"Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz

Yes, you are correct, that is not my point. Schwartz is continuing to argue a point that genetic analysis settled a while ago, and he arguing it not from evidence but just because he won't give up his pet view that brought him professional fame back in the 1990's. What he's doing is like continuing to argue for a flat earth in an era of moon landings. Not quite so dramatic, perhaps, but you get the idea. No, of course not. There's peer review. After a paper has been accepted for consideration by editors, legitimate technical journals send it out to as few as 2 and as many as 5 peer reviewers (scientists from the same field), who remain anonymous to the paper's authors. Based upon the results of the peer review the paper is either accepted, accepted provisionally based upon whether requested changes are made in a satisfactory manner, or rejected. No, of course not. A paper must meet certain standards and criteria, which is why I stated that Schwartz's paper doesn't meet the normal standards for a professional technical paper. Foremost among these standards is that the paper must be based upon sound evidence and reasoning. Schwartz has only circumstantial evidence for his views in the form of phenotypal observations, while the rather conclusive genetic evidence says he's dead wrong, and he tries to overcome this through transparently bad reasoning and mischaracterization of the nature of existing evidence. Legitimate journals will not consider papers that combine poor evidence with poor reasoning and outright misrepresentations. That's why he has to carry out his attacks on molecular clocks in obscure journals. Yes and yes. Of course! Indubitably! Without a doubt! Count on it! For sure! You betcha!--Percy

I am now at the point where Punk-eek is being incorporated into the mix of evolutionary thought, having passed through his take on the modern synthesis.A conclusion that I have come to is that what he means by "Darwinism" is solely long term gradualistic, if not uniformitarian, change. You can see this in the message you linked as well: Thus if all he is saying is that long term uniformitarian mutation and selection is not sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it, then this is nothing new (now - it may have been when the book was written 8 years ago). If he is saying that long term uniformitarian mutation and selection is not sufficient to explain any of the diversity of life as we know it, then this is debatable. According to the original post on the linked thread this latter position seems to be the case: Where presumably "evolutionary changes" are bigger changes than those produced by normal mutation and selection.In this book ("Sudden Origins") I've also gained the impression that where he is heading is emphasizing evo-devo and relegating molecular and population genetics to a subsidiary role. This is also hinted at in his post #39: Haven't gotten to the chapters\sections on HOX genes yet, so I can't say for sure where he is going, but once again in his review of the modern synthesis sections he discussed several competing theories and people that argued for more saltational levels of change (Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Williams).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.

Well I've finally finished it, and I am less than impressed.Chapter 11 goes into HOX genes and waxes eloquent on the large amount of change that a little change to a HOX gene can accomplish. He goes to great lengths to discuss the amount of change that can occur by disrupting HOX gene expression, most of which is just addition or deletion of digits ... significant change, yes, but not radical.Chapter 12 is where he goes off the deep end. Specifically he equates the loss of a fully evolved HOX gene complex together with the cascade of orchestrated elements needed for the production and assembly of features ... to the development of that HOX gene by one mutation. He specifically dismisses the argument Dawkins makes on eye evolution and ignores the evidence of intermediates. He suggests that eyes evolved fully developed, because when you destroy one specific HOX gene in a population that any homozygous individual is sightless -- no eye and no eye socket. He goes on to propose that other "novel" features are likewise developed whole by single HOX mutations.Chapters 1 to 11 may be considered useful, however I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone on their basis as the organization is rather haphazard and tends to confuse by jumping back and forth.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.