Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^ | March 11, 2003 | Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano

[Junior]

A "plagerism is the sincerist form of flattery" placemarker.

[VadeRetro]

This has feathers.

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird. You and Gish need another "disproof of transitional fossils."

[VadeRetro]

A "plagerism is the sincerist form of flattery" placemarker.

I only thought I thought BP was a plagiarist. He has since informed me that I was upset about not getting top billing. (!!?)

[VadeRetro]

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird.

But it has a very similar skeleton to good old Archy. Very similar indeed!

[VadeRetro]

Compare the unquestioned dinosaur in 502 to the "unquestioned" bird in 417. How did that happen?

[AndrewC]

Without weighting particular kinds of substitutions, I get 16 mismatches between Ciona and Branchiostoma, 23 mismatches between Ciona and Danio, and 27 mismatches between Branchiostoma and Danio.

First, thanks for the kind words. Now, I disagree with using the whole genome, due to the additions and deletions of genes and the fact that there are different time factors involved in the changes. So it seems to me a better indicator to select a fairly constant gene(actually the end product) and compare them. I selected the ADH3 protein from Ciona (AAL72131) and let Blast give me the answer. I used a 377aa sequence. The program evidently takes the weighted substitutions to give a score. How it arrives at the final number is a bit unclear since in the previous data Danio was given a higher score (1370) than Sparus (1369) even though in the following data Sparus has more (296) positive matches than Danio (295).

• Danio rerio Identities = 257/376 (68%), Positives = 295/376 (78%)
• Sparus aurata Identities = 257/376 (68%), Positives = 296/376 (78%)
• Branchiostoma floridae Identities = 256/377 (67%), Positives = 292/377 (77%)
• Gadus morhua Identities = 253/374 (67%), Positives = 289/374 (77%)
• Anopheles gambiae str. PEST Identities = 254/375 (67%), Positives = 291/375 (77%)
• Indian spiny-tailed lizard Identities = 250/373 (67%), Positives = 292/373 (78%)
• Branchiostoma lanceolatum Identities = 250/377 (66%), Positives = 288/377 (76%)

You can also see that the program searches for a match within each sequence because not all have 377 as a "denominator". Adjusting for that will not change the order(even though the lizard has one more positive than the mosquito it has four less identities.) You can subtract each positive from 377 to calculate your mismatch number

[ml/nj]

Why is it that I think you are blowing smoke?

I ask you for two species and you tell me: Fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and chickens all have some polyploid species. (I have an easy time looking this up!)

I followed your link and found this:

"... We may have to fundamentally change the way we view evolution," says Professor of Botany Doug Soltis.

...

... Few animal species are [polyploid], one notable exception being salmon.

Evolution via polyploidy is different. "It's instantaneous," says Soltis. ...

I confused. In the sidebar it refers to "Fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and chickens," as you did and then here it refers to "one notable exception being salmon." I think your source is confused too.

But isn't it interesting that he is talking about evolutionary change that must occur instantaneously. (sort of like me) He says, "We may have to fundamentally change the way we view evolution." I've done that. Maybe you should too.

ML/NJ

[longshadow]

Luddite^{"Wildly elliptical"} placemarker

[atlaw]

I checked the citation:
http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/titles/sampler/chatjee.htm

I'm not finding that quote you provided, Boiler Plate. Would you please provide a little more direction? Chatterjee has had some fairly outlandish ideas, but the words you attribute to him seem way out of line.

[atlaw]

There you go. Short and sweet, and just as effective.

[js1138]

I am not your servant. If you have any actual curiosity you will do your own search. If I knew the specific species I would not withhold the information.

[VadeRetro]

It's in there, 5th paragraph from the bottom. Chatterjee does not, that I can see, think that what he is saying makes Archaeopteryx go away. The presence of feathers used to be "diagnostic" of "bird." Now it isn't.

The other problem, as I pointed out to Dataman already on this thread, is that Chatterjee's Protoavis is based on a wretched-condition fossil which he has apparently still not allowed anyone else to examine. Nobody much believes it to be what he claimed for it around 1989. For sure, he hasn't moved it any closer to acceptance.

[balrog666]

Well, gee, I was just pointing out that you have yet to post a fact, an argument, or even be civil to anyone who disagrees with your BS assertions, so your contribution here is zero, nada, zilch and, in my opinion, your chosen online persona is lower than whale poop.

And so, in conclusion: And the horse you rode in on.

[VadeRetro]

429 and 445 on this thread raise problems with using Protoavis, especially as an early "modern bird."

[ml/nj]

I am not your servant. If you have any actual curiosity you will do your own search.

Thanks for nothing.

I have tried to engage in honest dialogue with you, and it turns out that your arguments seem to be based mostly on your feelings. You're sure the evidence is out there somewhere, but you shouldn't have to present it. Rather I should find it myself.

When I did comment directly on the information you did present as in the post to which you reply here, you essentially ignored it; and continued on with your misrepresentations.

I must say that I find this typical of all of the evoabsolutists who comment here, and they are doubtless proud of you.

Au revior.

ML/NJ

[js1138]

The posts are there for everyone to read. I'm happy to be judged by them.

[atlaw]

Sure enough. In context, I agree that he isn't dismissing Archaeopteryx or arguing that "it's a bird, just a bird" (to use your colorful choice of words). Still, there is something sort of disturbing about his myopia and his conclusion (even for 1997), and it makes one wonder even more about Protoavis (which I have viewed as an incomplete, speculative, but fascinating possibility).

[atlaw]

Take my word for it. We know what you have to say. Shorten it up. Save some bandwidth.