers, spin-meisters, sophists, and distorters (to use only a few
of the more endearing terms applied by some people quite recently). I
know that none of these, of course, are meant to be demeaning insults
but merely represent the plain unvarnished truth as others see it. You
may, if you wish, call me the hershey part of the Howard-Myers-Hines
cabal any time you want. You can even assert that I am a sophist who
never overlooks the opportunity to misrepresent another man's words
(although I know you never would). I would simply let others judge
whether that was accurate given the evidence you present. Just, please,
please, please don't call me by the 'P' name.
howard hershey
>
> In article <7q602b$35i$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:7q4mmb$icc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >> Schwartz also asks the important question (p. 353):
>
>
>
> >And you might note that is on the third page of the final chapter
> >in which he proceeds to answer that very question. I find
> >his model credible, do you?
>
> between dominant and recessive alleles and he doesn't understand that
> homeotic mutations are usually "gain of function" mutations and
> therefore dominant. This is especially true of any homeotic mutations
> that would be candidates for saltation events.
>
> Most introductory genetics textbooks take the time to explain these
> concepts to beginning students of genetics.
>
> "Mutants of these genes are known as homeotic mutants. For
> example, the wild-type allele of the Antennapedia (Antp)
> gene is required to specify structures in the second
> thoracic segment (which carries a leg). Dominant gain of
> function Antp mutations lead to expression of the gene in
> the head and thorax, and the antennae of the fly are
> transformed into legs." Klug & Cummings (p. 581)
>
> Note that the Antp mutation that leads to the transformation is a dominant
> mutation. That's why the name "Antp" begins with an upper case "A". There
> are recessive loss of function mutations in the same gene but they have
> an entirely different phenotype and are lethal. [I'm aware of the fact
> that there are a few examples of recessive homeotic mutations. They
> usually affect repressor-like proteins causing reversion to a more
> primitive evolutionary phenotype.]
>
> Individuals with "novel structures", which is what Schwartz is trying to
> explain, would most likely carry dominant alleles where the regulatory
> gene is expressed at a different time of development or in a different
> tissue (eg. Antennapedia). What this means is that as soon as the mutation
> appears the phenotype is seen even if there is another wild-type copy of
> the gene present. In other words, heterozygotes have the novel structure.
> So, who does the first "hopeful monster" mate with?
Why not ask a difficult question rather than an easy one? For a
dominant trait, most of the time the "hopeful monster" mates (if at all)
with non-monsters of the same species. Large morphological difference
can occur without preventing mating between the 'genetic freak' and the
'normal' individual (achondroplastic and other dwarfs like sex as much
as the next person; so do NBA centers). When they do they create a
potential local increase in the frequency of "hopeful monsters"
(especially if being a 'genetic freak' improves your reproductive
fitness; think NBA center rather than achondroplastic dwarf in this
particular time and place). You can even have this local spread if
there is a decrease in the fertility of the mating between "hopeful
monster" and their mates.
To show total nondiscrimination, the same works with recessive alleles.
There is a tribe of Indians on the coast of Panama that has a high
frequency of albinos. Albino males (considered unsuitable for male
work) are 'left behind with the women' when the 'normal, macho' men go
on prolonged fishing trips. You figure it out, Joe.
>
> Schwartz claims that the homeotic mutations start off as recessive alleles
> and only become dominant later on as the species evolves.
Does he really say that????? Now, I know that there are ways that a
gene's alleles can be dominant in one case and recessive in another
because of the action of other genes (sex-influenced traits and
sex-limited traits are specific examples; epistasis is a more general
treatment of how the expression of one gene can be influenced by the
presence of others). But the mutations themselves becoming dominant
after being recessive?
> That's why the
> "novel structure" gene can spread in the population as a recessive allele
> and then all of a sudden there will be many homozygotes appearing all at
> once. These homozygotes can mate with each other. Schwartz uses the "Rx"
> gene as an example. This gene encodes a protein that has something to do
> with the development of eyes.
>
> "Since, however, as has long been known to geneticists from
> William Bateson to the present, most nonlethal mutations
> arise as recessive alleles, it is likely that the "Rx" gene
> also made its first appearance in this state. Only sometime
> after this new allele had become established in the species
> would it then have been converted to the dominant state in
> which we now know it." (p. 363)
>
> The complication here is that Schwartz switches back and forth between
> genes and alleles. For example, in the quotation above he is actually
> referring to the appearance of the RX "gene" for the first time in the
> evolution of a lineage. He would like us to believe that "the genetic
> basics for eye formation must have presented itself first in the form of
> a recessive allele". One wonders what the "dominant" allele would be under
> these circumstances! One also wonders how eyes can spring into existance
> with the creation of a single homeotic gene.
Indeed. It sounds like he thinks there is a specific 'eye' gene that
determines the formation of the eye. And another for your left hand's
little fingernail.
>
> >> As an aside, I found Schwartz's discussion of the relationship between
> >> alanine repeats in *Hoxd-13* and the development of tetrapod limbs as
> >> quite intriguing. I guess it goes something like 'less alanine means
> >> less little piggies'. Does this sound about right?
> >
> >Yes, it was very interesting (page 37, correct?), and his conclusions
> >about this on page 376 add to it.
>
> Schwartz's description begins on page 342. He refers to the work of
> Muragaki et al. (1996) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/
> Entrez/query?uid=8614804&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b]. These workers showed that
> patients with Type II syndactyl or synpolypactyl (SPD) had extra alanine
> codons in their Hoxd-13 gene. The mutation is dominant so the
> heterozygotes showed an effect. When both genes contain the extra alanine
> codons (i.e. homozygous) the number of digits is reduced and the remaining
> ones are fused. There are figures on the first page of the paper that show
> this reduction in digits associated with the increase in alanine repeats.
>
> Schwartz doesn't actually say that more alanine means more digits but he
> seems to convey that impression in spite of the fact that he reports the
> phenotype of the homozygote correctly. On the other hand, Schwartz says
> that Zakany and Duboule (1996) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/
> Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=8900279&dopt=r] examined a Hoxd-13 knock-out
> in mice and discovered that the mice had extra digits on their front and
> back paws. In fact, mice that were homozygous for this deficiency showed
> reduced numbers of digits associated with fusion. This is the same
> phenotype as the human homozygote indicating that disruption of the gene
> leads to a reduction of digits. It follows that the duplication of alanine
> codons is equivalent to a loss-of-function mutation. Hence, more alanine
> means almost no piggies.
>
> OMIM reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?186000
> [note that there's a big difference between SPD and polydactyly]
>
> What this says to me is that Schwartz is pretty sloppy when it comes to
> describing science that's outside of his field (he's an anthropologist).
> I haven't got the time to check out everything he says but the score so
> far indicates that nothing in the book should be taken for granted.
Certainly not for anything genetic or developmental.
>
> >> You could expand on your treatment of Schwartz's model for eye evolution.
> >> How does the *Rx* gene for eyes arise and say "Presto, we have an
> >> eye."? What is the *Rx* gene? I've heard of *Pax6* before, but not this
> >> one I don't think.
> >
> >I was unaware that I *had* a treatment on Scwartz's model for
> >eye evolution. I did ask Howard a question (I was under the
> >mistaken impression he had the book). The treatment
> >in the book is on page 369.
> >
> >Since you have the book, what do you think?
>
> I read the description on page 369 and found it to be ridiculous. I'm not
> opposed to saltation, in fact I'm sure it happens from time to time, but
> the mechanism proposed by Schwartz is not worth serious consideration.
And that would have to be my opinion as well, if this is accurate. I'm
not opposed to saltation (and gave Joe some specific examples) either,
but this mechanism, as described, is not worth serious consideration.
> Joe, please answer the following question (I assume you've read the
> book?)
>
> Assume that a new gene for eye formation (Rx) forms spontaneously. How
> does one prevent this gene from being expressed and forming eyes when it
> is present in only one copy? Recall that the Schwartz model states that
> the organism had no trace of an eye beforehand but "once homozygotes for
> it were produced, they would have had completely useful and fully formed
> eyes - not shallow depressions in the front of the head, or even half
> eyes, but actual eyes." (p. 369)
From nothing to the eye of the eagle in one swell foop. And he got this
published somewhere? I do hope there is some redeeming feature
elsewhere in the book.
>
> Larry Moran
Richard Harter
wrote:
Ignored.
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>
>> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C568...@indiana.edu...
>> > Joseph Potter wrote:
>> > >
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > Peter Potter posted a pot of perambulations about eyes, not defining
Richard Harter, rha...@sullybuttes.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Signature under construction whilst
Visiting South Dakota
Michael L. Siemon
rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
+ On 27 Aug 1999 16:25:37 -0400, peter hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
+ wrote:
+
+ Ignored.
+
...
Thank you, Peter Harter.
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must
act according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
Richard Harter
wrote:
>In article <37c733e4....@news.sullybuttes.net>,
>rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>+ On 27 Aug 1999 16:25:37 -0400, peter hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>+ wrote:
>+
>+ Ignored.
>+
>...
>
>Thank you, Peter Harter.
You're welcome, Peter Siemon
yojim...@my-deja.com
rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 27 Aug 1999 21:15:28 -0400, m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37c733e4....@news.sullybuttes.net>,
> >rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >
> >+ On 27 Aug 1999 16:25:37 -0400, peter hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
> >+ wrote:
> >+
> >+ Ignored.
> >+
> >...
> >
> >Thank you, Peter Harter.
>
> You're welcome, Peter Siemon
>
i think you can now see why i use the name "dorothy".
it gets round all this unpleasantness......
yuk yuk
yojimbo
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
*Hemidactylus*
rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 27 Aug 1999 21:15:28 -0400, m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37c733e4....@news.sullybuttes.net>,
> >rha...@sullybuttes.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> >
> >+ On 27 Aug 1999 16:25:37 -0400, peter hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
> >+ wrote:
> >+
> >+ Ignored.
> >+
> >...
> >
> >Thank you, Peter Harter.
>
>
> You're welcome, Peter Siemon
>
>
I perceive that this thread is starting to peter out. Is this present plunge
a putative peternal problem? My postulate (or prediction) is that the One
True Peter shall soon appear (in all preeminent prestigious pride) and
project some petriol into this puttering perturbance, with a prolonged list
of pet peeves about other professors presently posting in this place. That
possibility ( a protracted pow-wow) leaves me petrified. Enigmas? I'm
perplexed.
--
Peter Chase
Joseph Potter
Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:7q6pr2$ru9$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> In article <7q602b$35i$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:7q4mmb$icc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
<snip --- most saved for after a response to a question>
>
> I read the description on page 369 and found it to be ridiculous. I'm not
> opposed to saltation, in fact I'm sure it happens from time to time, but
> the mechanism proposed by Schwartz is not worth serious consideration.
> Joe, please answer the following question (I assume you've read the
> book?)
>
> Assume that a new gene for eye formation (Rx) forms spontaneously. How
> does one prevent this gene from being expressed and forming eyes when it
> is present in only one copy? Recall that the Schwartz model states that
> the organism had no trace of an eye beforehand but "once homozygotes for
> it were produced, they would have had completely useful and fully formed
> eyes - not shallow depressions in the front of the head, or even half
> eyes, but actual eyes." (p. 369)
>
>
> Larry Moran
>
Larry, I need to ask a few questions. Have you read the book?
Do you have the book handy? If not, how hard would it be to
get it?
The reason for the questions is that I would like to avoid
typing in any lengthy quotes, if possible. I would like to know
if I can just refer to a page and then give my take on that
page. I ask if you have read it to see how much of the eye
discussion you have see. It is spread throughout the book in
certain respects.
Regards, Joe
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:7q6pr2$ru9$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
Well, I'm starting to have my doubts about this book that you're waving
around during your one-line "refutations" of "neo-Darwinism". Larry's post
was a major help in this regard. I wonder if Schwartz might have run too far
with the ball (or the wrong way) based on his citations of research (on eye
evolution and on limb bud evolution) that he could have misinterpreted.
You're obliviously not going to be much help on this enigma of mine. Are you
familiar with the original research that Larry has referenced? I'm not.
Also, with your knowledge of neo-Darwninism, I'd hope that you could offer me
a decent critique of Mayr's _Systematics and the Origin of Species_ and
Dobzhansky's _Genetics and the Origins of Species_, which would accompany my
readings in these fine (but well dated) books. Maybe you can point out the
places where they led the modern synthetic evilutionists astray. What's
Schwartz's take on them BTW? Let's toss some bean bags around for a bit shall
we ;-)
Oh, and there's this eye evolution thing. Dawkins takes pains to detail some
of the possibilities in _Climbing Mount Improbable_. What were Schwartz's
views on Dawkins' treatment again? And how could eyes possibly arise as
Schwartz has posited in his book?
Since you have the book, maybe you can set us all straight, once and for all.
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37C6BC...@indiana.edu...
> Laurence A. Moran wrote:
> >
> > In article <7q602b$35i$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >news:7q4mmb$icc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
[snip]
Howard, since you do not have the book, and others reading
along might not have the book either, I give this
URL which is the peer-reviewed article that was published
before the book.
http://www.wiley.com/products/subject/life/anatomy/newanat_article3.pdf
This is in The New Anatomist.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
Wade Hines <hi...@cgl.ucsf.EDU> wrote in message news:hines.9...@cgl.ucsf.edu...
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> >> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> >> that need will be met some day too.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >I think that layman are all you are going to get
> >to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
>
> >The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
> >would greatly damage his/her career if they took
> >the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
>
> Bullpucky. More likely is that they would try to be
> friendly and tell Peter he was wrong about peptides
> and to move on, and Peter would accuse them of having
> some antiNykosian agenda.
>
> But fantasy is a better world for some.
>
No, more likely they would be like Dr. Margulis.
If she had posted here in the early days, the SET
theory would never have gained acceptance.
(A theory which buries your side, howard)
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
> In article <7qe4u8$6sl$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
> Well, I'm starting to have my doubts about this book that you're waving
> around during your one-line "refutations" of "neo-Darwinism". Larry's post
<snip>
Larry has not read the book, nor has he seen the real argument
that the book makes.
I'll get to Larry in a day or two, as I am hoping he responds
to my last question.
<snip>
> [...] Maybe you can point out the
> places where they led the modern synthetic evilutionists astray. What's
> Schwartz's take on them BTW? Let's toss some bean bags around for a bit shall
> we ;-)
>
I do not recall using the word "evilutionists," can you point
out where I called the founders of the modern synthesis
"evil?'
A certain Lynn Margulis wrote of her problems
with the othodoxzy in her most resent book.
To quote from page 22:
" 'From the point of view of heredity, the cytoplasm of
a cell may be ignored.' Even when I first read this statement,
confidently uttered by T.H. Morgan, a Columbia professor
and key player in the founding of genetics, in 1945, I
considered it an arrogant oversimplification. ..."
Carl Sagan, by the way, was her first husband,
(for whatever that tidbit is worth) and she came up
with the SET theory.
You should see what she says about some of our
fine Biology friends. Wow.
The book is _Symbiotic Planet_.
Regards, Joe
Peter Nyikos
as intensely as he dislikes me.
yojim...@my-deja.com writes:
>In article <1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> [posted and e-mailed]
>>
>> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
>>
>> >Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
>> >set of replies to talk.origins.
>>
>> I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
>> time to support you in this final month of your
>> sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
>> busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
>> too, which also cut into the time I would have
>> liked to have spent backing you up.
>>
>> I will say that I have
>> >really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
>> >part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
>> >I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
>> >some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
>> >talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
>> >people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
>> >beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
>> >stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
>> >but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
>> >Thank you.
>>
>> >And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
>> >lot of the flame heat off of me.
>>
>> My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
>> and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
>> try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
>> to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
>> but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
>>
>> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
>> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
>> that need will be met some day too.
>does this mean that mr. potter is your:
>'net ally'
Yes, I believe he is. But not a net.friend. For the distinction,
the following should help:
There is a distinction to be noted here between Livy's `declared
enemy of the Roman people' and Polybius' `never [being] a friend
to the Romans'. The term `a friend of Rome' was a definition,
not a generalisation. It meant that the man or the state in question
submitted to Rome and henceforth would not act independently but
was unconditionally committed to Roman protection. Unlike an
`ally of Rome', who still retained some privileges and elements
of freedom, a friend of Rome was more or less a vassal.
-- _Hannibal_, by Ernle Bradford, Dorset Press, 1981, pp.29-30
>'net boot-licker'
No, one must prostitute one's integrity the way Harter has
in service of Myers to be that.
Which reminds me of something too innocent to fall under
this category, but just an indication of how naive the
supposedly sophisticated Harter can be.
Back on the thread "Why does PZ Myers have a compulsion to lie??"
Harter, who earlier compromised his integrity on the
same thread, is saying about "anonym":
I do wonder if the meathead realized that his posting only went
to talk.origins.
http://x42.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504342056
This post was back on July 23, and there's no sign either Harter
or Myers, who followed up and left the text in, ever noticed
that "the meathead" posted the same identical post *separately*
to alt.astrology and alt.paranormal.
>'net buttress'
No, one must rescue the person involved from many tight
spots to merit that title.
>part of the 'nyikos-potter axis/complex/cadre/cabal/insert-your-
>favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
net.alliance is the term. See item about allies of Rome
above.
>just curious.
"cabal" is a term the U. of Ediacara came up with a while
back. In the Path: line of posts done there, the last
bit is always:
ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
When people go to all that trouble to deny something,
the expression "denial is not healthy" comes to mind.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Joseph Potter
Yes, good analysis. One might find an ally on the net,
but a friend? That demeans the very meaning of the word.
> >'net boot-licker'
>
> No, one must prostitute one's integrity the way Harter has
> in service of Myers to be that.
>
Seems this term is becoming popular with the
pack --- as they lose in the debate areana, they
tend to attack the person.
> Which reminds me of something too innocent to fall under
> this category, but just an indication of how naive the
> supposedly sophisticated Harter can be.
>
> Back on the thread "Why does PZ Myers have a compulsion to lie??"
> Harter, who earlier compromised his integrity on the
> same thread, is saying about "anonym":
>
> I do wonder if the meathead realized that his posting only went
> to talk.origins.
>
> http://x42.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504342056
>
> This post was back on July 23, and there's no sign either Harter
> or Myers, who followed up and left the text in, ever noticed
> that "the meathead" posted the same identical post *separately*
> to alt.astrology and alt.paranormal.
>
As I said then, anonym is one best left alone --- and
certainly is no "meathead."
>
> >'net buttress'
>
> No, one must rescue the person involved from many tight
> spots to merit that title.
>
> >part of the 'nyikos-potter axis/complex/cadre/cabal/insert-your-
> >favorite-conspiracy-term-here'
>
> net.alliance is the term. See item about allies of Rome
> above.
>
<snip>
Ah hell. This means I'll never get that axis/etc.
coffee cup. :-(
Regards, Joe
Peter Nyikos
>"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>>> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
>>> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
>>> that need will be met some day too.
>><snip>
>>I think that layman are all you are going to get
>>to oppose the pack. (could be wrong, of course)
>>The reason I think this is that a professional Biologist
>>would greatly damage his/her career if they took
>>the "maverick" evolution stance that you do. If,
>Bullpucky. More likely is that they would try to be
>friendly and tell Peter he was wrong about peptides
>and to move on, and Peter would accuse them of having
>some antiNykosian agenda.
No, I would just ask him why he thinks that, and 9 times
out of 10 it will probably because the person was misled
by someone (like Andy Groves, who in turn was conned by
Howard) into thinking the issue was different than it
was.
If he shows that he knows what the issue is, I'll then
ask how he knows I am wrong about it.
If he says that he knows it from years of experience
but can't find a reference, I'll thank him for trying
to help and ask him to please send me a reference
any time he comes across one.
>But fantasy is a better world for some.
Especially Howard; it is mainly people like him who tell tall tales
about what the issue was that get hit by accusations
of the kind you allege.
You are in a bit different boat. I saw you had an anti-Nyikos
agenda the day you lied, "You can't make 'em drink". IIRC
that was even before posts began emanating
from hers...@indiana.edu.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> [posted and e-mailed]
>>
>> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
>>
>> >Well, I just finished posting what will be my last
>> >set of replies to talk.origins.
>>
>> I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
>> time to support you in this final month of your
>> sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
>> busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
>> too, which also cut into the time I would have
>> liked to have spent backing you up.
>>
>What is really strange about this is that Peter and Julie actually
>disagree about some very fundamental things in their respective
>arguments wrt to how life appeared on the earth, such as the feasibility
>of an RNA world and natural abiogenesis. Julie specifically sets up
>conditions that require a supernatural (or at least non-corporeal)
>designer. Specifically, in her view DNA replication requires a designer
>*and* there is no way for a cell to exist without DNA replication
>(because all current cells use DNA replication).
I'm sorry I didn't see this until Julie's scheduled date
for losing Usenet access. I suspect--nay, I am morally
certain--that Howard is pulling the same old dirty
debating trick he's pulled countless times: attributing
a categorical "no way" to Julie that never entered Julie's
mind.
If anyone believes proof exists that Julie did actually indulge in
such a statement, let them speak up now or forever hold
their peace. [Documentation can wait till later; I understand
how difficult it is to find needles in the deja.com haystacks.]
Ergo, the designer
>cannot be cellular or use DNA replication. Peter, in this regard, is
>more scientific, as he merely pushes the abiogenesis event back one
>iteration, but considers it likely to have been a natural event not
>*necessarily* requiring a supernatural designer (that is, the designer
>may have been there, but he/she/it/they was not *necessary* in the sense
>of violating natural mechanisms).
Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
to have been a supernatural event while still searching
for evidence that it was a natural one.
>[snip]
>>
>> >And Peter, I do want to publicly thank you for taking a
>> >lot of the flame heat off of me.
>>
>> My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
>> and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
>> try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
>> to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
>> but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
>Given that Peter's argument is more scientific than Julie's (they
>apparently only agree on the 'usefulness' of ID reasoning, which, I
>think, is what they really want see accepted in science - space aliens
>are merely a temporary shield to deflect the criticism of introducing
>the supernatural)
Howard can't shake the paranoid delusion that I am a closet
creationist. I wonder why he hasn't publicly agreed with
Paul Gans's "They [the OEC fundies] are coming for us."
> I find his *accepting* the role of her sycophant
>strange (I think sycophant is the more polite euphamism for
>bootl****r).
This is the GO part of GIGO, the GI part being the dishonest
(AFAIK) claim that I am more scientific than Julie, and
the self-serving delusion that a sycophant is someone
who lends support to someone beset by a horde of your
allies, Howard.
It looks to me like you are perversely disqualifying such people
as "chaver09" from being sycophants on the grounds that
they are on the side of the overwhelming majority.
I doubt that you will ever be satisfied until ALL alliances
between his targets are crushed.
You have your own mind, such as it is, Peter. Peter
>should not be deferring his own thinking to support Julie when there are
>clear areas of disagrement any more than Julie should have pretended
>that she and Peter agree.
"deferring his own thinking" is sheer gibberish. I see Julie
being the target of monumental, shameless injustice. If
fighting injustice is your idea of "deferring one's
own thinking," Howard, then you is a lot sicker than even I suspected
until now.
>> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
>> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
>> that need will be met some day too.
>And given Peter's level of understanding of science and biology, I, if I
>were Joe, would feel insulted and regard this as pure arrogance on
>Peter's part.
This is, as Howard has subsequently observed, an attack
aimed primarily at me. Howard is here propagating the
myth that I am far worse at biology than he is, whereas
he has shown himself to be at least as ignorant of
human embryology as I am, in addition to being a whole
lot more arrogant and cocksure about it.
The fact that he used Joe as a pawn in this dishonest
game does not change the fact that his main
goal is furtherance of his vendetta against me.
And a key step in the process is to drive wedges between
me and anyone who has the effrontery to actually agree
with me in public in the teeth of the opposition of the Pack.
I don't think Joe should accept the role of Peter's
>sycophant any more than Peter should have accepted the role of Julie's
>sycophant. If you agree with Peter, Joe, do it for your own
>*independent* reasoning
...as I have done wrt Julie. Howard has a memory hole which
conveniently burns the information that I have publicly
disagreed with Julie many times. If he thought he could
get away with it and had the know-how, I do believe he
would hack his way into deja.com and cancel all posts
in which I did this, just so he could comfortably go
on lying that I "accepted the role of Julie's sycophant".
>and don't be afraid to disagree with him when he
>is playing the role of poseur.
The old "divide and conquer" game at work. Myers tried it
on Joe Potter two years ago, and when Joe refused to play
along, Myers turned venomously on him, calling him
"a blatantly despicable liar" and much else.
As usual, you did not sign your name. Were there ever any
exceptions in addition to the one where you called Elle "a slut"?
Joseph Potter
> [Not posted.]
>
> I'm curious about details. What's the book about?
>
The book shows a neo-Lamarckian(sp?)
pathway that Dr. Steele (and others) has
found. It is a good read. Heck, I'll
send you my hard cover copy if
you will send it back after you are done!
:-)
>
> By the way, you made a boo-boo. A person who gets a signed
> copy of someone's book, gratis, should KNOW how the
> author's name is spelled.
>
Yes, but the book was at home --- both of them.
I paid for the hard copy of his book as soon as I
saw it --- and I hinted that I wanted to send it to him
to be signed. He sent me a gratis, a signed soft
cover copy. But, hey --- I am as proud of that copy as
I can be.
By the way, I have a take on "evolution"
that is quite different from anyone else that I
have read. Perhaps my knowledge that God
did it taints my take, but I still think I
am on to something. It involves Steele's
work, neo-saltation (Homeobox genes),
Symbiotics, and the idea of panspermia.
If you ever care to hear about it, I'll let you know ---
but I do not think I'll ever say it in public.
To much faith in it.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >> [posted and e-mailed]
> >>
> >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> >>
<snip>
>
> Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
> Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
> to have been a supernatural event while still searching
> for evidence that it was a natural one.
>
The real sad fact of the two years was that
the pack was very sexist. They hated a
"girl" giving them what-for.
<snip>
> >> Of course, I would have preferred someone with a little
> >> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> >> that need will be met some day too.
>
> >And given Peter's level of understanding of science and biology, I, if I
> >were Joe, would feel insulted and regard this as pure arrogance on
> >Peter's part.
>
> This is, as Howard has subsequently observed, an attack
> aimed primarily at me. Howard is here propagating the
> myth that I am far worse at biology than he is, whereas
> he has shown himself to be at least as ignorant of
> human embryology as I am, in addition to being a whole
> lot more arrogant and cocksure about it.
>
> The fact that he used Joe as a pawn in this dishonest
> game does not change the fact that his main
> goal is furtherance of his vendetta against me.
> And a key step in the process is to drive wedges between
> me and anyone who has the effrontery to actually agree
> with me in public in the teeth of the opposition of the Pack.
>
Yes. Well said.
>
> I don't think Joe should accept the role of Peter's
> >sycophant any more than Peter should have accepted the role of Julie's
> >sycophant. If you agree with Peter, Joe, do it for your own
> >*independent* reasoning
>
> ...as I have done wrt Julie. Howard has a memory hole which
> conveniently burns the information that I have publicly
> disagreed with Julie many times. If he thought he could
> get away with it and had the know-how, I do believe he
> would hack his way into deja.com and cancel all posts
> in which I did this, just so he could comfortably go
> on lying that I "accepted the role of Julie's sycophant".
>
> >and don't be afraid to disagree with him when he
> >is playing the role of poseur.
>
> The old "divide and conquer" game at work. Myers tried it
> on Joe Potter two years ago, and when Joe refused to play
> along, Myers turned venomously on him, calling him
> "a blatantly despicable liar" and much else.
>
Hell, he *demanded* that I make a comment on a topic that I
plainly told him I was not qualified to do. And when I
told him I would run it past the family expert, but she
was not available for a few days --- he hit the roof.
Regards, Joe
Louann Miller
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The real sad fact of the two years was that
>the pack was very sexist. They hated a
>"girl" giving them what-for.
You know, much more recently than two years ago someone called Joseph
Potter, posting from your e-mail address, thought that "camp follower"
and "b*tch" were clever and cogent put-downs against an opponent with
an identifiably female name. But I'm sure you're someone entirely
different, with ample moral authority to define who's a sexist and who
isn't.
Louann
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > as intensely as he dislikes me.
> >
> > yojim...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > >In article <1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > >>
> > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > >>
> > >> >set of replies to talk.origins.
> > >>
> > >> I'll miss you, Julie. I wish I could have had more
> > >> time to support you in this final month of your
> > >> sojourn here, but the Pack knows how to keep me
> > >> busy, and I made a sally into another newsgroup
> > >> too, which also cut into the time I would have
> > >> liked to have spent backing you up.
> > >>
> > >> >really enjoyed myself these last two years and do
> > >> >part with a sense of satisfaction. Thus, in a way,
> > >> >I will miss y'all and wish you only the best. And while
> > >> >some of you may be pissed at me, let's not forget that
> > >> >talk.origins is an environment which tends to get
> > >> >people pissed at each other (it's the nature of the
> > >> >beast). It would have been much nicer to discuss this
> > >> >stuff without the personality wars and net-politicks,
> > >> >but it was quite fun and stimulating nevertheless.
> > >> >Thank you.
> > >>
> > >> >lot of the flame heat off of me.
> > >>
> > >> My pleasure, Julie. It's the Golden Rule in action,
> > >> and perhaps Someone Up There sent me Joe Potter to
> > >> try and do unto me as I have done unto you. Joe,
> > >> to be sure, is not particularly religious (if at all)
> > >> but that is an asset in this newsgroup.
> > >>
> > >> more scientific knowledge than Joe, but perhaps
> > >> that need will be met some day too.
> >
yojim...@my-deja.com
in other posts you have pompously pontificated about honorably not
bearing false witness.
yet you choose to ally yourself with a person guilty of dishonesty.
in post http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=516721785 potter stated that:
"Master, I assure you that I was among the first to mention his book
here on T.O and know first hand that the folk here did twist his
statements out of all possible recognition."
i have asked him repeatedly to provide _just one_ example of such
behavior.
he has not done so.
either he is dishonest, or else he is a fool.
in either case, you are associating with him.
if you lie down wid dogs, you get up wid fleas.
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
Ummm..., can you give us a little more detail on neo-saltation (homeobox
genes)? At least you're not callng them homoboxes anymore. I think you dodged
questions posed by Larry Moran and also some by me regarding Schwartz's book,
which you wave around like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
--
Scott Chase
yojim...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> >
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
> >
> > >>
> > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > >>
> > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > >>
>
>
> >
> > Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
> > Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
> > to have been a supernatural event while still searching
> > for evidence that it was a natural one.
> >
>
> the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> "girl" giving them what-for.
>
is this just your opinion, or do you actually have evidence of such
sexism?
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
*Hemidactylus*
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> *Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7qehtk$39m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I think the present topic is saltation and the ideas presented in Schwartz's
book. I thought you were going to clear up this deal with *Rx* and eye
evolution for us. Are you side stepping?
--
Scott Chase
yojim...@my-deja.com
loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
> On 1 Sep 1999 16:46:15 -0400, "Joseph Potter"
> <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> >"girl" giving them what-for.
>
> Potter, posting from your e-mail address, thought that "camp follower"
> and "b*tch" were clever and cogent put-downs against an opponent with
> an identifiably female name. But I'm sure you're someone entirely
> different, with ample moral authority to define who's a sexist and who
> isn't.
>
> Louann
>
folks wishing to see evidence of potter's behavior will find it at:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=482502895
isn't dejanews wonderful?
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wade Hines <hi...@cgl.ucsf.EDU> wrote in message
news:hines.9...@cgl.ucsf.edu...
[snip]
>> But fantasy is a better world for some.
>No, more likely they would be like Dr. Margulis.
>If she had posted here in the early days, the SET
>theory would never have gained acceptance.
Would that be the same Dr. Margulis that was in the
shower with Carl Sagan?
Hmmm .......
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Larry, I need to ask a few questions. Have you read the book?
>Do you have the book handy? If not, how hard would it be to
>get it?
>
>The reason for the questions is that I would like to avoid
>typing in any lengthy quotes, if possible. I would like to know
>if I can just refer to a page and then give my take on that
>page. I ask if you have read it to see how much of the eye
>discussion you have see. It is spread throughout the book in
>certain respects.
Give it your best shot Joe. I'm sure I can keep up.
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Larry has not read the book, nor has he seen the real argument
>that the book makes.
Shame, shame. You just told a fib.
>I'll get to Larry in a day or two, as I am hoping he responds
>to my last question.
Ready and waiting, Joe. Let's see your cards.
Larry Moran
Joseph Potter
> In article <7qjldd$80q$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Larry has not read the book, nor has he seen the real argument
> >that the book makes.
>
> Shame, shame. You just told a fib.
>
Sorry, you words led me to believe you had not
read the book, rather you had read the parts we
were talking about only.
Is the answer to my questions I was waiting
on from you?
So I can just cite a page number and you can read
your copy?
<snip>
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
<yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qk89a$9no$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7qk3ak$fgn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > > CC: Julie, in the hope that it still gets to her. And Joe.
> > >
> > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > >Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > > >>
> > > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
> > > Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
> > > to have been a supernatural event while still searching
> > > for evidence that it was a natural one.
> > >
> >
> > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > "girl" giving them what-for.
> >
>
> sexism?
>
Opinion. Part of it is the crazy idea that was floated
which said Julie had to be a fellow.
What was that all about?
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
> In article <7qk2lp$cm5$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
>
> Ummm..., can you give us a little more detail on neo-saltation (homeobox
> genes)? At least you're not callng them homoboxes anymore. I think you dodged
> questions posed by Larry Moran and also some by me regarding Schwartz's book,
> which you wave around like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
>
>
Hell, I only misspelled homeobox the one time. You
never left a letter out of a wrd. :-)
I have not left Larry. I was waiting to make sure he had the
book at hand so I could show him sections without
typing in the words. I just saw a post which tells
me he has the book.
I'll start in a day or two.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
> In article <7qh82k$mom$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Wade Hines <hi...@cgl.ucsf.EDU> wrote in message
> news:hines.9...@cgl.ucsf.edu...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> But fantasy is a better world for some.
>
> >No, more likely they would be like Dr. Margulis.
> >If she had posted here in the early days, the SET
> >theory would never have gained acceptance.
>
> Would that be the same Dr. Margulis that was in the
> shower with Carl Sagan?
>
>
> Hmmm .......
>
>
>
> Larry Moran
>
She says Dr. Sagan was her first husband. She
did not mention a shower that I know of.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
> In article <7qk1f3$7g2$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > > as intensely as he dislikes me.
> > >
> > > yojim...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >
> > > >In article <1999082323...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > > >>
> > > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > >>
Not so strange. I love those coffee cups.
Regards, Joe
Clark Dorman
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qk89a$9no$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > The real sad fact of the two years was that
> > > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > > "girl" giving them what-for.
> > >
> >
> > is this just your opinion, or do you actually have evidence of such
> > sexism?
> >
>
> Opinion. Part of it is the crazy idea that was floated
> which said Julie had to be a fellow.
>
> What was that all about?
Who said that Julie had to be a fellow? I was there and don't
remember it, but I could be mistaken.
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
howard hershey
>
> In article <7qk3ak$fgn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > > >>
> > > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > >>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
> > > Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
> > > to have been a supernatural event while still searching
> > > for evidence that it was a natural one.
> > >
> >
> > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > "girl" giving them what-for.
> >
other member of 'the pack' openly praised Julie's knowledge of current
biochemistry specifically in comparison to other (apparantly male
posters) who supported her ideas. You will also find no insulting
sexist remarks like "camp-follower" or "bitch" wrt 'female' (sex is hard
to see on the web and names can be misleading) posters from most of the
pack (I forget who used those terms; perhaps you remember, Joe? Was it
the pack or the side you support?). You *will* see a few people
questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
whether that was the case or not.
Speaking of double standards, I know that you and Brendt really intended
speak up about the widespread use of the term net.bootlicker generally
(rather than merely those rare cases where it appeared to refer to
you). But I don't seem to have seen those posts. Perhaps you used
private e-mail? Now that at least one person (me) using that term,
albeit rarely, has apologized for doing so, I am sure that you will want
to redirect your righteous indignation and ire at other user(s) of this
term. I am not asking for myself, since loss of this term from
net.discourse would only mean that I would have to clean my own boots by
means different than the apparently willing tongues. But I am sure that
they might prefer licking ice cream cones and am personally willing to
forgo the luxury of boots cleaned in this fashion.
Of course, you may, like the current champion of the term, feel that
there is good reason for *your* using the term and that it's use is only
illicit when directed at you rather than by you, but you should at least
make that reasoning clear, don't you think, rather than merely complain
about being picked upon?
>
> is this just your opinion, or do you actually have evidence of such
> sexism?
>
Andrew MacRae
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:37C6BC...@indiana.edu...
|> Laurence A. Moran wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <7q602b$35i$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
|> > Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|> > >*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
|
|[snip]
|
|Howard, since you do not have the book, and others reading
|along might not have the book either, I give this
|URL which is the peer-reviewed article that was published
|before the book.
|
|http://www.wiley.com/products/subject/life/anatomy/newanat_article3.pdf
|
|This is in The New Anatomist.
People might also be interested in reviews of Schwartz's book, one
of which is:
Szahmary, E., 1999 (June 24). When the means do not justify the end.
Nature, v.399, p.745.
I have not read the book myself yet.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Joseph Potter
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:37cd975c...@news.smu.edu...
> >the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> >"girl" giving them what-for.
>
> Potter, posting from your e-mail address, thought that "camp follower"
> an identifiably female name. But I'm sure you're someone entirely
> different, with ample moral authority to define who's a sexist and who
> isn't.
>
> Louann
>
No. They were well deserved comebacks to the
insults you hurled first.
And campfollower has nothing to do with male
or female as far as I am concerned. It is a very
political term these days.
Where were you when this was being discussed?
Afraid to take Marty on when he stated (in different
words) as I just did above?
You never post on topic as Julie did, you only
hurl insult from the back of the pack.
That would make you a pack-follower,
and a camp-follower.
The insults you hurled on the first post or
two to me makes you a bitch ---
worse according to the better
half who read your trash.
I will be happy to start a thread on this issue
if you feel it is needed.
Do you think it is?
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
Clark Dorman <cl...@s3i.com> wrote in message news:dogfl1...@s3i.com...
>
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qk89a$9no$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <7qk3ak$fgn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > >
> > > > The real sad fact of the two years was that
> > > > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > > > "girl" giving them what-for.
> > > >
> > >
> > > sexism?
> > >
> >
> > which said Julie had to be a fellow.
> >
> > What was that all about?
>
>
> Who said that Julie had to be a fellow? I was there and don't
> remember it, but I could be mistaken.
>
Ask Peter to re-post all the URLs. I wager he
will be glad to fill you in on this little episode.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37CE5D...@indiana.edu...
> yojim...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
<snip>
> If you will search your posts, you will find that I and at least one
> other member of 'the pack' openly praised Julie's knowledge of current
> biochemistry specifically in comparison to other (apparantly male
> posters) who supported her ideas. You will also find no insulting
> sexist remarks like "camp-follower" or "bitch" wrt 'female' (sex is hard
> to see on the web and names can be misleading) posters from most of the
> pack (I forget who used those terms; perhaps you remember, Joe? Was it
> the pack or the side you support?). You *will* see a few people
> questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
> whether that was the case or not.
>
<snip>
Ah, a coward who could not win the discussion over
"camp-follower" at the time brings it up now.
Happy to talk with you all you want to on that issue,
Mr. Pack.
On the other hand, to say that Julie could not
be just a female --- but must be a male is
the most insulting damn thing I ever saw.
Call her a bitch, call her anything. But to say
a female *could not be that good* is the worse
bigotry I have seen from the pack yet.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37CE5D...@indiana.edu...
> yojim...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> > > > CC: Julie, in the hope that it still gets to her. And Joe.
> > > >
> > > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [posted and e-mailed]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> > > > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
> > > > Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
> > > > to have been a supernatural event while still searching
> > > > for evidence that it was a natural one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > > "girl" giving them what-for.
> > >
>
> [...] You *will* see a few people
> questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
> whether that was the case or not.
>
You could care less whether a female was judged to be
Dr. Behe because no female could be that good?
Do all your friends feel the same?
Are "girls" not good enough?
>
> Speaking of double standards, [...]
>
You seem to be an expert, unless I have
misread your intent.
>
> [...] I know that you and Brendt really intended
> speak up about the widespread use of the term net.bootlicker
> [...]
>
If I recall, you said "bootlicker" as in real life. And
you went on to hint that worse things were licked.
That was you, was it not Howard?
<snip>
>
> Of course, you may, like the current champion of the term,
> [...]
>
<snip>
Again? how many times do you feel you must say this to me?
>
> [...] feel that
> there is good reason for *your* using the term and that it's use is only
> illicit when directed at you rather than by you, but you should at least
> make that reasoning clear, don't you think, rather than merely complain
> about being picked upon?
>
I have said on several occasions that I wish I were
not so weak as to respond to the insults of others
in kind.
I wish I had the strength of character that Julie
displayed here --- a female, ---- you sexist.
Regards, Joe
Louann Miller
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You never post on topic as Julie did, you only
>hurl insult from the back of the pack.
I avoid Potter/Nykios/Julie threads normally, yeah. The heat-light
ratio is impossible. Nobody responds to everything -- at least, nobody
does it well.
>That would make you a pack-follower,
>and a camp-follower.
>The insults you hurled on the first post or
>two to me makes you a bitch ---
>worse according to the better
>half who read your trash.
>I will be happy to start a thread on this issue
>if you feel it is needed.
I didn't expect you to respond with any grace or content. (I also
expect sharks to bite.) I just wanted to catch you out on the
particular gross hypocrisy of calling other people sexists when your
own behavior has been far worse. Thank you for repeating the offense.
A few of the people on the thread might not have looked at the
DejaNews link that yojimbo provided from last time.
BeckyLynn
>On 2 Sep 1999 15:39:36 -0400, "Joseph Potter"
><joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>You never post on topic as Julie did, you only
>>hurl insult from the back of the pack.
>
>I avoid Potter/Nykios/Julie threads normally, yeah.
>The heat-light ratio is impossible. Nobody responds
>to everything -- at least, nobody does it well.
I actually found Julie's posts to be rather well-written and reasonably
informative - even if I did not agree with them very much. I also wasn't
too pleased with her when she was being challenged. Her responses were very
catty. Still, there was at least some degree of content to examine in her
comments. I can't say the same for the those of Nyikos or Potter. Nyikos
seems to spend a lot of time spin-doctoring, obfuscating, relentlessly
repeating himself, and attacking others personally rather than demonstrating
anything close to a christian character or even the sort of behavior I would
expect from someone in his position. He clearly thinks a lot of himself and
seems to place a lot of importance on his academic credential which is,
frankly, completely irrelevant to most of the discussions (if not all of
them) that I have seen here. Potter is simply reprehensible. I find him to
be pretentious and evasive and more a bootlicker for Nyikos than anyone whom
Nyikos may claim for anyone else in the newsgroup. The bottom line is that
now that Julie has stopped posting, I probably won't be reading much from
either Nyikos or Potter and, in fact, Potter is very close to going into my
killfile.
>>That would make you a pack-follower,
>>and a camp-follower.
>
>>The insults you hurled on the first post or
>>two to me makes you a bitch ---
>>worse according to the better
>>half who read your trash.
>
>>I will be happy to start a thread on this issue
>>if you feel it is needed.
Yes, I am sure Potter would be very glad to start a thread of _ad hominem_,
personal attack, and sexist insults. That way he doesn't have to answer
Chaver09's or yojimbo's (among others) repeated challenges with respect to
what is certainly more topical to reasonable discussion in this newsgroup.
It's not that he was going to do that, anyway...
>I didn't expect you to respond with any grace or
>content. (I also expect sharks to bite.) I just wanted
>to catch you out on the particular gross hypocrisy of
>calling other people sexists when your own behavior
>has been far worse. Thank you for repeating the
>offense.
I must agree.
>A few of the people on the thread might not have
>looked at the DejaNews link that yojimbo provided
>from last time.
I did. It can hardly be considered even remotely polite or gentlemanly. It
shows how low some of the men in this newsgroup (obviously desperately in
need of a life) can go. But don't worry, guys. I don't believe for a
minute that Potter is representative of the men in the newsgroup.
yojim...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:37cd975c...@news.smu.edu...
> > <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >The real sad fact of the two years was that
> > >the pack was very sexist. They hated a
> > >"girl" giving them what-for.
> >
> > Potter, posting from your e-mail address, thought that "camp follower"
> > and "b*tech" were clever and cogent put-downs against an opponent with
> > an identifiably female name. But I'm sure you're someone entirely
> > different, with ample moral authority to define who's a sexist and who
> > isn't.
> >
> > Louann
> >
>
> No. They were well deserved comebacks to the
> insults you hurled first.
>
> And campfollower has nothing to do with male
> or female as far as I am concerned. It is a very
> political term these days.
>
> Where were you when this was being discussed?
> Afraid to take Marty on when he stated (in different
> words) as I just did above?
>
> hurl insult from the back of the pack.
>
> and a camp-follower.
>
> The insults you hurled on the first post or
> two to me makes you a bitch ---
> worse according to the better
> half who read your trash.
>
> I will be happy to start a thread on this issue
> if you feel it is needed.
>
>
o definitely - we could call it "joe potter is a dishonest sexist
hypocrite".......
any takers?
*Hemidactylus*
This is going nowhere. Two wrongs do not make a right. I recall the f---wit
controversy too, but I think your bringing up words like b*tch, campfollower,
etc... isn't helping your cause any.
--
Scott Chase
yojim...@my-deja.com
"Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37CE5D...@indiana.edu...
> > yojim...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > If you will search your posts, you will find that I and at least one
> > other member of 'the pack' openly praised Julie's knowledge of current
> > biochemistry specifically in comparison to other (apparantly male
> > posters) who supported her ideas. You will also find no insulting
> > sexist remarks like "camp-follower" or "bitch" wrt 'female' (sex is hard
> > to see on the web and names can be misleading) posters from most of the
> > pack (I forget who used those terms; perhaps you remember, Joe? Was it
> > questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
> > whether that was the case or not.
> >
>
> Ah, a coward who could not win the discussion over
> "camp-follower" at the time brings it up now.
>
> Happy to talk with you all you want to on that issue,
> Mr. Pack.
>
> On the other hand, to say that Julie could not
> be just a female --- but must be a male is
> the most insulting damn thing I ever saw.
>
> Call her a bitch, call her anything. But to say
> a female *could not be that good* is the worse
> bigotry I have seen from the pack yet.
....errr ..... who said that?
dejanews references please.
--
** yojimbo **
champagne for my real friends,
real pain for my sham friends ---- tom waits
yojim...@my-deja.com
loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
> On 2 Sep 1999 15:39:36 -0400, "Joseph Potter"
> <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >You never post on topic as Julie did, you only
> >hurl insult from the back of the pack.
>
> ratio is impossible. Nobody responds to everything -- at least, nobody
> does it well.
>
> >and a camp-follower.
>
> >The insults you hurled on the first post or
> >two to me makes you a bitch ---
> >worse according to the better
> >half who read your trash.
>
> >I will be happy to start a thread on this issue
> >if you feel it is needed.
>
> expect sharks to bite.) I just wanted to catch you out on the
> particular gross hypocrisy of calling other people sexists when your
> own behavior has been far worse. Thank you for repeating the offense.
> DejaNews link that yojimbo provided from last time.
>
my pleasure....
"insects that are merely noisome like to think that they can also
sting."
- kaikhosru sorabji
Matt Silberstein
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
>howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37CE5D...@indiana.edu...
>> yojim...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <7qk3ak$fgn$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>> > > news:1999090120...@milo.math.sc.edu...
>> > > > CC: Julie, in the hope that it still gets to her. And Joe.
>> > > >
>> > > > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>> > > >
>> > > > >Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> [posted and e-mailed]
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
>> > > > >>
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Such opinions have nothing to do with how scientific one is.
>> > > > Julie could easily hold the opinion that it is likely
>> > > > to have been a supernatural event while still searching
>> > > > for evidence that it was a natural one.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > The real sad fact of the two years was that
>> > > the pack was very sexist. They hated a
>> > > "girl" giving them what-for.
>> > >
><snip>
>>
>> [...] You *will* see a few people
>> questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
>> whether that was the case or not.
>>
>
>You could care less whether a female was judged to be
>Dr. Behe because no female could be that good?
>
>Do all your friends feel the same?
>
>Are "girls" not good enough?
>
This is the second or third time I have seen you make this claim. And
now you seem to have expanded it to say that Howard, in particular,
thought Julie was Behe for a specific reason. Since *you* are making
the claim I wonder if you could supply some actual evidence to support
it. Absent evidence all we have is your word that people made these
claims. I am willing to be that Howard never said that Julie must be a
male because a female could not be that good. I would even put money
on that bet. Will you take the bet and supply use with evidence?
>
>>
>> Speaking of double standards, [...]
>>
>
>You seem to be an expert, unless I have
>misread your intent.
>
>>
>> [...] I know that you and Brendt really intended
>> speak up about the widespread use of the term net.bootlicker
>> [...]
>>
>
>If I recall, you said "bootlicker" as in real life. And
>you went on to hint that worse things were licked.
>
>That was you, was it not Howard?
>
>
><snip>
>>
>> Of course, you may, like the current champion of the term,
>> [...]
>>
><snip>
>Again? how many times do you feel you must say this to me?
>
>>
>> [...] feel that
>> there is good reason for *your* using the term and that it's use is only
>> illicit when directed at you rather than by you, but you should at least
>> make that reasoning clear, don't you think, rather than merely complain
>> about being picked upon?
>>
>
>I have said on several occasions that I wish I were
>not so weak as to respond to the insults of others
>in kind.
>
>I wish I had the strength of character that Julie
>displayed here --- a female, ---- you sexist.
>
Wow, calling a woman a bitch is not sexist, but made up claims make
him a sexist. You do show a lot of weak character, but at least you
admit it.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Testing the proposition that you can find out anything
if you just say it wrong on the usenet:
I assert that no one recorded an a capella version of
_Rhapsody In Blue_ during the 1980s/90s.
howard hershey
>
> In article <7qmm56$rb3$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Joseph Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message news:37CE5D...@indiana.edu...
> > > yojim...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > If you will search your posts, you will find that I and at least one
> > > other member of 'the pack' openly praised Julie's knowledge of current
> > > biochemistry specifically in comparison to other (apparantly male
> > > posters) who supported her ideas. You will also find no insulting
> > > sexist remarks like "camp-follower" or "bitch" wrt 'female' (sex is hard
> > > to see on the web and names can be misleading) posters from most of the
> > > pack (I forget who used those terms; perhaps you remember, Joe? Was it
> > > questioning whether Julie really is Michael Behe. I could care less
> > > whether that was the case or not.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, a coward who could not win the discussion over
> > "camp-follower" at the time brings it up now.
> >
> > Happy to talk with you all you want to on that issue,
> > Mr. Pack.
> >
> > On the other hand, to say that Julie could not
> > be just a female --- but must be a male is
> > the most insulting damn thing I ever saw.
> >
> > Call her a bitch, call her anything. But to say
> > a female *could not be that good* is the worse
> > bigotry I have seen from the pack yet.
>
> ....errr ..... who said that?
It wasn't me. I said I saw a person or two wonder about it (not because
of the reason stated, but because of the similarity in ideas). I said I
could care less whether that was the case or not. But if I were to
guess, it would be that Julie is not Behe. Her ideas on IC were far
more intelligent than his, at least as expressed in his book (I know,
small praise and all that). I said that I praised the (limited to
current detail) competency of the person who called herself 'Julie'
(whatever sex, race, or sexual orientation he/she/it/they are).
Competency comes in both sexes. Idiocy comes in both sexes. And then
there is the reading comprehension of Joe (don't call me the 'P' word)
Potter.
>
> dejanews references please.