Sudden Origins
Laurence A. Moran
Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the July
issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H. Roberts).
Here are some quotations from the review.
"Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
fields with evolution."
(I love the way British writers express their criticism.)
"The explanation given that crossing over between homologous
chromosomes causes the small discrepencies observed in the
Mendelian 3:1 ratio in hybrid crosses is again incorrect.
Crossing over makes no difference to this ratio."
"Readers, especially undergraduates, should proceed with caution
- otherwise this book might explain the sudden origin of errors
emerging in examination answers to come."
Larry Moran
Adam Noel Harris
:
:
:Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
I lost interest in the discussion when someone (Ken Cox?) started
corresponding with Schwartz, and he seemed to reject the notion that
many of the things that seemed quite plainly written in his book were
what he meant when he wrote them. What else is there to say on the
subject? We must have been misrepresenting him.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Andy Groves
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
>
> Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
> Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the July
> issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H. Roberts).
> Here are some quotations from the review.
>
> "Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
> paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
> fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
> handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
> fields with evolution."
>
> (I love the way British writers express their criticism.)
>
> "The explanation given that crossing over between homologous
> chromosomes causes the small discrepencies observed in the
> Mendelian 3:1 ratio in hybrid crosses is again incorrect.
> Crossing over makes no difference to this ratio."
>
> "Readers, especially undergraduates, should proceed with caution
> - otherwise this book might explain the sudden origin of errors
> emerging in examination answers to come."
>
Well that's another person to add to the "pack".....
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Derek Stevenson
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> I lost interest in the discussion when someone (Ken Cox?) started
> corresponding with Schwartz, and he seemed to reject the notion that
> many of the things that seemed quite plainly written in his book were
> what he meant when he wrote them. What else is there to say on the
> subject? We must have been misrepresenting him.
This doesn't sound quite right to me. Are you quite sure it was "the
things that seemed quite plainly written" that allegedly did not reflect
what Schwartz meant, and not "the things that seemed *to* *Joe* *Potter*
to be quite plainly written"?
The two classes -- to put it in the kindest possible way -- did not
always appear to precisely coincide.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <slrn8s1t7k...@elaine22.Stanford.EDU>,
No, it was Schwartz's writing that was confusing (and Potter didn't
help), based on reading a couple of the late chapters in the
book. Schwartz seemed to imply that some new structures, like the eye or
teeth, could have _originated_ from mutations in Hox genes. Both Potter
and Schwartz apparently didn't think that's what he was saying. It's not
what I took away from it, but if the author disagrees, it seems moot.
PZ Myers
> Derek Stevenson <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> :In article <slrn8s1t7k...@elaine22.Stanford.EDU>,
> : ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> :
> :> I lost interest in the discussion when someone (Ken Cox?)
> :> started corresponding with Schwartz, and he seemed to reject the
> :> notion that many of the things that seemed quite plainly written
> :> in his book were what he meant when he wrote them. What else is
> :> there to say on the subject? We must have been misrepresenting
> :> him.
> :
> :This doesn't sound quite right to me. Are you quite sure it was
> :"the things that seemed quite plainly written" that allegedly did
> :not reflect what Schwartz meant, and not "the things that seemed
> :*to* *Joe* *Potter* to be quite plainly written"?
> :
> :The two classes -- to put it in the kindest possible way -- did
> :not always appear to precisely coincide.
>
> No, it was Schwartz's writing that was confusing (and Potter didn't
> help), based on reading a couple of the late chapters in the book.
> Schwartz seemed to imply that some new structures, like the eye or
> teeth, could have _originated_ from mutations in Hox genes. Both
> Potter and Schwartz apparently didn't think that's what he was
> saying. It's not what I took away from it, but if the author
> disagrees, it seems moot.
If that wasn't what he was saying, and we subtract that interpretation
from the book, we aren't left with much. It kinda undercuts the title,
even.
--
PZ Myers
dkomo
>
> Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
> Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the July
> issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H. Roberts).
> Here are some quotations from the review.
>
> "Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
> paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
> fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
> handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
> fields with evolution."
>
> (I love the way British writers express their criticism.)
>
> "The explanation given that crossing over between homologous
> chromosomes causes the small discrepencies observed in the
> Mendelian 3:1 ratio in hybrid crosses is again incorrect.
> Crossing over makes no difference to this ratio."
>
> "Readers, especially undergraduates, should proceed with caution
> - otherwise this book might explain the sudden origin of errors
> emerging in examination answers to come."
>
Yes, fine. But did YOU read the book? Last week I found a copy of
"Sudden Origins" at the library and am wandering if it's worth the
effort to read since it's a fairly lengthy book. I'm not that
interested in what some wiseass British critics think of it. Would
rather get a direct opinion from someone here.
Howard Hershey
Other than the fact that the book butchers developmental genetics,
simple Mendelian genetics, the history of genetics, evolution, and
that its main thesis is poorly supported (a good defense of "sudden
origins" could be made, but this isn't one), the book has some good
points: It could be used as a weight on an old-fashioned Southern
blot, for example. You could also use it to prop open a door. But I
admit that I did not read thoroughly (but merely skimmed over) some of
the earlier chapters on human paleoanthropology. They might be
better, but are not particularly relevant to the main argument.
I know that Larry Moran and Paul Myers also read the book. Their
opinion of it is probably not wildly different from mine, judging by
the comments they have made here. Joe Potter has also read it. He
*loved* it. And Peter Nyikos, who did not read it, thought Joe was
certainly right and that this was a work of genius, especially the
concept of "dominant by default" that he saw the author making.
>
> --dk...@cris.com
PZ Myers
wrote:
> Other than the fact that the book butchers developmental
> genetics, simple Mendelian genetics, the history of genetics,
> evolution, and that its main thesis is poorly supported (a
> good defense of "sudden origins" could be made, but this isn't
> one), the book has some good points: It could be used as a
> weight on an old-fashioned Southern blot, for example. You
> could also use it to prop open a door. But I admit that I did
> not read thoroughly (but merely skimmed over) some of the
> earlier chapters on human paleoanthropology. They might be
> better, but are not particularly relevant to the main
> argument.
>
> I know that Larry Moran and Paul Myers also read the book.
> Their opinion of it is probably not wildly different from
> mine, judging by the comments they have made here.
Yes, I'll second your comments. It was a very aggravating book.
It's not that long, though, and it is light reading...it's just
that all too frequently, you will stop and think, "He said
WHAT?", and wonder how he could have made such a gaffe.
And then, at the end, you'll see that his entire thesis is BS,
that the whole premise of the book is that kind of gaffe, and
you'll wonder how it could have managed to get published.
> Joe Potter
> has also read it. He *loved* it. And Peter Nyikos, who did
> not read it, thought Joe was certainly right and that this was
> a work of genius, especially the concept of "dominant by
> default" that he saw the author making.
Uh-oh. Think back. Peter *never* commits himself to that kind of
concrete opinion. I bet he never specifically praised the book,
but just made general comments about how it was a revolutionary
idea IF [conditional], complained a lot about how the pack was
savaging the poor author, and made vague excuses for how phrases
(like "dominant by default") are perfectly reasonable.
--
PZ Myers
dkomo
> simple Mendelian genetics, the history of genetics, evolution, and
> that its main thesis is poorly supported (a good defense of "sudden
> origins" could be made, but this isn't one), the book has some good
> points: It could be used as a weight on an old-fashioned Southern
> blot, for example. You could also use it to prop open a door. But I
> admit that I did not read thoroughly (but merely skimmed over) some of
> the earlier chapters on human paleoanthropology. They might be
> better, but are not particularly relevant to the main argument.
>
I take it then that you loved the book? :-)
> I know that Larry Moran and Paul Myers also read the book. Their
> opinion of it is probably not wildly different from mine, judging by
> the comments they have made here. Joe Potter has also read it. He
> *loved* it. And Peter Nyikos, who did not read it, thought Joe was
> certainly right and that this was a work of genius, especially the
> concept of "dominant by default" that he saw the author making.
> >
Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
thick of the fray.
--dk...@cris.com
> > --dk...@cris.com
Adam Noel Harris
[...]
:Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
:these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
:instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
:Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
:thick of the fray.
When you're done with it, I'd like you to summarize what you think
Schwartz's model of "sudden origins" is. Please post it here.
PZ Myers
> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> [...]
> :Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
> :these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
> :instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
> :Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
> :thick of the fray.
>
> When you're done with it, I'd like you to summarize what you think
> Schwartz's model of "sudden origins" is. Please post it here.
Definitely. I thought I had a very good idea of what his idea was after
reading the book, but word is that he's disavowed that meaning. Now I'm
just trying to figure out what it was all about, then.
--
PZ Myers
Laurence A. Moran
I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Joe Potter thought it was wonderful.
Larry (who has read the books and regrets it very much) Moran
dkomo
>
> Larry (who has read the books and regrets it very much) Moran
Who's Joe Potter? Is he related to Harry Potter?
*Hemidactylus*
dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> "Laurence A. Moran" wrote:
> >
> > In article <39C1B94B...@cris.com>, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> >
> > Larry (who has read the books and regrets it very much) Moran
>
> Who's Joe Potter? Is he related to Harry Potter?
>
>
Not that I'm aware of. The latter is a pre-adolescent pagan hero. The former
is...well...I'll be nice.
--
Scott Chase
~To all these teleology is at once also theology, and at every instance of
design recognized in nature, instead of thinking and learning to understand
nature, they break at once into the childish cry, "Design! design!" then
strike up the refrain of their old wives' philosophy, and stop their ears
against all rational arguments, such as, however, the great Hume has already
advanced against them.~ Arthur Schopenhauer from _The World as Will and Idea
(vol III)_
Ken Cox
> I lost interest in the discussion when someone (Ken Cox?) started
> corresponding with Schwartz, and he seemed to reject the notion that
> many of the things that seemed quite plainly written in his book were
> what he meant when he wrote them.
I don't think it was me. I certainly didn't correspond with
him via e-mail, or paper mail for that matter.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|Howard Hershey wrote:
|> dkomo wrote:
|> > "Laurence A. Moran" wrote:
|> > >
|> > > Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
|> > > Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the July
|> > > issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H.
Roberts).
|> > > Here are some quotations from the review.
|> > >
|> > > "Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
|> > > paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
|> > > fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
|> > > handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
|> > > fields with evolution."
|Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
|these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
|instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
|Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
|thick of the fray.
Yes. "Controversial" == "good" :-) It is also reasonably
accessible in terms of its distribution, because I have seen it turn up in
several university libraries, so you might not have to spring for the
price yourself, at least until you are sure if you want it in your own
library. I haven't read the book yet, but I have read the paper by the
same author, and so can you:
http://www.wiley.com/products/subject/life/anatomy/newanat_article3.pdf
Note that you need an Adobe Acrobat PDF file reader to view it.
It is from the journal "The Anatomical Record (New Anatomy)", v.257,
p.15-31, 1999.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
PZ Myers
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> In article <39C25B09...@cris.com> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
> writes:
> |Howard Hershey wrote:
> |> dkomo wrote:
> |> > "Laurence A. Moran" wrote:
> |> > >
> |> > > Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
> |> > > Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the
> |> > > July
> |> > > issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H.
> Roberts).
> |> > > Here are some quotations from the review.
> |> > >
> |> > > "Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
> |> > > paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
> |> > > fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
> |> > > handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
> |> > > fields with evolution."
> ..
>
> |Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
> |these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
> |instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
> |Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
> |thick of the fray.
>
> Yes. "Controversial" == "good" :-)
Only for certain peculiar values of "good".
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Howard Hershey
Andrew MacRae wrote:
>
> In article <39C25B09...@cris.com> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com>
> writes:
> |Howard Hershey wrote:
> |> dkomo wrote:
> |> > "Laurence A. Moran" wrote:
> |> > >
> |> > > Readers may recall a discussion about the book "Sudden Origins" by
> |> > > Jeffrey Schwartz. A short review was published recently in the July
> |> > > issue of Trends in Genetics ("Error and Evolution" by Ian J.H.
> Roberts).
> |> > > Here are some quotations from the review.
> |> > >
> |> > > "Unfortunately, the author Jeffrey Schwartz, an accomplished
> |> > > paleoanthropologist, has failed to grasp in this book the
> |> > > fundamentals of of genetics or developmental biology; a
> |> > > handicap when trying to combine the recent advances in these
> |> > > fields with evolution."
> ..
>
> |Damn. I'm definitely going to read it now. Any book that provokes
> |these kind of reactions from the warring factions on TO may be an
> |instant classic in the making along the lines of Behe's _Darwin's
> |Black Box_ or Dembski's _Intelligent Design_. I want to stay in the
> |thick of the fray.
>
> Yes. "Controversial" == "good" :-) It is also reasonably
> accessible in terms of its distribution, because I have seen it turn up in
> several university libraries, so you might not have to spring for the
> price yourself, at least until you are sure if you want it in your own
> library. I haven't read the book yet, but I have read the paper by the
> same author, and so can you:
>
> http://www.wiley.com/products/subject/life/anatomy/newanat_article3.pdf
>
> Note that you need an Adobe Acrobat PDF file reader to view it.
> It is from the journal "The Anatomical Record (New Anatomy)", v.257,
> p.15-31, 1999.
Keep in mind that the publisher of this journal is the same as the
publisher of the book. I strongly suspect that a standard peer review
process was not used in this review article. Do look up some of the
articles cited by Schwartz. Out of four examples that I suspected of
not being properly understood or cited by Schwartz, I found that he
had botched the description every time, including one case where he
cites an author (S.J.Gould) as support for Scwartz's thesis (axolotls
are examples of progenesis) who *explicitly* in the cited original
(which was the most recent citation by 30 years, although still 30
years old) said that if what Schwartz said was true, then he (Gould)
was wrong (Gould's thesis is that axolotls are examples of neotony).
And this strange idea isn't because Schwartz was confused by the terms
progenesis and neotony (which he correctly defines).
Given a choice between the accuracy of the science description (but
not the thesis, of course) in "Darwin's Black Box" and the accuracy of
science description in "Sudden Origins", Behe wins hands down.
>
> -Andrew
> mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca