Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 05-26-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outblaze
Can anyone locate this article:

Harkins, R.N., Stenzel, P. and Black, J.A. Noah�s haemoglobin. Nature 241:226.

Chase's article footnoted (#4) and linked to another AiG article by Don Batten on Y-Chromosone Adam. Here Batten footnotes the Nature article (#5), but I'm unable to track it down. It's referenced in the context that researchers at the University of Oregon Medical School pointed out that Noah's flood would have provided a population bottleneck due to the variation in human haemoglobin.

Well from looking at a online catalog I can say that volume 241 was from 1973.

Another creationist (and another child to boot) made the same citation here in a way that suggests a copy and paste from the same source.

Carl Wieland used the same citation in identical format without year. See this spanish translation of one of his articles.

Batten at the very least copy and pasted a reference probably unaware of just how old it is. Notice that it is the only one of his reference without a date. Real journals require that citations be consistent and have a prefered (and usually required) style for citations. Then Chase cites Batten. Wieland also had the sometimes a date is present and sometimes it is not. To me this suggests that he copied it from an earlier citation: probably from someone who did not put dates in his citations. So we probably have a case of a creationist citing a creationist who copied from a creationist who cited someone -- though it might have a longer chain.

RufusAtticus · 05-27-2003, 02:08 PM

I've gotten a positive response from Chase. So things are looking up for our dialog.

BioBeing · 05-27-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Outblaze
Can anyone locate this article:

Harkins, R.N., Stenzel, P. and Black, J.A. Noah�s haemoglobin. Nature 241:226.

Chase's article footnoted (#4) and linked to another AiG article by Don Batten on Y-Chromosone Adam. Here Batten footnotes the Nature article (#5), but I'm unable to track it down. It's referenced in the context that researchers at the University of Oregon Medical School pointed out that Noah's flood would have provided a population bottleneck due to the variation in human haemoglobin.

Searching the Nature archive did not find this article. Searching www.pubmed.com for a variety of search terms did not find a similar article in any journal. I'd say this is a complete mis-quote.

acidphos · 05-28-2003, 01:11 PM

Only 2 articles even come up in PubMed with those authors. I wonder if they are citing one of the "news in brief" type blurbs that is all of a half paragraph long. Nature's archives don't go back any further than 1997 so searching for it at nature's site is meaningless.

roxrkool · 05-28-2003, 01:56 PM

I have the requested article in hand. The citation is from Nature vol. 241, p. 226, 1973. It is actually a correspondence rather than an technical paper.

I reads as follows:

Quote:

Noah's Haemoglobin

SIR, -- In the ecumenical interest (Nature, 239, 420; 1972), we wish to point out that the latter portion of Genesis is consistent with current theory of molecular evolution.

Kimura (Nature, 217, 624; 1968) and King and Jukes (Science, 164, 788; 1969) propose that protein evolution has occurred mainly through neutral mutations which have no effect on molecular function and no selective advantage. Haigh and Maynard Smith (Genet. Res., 19, 73; 1972) have examined this theory with respect to the published data on human haemoglobin variation. They conclude that if the theory is correct the human population must have passed through a period of drastically reduced size prior to the more recent rapid population increase. The population bottleneck is necessary to give initial genetic homogeneity, a requirement for agreement of theory and observation.

Genesis, chapter 6, contains a full description of events causing a reduction in the human population to eight individuals; Noah, his wife, their three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and the sons' wives. It seems entirely plausible that this small population could be homogeneous for haemoglobin genes. Thus the book of Genesis documents a series of human population changes which are consistent with changes required from consideration of amino-acid sequences alone.

Yours faithfully,
Richard H. Harkins
Peter Stenzel
John A. Black

Department of Biochemistry and
Division of Medical Genetics,
University of Oregon Medical School,
Portland, Oregon 97201

If any mistakes appear, note, they might be mine!

Please feel free to ask for verification.

RufusAtticus · 05-28-2003, 02:22 PM

That makes me wonder exactly what paper they're responding too.

roxrkool · 05-28-2003, 03:12 PM

Yeah, I thought about getting that paper, too, but then what would I do with it? I'm no geneticist and not about to transcribe an entire paper.

So you are all on your own with that one.

Peez · 07-29-2003, 02:17 PM

Hi,

The explanation given for coalescence by RufusAtticus is excellent, I would just add that it is important to emphasize that in the example given we are looking at 12 alleles (versions of a gene at a particular locus, e.g. 12 different genes for haemoglobin). This means that after "thirty or so generations" only one of these alleles (or at least the descendants of one) are left at that locus. What it does not mean, and many people get confused on this point, is that the last generation shown inherited all their genes from one person in the first generation. The example does not really imply this, but it is easy to make the mistake. I believe that it is worthwhile emphasizing the fact that those folks in the last generation of the example almost certainly inherited at least some genes from at least a few of those in the first generation given, just none at that particular locus.

Peez

KC · 07-29-2003, 05:21 PM

Maybe I missed the part in his paper where he explains why humans have a bottleneck from the Flood, but most other animals don't.

KC

RufusAtticus · 07-29-2003, 05:38 PM

Well he has submitted a new one to TJ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2003, 02:08 PM	#32
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I've gotten a positive response from Chase. So things are looking up for our dialog.

05-28-2003, 01:11 PM	#34
acidphos Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Nashville, Tennessee Posts: 114	Only 2 articles even come up in PubMed with those authors. I wonder if they are citing one of the "news in brief" type blurbs that is all of a half paragraph long. Nature's archives don't go back any further than 1997 so searching for it at nature's site is meaningless.

05-28-2003, 02:22 PM	#36
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	That makes me wonder exactly what paper they're responding too.

05-28-2003, 03:12 PM	#37
roxrkool Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 75	Yeah, I thought about getting that paper, too, but then what would I do with it? I'm no geneticist and not about to transcribe an entire paper. So you are all on your own with that one.

07-29-2003, 02:17 PM	#38
Peez Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 5,504	Hi, The explanation given for coalescence by RufusAtticus is excellent, I would just add that it is important to emphasize that in the example given we are looking at 12 alleles (versions of a gene at a particular locus, e.g. 12 different genes for haemoglobin). This means that after "thirty or so generations" only one of these alleles (or at least the descendants of one) are left at that locus. What it does not mean, and many people get confused on this point, is that the last generation shown inherited all their genes from one person in the first generation. The example does not really imply this, but it is easy to make the mistake. I believe that it is worthwhile emphasizing the fact that those folks in the last generation of the example almost certainly inherited at least some genes from at least a few of those in the first generation given, just none at that particular locus. Peez

07-29-2003, 05:21 PM	#39
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	Maybe I missed the part in his paper where he explains why humans have a bottleneck from the Flood, but most other animals don't. KC

07-29-2003, 05:38 PM	#40
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well he has submitted a new one to TJ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.