From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 01 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!rochester!rocksanne!news From: chris@eso.mc (Chris Heiny x73186 - SPO) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> Sender: news@news.wrc.xerox.com Reply-To: chris@eso.mc Organization: xerox.com References: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:42:15 GMT Lines: 42 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1153 sci.anthropology:9535 sci.anthropology.paleo:1213 sci.bio:13920 sci.math:54337 sci.nonlinear:2208 sci.philosophy.tech:7735 sci.skeptic:65737 talk.origins:79418 talk.philosophy.misc:19962 talk.religion.misc:77944 In article ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes: Newsgroups: talk.origins >|> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? > >Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But >that corruption would not have been present in the genes of >Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. > >|> Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be >|> free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might >|> actually be very desirable. > >My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. So, sin couldn't corrupt Adam and Eve's genes because they started with perfect genes, so they must have passed on perfect genes to their offspring. Since these offspring started with perfect genes, then sin could not have corrupted their genes either. Or is there some flaw in my understanding of your logic? Chris --- Christopher Heiny |"In the summer waters, the Anomalocaris Professor of Bizarre Theories | basks in the warmth, dreaming of Offther-Hocking Chair | contingent futures, of the futures that of Lunar Influences | might be or might not be, of great University of Ediacara | civilizations, mighty structures, works | of art and literature, of the culture | built by the many limbed creatures that | will crawl from the sea, of their | deeds, their loves, their wisdom - | an entire society dedicated to the | sound of the universal "O". Serene | in its vision, it passes Pikaia to | to munch a trilobite." | 'Song of Anomalocaris' vol 2, | canto 8, verses 36-37 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 01 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 30 Jan 1995 21:44:14 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 22 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1154 sci.anthropology:9541 sci.anthropology.paleo:1214 sci.bio:13922 sci.math:54348 sci.nonlinear:2209 sci.philosophy.tech:7736 sci.skeptic:65749 talk.origins:79427 talk.philosophy.misc:19967 talk.religion.misc:77952 In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu (Brooks Rusty) writes: |> Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: |> > Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: |> |> > : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or |> > : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different |> > : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear |> > : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one |> > : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) |> |> Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures |> created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then |> you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not |> well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that mating siblings would be harmful. Mark From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 01 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!w203zrz!joaccigh From: joaccigh@w203zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Dagg) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: pop dinamite Date: 2 Feb 1995 09:16:41 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Lines: 47 Message-ID: <3gq7tp$49p@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> References: <9501312117.AA00825@mbox.nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: w203zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de hezoescb@MBOX.NC.KYUSHU-U.AC.JP (Ezoe Hideo) writes: > I remember that the (relative) fitness is measured by the ratio of >portion of the gene between the current generation and the next one, not >the bare portion of the gene in the next generation (if any recent >textbooks on population biology adopt that quantity as the definition or >mesurement of fitness, please tell me ). > Condsider N(t) as the number of whole population and a(t) as the >number of copies of a gene in the genaration t. Then the fitness of the >gene for the next genaration is (a(t+1)/2N(t+1))/(a(t)/2N(t)) = >(a(t+1)*N(t))/(a(t)*(N(t+1)) [for diploid organism]. That's clear to me. The fitness of a certain gene stays the same, if its number augments in the same manner as the population. Let's consider an asexual population that doubles every generation. If one ancestor individual had two individuals progeny, these had two both (so four in the sum) and so on, the frequency or portion of the genes of the ancestor stays the same. So the fitness of the genes stay the same. But in a sexual species the progeny always has different genomes than the ancestry. In a certain lineage you would need an ancestor with four individuals progeny, all of them having four individuals of progeny and so on, to have a constant fitness for the _genes_. That is, because then the portion of the genes in the population (doubling every generation) would be constant. But I'm not interested in the fitness of any one of my genes per se. My individual fitness is different from that of my genes. That's because the concrete fitness of a gene dependes on its genetic environment (leave out the dependence on the ecological environment). And if I'll have four children (don't panic, I won't do that crime), the portion of my genes in the next generation will be way lesser, then the four children of my grandpa represented (same mortality and so on given). But I'm repeating myself. In short: As I figure, your fitness concept is a `fitness of genes' concept. With this concept the fitness anomaly in growing or shrinking populations does not occur, I agree. And the selfish gene theory is quite hip at the moment. But I don't care about the selfish gene theory as well as about the fitness of single genes, because fitness is an integrated character of the whole genome. And integrated means, that you can't just sum up the separate fitnesses of the genes involved. All in my humble opinion of course. And thaks for the answers. I hoped to provoce much more feedback, flames, whatever. Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!nntp-hub.barrnet.net!decwrl!tribune.usask.ca!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.ucalgary.ca!honte.uleth.ca!news From: baldwin@hg.uleth.ca Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb3.002549.5834@honte.uleth.ca> Sender: news@honte.uleth.ca (News System) Reply-To: baldwin@hg.uleth.ca Organization: University of Lethbridge References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net>,<3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> Distribution: inet Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 00:25:49 GMT Lines: 23 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1156 sci.anthropology:9600 sci.anthropology.paleo:1222 sci.bio:13962 sci.math:54495 sci.nonlinear:2216 sci.philosophy.tech:7740 sci.skeptic:65881 talk.origins:79640 talk.philosophy.misc:19999 talk.religion.misc:78040 In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.ed u (Brooks Rusty) writes: >Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: >> Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: > >> : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or >> : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different >> : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear >> : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one >> : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) > >Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures >created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then >you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not >well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? > >-------------------------------------- >Rusty Brooks * rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu >-------------------------------------- look at edmund leach, genesis as myth (Discovery may 1982: 30-35) on problem of adam & eve, incest versus procreation. adam's offspring was eve; did they committ parent/child or brother-sister incest? From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!newserve!bingsun1!bd25054 From: Eagel Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 15:58:10 -0500 Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.226.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: bd25054@bingsun1 In-Reply-To: <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1159 sci.anthropology:9634 sci.anthropology.paleo:1228 sci.bio:13980 sci.math:54564 sci.nonlinear:2222 sci.philosophy.tech:7745 sci.skeptic:65952 talk.origins:79772 talk.philosophy.misc:20019 talk.religion.misc:78074 Since you want to argue on a theological bases needed I remind you that in all three of the monotheistic religions spring from the area of Africa and the Arabian peninsula tend to denouce the mating of siblings that share at least one parent. Are you saying that God is a hypocrate? On 31 Jan 1995, WIlliam C. Wilson wrote: > > > Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, > > Are you sure about this? the only childern I have ever read about > in Genesis are Cain, Abel and Seth. Both Cain and Seth are described > as marrying the "daughters of men" tho where these other men came > from is never cleared up. > > > and many scholars claim that since > > Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no > > harmful effects from brother and sister mating. > > What does being created sinless have to do with having potential > genetic ?imperfections?; or are you equating sinlessness with perfection? > If so would you care to define which genes are perfect even for > something as simple as ABO blood types? Which is better AB+ or O-? > > > It would have taken a few generations for the gene pool to be > corrupted by sin so that mating siblings would be harmful. > > Mark > > How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? The problem with incestuous > matings is not that they create new bad genes but that they are MUCH > more likely to pass a double dose of any harmful recessive already > present. Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be > free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might > actually be very desirable. If all double doses are weeded out permanently > and proven carriers dont breed further it might be a very useful pattern, > of course it wouldn't be very Humane or Moral (at least by western standards). > > William C. Wilson > > > > From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!cs.utk.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 3 Feb 1995 15:02:26 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 19 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <3gtgi2$fib@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net>,<3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <1995Feb3.002549.5834@honte.uleth.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1158 sci.anthropology:9633 sci.anthropology.paleo:1227 sci.bio:13979 sci.math:54563 sci.nonlinear:2221 sci.philosophy.tech:7744 sci.skeptic:65951 talk.origins:79771 talk.philosophy.misc:20018 talk.religion.misc:78073 In article <1995Feb3.002549.5834@honte.uleth.ca>, baldwin@hg.uleth.ca writes: |> >Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures |> >created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then |> >you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not |> >well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? |> > |> >-------------------------------------- |> >Rusty Brooks * rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu |> >-------------------------------------- |> look at edmund leach, genesis as myth (Discovery may 1982: 30-35) |> on problem of adam & eve, incest versus procreation. adam's offspring was |> eve; did they committ parent/child or brother-sister incest? Claiming that adam's offspring was eve is totally without basis. The scriptures, which is the only source of information regarding adam and eve (assuming as I do that they were literal people) gives absolutely no indication to that end. It clearly states that both were created by God, only God used adams rib to form eve miraculously. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!emory!swrinde!pipex!uunet!iglou!news From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: Sender: news@iglou.com (news) Organization: CCC X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+ References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 03:05:30 GMT Lines: 24 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1157 sci.anthropology:9612 sci.anthropology.paleo:1224 sci.bio:13969 sci.math:54524 sci.nonlinear:2219 sci.philosophy.tech:7741 sci.skeptic:65910 talk.origins:79695 In article <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) says: >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that >mating siblings would be harmful. What evidence is there that there were a litera Adam and Eve? What evidence is there that Adam and Eve were sinless? What evidence is there that they sinned? What evidence is there that sin in some way affects the gene pool? What is the rate of this effect? Is it still progressing? Is there any evidence of this? There are SCHOLARS who teach this tripe? That's REALLY hard to believe. I've read quite a few of the papers, many of the abstracts, and many, MANY titles in genetic journals over the years and I've NEVER read anything so absurd. ====Greg Newman==== You can't teach a pig to sing, but you can teach a pig to drink beer. Then, they DO sing... loud and off key, but they sing.... From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!newserve!bingsun1!bd25054 From: Eagel Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:14:33 -0500 Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.226.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: bd25054@bingsun1 In-Reply-To: <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1161 sci.anthropology:9636 sci.anthropology.paleo:1230 sci.bio:13982 sci.math:54566 sci.nonlinear:2224 sci.philosophy.tech:7747 sci.skeptic:65954 talk.origins:79774 talk.philosophy.misc:20021 talk.religion.misc:78076 not a flaw, just an oversight. God, in his ever omniscitent way, allowed for his perfect genes to be changed by outside elements, this is commonly called mutations. His arguement is saying that the evil in humans that so many religious texts speek of could also be the recessive genes. Of course then one must ask what about those recessive genes which are benificial to mankind? On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Chris Heiny x73186 - SPO wrote: > > In article ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes: > Newsgroups: talk.origins > >|> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? > > > >Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But > >that corruption would not have been present in the genes of > >Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. > > > >|> Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be > >|> free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might > >|> actually be very desirable. > > > >My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. > > So, sin couldn't corrupt Adam and Eve's genes because they started with > perfect genes, so they must have passed on > perfect genes to their offspring. Since these offspring started > with perfect genes, then sin could not have corrupted their genes either. > > Or is there some flaw in my understanding of your logic? > > Chris > > --- > Christopher Heiny |"In the summer waters, the Anomalocaris > Professor of Bizarre Theories | basks in the warmth, dreaming of > Offther-Hocking Chair | contingent futures, of the futures that > of Lunar Influences | might be or might not be, of great > University of Ediacara | civilizations, mighty structures, works > | of art and literature, of the culture > | built by the many limbed creatures that > | will crawl from the sea, of their > | deeds, their loves, their wisdom - > | an entire society dedicated to the > | sound of the universal "O". Serene > | in its vision, it passes Pikaia to > | to munch a trilobite." > | 'Song of Anomalocaris' vol 2, > | canto 8, verses 36-37 > > > > From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!newserve!bingsun1!bd25054 From: Eagel Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:02:11 -0500 Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.226.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: bd25054@bingsun1 In-Reply-To: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1160 sci.anthropology:9635 sci.anthropology.paleo:1229 sci.bio:13981 sci.math:54565 sci.nonlinear:2223 sci.philosophy.tech:7746 sci.skeptic:65953 talk.origins:79773 talk.philosophy.misc:20020 talk.religion.misc:78075 If they were free of harmful recessives, are you saying that God origanily only created dominant traits and that all recessive traits are mutations of the origanal? Somehow that just doesn't fit with the chaotic view of the world most people have. On 31 Jan 1995, Mark S. Whorton wrote: > In article <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net>, "WIlliam C. Wilson" writes: > |> > > |> > |> > and many scholars claim that since > |> > Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no > |> > harmful effects from brother and sister mating. > |> > |> What does being created sinless have to do with having potential > |> genetic ?imperfections?; or are you equating sinlessness with perfection? > > As you state below, incestuous mating is harmful due to the > "harmful recessive already present". These "harmful recessive" > traits would not have been present in the original creation, but > were introduced after the fall (introduction of sin). > > |> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? > > Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But > that corruption would not have been present in the genes of > Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. > > |> Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be > |> free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might > |> actually be very desirable. > > My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. > > Mark > > From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!newserve!bingsun1!bd25054 From: Eagel Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:18:22 -0500 Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net>,<3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <1995Feb3.002549.5834@honte.uleth.ca> <3gtgi2$fib@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.226.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: bd25054@bingsun1 In-Reply-To: <3gtgi2$fib@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1162 sci.anthropology:9637 sci.anthropology.paleo:1231 sci.bio:13983 sci.math:54567 sci.nonlinear:2225 sci.philosophy.tech:7748 sci.skeptic:65955 talk.origins:79775 talk.philosophy.misc:20022 talk.religion.misc:78077 Yet don't we, through gamate production actual give part of ourselves (the metaphorical ribs) to each suceeding generation. Based on that scientifc piece of evidence wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Adam and Eve performed incest between a parent and a child? On 3 Feb 1995, Mark S. Whorton wrote: > In article <1995Feb3.002549.5834@honte.uleth.ca>, baldwin@hg.uleth.ca writes: > > |> >Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures > |> >created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then > |> >you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not > |> >well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? > |> > > |> >-------------------------------------- > |> >Rusty Brooks * rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu > |> >-------------------------------------- > |> look at edmund leach, genesis as myth (Discovery may 1982: 30-35) > |> on problem of adam & eve, incest versus procreation. adam's offspring was > |> eve; did they committ parent/child or brother-sister incest? > > Claiming that adam's offspring was eve is totally without basis. > The scriptures, which is the only source of information regarding > adam and eve (assuming as I do that they were literal people) gives > absolutely no indication to that end. It clearly states that both > were created by God, only God used adams rib to form eve miraculously. > > From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!sacsa3.mp.usbr.gov!fwssun1.irm.r6.fws.gov!ash.lab.r1.fws.gov!bob!HoeschB From: HoeschB@fws.gov (Bob Hoesch) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 13:22:57 Organization: National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab Lines: 14 Distribution: inet Message-ID: References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3glps6$lfh@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: bob.lab.r1.fws.gov X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1163 sci.anthropology:9638 sci.anthropology.paleo:1232 sci.bio:13984 sci.math:54568 sci.nonlinear:2226 sci.philosophy.tech:7749 sci.skeptic:65956 talk.origins:79776 talk.philosophy.misc:20023 talk.religion.misc:78078 In article <3glps6$lfh@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes:. >The bible was not written as a science text. I hope this anomalous bit of clear thinking puts this silly thread to rest. Bob Hoesch U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory Ashland, OR HoeschB@fws.gov From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!parc!barrnet.net!nntp-ucb.barrnet.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!cs.utk.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:25:27 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 29 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1169 sci.anthropology:9660 sci.anthropology.paleo:1240 sci.bio:13994 sci.math:54603 sci.nonlinear:2232 sci.philosophy.tech:7754 sci.skeptic:65985 talk.origins:79823 talk.philosophy.misc:20042 talk.religion.misc:78140 In article <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net>, "WIlliam C. Wilson" writes: |> |> |> > and many scholars claim that since |> > Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no |> > harmful effects from brother and sister mating. |> |> What does being created sinless have to do with having potential |> genetic ?imperfections?; or are you equating sinlessness with perfection? As you state below, incestuous mating is harmful due to the "harmful recessive already present". These "harmful recessive" traits would not have been present in the original creation, but were introduced after the fall (introduction of sin). |> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But that corruption would not have been present in the genes of Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. |> Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be |> free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might |> actually be very desirable. My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. Mark From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!lehua!usenet From: "WIlliam C. Wilson" Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 31 Jan 1995 05:37:32 GMT Organization: InterLink Hawaii Lines: 33 Message-ID: <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: port40.ilhawaii.net Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1166 sci.anthropology:9650 sci.anthropology.paleo:1235 sci.bio:13989 sci.math:54586 sci.nonlinear:2230 sci.philosophy.tech:7751 sci.skeptic:65970 talk.origins:79797 talk.philosophy.misc:20034 talk.religion.misc:78104 > Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, Are you sure about this? the only childern I have ever read about in Genesis are Cain, Abel and Seth. Both Cain and Seth are described as marrying the "daughters of men" tho where these other men came from is never cleared up. > and many scholars claim that since > Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no > harmful effects from brother and sister mating. What does being created sinless have to do with having potential genetic ?imperfections?; or are you equating sinlessness with perfection? If so would you care to define which genes are perfect even for something as simple as ABO blood types? Which is better AB+ or O-? > It would have taken a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that mating siblings would be harmful. > Mark How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? The problem with incestuous matings is not that they create new bad genes but that they are MUCH more likely to pass a double dose of any harmful recessive already present. Geneticly incest between siblings that could be shown to be free of harmful recessives (& other genes) would not be a problem and might actually be very desirable. If all double doses are weeded out permanently and proven carriers dont breed further it might be a very useful pattern, of course it wouldn't be very Humane or Moral (at least by western standards). William C. Wilson From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!EMAIL.AFIP.OSD.MIL!PARSONS From: PARSONS@EMAIL.AFIP.OSD.MIL Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Ancestry Question Debate Inappropriate for this Group Date: 3 Feb 1995 07:20:04 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 14 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501037918.AA791835309@email.afip.osd.mil> This is supposed to be a scientific discussion forum on population biology. Adam and Eve are figures of biblical fable, and there is no scientific evidence relating to them. If you want to discuss sin and the number of daughters that a two thousand year old text says were produced by characters in a creation myth, please go somewhere else. This is no different than fussing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Please allow real population biologists to have a serious forum. If you want to quote scripture, be it the Rig Veda, Bible, Koran, or Greek mythology, please find a theological bulletin board. My views are my own. Tom Parsons From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Path: biosci!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!newsserver.twu.ca!nsc189t100.twu.ca!user From: rsutc@twu.ca (Rick Sutcliffe) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: Sender: news@newsserver.twu.ca (news) Nntp-Posting-Host: nsc189t100.twu.ca Organization: Trinity Western University References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3glcr3$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 22:32:54 GMT Lines: 63 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1164 sci.anthropology:9639 sci.anthropology.paleo:1233 sci.bio:13986 sci.nonlinear:2229 sci.philosophy.tech:7750 sci.skeptic:65957 talk.origins:79780 In article , sasthc@samurai.unx.sas.com (Thomas Cox) wrote: > > None - from a genetic standpoint. An allegorical view of Genesis considers > Adam and Eve to be/represent the first humans with the "knowledge of good > and evil," and not necessarily the first human beings. The statement that they > were created from the "dust of the ground" is consistent with the temporal > compression common among early Hebraic writing, (e.g. the compression of > creation into the symbolic seven "days.") > A difficulty this view has revolves around the apparent acceptance of Genesis by Christ as literal and historical in his making of doctrinal points. > This view would posit that Adam & Eve were the first humans with *free will*, > possibly the first members of Homo Sapiens as opposed to Homo Neanderthalus and > his cousins. This is sometimes confused with "Scientific Creationism", but > for all you hair-splitters out there, it is a broader (and fuzzier) concept. The usual name is "progressive creationism." I'll gladly accept the title of "cummines sectores" and point out that H.N. and H. Cro Magnon are more often than not classed as varieties of H. Sap. these days. > > To further confound the literalist view, in Genesis 4:13-17 (Cain's expulsion) > Cain went to live "in the land of Nod, east of Eden" where he found a wife. He > was also afraid of being killed by "whoever finds me." Clearly there were > other inhabitants of the fertile crescent at the time. Cain lived a long time. I expect the population from two people could have grown rather large in a few hundred years. > > Finally, note that in Genesis 5:1-2 (a recap of Genesis 2) the use of the > plural forms in the creation of males and females. This is more obvious > in the "original" (i.e. Masoretic) text; and could be overlooked if not for > the prior substantiating text. > Interesting, but a little weak to base a major conclusion upon. It's like basing the doctrine of the Trinity on the plurality of God in Genesis alone "Let us create." The plurality there is interesting, but can scarcely stand alone without considerable additional support -- which support is there, but ignored by many. PS I have removed sci.math from the crosspostings list of this message, even though it's the only one of these I read. It scarcely seems relevant there. So, if you want to reply to me, write rsutc@twu.ca Rick -- Rick Sutcliffe Assoc. Prof. Computing/Math Trinity Western University Canadian Chair, WG13. Not an official spokesperson for TWU or WG13 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!unixhub!roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU!sschaff From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc Sender: news@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 07:01:50 GMT Lines: 19 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1168 sci.anthropology:9653 sci.anthropology.paleo:1236 sci.bio:13991 sci.math:54596 sci.nonlinear:2231 sci.philosophy.tech:7752 sci.skeptic:65979 talk.origins:79811 talk.philosophy.misc:20038 talk.religion.misc:78129 [Followups trimmed] In article <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net>, WIlliam C. Wilson wrote: > >> Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, > >Are you sure about this? the only childern I have ever read about >in Genesis are Cain, Abel and Seth. Both Cain and Seth are described >as marrying the "daughters of men" tho where these other men came >from is never cleared up. You seem to have skipped Gen. 5:4 in your reading: "and he [Adam] had other sons and daughters." -- Steve Schaffner sschaff@slac.stanford.edu Opinions expressed may be mine, and ||Immediate assurance is an excellent sign may not be those of SLAC, ||of probable lack of insight into the Stanford University, or the DOE. ||topic. Josiah Royce From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Larry Hamric <72665.1524@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Greatest impact on pop reduction? Date: 31 Jan 1995 06:02:36 GMT Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Lines: 10 Message-ID: <3gkjps$q1n$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Does anyone know of any (popular) literature which analyzes the weight of various factors in reducing human population? In particular, what is the relative effect of disease, war, natural catastrophy, etc. MY impression is that war, even that of the scope of the two world wars, has relatively little impact. Disease, on the other hand, can apparently have a big impact (e.g.the Black Death). I've seen these discussed in general terms but have never seen any actual statistics. Would appreciate any hints regarding readable literature. Thanks: Larry Hamric From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!cs.utk.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 31 Jan 1995 13:09:55 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 39 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3glcr3$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1170 sci.anthropology:9663 sci.anthropology.paleo:1241 sci.bio:13997 sci.math:54605 sci.nonlinear:2233 sci.philosophy.tech:7756 sci.skeptic:65990 talk.origins:79827 In article , gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) writes: |> In article <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) says: |> |> >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since |> >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no |> >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken |> >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that |> >mating siblings would be harmful. |> |> What evidence is there that there were a litera Adam and Eve? |> What evidence is there that Adam and Eve were sinless? |> What evidence is there that they sinned? |> What evidence is there that sin in some way affects the gene pool? |> What is the rate of this effect? |> Is it still progressing? |> Is there any evidence of this? |> |> There are SCHOLARS who teach this tripe? That's REALLY hard to believe. I've read quite |> a few of the papers, many of the abstracts, and many, MANY titles in genetic journals |> over the years and I've NEVER read anything so absurd. |> |> |> ====Greg Newman==== |> You can't teach a pig to sing, but you can teach a pig to drink beer. |> Then, they DO sing... loud and off key, but they sing.... Greg, You obviously have ruled out the possibility of anything existing that you can't prove, so what's the point? The scholars I am speaking of are BIBLICAL scholars, which you would probably claim to be an oxymoron. And as for your requests for evidence, I only sight one: everywhere around are evidences of the effect of sin on humanity - sickness, abuse, poverty, war, .... Mark From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 03 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!hubcap.clemson.edu!biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!campbell From: campbell@cobra.uni.edu (R. B. CAMPBELL) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Jan31.080706.37933@cobra.uni.edu> Date: 31 Jan 95 08:07:06 -0600 References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> Organization: University of Northern Iowa Lines: 9 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1171 sci.anthropology:9664 sci.anthropology.paleo:1242 sci.bio:13998 sci.math:54606 sci.nonlinear:2234 sci.philosophy.tech:7757 sci.skeptic:65991 talk.origins:79828 In article , gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) writes: > What evidence is there that sin in some way affects the gene pool? I had always assumed that the apple contained mutagenic agents. R. Campbell From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Feb 04 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!newserve!rebecca!albnyvms.bitnet!CC3265 From: cc3265@albnyvms.bitnet Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 5 Feb 1995 00:36:10 GMT Organization: University of Albany, SUNY Lines: 14 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3h16hq$63j@rebecca.albany.edu> References: <3fe9e6$ha6@ns.sunbelt.net> <3feamc$hqa@news.iastate.edu> <1995Jan16.194236.2335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net> Reply-To: cc3265@albnyvms.bitnet NNTP-Posting-Host: uacsc1.albany.edu Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1172 sci.anthropology:9765 sci.anthropology.paleo:1260 sci.bio:14023 sci.math:54791 sci.nonlinear:2240 sci.philosophy.tech:7764 sci.skeptic:66182 talk.origins:80081 talk.philosophy.misc:20111 talk.religion.misc:78352 In article <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes: >In article <3gkias$m0r@lehua.ilhawaii.net>, "WIlliam C. Wilson" writes: >|> > >|> >|> > >|> > >My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. > >Mark I assume you have a DNA sample? From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Feb 04 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!infoserver.bgsu.edu!bgnet.bgsu.edu!kfletch From: kfletch@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Kelly Fletcher) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: MEEC conference--final call for papers Date: 5 Feb 1995 15:49:24 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH (USA) Lines: 54 Message-ID: <3h2s24$1nk@infoserver.bgsu.edu> Reply-To: kfletch@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Kelly Fletcher) NNTP-Posting-Host: falcon.bgsu.edu FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS for the 15th Annual Midwest Ecology & Evolution Conference Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio March 31 - April 2, 1995 The MEEC is a conference for undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral researchers in the Midwest. Abstracts are currently being solicited for papers to be presented at the 1995 Midwest Ecology and Evolution Conference. Presentations of papers will be 10 minutes with an additional 5 minutes for questions. Abstracts are also being solicited for posters to be presented by the authors during an informal poster session. Paper and poster presentations should address topics in evolution, behavior, and/or ecology. The deadline for submission of abstracts for poster or paper presentations is February 13, 1995. The registration deadline for all others interested in attending is March 1, 1995. The registration fee for all participants is $25. Send abstracts, with projection or audio-visual needs, and requests for registration and lodging information, schedule, and maps to: Gina LaLiberte MEEC Department of Biological Sciences Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 (419) 352-8504 glalibe@opie.bgsu.edu Preparation of Abstracts for Paper Presentations and Posters Content: tell what you did, why and how you did it, your results, and what they mean. Format: typed, double spaced, and with 1" margins all around. Place the title at the top, followed by the author's name and address, and the paragraphs of the abstract. Length: Maximum of 1 1/2 pages. Presentation of a paper will be limited to one person. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 05 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!w250zrz!joaccigh From: joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Dagg) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: pop dinamite Date: 6 Feb 1995 10:17:11 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Lines: 76 Message-ID: <3h4sv7$l6u@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> References: <9501312117.AA00825@mbox.nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> <3gq7tp$49p@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de As I've come to a solution of the whole matter, discussing it with Chris Colby on sci.bio.evolution (thread `anomaly'), I send it to this group as well: Chris Colby (colby@biology.bu.edu) wrote: Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE) wrote: >: The best measurement of fitness is the portion of ones genes >: in the next generation. Now the human population is exploding. >So far so good. >: That means one child is a lesser portion then it was some >: years ago. >True, but irrelevant. Individuals don't have fitness, alleles do. >: So while the human population is exploding, we are >: all getting less fit >No, because fitness was never something we, as individuals, ever >had. All I see are claims and statements, no reasons or explanations given. Chris, if the reason you reject fitness for individuals is, because otherwise guys like me can come around and turn everything upside- down, why don't you say it? I might just accept. Or said in other words: To make the fitness concept work for growing and shrinking populations, the idea of individuals having fitness had to be given up. So we are right back at the selfish genes theory. I think I'll have to bite into that sour apple. But now I know why. Because it explains everything neatly. And because (and that's the point) the older theory of individuals having fitness does not and absurdities occur. So the absurdity I found was actually an anomaly, but only an out dated one. (anomaly[sic] -- YES!!:) Whether it was recognized then doesn't matter. It existed then. >If you'd like to learn something about natural selection >(and fitness), I'd recommend reading: Stop doing as if rejecting fitness for individuals as possible is so common among biologists ("Better try looking up...", "If you'd like to learn something..."). Elton, Darwin and their kind talked about the `survival of the fittest' and indeed did not mean the fittest allel (how could they), but individual. And the fitness concept was based on the assumption of steady population size originally (better try looking up Malthus and Darwin :). And the early neodarwinists still thought it possible to ascribe fitness to individuals, in my humble opinion. Many biologists still do!!! I bet, the claim that "fitness was never something we, as individuals, ever had", is as young as the selfish gene theory. >: But a recollapsing universe is one of two outcomes, the astronomists >: consider possible. The logical dictation which helps out is, that the >: arrow of entropy will turn around in the moment the universe starts >: collapsing. >No, it will not. Yes, I don't like that unevidenced claim as well. But if the universe is recollapsing and will end up where it started, entropy cannot have grown. Anyway, we better stop talking about something, as uncertain as the beginning and end of the universe, so decided. ---- Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) This man is not running around with beliefs in the truths and commandments of science. He's running around with a tool-box ful of working hypotheses. And now he just found a new tool called `HOW TO IRRITATE PEOPLE, TELLING YOU THEY WANT TO HAVE LOADS OF CHILDREN - OR OTHER PEOPLE, WHO ANNOY YOU WITH THEIR NARROW MINDED VIEWS:)'. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 05 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6238 From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb6.213654.21978@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: d6238.shv.hb.se Organization: Dept. of economy and computer science. X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1 References: <3fer1f$7go@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3gojvr$p15@comet.connix.com> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 03:55:35 GMT Lines: 16 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1178 sci.anthropology:9852 sci.anthropology.paleo:1268 sci.bio:14073 sci.math:55010 sci.philosophy.tech:7784 sci.skeptic:66396 talk.origins:80363 dmoseley@connix (Don Moseley) wrote: >In article <3go3na$43n@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, resnom@ix.netcom.com >(Robert Beyer) says: >> >>In <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov >(Mark >>S. Whorton) writes: >> > >Boy my reader is a pain in the A.. It fusses at me when I don't write more >than I quote - I hope this will be enough to satisfy it. No! I'll probably have >to erase more . Oh shit! DON'T give it to any creationists! From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 05 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6238 From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb6.213306.21738@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: d6238.shv.hb.se Organization: Dept. of economy and computer science. X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1 References: <3ge252$6h9@clarknet.clark.net> <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 03:51:46 GMT Lines: 34 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1177 sci.bio:14072 sci.math:55009 sci.philosophy.tech:7783 sci.skeptic:66395 talk.origins:80362 talk.philosophy.misc:20178 talk.religion.misc:78562 whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) wrote: >In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu (Brooks Rusty) writes: >|> Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: >|> > Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: >|> >|> > : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or >|> > : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different >|> > : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear >|> > : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one >|> > : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) >|> >|> Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures >|> created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then >|> you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not >|> well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? > >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that >mating siblings would be harmful. Do you know the perfectly logical and testable truth behind why incest is dangerous. One that is much more logical and not a faction as much of an afterwards creation as that some scholars have found out that IF "Sin made it harmful to cross siblings" THEN Creationsism is alright. Even though this isn't even an attempt to support a theory by finding evidence. It is a lead in the continous revision of the bible that have been going on since the middle age just to make sure it don't contradict the observable reality. You would be burned as a heretic just as much as I would have been in the 17'th century. Claes Andersson. University of Borås. Sweden From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 05 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!news From: "Eugene Ackerman, Ph.D." Subject: Ancestry Question Debate inappropriate Message-ID: <64989.acker004@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_17A Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration) Nntp-Posting-Host: dialup-2-138.gw.umn.edu X-Popmail-Charset: English Reply-To: Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:44:29 GMT Lines: 12 [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] Tom Parsons wrote about the inappropriateness of the current ancestry debate for this news group. I share his displeasure with the dnumerous posts that, IMHO, are noise with few redeeming points except perhaps humor. Walk in peace . . . . . . Gene The Amethyst Gemstone [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 05 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6238 From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb6.213947.22151@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: d6238.shv.hb.se Organization: Dept. of economy and computer science. X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1 References: <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3glps6$lfh@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 03:58:28 GMT Lines: 43 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1179 sci.anthropology:9853 sci.anthropology.paleo:1269 sci.bio:14074 sci.math:55011 sci.nonlinear:2253 sci.philosophy.tech:7785 sci.skeptic:66397 talk.origins:80364 talk.philosophy.misc:20179 talk.religion.misc:78563 whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) wrote: >In article , mhill@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Hill) writes: >|> In article <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, >|> Mark S. Whorton wrote: >|> >In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu (Brooks Rusty) writes: >|> >|> Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: >|> >|> > Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: >|> >|> >|> >|> > : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or >|> >|> > : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different >|> >|> > : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear >|> >|> > : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one >|> >|> > : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) >|> >|> >|> >|> Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures >|> >|> created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then >|> >|> you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not >|> >|> well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? >|> > >|> >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since >|> >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no >|> >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken >|> >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that >|> >mating siblings would be harmful. >|> > >|> >Mark >|> >|> How does sin corrupt the gene pool? >|> >|> >|> Matthew Hill (MHILL@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA) > >I really don't know. The bible was not written as a science >text. Many times the bible doesn't answer the how, but only >the what and sometimes the why. There were many ramifications >on humanity due to sin, but the bible most specifically deals >with the spiritual consequences. And it is of course not possible that this several thousand years old book is a good old tale and nothing more? /Claes From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Feb 06 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!seismo!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!ws45dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov!sjryker From: sjryker@ws45dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov (Sarah J. Ryker) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb7.004210.11762@rsg1.er.usgs.gov> Sender: news@rsg1.er.usgs.gov Organization: US Geological Survey References: <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3glps6$lfh@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb6.213947.22151@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:42:10 GMT Lines: 75 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1180 sci.anthropology:9861 sci.anthropology.paleo:1277 sci.bio:14078 sci.math:55062 sci.nonlinear:2255 sci.philosophy.tech:7786 sci.skeptic:66426 talk.origins:80399 talk.philosophy.misc:20191 talk.religion.misc:78591 Not only is `this is human' or `this is a species' or `this is determining' up for debate; I'm interested to note an underlying issue of `change is done _to_ a thing,' vs. `a thing changes.' The `change is done _to_' line has a very theistic ring to it: 1) God causes, creates, and changes all, and even arranges for the possibility of sin; or 2) nature-as-god (gametes, (im)perfect genes) determines/promotes change; or 3) sinfulness , induced by one of the above, then induces genetic change . In the more chaotic view, nature-sans-godliness has a rather Taoist innate tendency toward change but is not deterministic: that is, each part -- Adam, or Eve -- itself _does_ change, but not through any particular stimulus or external action; and not with any linear intentionality. I wonder how much of the difference arises from the qualitative component of the argument: that this is not only change but a change for the worse, ie into sin. The intent, and implied judgment, of the theistic/done-to event theory is pivotal, the antithesis of the chaotic, nonpersonal process. ========= In article <1995Feb6.213947.22151@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>, sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) writes: > whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) wrote: > >In article , mhill@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Hill) writes: > >|> In article <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, > >|> Mark S. Whorton wrote: > >|> >In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu (Brooks Rusty) writes: > >|> >|> Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: > >|> >|> > Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: > >|> >|> > >|> >|> > : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or > >|> >|> > : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different > >|> >|> > : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear > >|> >|> > : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one > >|> >|> > : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) > >|> >|> > >|> >|> Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures > >|> >|> created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then > >|> >|> you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not > >|> >|> well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? > >|> > > >|> >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since > >|> >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no > >|> >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken > >|> >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that > >|> >mating siblings would be harmful. > >|> > > >|> >Mark > >|> > >|> How does sin corrupt the gene pool? > >|> > >|> > >|> Matthew Hill (MHILL@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA) > > > >I really don't know. The bible was not written as a science > >text. Many times the bible doesn't answer the how, but only > >the what and sometimes the why. There were many ramifications > >on humanity due to sin, but the bible most specifically deals > >with the spiritual consequences. > > And it is of course not possible that this several thousand years > old book is a good old tale and nothing more? > > /Claes > -- =============================================================================== Sarah J. Ryker sjryker@usgs.gov -OR- sjryker@fs01dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov GIS Specialist, Central Columbia Plateau NAWQA (206)593-6530x332 U.S. Geological Survey - Water Resources Division, Tacoma WA (206)593-6514 fax From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Feb 06 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Path: biosci!adam.cc.sunysb.edu!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!seismo!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!ws45dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov!sjryker From: sjryker@ws45dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov (Sarah J. Ryker) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: <1995Feb7.004210.11762@rsg1.er.usgs.gov> Sender: news@rsg1.er.usgs.gov Organization: US Geological Survey References: <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu> <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <3glps6$lfh@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb6.213947.22151@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:42:10 GMT Lines: 75 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1181 sci.anthropology:9871 sci.anthropology.paleo:1282 sci.bio:14086 sci.math:55105 sci.nonlinear:2256 sci.philosophy.tech:7788 sci.skeptic:66454 talk.origins:80444 talk.philosophy.misc:20198 talk.religion.misc:78631 Not only is `this is human' or `this is a species' or `this is determining' up for debate; I'm interested to note an underlying issue of `change is done _to_ a thing,' vs. `a thing changes.' The `change is done _to_' line has a very theistic ring to it: 1) God causes, creates, and changes all, and even arranges for the possibility of sin; or 2) nature-as-god (gametes, (im)perfect genes) determines/promotes change; or 3) sinfulness , induced by one of the above, then induces genetic change . In the more chaotic view, nature-sans-godliness has a rather Taoist innate tendency toward change but is not deterministic: that is, each part -- Adam, or Eve -- itself _does_ change, but not through any particular stimulus or external action; and not with any linear intentionality. I wonder how much of the difference arises from the qualitative component of the argument: that this is not only change but a change for the worse, ie into sin. The intent, and implied judgment, of the theistic/done-to event theory is pivotal, the antithesis of the chaotic, nonpersonal process. ========= In article <1995Feb6.213947.22151@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>, sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) writes: > whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) wrote: > >In article , mhill@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Matthew Hill) writes: > >|> In article <3gjmje$8gk@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, > >|> Mark S. Whorton wrote: > >|> >In article <3gjhv9$9hl@hermes.unt.edu>, rustyb@jove.acs.unt.edu (Brooks Rusty) writes: > >|> >|> Lord Zilch (thedavid@clark.net) wrote: > >|> >|> > Rod Hagen (rodhagen@insane.apana.org.au) wrote: > >|> >|> > >|> >|> > : The thing that intrigues me is the question of who the mythical Adam or > >|> >|> > : Eve mated with. Were they brother and sister or were they of different > >|> >|> > : species! It strikes me that the answer points to the absence of any clear > >|> >|> > : boundary between species. (i.e there is no clear cut off point where one > >|> >|> > : can say "this is human" and "this is not".) > >|> >|> > >|> >|> Even if you accept the fact that Adam and Eve were unique creatures > >|> >|> created by God, and not 'brother and sister' or 'different species' then > >|> >|> you must address the fact, who did their children mate with? I am not > >|> >|> well versed in biblical literature, but did Adam and Eve have only sons? > >|> > > >|> >Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters, and many scholars claim that since > >|> >Adam and Eve had been created in a sinless state, there would be no > >|> >harmful effects from brother and sister mating. It would have taken > >|> >a few generations for the gene pool to be corrupted by sin so that > >|> >mating siblings would be harmful. > >|> > > >|> >Mark > >|> > >|> How does sin corrupt the gene pool? > >|> > >|> > >|> Matthew Hill (MHILL@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA) > > > >I really don't know. The bible was not written as a science > >text. Many times the bible doesn't answer the how, but only > >the what and sometimes the why. There were many ramifications > >on humanity due to sin, but the bible most specifically deals > >with the spiritual consequences. > > And it is of course not possible that this several thousand years > old book is a good old tale and nothing more? > > /Claes > -- =============================================================================== Sarah J. Ryker sjryker@usgs.gov -OR- sjryker@fs01dwatcm.wr.usgs.gov GIS Specialist, Central Columbia Plateau NAWQA (206)593-6530x332 U.S. Geological Survey - Water Resources Division, Tacoma WA (206)593-6514 fax From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Feb 06 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!agate!news.Stanford.EDU!rutgers!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!news From: "Eugene Ackerman, Ph.D." Subject: Ancestry Question Debate inappropriate Message-ID: <64989.acker004@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_17A Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration) Nntp-Posting-Host: dialup-2-138.gw.umn.edu X-Popmail-Charset: English Reply-To: Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:44:29 GMT Lines: 12 [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] Tom Parsons wrote about the inappropriateness of the current ancestry debate for this news group. I share his displeasure with the dnumerous posts that, IMHO, are noise with few redeeming points except perhaps humor. Walk in peace . . . . . . Gene The Amethyst Gemstone [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Feb 07 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!JEEVES.UCSD.EDU!hoschek From: hoschek@JEEVES.UCSD.EDU (gisela hoschek) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: English Language Help Date: 8 Feb 1995 10:33:59 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 17 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9502081818.AD08298@jeeves.UCSD.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Editors and reviewers let me know that there is a need for help to authors of research papers to be submitted for publication in English or for grant applications to English speaking sources. I would like to help (translating and/or proof-reading) where my expertise qualifies me: molecular biology, biochemistry, molecular genetics. I am not looking for employment, but would like to work with individual authors. Since I recently retired from the lab bench for health reasons, I want to stay connected and active, and put to use the skills and knowledge I acquired over the last 20 years. I have worked mainly in the field of plant molecular genetics (UCLA and UCSD), with excursions into entomology (bacculoviruses) and cancer research (in tissue culture). I speak German fluently, and French enough to understand. For more INFO please contact me: e-mail: hoschek@jeeves.ucsd.edu tel.: (619) 944-4233 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Feb 07 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!vt.edu!fishgen From: fishgen@vt.edu (Bruce J. Turner) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: pedigree analysis software Date: 8 Feb 1995 12:41:54 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 12 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199502082041.MAA09611@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net > >To:genetic-linkage@net.bio.net >From:fishgen@vt.edu (Bruce J. Turner) >Subject:pedigree analysis software > >A graduate student in Jeff Walter's lab here is in need of a source of >pedigree analysis software for her studies of birds. She has roughly 6000 >individuals and wants to put them all in a pedigree. Any suggestions for >public domain or commercial software that could do this would be appreciated. > From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!spectre.prin.edu!usenet From: ycl9649@spectre.prin.edu (Yannick Laclau) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: PAC: Critical Connections Date: 9 Feb 1995 07:15:26 GMT Organization: Principia Lines: 57 Message-ID: <3hcfee$rcf@spectre.prin.edu> Reply-To: ycl9649@prin.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: miclab11.prin.edu X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.5 The Principia College School of Government presents the 46th annual Public Affairs Conference Critical Connections: Global Population, Women, and the Environment April 6-8, 1995 · What are the consequences of population growth on global development? · Will rapid growth of population and consumption push us beyond environmental thresholds? · Is family planning an appropriate method for checking rapid population growth? · How should reproductive choice and economic freedom for women around the world be addressed? · How does the population crisis affect you? The Public Affairs Conference PAC, the oldest student-run conference in America, is a three-day educational oppurtunity for students from around the nation to discuss freely the vital and relevant issues of the day. Former speakers have included Henry Kissinger, Enrico Fermi, Richard Nixon, and Jonathan Kozol. This year’s PAC will feature nine speakers chosen for their knowledge of and experience in population, gender equity, international development, and the environment. The format will include a keynote speaker, workshops, expert panels, roundtable discussions, and a closing session. The 250 delegates will enhance their understanding of important interdisciplinary links that are needed to find answers in the population and development debates. Resource people will be available during the roundtable sessions for small group discussion; they include grassroots activists from Guatemala and Kenya as well as university professors specialized in relevant fields. For specific information, including speakers list, registration form, and schedule, please check the other bulletin entries or contact us directly. We look forward to hearing from you! _______________________________________ Yannick Laclau, Director Public Affairs Conference Principia College, Elsah, IL 62028 Phone (618) 374-4938 / Fax (618) 374-5122 e-mail: ycl9649@prin.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!wupost!spectre.prin.edu!usenet From: ycl9649@spectre.prin.edu (Yannick Laclau) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: PAC: Schedule Date: 9 Feb 1995 09:27:28 GMT Organization: Principia Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3hcn60$ruh@spectre.prin.edu> Reply-To: ycl9649@prin.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: miclab11.prin.edu X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.5 1995 Principia College Public Affairs Conference Tentative Schedule of Events Thursday, April 6, 1995 1:00-5:00 Registration 7:00-8:30 Keynote Address 9:00 Reception Friday, April 7, 1995 8:00-9:00 Breakfast 9:00-10:00 Opening Address 10:00 Break 10:30-12:15 Roundtable I 12:30 Lunch 1:15 Campus Tour 2:00-3:00 Panel I 3:45-5:15 Roundtable II 6:00-8:00 Banquet Dinner & Speaker 9:00 Campus Social Activity Saturday, April 8, 1995 8:00-8:30 Breakfast 8:30-10:00 Panel II 10:30-11:45 Roundtable III 12:00-2:00 Final Lunch and Closing Session Yannick Laclau, Director Public Affairs Conference Principia College, Elsah, IL 62028 Voice (618) 374-4938 / Fax (618) 374-5122 e-mail: ycl9649@prin.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!spectre.prin.edu!usenet From: ycl9649@spectre.prin.edu (Yannick Laclau) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: PAC: Speakers list Date: 9 Feb 1995 08:47:16 GMT Organization: Principia Lines: 77 Message-ID: <3hckqk$rmq@spectre.prin.edu> Reply-To: ycl9649@prin.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: miclab11.prin.edu X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.5 Principia College Public Affairs Conference Confirmed Speakers List (As of February 8, 1995) Dr. Virginia Abernethy Professor of Psychiatry and Anthropology at Vanderbilt University. She has written two books pertaining to population stabilization. Her most recent article in the Atlantic Monthly focuses on the "perceived economic opportunity" theory of fertility rates. Ms. Sally Ethelston Director of Media Relations for Population Action International and Editor of Middle East Report. She coordinated PAI’s presence at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo this past September. She worked at the Arab American Institute and has a broad knowledge of the Middle East with specific expertise on issues relating to family planning, reproductive health, "women in development", and human rights. Dr. Huma Ahmed Ghosh Professor of Anthropology at San Diego State University. She has taught Anthropology and Sociology courses pertaining to gender relations in Asia and development and urbanization issues in the developing world. Dr. Ghosh has conducted research in India on the impact of agricultural development on rural women and on the status of women in the handicraft industry. Mr. Ben Hren Director of the Izaak Walton League of America’s "Carrying Capacity Project." The project is an educational initiative working to bring the impacts of US human population growth and natural resource consumption into balance with the limits of nature. He played an active role in the NGO Environmental Working Groups, promoting the expansion of environmental and sustainable development concepts in the 1994 World Programme of Action. Ms. Perdita Huston Writer and consultant on population, development and environmental issues for LIFE magazine, TIME, the New York Times, and The New Yorker magazine. Author of several books including the highly respected "Third World Women Speak Out." Currently writing a publication for the UN to commemorate 1994 as the Global Year of the Family. Dr. Judith Jacobsen Author and lecturer specializing in population, environment, sustainability and gender issues in the developing world. Conducted public round-table discussions on US population growth, fertility, and migration patterns as a consultant to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development’s task force on population and consumption. Mr. Alexander Marshall Chief of Media Services at the UN Population Fund and Editor of State of World Population Report. Before joining UNFPA he worked with the British Ministry of Overseas Development, and between 1978 and 1980 was UNFPA coordinator for Sri-Lanka. Dr. George Moffett Diplomatic correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor. Served a three year tour as the Middle East bureau chief. Author of "Critical Masses: The Global Population Challenge." He was awarded a Global Media Award by the Population Institute in 1993 for a series of articles on global population. Pending Congressional schedule, closing remarks will be given by the Honorable Richard J. Durbin (D-IL). A seven term Congressman and former chairman of the Subcommittees on Agriculture and World Development, he has published articles concerning the role of women on international population and development. Public Affairs Conference Principia College Elsah, IL 62028 Voice: (618) 374-4938 or 4048 Fax: (618) 374-5122 e-mail: ycl9649@prin.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!spectre.prin.edu!usenet From: ycl9649@spectre.prin.edu (Yannick Laclau) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: PAC: Registration form Date: 9 Feb 1995 08:18:46 GMT Organization: Principia Lines: 75 Message-ID: <3hcj56$rig@spectre.prin.edu> Reply-To: ycl9649@prin.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: miclab11.prin.edu X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.5 The Principia College School of Government presents the 46th Annual Public Affairs Conference: Critical Connections: Global Population, Women, and the Environment Registration Form Please complete this form for each person attending the conference (feel free to photocopy if needed). All forms must be received no later than March 3, 1995 by fax or mail. Student Delegate · Please check the appropriate box. Faculty observer · ____________________________________________________________________________________ First Name M.I. Last Name Sex Telephone Number _________________________________________________________________________ Street Address City State Zip _________________________________________________________________________ University or College Faculty Sponsor (if applicable) _________________________________________________________________________ Full Name of Faculty Sponsor Work Phone _________________________________________________________________________ Street Address City State Zip Registration Fee: $35* Please include payment with registration form. Fee includes: 2 continental breakfasts, cafeteria lunch, banquet dinner, closing luncheon, materials, and conference guide. *The fee is waived for faculty members attending with 3 or more paying students. Vegetarian Meal: Yes___ No___ (Please check your preference) Accommodations: Free Transportation Needed from St. Louis Lambert Airport? Yes___ No___ Flight Information:__________________________________ (or call when obtained) ____ On Campus: Guests staying on campus will be in Gehner House (Guest dormitory) ____Single $20 per night ____Double $12.50 per night per person ____Triple $8.00 per night per person ____Off Campus: Guests staying off campus will be responsible for their own accommodations. Please indicate where you will be staying below: ___Corner Nest (Elsah; 5 min.) 618-374-1892 ___Frontier Lodge (Jerseyville; 20 min.) 618-498-6886 ___Green Tree Inn (Elsah; 5 min.) 618-374-2821 ___Holiday Inn (Alton; 25 min.) 618-462-1220 ___Maple Leaf Cottages (Elsah; 5 min.) 618-374-1684 ___Pere Marquette (Grafton; 20 min.) 618-786-2331 ___Ramada Inn (Alton; 20 min.) 618-463-0800 ___Super 8 Motel (Alton; 25 min.) 618-465-8885 ___Other: _____________________________________________________ Public Affairs Conference Principia College Elsah, IL 62028 · Voice: 618-374-4938 or 4048 Fax: 618-374-5122 e-mail: ycl9649@prin.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Feb 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!macg417d.bio.purdue.edu!user From: bswanson@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu (Brad Swanson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Canid mtDNA primers? Date: 9 Feb 1995 19:26:51 GMT Organization: Purdue University Lines: 20 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: macg417d.bio.purdue.edu Hello everyone, I am a PhD student at Purdue working on fox dispersal. I have some interesting populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and would like to look at dispersal and popualtion structure in the area. I have a set of microsatellite primers for the nuclear genome, but I would also like to find a set of mtDNA primers for a highly variable region. Male foxes disperse much greater distances than females do, so I think that it will be important to look at both genomes to get a better picture of what is going on. If you have any primers that I might be able to use I (or know of anyone who does) I would appreciate your help. Feel free to respond directly to my e-mail (bswanson@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu) as I doubt too many people would be interested in the replies. I will post a summmary though if anyone is interested. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Brad -- Brad Swanson ***The ratio of my incompetence ************ Dept. of Biology ****to the task at hand isinfinite!******* Purdue Univ. *** Graduate school, the last legal***** bswanson@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu ****form of indentured servitude****** From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 09 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!adam.cc.sunysb.edu!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!warwick!bham!usenet From: O.T.Lewis@bham.ac.uk (Owen Lewis) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Mark-recature software wanted Date: 10 Feb 1995 10:01:52 GMT Organization: University of Birmingham Lines: 7 Message-ID: <3hfdig$ncc@sun4.bham.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: bcs149.bham.ac.uk X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1 Does anyone know where I can obtain (ideally by FTP) software for calculating population estimates from mark-recapture data? Thanks, Owen. O.T.Lewis@bham.ac.uk From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Feb 09 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!lynx.unm.edu!dns1.NMSU.Edu!jondavis From: jondavis@nmsu.edu (Jonathan E. Davis) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Ancestry Question Debate inappropriate Date: 10 Feb 1995 02:36:34 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3hejfi$1c2@dns1.NMSU.Edu> References: <64989.acker004@maroon.tc.umn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: verdi.nmsu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Eugene Ackerman, Ph.D. (acker004@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote: : [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] : Tom Parsons wrote about the inappropriateness of the current ancestry : debate for this news group. I share his displeasure with the dnumerous : posts that, IMHO, are noise with few redeeming points except perhaps : humor. : Walk in peace . . . . . . Gene : The Amethyst Gemstone : [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*] How kan peeple thinc thuh Bibel is littoral, whin moast of thuh peeple poasting to this thred kan't spel worth shitt. Is korect spalling ohnly posable in thuh devinely inspired? From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 10 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!billya.uoregon.edu!billy_ard From: billy_ard@ccmail.uoregon.edu (Billy Ard) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Population statistics Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:59:18 UNDEFINED Organization: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon Lines: 11 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: billya.uoregon.edu X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1] Netter's I am interested in locating information regarding birth rates. For example, I am interested in the understanding the proportions of births that involve develpmental disabilities (i.e., Cerebal Palsey, Downs Syndrome, ect.) across time. What would be nice would be to find these summary statistics organized by year (i.e., 1970, 1971, .., 1994). Any help will be greatly appreciated. Billy in Blugene From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 10 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uunet!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!w204zrz!joaccigh From: joaccigh@w204zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Dagg) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: pop dinamite Date: 10 Feb 1995 17:08:37 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Lines: 139 Message-ID: <3hg6il$imq@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> References: <9501312117.AA00825@mbox.nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> <3gq7tp$49p@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> <3h4sv7$l6u@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: w204zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de I'm having severe problems of getting anything through to sci.bio.evolution, but Chris is going on to pick out some contorted bits of my posts, pronouncing some majestic verdicts upon them on s.b.e.. All desperatly trying to make me look stupid in the eyes of the readers of s.b.e.. So I decided to post my answeres here. Praised be the sovereignity and patience of this group's moderator. But as I know something about fair play, I put the complete answere of Chris to my last post, which is also on this group, at the beginning. Chris Colby (colby@biology.bu.edu) wrote: >This begins as a response to Joachim, then turns into a generalized >rant about the uselfullness of evolutionary biology. >Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) wrote: >: >: So while the human population is exploding, we are >: >: all getting less fit >: >No, because fitness was never something we, as individuals, ever >: >had. >: All I see are claims and statements, no reasons or explanations given. >I'm just clarifying the definition of fitness for you. I realise >that I didn't explain myself fully, but why should it be up to me >to teach you the basics of evolutionary biology? Why don't you >learn what you are talking about before posting? >: Chris, if the reason you reject fitness for individuals is, because >: otherwise guys like me can come around and turn everything upside- >: down, why don't you say it? >I don't _reject_ the idea that individuals have fitness, it's simply >a non-standard definition. If you can make a good case why it >would be better to ascribe fitness to individuals, go ahead. >But, it was fairly obvious from your post that you were simply >unaware of the definition of fitness. >"Guys like you" will never turn anything upside-down until you >first learn what you are talking about. Believe it or not, >evolutionary biology is a well established field. Most terms >have a standard definition (or a small number of definitions >with proponents for each variant). Why don't you learn what >they are? >: And the early neodarwinists still thought it possible to ascribe >: fitness to individuals, in my humble opinion. >I doubt this. The earliest mathematical models of natural >selection dealt with differential reproductive success of alleles; >the definition currently used seems to flow fairly easily from that. >: Many biologists still >: do!!! >Yes, but many (actually most) biologists do not have the slightest clue >about evolution. >: I bet, the claim that "fitness was never something we, as >: individuals, ever had", is as young as the selfish gene theory. >There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a selfish gene theory >in evolutionary biology. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular book >written by Dawkin's; in it he does not propose any new theories >of evolution. He simply claims it is a new way of looking at >evolutionary biology. If you want a theory in evolution, see >Motoo Kimura's Neutral Theory for models of how evolution works >in the absense of natural selection. For some theories with >selection, see John Gillespie's models. I don't mind Dawkin's >book so much (not a bad intro to evolution for the layman), but >it certainly isn't a work that generates any research ideas like >real theories do. >It seems like the two most common questions from non-biologists are >"why does the X have it's Y" and "what did all the intermediates between >A and B look like". Unfortunately, these are not the kind of questions >most biologists care about. Thinking up adaptive explanantions for >traits can be interesting, but empty speculation is useless >scientifically. Likewise, finding out what extinct organisms >looked like is interesting; but it isn't really science. However, >there are good scientific questions in evolutionary biology. >It would be nice if s.b.e. was a forum that introduced interested >people into some of the more scientific aspects of evolution and >why biologists find them interesting. >A couple interesting recent developments in evolutionary biology >are the effect of transmission rate on virulence in parasites. >Or, methods of detecting natural selection from nucleotide >polymorphism -- which goes towards answering the question >"does genetic drift or natural selection have a greater influence >on determining the levels and distribution of genetic variation?". >In addition, evolutionary biology has practical considerations. >The continuing evolution of many species (including crop pests >and disease agents) poses problems for human populations world- >wide. In these days of budget tightening, in might be a good idea >if some people actually working in the field expressed (in dollars >and cents terms) how research in evolutionary biology benefits >the taxpayer. For example, better knowledge of systematics would >make it easier to track down potential species that produce >compounds of medicinal interest. Better knowledge of insect >evolution could pave the way for better pest control strategies, >saving the agricultural industry money and preventing cata- >strophic outbreaks of crop attacking species (especially since >we rely so heavily on a few crops (corn, grain, beans etc.) >A good scientific base of knowledge in all areas is an insurance >policy for the country. Would we be better able to control >rising health costs now if more basic research into retroviruses >was funded _prior_ to AIDS becoming a health problem in the >U.S.? Every species on the planet could potentially become a >menace to humans. Knowledge of specific species and/or how >species evolve in general could head off problems down the road. >Waiting for a problem to arise, then throwing money at it, will >cost much more than simply keeping science in general funded >to a decent extent and being a step or two up when problems >do arise. >I think it's great that there is enough interest to support an >evolutionary biology board on USENET. But, it would be nice if >the content of the board didn't reinforce the common notion that >evolutionary biology is just a bunch of untestable armchair >speculation. (This is cross-posted to bionet.population-bio; >and bionet.molbio.evolution maybe some people who actually work >in the field could occasionally venture over to s.b.e. and add >to some of the conversations.) >DISCLAIMER: Then again, I'm just a dumb-ass grad. student. What >the hell do I know? >: Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) >Chris Colby --- email: colby@biology.bu.edu or colby@acs.bu.edu --- >"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined, >resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'" > --Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos" That's it. Next in this thread comes my answere. Joachim From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Feb 10 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!pipex!uunet!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!w204zrz!joaccigh From: joaccigh@w204zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Dagg) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: pop dinamite Date: 10 Feb 1995 17:54:23 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Lines: 53 Message-ID: <3hg98f$kee@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> References: <9501312117.AA00825@mbox.nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> <3gq7tp$49p@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> <3h4sv7$l6u@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: w204zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de Here's the answere: Well Chris, you're starting to learn to know something about me: 1. I use the news-groups as an additional and interactive way of learning, whether you like it or not. 2. I learn by calling each- and everything in question, getting up with my own results. 3. I have a clean epistemiology and no religious feelings about any scientific matter, not even about evolutionary biology. Having said that, I totally agree with you that evolutionary biology is a well established field. But you won't understand how that is possible, as long as you don't get a clean epistemiology yourself (start with Thomas Kuhn's `Structure of scientific revolution'). And I learned to know something about you as well: 1. You use the news-groups for giving answeres, though you don't even know how to ask questions. Try any good phylosophy book and stop regarding it as heresy, to call in question even the most basic views of the world, you have. It's a test of hypotheses. As I've come to the result, that things get absurd, ascribing fitness to individuals, my test resulted in evidence for_your_claim, that individuals have none. That's the scientific way of getting things straight. 2. You learned by being busy, eating the professoral wisdom with spoons. And you've been successful at that. 3. You better start at the beginning and adopt yourself some epistemiology. 4. You say you're just a dump-ass grad student, but you already sound like a dogmatic old bone. 5. You fight a long won war against creationists, I guess. If you think I'm a creationist, you tilt against windmills. You can't beat a sober epistemiology man! Crisp now, or do you need more? Well then go on flaming. But as I'm flame-resistant anyway, you may just spare us that. Sincerely hoping this is giving you a fit. DISCLAIMER: Strange ways of communication these Internet ways anyway (everybody being so axious of looking like an idiot in frot of the whole world, flames light up quickly). Range sways of ammunition anyway. Age ways common ammon ways. A ways a ay. Ayyyy. Joachim (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) ---- George Schmidt was moving in a series of convulsive spasms, like someone in an epileptic fit - with his face contorted and his eyes wild. Bracing his legs with something kept pulling him on. Now he's picking up the skulls and makin' a circle. I guess old George didn't rightly know what he was getting himself into. Tom Waits - the black rider P.S. I'm off the net until 21.2.95 at least. If you have some sense of fair play, you answere on this group only. But if it was up to me, I'd regard the discussion as ended long ago. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Feb 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!adam.cc.sunysb.edu!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: unkbear@aol.com (UnkBear) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Galapagos Date: 11 Feb 1995 07:49:55 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 17 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <3hibpj$qr@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: unkbear@aol.com (UnkBear) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Does anyone know the current status of the environmental crisis in the Galapagos? What is the status of the sea cucumber industry. Have the Islands suffered any permanent environmental damage. (Fernandina?) Are there any confirmed introductions from fishing vessels? Can anyone direct me to a newsgroup with an ongoing thread about the Galapagos Islands? Thanks Glenn Heck, Berwyn, PA O /- ++++++++========(*)_(*) "He went thataway>>>" From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!caesar.wits.ac.za!pc27.biol.wits.ac.za!wayne From: wayne@gecko.biol.wits.ac.za (Wayne Twine) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Galapogos islands Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:11:24 LOCAL Organization: Wits Zoology Department Lines: 14 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: pc27.biol.wits.ac.za X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4] Somebody wanted to know if there were any news groups with a thread on the Galapogos saga. I accidently erased your message but whoever it was, bionet.biology.tropical have two threads pertaining to this topic viz. "Stop bashing Ecuador" and "Galapogos". Hope that helps. Wayne Twine Centre for African Ecology University of the Witwatersrand South Africa e-mail: wayne@gecko.biol.wits.ac.za From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 13 Feb 1995 13:38:30 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 35 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3hnncm$q71@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1199 sci.anthropology:10048 sci.anthropology.paleo:1329 sci.bio:14219 sci.math:55721 sci.nonlinear:2297 sci.philosophy.tech:7842 sci.skeptic:67029 talk.origins:81131 talk.philosophy.misc:20402 talk.religion.misc:79318 In article <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com>, chris@eso.mc (Chris Heiny x73186 - SPO) writes: |> |> In article ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes: |> Newsgroups: talk.origins |> >|> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? |> > |> >Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But |> >that corruption would not have been present in the genes of |> >Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. |> > |> snip... |> >My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. |> |> So, sin couldn't corrupt Adam and Eve's genes because they started with |> perfect genes, so they must have passed on |> perfect genes to their offspring. Since these offspring started |> with perfect genes, then sin could not have corrupted their genes either. |> |> Or is there some flaw in my understanding of your logic? |> Chris, forgive me for taking so long to respond to your post, but this is my first experience with talk.origins. I had been following this thread on a cross-posted group. It is probably time to put this thread to rest because I am not a scholar in genetics, and I don't claim to know exactly what happened to the genes of Adam and Eve's children. I simply based my opinions on the principle that sin brought about death. Of course the bible doesn't go into details on exactly what effects were manifested and how, so I have no way of knowing (we don't have their corpses for examination either). However, in your response, you state that the offspring started with perfect genes, which isn't necessarily the case. Since the offspring were conceived after the sin, the effects would be present at that time. Mark From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!hydra!joaccigh From: joaccigh@hydra.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Dagg) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: pop dinamite Date: 13 Feb 1995 11:56:24 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Lines: 89 Message-ID: <3hnhd8$953@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> References: <9501312117.AA00825@mbox.nc.kyushu-u.ac.jp> <3gq7tp$49p@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> <3h4sv7$l6u@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> <3hg98f$kee@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.zrz.tu-berlin.de I couldn't stay away from it. So here's a telnet-session for you. It's going to be my last post on the subject. Everybody who wants more discussion about fitness and its concepts, go to sci.bio.evolution and read the thread named `fitness and some rating' by Chris in his overbearing. Chris, proceeding with your escalation politics you missed an important fact: I gave in on the major point of individuals having fitness or not long long ago. It seems that wasn't enough for you and you thought you might cool your temper on my cost. Now I compare fitness and the diverse concepts of it with the diverse atom-models. To be more specific: I compare Bohr's model of atoms, having different shells, to the fitness concept, ascribing fitness to individuals. For the refresh here's one possible definition: "The best measurement of an individual's fitness is the portion of its own genes,_it_brings_into the next generation." And after carefully comparing I come to the result, that they have a lot in common: 1. Both explain a certain set of phaenomena and both cannot explain other phaenomena. Trying to make them explain these other phaenomena, things get absurd (T. Kuhn called this absurdities `anomalies'! Sorry for presupposing the knowledge). 2. Both have been replaced by a newer hypothesis (or theory if you will), which explains all known phaenomena neatly. 3. But both are still in use and ever will be, because the phaenomena they can explain, they do explain in a much easier and relaxed way, than the newer theories do. That is, they are working hypotheses. Working hypotheses in this context means, they have some explanatory values. Think about the meaning of `working hypothesis' for a while! Sarcasm on: As having spasms seems just your thing, you can go on explaining phaenomena the cramped way. Try shouting at chemists, they shall stop using Bohr's atom-model for explaining simple chemistry to stupid biologists. They'll tell you who you are! Sarcasm off: Now I could go on comparing Newtonian mechanics and its relation to general relativity with "fitness for individuals" and its relation to "fitness for allels" and so on. But why don't you think about it for yourself a while? Individuals having fitness is a working hypothesis and it will stay in use forever and a day. Your volcanic eruptions of pointless flame won't change anything about that fact! THE ONLY THING ONE MUSTN'T DO IS THE THING I DID! I tried to make `fitness for inds' work on phaenomena, that do not belong into its regime. That was a mistake, I agreed already. But my way of learning is paved with making mistakes. I STILL PREFER IT TO YOUR WAY OF LEARNING!!! But my newest idea on the subject is to cancel the word `fitness' totally. From now on I'll explain the behaviour of a worker bee to laymen as follows: #The worker bee bring more of its own genes into the next generation by raising her own sisters, then it would do as a solitaire bee raising own progeny.# Very naive language indeed, but did anybody see the word fitness within? My reference being once again: THOMAS KUHN: "THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION".(as Tucholsky said, the best way of convincing is repetition, repetition, repetition :) Having said all that, I consider the discussion as endet. Or rather say, the discussions I had with my imaginary Chris the last days have come to a solution. Thanks for catalysing my thought with your dogmatic claims :). At least I have gotten something straight. Joachim Dagg (joaccigh@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de) ---- 'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice. And when justice is gone, there's always force. And when force is gone, There's always Mom. Hi Mom! :| So hold me, Mom, In your long arms. |: In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms. In your arms. So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms... Laurie Anderson - big science From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 12 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Path: biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!news!news From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Message-ID: Sender: news@iglou.com (USENET News Administrator) Organization: CCC X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+ References: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> <3hnncm$q71@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:53:18 GMT Lines: 48 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1200 sci.anthropology:10057 sci.anthropology.paleo:1332 sci.bio:14226 sci.math:55753 sci.nonlinear:2299 sci.philosophy.tech:7843 sci.skeptic:67049 talk.origins:81149 In article <3hnncm$q71@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) says: > >In article <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com>, chris@eso.mc (Chris Heiny x73186 - SPO) writes: >|> >|> In article ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov, whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) writes: >|> Newsgroups: talk.origins >|> >|> How does the act of mating corrupt the genes? >|> > >|> >Mating didn't corrupt the genes, sin corrupted the genes. But >|> >that corruption would not have been present in the genes of >|> >Adam and Eve since they were created before they sinned. >|> > >|> snip... >|> >My point exactly. Adam and Eve were free of harmful recessives. >|> >|> So, sin couldn't corrupt Adam and Eve's genes because they started with >|> perfect genes, so they must have passed on >|> perfect genes to their offspring. Since these offspring started >|> with perfect genes, then sin could not have corrupted their genes either. >|> >|> Or is there some flaw in my understanding of your logic? >|> >Chris, forgive me for taking so long to respond to your post, >but this is my first experience with talk.origins. I had been >following this thread on a cross-posted group. It is probably >time to put this thread to rest because I am not a scholar in >genetics, and I don't claim to know exactly what happened to the >genes of Adam and Eve's children. I simply based my opinions on >the principle that sin brought about death. Of course the bible >doesn't go into details on exactly what effects were manifested and >how, so I have no way of knowing (we don't have their corpses for >examination either). However, in your response, you state that the >offspring started with perfect genes, which isn't necessarily the >case. Since the offspring were conceived after the sin, the effects >would be present at that time. > >Mark But in some cases we DO have the corpses. We have fossils from the Burgess Shales that show one animal in the digestive tract of a larger one. Didn't the smaller animal die? What would you say happened in this case, 500+ million years ago? ====Greg Newman==== You can't teach a pig to sing, but you can teach a pig to drink beer. Then, they DO sing... loud and off key, but they sing.... From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Feb 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!night.primate.wisc.edu!news.larc.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!berea.msfc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: whorton@berea.msfc.nasa.gov (Mark S. Whorton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio,sci.math,sci.nonlinear,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk Subject: Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION? Date: 13 Feb 1995 21:00:23 GMT Organization: Dell Computer Corporation Lines: 43 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3hoh97$667@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> References: <3gldo7$ikl@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> <1995Feb1.124215.13687@news.wrc.xerox.com> <3hnncm$q71@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: berea.msfc.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:1201 sci.anthropology:10061 sci.anthropology.paleo:1333 sci.bio:14231 sci.math:55766 sci.nonlinear:2300 sci.philosophy.tech:7844 sci.skeptic:67057 talk.origins:81177 |> >|> So, sin couldn't corrupt Adam and Eve's genes because they started with |> >|> perfect genes, so they must have passed on |> >|> perfect genes to their offspring. Since these offspring started |> >|> with perfect genes, then sin could not have corrupted their genes either. |> >|> |> >|> Or is there some flaw in my understanding of your logic? |> >|> |> >Chris, forgive me for taking so long to respond to your post, |> >but this is my first experience with talk.origins. I had been |> >following this thread on a cross-posted group. It is probably |> >time to put this thread to rest because I am not a scholar in |> >genetics, and I don't claim to know exactly what happened to the |> >genes of Adam and Eve's children. I simply based my opinions on |> >the principle that sin brought about death. Of course the bible |> >doesn't go into details on exactly what effects were manifested and |> >how, so I have no way of knowing (we don't have their corpses for |> >examination either). However, in your response, you state that the |> >offspring started with perfect genes, which isn't necessarily the |> >case. Since the offspring were conceived after the sin, the effects |> >would be present at that time. |> > |> >Mark |> |> But in some cases we DO have the corpses. We have fossils from the Burgess Shales |> that show one animal in the digestive tract of a larger one. Didn't the smaller animal |> die? |> |> What would you say happened in this case, 500+ million years ago? Here again, I would like to put this to rest because it has ceased to be a discussion in which I can emphatically state scientifically testable theses. Your examples are of animals, not humans - now don't flame me for basing my ideas on theology instead of purely a scientific (mechanistic) view and assuming that there is a fundamental difference in humans and animals. One view holds (and I really haven't studied this much because it isn't that big of an issue to me), namely of old-earth creationists, that of course physical death was present in the animal kingdom, but when Adam and Eve were created, they were created with perfect bodies, and there sin introduced spiritual death to man (and in conjunction physical death). Mark From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Feb 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!ames!waikato!celebrian.otago.ac.nz!mac136150.otago.ac.nz!h.spencer From: Hamish G. Spencer Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Job at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Date: 14 Feb 1995 01:05:47 GMT Organization: Department of Zoology, University of Otago, N.Z. Lines: 351 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3hovlb$gjo@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: mac136150.otago.ac.nz X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d24 X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:04:42 GMT UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO Te Whare Wananga o Otago Dunedin, New Zealand LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY (Fixed Term) Applications are invited for the position of Lecturer (equivalent to Assistant Professor in North America) in the Department of Zoology from 1 July 1995. The post is a fixed-term three year appointment with the possibility of reappointment. We are seeking a candidate who will contribute excellence in research and teaching in any area of animal biology. Existing specialisations are in behavioural ecology, conservation and wildlife management, environmental physiology, evolutionary biology, freshwater and marine ecology, neurobiology, parasitology, population genetics, reproductive physiology, systematics and theoretical biology. The department is large, friendly and productive, with good research and computing facilities and an excellent team of support staff. We run BSc, BSc Honours, Diploma, Masters and PhD programmes across a wide range of biological disciplines. We are committed to diversity in staffing and we encourage applications from women and other under-represented groups. Parental leave without pay of up to 54 weeks and paid parental leave of six weeks may be granted to female or male employees with at least one year's service. Childcare facilities covering the period birth-eight years of age are available on the Campus. We are prepared to discuss job-splitting and flexibility of working hours during periods of child rearing. The appointment will be at lecturer level (salary range $NZ37,440 - $49,088). Further information is available from Professor Colin Townsend, Head of Department (Phone: 64-3-479 7975; Fax: 64-3-479 7584, e-mail: colin.townsend@stonebow.otago.ac.nz), or from the Registrar, Dr D.W. Girvan, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand (Fax: 64-3-474 1607). Applications quoting reference number A95/02 close with the Registrar on 17 February 1995. Equal opportunity in employment is University policy. _______________________________________________________________________ _______ INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES for appointment as LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY in the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand 1. General A statement of general information and conditions of appointment for all academic posts within the University is attached. The University is situated in the City of Dunedin, the main centre of the Province of Otago. With a population of around 100,000, Dunedin is a lively university city with strong artistic, cultural and sporting traditions. It boasts excellent art galleries, museums, theatres, restaurants and gardens. Most newcomers find house prices pleasingly low. The city is situated on the shores of the Otago Harbour and its immediate environment includes large inlets, sandy bays and rocky shores with abundant wildlife, including seals, the world's rarest penguin and an albatross colony within a few kilometres. Just a few hours away are glaciers, fiords, mountains and lakes, with all the recreational facilities that these places offer. 2. The Department of Zoology The Department of Zoology has been expanding steadily since 1988 with the appointment of an additional nine academic staff and further administrative and technical staff. The atmosphere is lively, friendly and supportive and all in the department are committed to excellence in both teaching and research. The department offers programmes leading to the undergraduate degrees of BSc (3 years) and BSc Honours (4 years) in Zoology.Two first-year foundation courses in biology are administered by the Department of Zoology. Staff from a number of departments (Anatomy, Biochemistry, Botany, Microbiology and Zoology) contribute to lectures. However, the Department of Zoology is responsible for all laboratory teaching; a team of Teaching Fellows leads this effort. Students majoring in zoology take second-year courses in Animal Diversity, Animal Evolution and Animal Physiology; a Teaching Fellow takes primary responsibility for administration of laboratory teaching. Our third year programme consists of courses in specialised areas of zoology: Aquatic Ecology, Parasitology, Environmental Physiology, Reproduction, Neurobiology, Behavioural Ecology, Evolutionary and Population Genetics, Conservation Biology and Biological Data Analysis and Computing. The fourth year programme for BSc(Honours) consists of seminar courses together with a substantial research component. Ordinary BSc graduates may complete an additional year, which is identical to the fourth year of the Honours programme, by admission to the Postgraduate Diploma in Science. The department also offers a one-year Diploma in Wildlife Management, a two-year Master of Science (one year of courses and one of research) and a three-year PhD programme (entirely research). Zoology staff contribute to undergraduate courses in Ecology, Genetics, Environment and Society and to interdepartmental degree programmes in Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Ecology and Marine Science. Enrolments in Zoology Student enrolments for the 1994 academic year were approximately: Year 1 (Biology) 1100 Year 2 130 Year 3 70 Year 4 (Hons/MSc courses) 20 Diploma 15 MSc/PhD research 50 Staff The department has two full Professors, Professor Colin Townsend (Head of Department) and Professor Carolyn Burns, 11 Senior Lecturers, 7 Lecturers, 4 Teaching Fellows and 3 Postdoctoral researchers. Non-academic staff include three secretarial and administrative staff and 19 research and technical staff, five of whom are concerned primarily with teaching laboratory duties. The duties of other technicians include management of a mechanical and electronic workshop, photographic darkrooms, histology suite, radioisotope laboratory, chemistry laboratory, computer facilities and assistance with research. Annual grants for part-time staffing provide assistance with laboratory teaching and with research. Teaching and Research Teaching and research facilities largely reflect the interests of current staff: behavioural ecology, conservation and wildlife management, environmental physiology, evolutionary biology, freshwater and marine ecology, neurobiology, parasitology, population genetics, reproductive physiology, systematics and theoretical biology. Accommodation and Facilities The department effectively blends the architecture and traditions of a long established university with up-to-date equipment and facilities. Computing Services are available through the University Computing Services Centre, the facilities of which include a VAX cluster. A networked suite of microcomputers (mainly Macintosh) are installed in the computer room and throughout the Department of Zoology. Macintosh computers are used widely in undergraduate laboratories. Closed circuit TV and video facilities are available in most of the undergraduate laboratories. Transmission and scanning electron microscopes located in the Medical School and in some other departments are available for specific research projects in zoology. The Department of Mathematics and Statistics administers a Centre for Applications of Statistics and Mathematics which offers assistance and advice in research design and data analysis. In addition, the Department of Zoology has biostatistical and computing expertise available in house. The Department of Zoology enjoys cooperation in collaborative research with other departments in the Divisions of Sciences and Health Sciences of the University, the provincial Otago Museum, and governmental research agencies, including Invermay Agricultural Research Centre 12 km from Dunedin. 3. Research Funding The department strongly supports the principle that research is an integral part of academic life. Funds are available for research from the Otago University Research Committee and the University's Division of Sciences. Other sources of research support include grants or contracts from New Zealand's Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, the newly established Marsden fund for fundamental science, from governmental agencies and from private trusts and non-governmental organisations. Members of staff are encouraged to apply for support of their own research and that of the students working under their supervision. 4. Duties The successful candidate will be responsible to the Head of Department, Professor Colin Townsend, and will be required to contribute to the teaching and examining of undergraduate and graduate degree courses in zoology and biology. The successful candidate will engage actively in her/his own research and supervise that of research students. 5. Equal employment opportunities The department is committed to diversity in staffing and we encourage applications from women and other under-represented groups. Parental leave without pay of up to 54 weeks and paid parental leave of six weeks may be granted to female or male employees with at least one year's service. Childcare facilities covering the period birth-eight years of age are available on the Campus (at the staff member's expense). We are prepared to discuss job-splitting and flexibility of working hours during periods of child rearing. To ensure that appropriate credit can be given by the search committee to a variety of areas of activity, not just academic achievements, we encourage you to supply a broadly based curriculum vitae describing your productivity and creativity in all areas you wish to have considered. 6. Salary Lecturer: $NZ37,440 - $49,088 per annum. Initial placement within the scale will depend on the qualifications and experience of the person appointed. Note that Lecturer is equivalent to the North American Assistant Professor. 7. Term of Appointment The post is a fixed term 3-year appointment, with the possibility of reappointment. 8. Date of Appointment The successful applicant will take up the appointment on 1 July 1995 or as soon as possible thereafter. Applicants should state the date when they would be available to commence duties. 9. Further Information A more detailed document entitled "Information for applicants for academic posts" is available from the Registrar at the address below. 10. Applications The application procedure is set out below. Applications quoting reference number A95/02 close on 17 February 1995. APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT The following information should be provided as part of the application: 1. Full name. 2. Postal address, including contact telephone numbers, and facsimile numbers if appropriate. 3.Date and place of birth. 4. Citizenship. 5.Academic qualifications and training. 6.Details of appointments held previously. 7. Present position and indication of salary level. 8. Research experience and interests. 9.Publications. 10.Names, addresses and facsimile numbers if possible of three persons who are willing to report on the applicant's merits if confidential reference is made to them. Testimonials should not be sent. The applicant may, if desired, ask a referee to write to the Registrar giving a confidential opinion of the applicant in relation to suitability for the appointment involved. 11.Date on which able to commence duties. 12.An indication of the source where the applicant first learned of the vacancy. Letters of application, with attached documents, should be sent in duplicate to: The Registrar, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Professor Colin R. Townsend Department of Zoology University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand. Ph.Work 64-3-4797975 Home 64-3-4761242 Fax 64-3-4797584 Hamish Spencer Department of Zoology University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand hspencer@rivendell.otago.ac.nz From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Feb 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!pendragon!fullfeed!NewsMaster From: Periannan Senapathy Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: GENOME RESEARCH REFUTES EVOLUTION Date: 14 Feb 1995 20:47:05 GMT Organization: FullFeed Communications (Internet +1.608.246.2701 info) Lines: 63 Message-ID: <3hr4s9$5ab@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: genome.msn.fullfeed.com Hello: As a molecular biologist and genome researcher, I have enjoyed following the many ongoing debates in this and other forums over evolution theory--both as a whole, and various aspects thereof. My own work in genome mechanics and genetic molecular structures has yielded much evidence pertaining to these debates, and over the years I have published several of my findings in PNAS, J Molec Biol, J Biol Chem, Nucleic Acids Research, Science and other journals. Until recently I have published these findings separate