Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KC · 09-15-2002, 03:45 PM

Judith Hooper's poor book on the Peppered Moth story also tackles our favorite creationist bogeyman, 'Haldane's Dilemma":

Quote:

Whether Haldane's Dilemma, as it became known, has ever been convincingly
solved is still being debated, and there is a school of thought that insists
that since our presumed divergence from ape lines there has been nowhere near
enough time to substitute the required number of genes 133 . (p 197)

Note 133 states:

Quote:

Creationists are fond of quoting from Walter ReMine's 'The Biotic Message",
which argues that human beings and chimps differ in 2 to 3 percent of teh
genome, but that to alter just 0.014 percent of teh genome by menas of point
mutations (nucleotide substitutions) would require 500,000 generations, or ten
million years--two to thgree times longer than the date of divergence of human
and ape ancestral lines" (pp. 326-327)

Leaving aside the nonexistent scientific debate over Haldanes Dilemma for the
moment, since when does a passage from a self-published book by an engineer,
cited by people who most likely have never read, let alone understood Haldane's
papers, become a 'school of thought' on the subject?

Cheers,

KC

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 03:50 PM

Just off the bat, I see several things wrong with the calculations:

1. Are we assuming that all the differences between the chimp and human genomes are caused by only point mutations? That seems to be a pretty faulty assumption.

2. Point mutations can occur simultaneously - and from what i've read, scientists are surprised evolution took as long as it did because there's not that much difference. I'll have to find more websites though with better details.

scigirl

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 04:19 PM

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=899506 2&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Pattern and timing of evolutionary divergences among hominoids based on analyses of complete mtDNAs.</a>

Quote:

Arnason U, Gullberg A, Janke A, Xu X.

Division of Evolutionary Molecular Systematics, University of Lund, Sweden. ulfur.arnason@gen.lu.se

We have examined and dated primate divergences by applying a newly established molecular/ paleontological reference, the evolutionary separation between artiodactyls and cetaceans anchored at 60 million years before present (MYBP). Owing to the morphological transformations coinciding with the transition from terrestrial to aquatic (marine) life and the large body size of the animals (which makes their fossils easier to find), this reference can be defined, paleontologically, within much narrower time limits compared to any local primate calibration marker hitherto applied for dating hominoid divergences. Application of the artiodactyl/ cetacean reference (A/C-60) suggests that hominoid divergences took place much earlier than has been concluded previously. According to a homogeneous-rate model of sequence evolution, the primary hominoid divergence, i.e., that between the families Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae, was dated at approximately 36 MYBP. The corresponding dating for the divergence between Pongo (orangutan) and Gorilla-Pan (chimpanzee) -Homo is approximately 24.5 MYBP, that for Gorilla vs Homo-Pan is approximately 18 MYBP, and that for Homo vs Pan approximately 13.5 MYBP. The split between Sumatran and Bornean orangutans was dated at approximately 10.5 MYBP and that between the common and pygmy chimpanzees at approximately 7 MYBP. Analyses of a single gene (cytochrome b) suggest that the divergence within the Catarrhini, i.e., between Hominoidea and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea), took place > 40 MYBP; that within the Anthropoidea, i.e., between Catarrhini and Platyrrhini (New World monkeys), > 60 MYBP; and that between Anthropoidea and Prosimii (lemur), approximately 80 MYBP. These separation times are about two times more ancient than those applied previously as references for the dating of hominoid divergences. The present findings automatically imply a much slower evolution in hominoid DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear) than commonly recognized.

scigirl

KC · 09-15-2002, 05:13 PM

ReMine's application of Haldane's figures is flawed for a lot of reasons. And when folks like pnagloss and me have confronted ReMine about it in other fora, he has avoided discussion.

My point here was Hooper's 'school of thought' remark. The term usually means a group of scholars, not one engineer trying to write about biology.

Cheers,

KC

bluefugue · 09-17-2002, 11:42 PM

Salon.com review of the Moth book can be found here:

<a href="http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html</a>

The reviewer repeats Wells' claim about how photos of the moths on tree trunks are "staged" even though the only reason for the photos was to demonstrate the contrasting colors.

pangloss · 09-18-2002, 04:23 AM

Arnason's group also tends to use global clocks, which, well, there really don't seem to be any. His dates are a bit off, I believe, because of that.

Of course, Hooper can't even get her ref right.

MrDarwin · 09-18-2002, 05:29 AM

Haldane's so-called "Dilemma" is an invention, using numbers more or less pulled out of the air. Haldane himself never considered there to be any such dilemma.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Nic Tamzek · 09-18-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:
Salon.com review of the Moth book can be found here:

<a href="http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html</a>

The reviewer repeats Wells' claim about how photos of the moths on tree trunks are "staged" even though the only reason for the photos was to demonstrate the contrasting colors.

Someday there will be a big fat FAQ on this, be sure to check out t.o. for current discussion here:

{edited to fix link - sci}
{nevermind grr}
{edited to actually fix link - ra}

<a href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?U152237D1" target="_blank">here</a>

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 09-18-2002, 11:14 PM

Bump. Link Fixed. Makeashorterlink.com is a good utility.

Nic Tamzek · 09-19-2002, 02:17 PM

Thanks for fixing that link, I should have checked.

(Boy, if makeashorterlink goes down life shall be difficult)

While briefly looking for the carnivorous plant article at the american jounnal of botany I came across this which struck me as highly relevant to the Hooper case:

Quote:

Am J Bot 2001 May;88(5):737-752

Mendelian controversies: a botanical and historical review.

Fairbanks DJ, Rytting B.

Department of Botany and Range Science and. School of Music, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 USA.

Gregor Mendel was a 19(th) century priest and botanist who developed the fundamental laws of inheritance. The year 2000 marked a century since the rediscovery of those laws and the beginning of genetics. Although Mendel is now recognized as the founder of genetics, significant controversy ensued about his work throughout the 20(th) century. In this paper, we review five of the most contentious issues by looking at the historical record through the lens of current botanical science: (1) Are Mendel's data too good to be true? (2) Is Mendel's description of his experiments fictitious? (3) Did Mendel articulate the laws of inheritance attributed to him? (4) Did Mendel detect but not mention linkage? (5) Did Mendel support or oppose Darwin? A synthesis of botanical and historical evidence supports our conclusions: Mendel did not fabricate his data, his description of his experiments is literal, he articulated the laws of inheritance attributed to him insofar as was possible given the information he had, he did not detect linkage, and he neither strongly supported nor opposed DARWIN:

PMID: 11353700 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubme d&from_uid=11353700" target="_blank">Related articles</a>

Hooper gives Ford the once-over on the fraud possibility also around p. 235.

Quote:

And there was something else. The account in his Royal Society memoir of Ford's pathbreaking work on Gammarus cheveuxi, which launched his career, carries a footnote: 'These researches have a statistical interest that is more appropriate for discussion elsewhere.' In his work Ford had shown for the first time that genes control the time of onset and rate of development of processes within the body. He was looking at genes that controlled eye color, and found that they segregated out in a proper Mendelian ratio. It was Ford's misfortune to have a mathematical biographer, for Clarke re-analysed Ford's statistics and found that 'the correspondance between his results and theoretical expectation is too close.' Ford got the results he wanted, exactly the results he wanted. This [was?? sic word missing maybe] a red flag, not unlike the celebrated case of Gregor Mendel himself, whose pea plant data were too close to perfection. The person who made the 'abominable' discovery that Mendel's data had evidently been doctored -- statistically, the deviations from expected ratios were too small -- was none other than Ronald Fischer, who immediately wrote to his intimate friend, E.B. Ford, to confide the 'shocking experience.'

[no endnotes throughout this whole passage unfortunately, anyone know about it?]

But perhaps Mendel too has gotten a bad rap over the years, I'll have to read the article.

Perhaps there is something about famous results -- too many people thinking too hard about them or something -- that inspires the fraud allegations...

nic

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

09-15-2002, 03:50 PM	#2
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Just off the bat, I see several things wrong with the calculations: 1. Are we assuming that all the differences between the chimp and human genomes are caused by only point mutations? That seems to be a pretty faulty assumption. 2. Point mutations can occur simultaneously - and from what i've read, scientists are surprised evolution took as long as it did because there's not that much difference. I'll have to find more websites though with better details. scigirl [ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

09-15-2002, 05:13 PM	#4
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	ReMine's application of Haldane's figures is flawed for a lot of reasons. And when folks like pnagloss and me have confronted ReMine about it in other fora, he has avoided discussion. My point here was Hooper's 'school of thought' remark. The term usually means a group of scholars, not one engineer trying to write about biology. Cheers, KC

09-17-2002, 11:42 PM	#5
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Salon.com review of the Moth book can be found here: <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html</a> The reviewer repeats Wells' claim about how photos of the moths on tree trunks are "staged" even though the only reason for the photos was to demonstrate the contrasting colors.

09-18-2002, 04:23 AM	#6
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Arnason's group also tends to use global clocks, which, well, there really don't seem to be any. His dates are a bit off, I believe, because of that. Of course, Hooper can't even get her ref right.

09-18-2002, 05:29 AM	#7
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Haldane's so-called "Dilemma" is an invention, using numbers more or less pulled out of the air. Haldane himself never considered there to be any such dilemma. [ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

09-18-2002, 11:14 PM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Bump. Link Fixed. Makeashorterlink.com is a good utility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.