It seems to me that for being accused in the vanity thread of being a Postmodernist I have stuck to the subject of her credentials, her vagueness about her credentials, and the veracity of her statements (all of which is underestimating).
Nothing I have said was a personal attack or “snobbish” or being a “clod”. Please compare that to the litany of abuse dished out to me in post #62.
Post #7: Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman. Her essay was full of basic and fundamental errors right from the beginning.
Post #34: I pointed out the nurses obfuscation about their supposed qualifications, and their obvious lack of knowledge of the subject due to numerous errors; this was not an attack on the person just their reasons for dissembling about their qualifications and their obvious lack of knowledge of the subject.
Post #42: The author states that most mutations are detrimental and the rest are mostly neutral. This is an error. By far the majority of mutations are selective neutral. Your author doesn't even understand the basics of Kamura’s neutral mutation theory and the basics of Molecular Evolution.
She also thinks that sharks maintaining the same basic body plan over millions of years is somehow a blow against the theory of evolution (Nevermind (sic) the millions of years, and the evidence of so many other species changing around them). Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection MANDATES major body changes. A shark had a great body plan and a great food procurement strategy back in the late Cretaceous, and over two thousand shark species have been described in the fossil record.
Should I point out all her other errors? She started out with fundamental errors in her first paragraph that showed her poor understanding of the subject and the history of Science.
So what is her degree? What work has she done in genetics? Her obfuscation about her credentials goes well with her obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Post #50: The author stated her credentials (same article different web site) exactly as you did; a “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who had “done work in genetic research” (did she collect samples?).
I read the entire article, otherwise how would I have known about the shark idiocy; you might recall that it was at the end of the article.
If she cannot take the heat maybe she should avoid the kitchen. You put up ideas in Science to have them critiqued and criticized; although it was obvious from her “so called Theory of Evolution” opening shot that she was singing to the “cdesign proponentist” AMEN chorus and expected only laurels for her juvenile critique that got the very basics of evolution incorrect.
I have seen better educated Biology undergraduates, which is all I suspect her “credentials” in genetics extend to. Wow, so impressive. She also looks from her pic that she got any degree a long time ago; maybe she should dust off those old text books, much of what she thinks she knows of the subject is incorrect.
Post #90: I was wondering why she was so vague about her actual qualifications. There is nothing to be ashamed about being a nurse. I like nurses. It is just that being a nurse is not a qualification, in and of itself, to make pronouncements on Evolution.
She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure. Less than 5% of our DNA is genes or the regulatory sequences of genes, and less than 5% of non genetic DNA shows evolutionary conservation. Her essay is full of errors right from the beginning showing a complete ignorance of Molecular Evolution; and we are supposed to take her “Hewitt Conjecture” seriously when she so obviously hasn’t done her homework?
Is it not appropriate to point out that your “medical professional” who is a “degreed geneticist” is a nurse with a Masters Degree? Why is she ashamed of it? I am quite proud of my M.S.; a lot of work went into it.
Is it also not appropriate to point out that she betrays just how little she actually knows about the subject in each and every paragraph?
Post #107: As you pointed out, I am a layman in everything except Science, soldiering, teaching, and farming. Layman is not a pejorative, although it certainly is applicable to any nurse who wishes to be considered an expert in Science or Evolution by claiming to be a “medical professional”. But ill-educated seems incontrovertible. I notice nobody has tried to defend any of her numerous errors, they just say I am rude and snobbish for pointing them out.
How very un-postmodern of me! ;)
Post #109: I see no articles referenced for any Pamela Hewitt on pubmed for any work on the ARO9 gene. Does she have any publications?
“She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure”
You see, another logical error. It is the possibility that such a thing as “selective pressure” exists in speciation. that is the topic of Ms Hewitts comments. But here you are, trying to use the topic under discussion as a fact of absolute incontrovertability and a proof of your position.
You cant use one problem to argue another.
Please quote me the paper I can read that demonstrates unequivicably that mutation and “selective pressure” led to a clear speciation change. And I’m not talking same species but cant reproduce garbage.
Please quote me the research that demonstrates which gene(s) control morphology, and how they do it, and how they change it.
When you say most mutations are neutral or benign, or you talking coding sequences, or repeat, and highly repeat non-coding sequences?
Can you explain why the highly deleterious mutation expressed as thalaessemia and sickle cell both persist in populations even without the unproven but claimed selection pressure of being unfavourable to mosquito infestation?
Can you challenge me that proteins and enzymes are dependent on their environment for the tertiary folding and therefor their activity? Name an enzyme that is effective if the cellular pH drops much below 7.4 - lets say even to 7.0, or goes above 7.9.
What causes protein denaturation? What exactly is that denaturation if not a change in tertiary structure first.
What was the major problem for the early pioneers in making human insulin from cloned genes? (It was difficulty with the disulphide bridge needed to finalise tertiary structure).
Your comment about watching DNA form its helix is priceless. Thanks, you confirm what I said. But you dont mention the constituents it’s in. And that still doesnt change the fact that chromosomes - which are the active form of DNA - are’nt just DNA, but associated with protein - chromatin - and need an exact environment. Nor that unravelling is a very specific operation needing very specific enzymes - topoisomerases - and that all this supports the contention that active cellular components only operate under very tight, specified conditions.
Why dont you discuss science, mr allmendream, who does theory work in a Pharmaceutical company.?
Try and be a little different young man. Try not to be offensive and obnoxious just because someone has trodden on your toes.
Ms. Hewitts piece, incidentally, was put here with neither her knowledge nor consent. It was a private posting in an e-zine, and the descriptions of her there were not hers but the site owners. The piece was a response to a number of comments on a forum thread, not a thesis, nor even an assignment. It also contains a couple of sophistacated jokes which you’ve missed.
Her views are the sum of more than 20 years reading, studying and thinking and discussing in the area of molecular evolution, after doing molecular research of her own.
And she is not alone in her views that Darwinism and selective pressure as an explanation for speciation are wrong.
Perhaps you’d better do a little reading around yourself.
Oh, and try a recent Nature publication regarding an experimentally based theory on how deleterious mutations might be protected in D. melanogaster.
See, they do exist as well.