Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"

He could also just be making another case for punctuated equilibrium, hard to say at this point. Amazon book link: The Human Fossil Record, 4 Volume Set by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Ian Tattersall, Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, Michael S. Yuan

quote:

---

Book Description
This work provides a compendium of uniform descriptions and illustrations of fossils from all the major sites that document the human evolutionary past. It focuses on the documentation of morphology, the essential basis for all further analysis of human biological history. The fossils are presented site-by-site in alphabetical order, with each site entry containing the morphological description, fossil illustrations, information on location, history of discovery, previous systematic assessments of the fossils, geological, archaeological, and faunal contexts, dating, and references to the primary literature.

---

He is the lead author in the list, so it seems he has the creds.I'm with Subbie here (who posted while I was composing... )

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Unless you are no longer refering to the picture, "A" is actually modern chimp and "L" and "M" are neander, if memory serves. A genetic mechanism, if I understand his reasoning on the few sites I have been able to access.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh

quote:

---

Maresca, Bruno and Schwartz, Jeffrey H.
(2006) "Sudden Origins: a general mechanism of evolution based on stress protein concentration and rapid environmental change." The Anatomical Record, Part B: The New Anatomist, Vol. 289B: 38-46.

---

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh
These courses are in Anthropology rather than Biology, which may help indicate where he is coming from.It would be interesting to read one of his books, particularly his "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species" ($2 used Paperback).One thing we can be certain of though, is that creatortionistas will have a field day with quote mines, as they have with Gould.Enjoy.ps -- seen the latest Tom\Dancing Bug with the neanders and the gecko?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No biologist I know of speaks of constant change, but all "dating" by "molecular clocks" use a uniform rate - mtDNA Eve, y-chromosome Adam, etc. - which is why I find such dating questionable.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well he is NOT on the "100 scientist list" at DI:
http://www.discovery.org/...leFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdfOR the one at AiG:
Bios | Answers in Genesis For what that is worth.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Timing.In one case you have some solutions "in the bank" waiting in case of need. In the other you have to come up with the solution when already in jeopardy.Personally I would call these "neutral" mutations that increase diversity within a population. As it moves into stasis mode the amount of diversity is not checked except by population size. If this population is increasing then there is opportunity for increased diversity that gives it more future potential to deal with stress situations (even if one such is just geographical dispersal with outer populations being more diverse from the central population). The "heat shock proteins" are overwhelmed by the situation, and this allows the kinds of mutations, ones they normally prevent from occurring, to occur, resulting in stress response increased mutation rates -- as we have seen in some bacteria.These appear to be two different mechanisms, that can each supply "solutions" to stress situations, in different ways. The "neutral" mutation one is a more standard concept. I would want to read his book before making judgment though.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I read this as (possibly) two mechanisms, two layers, the first stocks the shelves with generic (heh) solutions and diversity, and the second allows what would normally be deleterious mutations to be expressed (along with more neutral and beneficial ones). This would broaden the number of possibilities beyond the stock generic ones, and it could begin to occur in a generation or so.I've ordered his book "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (Paperback)" to see what he says there ($2 used), so give me a week to get and read.If this is so, then I don't see this as challenging evolution so much as providing a mechanism for PunkEek (and fodder for creatortionistas and IDologists).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've tried to find a reference to his degree and school without luck. This was my first impression, but I'm hesitant to pronounce such without actual evidence. I agree with your view, thanks for the link (I'm sure we'll see more on this from the creos & IDos).Still I am interested to see what he has to say. If nothing else this may form a basis for a discussion on molecular basis for PunkEek and more review on stress relations to mutations.Thanks.ps - we could invite him to this thread, and that may answer the questions we have eh?Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Cool.And welcome to the fray molbiogirl.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

jhs, Dr. Schwartz, welcome to the fray.My dad taught biology at the U of Mich for many years before moving to Harvard, and he brought us up on evolution. I have studied some biology in university but not majored in it. We often talk about evolution these days, since my interest in the creation v evolution debate and his retirement. He knew Gould and Mayer and met Fischer. One of his biggest complaints about molecular biology is the seeming mental fixation on gradualism, which he says is not part of classical biology. I have to agree with him, particularly on the issue of "genetic clocks" because the assumption of a steady rate of mutation is at odds with the evidence, particularly when other selection systems can be in play (such as sexual selection). The way I see this is that you have an organism under survival stress situation (environment or climate change) and this causes higher mutation rates. We've seen similar in bacteria, so this is no big surprise (a cell is a cell).But I don't see how this challenges the concept of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations over time - other than to provide a mechanism for increase mutations in stress situations and which are then still selected by their fitness to the changed condition. If anything this is a genetic mechanism for the change part of punk-eek, thus making between the two a more robust cause and effect situation for sudden change in the geological record.Certainly it does not challenge the theory of common descent or the increase in diversity accumulating over time between species that have separated into daughter, granddaughter, etcetera species.Yes it will make the job of the paleontologist harder to try to find examples of such quickened change in the fossil record, and exciting at the same time to see if one can be found. It will make the job of the geneticist more interesting to have to look at rates of change and possible changes to genetic clocks.But it won't change cladistics significantly, whether by morphology or genetics (or both), and it won't change places where we know gradual change has occurred (see The Foram Fossils: A Classic Tale of Transition), so overall it does not disrupt modern evolutionary biology much that I can see. Not any more than Punk eek did.Perhaps you can explain why you think it is so revolutionary?Enjoy.ps - I'm reading your book "Sudden Change" but have not got beyond the beginning yet. My first impression is that it is weighed down by listing virtually every saltationist from Cuvier on, and it's relevance to the modern synthesis of evolution. You seem to draw a line between gradualistic darwinism and modern synthesis evolution, when one has grown out of the other with increased information.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : nameEdited by RAZD, : .

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've seen some evidence of thisYet whenever they talk about a genetic clock they also talk about a steady rate of change. One could include variability by having high and low rates and short and long histories.To me the "clocks" are very approximate because we do not know what past rates were at different stages. What they need to do is tie genetic change to fossils so they can measure changes in rates.This would also be able to prove or disprove Dr Schwartz's theory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finished

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

My main criticism of molecular clocks is that it cannot differentiate between survival selection and sexual selection. In the case of human evolution there is pretty good evidence for fisherian runaway sexual selection, particularly in the female (with some characteristics being then carried into the males: long hair, fair apparent bare skin, permanently full breasts, childlike features, etc) carried to their practical limit (where they start impinging on survival success), and likewise with large brain size (resulting from selection for creativity, but reaching the point where birth is a challenge). These two element probably did not happen at the same time, so there were -- IMH(ysa)O -- at least two sequences of this runaway sexual selection operating at different times, possibly on different sexes.Now when we compare "molecular clocks" for mtDNA Eve and yChrom Adam what do we see? More change in Eve than in Adam? Longer change in Eve than in Adam or slower change in Adam than in Eve? We don't know. There is no connection to fossils, hard data, to be able to say at this point. I am finding just this narrow mindedness in his review of fossils so far in my reading of his book. There are a couple of problems I'v noted so far of possibilities he just has not looked at, and evidence he has not (yet) discussed. Of course this book is 8 years old and there is new evidence since then, but I believe there was evidence then that has been neglected. Unfortunate.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Those periods being part of the observed history of change in the genes. Extrapolating that to 200,000 years is preposterous.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

While this is a step in the right direction (compared to the molecular adam and eve dates) I still have some problems with it: they use four calibration dates - 63Ma, 45Ma, 25Ma and 14Ma - based on the fossil evidence for last common ancestor (LCA) congruent with the branching of these clades ... and then give us average rates of change for each segment in between while saying that these are the actual rates of change in those groups for those periods.Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the same kind of error in thinking that I objected to originally Different rates of selection of specific mutations for change versus rates of selection under stasis conditions would mean different rates of change at different times showing up in the DNA development over time.I also notice that this paper focuses on non-coding DNA changes -- not the ones leading to the changes that would result in speciation and selection of novel features. I suspect that if I divide the DNA into coding sections and non-coding sections and assume that a specific mutation can occur in one OR the other that

under stasis conditions -- when selection is for status quo -- that novel feature mutations would be selected against and neutral mutations would be selected for (ie more mutations would survive in non-coding sections while mutations in coding sections would be weeded out)and

under change conditions -- when selection is for change (survival or sexual selection) -- that novel features benefiting selection would be selected for while neutral and disadvantageous mutations would be generally selected against (ie more mutations would survive in coding sections while mutations in non-coding sections would lose out to the change selections).

​

This would explain the apparent anomaly of slower rates in the non-coding sections when there is selection for longer life or larger brains. At least one other study have shows much higher rates of mutation selection in humans than in chimpanzees (UCR, aug 2004):

​

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875

quote:

---

"The explosive expansion of the DNA repeats and the resulting restructuring of our genetic code may be the clue to what makes us human," Dugaiczyk said. "During the same amount of time, humans accumulated more genetic novelties than chimpanzees, making the human/chimpanzee genetic distance larger than that between the chimpanzee and gorilla."

---

​

It seems to me you have to compare the whole genomes and differentiate between coding and non-coding mutations to get a more complete picture of what went on. I expect this to be done and await the results with curiosity.

​

My main point, however, is that the rate of mutation selection changes under different selection conditions, that you cannot assume a steady rate over any period of time without knowing those selection conditions, and thus molecular clocks cannot be used to determine when speciation - or selection of specific features - occurred. Am I wrong?

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not to belabor this, but they are the average rates, by definition.You do not know when each individual fixed selected mutation occurred, you don't even know if half occurred in the first half of the time period and half occurred in the second half or whether 90% occurred in the first half and 10% in the second. All you have is (n) mutations occurred in (t) time and the average rate of mutation over time (t) was (n/t). Within that time period (t) the specific rate of change could have varied considerably: you don't know. They would de facto have different rates of fixing selected mutations. Again the rate of fixing selected mutations would be de facto different under punctuated versus stasis conditions. You were the one that introduced the paper in answer to my criticism. If it doesn't do that it is not my fault. Nor will it be able to identify short term bursts or conditions under which they may apply. Thus it will be unable to identify when a period could be high rate or low rate. By identifying average rates as uniform rates over long periods it also ignores the fact that different rates occur during different times.One thing I do note from your paper is that the different rates are significantly different even in spite of the averaging of the rates over the time periods involved. To me this is validation that different rates occur regularly during evolution. I would think that the question of rate changes and maximum rates of change would be of high interest.When you look at speciation events, such as Pelycodus(1):

quote:

---

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

---

We see a gradual trend to larger size with a branch that reverts to a smaller size at a different (faster) rate of change than the long term trend before it settles into a new long term trend.It is logical for me that the rates of selecting and fixing change away from other daughter species would be higher for one or both than the average rate of selecting and fixing change.This would make understanding the magnitudes of different rates of fixing selected mutations fairly critical to the understanding of speciation and the causes of different rates. Especially if you are doing studies involving multiple speciation events or periods of intense selection pressure.Different rates of selecting and fixing mutations is part of evolution, and understanding those different rates, and the conditions under which they occur, is also part of understanding evolution.Enjoy.Reference:
(1) Lindsay, Don, "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate" Don Lindsay Archive on-line, 25 April 1997 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Do humans have to have them twice then? have them twice then?Animal - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and usually multicellular (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic, generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. Embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals.

​

With a few exceptions, most notably the sponges (Phylum Porifera), animals have bodies differentiated into separate tissues. These include muscles, which are able to contract and control locomotion, and nerve tissue, which sends and processes signals. There is also typically an internal digestive chamber, with one or two openings. Animals with this sort of organization are called metazoans, or eumetazoans when the former is used for animals in general.

---

The sad thing about your list is that it is so easy to find correct information: any (good) encyclopedia should have this information. One should try to learn first, rather than make such ignorant posts. What about all the christians (to say nothing of people of other faiths) that don't have a problem with evolution and the study of the biological sciences?What do they say?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.