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?
I think that sort of thing is about as snobbish as one can get -- particularly that "layman" bit, when used, as you did, in a derogatory way. Remember, we are all laymen vis a vis professional fields in which we are not qualified -- including you.
And before you get bent out of shape abourt what my qualifications might be to make that statement --
1/ Military Service -- over 30 years -- Retired LtCol -- US Marine Corp Command and Staff College
2/ Retired Lawyer,JD Degree -- over 30 years full and now part time practice
3/ BA History
4/ BA Political Science So I guess I can qualify as a former professional twice over -- and I have never in my life superior enough to apply that term to anyone.
I think the nurse is a fan of the book Lifecode.