Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"

You somehow have adressed my post, you know.Anyway the same is valid for young Eldredge and Gould. They were aware that they have no chance in "respectable paleontology journal" and published first their views in the conference proceedings.It seems that such procedure is almost standard in the cases of new thoughts. See Social Stusies of Science 23:342-362 1993 and Science Cmmunication 16:304-325, 1995.

Really? Imagine that! I had no idea! Conference proceedings, which contain the papers presented at a conference, are a type of journal. The papers presented at legitimate scientific conferences are subjected to peer-review. If not for peer review I would have presented papers at twice as many conferences as I actually did. In fact, had I written a better paper I would have spent this past early May at a resort in Colorado, but peer review narrowly rejected my paper, the letter of rejection saying that the competition was particularly tough this year, but they always say that. The cretins somehow didn't appreciate the genius behind my ideas extending the LCS algorithm. Gould and Eldredge's first presentation of their idea of punctuated equilibrium was at a symposium at the November, 1971, meeting of the Geological Society of America in Washington D.C. A symposium is not a conference, and like many symposiums, this one was for the presentation and discussion of new ideas. Gould was assigned to present ideas applying the evolutionary concept of speciation to the fossil record by the symposium's sponsor. You can read about the details in Gould's own words at Opus 200, but Gould doesn't describe what, if any, review process was involved.The papers were later collected in a book called Models in Paleobiology. The paper can be found at Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism.So clearly it would be wrong to say that Gould and Eldredge first presented their ideas at the symposium because they couldn't find respectable outlets, because as Gould clearly explains, it was the assignment of the topic by the symposium's sponsor that was the original impetus for the idea. Like all human endeavors, peer review is not perfect. Ideally we hope for acceptance of high quality papers and rejection of low quality papers. The point you're ignoring is that both Schwartz and Flegr attempt to avoid the normal standards of peer review by submitting their work to obscure journals whose peer review process is either minimal or absent. In other words, rather than seeking the benefit of scrutiny and criticism from their peers, they instead try to avoid it. And as one would expect, ideas that are unhoned by the review process are not very sharp.--Percy

As an academic librarian who has formally studied how knowledge in several, if not nearly all academic disciplines, is created and disseminated while in graduate school, I would like to state that Percy is essentially correct in his analysis of the process in this matter, including that concerning published conference proceedings.It is only the deceitful, who either intentionally or not, seek to avoid the peer-review process, either through publishing in pop sci magazines, announcements to the press, or other instruments of propaganda, as opposed to having the courage and integrity to seek the truth.If a person is honest with oneself and honest with others, there is no need, or even desire, to circumvent the system.

You'd be mistaken, I think, if you were under the impression that molecular phylogeneticists weren't aware of the fact that mutations rates are mutable. The text I referenced earlier has a whole chapter devoted to how to take inconstant clocks into account.You're right that it's a bad assumption; but I've had pretty intimate exposure to molecular phylogenetics through my wife's work and while I certainly would claim any kind of authority, it's obvious to me that geneticists aren't ignoring what we now know about substitution rates.

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.

This is actually a reply to both Crash and RAZD.It's not news that the rates of molecular clocks vary. For example, the Wikipedia entry on molecular clocks covers the issue early in the article in the section titled Calibration. As with radiometric dating, sometimes the technique can be applied very well, sometimes it can't, and we're developing a better understanding of how and where the technique can be successfully applied. Schwartz is mentioned in the article.The Wikipedia entry on Jeffrey H. Schwartz himself provides the reason why he's inclined toward a wholesale challenge of the validity of molecular clocks. Based upon morphological comparisons, he believes humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees, and his view naturally conflicts with the DNA analysis.Schwartz's list of significant publications on this Wikipedia page as well as a search for his papers by Google Scholar support the view that he is unqualified to comment with any authority on molecular clocks. There are very confirming and damning facts supporting this view: a) his choice of journal for publication of his article on molecular clocks; b) his statement that he believes Darwinism cannot produce novelty.In other words, Schwartz is not challenging molecular clocks because he is a qualified researcher in this area and has evidence supporting his view of them. He's challenging molecular clocks because they conflict with his views on human evolution in particular and on the theory of evolution in general. He is an example of the worst kind of scientist one can imagine, one who just like creationists lets his ideas about the way the world must be govern his acceptance and interpretation of evidence.--Percy

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.

It's your point of view. Giordano Bruno's opinions didn't pass scrutiny of Oxford pundits once. I dont think his opinions were honed by discussion with arrogant Oxford doctors at that time.From the modern era I would like to mention professor Zdenek Neubauer Charles University Prague, scientist and philosopher (1943) - he also wrote speeches for president Vaclav Havel. In the recent time he has stopped to publish in English and avoid any publicity. He publishes only in Czech and Italian. As a polyglote he helped to translate ancient "Corpus Hermeticum" into Czech from Greek.Now scientific community hate him because he turned to be some kind of antiscientist and ridiculed science as well as darwinism. He somehow continues in tradition of German thinking of Goethe, Nietzsche and Adolf Portmann (Neubauer traslated his "Neue wege der Biologie" from German. You know Portmann was a close friend of psychiatrist C.G.Jung). Neubauer wrote many books, articles, University lecture notes.Neubauer published once in the Nature too:Neubauer: A brief consideration on the meaning of the lysogenic conversion. Nature (1967) 213:1263Oppenheim, Neubauer, Calef, Antirepressor: A new element in genetical regulation. Nature (1970) 226:31All his scientific and philosophical works are to be found here: Neubauer bibliographyNeubauer called darwinists "sorcerers" who almost killed Nature like Snowwhite. He critised darwinism very strongly, he use words like "molecular genetic coup" etc (2001).I would agree that such opinions do not pass any scientific scrutiny, but obviously professor Neubauer is not afraid of such a scrutiny - he doesn't care.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Yes, alas, it's merely my point of view, which pales before God's given truth that you're handing down to us. Yes, peer-review can be particularly scathing sometimes! I don't know why you believe his ideas didn't benefit from his time at Oxford. Certainly many of his ideas did not receive a favorable reception, and what better way to hone arguments than on the grindstone of debate with the best minds of the day. The purpose of peer-review is not to grant a free pass but to examine and critique. The spirit of peer-review is captured by the term given to the oral review of a PhD candidate's ideas. It is termed a defense, not an anointing.About Neubauer, I don't see the point of introducing yet another obscure scientist making boldly wrong and in this case ridiculous declarations outside his field into the discussion.--Percy

Giordano Bruno had obviously differennt meaning of "the best minds" from Oxford as you.

quote:

---

...there rules in that happy realm a constellation of pedantic, most obstinate ignorance and presumption, mixed with a boorish impoliteness that would vitiate the patience of job, and if you do not believe this, go to Oxford and let them tell you the things that happened to the Nolan.

---

From "The Ash Wednsday Supper".

My understanding is that they're reliably stable over sufficiently short periods of time, so they're relevant for closely-related species. If you tried to use one molecular rate assumption over a wider scope than that your results would be little better than chance.

Wasn't Giordano Bruno a nut? Who was eventually whacked by the Church authorities for his heretical religious delusions?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Huh? Any critics Bruno didn't like don't qualify as "best minds"? Interesting criteria.Let me tell you something. I'm not especially fond of the two reviewers of my rejected paper who made negative comments. That's just human nature. I could make denigrating comments about them, but they'd be irrelevant with regard to judging their intellectual talents. If I wanted to say something relevant I'd have to be factual and objective and say things that were actually about them, which is what I suggest you do if you'd like to defend Schwartz, Flegr and Neubauer.--Percy

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not entirely true - the concept of the local molecular clock, which does not rely on a uniform rate of change, has been used by a few labs which have produced results that are largely in line with dates gleaned from fossil evidence.Edited by derwood, : typo