From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!uniwa!not-for-mail From: andrewh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Andrew Hobbs) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Time to abandon the 'progenote' idea? Message-ID: <2b27c8$3iq$1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> Date: 1 Nov 93 05:38:16 GMT References: <1993Oct28.222053.17574@ac.dal.ca> Sender: andrewh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 51 NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] arlin@ac.dal.ca wrote: : I'm puzzled as to why every month there appear research articles in : which the most recent common ancestor of the known groups of cellular : life is referred to as a "progenote" or "the progenote". For those : who aren't familiar with this term, a "progenote" is a hypothetical : type of organism (envisioned by Carl Woese), in which the : genotype/phenotype relation is inexact-- modern cellular organisms are : all "genotes". Progenotic replication, transcription, and translation : are rudimentary and error-prone, which necessitates small genes and : small segmented genomes, according to Woese (e.g., see "Bacterial : Evolution", Microbiol. Rev. 51: 221-271.). Woese argued that : progenotes must have been a necessary stage in the evolution of modern : cellular life, and hypothesized that the ancestor of eubacteria, : eukaryotes and archaebacteria was in fact such a progenote, even that : this organism might have had an RNA genome. : Hasn't sufficient evidence accumulated to formally reject this : hypothesis? Forterre and colleagues [Biosystems (Netherlands) 28(1-3) : p15-3] have argued persuasively that the existence of homologous : DNA-polymerase genes with proofreading functions in all groups of : cellular organisms rules out the possibility that the ancestor had an : RNA genome or rudimentary error-prone replication. Archaebacteria and : eubacteria (whose most recent common ancestor would be a common : ancestor of all known cellular life according to various likely : phylogenies) share conserved operon structures for RNA Polymerase : subunit genes, as well as some genes for ribosomal proteins. This : indicates that their most recent common ancestor must have had long : DNA genes (i.e., not short gene-segments) arranged in operons (wow!). : At least a dozen ribosomal proteins (as well as some translation : factors) are shared by all cellular organisms [Wittmann-Liebold, et : al., in _The Ribosome: Structure, Function and Evolution_, ed. W. : Hill, et al. (American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington DC, : 1990)], indicating that their most recent common ancestor must have : had a rather complex polyfunctional (i.e., not 'rudimentary') : ribosome. What gives? : Arlin Hi, One fact which I am not clear about since I haven't read the original article. Did Woese imply that his progenote was the last common ancestor of modern organisms? Many of the replies seem to be assuming that he did. Yet the description seems to me to be compatible with it being an early RNA form which then evolved into the last common ancestor with its long DNA genes, highly evolved enzymes etc. Can anyone help. Andrew andrewh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!arlin From: arlin@ac.dal.ca Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Time to abandon the 'progenote' idea? Message-ID: <1993Oct31.115443.17641@ac.dal.ca> Date: 31 Oct 93 15:54:43 GMT References: <01H4OQ2RTUDY8ZEECI@DBV> Distribution: bionet Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Lines: 42 In article <01H4OQ2RTUDY8ZEECI@DBV>, DRBH@DB1.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU writes: > As for formally rejecting the proenote hypothesis, Arlin first asks > "Hasn't enough evidence accumulated...?", then cites not evidence, > but an ARGUMENT that existence of homologous DNA-polymearases with > proofreading functions "rules out the possibility". Let us not > confuse evidence with one person's interpretation of some data. You lost me here with your proposed distinction between 'argument' and 'evidence'. What else do have in evolution but i) fossil evidence; ii) inference based on comparative biology and an understanding of mechanisms; and iii) manipulative experiments to elucidate mechanisms. It seems our evidence/argument is mainly limited to type (ii) in the present case. To call into question the technique of inference used to infer if A, B and C have DNA genomes, then their most recent common ancestor had a DNA genome is to call into question much of evolutionary biology. > The argument may be persuasive to some, but "rules out the possibility" > is such a strong statement that I would surely require more than > one line of evidence to be persuaded. I might be willing to accept That's why I gave more than one line of argument. Circular DNA genomes, long genes, operons, DNA pols, proofreading, complex ribosomes-- all of these would be independently inferred (with varying degrees of certainty) for the most recent common ancestor of all cells, and each would contradict the progenote hypothesis. Barry suggests a more conservative statement, such as: > "Given our current assumptions and understanding the findings concerning > homologous modern DNA polymerases makes the progenote hypothesis seem > unlikely" > Barry Hall I don't object to this at all, except I would include the other lines of evidence and might say 'extremely unlikely'. Arlin From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!uunet!psinntp!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!arlin From: arlin@ac.dal.ca Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Time to abandon (clarification of original query) Message-ID: <1993Nov1.102813.17673@ac.dal.ca> Date: 1 Nov 93 14:28:13 GMT References: <1993Oct28.222053.17574@ac.dal.ca> <1993Oct31.222749.125610@embl-heidelberg.de> Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Lines: 41 In article <1993Oct31.222749.125610@embl-heidelberg.de>, ouzounis@embl-heidelberg.de writes: > > Probably what Woese suggested as the progenote, would represent a > large number of qualitatively different steps of evolution, including > an RNA genome, later a DNA genome, probably still fragmented and perhaps > compartmentalized in a primitive cell membrane. Before attacking a rather > interesting and not well-explored idea, I would give it a further chance. > > Christos Ouzounis Sorry, I should have clarified the problem a bit better. Let me suggest a useful distinction between the progenote CONCEPT and the progenote HYPOTHESIS (this distinction can be seen in Woese, 1987, Microbiological Reviews vol. 51 pp. 262-264): PROGENOTE CONCEPT: a 'progenote' is defined as a type of cell with a loose genotype/phenotype connection, short genes, segmented genomes, etc. PROGENOTE HYPOTHESIS: the most recent common ancestor of known cellular life (archaebacteria, eubacteria, eukaryotes) was a progenote, so that all three 'domains' independently evolved genotic features. I have no wish to argue with the progenote concept-- its a "theoretical construct" (Woese, 1987, p. 263) and its validity is not dependent on whether or not a 'progenote' ever existed in earth's history. By contrast, the progenote hypothesis is a falsifiable proposition, and is deeply contradicted by modern molecular data. To believe the progenote hypothesis is to believe no less than that eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaebacteria each (starting with short RNA genes in a small segmented genome) separately and independently lengthened and converted their short RNA genes or otherwise evolved long DNA genes for homologous and conserved rRNA, EF-Tu, etc, as well as for a dozen homologous and conserved ribosomal proteins (whose operon order would also be independently derived in archaebacteria and eubacteria). An analogous claim about, say, lambdoid phages (that they all independently evolved DNA genomes with homologous CI proteins, homologous capsid proteins, homologous recombination proteins, etc) wouldn't be entertained as a serious alternative to common ancestry. Why is this different? Arlin From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!caen!batcomputer!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!evolution!joe From: joe@evolution.u.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Tree reliability and the bootstrap Summary: Boostrap P's are statistical Message-ID: <2b4b67$i9c@news.u.washington.edu> Date: 2 Nov 93 00:55:35 GMT References: <1993Oct30.133054.1@leif> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: evolution.genetics.washington.edu Stephen Carr comments that > Bootstrapping is what you want. The bootstrap gives an indication >of how internally consistent your data are: if all of the informative >(variable) sites give a consistent (or nearly so) phylogeny, any one resampling of >the data is similar to any other, the same clades appear, and the bootstrap >values are high. If on the other hand different portions of the data go >in different directions, the reproducibility of any clade is low and the >bootstrap values low as well. Bootstrap values are NOT statistical >confidences, they are more like consistency checks - the higher the value, >the greater the internal consistency of the data. I beg to disagree. Bootstrap P values are not confidence limits but they do have straightforward statistical meaning. If we pose the question "if this group were not really there, what would be the probability of seeing this much, or more, support for the group?", it turns out that P is a conservative assessment of that. It is just as meaningful as a P value for a test of whether a treatment has had an effect, in standard statistics. For details of why this interpretation works see the paper by me and Kishino in the most recent Systematic Biology. This interpretation is certainly different from the one in my 1985 paper, but does fit into the use of P values in statistics much more neatly. It also is more than just a vague index of internal consistency. ----- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 Internet: joe@genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.95.12.41) Bitnet/EARN: felsenst@uwavm From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!news From: Peter Gogarten Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Time to abandon the 'progenote' idea? Message-ID: <1993Nov2.000934.7720@cs.yale.edu> Date: 2 Nov 93 00:09:34 GMT References: <1993Oct28.222053.17574@ac.dal.ca> <2b27c8$3iq$1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> <1993Nov1.211849.5752@cs.yale.edu> Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Lines: 16 Nntp-Posting-Host: jpg.mcb.uconn.edu In article <1993Nov1.211849.5752@cs.yale.edu> news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) writes: > >In their 1977 paper Woese and Fox [Woese, C.R. and Fox, G.E.: >The concept of cellular evolution, 1977, J. Mol. Evol. 10, 1-6] >define the progenotic stage. They conclude their paper as >follows: >"It is at this progenotic state, not the procaryote stage, that the >line of descent leading to the eucaryotic cytoplasm diverged from >the bacterial lines of descent." > Sorry, I forgot to "sign" the posting J.Peter Gogarten Univ. of Connecticut Gogarten@uconnvm.uconn.edu From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!evolution!joe From: joe@evolution.u.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Tree reliability Summary: Maybe Message-ID: <2b4ait$i4b@news.u.washington.edu> Date: 2 Nov 93 00:45:17 GMT References: <1993Oct28.173222.27104@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> Distribution: bionet Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: evolution.genetics.washington.edu In article <1993Oct28.173222.27104@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> gertjan@nl.kun.sci (gertjan) writes: >I have a set of orthologous sequences of approximately 150 amino acids >from ten different animal species. The sequences don't differ very >much, most of them in about ten positions. >I have made maximum parsimony and neighbor-joining trees with these >sequences, which are looking quite nicely, but how can I say >anything about the reliability of these trees? >Bootstrapping would clearly not be of much use, since in the >resampling process often all significant sites will be removed. >Or do I just have to accept that trees based on such small data sets >will never be very reliable? Well, bootstrapping is best described as making a worst-case analysis, and if you accept that as your viewpoint, you can't do better. If all ten positions are completely compatible, they may help convince you that they are all "clean" in which case when all ten are omitted you need not be upset, for then you at least have nothing contradicting the answer. The justification for bootstrapping is asymptotic and works best for large data sets, so with only ten sites one will to some extent find angels dancing on the heads of pins. ----- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 Internet: joe@genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.95.12.41) Bitnet/EARN: felsenst@uwavm From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 01 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!yale!cs.yale.edu!news From: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Time to abandon the 'progenote' idea? Message-ID: <1993Nov1.211849.5752@cs.yale.edu> Date: 1 Nov 93 21:18:49 GMT References: <1993Oct28.222053.17574@ac.dal.ca> <2b27c8$3iq$1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Lines: 27 Nntp-Posting-Host: jpg.mcb.uconn.edu In article <2b27c8$3iq$1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> andrewh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Andrew Hobbs) writes: > >Hi, > >One fact which I am not clear about since I haven't read the original >article. Did Woese imply that his progenote was the last common >ancestor of modern organisms? Many of the replies seem to be assuming >that he did. Yet the description seems to me to be compatible with it >being an early RNA form which then evolved into the last common >ancestor with its long DNA genes, highly evolved enzymes etc. >Can anyone help. > >Andrew > >andrewh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au > > In their 1977 paper Woese and Fox [Woese, C.R. and Fox, G.E.: The concept of cellular evolution, 1977, J. Mol. Evol. 10, 1-6] define the progenotic stage. They conclude their paper as follows: "It is at this progenotic state, not the procaryote stage, that the line of descent leading to the eucaryotic cytoplasm diverged from the bacterial lines of descent." From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 02 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!DAEDALUS.BIO.UCI.EDU!wfitch From: wfitch@DAEDALUS.BIO.UCI.EDU (Walter Fitch) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: e-mail address change Message-ID: <9311031826.AA10534@daedalus.bio.uci.edu> Date: 3 Nov 93 18:26:19 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 2 UC-I is dropping bitnet so that wfitch@uci will no longer work. Replace it with wfitch@uci.edu if you weren't using the latter already. Thanx From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 02 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!CS.Arizona.EDU!noao!asuvax!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!jimdb From: jimdb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,bionet.general,bionet.jobs,bionet.agroforestry,bionet.molbio.evolution,sci.bio,sci.environment,sci.research,talk.environment Subject: MIDWESTERN CONFERENCE ON POPULATION BIOLOGY ==> Last chance! Message-ID: <1993Nov3.093110.55195@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> Date: 3 Nov 93 14:31:10 GMT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services Lines: 224 Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:284 bionet.population-bio:506 bionet.general:6448 bionet.jobs:2584 bionet.agroforestry:411 bionet.molbio.evolution:1236 sci.bio:6277 sci.environment:13155 sci.research:1599 talk.environment:7336 Howdy, I'm reposting this conference announcement, even though the deadline for registration was the 31st of October. However, it's NOT TOO LATE to receive the early registration fee rate, if we RECEIVE your registration by next Wednesday the 10th of November. Likewise if you are interested in presenting a poster, it is not too late for that either. If you can EMAIL the abstract to me by next MONDAY THE 8TH of November, we will place your abstract in the conference program. Soooo, if your are interested, then respond as soon as possible! JimDB, MCPB coordinator ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 14th Annual MIDWEST CONFERENCE ON POPULATION BIOLOGY University of Kansas, Lawrence 12-14 November 1993 This year's Midwest Conference on Population Biology will take place at the University of Kansas on 12-14 November 1993. The MCPB provides an excellent opportunity for the exchange of ideas within the broad scope of population biology, including (but not limited to) genetics, ecology, evolution, and behavior, and from both empirical and theoretical perspectives. Besides the customary selection of outstanding speakers (see SCHEDULE OF EVENTS), this year's program will feature a contributed poster session (see POSTER SESSION for details) and a panel discussion on the topic: "Reconciling "Good" Science with Conservation Imperatives: Problems and Prospects." LOCATION: All talks will be held in Haworth Hall, room 1005. Posters will be displayed in the foyer. PARKING: Free parking begins after 4:00 PM on Friday in all Yellow Zones. We recommend the use of Lot 90, located just south of Haworth Hall; it has many spaces and is convenient to the meeting site. FRIDAY NIGHT RECEPTION: Conference participants and friends are invited to meet at the 2nd floor lobby of the Burge Union on Friday evening from 6:00 to 11:30 PM. Late registration will also be available. Please park in lot 72 on the east side of the building. MIXER, BANQUET, AND PLENARY ADDRESS: These Saturday evening events will be held at The American Bistro; all participants are encouraged to attend. Daniel Simberloff from Florida State University will present the plenary address following the meal. LODGING: The following is a list of twelve Lawrence hotels (area code 913): Singl./dbl. 1. Best Western (800/528-1234, 841-6500) $29/$33 2. Bismark Inn (749-4040) $32/$38 3. College Motel (843-0131) 4. Days Inn (800/325-2525, 843-9100) $43/$46 5. Eldridge Hotel (800/527-0909, 749-5011) $66/$74 6. Holiday Inn (800/465-4329, 841-7077) $64/$70 7. Jayhawk Motel (843-4131) $22/$25 8. Quality Inn (842-7030) $46/$54 9. Super 8 Motel (800/800-8000, 842-5217) $34/$40 10. Travelodge (842-5100) $39/$43 11. Virginia Inn (800/468-8979, 843-6611) $33/$40 12. Westminister Inn (841-8410) $34/$42 We encourage you to make reservations early to ensure room availability, but please note that hotels are not within easy walking distance of Haworth Hall. For those willing to bring their own sleeping bag, floor space will be available at no cost, although space is limited. Contact Barbara Hayford at 913/842-4776 for further information. POSTER SESSION: Abstracts of posters should be sent to Jim Danoff-Burg (see address below) by 31 October 1993 and _must_ be submitted on diskette (IBM or Macintosh format) to be included in the MCPB program. Please also enclose a hardcopy and a note explaining what software was used. Bring both thumb tacks and tape to mount your poster (1.2 x 2.4 m). Posters will be on display all day Saturday, although authors will be available for questions during a period immediately following lunch. NB: A prize will be awarded. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Friday, 12 November 6:00-11:30 PM Reception and late registration (2nd floor lobby, Burge Union). Saturday, 13 November MORNING SESSION (1005 Haworth Hall): "Population Ecology" 8:45-9:00 AM Welcome and Introductory Remarks. 9:00-9:40 AM Jane H. Bock, University of Colorado. "Soil seed banks: Records of the past and predictors of the future." 9:40-10:20 AM Victoria L. Sork, University of Missouri, St. Louis. "Impact of natural selection and gene flow on genetic differentiation among local subpopulations of temperate forest oaks." 10:40-11:20 AM Carl E. Bock, University of Colorado. "Effects of ungulate grazing on grassland ecosystems: Evidence from the Great Plains and American Southwest." 11:20-12:00 AM Andrew Sih, University of Kentucky. "Ecological factors influencing the 'battle between the sexes': Experimental studies on water strider mating dynamics." POSTER SESSION (Haworth Hall foyer) 1:00-1:40 PM Poster presentations. AFTERNOON SESSION (1005 Haworth Hall): "The Genetics and Evolution of Sociality" 1:40-2:20 PM Deborah R. Smith, University of Kansas. "Population genetics in cooperative spiders." 2:20-3:00 PM Zuleyma Tang-Martinez, University of Missouri, St. Louis. "Inclusive fitness and the evolution of sociality: Cause or consequence?" 3:20-4:00 PM Diana Wheeler, University of Arizona. "Castes in social insects as alternative phenotypes." PANEL DISCUSSION (1005 Haworth Hall) 4:00-5:00 PM Discussion topic: "Reconciling 'Good' Science with Conservation Imperatives: Problems and Prospects." EVENING SESSION (The American Bistro, 1st floor of the Eldridge Hotel) 5:00-6:30 PM Mixer. 6:30-8:00 PM Banquet. 8:00-9:00 PM Plenary Address: Daniel Simberloff, Florida State University. "Species-area curves, habitat fragmentation, and what to do and not to do about it." Sunday, 14 November MORNING SESSION (1005 Haworth Hall): "Evolutionary Biology" 9:00-9:40 AM Michael Ryan, University of Texas. "Historical and sensory aspects of sexual selection." 9:40-10:20 AM Richard Gomulkiewicz, University of Kansas. "The evolution of age-dependent sexually selected traits." 10:40-11:20 AM Ruth Shaw, University of Minnesota. "Evolutionary genetics of plant interactions." 11:20-12:00 AM Mark Kirkpatrick, University of Texas. "Constraint and adaptation in the evolution of growth." 12:00-12:30 PM Closing Remarks and Business Meeting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (cut here) - - - - - - - - - - - - - REGISTRATION FORM: Please return this form and a check by 31 October 1993 to Jim Danoff-Burg, MCPB, Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. Late registrants will be charged an additional $10. REGISTRATION FEE: $__________ Studen SPINACH MANICOTTI or CHICKEN DIJON. The delicious buffet will also include a full salad bar, two vegetables, dessert, and coffee/tea. TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED: $__________ Make checks payable to the Division of Biological Sciences. NAME: INSTITUTION: ADDRESS: PHONE: EMAIL: I plan to present a poster _______ (yes/no). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (cut here) - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOR ADDITI -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Danoff-Burg (Snow Museum, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045) Bitnet: JIMDB@UKANVAX Internet:jimdb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu "Myrmecophiles-R-Us" From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 03 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!vtserf.cc.vt.edu!server.cs.vt.edu!csgrad.cs.vt.edu!bouzid From: bouzid@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Ahmed Bouzid) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Islam and Darwinism Message-ID: <2bbirf$kef@server.cs.vt.edu> Date: 4 Nov 93 18:49:19 GMT Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: csgrad.cs.vt.edu --------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone: I am looking for any literature on the reception of Darwinism in Islamic circles, whether in 19th or 20th century. I've been just unable to find ANYTHING on the topic! If anyone can point me to some references, I'd me much obliged.... Thanks, Ahmed Bouzid From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 03 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sangam!vikram!usmani From: usmani@ern.doe.ernet.in (Prof Usmani) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,bionet.molbio.rapd,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.jobs Subject: Re: PostDoc Available Message-ID: <1993Nov4.070545.16053@ern.doe.ernet.in> Date: 4 Nov 93 07:05:45 GMT References: <2ammadINNuu@network.ucsd.edu> Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,bionet.molbio.rapd,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.jobs Organization: Department of Electronics Lines: 56 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:508 bionet.molbio.rapd:320 bionet.molbio.evolution:1239 bionet.jobs:2597 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] andy@pooh.ucsd.edu wrote: : POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOW POSITION AVAILABLE : Southwest Fisheries Science Center : Marine Mammal Division : A one-year National Research Council Associateship : (renewable to three years) is available in the Marine Mammal : Molecular Genetics Laboratory of the Southwest Fishery Science : Center located in La Jolla, California. Ph.D. with experience : and/or interest in population genetics or modelling is sought to : formulate quantitative means for using genetic data to define : biologically meaningful stock units on which to base conservation : and management efforts for marine mammals. Stocks, not species, : are the units on which conservation and management efforts, by : law, must be focussed, yet how to do this remains one of the most : important questions in conservation biology today. : In spite of rapid progress in the molecular arena, : development of quantitative means for using the information : gained in the laboratory to define biologically meaningful stock : units has not been fully realized. Methodologies using molecular : data to estimate population-genetic parameters, molecular : phylogenies, gene flow and dispersal distance, etc., are : available, but there has been growing realization that this area : is much more complex and pitfall-ridden than had been thought, : especially when the methods are applied to incompletely isolated : populations. Nevertheless, the continuing rapid advances in : molecular methods, the reality of laboratory automation, and the : ability to measure genetic diversity directly from pooled samples : will provide data of heretofore unavailable breadth and scope. A : concentrated research effort focusing directly on how to use : these data to define stock units in potentially politically : controversial situations is needed. : Envisioned, for example, is the development of an : individual-based model of evolving and interchanging local : populations, which could be stochastically sampled in order to : test the utility of various analyses of population genetic : structure for defining management stocks. Such a model would : also serve as a means of designing practical sampling programs : for such purposes and, in the course of which, measures of the : statistical power of the quantitative indices should be : developed. : NRC Associates receive a stipend from the National Research : Council while carrying out his or her proposed research. The : current annual stipend for a Regular Associate (< 5yr from PhD) : is $30,000 per year. Suitable relocation reimbursement will be : determined for an awardee, and funds are available for : professional travel during tenure. Applicants should direct : initial inquires to Dr. Andrew Dizon (andy@pooh.ucsd.edu) or Dr. : William Perrin, PO Box 271, SWFSC, La Jolla, CA, 92038. : From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 03 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!bioftp.unibas.ch!embl-heidelberg.de!higgins From: higgins@embl-heidelberg.de Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Tree reliability Message-ID: <1993Nov4.172340.126328@embl-heidelberg.de> Date: 4 Nov 93 16:23:40 GMT Organization: EMBL, European Molecular Biology Laboratory Lines: 21 Just a quick practical note on using the bootstrap with data sets that include some very closely related sequences: Make sure to use the JUMBLE option if you use PHYLIP. This will randomise the input order of the sequences in each bootstrap sample data set. If you do not do this, then some groupings in the trees may be over represented in the final totals, depending only on the input order of the sequences. Joe Felsenstein had the foresight to include this option in PHYLIP to avoid this problem. In the extreme case of identical or almost identical sequences, you can end up with groupings that "appear" to get very high support in the bootstrap analysis. In reality, these groupings will be seperated from nearby sequences by short or zero length branches i.e. thay are not real groups. However, thay can artefactually get very high bootstrap support. I speak from bitter experience. I did not include a "jumble" option in the bootstrap code in Clustal V. Des Higgins EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany. From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 03 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!owl.nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca!arlin From: arlin@ac.dal.ca Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Time to abandon the progenote hypothesis!! Message-ID: <1993Nov3.104018.17746@ac.dal.ca> Date: 3 Nov 93 14:40:17 GMT Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Lines: 41 Sorry, folks, but I'm not convinced. Its scarcely tenable that the appearance of 'progenote' in the literature is due to a pervasive inability to spell the word 'progenitor'. Instead, 'progenote' is typically accompanied by a reference to the original work of Woese & Fox, or to some more recent reference by Woese [by the way, my first post left the impression that the 'progenote' concept was attributable to Woese alone, when in fact the theoretical concept (if not the term) was the brainchild of both Woese and Fox (1977, J.Mol.Evol 10: 1-6)]. Several people have defended Woese's progenote hypothesis on the grounds that they haven't seen enough evidence to refute it conclusively, but this hesitancy is (I hope) based on a misunderstanding, since: "the progenote could neither have nor have evolved 'modern' proteins. Its proteins would have been small or of non-unique sequence or both." [Woese 1987, Microbiological Reviews 51: p. 263] In fact, most of us *have* seen *more* than enough evidence to refute the idea that the ancestor of eukaryotes, eubacteria and archaebacteria had such properties. If this ancestor was progenotic (rather than genotic), then euks, eubs and archaes must have each evolved many of their *apparently* homologous genes by convergence, since they have long (1-2 kb, typically) DNA genes, whereas progenotes have short (100 bp? 500 bp?) RNA genes. Does anyone really believe that the genes for EF-Tu proteins (for instance) of eubacteria, eukaryotes, and archaebacteria are not *really* homologous along their entire length, but instead evolved by convergence from a short ancestral RNA gene? If so, then it is pointless to use such molecules to draw phylogenetic conclusions about eukaryotes, eubacteria and archaebacteria, since the phylogenetic inferences are based on the assumption of homology (i.e., they use aligned sites, assumed to be homologous). If the progenote hypothesis is true, such trees tell us little. Likewise, it would be pointless to make trees from rRNAs (large or small subunit), shared ribosomal proteins (a dozen of them), RNA polymerase subunits (2 of them), GAPDH and other dehydrogenases (several), DNA polymerase, ATPase subunits, etc. It doesn't really salvage the underlying logic of the progenote hypothesis to say that only one of the groups made the progenote-genote transition, then generously passed a vast array of long DNA genes to the other still-struggling progenotes, since the whole point of the progenote hypothesis was that archaes, euks and eubs are so dissimilar (not!) that they must have evolved their molecular biology independently. Arlin From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Thu Nov 04 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!csd.unb.ca!news.ucs.mun.ca!kean.ucs.mun.ca!scarr From: scarr@kean.ucs.mun.ca Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Islam and Darwinism Message-ID: <1993Nov5.174452.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> Date: 5 Nov 93 21:14:52 GMT References: <2bbirf$kef@server.cs.vt.edu> Sender: usenet@news.ucs.mun.ca (NNTP server account) Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada Lines: 40 In article <2bbirf$kef@server.cs.vt.edu>, bouzid@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Ahmed Bouzid) writes: > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Hello everyone: > > I am looking for any literature on the reception of Darwinism > in Islamic circles, whether in 19th or 20th century. I've > been just unable to find ANYTHING on the topic! If anyone > can point me to some references, I'd me much obliged.... > > Thanks, > > Ahmed Bouzid > Ahmed - See: Najm A. Bezirgan "The Islamic World" pp. 375-387 in T. F. Glick, (ed). The Comparative Reception of Darwinism. Univ of Texas Press, 1974. I know this has been reprinted by someone else, possibly U Chicago press. THe chapter is full of primary references to Arabic sources. Hope this helps. Steve ********************************************************************* Steven M. Carr Dept. of Biology Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's NF A1B 3X9 CANADA (709) 737-4776 office / -4713 lab / -4000 FAX scarr@kean.ucs.mun.ca ********************************************************************* From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Thu Nov 04 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!not-for-mail From: weed-matthew@cs.yale.edu (Matthew Weed) Newsgroups: bionet.general,bionet.molbio.evolution,alt.etext,bionet.cell-biol Subject: electronic texts needed Message-ID: <2bdvrpINNokv@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> Date: 5 Nov 93 16:43:37 GMT Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) Followup-To: poster Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 17 Xref: biosci bionet.general:6481 bionet.molbio.evolution:1242 alt.etext:247 Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu I am a blind graduate student doing work in public policy at Princeton University. I have solid training in many areas of biology, but little training in genetics. I am to take the biology subject GRE in a little over a month, and am looking for any-available electronic text, (either FTPable or available via E-mail), to get up to speed in this area. I am willing to pay any publishers for electronic versions of their texts, as long as they can be sent via either US mail or the internet. Any help in my search would be very greatfully accepted at this adress, or at the adress listed in my signature. Matt Weed -- "In popular government results worth having, can only be achieved by men who combine worthy ideals with practical good sense." --President Theodore Roosevelt Matthew Weed Yale/Silliman: 93. mattweed@edith.princeton.edu, MPA candidate, WWS/95 Yale/Silliman:93 From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Fri Nov 05 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!uunet!bounce-back From: colby@bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.geo.geology,sci.anthropology,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.general Subject: RFD: sci.bio.evolution moderated Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 93 01:16:38 GMT Expires: 6 Dec 1993 00:00:00 GMT Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net Followup-To: news.groups Organization: bio.bu.edu Lines: 116 Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net Xref: biosci news.announce.newgroups:1673 news.groups:31038 sci.bio:6345 sci.bio.ecology:1274 sci.geo.geology:4294 sci.anthropology:3578 talk.origins:29312 sci.skeptic:26037 bionet.molbio.evolution:1244 bionet.general:6486 NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION -- SCI.BIO.EVOLUTION This is a formal request for discussion for creating the newsgroup sci.bio.evolution. Discussion will take place in the newsgroup news.groups. Moderation __________ The Moderators This group will be moderated. Josh Hayes has volunteered to do the moderation. In addition, an effort is being made to find more back-up moderators for times when Josh goes on vacation. Moderation policy The only criterion for accepting posts will be relevance. Posts dealing with scientific aspects of evolution will be accepted. Creationist articles will be rejected. Those authors will be informed that the newsgroup talk.origins is an unmoderated forum specifically for the creation/evolution debate. Within the framework of evolution, any/all questions, comments or speculations will be welcomed. Justification for creating new newgroup --------------------------------------- Evolution is a topic of considerable interest and this theory generates a large volume of discussion on USENET. The current newsgroup talk.origins is a forum where issues of "origins" are discussed. This currently includes discussions of the creation/ evolution controversy, discussions of evolutionary biology and numerous threads that reflect the history and sociology of the group but appear to have no relevance to anything resembling origins (or anything else for that matter). The volume of t.o. is very high these days and many people who would enjoy reading and contributing to an evolution discussion are turned off by the low signal/noise ratio. Other newsgroups routinely have discussions about evolution (for example sci.skeptic and sci.bio) and a bionet board (bionet. molbio.evolution) provides a forum for working biologists to contact each other. In addition, a proposal for a new group, sci.anthro.paleo, is currently under discussion. Sci.bio.evolution would create a home for a vast number of discussions and not (it is hoped) adversely affect any of the existing or proposed groups. The forum would provide a place for interested parties to discuss evolution away from the creation/evolution controversy and yet be more casual than a bionet newsgroup. It is very likely the traffic to s.b.e will exceed the current traffic regarding evolution because it will attract those interested in evolution but unwilling to wade through the mountains of creationist dreck on t.o. Creationists may express the opinion that the purpose of this board is to censor them or that they deserve equal time for their ideas. This is not true. Talk.origins is an unmoderated forum where creationist posters are encouraged to post. Formation of s.b.e will not close any avenues of creationist expression. Another thing to keep in mind is creationism is religious dogma, not a scientific theory. Most creationist arguments are simply attempts to refute evolution. These refutations are never scientifically sound and are frequently nothing more than appeals to authority. The scientific content of creationism can (and has been) dealt with in short order. Creationism does not deserve equal time in science discussions because it is not science. In preliminary discussions on talk.origins, a few posters expressed the opinion that s.b.e would be the death of t.o. I don't think this would happen. The creation/evolution controversy comprises the bulk of the traffic on t.o.; this would not be affected. Only discussions of evolution itself would leave t.o. It is highly likely that many current t.o. readers will subscribe to both t.o. and s.b.e. Sci.bio.evolution should not conflict with the proposed group sci.anthro.paleo. The questions of human origins is a small subset of evolutionary biology. Sci.bio.evolution will deal mainly with the general mechanisms of evolution, topics which already generate a considerable amount of discussion in t.o. An expanded listing of the topics for discussion is given immediately below in the Charter. Charter ------- Sci.bio.evolution will be dedicated to discussions of evolutionary biology. These include, but are not limited to: Natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, gene flow, recombination, interactions of the mechanisms of evolution, sexual selection, levels of selection, common descent, systematics, taxonomy, modification with descent, macro- and homeotic mutations, adaptive mutations, the history of life on earth (including the Cambrian explosion and demise of the dinosaurs), paleontology, taphonomy, ecological genetics, behavior- al ecology, game theory, computer simulations of evolution, punct- uated equilibrium, optimality theory, historicity in biology, the growth of biological thought, the history of biology and evolution, Lamarck, Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Fisher, Wright, Simpson, Dohbzhansky, Gould, Lewontin, Diamond, Dawkins, Leaky, Johanson, Wilson, Kimura, speciation, adaptive landscapes, adaptation, population genetics and discussion of recently published works of interest (e.g. is there a "gay gene"?) A pre-existing t.o. FAQ file ("Introduction to Evolutionary Biology") will be posted every month or so to provide background material for new readers or posters. Topics that are better suited to other groups will be directed there. Creationist postings will be returned with a pointer to talk.origins. Posts dealing solely with issues of human origins will be returned and directed toward sci.anthro.paleo if it is created. Chris Colby email: colby@biology.bu.edu From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 10 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!uknet!mcsun!uunet!bounce-back From: smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,bit.admin,bit.listserv.biosph-l,bit.listserv.ethology,sci.bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,rec.pets.herp,bionet.general,bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: RFD: sci.bio.{ethology,herps}, sci.environment.biosphere Message-ID: Date: 11 Nov 93 18:38:16 GMT Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Department of Biology, Yale University Lines: 66 Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net Xref: biosci news.announce.newgroups:1715 news.groups:31647 sci.bio:6755 sci.bio.ecology:1399 sci.environment:13414 rec.pets.herp:8465 bionet.general:6518 bionet.molbio.evolution:1246 NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Request for Discussion Proposal to create sci.bio.ethology for discussion of the scientific study of animal behavior and behavioral ecology. sci.bio.herps for discussion of the natural history, biology, conservation, and scientific study of amphibians and reptiles. sci.environment.biosphere for discussion of scientific research on the properties and dynamics of the biosphere which envelopes our planet. Motivation Sci.bio.herps is motivated by the "tell me too" response to a query in sci.bio.ecology about whether such a group exists. It would compliment the already very popular rec.pets.herp. The other two groups are already available in Usenet, and have well established readerships (plus 250 e-mail subscribers), but would be far more accessible if moved to the sci.* hierarchy. Administrivia Usenet vote first-timers: an RFD invites thoughtful comments on whether a proposed newsgroup change is useful and desirable. It is an opportunity to voice any serious reservations or obojections, and to suggest modifications to any proposed new newsgroup names, if need be. As it is not a call for votes, there is no need to respond if you feel the proposal is a good idea. Assuming the response to the RFD bodes well for the success of the proposal, a formal call for votes (CVF) will appear at the end of the month. Sci.bio.ethology will be gated to the LISTSERV mailing list ETHOLOGY, which is now gated to bit.listserv.ethology. Sci.environment.biosphere will be gated to BIOSPH-L, which is now gated to bit.listserv.biosph-l. The two bit.listserv.* groups will be removed once they are redundant. These proposed new groups have been discussed in the corresponding lists with generally favorable results. The mailing list owners (respectively: Jarmo.Saarikko@Helsinki.FI and Dave Phillips ) have given their blessings to these proposals. It is anticipated that sci.bio.herps will also have a mailing list, to be administered by Michael Eisen . If all goes well, the call for votes (CFV) for these three groups will go out together with the CVF for sci.bio.evolution. An RFD for this group was posted earlier this month by Chris Colby . Having a joint CFV will means that each person who sees the CFV may vote on any or all four group proposals via a single e-mail message, rather than in separate messages. This is sensible as the groups are related. Also, look for a separate CFV for sci.anthropology.paleo on November 18. Send no votes now! The CFV will include instructions on how to submit your vote. Thank you. -- Una Smith Yale University, Department of Biology, Osborn Memorial Laboratories, PO Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 06511-8155 smith-una@yale.edu From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 10 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!Freenet.carleton.ca!ah645 From: ah645@Freenet.carleton.ca (J.C Imbeault) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Using li93 to construct a molecular clock? Message-ID: Date: 11 Nov 93 07:05:15 GMT Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 34 I'm in the middle of a prject where I have to construct a molecular clock using Li's program li93. Not being a math, computer, or molecular evolution expert I haven't been able to figure how to do this. I have aligned my sequences and run them through li93 and gotten results (posted at the end...). Unfortunately I have no idea how to interpret them or use them to construct a molecular clock. Can anyone help? GAP272 NOFSRCH & NINDEX0 5 5 1.472 CATEGORY ( i) 0 2 4 i-FOLD DEGENERATE SITES IN SEQ1 (Li) 820.0 250.0 187.0 i-FOLD DEGENERATE SITES IN SEQ2 (Li) 814.0 252.0 191.0 AVERAGE (Li = # OF i-FOLD SITES) (Li) 817.0 251.0 189.0 TRANSITIONAL SUBSTITUTIONS (Pi) 23.5 32.2 25.2 TRANSVERSIONAL SUBSTITUTIONS (Qi) 15.0 1.9 11.1 MEAN & S.E. OF TRANSITIONS PER SITE (Ai) 0.03020.00633 0.14980.02871 0.16570.03650 MEAN & S.E. OF TRANSVERSIONS PER SITE (Bi) 0.01870.00488 0.00780.00561 0.06220.01934 MEAN & S.E. OF SUBSTITUTIONS PER SITE (Ki) 0.04890.00796 0.15760.02924 0.22800.04102 $$$ COUNTING 1/3 OF A 2-FOLD DEGENERATE SITE AS SYNONYMOUS AND 2/3 AS NONSYNONYMOUS: Ks (Syn), SE 0.29592 0.03882 # OF SITES 272.67 Ka (Nonsyn), SE 0.04254 0.00676 # OF SITES 984.33 $$$ Weighted Average: Ks (Syn), SE 0.21889 0.02921 Ka (Nonsyn), SE 0.04629 0.00742 Thank you! -- From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 16 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!VM.UOGUELPH.CA!UGF00005 From: UGF00005@VM.UOGUELPH.CA (Yuri) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: (none) Message-ID: <9311172043.AA01016@net.bio.net> Date: 17 Nov 93 20:24:19 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 1 unsubscribe From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 17 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!dstothar From: dstothar@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Diane Stothard) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.rapd,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.cellbiol Subject: Re: I NEED HELP Message-ID: <2cg8jm$9df@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: 18 Nov 93 16:41:26 GMT References: <2cf4nlINNkn4@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> Organization: The Ohio State University Lines: 69 Xref: biosci bionet.molbio.rapd:337 bionet.molbio.evolution:1250 bionet.cellbiol:162 NNTP-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu In article <2cf4nlINNkn4@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> bmcnulty@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU writes: > > > I am the manager of a stockroom/lab facility which is responsible for >servicing the needs (chemical, reagents, and equipment) of a Biology >department in a small university (14 - 16000 students). The facility I >manage supplies these items for over 80 laboratory class sections per week >with only 3 personnel while at the same time managing a service/checkout >window which is open for 6 hours each day (9:00am 'til 3:00pm). The >department has 20 PHD faculty and several part time MS instructors or TAs. > >I seem to have found myself in the middle of a rather large debate with one >faculty member who insists that he/she have unlimited access (a key and >pass code) to the area I manage (which is currently under alarm and houses >well over $1,000,000 worth of inventory) because she/he needs supplies to >do unfunded research at hours other than those when the facility I manage >is open. The other faculty are either supported by grants or are not >actively involved in research. > > > > IN AN EFFORT TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA I NEED YOUR HELP!!! > > I SEEK ONLY DATA. > >If you would be so kind.... please answer the following questions and e- >mail them to me directly so I may scientifically support my position. > >I WILL USE NO NAMES OR ADDRESS IN MY REPORT, JUST THE DATA I COLLECT FROM > > THE QUESTIONS BELOW!!! > >********************* CUT HERE ***************************************** > > >With what academic institution are you affiliated? > > _Ohio State University__ > > > >Do faculty at your institution have a key or unlimited access to the main > > > stockroom/supply/support facility? _____________NO_____________________ > We have about 15 stock rooms all over our campus and to the best of my knowledge, no one has a key to any of them. > > > > >*************************************************************************** > > >Thank you for your time and the effort! > >BMCNULTY@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > > > > //////// "Adapt, Migrate, or Die" > ( ) > \ @ @ / BMCNULTY@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU >-------w---U---w---- >Bob McNulty, CA. STATE UNIV., CHICO From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 17 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU!BMCNULTY From: bmcnulty@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (bob) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.rapd,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.cellbiol Subject: I NEED HELP Message-ID: <2cf4nlINNkn4@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> Date: 18 Nov 93 06:29:09 GMT Reply-To: bmcnulty@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU Organization: California State University, Chico Lines: 65 Xref: biosci bionet.molbio.rapd:336 bionet.molbio.evolution:1249 bionet.cellbiol:161 NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu I am the manager of a stockroom/lab facility which is responsible for servicing the needs (chemical, reagents, and equipment) of a Biology department in a small university (14 - 16000 students). The facility I manage supplies these items for over 80 laboratory class sections per week with only 3 personnel while at the same time managing a service/checkout window which is open for 6 hours each day (9:00am 'til 3:00pm). The department has 20 PHD faculty and several part time MS instructors or TAs. I seem to have found myself in the middle of a rather large debate with one faculty member who insists that he/she have unlimited access (a key and pass code) to the area I manage (which is currently under alarm and houses well over $1,000,000 worth of inventory) because she/he needs supplies to do unfunded research at hours other than those when the facility I manage is open. The other faculty are either supported by grants or are not actively involved in research. IN AN EFFORT TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA I NEED YOUR HELP!!! I SEEK ONLY DATA. If you would be so kind.... please answer the following questions and e- mail them to me directly so I may scientifically support my position. I WILL USE NO NAMES OR ADDRESS IN MY REPORT, JUST THE DATA I COLLECT FROM THE QUESTIONS BELOW!!! ********************* CUT HERE ***************************************** With what academic institution are you affiliated? _______________________________ Do faculty at your institution have a key or unlimited access to the main stockroom/supply/support facility? __________________________________ *************************************************************************** Thank you for your time and the effort! BMCNULTY@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU //////// "Adapt, Migrate, or Die" ( ) \ @ @ / BMCNULTY@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU -------w---U---w---- Bob McNulty, CA. STATE UNIV., CHICO From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 17 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!U.WASHINGTON.EDU!burton61 From: burton61@U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Todd Abbott) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: Date: 18 Nov 93 04:57:53 GMT References: <9311172043.AA01016@net.bio.net> Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 7 It was an easy mistake Yuri. On Wed, 17 Nov 1993, Yuri wrote: > unsubscribe > From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Wed Nov 17 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!EIS.CALSTATE.EDU!dbeadle From: dbeadle@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU (Dan Beadle) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: Date: 18 Nov 93 22:01:07 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 4 unsubscribe mol.evol Dan Beadle From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Thu Nov 18 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!news.cs.umb.edu!ctc.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!cass.ma02.bull.com!petra!bull.bull.fr!julienas!muller!loria.fr!kaba From: kaba@loria.fr (Badara Kaba) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.bio.ecology,bionet.molbio.evolution,bionet.general,sci.bio.technology Subject: FAQ file wanted Keywords: Biology, evolution Message-ID: <2cd8pp$2r8@muller.loria.fr> Date: 17 Nov 93 13:26:17 GMT Organization: CRIN Lines: 7 Xref: biosci sci.bio:6963 sci.bio.ecology:1492 bionet.molbio.evolution:1252 bionet.general:6591 sci.bio.technology:727 NNTP-Posting-Host: custine.loria.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Is there any free FAQ file on introduction to evolutionary biology in public ftp site? Badara email:kaba@loria.fr From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Sun Nov 21 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!news.cs.umb.edu!hsdndev!newsfeed.rice.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!davison From: davison@menudo.uh.edu (Dan Davison) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: NSF-Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowhips in Molecular Evolution Message-ID: <2cqgsr$17p@menudo.uh.edu> Date: 22 Nov 93 14:04:11 GMT Distribution: bionet Organization: University of Houston Lines: 91 NNTP-Posting-Host: menudo.uh.edu [posted for NSF, by request. The NSF gopher is available by gophering to stis.nsf.gov - dbd] The following is extracted from the new program announcement on the NSF-Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution. Complete copies of the program announcement should be attainable at local Sponsored Project Offices or over the network on STIS or the NSF gopher. Please note the deadline and eligibility requirements. Please feel free to forward this. Title : NSF 93-151 -- Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution Type : Program Guideline NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ALFRED P. SLOAN FOUNDATION 1994 ANNOUNCEMENT DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS: JANUARY 17, 1994 The National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation announce a special program of Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution as part of an effort by both foundations to increase support for basic research in Molecular Evolution. Within the NSF, both the Directorates for Biological Sciences and for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences are participating in this program. In this first year of the joint program, approximately 18 two-year awards of $80,000 will be offered. The deadline for submission of application materials is January 17, 1994, with awards to be announced in April, 1994. Contingent upon availability of funds, a competition for approximately the same number of fellowships will be held in each of the next 4 years. Molecular evolutionary studies involve the theoretical, comparative, computational, and/or experimental analyses of biological patterns and processes at the molecular level, within the framework of organismic evolutionary change and adaptation. The NSF and the Sloan Foundation believe that the experimental tools and intellectual discoveries of molecular biology have generated exciting possibilities for expanding the scientific understanding of evolution. Moreover, NSF and the Sloan Foundation envision molecular evolution studies involving the biological sciences in concert with other disciplines, both in concepts and techniques, and encourage applications that reflect a broad scientific spectrum. The NSF/Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Molecular Evolution will provide recipients the freedom to define and pursue their own research programs while developing relevant interdisciplinary knowledge and skills in a host laboratory or field station. Applicants are expected to take full advantage of this important feature of the award by identifying opportunities to broaden their scientific training and experience, both conceptually and technically, so that they may approach problems in molecular evolution with sound concepts and the most appropriate tools. Because of this essential aspect of the program, applicants are expected to submit research and training plans that differ from the plans followed during their doctoral training or, for applicants who have been postdoctoral fellows for more than one year at the time of award initiation, plans that differ from their current postdoctoral research. Eligibility Applicants for a National Science Foundation/Alfred P.Sloan Foundation Molecular Evolution Postdoctoral Research Fellowship must have earned the Ph.D. after January 1, 1989, or must expect to receive it no later than June 30, 1994. Applicants can be considered only from nationals or permanent resident aliens of the United States. The term "national of the United States" denotes a citizen of the United States or a native resident of the possesion of the United States such as American Samoa. Only one application per applicant will be considered. -- dr. dan davison/dept. of biochemical and biophysical sciences/univ. of Houston/4800 Calhoun/Houston,TX 77204-5934/davison@uh.edu/DAVISON@UHOU "Without the voice of reason, every faith is its own curse" -- Sting Disclaimer: As always, I speak only for myself, and, usually, only to myself. From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Sun Nov 21 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!AG.UIDAHO.EDU!pberger From: pberger@AG.UIDAHO.EDU (Phil Berger) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: (none) Message-ID: <9311222100.AA23846@ag.uidaho.edu> Date: 22 Nov 93 21:00:47 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 23 We are contemplating purchase of an automated DNA sequencing system. After considering a number of alternatives, it would seem that a dedicated instrument is probably the best way to go vs. one that reads radioactivity off the gel or an autorad reader. In any case, it comes down to Applied Biosystems, Pharmacia and Li-Cor (I donUt know whatever became of the Millipore instrument). I would appreciate any comments from those of you out there with direct experience with any of these instruments as to ease of use, reliability, accuracy, maintenence costs and anything else you might deem relevant. Please e-mail responses directly to me at: pberger@marvin.ag.uidaho.edu Please, no responses from individuals affiliated with any of these companies. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Phil Berger University of Idaho From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 22 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!NSF.GOV!parzberg From: parzberg@NSF.GOV (Peter Arzberger) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: NSF-Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowhips in Molecular Evolution Message-ID: Date: 22 Nov 93 12:09:29 GMT Sender: kristoff@net.bio.net Reply-To: Peter Arzberger Distribution: bionet Lines: 73 The following is extracted from the new program announcement on the NSF-Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution. Complete copies of the program announcement should be attainable at local Sponsored Project Offices or over the network on STIS or the NSF gopher. Please note the deadline and eligibility requirements. Please feel free to forward this. Title : NSF 93-151 -- Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution Type : Program Guideline NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ALFRED P. SLOAN FOUNDATION 1994 ANNOUNCEMENT DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS: JANUARY 17, 1994 The National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation announce a special program of Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Molecular Evolution as part of an effort by both foundations to increase support for basic research in Molecular Evolution. Within the NSF, both the Directorates for Biological Sciences and for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences are participating in this program. In this first year of the joint program, approximately 18 two-year awards of $80,000 will be offered. The deadline for submission of application materials is January 17, 1994, with awards to be announced in April, 1994. Contingent upon availability of funds, a competition for approximately the same number of fellowships will be held in each of the next 4 years. Molecular evolutionary studies involve the theoretical, comparative, computational, and/or experimental analyses of biological patterns and processes at the molecular level, within the framework of organismic evolutionary change and adaptation. The NSF and the Sloan Foundation believe that the experimental tools and intellectual discoveries of molecular biology have generated exciting possibilities for expanding the scientific understanding of evolution. Moreover, NSF and the Sloan Foundation envision molecular evolution studies involving the biological sciences in concert with other disciplines, both in concepts and techniques, and encourage applications that reflect a broad scientific spectrum. The NSF/Sloan Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Molecular Evolution will provide recipients the freedom to define and pursue their own research programs while developing relevant interdisciplinary knowledge and skills in a host laboratory or field station. Applicants are expected to take full advantage of this important feature of the award by identifying opportunities to broaden their scientific training and experience, both conceptually and technically, so that they may approach problems in molecular evolution with sound concepts and the most appropriate tools. Because of this essential aspect of the program, applicants are expected to submit research and training plans that differ from the plans followed during their doctoral training or, for applicants who have been postdoctoral fellows for more than one year at the time of award initiation, plans that differ from their current postdoctoral research. Eligibility Applicants for a National Science Foundation/Alfred P.Sloan Foundation Molecular Evolution Postdoctoral Research Fellowship must have earned the Ph.D. after January 1, 1989, or must expect to receive it no later than June 30, 1994. Applicants can be considered only from nationals or permanent resident aliens of the United States. The term "national of the United States" denotes a citizen of the United States or a native resident of the possesion of the United States such as American Samoa. Only one application per applicant will be considered. From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 22 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!CS.Arizona.EDU!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!uunet!usc!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!mcrcim.mcgill.edu!sifon!VM1.MCGILL.CA From: B7JM@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA (B7JM) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: tenure-track positions available Message-ID: <22NOV93.22588034.0238@VM1.MCGILL.CA> Date: 23 Nov 93 01:54:53 GMT Sender: usenet@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA Organization: McGill University Lines: 26 The Department of Biology at McGill University invites applications for tenure-track positions at the assistant professor level in molecular biology. The Department seeks candidates whose research addresses fundamental problems in cell, developmental or evolutionary biology using a genetically well-characterized fungal, plant or animal system. The successful applicant will join a large (40 full-time faculty) and dynamic department with research strengths in cellular, molecular, and developmental biology, ecology and neurobiology. The Department also has excellent facilities, including centres for photography, light and electron microscopy, biotechnology, field stations and the McGill Phytotron. Applicants should hold the PhD degree in biology or a related field, and demonstrate capacity for independent research. Duties will include carrying out research and participating in teaching of undergraduate- and/or graduate-level courses in cell and molecular biology. The position must be filled by September1, 1994. Please send CV, a statement of research interests, and representative reprints. Request three letters of reference. All materials should arrive by December 15, 1993. Send to: Prof. Robert L. Carroll Chair, Department of Biology McGill University 1205 Avenue Docteur Penfield Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1B1 From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 23 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!aecom.yu.edu!burk From: burk@aecom.yu.edu Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: NSF Fellowship sponsor Message-ID: <199311240009.AA01503@alsys1.aecom.yu.edu> Date: 23 Nov 93 18:15:49 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 12 Human Papillomavirus Molecular Evolution - my laboratory would be willing to sponsor interested parties in applying for an NSF fellowship. RD Burk Robert D. Burk, M.D. burk@aecom.yu.edu From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 23 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!pitt.edu!venus.med.pitt.edu!benoit From: benoit@venus.med.pitt.edu (Benoit Desjardins) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: *** Invitation to join the CSTB *** Message-ID: <7901@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 24 Nov 93 21:07:46 GMT Sender: news+@pitt.edu Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 102 The CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THEORETICAL BIOLOGY (CSTB) invites you: -- To share your interest in theoretical biology -- Keep informed of conferences, schools, funding, books, science policy, green issues, opinions, who's who and many other matters of concern to those practicing or learning about theory in the biological sciences, -- Gain a voice which supports Canadian research and teaching, by becoming a member of the CSTB. Any person who is interested in the study and furthering of the field of theoretical biology, or in the application of the exact sciences to biology and medicine is welcomed to apply for membership. Non-Canadians are also welcomed to apply. Annual fees include subscription to the CSTB Bulletin. Subscription to the new "Journal of Biological Systems" (started in March 1993) is also offered through the Society at a special highly discounted rate. The CSTB has recently disaffiliated itself from the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies (CFBS), and has therefore come back to its old and much cheaper membership rates. The CSTB is currently planning to become affiliated to the French Society for Theoretical Biology and the new European Society for Mathematical and Theoretical Biology. Plans to provide our members with several additional benefits are currently under way. Any questions about membership should be sent to: Dr. Benoit Desjardins Acting Membership Chair, CSTB 205 MIB University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 E-Mail: benoit@med.pitt.edu FAX: (412) 624-9189 +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THEORETICAL BIOLOGY | | APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP | | | | Name: _________________________________________ | | Dept/Institution: _________________________________________ | | Address: _________________________________________ | | _________________________________________ | | _________________________________________ | | Postal Code: _________________________________________ | | Phone Number: _________________________________________ | | FAX Number: _________________________________________ | | E-Mail address: _________________________________________ | | Student status: _________________________________________ | | Research interests: _________________________________________ | | _________________________________________ | | _________________________________________ | | | | Membership fees (Check one): | | Full Member: CAN$25 ___ | | Student Member [*]: CAN$10 ___ | | | | Journal for Biological Systems (Full: US$40; Student: US$25) | | I want to subscribe: ___ | | I do not want to subscribe: ___ | | I am not sure. Please send sample issue: ___ | | Send me also vol 1 (1993; also $40/$25): ___ | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | [*] I certify that the applicant is a full time student | | | | Faculty signature: ______________________________________ | | | | Institutional address: ______________________________________ | | (of the student) ______________________________________ | | ______________________________________ | | ______________________________________ | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ Please send completed application form and payment to: Dr. William Silvert (PERSONAL - CSTB) Secretary/Treasurer, CSTB Habitat Ecology Division Bedford Institute of Oceanography P. O. Box 1006 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2 E-mail: silvert@biome.bio.ns.ca Phone: (902) 426-1577, Fax: (902) 426-2256 Notes: 1- Please indicate "PERSONAL" on your envelope to avoid getting the payment caught up in the government mail registry. 2- For basic membership, Cheques/Money Orders in Canadian currency should be made out to: "Canadian Society for Theoretical Biology". 3- For subscription to the "Journal of Biological Systems", Cheques/ Money Orders in US currency should be made to: "World Scientific Publishing". 4- For the reduced student membership rate, full time students must have a faculty member at their institution sign the last line of the application form. Furthermore, all the student copies of the "Journal of Biological Systems" will be sent by bulk mailing to the student's institution, and not to their home address. So STUDENTS MUST INDICATE THEIR INSTITUTIONAL ADDRESS too, in the appropriate space on the form. ====================================================================== From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Tue Nov 23 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!warwick!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!pipex!uunet!bounce-back From: jan@bagend.atl.ga.us (Jan Isley) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.anthropology,sci.bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.cognitive,sci.lang,talk.origins,bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: CFV: sci.anthropology.paleo Message-ID: Date: 24 Nov 93 19:27:36 GMT Expires: 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 GMT References: Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net Reply-To: usenet-votes@mathcs.emory.edu (Jan Isley) Followup-To: poster Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Lines: 205 Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net Xref: biosci news.announce.newgroups:1749 news.groups:32606 sci.anthropology:3975 sci.bio:7052 sci.bio.ecology:1553 sci.cognitive:2508 sci.lang:6070 talk.origins:30662 bionet.molbio.evolution:1258 NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) This is the first of two Call For Votes (CFV) regarding the proposed creation of a new newsgroup. Please read the proposal before voting. Detailed instructions for voting are given below. Unmoderated group sci.anthropology.paleo Newsgroups line: sci.anthropology.paleo Evolution of man and other primates. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 GMT, 15 December 1993. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. All questions regarding voting and procedure or reports of problems should be mailed to Jan Isley . Votes should be mailed to usenet-votes@mathcs.emory.edu. All questions regarding the proposed new group should be mailed to the proposer, Danny Yee This CFV will be posted to the following mailing lists: anthro-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu CHARTER sci.anthropology.paleo is for the discussion of the evolution of the genus Homo, and more generally of the primates. Some of the topics likely to be covered include: * primatology (primate social interactions, comparative morphology, ape languages, etc.) * paleoanthropology "proper" (discussion of new fossil finds, etc.) * the origins of human language and cognition * the origins of distinctive human morphological features (bipedalism, big brain, hairlessness, etc.) * biological and genetic variation in Homo sapiens relevant to our evolution (e.g. mitochondrial DNA studies) * sociobiological arguments that rely on evolutionary considerations. -- Some subjects recently debated that would find a place in sci.anthropology.paleo: * The "African Eve" vs multi-regionalism debate * The Aquatic Ape Boundaries ---------- Often it is easier to define something by explaining what it isn't, or by looking at its boundaries with similar entities. An example of this from biology is the Biological Species Concept, where species are defined in terms of the mechanisms separating them from other species (Ernst Mayr, 1969b); in anthropology the nature of the boundaries between different groups are often critical to their self-identification (see Frederik Barth, _Ethnic Groups and Boundaries_, 1969). So in order to explain what belongs in sci.anthropology.paleo a discussion of the boundaries with the "neighbouring" newsgroups may help. *** sci.bio.evolution (if created), sci.bio, bionet.molbio.evolution Discussions particular to human or primate evolution belong in sci.anthropology.paleo; those on general evolutionary principles and on the specific evolutionary histories of other taxa in sci.bio.evolution. There is some overlap in the application of general theories, methods and models of evolutionary biology to the primates in particular. There are also significant overlaps with sci.bio and bionet.molbio, and some crossposting is expected there. Some sample questions that would make appropriate crossposts are: * Is there evidence for punctuated equilibrium in human evolution? (sci.bio.evolution) * What are the physiological features of aquatic mammals that are shared by man? (sci.bio) * How does the latest work on molecular clocks tie in with the dating of the Pan/Homo split? (bionet.molbio.evolution) *** sci.anthropology (with acknowledgements to Cameron Laird) In general anything which refers directly to human evolution should be posted to sci.anthropology.paleo. Some examples of questions which should be crossposted are: * What material constraints (water, temperature, energy, protein, ...) limit traditional human cultures which exploit savannahs? Should we expect the same to be true of australopithecines? * Where can I find the best contemporary data which might speak to multi-regional origins of our species? Has anyone updated [Smith 1991] on continuities in jaw anatomy between neanderthals and modern Europeans? * The sizes of viable cultural communities recorded in HRAF seem to bottom out around several hundred. Paleo-anthropologists most often talk about bands of at most two dozen hominids. When did our ancestors start identifying with larger groups? *** talk.origins Discussion of religious issues belongs in talk.origins; it is not appropriate for sci.anthropology.paleo. It is envisaged that there will be few crossposts between the two groups, and those that do occur will narrow followups to one of the groups. Appropriate material for a crosspost might be a request for information on a scientific aspect of human evolution that happens to be important in the context of a debate in talk.origins. *** sci.lang, alt.memetics Discussion of non-biological (linguistic or cultural) evolution is not within the sci.anthropology.paleo charter. Discussion of the relevance of ape language experiments to understanding of the origins of human language could appropriately be cross-posted between sci.lang and sci.anthropology.paleo. *** sci.cognitive Discussion of the origins of human cognitive abilities might be appropriately crossposted to sci.cognitive and sci.anthropology.paleo. An example would be the invocation of evolutionary arguments in _Consciousness Explained_ (Dennett 1991). *** alt.alien.visitors, sci.skeptic Claims of extraterrestrial involvement in human origins belong in these groups. -- Please note, however, that the above are only guidelines. Posters should use their own discretion, but they are encouraged to think about both the Newsgroups: and Followups-To: lines of their posts. I can't imagine a sensible crosspost to sci.anthropology.paleo and comp.os.research, but I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility a priori. MOTIVATION The evolution of the human species is naturally something of considerable interest to a large number of people. At the moment the quite frequent threads on this topic are split somewhat clumsily between sci.bio, sci.anthropology and talk.origins, as well as several other newsgroups. All three of these groups are fairly high volume, and are certainly viable without this material; it is also expected that they would share crossposts to sci.anthropology.paleo where appropriate (see above). It seems likely that there are many people who are interested in human evolution but are not particularly interested in natural history, creationist controversy or social anthropology. (These are examples of topics which make up a fair fraction of the volume in the three newsgroups VOTING INSTRUCTIONS Mail votes to: usenet-votes@mathcs.emory.edu (R)eplying to this message should address your vote correctly if you are replying to this message in its originally posted form in a newsgroup or mailing list, and your news reader or mail user agent honors the Reply-To: header. Posted votes or votes mailed to any other address do not count. Your mail message should contain one and only one of the following statements: I vote YES on sci.anthropology.paleo I vote NO on sci.anthropology.paleo Do NOT include this entire post, PLEASE, just the one line vote. Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. Valid votes are YES, NO, ABSTAIN or CANCEL. Case is not important. ABSTAIN votes do not affect the vote outcome. If you change your mind, revote. Only the last vote will count. You should receive a personal acknowledgment of your vote by email within a few days. Invalid votes and bounced acknowledgments will be identified in the second (the last) call for votes. Addresses and votes of all voters will be published in the vote results. If you wish to remove your vote and all indication that you have voted from the final list, send a CANCEL vote. Standard Guidelines for voting apply - one vote per person, etc... 100 more YES votes than NO votes and twice as many YES votes as NO votes are required for group creation. For more information on the group creation process, read news.announce.newusers and news.groups. -- Jan Isley, the Knight who says ACK, can be reached at jan@bagend.atl.ga.us or mathcs.emory.edu!bagend!jan From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Thu Nov 25 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!aecom.yu.edu!burk From: burk@aecom.yu.edu Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: NCSA GelReader help Message-ID: <199311261341.AA00461@alsys1.aecom.yu.edu> Date: 26 Nov 93 07:47:47 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 15 This program is ideally suited to my needs, however I have been having problems getting the "report" to give me weights or distances. I would appreciate communicating with someone familiar with this program since I have been unable to get help. Thanks. Robbie Burk Robert D. Burk, M.D. email: burk@aecom.yu.edu Albert Einstein College of Medicine FAX: (718) 918-0857 1300 Morris Park Ave. Bronx, New York 10461 From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 29 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU!JOFTOPSM From: JOFTOPSM@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: <9311301614.AA07032@net.bio.net> Date: 30 Nov 93 16:14:02 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 1 Please unsubscribe. Thanx From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 29 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.funet.fi!klaava!ktl.fi!msalminen From: msalminen@ktl.fi Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: program li93 to calculate Ks and Ka values Message-ID: <1993Nov30.160152.1370@ktl.fi> Date: 30 Nov 93 16:01:52 GMT Organization: National Public Health Institute, Finland Lines: 10 Hi there! Is there anybody out there who could tell me where I could find the Program "li93" which is used to calculate Ks and Ka (silent and changing mutation rates) from a set of related sequences. It's written by Li (sorry can't locate the reference). A pointer to an FTP site or mailserver would be much appreciated, but an adress is ok also. If you know the platform to run the program on that would be nice, as also a manual! Thanks in advance, Mika.Salminen@ktl.fi From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 29 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!UCONNVM.bitnet!CSIMON From: CSIMON@UCONNVM.bitnet (Chris) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Hot World Message-ID: <9311300301.AA23715@net.bio.net> Date: 30 Nov 93 02:58:29 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 8 Hi- Could anyone give me a reference to get me into the recent literature on the "Hot World" (not RNA world) hypothesis on the origin of life (as opposed to the Miller-Urey ideas). Thanks, Chris CHRIS SIMON PHONE: 203-486-4640 ECOL. EVOL. BIOLOGY U-43 FAX: 203-486-6364 UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT BITNET: CSIMON@UCONNVM STORRS, CT 06269 INTERNET: CSIMON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU From owner-evolution@net.bio.net Mon Nov 29 22:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!EIS.CALSTATE.EDU!dbeadle From: dbeadle@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU (Dan Beadle) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 93 22:33:38 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 4 unsubscribe mol.evo Dan Beadle dbeadle@ctp.org