Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
Joseph Potter
It is summer in central Florida and our thoughts turn to
air-conditioning and summer reading, hence a fun
topic for summer.
Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
Transplants taken to far counties die in unison with the originals in
China. He also indicated that Darwin found Orchids to be
a great one.
So, here is the game.
In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
will you offer any of the below:
1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
2) Just your favorite biological enigma
3) Either of above, but with a description of the
enigmatic nature of the example[s]
4) Any explanation of yours or someone else's
enigma
Note: If someone offers a great example that interests
the denizens of T.O then you might want to start a thread
on that example.
Votes on the top ten will be taken at the end of summer.
Good luck, and may your favorite be voted number one.
CC: to several who might be interested
ZeldaG
>From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
OK, but not in order.
1. I recall being totally flumoxed by the impossibly slow mutation rate of
histones. I could not see how they could develop in the first place if the
change between yeast and humans was so small. The answer is supposed to be
billions of years of evolution, with perhaps faster biochemical evolution on
the front end. Thus, my objection is an argument by incredulity.
2. I still think ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. I gather much
material relating thereto was exaggerated or mistaken. Oh, well. I can't help
but suspect that the counterarguments were a means to garner publicity for its
originators.
3. Platypus.
4. 100 um bacteria (recently discovered)
5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
7. The Heart
8. Frog oocyte mRNA amplification.
9. Vulture immunity to Botulinum Toxin.
10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
Andre G Isaak
ZeldaG <zel...@aol.com> wrote:
>OK, but not in order.
An interesting concept. How does one go about posting an unordered
list?
Andre
--
Andre G Isaak agi...@linguist.umass.edu
Department of Linguistics (413) 586-8949 (Res)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Ken Cox
> An interesting concept. How does one go about posting an unordered
> list?
Use the UL markup. The list items come out with little bullets
in most browser implementations.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Joseph Potter
Andre G Isaak <agi...@linguist.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:7l0gts$8...@wilde.oit.umass.edu...
> In article <19990625140138...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> ZeldaG <zel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, but not in order.
>
> list?
>
>
Come on fellow, until you give a try take quibbles to
talk.flame.quibble.who. cares :-)
Seriously, it is in spirit of the list-fun. You do not really
have to post in order, as the order comes from the voters
and the end.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
*Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7l0lft$dcq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > It is summer in central Florida and our thoughts turn to
> > air-conditioning and summer reading, hence a fun
> > topic for summer.
> >
> > Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
> > biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
> > as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
> > which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
> > Transplants taken to far counties die in unison with the originals in
> > China. He also indicated that Darwin found Orchids to be
> > a great one.
> >
> > So, here is the game.
> >
> > In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
> > will you offer any of the below:
> >
> >
> > 2) Just your favorite biological enigma
> >
> >
>
> what is with this guy? How'd he keep a TV show for so long? (annoying scene
> change bassline)
>
> Biological enigma? Archetypes. Are there essences in nature (ala Richard
> Owen)? Is there an underlying conservatism that channels evolution. This
> could arise from some pie in the sky "self-organizing" pixie or it could be
> the cumulative result of history (i.e.-a long series of past selective
> events).
>
> In general: From where do motifs spring?
>
> --
> Scott Chase
>
Scott,
Sounds like you want to start your own list. I think
you are free to do so. You might even bring it to
the central Florida howlers-fest.
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
Congratulations, you are the first to respond to the
Summer Fun list. I hope the judges (those that vote
at the end of summer) will take into account your
fearless nature in going first.
Warmest Regards & Respect,
Joe
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CC: various to shame them into
matching the lady's courageous effort
==================================
ZeldaG <zel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990625140138...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
> >From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>
> >1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
> OK, but not in order.
>
> 1. I recall being totally flummoxed by the impossibly slow mutation rate of
*Hemidactylus*
Andre G Isaak
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Andre G Isaak wrote:
>> An interesting concept. How does one go about posting an unordered
>> list?
>
>in most browser implementations.
Yes, but they still come out in an order (maybe not one which is
intended to convey anything meaningful).
However, I concede that the poster who accused me of ``quibbling'' was
absolutely correct, and I do hereby drop the issue.
*Hemidactylus*
zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> >Subject: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
> >From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>
> >1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
> OK, but not in order.
>
>
> 2. I still think ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. I gather much
> material relating thereto was exaggerated or mistaken. Oh, well. I can't help
> but suspect that the counterarguments were a means to garner publicity for its
> originators.
>
Must...resist..no...cannot respond...the allure...too great...can't keep
away...
After suffering a recent outbreak of this, I'll stick to the basics.
So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
>
> 5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
>
> 6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
>
>
The syncytia resulting from fusion or division of myoblasts?
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>Transplants taken to far counties die in unison with the originals in
>China. He also indicated that Darwin found Orchids to be
>a great one.
Here's the essay that Joe refers to,
"Of Bamboos, Cicadas, and the Economy of Adam Smith"
in EVER SINCE DARWIN, S.J. Gould (pp. 97-102)
Gould discusses bamboo and cicadas, which also reproduce infrequently.
These are interesting reproductive strategies that make you wonder whether
they evolved by natural selection. Gould asks,
"... we must seek an explanation ... in the advantage that
it confers upon individuals. What, then, does an individual
cicada or bamboo gain by induling in sex so rarely and at
the same time as all its compatriots?"
Gould then proceeds to supply a reasonable answer based on sound
evolutionary principles. I won't give the answer away because I want Joe
to actually read the essay to find out. Gould concludes,
"The hypothesis of [...] though unproven, meets the primary
criterion of a successful explanation: it coordinates a
suite of observations that would otherwise remain unconnected
and, in this case, downright peculiar."
The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
inability to read with comprehension.
Larry Moran
Splifford
> >Subject: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
> >From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>
> >1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
> OK, but not in order.
>
> 1. I recall being totally flumoxed by the impossibly slow mutation rate of
> histones. I could not see how they could develop in the first place if the
> change between yeast and humans was so small. The answer is supposed to be
> billions of years of evolution, with perhaps faster biochemical evolution on
> the front end. Thus, my objection is an argument by incredulity.
>
> 2. I still think ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. I gather much
> material relating thereto was exaggerated or mistaken. Oh, well. I
can't help
> but suspect that the counterarguments were a means to garner publicity for its
> originators.
>
> 3. Platypus.
>
> 4. 100 um bacteria (recently discovered)
>
> 5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
>
> 6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
>
> 7. The Heart
>
> 8. Frog oocyte mRNA amplification.
>
> 9. Vulture immunity to Botulinum Toxin.
>
> 10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
Nope. Look up whales. I think that the larger seals also qualify. And I
_know_ that elephants do, too.
Now, hyenas may be the only mid-size mammalian land carnivores that
qualify, but not the only mammals.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Wade Hines
my favorite pseudo-enigmas of evolution. It's stolen from
either Dawkins or Gould. Someone will probably provide the ref.
Such a list seems more appropriate somehow.
Camouflage is an evilutionary strategy to help prey evade
predators. Yet in the Great White NorthNorth, the polar
bear is camouflaged white. She is at the top of the food
chain and has no predator to hide from so why is the polar
bear white?
Please note that this micro riddle should not be answered. The
answer is obvious and trivial but that doesn't mean that it
will reveal itself to everyone. (reference ye hither to a
common fallacy involving ignorance) Further note that it does not
qualify as a true enigma as the only mystery to it is derived
through misunderstandings of evolution.
WRowe0521
>A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
I can't come up with ten, but here are 4, all concerned with humans
1. The origin of the sense of humor
2. The common feature of all jokes - ie what structural or other feature do
jokes have in common? (yes, it is biology)
3. The origin of the capacity to enjoy music
4. The unnecessary sophistication of the linguistic faculty.
Bill Rowe
ZeldaG
>From: *Hemidactylus*
>So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
>von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough for me to
opine, I will.
>> 5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
>>
>> 6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
>>
>>
>The syncytia resulting from fusion or division of myoblasts?
I believe that is the case. I guess I don't know how the tissue becomes
polynucleate. Is it fusion, nuclear division, or both?
ZeldaG
>Date: Fri, 25 June 1999 01:58 PM
While I'm at it,
11. Prions
12. T-viruses that read in both directions.
13. Dracunculus Medinensis- A particularly nasty parasite that grows up to a
yard long and can only be removed by waiting till its head chews its way to the
surface, and then very slowly wind it around a stick)
14. Tapeworms with segments that undergo a transition form male to female as
they age.
>>Subject: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
>>From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
>OK, but not in order.
(I meant they were numbered but not prioritized)
>
>1. I recall being totally flumoxed by the impossibly slow mutation rate of
>histones. I could not see how they could develop in the first place if the
>change between yeast and humans was so small. The answer is supposed to be
>billions of years of evolution, with perhaps faster biochemical evolution on
>the front end. Thus, my objection is an argument by incredulity.
>
>2. I still think ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. I gather much
>material relating thereto was exaggerated or mistaken. Oh, well. I can't
>help
>but suspect that the counterarguments were a means to garner publicity for
>its
>originators.
>
>3. Platypus.
>
>4. 100 um bacteria (recently discovered)
>
>5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
>
>6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
>
>7. The Heart
>
>8. Frog oocyte mRNA amplification.
>
>9. Vulture immunity to Botulinum Toxin.
>
>10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
(Counting aquatic mammals isn't fair because the cooling water allows the
spermatocytes to form. How is it that Hyenas were the only ones to solve this
problem above-ground?)
Mark Isaak
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>will you offer any of the below:
>
I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
1. Dreams.
2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
species of plant with no thorns.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
PZ Myers
(ZeldaG) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
>>From: *Hemidactylus*
>
>>So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
>>von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
>
>I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough for me to
>opine, I will.
How many volumes do you want to read?
>
>>> 5. syncitial moulds. Squishing protoplasm around like toothpaste is wild.
>
>>>
>>> 6. Polynucleate muscle tissue.
>>>
>>>
>>The syncytia resulting from fusion or division of myoblasts?
>
>I believe that is the case. I guess I don't know how the tissue becomes
>polynucleate. Is it fusion, nuclear division, or both?
Vertebrate muscle forms by fusion of mononucleate myoblasts into polynucleate
myotubes. Other cells in development may become polynucleate by suppressing
cleavage.
I guess this is another case where I'm baffled about why anyone would find
it enigmatic.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
(ZeldaG) wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
>
>(Counting aquatic mammals isn't fair because the cooling water allows the
>spermatocytes to form. How is it that Hyenas were the only ones to solve this
>problem above-ground?)
What about monotremes, hyraxes, elephants, anteaters and sloths? Rhinos also
have descended but ascrotal testicles.
You might want to look up:
Werdelin, L and A Nilsonne (1999) The evolution of the scrotum and testicular
descent in mammals: a phylogenetic view. J. theor. Biol. 196:61-72.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
Isaak) wrote:
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
>>will you offer any of the below:
>>
>>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>>[. . .]
>
>I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
>
>1. Dreams.
A little more fundamental: sleep.
>
>2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
>species of plant with no thorns.
--
PZ Myers
*Hemidactylus*
zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
> >From: *Hemidactylus*
>
> >So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
> >von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
>
> I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough for me to
> opine, I will.
>
>
You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
so? The ball's in your court.
In development, do embryos more or less repeat the adult stages of their
ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
recapitulated instead the degree of complexity, as terminal addition would
add layers upon layers atop ancestral ontogenies?
Or do embryos just tend to proceed (quite sloppily) from the development of
general characters that are shared within a phylum, class and order into more
specific characters that one finds in genera and species?
*Hemidactylus*
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> In article <7l19e6$8bt$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>, at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark
> Isaak) wrote:
>
> >In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> >Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
> >>will you offer any of the below:
> >>
> >>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
> >>[. . .]
> >
> >I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
> >
> >1. Dreams.
>
> A little more fundamental: sleep.
>
>
ZeldaG
>> >So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
>> >von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough for me
>to
>> opine, I will.
>>
>>
>I was trying to be Mr. Concise.
>
>You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
>so? The ball's in your court.
Granted mutations can affect any stage of development. I would expect mutations
affecting earlier periods of gestation to be riskier, but having a more
profound effect on the individual. As a rule then, more mutations should
successfully add on to later stages of development where their effect is less
potent. Thus, the earlier, more primitive species-type development would be
relatively preserved.
I also had the impression from disparate biochemical factoids that biochemistry
evolved with earlier, more critical biochemistries remaining more intact, and
less critical biochemistries flowering into diversity in the later stages. ORP
had also been claimed for the appearance of antibody classes, and their serum
titer, mirroring their perceived evolution.
I know this subject is controversial and I cannot claim to be authoritative
enough to render a verdict regarding validity. I still consider it an
interesting area.
>
>In development, do embryos more or less repeat the adult stages of their
>ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
>recapitulated instead the degree of complexity, as terminal addition would
>add layers upon layers atop ancestral ontogenies?
>
Can you explain the application of the word: scaler.
Wade Hines
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough for me to
> > opine, I will.
> I was trying to be Mr. Concise.
> You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
> so? The ball's in your court.
> In development, do embryos more or less repeat the adult stages of their
^^^^^
> ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
Boy, I must be even more confused than I thought I was.
I never even knew the recapitulation was supposed to be about
adult forms but thought instead that it involved the suggestion that
"new" stages were added at the end of old sequences of embryonic
development. I'm not saying that's the way things work but I
did think that was what was claimed as the generality.
Wade Hines
ZeldaG wrote:
> While I'm at it,
> 11. Prions
Nothing enigmatic about prions.
The simple fact is that some proteins fold into a metastable
state which is useful. That they can also fold into forms
which are refractive to normal cellular recycling schemes
is not suprising. That such systems can survive and not be
effectively eliminated via evolution ought to be expected.
Of course you are welcome to add some details about why
you think that prions are defiant of evolutionary explaination.
Joe tried that about apoptosis but the replies seem to have
left him speechless.
*Hemidactylus*
zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
> >From: *Hemidactylus* <hemida...@my-deja.com>
>
> >> >So what is your synopsis of Haeckel's dogma? In a nutshell, I still prefer
> >> >von Baerian divergence (spectral) to Haeckelian progression (scalar).
> >>
> >to
> >> opine, I will.
> >>
> >>
> >I was trying to be Mr. Concise.
> >
> >You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
> >so? The ball's in your court.
>
> affecting earlier periods of gestation to be riskier, but having a more
> profound effect on the individual. As a rule then, more mutations should
> successfully add on to later stages of development where their effect is less
> potent.
>
So your talking about a genetically based terminal addition? Of course, gene
effects should be considered and not necessarily genes themselved.
Wallace Arthur, in _A Theory of the Evolution of Development_ (1988?)(not
presently handy but I read it recently) bases some ideas on a mathematical
abstraction from Ronald Fisher. It brings timing of gene activity, magnitude
of phenotypic effect and selective disadvantage into play. In a nutshell,
early acting genes have a more profound effect on the phenotype and early
mutations would likely have selective disadvantage.
He develops a morphogenetic tree concept where there is a hierarchy of
allelic causal links. Modifications to this tree can take one of three types.
The first is von Baerian divergence, where the allelic message itself is
changed. The second is Gouldian heterochrony, where the timing or
relationship between links is warped and the third is Haeckelian
addition/deletion of links, where complexity of the tree could increase or
decrease. I think this latter type is what you're hinting to.
>
>Thus, the earlier, more primitive species-type development would be
> relatively preserved.
>
There might tend to be a degree of conservation, but probably not a literal
parallel of O and P or recapitulation.
>
> I also had the impression from disparate biochemical factoids that biochemistry
> evolved with earlier, more critical biochemistries remaining more intact, and
> less critical biochemistries flowering into diversity in the later stages. ORP
> had also been claimed for the appearance of antibody classes, and their serum
> titer, mirroring their perceived evolution.
>
I hazily recall this from an immunology class. Was it Ig M which was more
primitive and appears earliest in ontogeny? I would appreciate a brief
explanation of the paralellism between Ig appearance in ontogeny and
phylogeny:-) I was still a bit unclear after that class, since the focus was
on human immunology and not evolution. I've been meaning to find a good
comparative immunology text. It's been a while since I've given this much
thought.
BTW, didn't Metchnikoff (spelling?) do some work relate to
evolution/development?
>
> I know this subject is controversial and I cannot claim to be authoritative
> enough to render a verdict regarding validity. I still consider it an
> interesting area.
>
Same here.
>
> >
> >In development, do embryos more or less repeat the adult stages of their
> >ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
> >recapitulated instead the degree of complexity, as terminal addition would
> >add layers upon layers atop ancestral ontogenies?
> >
>
> Can you explain the application of the word: scaler.
>
It would refer to a linear progression or ascent. Traditionally this could be
a scale of nature, but it could also refer to changes in "complexity" :-/
Spectral OTOH relates to branching.
*Hemidactylus*
Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
>
> > > opine, I will.
>
> > I was trying to be Mr. Concise.
>
> > You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
> > so? The ball's in your court.
>
> > ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
>
>
> I never even knew the recapitulation was supposed to be about
> adult forms but thought instead that it involved the suggestion that
> "new" stages were added at the end of old sequences of embryonic
> development.
>
Mayr E. 1994. The Quarterly Review of Biology (69): 223-232
Mayr E. 1997. This is Biology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 171
????
Paging Myers :-)
The last part you hint to up there is the mechanism of terminal addition.
Defined by Stephen Gould (1977, Glossary, p. 486): "TERMINAL ADDITION- One of
the necessary laws of recapitulation... New evolutionary features are added
to the end of ancestral onogenies (so that previous adult stages become
preadult stages of descendants)."
Gould SJ. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts
Joseph Potter
I will get back to it. I have yet to give my list of enigmas.
I also wanted to get off "Fair is Fair" as a thread title,
and use a title that tells what we are talking about in that
case.
I am hoping that folks will spin off new threads from this
one as a subjects interest them.
Regards, Joe
-----------------------------------------
"We can always invent a plausible adaptive
advantage for an observed or supposed trait."
(McFarland, 1985, p.528)
Joseph Potter
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
>>will you offer any of the below:
>>
>>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>>[. . .]
>
>I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
>
>1. Dreams.
>
>2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
>species of plant with no thorns.
This is great, you do not have to give ten unless you
want to.
The real "top ten" comes later when the denizens of
T.O vote on a list. That should be fun, and
I hope that the voting will happen after the summer fun
of playing with various enigmas.
Thanks for contributing.
R Thearle
> > >From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> > >1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
Here are a few that I don't know the answers to:
1) The origin of sexual instead of asexual reproduction
a) Why, having evolved sexual reproduction, some creatures promptly
lost it again (e.g. some lizards).
i) Double parsing of DNA in some viruses
A) The ability of some people to simultaneously adhere to two or more
contradictory concepts
I) The origins of religion, and why it is so widespread
@ Seedless grapes
Roy
PZ Myers
>*Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
>
>> > I'm not familiar with the distinction. If you'll spell it out enough
for me to
>> > opine, I will.
>
>> I was trying to be Mr. Concise.
>
>> You said that you thought ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny makes sense. How
>> so? The ball's in your court.
>
>> In development, do embryos more or less repeat the adult stages of their
> ^^^^^
>> ancestors, kinda ascending the scale of nature? Is the scalar aspect
>
>Boy, I must be even more confused than I thought I was.
>
>I never even knew the recapitulation was supposed to be about
>adult forms but thought instead that it involved the suggestion that
>"new" stages were added at the end of old sequences of embryonic
>development. I'm not saying that's the way things work but I
>did think that was what was claimed as the generality.
The mechanism for Haeckel's ontogenetic recapitulation was based on
a Lamarckian use/disuse idea and pangenesis -- the state of the soma
influenced the state of the germ line. If you read Haeckel very closely
and very generously, you can see where it *would* be possible for non-
terminal changes to occur. However, it would require modification of
the embryo during a brief, transient period in development that would
feed back onto the germ cells, and it would be unlikely to have as
great an effect as a change in the prolonged period of adulthood.
But yes, this was a key distinction between Haeckelian and von Baerian
embryology. Haeckel saw embryos as resembling the *adult* stages of earlier
phylogenetic stages, von Baer saw embryos as resembling the *embryos* of
other animals.
--
PZ Myers
Wade Hines
Joseph Potter wrote:
> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
> >Joe tried that about apoptosis but the replies seem to have
> >left him speechless.
> I will get back to it. I have yet to give my list of enigmas.
> I also wanted to get off "Fair is Fair" as a thread title,
> and use a title that tells what we are talking about in that
> case.
> I am hoping that folks will spin off new threads from this
> one as a subjects interest them.
I am hoping you won't use this as an excuse to avoid addressing
the points made elsewhere both with respect to your usage
of "enigma" and your stated misdirections about apoptosis.
Change the titles when you respond but if you completely ignore
those who corrected your strange ideas about immortal cells
it will be clear that this thread was just some slight of hand
to avoid having been cornered.
PZ Myers
<wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I see you noticed that, too.
I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
to pursue.
--
PZ Myers
Joseph Potter
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
>Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
>inability to read with comprehension.
>
>
>
>Larry Moran
>
Ah, Larry weighs in with insult on first post.
No matter, it will take every one time to get the hang of this. To
show you, Larry, I have started a tread on Enigmas --- Bamboo where
I will respond to your whole post. Then everyone who is interested
in bamboo can take a look, make a comment, or ask a question.
If it is only the two of us, then so be it.
Joseph Potter
This new thread demonstrates the advantage of moving specific discussions
to a new thread. That way we can read everybody's enigmas in the main thread
in an easier manner, and yet still raise hell with each other over
specific examples.
If anyone just does not care about bamboo, then Larry and
I will not waste their time.
Even though bamboo was just an example, and is not yet
nominated for the list I still think it worthy of a chat so
I'll give Larry a go.
On with the show:
On 25 Jun 1999 16:32:50 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>>Transplants taken to far counties die in unison with the originals in
>>China. He also indicated that Darwin found Orchids to be
>>a great one.
>
>Here's the essay that Joe refers to,
>
> "Of Bamboos, Cicadas, and the Economy of Adam Smith"
> in EVER SINCE DARWIN, S.J. Gould (pp. 97-102)
>
>Gould discusses bamboo and cicadas, which also reproduce infrequently.
>These are interesting reproductive strategies that make you wonder whether
>they evolved by natural selection. Gould asks,
>
They make one wonder whether Bamboo evolved in the modern
synthesis paradigm, this is true. But bamboo is enigmatic
regardless.
>
> "... we must seek an explanation ... in the advantage that
> it confers upon individuals. What, then, does an individual
> cicada or bamboo gain by induling in sex so rarely and at
> the same time as all its compatriots?"
>
>Gould then proceeds to supply a reasonable answer based on sound
>evolutionary principles. I won't give the answer away because I want Joe
>to actually read the essay to find out. Gould concludes,
>
Whoa there fellow. I have read the essay. As a matter of fact, I read it
the year it came out, several times since, and then the day I wrote
the summer list invitation.
How else would I know that he uses the "Sleeping Beauty" tale to
start the essay? (and essay it is, it is not a science "paper")
Or that he drug Adam Smith into the discussion?
You do make it hard to communicate. by starting with insult
and innuendo. Please give us the science.
If you think Gould actually did spell out a "reasonable answer" to show
Bamboo (especially the species he mentions) is not enigmatic,
then please share your thoughts with us.
After all, you issued the challenge.
> "The hypothesis of [...] though unproven, meets the primary
> criterion of a successful explanation: it coordinates a
> suite of observations that would otherwise remain unconnected
> and, in this case, downright peculiar."
>
>The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
>Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
>inability to read with comprehension.
>
>
Can you offer some proof Larry, or is insulting others a full time
hobby?
Joseph Potter
>In article <3774D502...@ix.netcom.com>, Wade Hines
><wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
<snip>
>
>I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
>interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
>into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
>some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
>avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
>to pursue.
>
Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
to share some things they find enigmatic.
No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
your list given your training and experience.
And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
specific examples.
Joseph Potter
>
>
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
>> I am hoping that folks will spin off new threads from this
>> one as a subjects interest them.
>
>I am hoping you won't use this as an excuse to avoid addressing
>the points made elsewhere both with respect to your usage
>of "enigma" and your stated misdirections about apoptosis.
>
As a matter of fact, I plan on giving examples over time
on this thread, and apoptosis may be on the list. :-)
(in reality, I have no intentions of leaving you in the lurch
on apoptosis)
>
>Change the titles when you respond but if you completely ignore
>those who corrected your strange ideas about immortal cells
>it will be clear that this thread was just some slight of hand
>to avoid having been cornered.
>
This thread is for summer fun, and I enjoy the weird and strange
in biology, and hence love seeing what others find enigmatic.
Are you so jaded in biology that you have no wonder left?
Wade Hines
Joseph Potter wrote:
> On 26 Jun 1999 09:58:22 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> <snip>
> >I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
> >interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
> >into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
> >some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
> >avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
> >to pursue.
> Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
> Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
> not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
> to share some things they find enigmatic.
You seem to be avoiding what he wrote. He did not say he does not
care for(about) enigmas in biology: he said that about a list of
enigmas. Then, using the same language --- English --- he added that
he would prefer to see some thought put into why something is
supposedly enigmatic.
Let's re-emphasize as you seem to have trouble with this. A list
of things that confuse you, me, Paul or others is rather silly
unless you accompany it with the reasons --- in some depth ---
why you find the items confusing. As I pointed out before and
Paul seems to agree (boot licking lackey that he is), Joe seems
to be avoiding discussion of the details of why something is
supposedly enigmatic.
What is bothering some is not just the lack of depth but the
gamesmanship that seems to be there with a pretense of caring
about the science but an unwillingness to stick to an issue.
> No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
> your list given your training and experience.
> And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
> specific examples.
Seems like the most effective way to communicate would be to
say why up front. The most effective way to cause confusion
is to avoid saying why.
PZ Myers
joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 09:58:22 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>In article <3774D502...@ix.netcom.com>, Wade Hines
>><wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>
><snip>
>
>
>>
>>I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
>>interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
>>into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
>>some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
>>avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
>>to pursue.
>>
>
>Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
Why, no insult at all. Ask Arthur Biele to explain it to you.
>
>Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
>not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
>to share some things they find enigmatic.
>
>No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
>your list given your training and experience.
>
>And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
>specific examples.
You've already given us one supposed example; there has been absolutely
no depth at all to your contribution to the threads on apoptosis. Why
should anyone think this little game of yours now will be any different?
--
PZ Myers
*Hemidactylus*
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
(snip)
>
Yoda speaks:
>
> But yes, this was a key distinction between Haeckelian and von Baerian
> embryology. Haeckel saw embryos as resembling the *adult* stages of earlier
> phylogenetic stages, von Baer saw embryos as resembling the *embryos* of
> other animals.
>
>
Ah, and this is the 4th of von Baer's generalities (resemblance to embryos of
other animals). The other 3 generalities cover expression of general to
specific characters and divergence. This is from the Book of Gould, p. 56.
So what about Mayr's emphasis on "permanent" versus "adult" wrt
recapitulationism (i.e.- Meckel-Serres, Haeckel et al)? This takes us back to
archetypes :-/
PZ Myers
joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
Good grief. At least get the spelling right in your subject line.
Wha...?
You claim to have read the article, but you don't recognize that Gould
was actually addressing the problem within that article?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> "The hypothesis of [...] though unproven, meets the primary
>> criterion of a successful explanation: it coordinates a
>> suite of observations that would otherwise remain unconnected
>> and, in this case, downright peculiar."
>>
>>The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
>>Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
>>inability to read with comprehension.
>>
>>
>
>Can you offer some proof Larry, or is insulting others a full time
>hobby?
There are just so darn many morons out there, that yes, insulting them
cannot be done half-heartedly.
I think the words so far are sufficient proof that you are incapable of
comprehending much of anything.
--
PZ Myers
ZeldaG
>From: Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Sat, 26 June 1999 12:00 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37745175...@ix.netcom.com>
>ZeldaG wrote:
>> While I'm at it,
>> 11. Prions
>Nothing enigmatic about prions.
Those who have worked years to understand the transmission of scrapie might
disagree with you. It was a vexing riddle for a long time and, by virtue of
violating the dogma claiming polynucleic acid to be the only valid transmission
agent. Presumably this virus(s) also has a transmissable genetic form, or did?
>The simple fact is that some proteins fold into a metastable
>state which is useful. That they can also fold into forms
>which are refractive to normal cellular recycling schemes
>is not suprising. That such systems can survive and not be
>effectively eliminated via evolution ought to be expected.
>
>Of course you are welcome to add some details about why
>you think that prions are defiant of evolutionary explaination.
>Joe tried that about apoptosis but the replies seem to have
>left him speechless.
I never meant to imply I believed it defied evolutionary explanation; perhaps
rather that said explanation would be at the periphery of common experience.
howard hershey
>
> In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >will you offer any of the below:
> >
>
> I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
>
> 1. Dreams.
>
> 2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
> species of plant with no thorns.
Who's the prime predator and what is its brainpower? In short, the
dummy predator might not be able to distinguish species of plants as
well as humans.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
> "My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
> I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
> plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Joseph Potter
Programming note:
This side thread is started for general whining, complaining
and flaming in regards to the list.
Some more explanation of the list does follow in this reply to Wade,
so it may be worth reading, even to those who don't care
about personal issues.
CC: Wade, so he will not think I did not reply:
no CC to Paul, as he has asked me not to,
but hopefully he will see this
On 26 Jun 1999 13:35:46 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 1999 09:58:22 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> >I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
>> >interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
>> >into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
>> >some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
>> >avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
>> >to pursue.
>
>> Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
>
>> Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
>> not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
>> to share some things they find enigmatic.
>
>You seem to be avoiding what he wrote. He did not say he does not
>care for(about) enigmas in biology: he said that about a list of
>enigmas. Then, using the same language --- English --- he added that
>he would prefer to see some thought put into why something is
>supposedly enigmatic.
>
Do you not see the words below where it is stated that I do hope
spin off threads are begun and those interested have
a good time discussing their topics?
No one is going to garner enough votes to win without saying
a few words about their favorite enigmas, and even if they
choose not to comment on first posting their list, I am sure
they want feed-back ---- and hence, a chance to talk about it.
As to Paul's preferences on thought being put into a list;
so what? I share the same sentiment, but so what?
The list is for some fun, and hopefully a few good topics will come out
of it --- and a few good discussions.
>
>Let's re-emphasize as you seem to have trouble with this. A list
>of things that confuse you, me, Paul or others is rather silly
>unless you accompany it with the reasons --- in some depth ---
> ...
Utter nonsense. The list is a good place for folks here to share some
thoughts on what they find enigmatic. Some may not even know
exactly why they find the item an enigma. So What? May they not
share?
I find other people's enigmas interesting, and if you do not --- do
not download and read. Pretty simple concept.
Feel free to ask anyone about their entries. I hope you do not go into
attack mode with them, but you are free to do as you please.
>
>why you find the items confusing. As I pointed out before and
>Paul seems to agree (boot licking lackey that he is), Joe seems
>to be avoiding discussion of the details of why something is
>supposedly enigmatic.
>
Heck, I have yet to enter a list item. Even so, I have just
started a thread with Larry Moran over bamboo. Looks like
fun, why nor join in yourself?
As to boot-licking, I think you are both just blinded by your bias
to the point you see only "enemies" and "allies."
For example, if I had picked up a book by an author but it
was the wrong book --- and then lambasted Paul based on my
own error, I'm sure you would have commented. But alas, it
went the other way and Paul made the embarrassing mistake
so you kept mum.
As to "avoid," I have typed many a word on apoptosis, unfortunately
it is an enigma and hence makes PZM snarl. The fact neither
of you can win seems to just tear you up. But be patient, it will arise again.
>What is bothering some is not just the lack of depth but the
>gamesmanship that seems to be there with a pretense of caring
>about the science but an unwillingness to stick to an issue.
>
>> No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
>> your list given your training and experience.
>
>> And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
>> specific examples.
>
>
>Seems like the most effective way to communicate would be to
>say why up front. The most effective way to cause confusion
>is to avoid saying why.
Are you trying to keep people from posting? You seem afraid
some folks might post their enigmas even if they choose not to
go into depth. (or can not)
Regards, Joe
Mark Isaak
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> 2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
>> species of plant with no thorns.
>
>Who's the prime predator and what is its brainpower? In short, the
>dummy predator might not be able to distinguish species of plants as
>well as humans.
The prime predator is probably some kind of spider, but that's just a
guess. There are lots of insects which eat the same shrub and lots of
different predators which are attracted to the insects, including many
kinds of parasitic wasps and various ladybugs, lacewings, and birds.
_Philya_ actually has very good camouflage even from my viewpoint. Its
color and texture are almost identical to the plant's dead leaves, and its
size and shape aren't that much different. But that's from looking at
them in beating trays; I haven't spent much time looking for them on the
shrubs themselves. (The shrub, if you're interested, is coyote brush,
_Baccharis pilularis_.)
Joseph Potter
I thought you did a fine job, and in the sprit of the invitation. The fact that
some snarl at the very word enigma should not deter anyone.
And one woman's enigma may not be another's. This seems
to be human nature.
Paul wrote not long ago that there were many enigmas in biology,
perhaps he will share, and we will see what Wade has to say to
that list.
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Even though bamboo was just an example, and is not yet
>nominated for the list I still think it worthy of a chat so
>I'll give Larry a go.
>
>On with the show:
I don't have much enthusiasm for this but I'll give it one shot anyway.
Please read carefully what you said - here it is.
>On 25 Jun 1999 16:32:50 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>>>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>>>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>>>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
You said that bamboo was one of Gould's favorite enigmas.
I posted a reference to the actual essay (something that you conveniently
forgot to do). I quoted parts of that essay to show that Gould was
offering an evolutionary explanation for the sexual behaviour of bamboo.
Then I said,
>>The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
>>Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
>>inability to read with comprehension.
>
>Can you offer some proof Larry, or is insulting others a full time
>hobby?
The proof is in the essay. Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic. You did
not tell the truth. I don't know for sure whether the problem is in your
ability to read for comprehension or whether you have a tendency to
prevaricate to score points against evolutionists. From your previous
behaviour on this newsgroup I had concluded that you were just a teenager.
Now I think you are a dishonest adult.
This is not a complicated issue. Either Gould said that bamboo was an
enigma or he didn't. All you have to do to back up your version is post
the relevant part of the essay. What can be so hard about that?
I suspect, based on what I've seen so far that you will try and avoid the
important issue by raising tangential points and reinterpreting common
English words.
Larry Moran
Joseph Potter
>In article <3779f789...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
>Good grief. At least get the spelling right in your subject line.
>
Ah, a man who has never misspelled anything.
Sorry, very old eyes.
<snip>
>>
>>If you think Gould actually did spell out a "reasonable answer" to show
>>Bamboo (especially the species he mentions) is not enigmatic,
>>then please share your thoughts with us.
>>
>>
>>After all, you issued the challenge.
>
>Wha...?
>
>You claim to have read the article, but you don't recognize that Gould
>was actually addressing the problem within that article?
>
<snip>
Gould raised the issue, and then he took a crack at it. Larry wanted
to talk bamboo with me, even though I did not put it on the list.
I am happy to do so, but he needs to offer the reason it is not.
And if he wants to use Gould's line of reasoning, then fine. Or,
if he wants to use another line, then fine also. (after all,
Gould took this on a long time ago --- Larry might have more
recent info in mind for all I know)
If you think I have not read the article, then fine. After all,
Larry would then have the advantage --- now would he not.
And you calling people liars is like most folks saying
"good day."
Joseph Potter
>In article <377bfd66...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
>>On 26 Jun 1999 09:58:22 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3774D502...@ix.netcom.com>, Wade Hines
>>><wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
>>>interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
>>>into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
>>>some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
>>>avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
>>>to pursue.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
>
>Why, no insult at all. Ask Arthur Biele to explain it to you.
>
If you so think, fine. Insulting a man's intelligence is such a normal
pattern for you, I doubt you even see it anymore.
>>
>>Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
>>not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
>>to share some things they find enigmatic.
>>
>>No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
>>your list given your training and experience.
>>
>>And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
>>specific examples.
>
>You've already given us one supposed example; there has been absolutely
>no depth at all to your contribution to the threads on apoptosis. Why
>should anyone think this little game of yours now will be any different?
Your biased personal opinion is worthless.
The simpleton description of apoptosis you gave is laughable compared to
the long quote I gave.
However, that is not the topic here. Are you trying for some reason
to stop people posting their enigmas?
Why would you do that?
PZ Myers
joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 13:49:39 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>In article <377bfd66...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Jun 1999 09:58:22 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3774D502...@ix.netcom.com>, Wade Hines
>>>><wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Joseph Potter wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Jun 1999 00:00:40 -0400, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would add that I don't think a list of 'enigmas' is very
>>>>interesting. There really ought to be a little more thought put
>>>>into *why* a particular phenomenon is enigmatic, and why it has
>>>>some evolutionary significance. Depth is something Potter would rather
>>>>avoid, but I think it is something more intelligent posters ought
>>>>to pursue.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, PZM weighs in with a small insult.
>>
>>Why, no insult at all. Ask Arthur Biele to explain it to you.
>>
>
>If you so think, fine. Insulting a man's intelligence is such a normal
>pattern for you, I doubt you even see it anymore.
Whatever makes you think I insulted your intelligence? Again, ask Biele
to parse the sentence for you -- I'm sure he will confirm that there is
no insult at all contained within that comment.
>
>
>>>
>>>Well Paul, if you do not care for enigmas in biology, then do
>>>not participate. After all it is only an invitation to those who want
>>>to share some things they find enigmatic.
>>>
>>>No one will force you to join, although I wager several would enjoy
>>>your list given your training and experience.
>>>
>>>And the depth is suppose to come as threads spin off onto
>>>specific examples.
>>
>>You've already given us one supposed example; there has been absolutely
>>no depth at all to your contribution to the threads on apoptosis. Why
>>should anyone think this little game of yours now will be any different?
>
>Your biased personal opinion is worthless.
>
>The simpleton description of apoptosis you gave is laughable compared to
>the long quote I gave.
Are you functionally illiterate? Perhaps borderline senile, with an acute
loss of short term memory?
It's very curious that you would call posts that point out serious omissions
in your understanding of the process "laughable".
>
>However, that is not the topic here. Are you trying for some reason
>to stop people posting their enigmas?
>
>Why would you do that?
HOW could I do that?
And people are free to post whatever they want. I've asked you to explain
your reasoning behind this claim that apoptosis is enigmatic, and as you
have demonstrated, you are free to go haring off in any old direction you
want and ignore the question.
--
PZ Myers
Joseph Potter
>In article <3779f789...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Even though bamboo was just an example, and is not yet
>>nominated for the list I still think it worthy of a chat so
>>I'll give Larry a go.
>>
>>On with the show:
>
>I don't have much enthusiasm for this but I'll give it one shot anyway.
>Please read carefully what you said - here it is.
>
Fine Larry.
>>On 25 Jun 1999 16:32:50 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>>>>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>>>>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>>>>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>
>You said that bamboo was one of Gould's favorite enigmas.
>
As an example to start the ball rolling and get people to give
their ideas. I have no way of knowing if bamboo would make
Dr. Gould's top ten list, as a man of his vast knowledge probably has
hundreds upon hundreds. I also doubted anyone would use bamboo
as their own.
But he did give it as an example, and anything Dr. Gould
comments on is usually pretty interesting.
>I posted a reference to the actual essay (something that you conveniently
>forgot to do). I quoted parts of that essay to show that Gould was
>offering an evolutionary explanation for the sexual behaviour of bamboo.
>Then I said,
>
He took a crack at it, but I personally would love to see someone take
that line in defense of the line that bamboo is not an enigma.
I was hoping you would do so. I hope you are not afraid to do so.
>>>The point is that Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic in spite of what
>>>Joe Potter would have us believe. It's just another example of Joe's
>>>inability to read with comprehension.
>>
>>Can you offer some proof Larry, or is insulting others a full time
>>hobby?
>
>The proof is in the essay. Gould does not find bamboo enigmatic. You did
>not tell the truth. I don't know for sure whether the problem is in your
>ability to read for comprehension or whether you have a tendency to
>prevaricate to score points against evolutionists. From your previous
>behaviour on this newsgroup I had concluded that you were just a teenager.
>Now I think you are a dishonest adult.
>
I see nothing dishonest in my words. I see fear in your tactics because
you do not want to take on bamboo now that you have made it an issue.
Why the fear? After all, you only have to use Dr. Gould's reasoning from a
very sort essay. And only a small part was on how bamboo might have
come to be. I bet you could sum it up in three to four short paragraphs.
Give it a try.
>This is not a complicated issue. Either Gould said that bamboo was an
>enigma or he didn't. All you have to do to back up your version is post
>the relevant part of the essay. What can be so hard about that?
>
>I suspect, based on what I've seen so far that you will try and avoid the
>important issue by raising tangential points and reinterpreting common
>English words.
>
>
No the issue, because you brought it up, is whether bamboo is an
enigma. Gould would not have written about it, if he did not think
his readers would be fascinated. And he took his best shot at an
explanation. (his best shot for a sort essay, for you pedantic little
ones out there)
So, defend Larry. It should be easy. You have Gould's best shot
in front of you. Use it!
Joseph Potter
>
>HOW could I do that?
>
Intimidation. I wanted folks to have a little summer fun, and pass
on things they find enigmatic. You seem to want this stopped.
I just can not see why.
>
>And people are free to post whatever they want. I've asked you to explain
>your reasoning behind this claim that apoptosis is enigmatic, and as you
>have demonstrated, you are free to go haring off in any old direction you
>want and ignore the question.
>
What ignore? I'll get to it. The fact that the almost completed draft on
apoptosis is at work means it will be a few more days --- but I was
unaware you got to set a time limit. Hell, I have waited for almost
six weeks for a reply from a good Pack member on an issue he
invited me to comment on. When and if he ever does, I'll respond.
The fact is, Paul, that you are due nothing from me. Especially
after that insulting post when you made a mistake and got the
wrong book by Dr. Clark --- and called me all manner of things
because of your mistake. In fact, you do not deserve a reply,
but I LIKE the topic, so it will be coming around again.
Now, stop your whinnying, insult, character assassinations and
let folks have a little fun wondering at the wild and weird in nature.
That is all --- as another sometimes says.
Kevin Anthoney
>
> In article <19990625210817...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, zel...@aol.com
> (ZeldaG) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >>10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
> >
> >(Counting aquatic mammals isn't fair because the cooling water allows the
> >spermatocytes to form. How is it that Hyenas were the only ones to solve this
> >problem above-ground?)
>
> What about monotremes, hyraxes, elephants, anteaters and sloths? Rhinos also
> have descended but ascrotal testicles.
>
That sounds like one hell of a way to play conkers. Are "stamps"
allowed?
> You might want to look up:
> Werdelin, L and A Nilsonne (1999) The evolution of the scrotum and testicular
> descent in mammals: a phylogenetic view. J. theor. Biol. 196:61-72.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
--
Kevin Anthoney
kant...@freenet.co.uk
PZ Myers
joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 15:56:54 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>
>>HOW could I do that?
>>
>
>Intimidation. I wanted folks to have a little summer fun, and pass
>on things they find enigmatic. You seem to want this stopped.
>I just can not see why.
Really? How strange. I must have posted that little message where I
stamped my dainty foot and shrieked, "Stop it right now, you sillies!!!"
during that amnesiac fugue the other day.
>
>
>>
>>And people are free to post whatever they want. I've asked you to explain
>>your reasoning behind this claim that apoptosis is enigmatic, and as you
>>have demonstrated, you are free to go haring off in any old direction you
>>want and ignore the question.
>>
>
>What ignore? I'll get to it. The fact that the almost completed draft on
>apoptosis is at work means it will be a few more days --- but I was
>unaware you got to set a time limit. Hell, I have waited for almost
>six weeks for a reply from a good Pack member on an issue he
>invited me to comment on. When and if he ever does, I'll respond.
>
>The fact is, Paul, that you are due nothing from me. Especially
>after that insulting post when you made a mistake and got the
>wrong book by Dr. Clark --- and called me all manner of things
>because of your mistake. In fact, you do not deserve a reply,
>but I LIKE the topic, so it will be coming around again.
Ummm...Potter, you are demonstrating your inability to read for understanding
again. I said you are free to post whatever you want, free to ignore me,
free to play any old games you want...I never said I was due anything from
you at all. Nor did I set any time limits.
>
>Now, stop your whinnying,
I wasn't whinnying! That was actually an intricate and devastatingly
rational argument in Houyhnhnm.
>insult, character assassinations and
>let folks have a little fun wondering at the wild and weird in nature.
There is nothing I can do to stop it. I can ask certain pernicious morons
to try to explain themselves when they babble so ineptly, and there's nothing
you can do to stop *that*.
>
>That is all --- as another sometimes says.
--
PZ Myers
*Hemidactylus*
at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> In article <377522...@indiana.edu>,
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> 2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
> >> species of plant with no thorns.
> >
> >Who's the prime predator and what is its brainpower? In short, the
> >dummy predator might not be able to distinguish species of plants as
> >well as humans.
>
> The prime predator is probably some kind of spider, but that's just a
> guess. There are lots of insects which eat the same shrub and lots of
> different predators which are attracted to the insects, including many
> kinds of parasitic wasps and various ladybugs, lacewings, and birds.
>
> _Philya_ actually has very good camouflage even from my viewpoint. Its
> color and texture are almost identical to the plant's dead leaves, and its
> size and shape aren't that much different. But that's from looking at
> them in beating trays; I haven't spent much time looking for them on the
> shrubs themselves. (The shrub, if you're interested, is coyote brush,
> _Baccharis pilularis_.)
>
>
A woody aster? I'm only acquainted with two species of *Baccharis* (*B.
angustifolia* and *B. halimifolia*) in my area.
Is *Philya* associated with any other species in genus *Baccharis* (besides
*B. pilularis*)?
PZ Myers
<kant...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> In article <19990625210817...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, zel...@aol.com
>> (ZeldaG) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>
>> >>10. Hyenas as being the only mammals with undescended testicles(?).
>> >
>> >(Counting aquatic mammals isn't fair because the cooling water allows the
>> >spermatocytes to form. How is it that Hyenas were the only ones to
solve this
>> >problem above-ground?)
>>
>> What about monotremes, hyraxes, elephants, anteaters and sloths? Rhinos also
>> have descended but ascrotal testicles.
>>
>
>That sounds like one hell of a way to play conkers. Are "stamps"
>allowed?
I thought conkers was a game played by putting horse chestnuts on a string
and whacking them together until one smashed apart. I'm having a very hard
time picturing how testicles fit into that scheme -- and my efforts to
imagine it are making me squirm and cringe in my chair most uncomfortably,
so I think I'll stop.
Laurence A. Moran
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
>(Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
[snip]
>>This is not a complicated issue. Either Gould said that bamboo was an
>>enigma or he didn't. All you have to do to back up your version is post
>>the relevant part of the essay. What can be so hard about that?
>>
>>I suspect, based on what I've seen so far that you will try and avoid the
>>important issue by raising tangential points and reinterpreting common
>>English words.
>
>No the issue, because you brought it up, is whether bamboo is an
>enigma. Gould would not have written about it, if he did not think
>his readers would be fascinated. And he took his best shot at an
>explanation. (his best shot for a sort essay, for you pedantic little
>ones out there)
>
>So, defend Larry. It should be easy. You have Gould's best shot
>in front of you. Use it!
I give up. You win. Goodbye.
Larry Moran
Wade Hines
ZeldaG wrote:
> >From: Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com>
> >ZeldaG wrote:
> >> While I'm at it,
> >> 11. Prions
> >Nothing enigmatic about prions.
> Those who have worked years to understand the transmission of scrapie might
> disagree with you.
I worked on Prp while a research associate at Caltech, then I worked for
someone who helped discover the glycolipid anchor. While at UCSF, the
place
where Stan Pruisner is, and he's the guy who won the nobel prize for
prion
discoveries, I worked with a number of prion researchers.
> It was a vexing riddle for a long time and, by virtue of
> violating the dogma claiming polynucleic acid to be the only valid transmission
> agent. Presumably this virus(s) also has a transmissable genetic form, or did?
You don't know how prions work do you? That's fine but no they never
seemed to have had a viral form.
As you say, there were some people who pushed a dogma that there had
to be nucleic acid present for prions to be infective but back in 1985
I can remember some of us putting together cartoons which have been
born out. We did not anticipate the simplicity of the final solution
but went as far as projecting that the infectious form of the prion
protein could cause a change in the non-infectious form. What that
change was we did not know. It turns out to be a simple matter of
a refolding from alpha helix to beta sheet which is in fact catalyzed
by the beta sheet form. That beta sheet form is favored by some
mutant forms of the protein. An example of this is CJD.
> >The simple fact is that some proteins fold into a metastable
> >state which is useful. That they can also fold into forms
> >which are refractive to normal cellular recycling schemes
> >is not suprising. That such systems can survive and not be
> >effectively eliminated via evolution ought to be expected.
> >Of course you are welcome to add some details about why
> >you think that prions are defiant of evolutionary explaination.
> >Joe tried that about apoptosis but the replies seem to have
> >left him speechless.
> I never meant to imply I believed it defied evolutionary explanation; perhaps
> rather that said explanation would be at the periphery of common experience.
And do you think that explainations that are at the periphery of
common experience are enigmas? That's a mighty odd way to use
enigma. In fact, I'd say it's wrong.
Wade Hines
Joseph Potter wrote:
> On 26 Jun 1999 13:54:52 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> >In article <3779f789...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
> >>If you think Gould actually did spell out a "reasonable answer" to show
> >>Bamboo (especially the species he mentions) is not enigmatic,
> >>then please share your thoughts with us.
> >>After all, you issued the challenge.
> >Wha...?
> >You claim to have read the article, but you don't recognize that Gould
> >was actually addressing the problem within that article?
> <snip>
> Gould raised the issue, and then he took a crack at it. Larry wanted
> to talk bamboo with me, even though I did not put it on the list.
> I am happy to do so, but he needs to offer the reason it is not.
> And if he wants to use Gould's line of reasoning, then fine. Or,
> if he wants to use another line, then fine also. (after all,
> Gould took this on a long time ago --- Larry might have more
> recent info in mind for all I know)
> If you think I have not read the article, then fine. After all,
> Larry would then have the advantage --- now would he not.
> And you calling people liars is like most folks saying
> "good day."
Joe Potter:
|>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
|>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
|>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
|>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
The challenge is for Joe explain why he wrote the above which makes
it look like Bamboo is enigmatic to Gould when in fact Gould wrote an
essay explaining why he believes bamboo is the way it is. That Joe
claims to have read the essay multiple times confounds the problem.
It just doesn't add up that Joe claims Gould thinks Bamboo is
an evolutionary enigma when Gould wrote an essay explaining
the reproduction of bamboo in evolutionary terms. The two are
mutually exclusive.
Two explainations of the contradiction are intellectual dishonesty
or intellectual incompetence. I'm sure there is a measure of the
second given the repeated confusion expressed over the meaning
of "enigma".
Richard Harter
>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
[snip world class weaseling by Joe Potter]
Cheese, don't you ever do any thing besides weaseling?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
"A tool, such as human sacrifice, is ethically neutral.
Some tools are better left unused." - MRD
Richard Harter
[snip more weaseling]
Give it a rest, Joe. You raise an issue and you don't want to deal with
it - fine. Don't. But for pity's sake, stop weaseling.
Joseph Potter
>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
>[snip more weaseling]
>
>Give it a rest, Joe. You raise an issue and you don't want to deal with
>it - fine. Don't. But for pity's sake, stop weaseling.
>
>
I really have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to take
the bamboo question on, please start. Larry is afraid to do so, even
though he has one explanation in front of him presented by a world
class scientist.
Are you fearless enough to take on the bamboo is "explained"
side?
I tell you straight out, I think you will lose, but I am only a layman
and you might win. It would be fun though.
Joseph Potter
Very simple. I looked up the word enigma in my trusty _Webster
Concise Dictionary_ and found that it means:
1) an obscure riddle
and
2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
(note the 'or')
Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
I was looking for.
This is besides the fact I think Dr. Gould fouled up, and the explanation does not
hold water.
I would love to see you take the other side in a bamboo debate, but I
fear the Pack is afraid of this one. And the odd thing is this was supposed to
be a pleasant diversion; a summer fun thing.
>
>It just doesn't add up that Joe claims Gould thinks Bamboo is
>an evolutionary enigma when Gould wrote an essay explaining
>the reproduction of bamboo in evolutionary terms. The two are
>mutually exclusive.
>
Not to you perhaps, but I clearly see a writer presenting his
readers with an enigma and then giving his best explanation.
This is not a new thing for Dr. Gould.
>Two explainations of the contradiction are intellectual dishonesty
>or intellectual incompetence. I'm sure there is a measure of the
>second given the repeated confusion expressed over the meaning
>of "enigma".
No, you just chose to ignore both the dictionary definition of the word,
as well as the spirit of the top ten list example.
Now here we are, many words later, and still no one will take the
Dr. Gould line and show how to clear up this little fun enigma called
bamboo.
What are you guys afraid of? Is it worse than I thought? Hell, I
was not even going to use bamboo on my list. Now, I think I need to
take a closer look at what you guys are frightened of.
Joseph Potter
>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
>>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
>[snip world class weaseling by Joe Potter]
>
>Cheese, don't you ever do any thing besides weaseling?
>
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you mean that I should go first, before Larry, then
I can not see why; after all, he brought up the
bamboo issue. (although, I can type in Gould's
quotes and argue with Gould's words if every
one of you chickens out)
If you mean it is not an enigma, then consider my trusty
_Webster Concise Dictionary_ :
1) an obscure riddle
and
2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
(note the 'or')
Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
I was looking for.
Will you stop "weaseling," and take a side? Or will you run from bamboo
also --- even with a 20+ year old published attempt at it in the public record?
Will you try?
Joseph Potter
>In article <377d33cc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
>>(Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>This is not a complicated issue. Either Gould said that bamboo was an
>>>enigma or he didn't. All you have to do to back up your version is post
>>>the relevant part of the essay. What can be so hard about that?
>>>
>>>I suspect, based on what I've seen so far that you will try and avoid the
>>>important issue by raising tangential points and reinterpreting common
>>>English words.
>>
>>No the issue, because you brought it up, is whether bamboo is an
>>enigma. Gould would not have written about it, if he did not think
>>his readers would be fascinated. And he took his best shot at an
>>explanation. (his best shot for a sort essay, for you pedantic little
>>ones out there)
>>
>>So, defend Larry. It should be easy. You have Gould's best shot
>>in front of you. Use it!
>
>I give up. You win. Goodbye.
>
>
Goodbye Larry, I knew you did not have the guts to take on bamboo.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 18:43:54 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
[...]
JP>Are you fearless enough to take on the bamboo is "explained"
JP>side?
JP>I tell you straight out, I think you will lose, but I am only
JP>a layman and you might win. It would be fun though.
I basically have no interest in botany of any sort. I do,
though, have an interest in terms of debate. Joe mentions
winning and losing above. Is Joe willing to state victory
conditions ahead of time, such that the goalposts for this
discussion are set in concrete rather than on carts with
turbo-charged V8s?
--
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.
"Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out"-TP
Joseph Potter
>In article <3776655f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Jun 1999 18:43:54 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>JP>Are you fearless enough to take on the bamboo is "explained"
>JP>side?
>
>JP>I tell you straight out, I think you will lose, but I am only
>JP>a layman and you might win. It would be fun though.
>
>I basically have no interest in botany of any sort. I do,
>though, have an interest in terms of debate. Joe mentions
>winning and losing above. Is Joe willing to state victory
>conditions ahead of time, such that the goalposts for this
>discussion are set in concrete rather than on carts with
>turbo-charged V8s?
Well, I guess I win if he takes the challenge. This is because the subject
is interesting and I would be interested in any of the local denizen's opinion.
I lose when others are so afraid that neo-Darwinism will fall it we find
one damn interesting enigma that they only attack me and do not
talk about the interesting issue at hand.
The are no real "winners" or "losers" when everyone just gives their
best effort for whatever side they pick.
I am having real difficulty understanding why folks post here and yet
do not want to discuss interesting anomalies. I realize you are not
interested in botany, but it would be nice if you would take a shot
at it. The 120 year biological clock is a part of it you might find interesting,
even if you positively hate plants.
I do think Dr. Gould presented a weak case in this one example, but
others might see it as air-tight. Whatever, it is still interesting to see other
opinions.
Any thoughts on this bamboo?
Matt Silberstein
(Joseph Potter):
>On 26 Jun 1999 18:40:14 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>
>>[snip world class weaseling by Joe Potter]
>>
>>Cheese, don't you ever do any thing besides weaseling?
>>
>
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>If you mean that I should go first, before Larry, then
>I can not see why; after all, he brought up the
>bamboo issue. (although, I can type in Gould's
>quotes and argue with Gould's words if every
>one of you chickens out)
>
>
>If you mean it is not an enigma, then consider my trusty
>_Webster Concise Dictionary_ :
>
>1) an obscure riddle
>
>and
>
>2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
> (note the 'or')
>
The two are quite different issues. Are you looking for a list of
puzzles or a list of inexplicable things? And does Gould seem to think
that the bamboo is puzzling or inexplicable? Not having a clear
definition of this key term makes the whole discussion confusing. What
particularly concerns me is the possibility of equivocation. Someone
can discuss an enigma (meaning puzzle) and have those words used to
support enigma (meaning inexplicable). A clear up front presentation
of which you mean would help quite a bit.
>Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
So you think that bamboo is both puzzling and inexplicable. I wonder
how you can tell that we can't get an explanation for it. That seems
like a much more interesting question than whether we currently
understand some particular process.
>I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>
>However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>I was looking for.
>
Have you looked at any more in depth material on the subject? And do
you have actual objections to Gould's treatment or do you just
disagree?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
I would sooner believe a yankee professor would lie
than stones would fall from the heavens.
Thomas Jefferson
PZ Myers
joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry"
<w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3776655f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 26 Jun 1999 18:43:54 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
Nope.
But I sure do find onychophorans fascinating. There are some real puzzlers
there. And colonial ascidians -- not only are they enigmatic challenges
to evolution, but the words sure sound pretty rolling off the tongue.
You wanna know what a REAL enigma is? Irrational numbers. Just think about
'em. And you know, I've never seen a mathematician give a good, strong
explanation for them. They kinda wave their hands about and maybe make a
few marks on a chalkboard, but they never really seem to appreciate the
wonder and beauty of them, and they don't stop to marvel about them. And
irrational numbers say something very profound about our universe, and our
universe is very important to evolution!
I don't understand why we don't have more discussions about onychophorans,
colonial ascidians, and irrational numbers on this here newsgroup. Maybe
it's because everyone is afraid of them. Maybe it's because nobody else is
as smart as I am. I sure am clever to have thought of them, and to give you
all so much insight into these baffling conundrums.
Hey, Joe, it sure would be nice if you would take a shot at these things.
It would be a fun way to spend the summer. And if that isn't enough for you,
maybe then we can move on to railroad ties and cumulo-nimbus clouds. Or
magenta. Magenta's really got me stumped.
Oh, well. I've got to stop now. I've been thinking real hard, and wearing
myself out typing up all these insights to enlighten all you readers of TO.
I'd better go get some sleep now, so I can think of some more.
--
PZ Myers
John Monrad
mfs.netaxs.com>...
> joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
> >Any thoughts on this bamboo?
>
> Nope.
>
> But I sure do find onychophorans fascinating. There are some real puzzlers
> there. And colonial ascidians -- not only are they enigmatic challenges
> to evolution, but the words sure sound pretty rolling off the tongue.
>
> You wanna know what a REAL enigma is? Irrational numbers. Just think about
> 'em. And you know, I've never seen a mathematician give a good, strong
> explanation for them. They kinda wave their hands about and maybe make a
> few marks on a chalkboard, but they never really seem to appreciate the
> wonder and beauty of them, and they don't stop to marvel about them. And
> irrational numbers say something very profound about our universe, and our
> universe is very important to evolution!
>
> I don't understand why we don't have more discussions about onychophorans,
> colonial ascidians, and irrational numbers on this here newsgroup. Maybe
> it's because everyone is afraid of them. Maybe it's because nobody else is
> as smart as I am. I sure am clever to have thought of them, and to give you
> all so much insight into these baffling conundrums.
>
> Hey, Joe, it sure would be nice if you would take a shot at these things.
> It would be a fun way to spend the summer. And if that isn't enough for you,
> maybe then we can move on to railroad ties and cumulo-nimbus clouds. Or
> magenta. Magenta's really got me stumped.
>
> Oh, well. I've got to stop now. I've been thinking real hard, and wearing
> myself out typing up all these insights to enlighten all you readers of TO.
> I'd better go get some sleep now, so I can think of some more.
Now *THAT'S* world-class condescension.
--
John Monrad (aka Not Ed Conrad)
PZ Myers
jrmo...@worldnet.att.net (John Monrad) wrote:
Yeah, I'm in training for the championship. I've got some tough
competition right here on TO, but I feel that my combination of a
naturally snotty attitude with a heavy training regimen make me
well-nigh unbeatable.
--
PZ Myers
howard hershey
What is interesting about prions is that they "replicate" like enzymes
rather than like nucleic acids. That is they catalytically transform a
substrate (a protein with the same or very slightly different sequence)
that they bind to rather than produce a complementary templated copy.
Mark J. Koebbe
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <377f7b38...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
> >On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry"
> <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
> >I do think Dr. Gould presented a weak case in this one example, but
> >others might see it as air-tight.
The only thing that appears air tight is the vapor lock in Joe's
brain....
Whatever, it is still interesting to
> see other
> >opinions.
> >
> >Any thoughts on this bamboo?
>
> Nope.
>
> But I sure do find onychophorans fascinating. There are some real puzzlers
> there. And colonial ascidians -- not only are they enigmatic challenges
> to evolution, but the words sure sound pretty rolling off the tongue.
>
> You wanna know what a REAL enigma is? Irrational numbers. Just think about
> 'em. And you know, I've never seen a mathematician give a good, strong
> explanation for them. They kinda wave their hands about and maybe make a
> few marks on a chalkboard, but they never really seem to appreciate the
> wonder and beauty of them, and they don't stop to marvel about them. And
> irrational numbers say something very profound about our universe, and our
> universe is very important to evolution!
>
> I don't understand why we don't have more discussions about onychophorans,
> colonial ascidians, and irrational numbers on this here newsgroup. Maybe
> it's because everyone is afraid of them. Maybe it's because nobody else is
> as smart as I am. I sure am clever to have thought of them, and to give you
> all so much insight into these baffling conundrums.
>
> Hey, Joe, it sure would be nice if you would take a shot at these things.
> It would be a fun way to spend the summer. And if that isn't enough for you,
> maybe then we can move on to railroad ties and cumulo-nimbus clouds. Or
> magenta. Magenta's really got me stumped.
Now you're starting to sound like Jack Handy....on the old Saturday
Night Live 'Deep Thoughts' sketches. 'Course anyone who approaches the
activation of 'DNA program' via hydration as a 'deep' enigma probably
would find no end of entertainment watching grass grow....
MJK
>
> Oh, well. I've got to stop now. I've been thinking real hard, and wearing
> myself out typing up all these insights to enlighten all you readers of TO.
> I'd better go get some sleep now, so I can think of some more.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
Donavan Keil
the back of my mind : Why do mammals have vestigial nipples?
Do all mammals have them including whales etc? How about marsupials?
Do they function in any male mammals?
They must have become nonfunctional prior the differentiation of the
various species of mammals or you would expect that in some species
they would still be functional.
If they became nonfunctional after differentiation its asking a lot of
parallel evolution.
If they have been a feature of the mammal line ever since the various
species differentiated why have they been maintained by (I assume) all
mammal species.
It would seem that to be retained they would have to provide some
survival benefit or at least not get in the way but we can carry only so
much useless baggage.
Are they a redundant system in case they fail in the female? Why keep a
back up system that is not ever used ,or has it?
Are they left overs from a stage when males produced offspring or the
harbingers of a future when we can.
Don
Wesley R. Elsberry
Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 26 Jun 1999 18:43:54 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
WRE>[...]
JP>Are you fearless enough to take on the bamboo is "explained"
JP>side?
JP>I tell you straight out, I think you will lose, but I am only
JP>a layman and you might win. It would be fun though.
WRE>I basically have no interest in botany of any sort. I do,
WRE>though, have an interest in terms of debate. Joe mentions
WRE>winning and losing above. Is Joe willing to state victory
WRE>conditions ahead of time, such that the goalposts for this
WRE>discussion are set in concrete rather than on carts with
WRE>turbo-charged V8s?
JP>Well, I guess I win if he takes the challenge. This is
JP>because the subject is interesting and I would be interested
JP>in any of the local denizen's opinion. I lose when others
JP>are so afraid that neo-Darwinism will fall it we find one
JP>damn interesting enigma that they only attack me and do not
JP>talk about the interesting issue at hand.
That seems to be a bit egocentric. I'm not sure that "victory
conditions" stretches to cover that response. Perhaps the
response could be extended to cover how *someone else* playing
could be considered to have "won" or "lost" concerning the
*substantive content* of the discussion, and not just the
relative feelings aroused by the concomitant warm fuzzies or
cold wrigglies that might arise from the fact of the
discussion having taken one form or another. Or perhaps any
such answer would only be drowned out in the <vrooom-vrooom>
of the goalposts accelerating out of sight...
JP>The are no real "winners" or "losers" when everyone just
JP>gives their best effort for whatever side they pick.
Uh-huh. A simple "No, thank you," would have sufficed.
JP>I am having real difficulty understanding why folks post here
JP>and yet do not want to discuss interesting anomalies. I
JP>realize you are not interested in botany, but it would be
JP>nice if you would take a shot at it. The 120 year biological
JP>clock is a part of it you might find interesting, even if you
JP>positively hate plants.
If I want interesting zeitgeberen, I can find plenty of
zoological examples. I did some data collection on prairie
chicken behavior along those lines for a class some years ago,
but I found our acoustic analysis of the greater prairie
chicken far more interesting. We found a bit of acoustic
interference among the lekking males.
JP>I do think Dr. Gould presented a weak case in this one
JP>example, but others might see it as air-tight. Whatever, it
JP>is still interesting to see other opinions.
Even more interesting to see, judging by the general rarity of
the class, would be an up-front and immovable metric by which
those other opinions would be judged.
JP>Any thoughts on this bamboo?
It's a grass. Get a botanist. Is Howatt hanging around here
anymore?
--
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.
"three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, & hubris"-PP
Joseph Potter
>In talk.origins I read this message from joe.p...@worldnet.att.net
>(Joseph Potter):
>
>>On 26 Jun 1999 18:40:14 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>
>>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip world class weaseling by Joe Potter]
>>>
>>>Cheese, don't you ever do any thing besides weaseling?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>If you mean that I should go first, before Larry, then
>>I can not see why; after all, he brought up the
>>bamboo issue. (although, I can type in Gould's
>>quotes and argue with Gould's words if every
>>one of you chickens out)
>>
>>
>>If you mean it is not an enigma, then consider my trusty
>>_Webster Concise Dictionary_ :
>>
>>1) an obscure riddle
>>
>>and
>>
>>2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
>> (note the 'or')
>>
>The two are quite different issues. Are you looking for a list of
>puzzles or a list of inexplicable things? And does Gould seem to think
>that the bamboo is puzzling or inexplicable? Not having a clear
>definition of this key term makes the whole discussion confusing. What
>particularly concerns me is the possibility of equivocation. Someone
>can discuss an enigma (meaning puzzle) and have those words used to
>support enigma (meaning inexplicable). A clear up front presentation
>of which you mean would help quite a bit.
>
People will read enigma in the everyday sense and post what they
feel is enigmatic to them, as stated in the Summer list for fun post.
This is not posting in peer reviewed journals, it is for a little
summer fun, and to get folks to share what the find
interesting, weird, enigmatic, and strange.
My feelings are not important, and I do not care where posters to
that thread go in terms of their idea of enigma. I was not even going
to get involved other than catalog ideas for a later vote and offer
thanks, until the pack went wild over bamboo.
>>Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>
>So you think that bamboo is both puzzling and inexplicable. I wonder
>how you can tell that we can't get an explanation for it. That seems
>like a much more interesting question than whether we currently
>understand some particular process.
>
You did not read my words. It is an enigma under #1 ---
an obscure riddle or under #2 --- a thing that is puzzling.
I find it very interesting simply as a puzzle. Of course, my seeing
several species of bamboo as I tour Lew Gardens 40-50
times a year adds to my interest. I could live in a botanical garden.
>>
>>I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>>he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>>
>>However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>>I was looking for.
>>
>Have you looked at any more in depth material on the subject? And do
>you have actual objections to Gould's treatment or do you just
>disagree?
>
I have read of the bamboo puzzle by others a couple of times
over the years, but I do not recall any great depth on just
bamboo. They normally get off into the biological
clock issue pretty fast.
I have read a lot on bamboo from the "just gardening"
angle.
Joseph Potter
I am hoping folks will post their enigmas which are:
1) an obscure riddle
Or
2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
(note the 'or').
This is for summer fun, just as the invitation said, not
posting in peer reviewed journals.
Why do you fellows seem to not want folks to
share things they find enigmatic?
>>Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>
>So you think that bamboo is both puzzling and inexplicable. I wonder
>how you can tell that we can't get an explanation for it. That seems
>like a much more interesting question than whether we currently
>understand some particular process.
>
No, read the words.
It is an obscure riddle or thing that is puzzling.
I find it very puzzling.
>>I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>>he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>>
>>However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>>I was looking for.
>>
>Have you looked at any more in depth material on the subject? And do
>you have actual objections to Gould's treatment or do you just
>disagree?
>
I find Gould's explanation weak, but recall it was only an essay
for a general audience. Dr. Gould did not intend for that explanation to
be peer reviewed science.
Joseph Potter
>In article <377f7b38...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
>JP>I do think Dr. Gould presented a weak case in this one
>JP>example, but others might see it as air-tight. Whatever, it
>JP>is still interesting to see other opinions.
>
>Even more interesting to see, judging by the general rarity of
>the class, would be an up-front and immovable metric by which
>those other opinions would be judged.
>
Possibly, but I am not the judge. The invitation was for folks
to bring up whatever they find enigmatic. A later vote is planned
by the interested parties. I am not judging anything.
>
>JP>Any thoughts on this bamboo?
>
>It's a grass. Get a botanist. Is Howatt hanging around here
>anymore?
>
No problem, it you don't feel like talking about bamboo, then
do not. I admit freely that showing how bamboo fits neo-Darwinism
would be tough for the pack, so I do not blame you for running
away from the example.
I hope you saw Paul's condensation in place of arguing about
bamboo. It was a riot.
Joseph Potter
>my...@netaxs.com says in article <myers-26069...@ppp11.blackbox1-
>mfs.netaxs.com>...
>> In article <377f7b38...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> >Any thoughts on this bamboo?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> But I sure do find onychophorans fascinating. There are some real puzzlers
>> there. And colonial ascidians -- not only are they enigmatic challenges
>> to evolution, but the words sure sound pretty rolling off the tongue.
>>
>> You wanna know what a REAL enigma is? Irrational numbers. Just think about
>> 'em. And you know, I've never seen a mathematician give a good, strong
>> explanation for them. They kinda wave their hands about and maybe make a
>> few marks on a chalkboard, but they never really seem to appreciate the
>> wonder and beauty of them, and they don't stop to marvel about them. And
>> irrational numbers say something very profound about our universe, and our
>> universe is very important to evolution!
>>
>> I don't understand why we don't have more discussions about onychophorans,
>> colonial ascidians, and irrational numbers on this here newsgroup. Maybe
>> it's because everyone is afraid of them. Maybe it's because nobody else is
>> as smart as I am. I sure am clever to have thought of them, and to give you
>> all so much insight into these baffling conundrums.
>>
>> Hey, Joe, it sure would be nice if you would take a shot at these things.
>> It would be a fun way to spend the summer. And if that isn't enough for you,
>> maybe then we can move on to railroad ties and cumulo-nimbus clouds. Or
>> magenta. Magenta's really got me stumped.
>>
>> Oh, well. I've got to stop now. I've been thinking real hard, and wearing
>> myself out typing up all these insights to enlighten all you readers of TO.
>> I'd better go get some sleep now, so I can think of some more.
>
>Now *THAT'S* world-class condescension.
>
Yes it was, and a real riot to boot.
Paul is good at running away via condensation, he gets a lot
of practice here.
Joseph Potter
>In article <MPG.11df53e4a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Yeah, I'm in training for the championship. I've got some tough
>competition right here on TO, but I feel that my combination of a
>naturally snotty attitude with a heavy training regimen make me
>well-nigh unbeatable.
>
Yes, you would have my vote as the most condescending. It
would be even more impressive if you could back it up
by taking the neo-Darwin side on bamboo and show
you were not just running away.
After all, Larry brought it up --- and you jumped in with him.
He has run away, now you seem to signal you will do
the same.
Bamboo is to hard for you?
Joseph Potter
>
>
>PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> In article <377f7b38...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
>> >On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry"
>> <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>
>> >I do think Dr. Gould presented a weak case in this one example, but
>> >others might see it as air-tight.
>
>The only thing that appears air tight is the vapor lock in Joe's
>brain....
>
A good one, score 3 points for you.
But, now after the little fun, will you back it up with actually
taking on the neo-Darwin side in the bamboo question?
One so intelligent and learned as yourself would not run
from it would you?
<snip>
PZ Myers
(Donavan Keil) wrote:
They aren't non-functional. They are fully used by about half the individuals
in any mammalian species, and their use is rather important to the survival
of all of the progeny. And in case you hadn't noticed, males and females of a
species do not evolve independently.
--
PZ Myers
Joseph Potter
>I am not a biologist by any means but this question has alway been in
>the back of my mind : Why do mammals have vestigial nipples?
>
> Do all mammals have them including whales etc? How about marsupials?
>Do they function in any male mammals?
>
>They must have become nonfunctional prior the differentiation of the
>various species of mammals or you would expect that in some species
>they would still be functional.
>If they became nonfunctional after differentiation its asking a lot of
>parallel evolution.
> If they have been a feature of the mammal line ever since the various
>species differentiated why have they been maintained by (I assume) all
>mammal species.
>It would seem that to be retained they would have to provide some
>survival benefit or at least not get in the way but we can carry only so
>much useless baggage.
>Are they a redundant system in case they fail in the female? Why keep a
>back up system that is not ever used ,or has it?
>
>Are they left overs from a stage when males produced offspring or the
>harbingers of a future when we can.
>
>Don
That is a good one! Just the sort of thing that
I was hoping for. Thanks for sharing.
My only though would be that while the nipple is none functional
(as in "useless as tits on a boar hog), the nipples do not do any harm.
So possibly, under the neo-Darwinist paradigm, any mutation
in a male that would get rid of them would
have no selective advantage and would be lost.
Only an idle thought.
Joseph Potter
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
>>will you offer any of the below:
>>
>>1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>>[. . .]
>
>I'll have to think longer to come up with ten. Here's a couple to start.
>
>1. Dreams.
>
>2. _Philya californiensis_ - a thorn mimic which lives exclusively on a
>species of plant with no thorns.
Another two fine examples. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think #2 might get a few votes when the time comes. I
know I would like to see this little guy in action.
Joseph Potter
>In article <7kvqu2$55d$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> It is summer in central Florida and our thoughts turn to
>> air-conditioning and summer reading, hence a fun
>> topic for summer.
>>
>> Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>> biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>> as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>> which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>> Transplants taken to far counties die in unison with the originals in
>> China. He also indicated that Darwin found Orchids to be
>> a great one.
>>
>> So, here is the game.
>>
>> In regards to the neo-Darwinism paradigm,
>> will you offer any of the below:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> 2) Just your favorite biological enigma
>>
>>
>
>Biological? Darn. I was going to use Jerry Seinfeld as an example. I mean
>what is with this guy? How'd he keep a TV show for so long? (annoying scene
>change bassline)
>
I think Jerry Springer might work here.
>Biological enigma? Archetypes. Are there essences in nature (ala Richard
>Owen)? Is there an underlying conservatism that channels evolution. This
>could arise from some pie in the sky "self-organizing" pixie or it could be
>the cumulative result of history (i.e.-a long series of past selective
>events).
>
>In general: From where do motifs spring?
>
Hmmm. Another good one.
I think Robert Wesson took a good shot at your question
in certain regards in _Beyond Natural Selection_ in 1991.
Great book.
Joseph Potter
>>Subject: Re: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
>>From: zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG)
>>Date: Fri, 25 June 1999 01:58 PM
>
>While I'm at it,
>
>11. Prions
>
>12. T-viruses that read in both directions.
>
>13. Dracunculus Medinensis- A particularly nasty parasite that grows up to a
>yard long and can only be removed by waiting till its head chews its way to the
>surface, and then very slowly wind it around a stick)
>
>14. Tapeworms with segments that undergo a transition form male to female as
>they age.
>
>
<snip>
More great ones. Number 12 & 14 are close to a couple on my list,
real interesting.
All your submissions have been added to the vote list for later,
thanks for sharing.
Joseph Potter
>----> Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> invited us to provide:
>>A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
>I can't come up with ten, but here are 4, all concerned with humans
>
>1. The origin of the sense of humor
>
>2. The common feature of all jokes - ie what structural or other feature do
>jokes have in common? (yes, it is biology)
>
>3. The origin of the capacity to enjoy music
>
>4. The unnecessary sophistication of the linguistic faculty.
>
>Bill Rowe
>
Ten, four, or one --- thanks for sharing your thoughts. They will
be added to the list.
The game is for all summer, so you might add more later.
no "rules" against that!
I really like #1, by the way.
Joseph Potter
>> > >Subject: Engimas --- A Top Ten List for Summer Fun
>> > >From: Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net>
>> >
>> > >1) A top ten list of your favorite biological enigmas
>
>Here are a few that I don't know the answers to:
>
>1) The origin of sexual instead of asexual reproduction
>
>a) Why, having evolved sexual reproduction, some creatures promptly
>lost it again (e.g. some lizards).
>
>i) Double parsing of DNA in some viruses
>
>A) The ability of some people to simultaneously adhere to two or more
>contradictory concepts
>
>I) The origins of religion, and why it is so widespread
>
>@ Seedless grapes
>
>Roy
Thanks for sharing, your submissions will go on the list.
I think #1 is a real winner. I think #1-part-a is also great. I did not
know that some lizard line went from asexual reproduction to
sexual reproduction, and then back to asexual.
Interesting.
Matt Silberstein
(Joseph Potter):
>On 26 Jun 1999 21:41:24 -0400, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins I read this message from joe.p...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Joseph Potter):
>>
>>>On 26 Jun 1999 18:40:14 -0400, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 26 Jun 1999 15:45:00 -0400, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip world class weaseling by Joe Potter]
>>>>
>>>>Cheese, don't you ever do any thing besides weaseling?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>If you mean that I should go first, before Larry, then
>>>I can not see why; after all, he brought up the
>>>bamboo issue. (although, I can type in Gould's
>>>quotes and argue with Gould's words if every
>>>one of you chickens out)
>>>
>>>
>>>If you mean it is not an enigma, then consider my trusty
>>>_Webster Concise Dictionary_ :
>>>
>>>1) an obscure riddle
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
>>> (note the 'or')
>>>
>>The two are quite different issues. Are you looking for a list of
>>puzzles or a list of inexplicable things? And does Gould seem to think
>>that the bamboo is puzzling or inexplicable? Not having a clear
>>definition of this key term makes the whole discussion confusing. What
>>particularly concerns me is the possibility of equivocation. Someone
>>can discuss an enigma (meaning puzzle) and have those words used to
>>support enigma (meaning inexplicable). A clear up front presentation
>>of which you mean would help quite a bit.
>>
>
>
>People will read enigma in the everyday sense and post what they
>feel is enigmatic to them, as stated in the Summer list for fun post.
>This is not posting in peer reviewed journals, it is for a little
>summer fun, and to get folks to share what the find
>interesting, weird, enigmatic, and strange.
>
Then the end result list will be incoherent with multiple definitions,
not just multiple POVs, used to determine entry. Some items will be
ther because someone thought it obscure, other because it is a puzzle,
still others might think something is inexplicable. So when it is
done, do not act as though you have a list of inexplicable biological
phenomenon.
In your second reply to my post you claim that we "seem to not want
folks to share things they find enigmatic" and you ask why. Well,
first off, without a definition of the key term, the list is useless.
Second, without explanations for what is puzzling or inexplicable, it
is useless. And, third, lists of puzzles by people who don't know much
about the field is rather meaningless. Popularity is not the criteria
to use here. I might also add that I kind of object to your laying
down rules of conduct for the group while you object to anyone else
suggesting anything about such behavior.
>My feelings are not important, and I do not care where posters to
>that thread go in terms of their idea of enigma. I was not even going
>to get involved other than catalog ideas for a later vote and offer
>thanks, until the pack went wild over bamboo.
>
I agree that your feelings are irrelevant. That is why I would expect
a clear definition: to take away as much subjectivity as we can. I do
find it amusing, though, that you don't much care about what people
mean by enigma, but you comment on the number of entries.
And I have see nothing at all that suggests the Pack, or any Pack
member, or anyone at all "went wild" over bamboo. I have seen
objections to your claim that Gould finds bamboo an enigma when Gould
offers an explanation for the bamboo. He certainly does not write like
it is inexplicable. And if you want to call solved puzzles enigmas,
then all of known biology are enigmas.
>>>Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>>
>>So you think that bamboo is both puzzling and inexplicable. I wonder
>>how you can tell that we can't get an explanation for it. That seems
>>like a much more interesting question than whether we currently
>>understand some particular process.
>
>You did not read my words. It is an enigma under #1 ---
>an obscure riddle or under #2 --- a thing that is puzzling.
>
I did read your words and I was trying to get you to say something
clear. Definition 2 presents two very different meanings and I asked
you which you were using. I will gather from this that you do not mean
inexplicable, you just mean a puzzle. A good way to find puzzles in
science is go to the primary literature. Each article will answer what
was, before the research, a puzzle. And they will likely tell you
where they are going next, so you get to find all the new puzzles.
>I find it very interesting simply as a puzzle. Of course, my seeing
>several species of bamboo as I tour Lew Gardens 40-50
>times a year adds to my interest. I could live in a botanical garden.
>
Just to be clear, you are not claiming in any way that either your or
Gould consider the bamboo inexplicable, right? If you disagree with
any part of that statement please state clearly which part.
>
>>>
>>>I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>>>he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>>>
>>>However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>>>I was looking for.
>>>
>>Have you looked at any more in depth material on the subject? And do
>>you have actual objections to Gould's treatment or do you just
>>disagree?
>
>I have read of the bamboo puzzle by others a couple of times
>over the years, but I do not recall any great depth on just
>bamboo. They normally get off into the biological
>clock issue pretty fast.
>
>I have read a lot on bamboo from the "just gardening"
>angle.
>
Well, lets put this to rest. I find Gould's explanation just fine. So
we have your unsupported opinion on one side and my unsupported
opinion on the other. They match exactly. Now if you want to give
reasons for your objection, go ahead. You have repeatedly objected to
people not "backing up" their statements about bamboo, but what is
there to back up. You find the explanation weak, they don't. Why do
they have the burden to back up their claims while you, the original
claimant, holds no such burden. You made a claim, that you find the
explanation weak, either support the claim or it rests as personal
(and admittedly under-educated) opinion.
howard hershey
>
> Looks like double talk Joe.
>
> Joseph Potter wrote:
> > On 26 Jun 1999 13:54:52 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> > >In article <3779f789...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Joe Potter:
> |>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
> |>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
> |>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
> |>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>
> it look like Bamboo is enigmatic to Gould when in fact Gould wrote an
> essay explaining why he believes bamboo is the way it is. That Joe
> claims to have read the essay multiple times confounds the problem.
But only if you don't understand the problem of creationist perception.
>
> It just doesn't add up that Joe claims Gould thinks Bamboo is
> an evolutionary enigma when Gould wrote an essay explaining
> the reproduction of bamboo in evolutionary terms. The two are
> mutually exclusive.
>
> Two explainations of the contradiction are intellectual dishonesty
> or intellectual incompetence. I'm sure there is a measure of the
> second given the repeated confusion expressed over the meaning
> of "enigma".
The explanation undoubtedly would ordinarily be ascribed to "relying on
unreliable secondary sources". Joe just has to learn that his sources
are both intellectually dishonest and intellectually incompetent. Joe
needs to learn that non-creationist sources are usually careful and
correct both in and out of context whereas creationist sources are not.
In this case, however, Joe claims to have read the essay himself. But I
think that merely shows the creationist mindset at work, if it is indeed
true that he has read the article numerous times. He was told by some
secondary source he trusts that this was an example of an 'enigma' in
evolution and when he read the essay the only part that sticks or is
comprehended is the part where Gould describes this as an 'enigma'.
Selective perception is such an interesting concept. Or he read the
article himself and only perceived the phrase "enigma". It is the same
problem creationists have with Darwin's rhetorical quote on the
evolution of the eye (among those creationists who actually read
Darwin). They see the apparent support (only apparent, because Darwin's
quote was rhetorical) for their position and they simply cannot
comprehend the rest of the passage that comes afterward even if they
read it again and again.
Wade Hines
howard hershey wrote:
> What is interesting about prions is that they "replicate" like enzymes
> rather than like nucleic acids. That is they catalytically transform a
> substrate (a protein with the same or very slightly different sequence)
> that they bind to rather than produce a complementary templated copy.
Yes and its not really fair to call them a catalyst as they are
consumed. They are scaffolding for the conformational change to
a rather detrimental structure. But nothing about this is really
a suprise based on an understanding of evolution even if it isn't
a completely trivial prediction. In a gross way, it fits predictions
of evolution.
Joseph Potter
I already have books full of inexplicable biological phenomenon
presented by people working in the field of biology. I do not need a list
by people here for some dark purpose, I thought some light entertainment
was in order.
Recall, you need not read a word of it if you chose not to.
Besides, once the full list is presented it may offer some of us ideas to
look up and study if we see something of interest.
The example of the thorn mimic on a plant with no thorns is an example
of a thing I will look up.
Hell, "on a plant with no thorns," sounds like a country song.
>
>In your second reply to my post you claim that we "seem to not want
>folks to share things they find enigmatic" and you ask why. Well,
>first off, without a definition of the key term, the list is useless.
>
Useless in what way? That would depend on what use you want
to make of it. You have posted here for years and are near 10,000
posts and yet you never (as far as I know) invited all folks to
share their favorite enigmas.
I did because it entertains me, and if a few respond then great. If
a bunch respond over the summer, then better still.
If Matt is uninterested, well --- I will have to live with that.
>
>Second, without explanations for what is puzzling or inexplicable, it
>is useless.
>
Not to me. and already a few have given some entertaining examples.
A few seemed to me to enjoy offering a few puzzles for our
enjoyment.
>
> And, third, lists of puzzles by people who don't know much
>about the field is rather meaningless.
>
Meaningless to you perhaps, but you are not the finale
judge of meaning. If you find no enjoyment in the folk's
examples of puzzles, then don't read the posts.
Not a hard concept, is it?
>
> ... Popularity is not the criteria
>to use here. I might also add that I kind of object to your laying
>down rules of conduct for the group while you object to anyone else
>suggesting anything about such behavior.
>
I laid out no rules, I only offered suggestions that were pretty
darn loose, and you have complained about that. Hell, Matt
you complain about everything. I offered only an invitation,
refuse to participate if you want to.
>>My feelings are not important, and I do not care where posters to
>>that thread go in terms of their idea of enigma. I was not even going
>>to get involved other than catalog ideas for a later vote and offer
>>thanks, until the pack went wild over bamboo.
>>
>I agree that your feelings are irrelevant. That is why I would expect
>a clear definition: to take away as much subjectivity as we can. I do
>find it amusing, though, that you don't much care about what people
>mean by enigma, but you comment on the number of entries.
>
I offer encouragement, and thanks for sharing. I realize you might
find it odd to thank folks for sharing their ideas of enigmas, but
then it suits you to be that way.
I also comment on a few that I find "neat-o," as in the little
thorn mimic on a plant with no thorns.
>
>And I have see nothing at all that suggests the Pack, or any Pack
>member, or anyone at all "went wild" over bamboo. ...
>
Matt sees what Matt chooses to see.
>
> ...I have seen
>objections to your claim that Gould finds bamboo an enigma when Gould
>offers an explanation for the bamboo. He certainly does not write like
>it is inexplicable. And if you want to call solved puzzles enigmas,
>then all of known biology are enigmas.
>
He offered it as an enigma, and then took a shot at answering how it came to be.
This is an example that would serve well in the submissions.
A fellow might say, "I find X to be enigmatic" and then go on to take
a shot at how it might have come to be. This would be fine, and
in the Gould tradition.
>>>>Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>>>
>>>So you think that bamboo is both puzzling and inexplicable. I wonder
>>>how you can tell that we can't get an explanation for it. That seems
>>>like a much more interesting question than whether we currently
>>>understand some particular process.
>>
>>You did not read my words. It is an enigma under #1 ---
>>an obscure riddle or under #2 --- a thing that is puzzling.
>>
>I did read your words and I was trying to get you to say something
>clear. Definition 2 presents two very different meanings and I asked
>you which you were using. I will gather from this that you do not mean
>inexplicable, you just mean a puzzle. A good way to find puzzles in
>science is go to the primary literature. Each article will answer what
>was, before the research, a puzzle. And they will likely tell you
>where they are going next, so you get to find all the new puzzles.
I will go with either one as far as my submissions to the list. You
go with whatever you want with your submissions to the list.
>
>>I find it very interesting simply as a puzzle. Of course, my seeing
>>several species of bamboo as I tour Lew Gardens 40-50
>>times a year adds to my interest. I could live in a botanical garden.
>>
>Just to be clear, you are not claiming in any way that either your or
>Gould consider the bamboo inexplicable, right? If you disagree with
>any part of that statement please state clearly which part.
>
I am absolutely positive (as much as I can be) that Dr. Gould offered the
best shot he had at the time. I do not pretend to read his mind as to
if he thought he had it totally solved.
Have you read the essay?
>
>>>>
>>>>I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>>>>he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>>>>
>>>>However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>>>>I was looking for.
>>>>
>>>Have you looked at any more in depth material on the subject? And do
>>>you have actual objections to Gould's treatment or do you just
>>>disagree?
>>
>>I have read of the bamboo puzzle by others a couple of times
>>over the years, but I do not recall any great depth on just
>>bamboo. They normally get off into the biological
>>clock issue pretty fast.
>
>
>>I have read a lot on bamboo from the "just gardening"
>>angle.
>>
>
>Well, lets put this to rest. I find Gould's explanation just fine. So
>we have your unsupported opinion on one side and my unsupported
>opinion on the other. They match exactly. Now if you want to give
>reasons for your objection, go ahead. You have repeatedly objected to
>people not "backing up" their statements about bamboo, but what is
>there to back up. You find the explanation weak, they don't. Why do
>they have the burden to back up their claims while you, the original
>claimant, holds no such burden. You made a claim, that you find the
>explanation weak, either support the claim or it rests as personal
>(and admittedly under-educated) opinion.
>
As a matter of history, Larry Moran brought up the bamboo issue
and then refused to offer any public statements to show it
had been solved. He would not even summarize the Gould line,
just as all since then have refused to do.
I just don't know what is frightening the pack on this. It
must be a deeper problem than I had thought, given the
evidence of pack reaction.
Wade Hines
Joseph Potter wrote:
> Very simple. I looked up the word enigma in my trusty _Webster
> Concise Dictionary_ and found that it means:
> 1) an obscure riddle
> and
> 2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
> (note the 'or')
If you wrote about puzzles of evoluiton instead of enigmas
of evolution I would not be so fierce. But the two are not
synonymous despite your misreading of the above definition.
Enigma carries more connotation than a "puzzle". Read the
whole definition. Read it with more sophistication than a
grammer schooler.
If all you mean is puzzle, in its most generous sense, it
would be best to use that word rather than to misuse enigma.
> Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
> I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
> he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
If you think, he thinks he did a good job of explaining it, then he
doesn't think it is an enigma. The word just can't be coopted to
mean what joe wants it to mean.
> However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
> I was looking for.
Then ask for "evolutionary puzzles" instead of enigmas.
> This is besides the fact I think Dr. Gould fouled up, and the explanation does not
> hold water.
Yaddayaddayadda. You play so coy but you never deliver. You quote others
and
your take on the quotes doesn't jive with what experts understand. As
soon
as things get close to details you run off topic. Thus this diversion
away
from you backing up your apoptosis claims with your own words in a
timely
manner.
> I would love to see you take the other side in a bamboo debate, but I
> fear the Pack is afraid of this one. And the odd thing is this was supposed to
> be a pleasant diversion; a summer fun thing.
Pack shmack. Nobody is stopping you from posting a critique of Gould. If
you did,
I'm sure it would be addressed.
Joseph Potter
>Wade Hines wrote:
>>
>> Looks like double talk Joe.
>>
>> Joseph Potter wrote:
>> > On 26 Jun 1999 13:54:52 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>> > >In article <3779f789...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > >joe.p...@worldnet.att.net (Joseph Potter) wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Joe Potter:
>> |>Dr. Gould, I believe, once wrote that every evolutionary
>> |>biologist had a favorite enigma in nature. He has offered bamboos
>> |>as one of his. In particular *Phyllostachys bambusiodes* of China
>> |>which flower and set seed every 120 years, and then up and die.
>>
>> The challenge is for Joe explain why he wrote the above which makes
>> it look like Bamboo is enigmatic to Gould when in fact Gould wrote an
>> essay explaining why he believes bamboo is the way it is. That Joe
>> claims to have read the essay multiple times confounds the problem.
>
>But only if you don't understand the problem of creationist perception.
>
Ah, mind reader Howard weighs in with insult and invective as he masks
his fear of actually defending a solution to the bamboo enigma.
Good job, Howard --- so intellectual.
>
>> It just doesn't add up that Joe claims Gould thinks Bamboo is
>> an evolutionary enigma when Gould wrote an essay explaining
>> the reproduction of bamboo in evolutionary terms. The two are
>> mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Two explainations of the contradiction are intellectual dishonesty
>> or intellectual incompetence. I'm sure there is a measure of the
>> second given the repeated confusion expressed over the meaning
>> of "enigma".
>
>The explanation undoubtedly would ordinarily be ascribed to "relying on
>unreliable secondary sources". ...
>
Woops! The mind reader fails on first attempt. I have not seen a creationist
talk of bamboo, do you have any sources to show me their arguments?
Or just making it up as you go along?
>
> ... Joe just has to learn that his sources
>are both intellectually dishonest and intellectually incompetent. Joe
>needs to learn that non-creationist sources are usually careful and
>correct both in and out of context whereas creationist sources are not.
>
I read professionals in the field, like Eldredge for example, and so you
just called him dishonest. Did you really mean to do this?
>
>In this case, however, Joe claims to have read the essay himself. But I
>think that merely shows the creationist mindset at work, if it is indeed
>true that he has read the article numerous times. He was told by some
>secondary source he trusts that this was an example of an 'enigma' in
>evolution and when he read the essay the only part that sticks or is
>comprehended is the part where Gould describes this as an 'enigma'.
>
More mind reading failure. I do not recall a "secondary source" calling
Gould into question on this.
I do recall a professional named Wesson mentioning bamboo briefly.
>
>Selective perception is such an interesting concept.
>
Yes, and yours here is a riot; the most insipid hiding from
an issue this year. Congratulations.
>
> ... Or he read the
>article himself and only perceived the phrase "enigma".
>
It is enigmatic. I would love to see a "big time" professional
such as your learned self take the topic on.
Will you?
>
> ... It is the same
>problem creationists have with Darwin's rhetorical quote on the
>evolution of the eye (among those creationists who actually read
>Darwin). They see the apparent support (only apparent, because Darwin's
>quote was rhetorical) for their position and they simply cannot
>comprehend the rest of the passage that comes afterward even if they
>read it again and again.
>
No need to go to Darwin's quote. Many professionals have opined about
the enigma of eye evolution under neo-Darwinism. One book was
published just this year.
Thanks for the example of blatant character assassination as a method
of avoiding a topic. You may make someone else's list for the month. :-)
Wade Hines
Joseph Potter wrote:
> On 26 Jun 1999 20:48:28 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
> >Joseph Potter <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >JP>Are you fearless enough to take on the bamboo is "explained"
> >JP>side?
> >JP>I tell you straight out, I think you will lose, but I am only
> >JP>a layman and you might win. It would be fun though.
> >I basically have no interest in botany of any sort. I do,
> >though, have an interest in terms of debate. Joe mentions
> >winning and losing above. Is Joe willing to state victory
> >conditions ahead of time, such that the goalposts for this
> >discussion are set in concrete rather than on carts with
> >turbo-charged V8s?
> Well, I guess I win if he takes the challenge.
Looks like its jet engines moving the goal posts as Joe
can't get himself consistent on his use of win for two
posts.
Clearly he starts out saying he will win the argument but
then he jumps back to some mush about how we all win by
talking about these things.
The second is only true if the wrong side doesn't add
to the confusion in the world.
Joseph Potter
>
>
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>
>
>> Very simple. I looked up the word enigma in my trusty _Webster
>> Concise Dictionary_ and found that it means:
>
>> 1) an obscure riddle
>
>> and
>
>> 2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
>> (note the 'or')
>
>If you wrote about puzzles of evoluiton instead of enigmas
>of evolution I would not be so fierce. But the two are not
>synonymous despite your misreading of the above definition.
>
>Enigma carries more connotation than a "puzzle". Read the
>whole definition. Read it with more sophistication than a
>grammer schooler.
>
Then we disagree on the meaning of the word. I stand by
my reading, as I am sure you do by yours.
>
>If all you mean is puzzle, in its most generous sense, it
>would be best to use that word rather than to misuse enigma.
>
I used the word correctly.
As a professional in the field, your submissions may be
"better" than other folks (should you chose to have a
little summer fun with us), but everyone's enigma will
be entertaining. some may be small puzzles, while others
will hit hard at neo-Darwinism. So what? The idea is to
share a little over the summer. If you do not care to join
in, so be it.
It would be nice of you to stop all the whinnying.
>> Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>> I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>> he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>
>If you think, he thinks he did a good job of explaining it, then he
>doesn't think it is an enigma. The word just can't be coopted to
>mean what joe wants it to mean.
>
I think he took his best shot at it, but it remains an enigma.
Will you take it out of the enigma class by taking it on,
or just talk about it in general?
>> However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>> I was looking for.
>
>Then ask for "evolutionary puzzles" instead of enigmas.
>
No. No. no.
Everyone is hoped to share what they find enigmatic. This is
a loose enough way to say it to encourage participation.
>> This is besides the fact I think Dr. Gould fouled up, and the explanation does not
>> hold water.
>
>Yaddayaddayadda. You play so coy but you never deliver. You quote others
>and
>your take on the quotes doesn't jive with what experts understand. As
>soon
>as things get close to details you run off topic. Thus this diversion
>away
>from you backing up your apoptosis claims with your own words in a
>timely
>manner.
>
I would have been though with the apoptosis draft if I had not wasted so much
time with pack whinnying that bamboo is no enigma while at the same
time running from the issue.
Will you go first?
>> I would love to see you take the other side in a bamboo debate, but I
>> fear the Pack is afraid of this one. And the odd thing is this was supposed to
>> be a pleasant diversion; a summer fun thing.
>
>Pack shmack. Nobody is stopping you from posting a critique of Gould. If
>you did,
>I'm sure it would be addressed.
Afraid to go first, I see. Hence, bamboo is still on the enigma list.
PZ Myers
<wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Joseph Potter wrote:
>
>
>> Very simple. I looked up the word enigma in my trusty _Webster
>> Concise Dictionary_ and found that it means:
>
>> 1) an obscure riddle
>
>> and
>
>> 2) A person or thing that is puzzling or inexplicable.
>> (note the 'or')
>
>If you wrote about puzzles of evoluiton instead of enigmas
>of evolution I would not be so fierce. But the two are not
>synonymous despite your misreading of the above definition.
>
>Enigma carries more connotation than a "puzzle". Read the
>whole definition. Read it with more sophistication than a
>grammer schooler.
>
>If all you mean is puzzle, in its most generous sense, it
>would be best to use that word rather than to misuse enigma.
Ugh. Even with that broad definition, it doesn't help Potter's
case. There are problems, puzzles, and even enigmas in evolution --
but so what? Evolutionists tend to talk more about them than the
creationists, and there is certainly no tendency to sweep them
under the rug. Interesting problems are the scientist's stock in
trade. Note that important word: interesting. Potter's failing
is that he thinks it is sufficient to elicit the most shallow possible
approach, a list, and that no one needs to think any deeper than
that.
Has anybody else associated Potter's fondness for lists and
superficial "mysteries of evolution" with a certain other frequent
poster here on TO?
>
>> Under either one I believe Dr. Gould presented an enigma.
>> I think he took his best shot at it, and I doubt not that he believes
>> he did a good job in explaining how the 120 year cycle came to be.
>
>If you think, he thinks he did a good job of explaining it, then he
>doesn't think it is an enigma. The word just can't be coopted to
>mean what joe wants it to mean.
>
>> However it is still puzzling and makes great example of the sort of thing
>> I was looking for.
>
>Then ask for "evolutionary puzzles" instead of enigmas.
>
>> This is besides the fact I think Dr. Gould fouled up, and the
explanation does not
>> hold water.
>
>Yaddayaddayadda. You play so coy but you never deliver. You quote others
>and
>your take on the quotes doesn't jive with what experts understand. As
>soon
>as things get close to details you run off topic. Thus this diversion
>away
>from you backing up your apoptosis claims with your own words in a
>timely
>manner.
>
>> I would love to see you take the other side in a bamboo debate, but I
>> fear the Pack is afraid of this one. And the odd thing is this was
supposed to
>> be a pleasant diversion; a summer fun thing.
>
>Pack shmack. Nobody is stopping you from posting a critique of Gould. If
>you did,
>I'm sure it would be addressed.
Yes...and what is this about the "other side in a bamboo debate"? I
haven't seen Potter present *his* side yet, other than asserting that
it is an enigma.
But hey, I'm game. I'll post my side of the debate right here, with just
as much detail as Potter has offered for his side:
Bamboo is not an evolutionary enigma.
There.
Boy, I'm sure that'll can his hash for him. Betcha he'll be afraid to post
any kind of rebuttal to that!
--
PZ Myers
Joseph Potter
Then take bamboo on and reduce the word's "confusion."
You know you can do it, so stop whinnying and do it.
maff91
<hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>So your talking about a genetically based terminal addition? Of course, gene
>effects should be considered and not necessarily genes themselved.
>
>Wallace Arthur, in _A Theory of the Evolution of Development_ (1988?)(not
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471919748/
>presently handy but I read it recently) bases some ideas on a mathematical
>abstraction from Ronald Fisher. It brings timing of gene activity, magnitude
>of phenotypic effect and selective disadvantage into play. In a nutshell,
>early acting genes have a more profound effect on the phenotype and early
>mutations would likely have selective disadvantage.
>
>He develops a morphogenetic tree concept where there is a hierarchy of
>allelic causal links. Modifications to this tree can take one of three types.
>The first is von Baerian divergence, where the allelic message itself is
>changed. The second is Gouldian heterochrony, where the timing or
>relationship between links is warped and the third is Haeckelian
>addition/deletion of links, where complexity of the tree could increase or
>decrease. I think this latter type is what you're hinting to.
[snip]
--
L.P.#0000000001
maff91
<hemida...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Actually Ernst Mayr places the emphasis on "permanent" versus "adult".
>
>Mayr E. 1994. The Quarterly Review of Biology (69): 223-232
>
>Mayr E. 1997. This is Biology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
>Cambridge, Massachusetts. 171
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674884698/
>
>????
>
>Paging Myers :-)
>
>The last part you hint to up there is the mechanism of terminal addition.
>Defined by Stephen Gould (1977, Glossary, p. 486): "TERMINAL ADDITION- One of
>the necessary laws of recapitulation... New evolutionary features are added
>to the end of ancestral onogenies (so that previous adult stages become
>preadult stages of descendants)."
>
>Gould SJ. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard
>University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674639413/
--
L.P.#0000000001