Discussion:
Date limit set on first Americans
(too old to reply)
Eric Stevens
2003-08-15 23:14:26 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
Their methodology was flawed as well: Using a retention test as an IQ
test. There's a huge difference; a retention test tells what you
learned in high school, and there's no way to control for high school
when comparing classes.
A troll on one forum I frequent always mentions biological determinist
books, so I've had experience knocking down the arguments of TBC.
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?

--- snip ---



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-16 18:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
Post by Eric Stevens
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Yes, but someone here said "anything larger than a deer". As far as I
can tell, the only definition of "megafauna" is by its size.
Post by Eric Stevens
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?
Why not? The only difference between them is size.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-16 22:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
... and the point of calling them 'nazis' is ... ?
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Not everything is racial slurs. Racism is limited to
blaming/causing/being the result of a race/etnicity/cuilture/religion.
Even blaming mega fauna extinction on PEOPLE (and effectively a
specific people for the sole reason they were the only people there at
the time), isn't racism - it is merely "ignorance".
Thanks for the clearup. If it was simply the nature of humans, one
must wonder why they don't apply it to Eurasia. Maybe Cro-Magnon did a
number to Europe's megafauna.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian tigers are not large as mega-fauna tigers go. In fact, they
are quite small.
Yes, but someone here said "anything larger than a deer". As far as I
can tell, the only definition of "megafauna" is by its size.
Post by Eric Stevens
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Are you seriously arguing for a genetic change which swept Bison
Latrifons to turn them all into Bison Bison?
Why not? The only difference between them is size.
Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-18 15:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
... and the point of calling them 'nazis' is ... ?
The same point as calling Nazi Germany, whom they defend regularly, Nazis. *plonk*
Eric Stevens
2003-08-18 20:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
I love the way you throw symbols around when buidling your
intellectual constructs. But do you really think that an intelligent
person will think either more or less of Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc simply because you choose to label them 'nazi'?
I actually didn't label them Nazi first. But if you must know, they
get their money from the Pioneer Fund, which has previously defended
the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
... and the point of calling them 'nazis' is ... ?
The same point as calling Nazi Germany, whom they defend regularly, Nazis. *plonk*
Discussion terminated by deliberate misunderstanding followed by
pretended act of kill-filing. What a load of overly sensitive bigotted
****.




Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-16 19:00:29 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to hunt them to extinction. You only have to hunt them
to a level where their breeding rate cannot support their population.
And you might've noticed it was the US that hunted them to that level,
not Indians. Now you must write "I will not omit important details
that contradict my theory" on the blackboard until you get carpal
tunnel.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-16 22:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
You don't have to hunt them to extinction. You only have to hunt them
to a level where their breeding rate cannot support their population.
And you might've noticed it was the US that hunted them to that level,
not Indians. Now you must write "I will not omit important details
that contradict my theory" on the blackboard until you get carpal
tunnel.
That would be fine if I had the least idea of what you thought my
theory was.



Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 04:25:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:36:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent.
Spearman's G is an intellectual construct which happens to have some
correlation with what is seen in the real world. It may be useful as a
measure but it is a total mistake to use it as an explanation of cause
and effect.
I worry the minute I see you use the word "correlation", specially in
association with "intellectual construct", it gets really scary! It is
so because there is no "intellectual construct" to such in the above
case. It is already WELL KNOWN it is a socio-economic and access
issue. It is a complete bastardisation of the meaning of "intellect"
to a bigoted boxed up restricted view. Someone living on their wits in
an environment where the more "accepted" opportunities doesn't exist
is somehow "less intelligent"??? I don't think so!! To then argue that
it is an "intellectual construct" to "correlate" this, is clearly NOT
"intelligent" at all!
Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
That's a spurious argument. It has been well known for some time that
brain function is correalated with intelligence so claiming that no
organ is responsible for "g" is a spurious argument.
The hell it is!! ALL (normal) brains have the same capacity. What is
"intelligence" is a question that is LOADED with bigoted assumptions
in its answer! Is it "intelligent" to know how to pick up a stone fish
or not? Of course it is as NOT KNOWING and poisoning oneself is called
"stupid". Or not knowing, that not knowing one should leave bloody it
well alone is the opposite to "intelligent". So everyone who does NOT
KNOW, is the opposite to "intelligent".

If one them uses the brain to think with, instead of decoration, then
"intelligence", is the aggregate of ALL knowledge if one is to relate
intelligence to knowledge. If one does relate it to the ability to USE
knowledge, it still comes back to the same - ALL knowledge is required
in order to use it. As there is, and never will be any single person
who has all knowledge available, then there shouldn't be a test of
intelligence, merely the level of stupidity at best. However - neither
"intelligence" or "stupidity" measures are relevant to anything. A
simple shift in environment will shift a person from being
"intelligent" to being "stupid".
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
There is nothing much wrong with the principles of the "Bell Curve".
You can't be serious! The "principle" is that "Nazi eugenics works" -
you say YOU SUPPORT that principle??? Hell, not even the Nazis
actually BELIEVE that! It is the "excuse" to kill off non whites and
Jews..... except when they need them as doctors... scientists...
etc...
Where it went off the rails is with its selection and application of
data.
NO! Where it goes off the rails is contemplate using a statistical
function!! THAT is where the insanity starts!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 09:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:25:52 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:36:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors
[..]
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent.
Spearman's G is an intellectual construct which happens to have some
correlation with what is seen in the real world. It may be useful as a
measure but it is a total mistake to use it as an explanation of cause
and effect.
I worry the minute I see you use the word "correlation", specially in
association with "intellectual construct", it gets really scary!
Yep.

The very idea of statistics scare you.
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is
so because there is no "intellectual construct" to such in the above
case. It is already WELL KNOWN it is a socio-economic and access
issue. It is a complete bastardisation of the meaning of "intellect"
to a bigoted boxed up restricted view. Someone living on their wits in
an environment where the more "accepted" opportunities doesn't exist
is somehow "less intelligent"??? I don't think so!!
Well, that's good, because that's not the argument.
Post by Seppo Renfors
To then argue that
it is an "intellectual construct" to "correlate" this, is clearly NOT
"intelligent" at all!
That's a 'wunnerful' argument.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
That's a spurious argument. It has been well known for some time that
brain function is correalated with intelligence so claiming that no
organ is responsible for "g" is a spurious argument.
The hell it is!! ALL (normal) brains have the same capacity.
Measured in litres, grammes, farads or what (or maybe watt)?
Post by Seppo Renfors
What is
"intelligence" is a question that is LOADED with bigoted assumptions
in its answer! Is it "intelligent" to know how to pick up a stone fish
or not? Of course it is as NOT KNOWING and poisoning oneself is called
"stupid". Or not knowing, that not knowing one should leave bloody it
well alone is the opposite to "intelligent". So everyone who does NOT
KNOW, is the opposite to "intelligent".
That is not a common measure of intelligence. Where is Lloyd Bogart
when he might be useful?
Post by Seppo Renfors
If one them uses the brain to think with, instead of decoration, then
"intelligence", is the aggregate of ALL knowledge if one is to relate
intelligence to knowledge.
Jeez!!!

Intelligence is the aggregate of all pies eaten if one is to relate
intelligence to pies eaten.
Post by Seppo Renfors
If one does relate it to the ability to USE
knowledge, it still comes back to the same - ALL knowledge is required
in order to use it. As there is, and never will be any single person
who has all knowledge available, then there shouldn't be a test of
intelligence, merely the level of stupidity at best. However - neither
"intelligence" or "stupidity" measures are relevant to anything. A
simple shift in environment will shift a person from being
"intelligent" to being "stupid".
Do you mean to say there is hope for you yet? Move then Seppo. Just
move.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
There is nothing much wrong with the principles of the "Bell Curve".
You can't be serious! The "principle" is that "Nazi eugenics works" -
you say YOU SUPPORT that principle??? Hell, not even the Nazis
actually BELIEVE that! It is the "excuse" to kill off non whites and
Jews..... except when they need them as doctors... scientists...
etc...
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Post by Seppo Renfors
Where it went off the rails is with its selection and application of
data.
NO! Where it goes off the rails is contemplate using a statistical
function!! THAT is where the insanity starts!
You have oftentimes shown that that is your view.




Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 13:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Eric Stevens wrote:
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 21:06:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.




Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-18 03:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.
I see, you have rejected what I considered a very reasonable request,
in favour of on-going vilification. Listen, it isn't MY fault, you are
not capable of responding better, is it - all I can do is suggest a
more REASONABLE approach!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-08-18 03:06:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:03:43 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:20:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Eric Stevens
You are a frothing dingbat ....
Eric, if you are only capable of that kind of replies, as demonstrated
here - Do me a favour, don't bother replying, and I wont bother you
with anything requiring greater intellect than Homer Simpson has -
fair enough?
Well then, don't spout such arrant nonsense. Virtually everything you
wrote in that article was rubbish ranging from your comments on
correlation through your equating of intelligence with knowledge to
your entirely unsolicited remarks re the assumption of a normal
distribution of intelligence being ' the "excuse" to kill off non
whites and Jews..... except when they need them as doctors...
scientists... etc...'. After that lot, even a Homer Simpson level of
intelligence would be an improvement.
I see, you have rejected what I considered a very reasonable request,
in favour of on-going vilification. Listen, it isn't MY fault, you are
not capable of responding better, is it - all I can do is suggest a
more REASONABLE approach!
Reason from the author of <***@not.ollis.net.au> ?

Has someone made you take your pills?

.... or maybe they used a dart gun. Now that would be fun!



Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2003-08-17 09:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:34:34 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
As my old psychology prof (Crowther) said "It all depends upon what
you mean by intelligence". Certainly, if you can't define it, you
can't measure it. In that context, I will be among the first to argue
that there is more than one form of intelligence and more than one
measure of it.



Eric Stevens
res6l2wx
2003-08-17 18:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:34:34 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
As my old psychology prof (Crowther) said "It all depends upon what
you mean by intelligence". Certainly, if you can't define it, you
can't measure it. In that context, I will be among the first to argue
that there is more than one form of intelligence and more than one
measure of it.
Yeah, well the IQ isn't used for any really practical purpose, while a
GPA is used for academic preferment. The GPA is the average of a a
collection of grades issued by professors with completely different views on
how to grade, in a variety of courses, to students who have engaged in
cheating and cramming to wildly differing extents. So how come no one ever
criticizes the GPA? Or the fact that professors insist on looking at every
grade and object to repeating courses, or to seniors taking freshmen work?
These practises only make sense if you consider the GPA to be a measure of
native ability.
And the stupid statement, "Passing a test only measures whether you can
pass a test." Yeah - laying a brick wall under the eye of a master
bricklayer who is satisfied with your moves only proves you can lay brick.
So why hire you to build a wall when Joe Schmo has a better sales talk?
All this crap about IQ and GPA simply means that college degrees are to
become patents of nobility, just as in the Renaissance effete nobility were
given the titles of fighting men.
Cheers
John GW
Dan Seur
2003-08-17 19:57:26 UTC
Permalink
To settle an argument I'm having with the guy who tunes my Lamborghini,
could you please define 'effete'?

I say it means 'having no feet'. He says it's a respected old political
putdown in the USA.
Post by res6l2wx
All this crap about IQ and GPA simply means that college degrees are to
become patents of nobility, just as in the Renaissance effete nobility were
given the titles of fighting men.
Cheers
John GW
firstjois
2003-08-19 14:21:43 UTC
Permalink
"res6l2wx" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Pcf0b.11137$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
: "Dan Seur" <***@casta.net> wrote in message
: news:***@casta.net...
: > To settle an argument I'm having with the guy who tunes my Lamborghini,
: > could you please define 'effete'?
: >
: > I say it means 'having no feet'. He says it's a respected old political
: > putdown in the USA.
: >
: Well, I once had a woman in a laundromat tell me repeatedly that her
: husband changed his underwear every day. Was tempting to say, "_Every_
: day?! What is he - some kind of effete weakling.?'

Oh, oh. Phew-ie
res6l2wx
2003-08-19 16:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by firstjois
: > To settle an argument I'm having with the guy who tunes my
Lamborghini,
Post by firstjois
: > could you please define 'effete'?
: >
: > I say it means 'having no feet'. He says it's a respected old political
: > putdown in the USA.
: >
: Well, I once had a woman in a laundromat tell me repeatedly that her
: husband changed his underwear every day. Was tempting to say, "_Every_
: day?! What is he - some kind of effete weakling.?'
Oh, oh. Phew-ie
Hi, Jois,
Yes-s-s, well, I don't suppose a man would mind as much as a woman if
a member of the opposite sex comes up out of a clear blue sky and wants to
discuss underwear, but, just the same, I didn't say anything. Was
surprised my teenaged son didn't have a comment.
Cheers
John GW
firstjois
2003-08-19 14:29:30 UTC
Permalink
"Dan Seur" <***@casta.net> wrote in message news:***@casta.net...
: To settle an argument I'm having with the guy who tunes my Lamborghini,
: could you please define 'effete'?
:
Probably should be spending a little more time with that guy.

The guys who fix my Ford Ranger would probably immediately look at John's
feet, too. Living further in the South they might have thought of John
Effete. Between accents and pre-tuned ears, who knows.

But it is a fancy way of saying whimp. The whimpy kids of the nobility were
given fighting men's titles even though the were raised on cake and ice
cream and couldn't fight their ways out of paper bags. Whimpy. Not just
lazy or soft but with some kind of sense of being spoiled tossed in.

Jois
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-17 12:56:48 UTC
Permalink
In short, the issue of ownership (that is, who gets to repatriate
the remains of KM), simply is immaterial to the threshold
question of whether the remains of KM is subject to repatriation
at all; it is a separate question that requires a finding that
the remains of KM are in fact Native American human remains
before it is even reached. Jelderks held, quite properly, that
the Secretary of the Interior had the burden of showing that they
were, and the burden wasn't carried either under DoI's
pre-Columbian definition, or under the statutory definition.
Frankly, I do not understand why you are having such a problem
comprehending this. It is not rocket science.
It is *exactly* that kind of institutional racism that Congress
passed NAGPRA to stop.
You are talking one hell of a lot of ROT! It is a rare occurrence when
I can agree with the Shyster, but even HE cannot be 100% wrong (only
90+ %...)!! This is one of those times. Having read that case, there
is NO WAY you are able to HONESTLY make that claim!
Well, let's see...
1) He looks Indian.
HE looks like a collection of BONES!
Yes, and you can reconstruct a face by the bones. Duhh...
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
2) Anthropologists insist he's white (because he has features which
are generally NOT white, such as a prognathous jaw, Australasian teeth
patterns, and is an inch taller than the typical white male today,
let's forget about 9000 years ago; in fact, I reduced his "caucasoid"
features to a trait, cheekbones, that could simply be sexual
selection).
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
3) They spin an entire story of Indians invading and wiping out
whites. (Or at the very least, don't disclaim to the media that it
means nothing of the sort.)
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
4) This idea is just a regurgitation of 200+ years of Merkin
mythology. Jews, Egyptians, Basques, Mongols, Vikings, Chinese, Nuba,
Celts, Arabs, Greeks, Trojans, Persians, Atlantis survivors,
extraterrestrial Star People...The idea of "lost races" wiped out by
invading Indians is nothing new. Due to the cliche nature of the
claim, there's a higher standard of evidence for FoP. Sorry, but
them's the breaks.
Again I have NO idea where all of that comes from, certainly it has
absolutely nothing whatever to do with the issues I have addressed.
See #3.
Again the response is the same.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Kennewick Man remains
are anything other than Native American,
It is quite immaterial if he is or not to the LAWS you would rely on -
NAGPRA. You know perhaps you SHOULD read the ruling and you MAY
understand - *IF* you do so HONESTLY without preconceived notions!
He was found with ONE artifact: A spearpoint in his side.
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.

Chatters believes it to be a spear point of the Cascade type, but this
hasn't been detailed in the transcript.
Those
beloved Folsom points, so beloved because finding one in a mammoth was
the only way they could prove humans existed during the Pleistocene
(while the dominant school at the time imagined species matching
geologic strata exactly).
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.

As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.

These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!

But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?

One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-18 03:00:36 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
Only if you bias the non-skeletal features to evaluate to "Patrick
Stewart". In terms of actual skeletal features, I reduced Kennewick
man to cheekbones. That's his ONLY "caucasoid" feature that Indians
generally lack. A simple solution, of course, is sexual selection.
(After all, even white women generally have projecting cheekbones.)
The women suddenly decided they liked projecting cheekbones, and now
projecting cheekbones dominate.
The word "caucasoid" is a red herring and was irrelevant to the ruling
by the Judge. Completely irrelevant - nothing hinged on it at all.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
But the implication was still there, even though none of the traits
really worked for it. In short, it was a snow job.
I don't know what you have read, but I have read the ruling,. and
there is ZERO consideration given to any skin colour, or your claimed
"implication". You do need to read the judgement, you know.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
It was in Time, Newsweek, all three major networks...It proves my
point: No one cares about anthropology, unless it's confirming their
own racial assertions.
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.
It seems to me, it could simply be an accident.
Could.... but highly unlikely considering where it was. Or is it a
"friendly fire" type accident the Yanks are so famous for ;-)
After all, the bone
had already healed over the spearpoint; a murderer would've found
another way to attack him.
Not necessarily. It is possible that they didn't catch him, that he
got away - or he was part of a more powerful force in a bit of a scrap
over something.

[..]
Post by Seppo Renfors
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.
It doesn't matter; Chatters didn't have to say "caucasoid". It became
his buzzword. It seemed like he said "caucasoid" more in everyday
conversation than he said "the".
THAT is hyperbole and therefor valueless!
Post by Seppo Renfors
As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.
And it's the same way with written history, as evidenced by American
history textbooks.
True, but then there is more than ONE book, you know.
But such similarity can't be a coincidence, you'll
agree.
What "similarity"? The books for that long ago haven't been fully
written yet. The study of KM will advance and add to the knowledge we
do have.
Post by Seppo Renfors
These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!
You're projecting your own Judeo-Christian prejudices here.
You cannot know that - you have no idea of what my "beliefs" are in
that area. Further to that you are pushing a line that
"Judeo-Christianity" is "prejudiced". So you are taking the view that
"attack is the best form of defence" - a pre-emptive attack! Oh, if
you were to take a slightly more unbiased view you would call it the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion as the god is the one and the same
for all of them.
Tell me
when these peoples have sought converts. In fact, some plains tribes
have declared war on self-appointed "white man's shamans".
Aha.... so you admit to resort to killing in the defence of a mere
"belief"! Isn't that the whole problem with all religions - they lead
to killings? Oh, well... you are therefor on par with the people you
make a pre-emptive attack on. So who says your god is any better than
anybody else's god? Why should your gods be respected if you don't
respect those of others?
Post by Seppo Renfors
But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?
One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
You're fairly well-versed in deconstructionism, Seppo.
As a kid I was very good at pulling all kinds of machinery apart, to
see what made them work. You have to do that in order to understand
what makes things tick. Not doing so, is to not understand.
If you want to
go down that road, I will too: I would say that anthropology is highly
politicized, so don't pretend that you guys are as rigid a discipline
as physics. I would say that the "history" that is written down is
only written so to serve the needs of the upper-class white male
elite.
It is one thing to analyse something - it is quite another to start
creating fantasies and resorting to racism. I have NO IDEA where you
have pulled the idea I'm an "anthropologist" from - *I* do not use the
argument, "Bugger the content, look at the LABEL" - I have no interest
in labels, including the one of "anthropology".

Just sticking labels on things is unscientific and ILLOGICAL. Put a
label on an empty jar, and the jar is STILL EMPTY!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIB529
2003-08-18 15:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
...and average of averages.... so what? It doesn't say who a person
was, their culture or beliefs. Looks doesn't govern that. He is said
to have looked like the British actor Patrick Stewart in any event!
Only if you bias the non-skeletal features to evaluate to "Patrick
Stewart". In terms of actual skeletal features, I reduced Kennewick
man to cheekbones. That's his ONLY "caucasoid" feature that Indians
generally lack. A simple solution, of course, is sexual selection.
(After all, even white women generally have projecting cheekbones.)
The women suddenly decided they liked projecting cheekbones, and now
projecting cheekbones dominate.
The word "caucasoid" is a red herring and was irrelevant to the ruling
by the Judge. Completely irrelevant - nothing hinged on it at all.
Oh, yes, once I disprove his "caucasoid"-ness, you find it irrelevant.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
Wrong again - it is said he has certain caucasoid features this is NOT
the same as "insisting he's white" as you claim. Further more
"Australasian" is hardly "white"!
What, pray tell, does caucasoid imply? You'll notice I said
Australasian teeth patterns are generally NOT a white trait.
The operative word here is "certain" -ie not all. Nor is it indicated
in the transcript that anyone has "insisted" the remains are that of a
"white" person.
But the implication was still there, even though none of the traits
really worked for it. In short, it was a snow job.
I don't know what you have read, but I have read the ruling,. and
there is ZERO consideration given to any skin colour, or your claimed
"implication". You do need to read the judgement, you know.
But one must question Chatters' motives, I'm sure you'll agree.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
What ARE you talking about - read the judgement. There isn't a single
mention of anything like that in it.
No, but it was all over the media.
I don't have access to your media - I have read the transcript of the
judgement. It's that judgement that is being discussed.
It was in Time, Newsweek, all three major networks...It proves my
point: No one cares about anthropology, unless it's confirming their
own racial assertions.
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.
Funny, they seem to hold onto the Bering Strait theory, no matter how
much geologists disagree. And if a site's too old for the theory, it's
quickly covered up. Seems it DOES replace other sciences AND common
sense.

As for your question "What 'racial assertions'?", let's see...His
overuse of the word "caucasoid" might be one. Quit being in denial.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
The document refer to "a stone projectile point". Does not state it
as either arrow or spear point.
Same purpose, basically.
Well, a projectile of that nature has the purpose of killing. But it
would be beneficial to determine something about the dead person, if
more was known about it. Some people may have never used arrows - or
didn't till a time point. It narrows down the possibilities. The
workmanship of the projectile point might tell us more again. It does
require study to know this. The access to study was denied. This has
prevented gathering knowledge essential for a determination of any
kind with NAGPRA. There is no way to determine what tribe, or tribal
connection that person had to an existing group today.
It seems to me, it could simply be an accident.
Could.... but highly unlikely considering where it was. Or is it a
"friendly fire" type accident the Yanks are so famous for ;-)
I based it on the fact that the wound was clearly healed. Therefore,
it's clear he had it for a long time. Were he attacked, they would've
likely followed up with a knife or something.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
It don't assist at all as far as the NAGPRA requirements went.
Still, when considering the way Umatilla oral tradition matches the
natural history of the area even farther-back, you'd have to agree,
it's likely they've been there a long time. And considering the fact
that they'd lie and say the remains were "caucasoid", they forfeited
all right to say it was just in the interest of science anyway.
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.
It doesn't matter; Chatters didn't have to say "caucasoid". It became
his buzzword. It seemed like he said "caucasoid" more in everyday
conversation than he said "the".
THAT is hyperbole and therefor valueless!
Still, you'll agree, "caucasoid" was a buzzword.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
As for oral stories, I hope they never get lost and are properly
recorded for posterity. Not only in text but the way of telling them
too (sound). However, what is well known is that such stories are part
religion, part exaggerations, part plain old myths. Any real facts
they have in them is often the time is consternated into a single
story, mixing events. This reduces the volume needing to be
remembered.
And it's the same way with written history, as evidenced by American
history textbooks.
True, but then there is more than ONE book, you know.
And they all clone each other. That's how textbooks are made. You
can't obviously believe everyone thought the world was flat in 1491.
Or the still-in-textbooks belief of a "lost race" of (non-Indian)
"mound builders".
Post by Seppo Renfors
But such similarity can't be a coincidence, you'll
agree.
What "similarity"? The books for that long ago haven't been fully
written yet. The study of KM will advance and add to the knowledge we
do have.
Not if Merkins are busy inventing racial theories. If there's any
evidence Indians have been here more than 10,000 years, it
mysteriously "vanishes". If there's any evidence for the same
assertion about whites, it's toured all over the media.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
These usually include stories on creation and explains how things came
to be. These are religious aspects, but the whole takes on the
religious aspects to them. Every believer just KNOWS that it is THE
absolute truth - and that THE god is the one who has said so, and God
cannot be wrong...... not ONE of the 5783 (or thereabouts) Gods have
ever been wrong! Each and every one has promised their people the
world - some even literally the world!!
You're projecting your own Judeo-Christian prejudices here.
You cannot know that - you have no idea of what my "beliefs" are in
that area. Further to that you are pushing a line that
"Judeo-Christianity" is "prejudiced". So you are taking the view that
"attack is the best form of defence" - a pre-emptive attack! Oh, if
you were to take a slightly more unbiased view you would call it the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion as the god is the one and the same
for all of them.
Still, the basic Western prejudice is the same.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Tell me
when these peoples have sought converts. In fact, some plains tribes
have declared war on self-appointed "white man's shamans".
Aha.... so you admit to resort to killing in the defence of a mere
"belief"! Isn't that the whole problem with all religions - they lead
to killings? Oh, well... you are therefor on par with the people you
make a pre-emptive attack on. So who says your god is any better than
anybody else's god? Why should your gods be respected if you don't
respect those of others?
Not necessarily "killing" any more than the war on drugs is "killing".
Still, you've noticed it's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the prejudices you
previously claimed.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
But what is interesting is that, In the beginning.... going back to
the beginning of time itself, there were all these different worlds
that started up. Each one started off different. So do we live in a
series of parallel worlds... connected by computers? Or is it that
SOME gods were telling porky pies? So who is prepared to point a
finger at another's god to say THAT ONE.. and that... and that...
that... that... gods were not being very truthful (5782 times)? What
if it isn't you who gets to do the pointing?
One thing is that "Oral Traditions" is not science, nor is it history,
though it may contain some core bits - it is mostly religion - or
religious aspects that were required when a way of explaining things
was needed and no other explanation fitted - a god is very handy thing
to fill the gaps with - except in court cases!
You're fairly well-versed in deconstructionism, Seppo.
As a kid I was very good at pulling all kinds of machinery apart, to
see what made them work. You have to do that in order to understand
what makes things tick. Not doing so, is to not understand.
That's now what deconstructionism is.
Post by Seppo Renfors
If you want to
go down that road, I will too: I would say that anthropology is highly
politicized, so don't pretend that you guys are as rigid a discipline
as physics. I would say that the "history" that is written down is
only written so to serve the needs of the upper-class white male
elite.
It is one thing to analyse something - it is quite another to start
creating fantasies and resorting to racism. I have NO IDEA where you
have pulled the idea I'm an "anthropologist" from - *I* do not use the
argument, "Bugger the content, look at the LABEL" - I have no interest
in labels, including the one of "anthropology".
You shouldn't have made such a deconstructionist argument, then. And
it's well-known that history serves the needs of the upper-class white
male elite. This is why, for example, we don't learn that Helen Keller
was a socialist (because she was blind and deaf, but still had more
money than most because her parents did). We're taught that the war in
the Phillipines was against the Spanish. (It wasn't; the
Spanish-American War only lasted a few months, while the war in the
Phillipines was five years.) And so on.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Just sticking labels on things is unscientific and ILLOGICAL. Put a
label on an empty jar, and the jar is STILL EMPTY!
Remember that when you make deconstructionist arguments.
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-19 14:12:45 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
The word "caucasoid" is a red herring and was irrelevant to the ruling
by the Judge. Completely irrelevant - nothing hinged on it at all.
Oh, yes, once I disprove his "caucasoid"-ness, you find it irrelevant.
You haven't "disproved" anything - there was nothing to "disprove" in
the first place. BTW, tell me how many times "caucasoid" appears in
the ruling by the Judge.

[..]
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
I don't know what you have read, but I have read the ruling,. and
there is ZERO consideration given to any skin colour, or your claimed
"implication". You do need to read the judgement, you know.
But one must question Chatters' motives, I'm sure you'll agree.
This conversation is getting CRAZY.... I say "How are you", you reply
"Axe handle".....

[..]
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.
Funny, they seem to hold onto the Bering Strait theory, no matter how
much geologists disagree. And if a site's too old for the theory, it's
quickly covered up. Seems it DOES replace other sciences AND common
sense.
I have invited you to look at a map and see that the depth of water
there is -50m or LESS, and the sea level at the last ice age was -120m
- simple primary school maths will suffice to work it out there was
solid land right across to Siberia,
Post by MIB529
As for your question "What 'racial assertions'?", let's see...His
overuse of the word "caucasoid" might be one. Quit being in denial.
Just count the instances of "caucasoid" in the judgement. List the
number here: ................

[..]
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
There were 5 tribes claiming the remains, the Umatilla was only one of
the five, elected as speakers for the 5 tribes. Which one of the 5 did
KM have a cultural affiliation to - if to any of them at all? It
doesn't help even *IF* we knew for certain that the remains were of an
Indian..... but which tribe/culture? maybe he shouldn't be buried, but
cremated... or whatever.
It doesn't matter; Chatters didn't have to say "caucasoid". It became
his buzzword. It seemed like he said "caucasoid" more in everyday
conversation than he said "the".
THAT is hyperbole and therefor valueless!
Still, you'll agree, "caucasoid" was a buzzword.
Just count the instances of "caucasoid" in the judgement. That is what
I am referring to NOTHING ELSE. You come back and quite the text with
the word "caucasoid" in it that you disagree with in the ruling. Then
I'll know how to answer it.

The remainder is wandering too far off topic.
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIB529
2003-08-19 17:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.
Funny, they seem to hold onto the Bering Strait theory, no matter how
much geologists disagree. And if a site's too old for the theory, it's
quickly covered up. Seems it DOES replace other sciences AND common
sense.
I have invited you to look at a map and see that the depth of water
there is -50m or LESS, and the sea level at the last ice age was -120m
- simple primary school maths will suffice to work it out there was
solid land right across to Siberia,
The fact that there are archaeological sites in South America before
any habitation of Siberia (the wishful thinking of some
anthropologists notwithstanding) is more important. The land bridge
requires a critical timeline that can be no greater than 10,500 years
for entry into the interior.
MIB529
2003-08-20 16:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
What "racial assertions"? I haven't seen any, and I have read a couple
of on line articles, subsequent to your statements, and they do NOT
support your claims. But then your claims about the Judgement are not
supported by the transcript itself either. "Anthropology" isn't
something that replaces other sciences - or common sense for that
matter.
Funny, they seem to hold onto the Bering Strait theory, no matter how
much geologists disagree. And if a site's too old for the theory, it's
quickly covered up. Seems it DOES replace other sciences AND common
sense.
I have invited you to look at a map and see that the depth of water
there is -50m or LESS, and the sea level at the last ice age was -120m
- simple primary school maths will suffice to work it out there was
solid land right across to Siberia,
The fact that there are archaeological sites in South America before
any habitation of Siberia (the wishful thinking of some
anthropologists notwithstanding) is more important. The land bridge
requires a critical timeline that can be no greater than 10,500 years
for entry into the interior.
"No greater"? The 10.5 K years is before present (BP) I presume - if
so surely you mean "no less" - and if so you are right, that is the
time when it existed.
No, I mean no greater. I'm referring to the time the ice-free corridor
existed, hence the interior. Also, barring a site in Siberia older
than anything in the Americas, I wouldn't hold my breath about the
land bridge if I were you.
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-20 17:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
"No greater"? The 10.5 K years is before present (BP) I presume - if
so surely you mean "no less" - and if so you are right, that is the
time when it existed.
No, I mean no greater. I'm referring to the time the ice-free corridor
existed, hence the interior. Also, barring a site in Siberia older
than anything in the Americas, I wouldn't hold my breath about the
land bridge if I were you.
And in fact the only site in eastern Siberia that was dated older than
many sites in North America... was recently re-evaluated and found to
be significantly younger than *many* North American sites (for example
Clovis, not to mention several in Alaska).

Of course, you are arguing with an idiot, so that won't affect him.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-20 20:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by MIB529
"No greater"? The 10.5 K years is before present (BP) I presume - if
so surely you mean "no less" - and if so you are right, that is the
time when it existed.
No, I mean no greater. I'm referring to the time the ice-free corridor
existed, hence the interior. Also, barring a site in Siberia older
than anything in the Americas, I wouldn't hold my breath about the
land bridge if I were you.
And in fact the only site in eastern Siberia that was dated older than
many sites in North America... was recently re-evaluated and found to
be significantly younger than *many* North American sites (for example
Clovis, not to mention several in Alaska).
Of course, you are arguing with an idiot, so that won't affect him.
In fact, I count 3 idiots arguing with each other.

Can I apply my NetLoon index and verify?

-
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
MIB529
2003-08-17 19:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Rednecks aren't normally very creative, but they are when coming up
with racial slurs.
???... "prove g doesn't exist"... "g"... as in "g-string"....
"ge-ge"...??????
Sorry, here in the States, there's a right-wing movement of
pseudoscientists who use the idea of Spearman's "g" (general
intelligence) to "prove" the poor and nonwhites are innately less
intelligent. Problem is, no neurologist has found an organ or chemical
responsible for "g". They get a lot of media exposure, but no one in
the news admits their idea is long-discredited.
Hmmm... and here I thought it was the book The Bell Curve (nazi
eugenics) that advocated that ....
Yes. The Bell Curve was extremely spurious, but not as spurious as
other nazi books, many of which were its sources. (Rushton, Jensen,
Itzkoff, Lynn, etc.)
The Bell Curve... "spurious"... you are overly generous - fraudulent
would be my choice of words for it.
Well, I use "spurious" because I have no doubt Murray thinks he's 100%
right. My favorite was still Rushton; penis size and intelligence. LOL
Sounds like something out of South Park.
Their methodology was flawed as well: Using a retention test as an IQ
test. There's a huge difference; a retention test tells what you
learned in high school, and there's no way to control for high school
when comparing classes.
Actually there is no test in existence that measures intelligence.
What is "intelligence" is a subjective view in any event. An IQ test
isn't actually a test of intelligence either.
Good point. IQ measures IQ. LOL
A troll on one forum I frequent always mentions biological determinist
books, so I've had experience knocking down the arguments of TBC.
So have I ;-)
I think everyone who has a computer has.
While it is in the nature of humans, they didn't manage it - that
time. But you do make an interesting point. Not much is said about the
European mega fauna.... but then neither is much said about the Asian
or Siberian mega fauna either. East Siberia is one of the most common
places to find whole frozen Mammoths. The native people there in fact
do trade in Mammoth tusks! One group had a good 1/2 dozen huge tusks.
There is a vast store of them in Russia.
One reason nothing's said about Asia's megafauna is because tigers
still exist. Europe's aurochs survived into historical times. Both are
fairly large.
The Asian Tiger... or snow Tiger are nothing like the Sabre tooth
tiger and are not megafauna.
I see your point. It seems to me that the major difference between
megafauna and modern species is that modern species are dwarfs. Size
differences aren't necessarily genetic.
Of course, people forget that the aforementioned American animals also
still exist. It doesn't take much, just dwarfism, to turn Bison
latrifons into Bison bison. Mammoths are obviously gone, though
anthropologists (especially Hrdlicka) for a long time tried to make
mammoth extinction later, in order to "explain away" spearpoints in a
Pleistocene species.
Hey, that sort of thing is usually used as "evidence" of native people
having caused the extinction.....
No, they tried to have it both ways: Indians only arriving 3000 years
ago, but still wiping out the megafauna. I don't blame Hrdlicka; he
was under the mistaken belief that hominid evolution corresponded
exactly to geologic strata. Thus anything in the Pleistocene had to be
in Europe, as the Pleistocene corresponded to Neanderthals.
Fact remains, the theory of Pleistocene extinctions being caused by
man is held up by the twin pillars of Clovis-first and stereotypes
about Indians.
You are wrong about "Indians" - UNLESS you also suggest, hold the view
that there were other people, other than Indians around at the time.
You also argue from a very insular POV, and forget that mega fauna
existed in Australia too - the arguments not being any different for
the Australian extinction either. One thing is certain, there were no
Indians here at the time!
LOL I guess you're right. But here, the media has a tendency to
overmasculinize Indians. Hence my reference to stereotypes about
Indians.
Well... we are rushing headlong to meet some Native Americans...
Australia is on a collision course with Hawaii at the breakneck speed
of 6.7cm pa!
<G> You'll hit one of the other Polynesian islands first.
Well, got to collect a few mates along the way, you know. Then, after
Hawaii we'll all head off together to Alaska :-)
;) The good news is that North America's rotating counter-clockwise,
so Alaska won't be that hard to hit. South America's rotating
clockwise at the same time, so you might hit Chile or Argentina first.
LOL
Media always jumps onto populist theories, tell half the story in
exaggerated manner, and claim "a possibility" as "fact". The more
outrageous the claims are, the better the media likes it. There is no
difference here. We also have our own "revisionist" historians - eg
Winshuttle - one who denies the massacres of aborigines here - and
claim those that he can't deny, to have been "justified".
Poisoned rice is justified?
....or poisoned water holes, without the traditional "warning sign" to
people.....
Well, there's a general tendency for these things. Here in the States,
David Horowitz asked for reparations from Mongolia, even though the
Mongols actually invested in a revival of the arts wherever they went,
eventually assimilating into the local culture.
Here, they do a lot of similar tricks. The revisionists rule the
history textbooks here. That's why so many Merkins don't realize
EVERYONE knew the world was round in 1491.
Oh I think that it was fairly common knowledge from long before then.
The Greeks had already figured out (calculated mathematically) that
the continents of Americas and Australia existed at around 100 BCE....
I'm aware of the existence of a map, in some place in the Sahara that
shows the planetary system and the sun in the centre of the solar
system, written in the 1300's. The document is Arabian. What they
hadn't worked out was how to draw maps properly.... I wonder actually
how accurate or true any belief in a "flat earth" has ever been. It
doesn't take much to realise that when you come to "the edge" you say
before, the "edge" is again the same distance away, is the result of
curvature of the earth.
I've seen those maps; Patagonia's connected to Antarctica, and
everywhere down to Oregon is connected to Asia. Also, Korea's no
longer a peninsula, and Japan's no longer an island. Best they could
do without actually being there, I guess. (On a side note, that kind
of thing continued into the 19th century: Oftentimes, sailors' stories
of far-off lands included inhabitants with some sort of impossible
biology. Or they'd describe rites that, as it turned out, didn't
exist. One of their favorites was trying to turn Indians into Jews; in
fact, the land bridge began as a device for Jews to reach America.)
It's also why there are
monuments to Confederate dead in Montana. It's why "Abraham Lincoln
was born in a cabin he built with his own hands." (No joke! That's
actually a line from a Lincoln biography.)
That's what one would call a major clanger! :-)
Still it doesn't surprise me as I have seen that very "logic" used.
It proves, we can't rely on written history whatsoever. ;)
And I won't even talk about
the descriptions of our culture. (You'd think Indian women didn't even
exist. Then you'd wonder where little Indians came from. Maybe we
shoot off spores. LOL)
Actually having had considerable contact with a young Indian
"princess" (a chief's daughter) from the Grand Coulee Dam mob for
around a year (I forget the correct tribe name). I have a fair idea
that they do actually exist..... and what a live-wire she was too. A
mate of mine is a "honorary Indian" of the same mob. He was even given
an Indian name "Walking Eagle"... because he is too full of shit to
fly (and he is too :-) .... and that's a true story! He has stayed
with the people on the reservation as well, year before last.
Oh, yes, the Indian princess. I guess I was wrong: In the media
portrayal, the "princess" is like the queen of an ant colony or
beehive.

Quite an irony that democracies (in the truest sense of the word, rule
by consensus) would have princesses.
Most people don't realize that. I mean, look at what happened recently
in Arizona.
Saw bits of it on TV, then there is Canada, and Portugal.....
California not long ago....
These fires will continue to get worse. What was bad was, the forests
were home to an endangered species of rodent. But they couldn't
relocate the rats, as they was an endangered species.
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-17 19:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:51:45 GMT, Gisele Horvat <g-***@shaw.ca>
wrote:

[...]
http://www.roperld.com/mtDNA.htm#haplogroups
Haplogroup A is shown as diverging from Asian 'M'. To my knowledge,
no molecular biologist has suggested the same but the thought has
crossed my mind a few times since haplogroup M sequences of India have
similar variants.
After taking a better look at this migration map, it appears that
there was no intention to show haplogroup A diverging from M even
though the haplogroups of Europe were shown to stem from N.

Haplogroups A, Y, F & B should have been connected to 'N'. Better
yet, to be consistent with current views, A, Y?, X, W and I should
have been shown to diverge from a common source and then, later, F, B,
and the remainder of the European haplogroups from another.

By showing A, C & D travelling together as a group, it appears as if
the route charter followed Wallace et al's proposal (the Chukchi and
Siberian Eskimo are Asian remnants of an ancient Beringian population
from which the majority of Native Americans were derived - which I
disagree with).

Gisele
thomas
2003-08-18 21:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi Lee, do you want to discuss any of the substantive issues
raised in this thread?
snip
Now you are starting to sound like MIB. The Indians lost
a case.
Indians? What case? The plaintiffs sued the United States of America,
not the tribes.
Not only is this a ridiculous distortion of what Jelderks
really wrote, Sherry does not seem to have even used a
spell-checker. Who files a brief in federal court without
proofreading it first?
I can't imagine someone stupid enough to think a spell checker wasn't
used;
unless he was too dimwitted to realize that he wasn't reading the
original copy, but one that had gone through numerous translations.
I would contend that a federal judge and his clerks are at
least playing in the major leagues.
Speaking of the major leagues, I noticed in footnote 49 of Jelderks'
Opinion and Order: "The Secretary's lithic expert, Dr. Dagan, ...."
DR. WHO????
Well thomas, do you think the major leaguers
forgot to use a spell checker in their Opinion and Order or did the
major leaguers over at FoAP (where I got my copy of the order) drop
the ball and garble the spelling? Hint: I don't see other errors that
look like a poor scanning program was used on the Opinion and Order,
but I did see such an error on another document at FoAP.
Or
Alan L. Schneider
1437 SW Columbia St., Ste. 200
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 274-8444
Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
"See also Alvarado Community Hosp. v. Shalala, 155 F.3d 1115, 1125
(9th Cir. 1998), amd,...."
Once again, Schneider or FoAP?
Until I can check the originals to be sure, it may be that the only
person that knew how to use a spell checker, of those mentioned above,
was Judge Hutt.
I am underwhelmed by Sherry, and not just because of her poor
writing. She has radically misrepresented what Jelderks and his
clerks actually wrote in the decision, to such an extent that
she must be either intellectually dense or intellectually dishonest.
I&#8217;m guessing that given her advocacy career, it is the second. She
seems to be engaged in political spin-doctoring, not objective legal
analysis. If this is the best case to be made against Jelderks&#8217;
decision, her side should not have a prayer of winning the appeal.
Lee Olsen
2003-08-24 14:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Hi Lee, do you want to discuss any of the substantive issues
raised in this thread?
You set the substantive-spelling precedence when you were making
comments in this thread such as "Sherry does not seem to have even
used a spell-checker. Who files a brief in federal court without
proofreading it first?"

So now that there is the possibility your major-league team lost the
spelling bee, I'll bet you're going to tell us spelling is no longer a
substantive issue. I hope this isn't a bad time to bring this up, but
take a look at one of your claims "Yes, but she simply asserts the
point without quoting specific language in the legislative history
that would counter Jelderks' interpetation...."

I think your "interpetation" of what's substantive says it all.
thomas
2003-08-24 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Olsen
I hope this isn't a bad time to bring this up, but
take a look at one of your claims "Yes, but she simply asserts the
point without quoting specific language in the legislative history
that would counter Jelderks' interpetation...."
Can you point to language from the legislative history
that would substantiate Hutt's claim?
res6l2wx
2003-08-19 01:58:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:27:30 -0500, Philip Deitiker
[...]
Most of the variants of A are single point diversion however
ancient DNA and the size of the largest hap frequency
suggest at least some of the A groups have been in the new
world for some time.
By comparing mtDNA sequences, it can be seen that peoples have
travelled right across Asia or from Europe to Mongolia, for instance,
since the currently existing mtDNA haplogroups developed. Therefore,
technically, Native Americans could have travelled an equivalent
distance in the same time
How long do you think this is, roughly, or do you have an opinion on
it?
Regards
John GW ( like a bug fished out of an inkwell, I'm still trailing
along, discouraged but persisting.)
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-19 06:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by res6l2wx
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:27:30 -0500, Philip Deitiker
[...]
Most of the variants of A are single point diversion however
ancient DNA and the size of the largest hap frequency
suggest at least some of the A groups have been in the new
world for some time.
(slipping in another quick comment to Philip)

There are slight differences between the hap A sequences located south
of Siberia and those of Native Americans/Chukchi/Siberian Eskimos (in
HVR I, II & coding). Therefore, it does not seem likely that the
sequences were introduced more than once. Merriwether thought the
haplogroups were only introduced once, likely, due the sparcity of A &
B, in particular, in N. Asia and this, IMO, is also the reason for the
persistence of single migration theories.
Post by res6l2wx
By comparing mtDNA sequences, it can be seen that peoples have
travelled right across Asia or from Europe to Mongolia, for instance,
since the currently existing mtDNA haplogroups developed. Therefore,
technically, Native Americans could have travelled an equivalent
distance in the same time
How long do you think this is, roughly, or do you have an opinion on
it?
Probably tens of thousands of years. That window is much too broad.
What I was trying to say is - on foot, ancient peoples probably
travelled at about the same pace.

In mtDNA studies, it is usually presumed that no Native American ever
set foot in Asia. *If they did*, how far could their descendents
have travelled by now?

Gisele
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-19 15:07:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:10:44 GMT, Gisele Horvat
Post by Gisele Horvat
Probably tens of thousands of years. That window is much too broad.
What I was trying to say is - on foot, ancient peoples probably
travelled at about the same pace.
In mtDNA studies, it is usually presumed that no Native American ever
set foot in Asia. *If they did*, how far could their descendents
have travelled by now?
I think if they did there backflow would be diffusively
limited to siberia. The problem with the current data set is
it is not extensive enough to detect these things.

I will however agree with you on a specific point. If it
is true we are talking about migrations within the last
15,000 years (18 max as some now propose) then I think HVR1
is relatively useless, even HVR1 and 2 are relatively
useless. In this instance one will need genomic sampling in
the new world and in asia to see such kinds of events.
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-19 17:57:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:07:44 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:10:44 GMT, Gisele Horvat
Post by Gisele Horvat
Probably tens of thousands of years. That window is much too broad.
What I was trying to say is - on foot, ancient peoples probably
travelled at about the same pace.
In mtDNA studies, it is usually presumed that no Native American ever
set foot in Asia. *If they did*, how far could their descendents
have travelled by now?
I think if they did there backflow would be diffusively
limited to siberia. The problem with the current data set is
it is not extensive enough to detect these things.
I will however agree with you on a specific point. If it
is true we are talking about migrations within the last
15,000 years (18 max as some now propose) then I think HVR1
is relatively useless, even HVR1 and 2 are relatively
useless. In this instance one will need genomic sampling in
the new world and in asia to see such kinds of events.
A new paper is soon to be published about this:

Annals of Human Genetics, 67, in press.
Identification of Native American founder mtDNAs through the analysis
of complete mtDNA sequences: some caveats.

* Bandelt, H.-J., Herrnstadt, C., Yao, Y.-G., Kivisild, T., Rengo, C.,
Scozzari, R., Richards, M., Villems, R., Macaulay, V., Howell, N.,
Torroni, A. and Zhang, Y.-P. (2003).

When comparing Asian and Native American coding region sequences, I
see the following:

Haplogroup C

All the Asian C sequences obtained thus far (1 Buriat, 1 Koryak, 1
Khirgiz, 1 Udegei, 2 Evenki, 1 Xinjiang and 1 Liaoning) cluster
together in a tight group except for the Liaoning. The 15 New World
'C' sequences separate into several groups and are not as "tight". In
addition to the variants common to the sequences of both continents,
the Liaoning sequence has one additional variant in common with one of
the Native American groups and so does the Udegei.

Haplogroup D
The Eskimo/Aleut sequences obtained by Derbeneva form, by far, the
tightest group; having many variants in common over and above the ones
indicative of haplogroup D. Other than that, there are a couple of
closer correlations especially in Asia:

1 Japanese & 1 Qingdao, Shandong
1 Ngansan & 1 Guangdong
1 Yunnan & 1 Guangdong
1 Guangdong & 1 Indonesian (from LHON study).

Haplogroup A
The single Chukchi sequence clusters with the Native American and
almost all of these have two variants in common with each other that
are not found in the other Asian sequences obtained thus far. The
Taiwanese sequence is visibly closer to the Korean and a couple Native
American ones are closer to another but I don't see too much else that
is remarkable.

Haplogroup B

17 Native American B sequences cluster into one (tight?) group which
Herrnstadt called B2 and 3 into the other somewhat related other
("B1"). One Guangdong, as I already mentioned, fits into B1 and 2
(Liaoning & Shandong) are more distantly related.

The Polynesian sequences cluster into their own group and are closest
to two - 1 Korean and 1 Tofalar-Negidal (Eskimo).

2 Thai and 1 Uzbek cluster together and are distantly related to 1
Liaoning and 1 Native American (?).

The various haplogroup B sub-groups are mainly held together by the
variants indicative of sub-macrohaplogroup R and the 9 bp deletion.
So, it is possible that this haplogroup will be redefined or split up
(?) despite close similarities in the hypervariable regions. In the
Australian aborigine & Melanesian sequences, I saw a similar
phenomenon - many sequences were connected by only one coding region
variant in addition to the ones which defined the macro-haplogroup.
It might be indicative of inadequate sampling.

So, this is my 'take' on what I've seen thus far but I'm anxious to
see what Bandelt et al. have come up with. Considering the distance
between the Polynesian coding region sequences and the Native
American, it may even be unsupportive of what I've written about the
Kennewick Man thus far but I haven't seen any Asian sequences yet
which are close to group "B1"... and so?

Incidentally, I think there may be an Indonesian haplogroup Y sequence
in the previously mentioned LHON study. It's hard to be certain
because only the NADH genes were compared but, if it is, it is a long
ways from where it is thought to have originated (Japan & surrounding
area).

Gisele
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-19 19:05:34 UTC
Permalink
I haven't seen any Asian sequences yet which are close to group "B1"...
Correction: I meant "B2".

Gisele
res6l2wx
2003-08-21 22:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Haplogroup B
17 Native American B sequences cluster into one (tight?) group which
Herrnstadt called B2 and 3 into the other somewhat related other
("B1"). One Guangdong, as I already mentioned, fits into B1 and 2
. Considering the distance
between the Polynesian coding region sequences and the Native
American, it may even be unsupportive of what I've written about the
Kennewick Man thus far but I haven't seen any Asian sequences yet
which are close to group "B1"... and so?
The two paragraphs puzzled me (but don't vaunt yourself over that - not
a difficult feat.) Aren't you saying Guangdong is B1?
lCheers
John GW
Gisele Horvat
2003-08-19 18:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Gisele, wouldn't it be possible for the female and male components to flow
in different directions, if you have conquering groups, like the vikings
moving into Russia and down the rivers to Constantinople, for example - only
earlier?
I really don't know...
The usual view is likely that haplogroup A sequences evolved shortly
after humans left Africa and have remained virtually unchanged since
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution
.1.GIF.html
[...]
SinoMongol/Siberian->New World"Mongoloid"/Haplotype A and
old World D.
Philip, what do you think of the dates on this?
I would also like comment on the dates. I think it is too easy for
authors of articles to obtain dates which support their position.
When haplogroup B was theorized as having arrived "separately" due to
its absence in Siberia, it was determined to be the youngest New World
haplogroup and this supported the author's position of it having been
carried separately. The authors who theorized that all the New World
haplogroups were brought in a single migration came up with the same
age for each New World haplogroup. When haplogroup A was theorized as
having arrived later due to it's higher frequency in North America, it
was suddenly calculated to be much younger. Now, I don't usually pay
much attention to these dates but is it too much to ask for a little
objectivity? For starters, I'd like to see dates of divergence for
the New World haplogroups (including X) in Eurasia and America
calculated *separately*, and then combined.
Gisele, you referred me to a table showning the percentage of various
haplogroups in various tribes, and I screwed up in bookmarking it, or
failing, rather. Could you post that again? Thanks,
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/t_ktable2.htm

See also:

http://www.uniroma2.it/biologia/lab/anthromol/appx2.html

Gisele
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-19 20:04:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:44:01 GMT, "res6l2wx"
Philip, what do you think of the dates on this?
Gisele, you referred me to a table showning the percentage of various
haplogroups in various tribes, and I screwed up in bookmarking it, or
failing, rather. Could you post that again? Thanks,
Regards
John GW
There are alot of surface alleles in all the haplogroups,
HVR1 is not very useful since the freqME is about 35,000
years. Even if one includes HVRII the freqME frequency drops
only to about 25,000 years. Thus if one wants to get really
good statistics, one needs to use something that has a freq
ME in the thousands of years. This means genomic mtDNA and
by the same token genomic Y chromosome. You might find a few
takers of the genomic mtDNA but none on the genomic Y
sequencing for now.
deowll
2003-08-24 03:01:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:12:34 +0100, Doug Weller
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that
whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
See http://www.well.com/user/elin/edentxt.htm
Still has Clovis-first at its rotten core.
That was the accepted paradigm at the time the theory was developed.
It could still be right if there was a human population explosion at
about that time. Such an explosion could have been triggered by
climate change.
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-24 06:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-24 07:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Yes and there has been for a very long time. It is called a "woomera".
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIB529
2003-08-24 19:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Yes and there has been for a very long time. It is called a "woomera".
Thanks for the info.

The basic problem with the overkill theory is still the twin
assumptions that it would be easier to kill a larger animal, and that
hunters would invariably kill more than they could eat.
Bob Keeter
2003-08-24 23:56:49 UTC
Permalink
"MIB529" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

Snippage. . . .
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
Yes and there has been for a very long time. It is called a "woomera".
Thanks for the info.
The basic problem with the overkill theory is still the twin
assumptions that it would be easier to kill a larger animal, and that
hunters would invariably kill more than they could eat.
You do realize that there are a few more problems there, right?

1. The megafauna extinction began in the Americas a long time before most
people believe humans showed up (and certainly a long time prior to the
Clovis period).

2. Its not really clear how a small number of humans who made the trip from
Asiacould have multiplied into such relatively huge numbers so quickly as to
possibly kill even a significant fraction of the megafauna by the time the
giant beasts disappeared.

3. Megafauna in Eurasia (also the northern hemisphere), and hominids
existed for many hundreds of thousands of years without facing extinction,
yet some of these same megafauna supposedly disappeared in the Americas at
the first whiff of human scent. Oh yea, and at almost exactly the same
time, the Eurasian megafauna also exited stage right even after the long,
well-documented and stable preditor/prey relationship! Some would say that
the tropical (see that word, TROPICAL) megafauna survived the coexistence
with humans because they had the longest run of coexistence, but. . . with
that logic, should not the Eurasian beasts have hung on a bit better than
the more virginal critters from the Americas? 8-)

Or could it just be that the magic word isnt "human" but might be
"tropical". There are a lot of "rumored" beast still wandering around the
tropics at least as vestigal memories (and in some cases, skeletal or skin
remains). An example of at least some of the less dubious (at least until
some HARD evidence surfaces) reports are of giant sloths still surviving in
central American and Brazil. Aside from the rumors, consider for a moment
where the current animals (that would meet the generic criteria for
megafauna) live today! 8-)

Regards
bk
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-25 12:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Yes and there has been for a very long time. It is called a "woomera".
Thanks for the info.
The basic problem with the overkill theory is still the twin
assumptions that it would be easier to kill a larger animal, and that
hunters would invariably kill more than they could eat.
I can't prescribe to the overkill theory - there is just too much
against that being the case.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Craig
2003-08-24 10:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Well, yes. It is called an atlatl and was in use in mesoamerica and
throughout the southwest.

Duncan
Bob Keeter
2003-08-24 12:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Well, yes. It is called an atlatl and was in use in mesoamerica and
throughout the southwest.
Duncan
Apologies, didnt see your post until I made mine. One possiblly useful
point though. While very similar in terms of the top-level concept, the New
World atlatl is a very different animal than the Australian woomera or the
Eurasian "spear thrower".

The "spear thrower/woomera" is most typically a very sturdy, fairly
inflexible piece of wood or bone that provides an extended "lever arm" for
throwing rather heavy and fairly inflexible javelins. The stereotypical
atlatl is a flexible spring/mass system that not only extends the arm but
also, in combination with a relatively thin and flexible shafted dart (we
would recognize as an oversized, fletched arrow), even further amplifies the
speed imparted to the projectile. IOW, from an engineering standpoint, the
atlatl is a much more sophisticated machine with a very similar end purpose.

Regards
bk
res6l2wx
2003-08-24 17:39:27 UTC
Permalink
called an atlatl and was in use in mesoamerica and
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Duncan Craig
throughout the southwest.
Duncan
Apologies, didnt see your post until I made mine. One possiblly useful
point though. While very similar in terms of the top-level concept, the New
World atlatl is a very different animal than the Australian woomera or the
Eurasian "spear thrower".
The "spear thrower/woomera" is most typically a very sturdy, fairly
inflexible piece of wood or bone that provides an extended "lever arm" for
throwing rather heavy and fairly inflexible javelins. The stereotypical
atlatl is a flexible spring/mass system that not only extends the arm but
also, in combination with a relatively thin and flexible shafted dart (we
would recognize as an oversized, fletched arrow), even further amplifies the
speed imparted to the projectile. IOW, from an engineering standpoint, the
atlatl is a much more sophisticated machine with a very similar end purpose.
And Dixon suggests the atlatl derived from a harpoon thrower used from
a boat, which presumably would have been earlier. Or maybe he repeats the
suggestion. The reasoning derives from the construction of the javelin, in
two pieces, with a foreshaft, etc.
Regards
John GW
Bob Keeter
2003-08-24 23:24:46 UTC
Permalink
"res6l2wx" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:jL62b.7499$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

Snippage. . .
Post by res6l2wx
And Dixon suggests the atlatl derived from a harpoon thrower
used from a boat, which presumably would have been earlier.
Or maybe he repeats the suggestion. The reasoning derives
from the construction of the javelin, in two pieces, with a
foreshaft, etc.
Regards
John GW
You know, I had never really considered the similarities between the
socketed atlatl points and a toggling point often found on harpoons, but you
know there is a great deal of similarity I think. At least SOME of the
toggling points are also designed to release from the shaft. AND the Inuit
(and presumably Dorset and peoples before them) did use "spearthrowers" from
their boats! By jingo, you might just have some connection there. Will
have to do some research on the dating and such, you know, to make sure
which is the chicken and which is the egg! 8-)

Regards
bk
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-25 12:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . .
Post by res6l2wx
And Dixon suggests the atlatl derived from a harpoon thrower
used from a boat, which presumably would have been earlier.
Or maybe he repeats the suggestion. The reasoning derives
from the construction of the javelin, in two pieces, with a
foreshaft, etc.
Regards
John GW
You know, I had never really considered the similarities between the
socketed atlatl points and a toggling point often found on harpoons, but you
know there is a great deal of similarity I think. At least SOME of the
toggling points are also designed to release from the shaft. AND the Inuit
(and presumably Dorset and peoples before them) did use "spearthrowers" from
their boats! By jingo, you might just have some connection there. Will
have to do some research on the dating and such, you know, to make sure
which is the chicken and which is the egg! 8-)
I suggest it is most unlikely "spear throwers" have been used from
boats, or by wading. The "spear throwers" have been used well away
from the sea. Further more it doesn't lend itself to fishing due to
the poor visibility into water. Remember any wave action prevents
seeing in to the water all but vertically down (in clear water). The
"spearing" from boats is usually done by driving the spear into the
fish, without letting go of the spear. For hunting turtle the body
weight is used to drive the spear into the animal.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Keeter
2003-08-25 22:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Snippage. . . .
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
You know, I had never really considered the similarities between the
socketed atlatl points and a toggling point often found on harpoons, but you
know there is a great deal of similarity I think. At least SOME of the
toggling points are also designed to release from the shaft. AND the Inuit
(and presumably Dorset and peoples before them) did use "spearthrowers" from
their boats! By jingo, you might just have some connection there. Will
have to do some research on the dating and such, you know, to make sure
which is the chicken and which is the egg! 8-)
I suggest it is most unlikely "spear throwers" have been used from
boats, or by wading. The "spear throwers" have been used well away
from the sea. Further more it doesn't lend itself to fishing due to
the poor visibility into water. Remember any wave action prevents
seeing in to the water all but vertically down (in clear water). The
"spearing" from boats is usually done by driving the spear into the
fish, without letting go of the spear. For hunting turtle the body
weight is used to drive the spear into the animal.
Let me offer a few references. . . . 8-)

As for spear throwers being used by seafareing people and from boats. . . .

http://www.sbnature.org/research/anthro/chumash/term.htm

You have the Inuit! As far as using an atlatl from a boat, consider this. .
. . have you ever tried to throw something while sitting in a small round
bottomed boat (like a canoe or kayak)? If you throw to either side with a
great deal of force its quite probable you are in the way for a swim. Such
a swim in Arctic waters could well be fatal in a very few minutes, so not
something to be taken lightly. A spear thrower in essence amplifies the
force of the hunter's arm. In hunting big game, it would allow you
considerable "standoff" or be used to drive the spear deeply into the
vitals. In a canoe, that same device would allow a person to propel a dart
or harpoon with a very credible speed without exorting quite as much of an
"overturning" force. Ive seen several pictures of Inuit using spear
throwers in kayaks, but cant seem to find one on the web right now.

Second, the target of the atlatl wielding Inuit is most often a marine
mammal (seal most likely), not fish. Drive a spear into a seal from a boat,
and hang on to the spear shaft, and except for the exceedingly lucky "quick
kill" you will certainly be going for a swim.

Regards
bk
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-26 05:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . .
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
You know, I had never really considered the similarities between the
socketed atlatl points and a toggling point often found on harpoons, but
you
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
know there is a great deal of similarity I think. At least SOME of the
toggling points are also designed to release from the shaft. AND the
Inuit
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
(and presumably Dorset and peoples before them) did use "spearthrowers"
from
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
their boats! By jingo, you might just have some connection there. Will
have to do some research on the dating and such, you know, to make sure
which is the chicken and which is the egg! 8-)
I suggest it is most unlikely "spear throwers" have been used from
boats, or by wading. The "spear throwers" have been used well away
from the sea. Further more it doesn't lend itself to fishing due to
the poor visibility into water. Remember any wave action prevents
seeing in to the water all but vertically down (in clear water). The
"spearing" from boats is usually done by driving the spear into the
fish, without letting go of the spear. For hunting turtle the body
weight is used to drive the spear into the animal.
Let me offer a few references. . . . 8-)
As for spear throwers being used by seafareing people and from boats. . . .
http://www.sbnature.org/research/anthro/chumash/term.htm
You have the Inuit!
...and the word originates from the Aztec language (your source). It
is meant for lightweight spears or "arrows". Inuits used a "norsaqs".
I believe norsaqs are side mounted, part way down the shaft of the
harpoon, whereas altatls (or woomeras) are end mounted, pushing on the
tail end of the spear shaft. A different gadget!

[snip story about "water is cold"]

I just note that tropical waters are not "cold", and turtle hunting
with spears takes place in those waters - as does Dugong hunting.
Post by Bob Keeter
A spear thrower in essence amplifies the
force of the hunter's arm. In hunting big game, it would allow you
considerable "standoff" or be used to drive the spear deeply into the
vitals. In a canoe, that same device would allow a person to propel a dart
or harpoon with a very credible speed without exorting quite as much of an
"overturning" force. Ive seen several pictures of Inuit using spear
throwers in kayaks, but cant seem to find one on the web right now.
Whale hunting by Inuits and Aleuts were done by much heavier equipment
than lightweight spears. It was done by getting alongside a whale and
driving a harpoon[s] into the animal from the boat. A dangerous
activity indeed.
Post by Bob Keeter
Second, the target of the atlatl wielding Inuit is most often a marine
mammal (seal most likely), not fish. Drive a spear into a seal from a boat,
and hang on to the spear shaft, and except for the exceedingly lucky "quick
kill" you will certainly be going for a swim.
Seal hunting needs not be from a boat at all, though it can be, but
hunting would be from water onto land (or ice). In all cases you ae
taking about mammals rather than fish.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Keeter
2003-08-27 01:18:51 UTC
Permalink
"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@!not.ollis.net.au> wrote in message news:L_B2b.63723$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Snippage. . . .
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
Let me offer a few references. . . . 8-)
As for spear throwers being used by seafareing people and from boats. . . .
http://www.sbnature.org/research/anthro/chumash/term.htm
You have the Inuit!
...and the word originates from the Aztec language (your source). It
is meant for lightweight spears or "arrows". Inuits used a "norsaqs".
I believe norsaqs are side mounted, part way down the shaft of the
harpoon, whereas altatls (or woomeras) are end mounted, pushing on the
tail end of the spear shaft. A different gadget!
Guess I didnt point out that the atlatl of the Americas was a very different
machine than the woomera (which at least in my meaning) meant a sturdy,
relatively inflexible spear thrower. Both are spear throwers, with little
in common other than the basic functions, working off of significantly
different principles (sort of like a steam engine and a diesel engine; both
power a train, both have pistons, both produce rotary motion, but from very
different basic principles (unless you want to count the expansion of a
heated gas).

As for the differences between an atlatl and a norsaq, correct me if I am
wrong, but was not a norsaq an essentially rigid emplement more akin to the
woomera than the atlatl. And sorry, but I hope that I was not really trying
to say that the lightweight atlatl dart had much to do with the
woomera/norsaq. The stiff spear throwers (to the best of my knowledge
anyway) all seemed to be paired up with heavier javelin-style projectiles.
Post by Seppo Renfors
[snip story about "water is cold"]
I just note that tropical waters are not "cold", and turtle hunting
with spears takes place in those waters - as does Dugong hunting.
Yep. And not really critical to the point, but then a lot on this thread
has not been. 8-)
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
A spear thrower in essence amplifies the
force of the hunter's arm. In hunting big game, it would allow you
considerable "standoff" or be used to drive the spear deeply into the
vitals. In a canoe, that same device would allow a person to propel a dart
or harpoon with a very credible speed without exorting quite as much of an
"overturning" force. Ive seen several pictures of Inuit using spear
throwers in kayaks, but cant seem to find one on the web right now.
Whale hunting by Inuits and Aleuts were done by much heavier equipment
than lightweight spears. It was done by getting alongside a whale and
driving a harpoon[s] into the animal from the boat. A dangerous
activity indeed.
ABSOLUTELY true. An atlatl dart would be totally unuseful for whaling I
would suppose. (not that an atlatl point driven deeply into the body cavity
might not end up fatal), but certainly not quickly and certainly not before
the whale had a lot of time to wreak havoc or escape entirely. Might, under
the right circumstances be substituted for the whaling "lance", but
certainly not for the harpoon.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
Second, the target of the atlatl wielding Inuit is most often a marine
mammal (seal most likely), not fish. Drive a spear into a seal from a boat,
and hang on to the spear shaft, and except for the exceedingly lucky "quick
kill" you will certainly be going for a swim.
Seal hunting needs not be from a boat at all, though it can be, but
hunting would be from water onto land (or ice). In all cases you ae
taking about mammals rather than fish.
I think we are in violent agreement on this point! 8-)

Regards
bk
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-27 07:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . .
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
Let me offer a few references. . . . 8-)
As for spear throwers being used by seafareing people and from boats. .
. .
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.sbnature.org/research/anthro/chumash/term.htm
You have the Inuit!
...and the word originates from the Aztec language (your source). It
is meant for lightweight spears or "arrows". Inuits used a "norsaqs".
I believe norsaqs are side mounted, part way down the shaft of the
harpoon, whereas altatls (or woomeras) are end mounted, pushing on the
tail end of the spear shaft. A different gadget!
Guess I didnt point out that the atlatl of the Americas was a very different
machine than the woomera (which at least in my meaning) meant a sturdy,
relatively inflexible spear thrower. Both are spear throwers, with little
in common other than the basic functions, working off of significantly
different principles (sort of like a steam engine and a diesel engine; both
power a train, both have pistons, both produce rotary motion, but from very
different basic principles (unless you want to count the expansion of a
heated gas).
As for the differences between an atlatl and a norsaq, correct me if I am
wrong, but was not a norsaq an essentially rigid emplement more akin to the
woomera than the atlatl. And sorry, but I hope that I was not really trying
to say that the lightweight atlatl dart had much to do with the
woomera/norsaq. The stiff spear throwers (to the best of my knowledge
anyway) all seemed to be paired up with heavier javelin-style projectiles.
The atlatl is merely a name for a "throwing stick" - there are a
number of varieties from rigid to flexible models. The woomera is
usually rigid. They can also be of a dual purpose - form a longish
bowl as well as a throwing stick. Alternately it can be almost
identical to a rigid atlatl.

The norsaq is a rigid item as well. It is this that is used in the
Arctic, not the atlatl as far as I know. The URL below shows a type of
it in use and a drawing of the system.

http://www.kayakforum.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/guille/wiki.pl?Harpoon
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Seppo Renfors
[snip story about "water is cold"]
I just note that tropical waters are not "cold", and turtle hunting
with spears takes place in those waters - as does Dugong hunting.
Yep. And not really critical to the point, but then a lot on this thread
has not been. 8-)
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
A spear thrower in essence amplifies the
force of the hunter's arm. In hunting big game, it would allow you
considerable "standoff" or be used to drive the spear deeply into the
vitals. In a canoe, that same device would allow a person to propel a
dart
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
or harpoon with a very credible speed without exorting quite as much of
an
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Bob Keeter
"overturning" force. Ive seen several pictures of Inuit using spear
throwers in kayaks, but cant seem to find one on the web right now.
Whale hunting by Inuits and Aleuts were done by much heavier equipment
than lightweight spears. It was done by getting alongside a whale and
driving a harpoon[s] into the animal from the boat. A dangerous
activity indeed.
ABSOLUTELY true. An atlatl dart would be totally unuseful for whaling I
would suppose. (not that an atlatl point driven deeply into the body cavity
might not end up fatal), but certainly not quickly and certainly not before
the whale had a lot of time to wreak havoc or escape entirely. Might, under
the right circumstances be substituted for the whaling "lance", but
certainly not for the harpoon.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/baskingshark/baskingshark.html

There exists an old black and white movie (1930 ->40's), where the
basking shark is being harpooned from boats that are only canvas. The
movie is made on one of the Islands North of Scotland, as near as I
can tell (a windswept rock). There is about 5 or 6 men to a boat, one
has the harpoon, the rest row out to a shark. They harpoon the shark
and hang on for dear life as they go for a ride. The rope is wrapped
around a sturdy peg (about 8" diam) in the centre of the boat up
forward. As the shark takes off, they attempt to slow the playing out
of the rope, and it can be seen causing the timber to smoke due to
friction.

They use steel harpoon points about 2 ft long with a timber shaft. One
of the fish twisted one of these harpoons totally out of shape and
escaped. They did get others. The men stay out there for days at a
time, hanging on for dear life literally. They render the sharks down
for oil, used in their lamps, and for meat. The basking shark comes
past that place every year and is their main source of food for the
year (or was then).


[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Keeter
2003-08-27 10:29:33 UTC
Permalink
"Seppo Renfors" <***@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message news:***@not.ollis.com.au...
Snippage. . . .
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.kayakforum.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/guille/wiki.pl?Harpoon
Thanks!

Snippage. . .
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/baskingshark/baskingshark.html
Post by Seppo Renfors
There exists an old black and white movie (1930 ->40's), where the
basking shark is being harpooned from boats that are only canvas. The
movie is made on one of the Islands North of Scotland, as near as I
can tell (a windswept rock). There is about 5 or 6 men to a boat, one
has the harpoon, the rest row out to a shark. They harpoon the shark
and hang on for dear life as they go for a ride. The rope is wrapped
around a sturdy peg (about 8" diam) in the centre of the boat up
forward. As the shark takes off, they attempt to slow the playing out
of the rope, and it can be seen causing the timber to smoke due to
friction.
They use steel harpoon points about 2 ft long with a timber shaft. One
of the fish twisted one of these harpoons totally out of shape and
escaped. They did get others. The men stay out there for days at a
time, hanging on for dear life literally. They render the sharks down
for oil, used in their lamps, and for meat. The basking shark comes
past that place every year and is their main source of food for the
year (or was then).
Even though I am a transplant to New England, I still know what a "Nantucket
sleigh ride" is! ;-)

Regards
bk
Duncan Craig
2003-08-27 01:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Let me offer a few references. . . . 8-)
As for spear throwers being used by seafareing people and from boats. . .
.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.sbnature.org/research/anthro/chumash/term.htm
You have the Inuit! As far as using an atlatl from a boat, consider this.
.
Post by Bob Keeter
. . have you ever tried to throw something while sitting in a small round
bottomed boat (like a canoe or kayak)? If you throw to either side with a
great deal of force its quite probable you are in the way for a swim.
Such
Post by Bob Keeter
a swim in Arctic waters could well be fatal in a very few minutes, so not
something to be taken lightly.
Can't quarrel with most of your remarks, and will check the URL,but if you
roll over in a kayak, you just roll back up. But it probably would be wise
to turn the kayak - never used one of the ocean going ones.
Regards
John GW
I go out in an ocean kayak three times a week, have for a number of
years and haven't rolled it yet. One can cast, throw things, reel in
large fish, without tipping it. The extreme fishing sport these days
is hooking two hundred pound thresher sharks in a twelve foot, forty
pound kayak. So I'm sure using the atlatl wouldn't be a problem.
Duncan
res6l2wx
2003-08-27 20:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Can't quarrel with most of your remarks, and will check the URL,but if you
roll over in a kayak, you just roll back up. But it probably would be wise
to turn the kayak - never used one of the ocean going ones.
I go out in an ocean kayak three times a week, have for a number of
years and haven't rolled it yet. One can cast, throw things, reel in
large fish, without tipping it. The extreme fishing sport these days
is hooking two hundred pound thresher sharks in a twelve foot, forty
pound kayak. So I'm sure using the atlatl wouldn't be a problem.
Duncan
Dear me, is introducing facts into an exchange of speculation allowed?
Do you use the paddle to stabilize, or don't you need to?
Cheers
John GW
Eric Stevens
2003-08-24 21:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
Or the developement of a new technology that made hunting megafauna a
productive source of food. The bone and ivory point people may not have had
the spear thrower. Without that tech hunting mega fauna would be much more
risky.
The spear thrower? There's a special device for throwing spears now? LOL!
Yep

See
Loading Image...



Eric Stevens
pete
2003-08-25 11:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
The spear thrower?
There's a special device for throwing spears now?
http://www.atlatl.com/
Post by MIB529
LOL!
It's always dissapointing to encounter someone
who has never heard of anything
that they haven't heard of before.
--
pete
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-25 21:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Even worse is the person who won't hear of anything they haven't heard
of before.
Oh, we've heard you kind before, many times, different agenda, same
attitude.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Eric Stevens
2003-08-25 21:40:57 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Aug 2003 21:32:05 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Even worse is the person who won't hear of anything they haven't heard
of before.
Oh, we've heard you kind before, many times, different agenda, same
attitude.
Then there is the person who won't hear of anything they haven't read
in a refereed publication. Absolutely no new discoveries can be
expected from them.



Eric Stevens
Bob Keeter
2003-08-25 23:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Then there is the person who won't hear of anything they haven't read
in a refereed publication. Absolutely no new discoveries can be
expected from them.
Eric Stevens
Now, Eric, dont condemn EVERYONE who reads refereed journals, just those
with a very conceited sense of elitist egotism and a severe case of
cranio-anal impaction. 8-) IOW, dead on target! Fire for effect!!! Still,
if you catch him, you have to skin him! ;-)

NEW discoveries usually occur when people spend not quite so much time
respectfully reading other peoples' work, no matter what the source of the
literature, and decide to go out, stray a bit off of or beyond the "state of
the art", and do some work of their own!

Quoting published findings is relatively easy with any good search engine.
If I remember correctly, not all that long ago many Japanese
paleoanthropologists made a great deal about simply quoting another's
findings (until the "genius" turned out to be a simple fraud!). Less
reverential reciting of findings might just have saved everyone there a lot
of embarassment. On the other hand, good critical and skeptical review,
transformed by solid logic into gradual acceptance across a broad range of
expertise, is a lot more substantial than any amount of bombast, dogmatic
hero worship or ranting. Eliminate those factors though and many here on
SAP would not have a single thing to say (can we ALL hope? ;-) ).

Regards
bk
Eric Stevens
2003-08-26 00:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Eric Stevens
Then there is the person who won't hear of anything they haven't read
in a refereed publication. Absolutely no new discoveries can be
expected from them.
Eric Stevens
Now, Eric, dont condemn EVERYONE who reads refereed journals, just those
with a very conceited sense of elitist egotism and a severe case of
cranio-anal impaction. 8-) IOW, dead on target! Fire for effect!!! Still,
if you catch him, you have to skin him! ;-)
I'm not condemning people who read refereed journals!

I reas refereed journals whenever they have something relevant to say
on subjects in which I am interested.

It's just that Philip (holier than thou) Deitiker has several times
said he only takes note of information he has read in refereed
journals. When one thinks of the mechanism of publishing in a refereed
journal it becomes apparent that no completely new information can be
published in such a journal. The simple reason is that if it is
completely new there can be no referees who know anything about it.
Post by Bob Keeter
NEW discoveries usually occur when people spend not quite so much time
respectfully reading other peoples' work, no matter what the source of the
literature, and decide to go out, stray a bit off of or beyond the "state of
the art", and do some work of their own!
Exactly. The result may be unwitting rubbish. It may turn out to be
extremely valuable. But by definition there will be no person
experienced in the field to look over the shoulder of the researcher
and make informed comment.

In fact, most discoveries are made in an incrimental fashion so the
new information will be presented as a fringe to what the referees
already know. There will be a total absence of qualified referees only
when someone like Darwin comes up with something almost entirely new.
Post by Bob Keeter
Quoting published findings is relatively easy with any good search engine.
If I remember correctly, not all that long ago many Japanese
paleoanthropologists made a great deal about simply quoting another's
findings (until the "genius" turned out to be a simple fraud!). Less
reverential reciting of findings might just have saved everyone there a lot
of embarassment. On the other hand, good critical and skeptical review,
transformed by solid logic into gradual acceptance across a broad range of
expertise, is a lot more substantial than any amount of bombast, dogmatic
hero worship or ranting. Eliminate those factors though and many here on
SAP would not have a single thing to say (can we ALL hope? ;-) ).
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-26 05:19:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:03:57 GMT, "Bob Keeter"
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Eric Stevens
Then there is the person who won't hear of anything they
haven't read in a refereed publication. Absolutely no
new discoveries can be expected from them.
Eric Stevens
Now, Eric, dont condemn EVERYONE who reads refereed
journals, just those with a very conceited sense of elitist
egotism and a severe case of cranio-anal impaction. 8-)
IOW, dead on target! Fire for effect!!! Still, if you
catch him, you have to skin him! ;-)
Oh Bob found someone else to give a touchy feely hug to.
Bob has now found pleasure in hugging racist.
I'm not condemning people who read refereed journals!
I reas refereed journals whenever they have something
relevant to say on subjects in which I am interested.
It's just that Philip (holier than thou) Deitiker has
several times said he only takes note of information he has
read in refereed journals.
Misrepresentation. What I said is that refereed primary
literature from feild specific journals is the generally best
source of information, from their things either get politicized
or dumbed down for mass consumption. I also get information from
books, but that generally are feild specific books where there
is no opinion offered other than the information provided. I
also read reviews, in fact I have refereed a few and I was
conducting operations of a review oriental journal for almost 2
years. Properly refereed review journals can also be a good
source of information. However as one branches from the primary
literature one see less referee process and more author opinion.
When one thinks of the mechanism
of publishing in a refereed journal it becomes apparent
that no completely new information can be published in such
a journal. The simple reason is that if it is completely
new there can be no referees who know anything about it.
This shows just how little you know about science. Here are some
of the things that referees look for.

1. Thought process, Flow of paper
a. Introduction
i. does it make the paper readable by a general audiance,
in terms of providing sufficient but not excessive
background information.
ii. What is the importance of the work, why does the work
need to be done.
ii. are the specific aims of the study outlined.
b. materials and methods
i are things that belong in the material and methods
present. Detailed information need to reproduce a work.
c. Results
i. Transition from previous works
- or -
demonstration of a lack of results in previous work.
ii. Fleshing out of new work, new results
d. Conclusions
i conclusions should follow the introduction and should
serve to explain the possible interpretations of the
results. It is a thought process that should triangulate
with the introduction and the results to create a body.
A. Here's what I wanted to do, here's a problem
B. Here's what I obtained in terms of information
C. These are my conclusions and this is how it affects
what I described in the introduction.
2. Style-
a. Format of the paper (external referees need not worry about
this most of the time)
i. However situations where the grammar is particularly
poor or logic is sloppy, difficult to follow are
lead by all kinds of propogandistic notions.
b. Graphics (is the paper graphically pleasing to the reader)
i. Are there sufficient figures to explain a concept to
the reader as rapidly as possible
ii. A figures readable, particularly when they get shrunk
to the size of a postage stamp.
iii. Are the legends logical and explain the figures.
3. Scientific Issues, How has the authors dealt with critiques
of similar types of works, or with logical inconsistencies
or weakness in approach. Experience of referees may often
give information on how a particular experimental approach
give deceptive results, how one can retest in a different way
to confirm. Is the work reproducing someone elses work. Is it
a trivial variation of someone elses work.


IOW, most of what I do when I referee a paper is to make sure
that.
1. It is readable and as quickly understandable by the reading
audiance, no matter what degree of familiarity
2. That is will appear as a high quality presentation.
3. That there are no stupendous logical flaws. For example
treating an unproven hypothesis as a premise.
4. That the work is not a plagerism or trivial variation of
someone elses work.

I can referee any paper in just about any feild even a feild
that I am not well studied in (there is always pubmed). However
to be the most beneficial to the authors I need to have enough
background to give them feild specific ways of improving their
papers. I might accept a paper outside an area of my expertise,
but the author of that paper may loose the benefit of referees
advise. I should also state that as a graduate student I
discovered 3 proteins in which there was no homolog or
previously discovered similar proteins, and the assay used to
characterize these proteins did not involve any of the classical
assay techniques. Of course the proteins did not come from Mars
but the nature of these proteins is so novel that they might
have well been.
Post by Bob Keeter
NEW
NEW, really NEW. There era of Einstein and Darwin is gone. There
was a time when a select few made great advances. Now science is
alot of trivial small pieces to a puzzle, small steps. So much
of what we do today relies on new techniques (applied in others
papers, if not in the same feild in some other feild), new
approaches, new . . .
Post by Bob Keeter
discoveries usually occur when people spend not quite
so much time respectfully reading other peoples' work, no
matter what the source of the literature,
This is BS Bob speaking once again. The literature, particularly
in the feild of anthropology and archaeology is all but usless
if it is not up to date. Go back and read this sci.anthropology
right after the big split and read it now. Things have changed
significantly. In 1990 the feild was dominated by multiregional
hypothesis, now multiregionality is dominated by diehards and
racist kooks (and Grog huggers like ANNE)
Post by Bob Keeter
and decide to go
out, stray a bit off of or beyond the "state of the art",
and do some work of their own!
Yes, Bob here is the cheerleader for our clan of loons, here,
except until the dogs bite the hand that feeds them, then he
turns on them.
Exactly. The result may be unwitting rubbish. It may turn
out to be extremely valuable. But by definition there will
be no person experienced in the field to look over the
shoulder of the researcher and make informed comment.
When you and Inger decide to publish you send me your manuscript
and we can see how objective I can be. First things first, you
have to write up your paper. You can't really criticize the
professionals if you haven't tested their swimming hole, yet,
can you. I suspect your criticism is more sour grapes than
substance. You are using the "novel-idea" 'red herring' as a
device to defend your avoidance of the primary literature,
because, frankly, I don't think you nor Inger understand it.
In fact, most discoveries are made in an incrimental
fashion so the new information will be presented as a
fringe to what the referees already know. There will be a
total absence of qualified referees only when someone like
Darwin comes up with something almost entirely new.
Ever heard of Tom Cech?
If cold fusion can be 'published' anything can. Really hypey
stuff gets an audiance in some trashy journal, even if its
science sucks incredible badly.
Look up Benviniste and Nature circa 1986-87.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-26 08:42:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:19:10 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:03:57 GMT, "Bob Keeter"
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Eric Stevens
Then there is the person who won't hear of anything they
haven't read in a refereed publication. Absolutely no
new discoveries can be expected from them.
Eric Stevens
Now, Eric, dont condemn EVERYONE who reads refereed
journals, just those with a very conceited sense of elitist
egotism and a severe case of cranio-anal impaction. 8-)
IOW, dead on target! Fire for effect!!! Still, if you
catch him, you have to skin him! ;-)
Oh Bob found someone else to give a touchy feely hug to.
Bob has now found pleasure in hugging racist.
Is that english? What does it mean?
Post by Philip Deitiker
I'm not condemning people who read refereed journals!
I reas refereed journals whenever they have something
relevant to say on subjects in which I am interested.
It's just that Philip (holier than thou) Deitiker has
several times said he only takes note of information he has
read in refereed journals.
Misrepresentation. What I said is that refereed primary
literature from feild specific journals is the generally best
source of information, from their things either get politicized
or dumbed down for mass consumption. I also get information from
books, but that generally are feild specific books where there
is no opinion offered other than the information provided. I
also read reviews, in fact I have refereed a few and I was
conducting operations of a review oriental journal for almost 2
years. Properly refereed review journals can also be a good
source of information. However as one branches from the primary
literature one see less referee process and more author opinion.
Message-ID: <***@netnews.worldnet.att.net>

"That's interesting Inger because I never read books and
I never accept information that is not published in refereed
primary literature. It may be difficult to understand but I
played a major role in editing 2 journals up until couple
of years ago and I am keenly aware that what is often
submitted for publication and rejected often ends up in
books or other unrefereed forms of literature (Websites),
given my attachment to these 2 Journals I have the basic
sort of mind set that I can't really accept someones
information unless they have submitted it for scientific
review and after having done so publish it."
Post by Philip Deitiker
When one thinks of the mechanism
of publishing in a refereed journal it becomes apparent
that no completely new information can be published in such
a journal. The simple reason is that if it is completely
new there can be no referees who know anything about it.
This shows just how little you know about science. Here are some
of the things that referees look for.
--- editing issues snipped ----
Post by Philip Deitiker
3. Scientific Issues, How has the authors dealt with critiques
of similar types of works, or with logical inconsistencies
or weakness in approach. Experience of referees may often
give information on how a particular experimental approach
give deceptive results, how one can retest in a different way
to confirm. Is the work reproducing someone elses work. Is it
a trivial variation of someone elses work.
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Post by Philip Deitiker
IOW, most of what I do when I referee a paper is to make sure
that.
1. It is readable and as quickly understandable by the reading
audiance, no matter what degree of familiarity
2. That is will appear as a high quality presentation.
3. That there are no stupendous logical flaws. For example
treating an unproven hypothesis as a premise.
4. That the work is not a plagerism or trivial variation of
someone elses work.
Doesn't sound as though you do much to filter out spurious science.
Post by Philip Deitiker
I can referee any paper in just about any feild even a feild
that I am not well studied in (there is always pubmed). However
to be the most beneficial to the authors I need to have enough
background to give them feild specific ways of improving their
papers. I might accept a paper outside an area of my expertise,
but the author of that paper may loose the benefit of referees
advise. I should also state that as a graduate student I
discovered 3 proteins in which there was no homolog or
previously discovered similar proteins, and the assay used to
characterize these proteins did not involve any of the classical
assay techniques. Of course the proteins did not come from Mars
but the nature of these proteins is so novel that they might
have well been.
I presume you don't judge the spelling.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Bob Keeter
NEW
NEW, really NEW. There era of Einstein and Darwin is gone.
I was going to say BULLSHIT, but then I realised you are in good
company. I think it was James Clark Maxwell who said much the same
thing about 1860.

Aprt from that, you obviously haven't been following the latest work
in the field of physics. I suppose that's reasonable for someone who
is only a cartoon hologram.
Post by Philip Deitiker
There
was a time when a select few made great advances. Now science is
alot of trivial small pieces to a puzzle, small steps. So much
of what we do today relies on new techniques (applied in others
papers, if not in the same feild in some other feild), new
approaches, new . . .
I guess that's how YOUR mind works.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Bob Keeter
discoveries usually occur when people spend not quite
so much time respectfully reading other peoples' work, no
matter what the source of the literature,
This is BS Bob speaking once again. The literature, particularly
in the feild of anthropology and archaeology is all but usless
if it is not up to date. Go back and read this sci.anthropology
right after the big split and read it now. Things have changed
significantly. In 1990 the feild was dominated by multiregional
hypothesis, now multiregionality is dominated by diehards and
racist kooks (and Grog huggers like ANNE)
... and people who have read all the latest **books** and are up with
all the latest theories about the study of archaeology.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Bob Keeter
and decide to go
out, stray a bit off of or beyond the "state of the art",
and do some work of their own!
Yes, Bob here is the cheerleader for our clan of loons, here,
except until the dogs bite the hand that feeds them, then he
turns on them.
Exactly. The result may be unwitting rubbish. It may turn
out to be extremely valuable. But by definition there will
be no person experienced in the field to look over the
shoulder of the researcher and make informed comment.
When you and Inger decide to publish you send me your manuscript
and we can see how objective I can be.
Don't worry. We already know. :-(

Apart from that, please don't confuse me with Inger. We are two
different people. She does her thing and I do mine.
Post by Philip Deitiker
First things first, you
have to write up your paper. You can't really criticize the
professionals if you haven't tested their swimming hole, yet,
can you. I suspect your criticism is more sour grapes than
substance. You are using the "novel-idea" 'red herring' as a
device to defend your avoidance of the primary literature,
because, frankly, I don't think you nor Inger understand it.
Why do you think I avoid the primary literature?
Post by Philip Deitiker
In fact, most discoveries are made in an incrimental
fashion so the new information will be presented as a
fringe to what the referees already know. There will be a
total absence of qualified referees only when someone like
Darwin comes up with something almost entirely new.
Ever heard of Tom Cech?
If cold fusion can be 'published' anything can. Really hypey
stuff gets an audiance in some trashy journal, even if its
science sucks incredible badly.
Look up Benviniste and Nature circa 1986-87.
Mistakes certainly can be published. Even outright fraudulent material
has been published in refereed journals. But so what?




Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-26 13:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
Misrepresentation. What I said is that refereed primary
literature from feild specific journals is the generally
best source of information, from their things either get
politicized or dumbed down for mass consumption. I also get
information from books, but that generally are feild
specific books where there is no opinion offered other than
the information provided. I also read reviews, in fact I
have refereed a few and I was conducting operations of a
review oriental journal for almost 2 years. Properly
refereed review journals can also be a good source of
information. However as one branches from the primary
literature one see less referee process and more author
opinion.
"That's interesting Inger because I never read books and
I never accept information that is not published in
refereed primary literature. It may be difficult to
understand but I played a major role in editing 2
journals up until couple of years ago and I am keenly
aware that what is often submitted for publication and
rejected often ends up in books or other unrefereed
forms of literature (Websites), given my attachment to
these 2 Journals I have the basic sort of mind set that
I can't really accept someones information unless they
have submitted it for scientific review and after
having done so publish it."
When I say books I mean books like some popular author giving
his view on evolution or anything. I do have a number of
reference texts that I use, but I do not use books as a source
of information (or interpretations) other than those designed to
catalog information often because the scope of the information
is too large for a single paper.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
3. Scientific Issues, How has the authors dealt with
critiques
of similar types of works, or with logical
inconsistencies or weakness in approach. Experience of
referees may often give information on how a particular
experimental approach give deceptive results, how one
can retest in a different way to confirm. Is the work
reproducing someone elses work. Is it a trivial
variation of someone elses work.
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
IOW, most of what I do when I referee a paper is to make
sure that.
1. It is readable and as quickly understandable by the
reading audiance, no matter what degree of familiarity
2. That is will appear as a high quality presentation.
3. That there are no stupendous logical flaws. For example
treating an unproven hypothesis as a premise.
4. That the work is not a plagerism or trivial variation of
someone elses work.
Doesn't sound as though you do much to filter out spurious
science.
Post by Philip Deitiker
I can referee any paper in just about any feild even a
feild that I am not well studied in (there is always
pubmed). However to be the most beneficial to the authors I
need to have enough background to give them feild specific
ways of improving their papers. I might accept a paper
outside an area of my expertise, but the author of that
paper may loose the benefit of referees advise. I should
also state that as a graduate student I discovered 3
proteins in which there was no homolog or previously
discovered similar proteins, and the assay used to
characterize these proteins did not involve any of the
classical assay techniques. Of course the proteins did not
come from Mars but the nature of these proteins is so novel
that they might have well been.
I presume you don't judge the spelling.
I do, however to judge spelling I need a double space B/W copy
and also I keep a dictionary close by my side. But spelling
errors are generally the domain of the publisher, I don't
interfere with spelling/grammer errors unless they change the
scientific content, in which case writing becomes ambiguous and
I ask the author to correct. I have sent many papers back for
'technical English rewrite'. IOW if the spelling errors are so
bad that it takes me 2 hours to read a manuscript, more than
likely after the first paragraph I am going to send it back with
a technical revision request. We have sent submitted papers to
referees and the referees have sent them back saying 'Don't send
me this junk unless you think it is worth refereeing' Therefore
one has to clean up the junky papers before they can even be
sent out for external referee process, and by that time the pre-
referee has done 90% of the work, anyway.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
NEW
NEW, really NEW. There era of Einstein and Darwin is gone.
I was going to say BULLSHIT, but then I realised you are in
good company. I think it was James Clark Maxwell who said
much the same thing about 1860.
Aprt from that, you obviously haven't been following the
latest work in the field of physics. I suppose that's
reasonable for someone who is only a cartoon hologram.
The era of large books and years of previously unpublished study
published in large books is gone. The current era is publish
every 4 months or Perish. Darwin was support by his family,
almost all scientist have to publish as they go bits and peices.
Post by Eric Stevens
I guess that's how YOUR mind works.
Your denial is indicative of yours. Your part of this mindset
'if I think like einstien or darwin I can come up with something
like they did'. Wrong. You have to publish bits and pieces every
few months.
Post by Eric Stevens
... and people who have read all the latest **books** and
are up with all the latest theories about the study of
archaeology.
Nope, the latest information is at meetings, digs and in the
primary literature. You can go to PaleoAnthro and see whats new
in the feild of anthropology. New information pours in every 2
weeks. By the end of the year I will have probably collected
couple hundred papers dealing with paleo and molecular
anthropology all in themselves. however the fact that you do not
understand this or that your are not a member of one of these
paper clubs is interesting since you seem to think you are an
expert on how science works.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
When you and Inger decide to publish you send me your
manuscript and we can see how objective I can be.
Don't worry. We already know. :-(
Apart from that, please don't confuse me with Inger. We are
two different people. She does her thing and I do mine.
Either one of you could be the others Sock Puppet. As others
have recently eluded to.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
First things first, you
have to write up your paper. You can't really criticize the
professionals if you haven't tested their swimming hole,
yet, can you. I suspect your criticism is more sour grapes
than substance. You are using the "novel-idea" 'red
herring' as a device to defend your avoidance of the
primary literature, because, frankly, I don't think you nor
Inger understand it.
Why do you think I avoid the primary literature?
Well from the above it appears you know nothing about how it
workd, that you have not made an effort to bath your brain cells
in recent work.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
Ever heard of Tom Cech?
If cold fusion can be 'published' anything can. Really
hypey stuff gets an audiance in some trashy journal, even
if its science sucks incredible badly.
Look up Benviniste and Nature circa 1986-87.
Mistakes certainly can be published. Even outright
fraudulent material has been published in refereed
journals. But so what?
You don't know who Tom Cech is do you?
Let me help.

Look up the Nobel Prize winners for the last 20 years. Since you
are so verse in Swedish this should not be too hard for you.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-26 22:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Eric Stevens
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
I note you haven't answered the question.
Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years.
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct.
Post by Philip Deitiker
The era of large books and years of previously unpublished study
published in large books is gone. The current era is publish
every 4 months or Perish. Darwin was support by his family,
almost all scientist have to publish as they go bits and peices.
I notice you haven't dealt with my point this time either.
Because you had no point, other than what Darwin did in the mid-19th
century is notable. At which point I have said you live in the 21st
century. If you want to live in the mid 19th century, get yourself a farm
buy a horse and rent a stable . . .
'have to'? "HAVE TO"? There is no absolute reason why 'have to'.
Publish or perish.
Everyone in science knows this
I also note that you make a practice of deleting text without giving
any indication. I suppose that makes it easier to for you to avoid
dealing with ideas which show your own to be questionable. In view of
your long posting history, it also shows you to be less than honest.
My ISP requires that I trim quoted text before posting, as a result I cut
out all but the essential tidbits when replying, Anyone with a decent
reader can scrool up one line and see the original.
I do that for a living but not in areas with which you are familiar.
Bull shit, you have no idea about the scientific publication process,
that is clear by what you have posted. If you are involved in science
its with soft science like 3rd world sociology or some other touchy-feely
feel good tangent.
It's not difficult to look up Tom Cech, although what he has got to do
with cold fusion escapes me. I didn't comment as I didn't see the
point of your garbled paragraph. Was Tom Crech talking about people
like you in http://www.hhmi.org/becoming/cech.html
You did not look up Tom Cech. He proposed the preposterous idea that RNA
could act as a enzyme catalyzing its own cleavage, many biochemist
thought he was insane, however he still got published and his ideas were
rapidly accepted following a body of research published in the refereed
primary literature.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Eric Stevens
2003-08-26 23:55:39 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Aug 2003 22:54:36 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Eric Stevens
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
I note you haven't answered the question.
Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years.
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct.
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
The era of large books and years of previously unpublished study
published in large books is gone. The current era is publish
every 4 months or Perish. Darwin was support by his family,
almost all scientist have to publish as they go bits and peices.
I notice you haven't dealt with my point this time either.
Because you had no point, other than what Darwin did in the mid-19th
century is notable. At which point I have said you live in the 21st
century. If you want to live in the mid 19th century, get yourself a farm
buy a horse and rent a stable . . .
'have to'? "HAVE TO"? There is no absolute reason why 'have to'.
Publish or perish.
Everyone in science knows this
I also note that you make a practice of deleting text without giving
any indication. I suppose that makes it easier to for you to avoid
dealing with ideas which show your own to be questionable. In view of
your long posting history, it also shows you to be less than honest.
My ISP requires that I trim quoted text before posting, as a result I cut
out all but the essential tidbits when replying, Anyone with a decent
reader can scrool up one line and see the original.
Dr Deitiker, you have been posting to news groups for many years and
probably know nettiquette better than I do. You will certainly know
that deleting text without drawing attention to the fact is bad
nettiquette, at the least, or down right dishonest at the worst.

You are welcome to snip but there is a well accepted procedure for
signifying that fact.

As for your suggestion that anyone with a decent reader can scrool up
one line and see the original, I would suggest that the day it is
necessary to check your articles to see what you have secretly deleted
is the day you justly qualify for everybody's kill file.
Post by Philip Deitiker
I do that for a living but not in areas with which you are familiar.
Bull shit, you have no idea about the scientific publication process,
that is clear by what you have posted. If you are involved in science
its with soft science like 3rd world sociology or some other touchy-feely
feel good tangent.
You seem to equate the scientific publication process with 'how
science works'. I suppose that's normal as the publication process
seems to have been one of your major involvements. It's rather like
the three blind men with the elephant: you only know the beast as the
part with which you are familiar. You never seemed to pick up on my
earlier refrence to Karl Popper. I wonder why?
Post by Philip Deitiker
It's not difficult to look up Tom Cech, although what he has got to do
with cold fusion escapes me. I didn't comment as I didn't see the
point of your garbled paragraph. Was Tom Crech talking about people
like you in http://www.hhmi.org/becoming/cech.html
You did not look up Tom Cech.
That's interesting. How do you know that? Where do you think I got
that URL from?
Post by Philip Deitiker
He proposed the preposterous idea that RNA
could act as a enzyme catalyzing its own cleavage, many biochemist
thought he was insane, however he still got published and his ideas were
rapidly accepted following a body of research published in the refereed
primary literature.
Which has bugger all to do with your original reference to 'cold
fusion'.



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-27 00:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On 26 Aug 2003 22:54:36 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Eric Stevens
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
I note you haven't answered the question.
Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years.
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct.
Very little of the science of Darwin's day relevant to the Origin has
been disproven - only the common ideas of heredity have been and the
change, it was gradually realised between 1900 and 1930, reinforces
Darwin's theories rather than weakens them.

And little basic science has been *disproven* at all - it has been
refined, and occasionally it needed to be reinterpreted in a more global
theory, as with relativity, but the measurements, observations and
research done by, say, 1850, holds up pretty well. In particular, the
histology of the time is marvellously correct where positive
observations were made.
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.

In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.

I don't want to step into the larger issue of this thread, but it seems
to me we often misread older science through lenses made more recently,
and with an agenda.

<snip rest>
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 02:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
On 26 Aug 2003 22:54:36 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Eric Stevens
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
I note you haven't answered the question.
Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years.
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct.
Very little of the science of Darwin's day relevant to the Origin has
been disproven - only the common ideas of heredity have been and the
change, it was gradually realised between 1900 and 1930, reinforces
Darwin's theories rather than weakens them.
And little basic science has been *disproven* at all - it has been
refined, and occasionally it needed to be reinterpreted in a more global
theory, as with relativity, but the measurements, observations and
research done by, say, 1850, holds up pretty well. In particular, the
histology of the time is marvellously correct where positive
observations were made.
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.
I stand corrected. Presumably that is the reason Darwin took 25 years
to publish? Did it take 25 years to convince his friends that his
ideas had merit?

Lyell was a geologist and primarily could only have leant a
sympathetic ear. Hooker and Gray were botanists and could perhaps
after 25 years have understod where Darwin was coming from.

I agree Agassiz remained one of Darwin's leading critics and would not
have approved if the book had been submitted to him in advance for
review.

However, none of them knew anything about evolution and would not have
qualified as peer reviewers in the strict sense as it is applied today
(always excepting Philip (I can review anything) Deitiker).
Post by John Wilkins
In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.
I don't want to step into the larger issue of this thread, but it seems
to me we often misread older science through lenses made more recently,
and with an agenda.
Its the agenda that I want to get rid of. I guess that gives me an
agenda. :-)



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-27 03:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
On 26 Aug 2003 22:54:36 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Eric Stevens
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from
about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date
with primary literature and web information. By the time a book
is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins
would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be
obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to
publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't
jump him.
I note you haven't answered the question.
Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years.
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct.
Very little of the science of Darwin's day relevant to the Origin has
been disproven - only the common ideas of heredity have been and the
change, it was gradually realised between 1900 and 1930, reinforces
Darwin's theories rather than weakens them.
And little basic science has been *disproven* at all - it has been
refined, and occasionally it needed to be reinterpreted in a more global
theory, as with relativity, but the measurements, observations and
research done by, say, 1850, holds up pretty well. In particular, the
histology of the time is marvellously correct where positive
observations were made.
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.
I stand corrected. Presumably that is the reason Darwin took 25 years
to publish? Did it take 25 years to convince his friends that his
ideas had merit?
More that he knew he needed an extraordinary argument to establish it to
his own satisfaction and those he admired - Herschel was one, and his
dismissal of natural selection as "the law of the higgeldy piggeldy"
hurt Darwin, although he was not entirely sure what it meant. Had
Wallace not dropped his little bombshell, it may have been another
decade before he was happy to publish his _Natural Selection_, which was
conisderably larger and more documented.
Post by Eric Stevens
Lyell was a geologist and primarily could only have leant a
sympathetic ear. Hooker and Gray were botanists and could perhaps
after 25 years have understod where Darwin was coming from.
I think you fail to comprehend the domains of the day - Darwin *was* a
geologist, and Lyell's _Principles_ set the scene for Darwin's
arguments. Lyell knew very well indeed what the issues were, what the
data was, and what it meant.
Post by Eric Stevens
I agree Agassiz remained one of Darwin's leading critics and would not
have approved if the book had been submitted to him in advance for
review.
I'm not sure. Agassiz came, late in life, to allowing that Darwin might
have been right - imagine that! At 75, he was able to allow it that his
life's theoretical work was wrong! I am impressed by that, if not by his
racism and authoritarianism. Agassiz may very well have said "publish,
and we'll deal with it in criticism".
Post by Eric Stevens
However, none of them knew anything about evolution and would not have
qualified as peer reviewers in the strict sense as it is applied today
(always excepting Philip (I can review anything) Deitiker).
Again, not true. Evolution was not a discipline then, by definition -
geology, botany, zoology, medicine, paleontology - these were the
established disciplines in which that set of theories were effective,
and specialists in each or several of them would have been (and were, in
fact) competent to pass judgement on the theses offered in the _Origin_.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.
I don't want to step into the larger issue of this thread, but it seems
to me we often misread older science through lenses made more recently,
and with an agenda.
Its the agenda that I want to get rid of. I guess that gives me an
agenda. :-)
Any other business?
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Peter Ashby
2003-08-27 10:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
geology, botany, zoology, medicine, paleontology - these were the
established disciplines in which that set of theories were effective,
and specialists in each or several of them would have been (and were, in
fact) competent to pass judgement on the theses offered in the _Origin_.
But not in the modern sense of 'peer review'.
Eric, exactly in that sense. An editor sends a paper for review to
whoever they think best suited. In my last paper I had to suggest a
couple as my work is so cutting edge there are few of us balancing on it
;-) Does this paucity of people invalidate the review process? of course
not. If a reviewer does not feel competent to comment on some aspect
they will say so. Again you are forgetting that our extreme
specialisation didn't exist in the mid 19thC.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 19:58:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:15:47 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by John Wilkins
geology, botany, zoology, medicine, paleontology - these were the
established disciplines in which that set of theories were effective,
and specialists in each or several of them would have been (and were, in
fact) competent to pass judgement on the theses offered in the _Origin_.
But not in the modern sense of 'peer review'.
Eric, exactly in that sense. An editor sends a paper for review to
whoever they think best suited. In my last paper I had to suggest a
couple as my work is so cutting edge there are few of us balancing on it
;-) Does this paucity of people invalidate the review process? of course
not. If a reviewer does not feel competent to comment on some aspect
they will say so. Again you are forgetting that our extreme
specialisation didn't exist in the mid 19thC.
Are you saying that you were able to nominate your own reviewers who
you had primed in advance? In effect, that's what Darwin did. It would
probably be more accurate to say that he collaborated with all these
people who are now being described as reviewers.

My experience of peer review is that a paper is sent cold to an
editorial board who then pick the reviewers. I have never previously
heard of the author being able to nominate their own reviewers. That's
why I made the remark " But not in the modern sense of 'peer review'".



Eric Stevens
Peter Ashby
2003-09-01 14:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Eric, exactly in that sense. An editor sends a paper for review to
whoever they think best suited. In my last paper I had to suggest a
couple as my work is so cutting edge there are few of us balancing on it
;-) Does this paucity of people invalidate the review process? of course
not. If a reviewer does not feel competent to comment on some aspect
they will say so. Again you are forgetting that our extreme
specialisation didn't exist in the mid 19thC.
Are you saying that you were able to nominate your own reviewers who
you had primed in advance? In effect, that's what Darwin did. It would
probably be more accurate to say that he collaborated with all these
people who are now being described as reviewers.
I can nominate the reviewers yes, as to priming them in advance that
would be improper. In fact I have never either met or communicated with
either of them. I know them by reputation only. In any case the editor
is perfectly free to ignore my nominations and since the review is still
anonymous I cannot know if either were used.

If you pause for a moment you will see this mechanism for what it is.
Simply a device to keep editors informed, in some areas it is those
working in them who are best placed to know the other experts.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-09-01 20:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:43:23 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Eric, exactly in that sense. An editor sends a paper for review to
whoever they think best suited. In my last paper I had to suggest a
couple as my work is so cutting edge there are few of us balancing on it
;-) Does this paucity of people invalidate the review process? of course
not. If a reviewer does not feel competent to comment on some aspect
they will say so. Again you are forgetting that our extreme
specialisation didn't exist in the mid 19thC.
Are you saying that you were able to nominate your own reviewers who
you had primed in advance? In effect, that's what Darwin did. It would
probably be more accurate to say that he collaborated with all these
people who are now being described as reviewers.
I can nominate the reviewers yes, as to priming them in advance that
would be improper. In fact I have never either met or communicated with
either of them. I know them by reputation only. In any case the editor
is perfectly free to ignore my nominations and since the review is still
anonymous I cannot know if either were used.
If you pause for a moment you will see this mechanism for what it is.
Simply a device to keep editors informed, in some areas it is those
working in them who are best placed to know the other experts.
I agree. I don't really want to start a long discussion on possible
problems of the peer review process but being able to nominate
reviewers has the potential problem of developing a clique of mutually
sympathetic authors/researchers. I don't really see that as a problem
in your field as truth will out reasonably quickly but years ago, for
my sins, I studied psychology and I noted exactly this problem.




Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2003-09-02 20:20:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:29:31 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
I agree. I don't really want to start a long discussion on possible
problems of the peer review process but being able to nominate
reviewers has the potential problem of developing a clique of mutually
sympathetic authors/researchers. I don't really see that as a problem
in your field as truth will out reasonably quickly but years ago, for
my sins, I studied psychology and I noted exactly this problem.
Different journals have different policies on the matter. The journal I
submitted to openly solicits suggestions for reviewers. However they are
under no obligation to agree.
That's interesting. The journals with which I am most familiar are in
the field of engineering science. The usual practice is to have an
editorial board and in the first instance the editor or the editorial
board itself will decide which of the board members are the most
appropriate to review a paper. On rare occasions the board may decide
to coopt an outside specialist. I suppose there is nothing to stop
them asking the author but I have never heard of them doing it.



Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 23:45:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:21:54 GMT, ***@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
wrote:

--- snip ---
Post by John Wilkins
geology, botany, zoology, medicine, paleontology - these were the
established disciplines in which that set of theories were effective,
and specialists in each or several of them would have been (and were, in
fact) competent to pass judgement on the theses offered in the _Origin_.
But not in the modern sense of 'peer review'.
No, because that system did not yet exist... we are going around. If all
you are saying is that Darwin did not live in the modern system of
science, of course that is true, and vacuous. But if you are implying
Darwin was able to publish because he was free of peer review, then not
only do you misrepresent the situation of the _Origin_, but of 19thC
science. The peer review existed, but was mixed up in issues of social
class and personal alliances. Arguably, things have not changed *that*
much.
See my other post of today on the subject.



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-28 03:44:44 UTC
Permalink
As I said, at *that* time it was one hypothesis that applied to a number
of disciplines. Hence, anyone who was competent in those disciplines was
competent to render a judgement, Lyell above all others. And they did,
with something like 95% of those specialists accepting evolution (if not
selection) within a decade, according to Hull's and Sulloway's research.
In certain areas, however it was not genuinely embraced
everywhere. If you were to talk about Germany and England.
I did distinguish between evolution and selection (that is, between
transmutation and common descent or the one hand and natural selection
and secondarily sexual selection on the other).
If you compare the acceptance of Tom Cech's ideas and
Charles Darwin's the comparative rate of acceptance is like
comparing the speed of light with the speed of sound.
People in the early 20th century were still arguing against
darwinian evolution. Professors were strongarmed to leave
tenured positions for trying to followup the idea of
mendelian genetics. Until Watson and Crick (1958) showed
there is a plausible mechanism for storing information,
people question genetics even though a very large amount of
information of linkage had been obtained.
You appear to have garbled something here, Phil. Early in the 20thC,
Mendelian genetics was all triumphant - within about 6 years of the
initial "rediscovery", it was universally accepted - only a few
neo-Lamarckian holdouts existed. What people were opposing WRT Darwin
were two items: the efficacy of natural selection, and the idea that use
and disuse biases the transmission of traits, both of which were
peculiarly Darwinian.

But common descent, descent with modification, and biogeographic
dsitribution were accepted within a decade of the Origin by all who
worked in the disciplines concerned. What was at issue c1900 was
Weismannism (sequestration of gametes) and Mendelism put that firmly
into lore.
However the behavior of some clich specific scientist does
give reason for pause. An instance of today is that Wright
proposed and Kimura later verified (1952) the 2N-rule and
quasi-fixation of alleles in population. If you scan the
literature in 2003 you can find a number of papers published
on human evolution and you can still find a number of
authors arguing 'hey look, my XYZ-loci MRCAs 1,000,000 years
ago therefore humans and Neandertals are the same and mtDNA
is bunk. Here you have papers written in genetics journals
were the referees are supposed to know this stuff.
Geneticists often misunderstand the ideas of evolution, I find,
particularly molecular geneticists, who are not taught either
phylogenetics or a proper appreciation of the nonlinearity of population
genetics over longer periods.
<snip remainder>
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-28 19:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
I did distinguish between evolution and selection (that is, between
transmutation and common descent or the one hand and natural selection
and secondarily sexual selection on the other).
I think your looking at the history with Rose colored glasses, probably
from a more anglo point of view.
Post by John Wilkins
You appear to have garbled something here, Phil. Early in the 20thC,
Mendelian genetics was all triumphant - within about 6 years of the
initial "rediscovery", it was universally accepted - only a few
neo-Lamarckian holdouts existed. What people were opposing WRT Darwin
were two items: the efficacy of natural selection, and the idea that
use and disuse biases the transmission of traits, both of which were
peculiarly Darwinian.
Muellar caught hell for it (as with a few other things). Ended up in
USSR.
Post by John Wilkins
But common descent, descent with modification, and biogeographic
dsitribution were accepted within a decade of the Origin by all who
worked in the disciplines concerned. What was at issue c1900 was
Weismannism (sequestration of gametes) and Mendelism put that firmly
into lore.
Right, only after 40 years of complete ignorance by the scientific
community. Traces of mendelian inheritance can be traced back to biblical
times, it was one of the most overlooked phenomena in human history.
Elsewhere, the Track record ain't that good. Yes there was a long of
foundational work done.
Alot of people who did that work, for example, on cytochrome C and
Hemoglobin, are not given credit for finding genetic parsimony between
pre-gene sequencing phenotypic analysis and the morphological/fossil
record. Ever heard of Gerald Braunitzer?
From a molecular point of view the mechanics of inheritance struggled
from the time of Darwin until the 1960s, and some would argue
until Arthur Kornberg took his sabatacal and all hell broke out in
his lab (lol). Alot of the reasoning for this is that people tinkered
At 1960 you had 2 events converge.
1. The definition of DNA structure.
2. The codon usage table of tRNAses.

The reason this took so long is that everyone almost ignored DNA (in the
cells they were studying) as the hereditary molecules. Though these
substances were identified, many considered it cellular junk, continuing
to focus on protein as putative hereditary material.
Therefore even inside the feild of people looking for the mechanism,
there were still alot of questions. Many people felt something like
Darwinian evolution was occuring however the mechanisms they were
proposing were more lamarkian than darwinian, and that in some instances
things evolved in Mendelian fashion, but it was not altogether clear that
there was a systematic process controlling it until after the 1930s and
really not confirmed in the minds of many people until late 1950s. Check
the literature on this, you will find alot of arguments that would appear
silly, almost religious, on the issue of hereditary mechanics. Many more
arguments that are wholey laughable today than arguments that have stood
the test of time. Mendel did not really theorize the importance of
mendelian inheritance, what is remarkable is that Darwin theorized based
on a very chaotic data set with no experimentation and his summary is
largely correct. If you compare Darwin's theory with other works of his
time, randomly, Darwin
work is so close to being right based on the weakest mechanistic
knowledge that his and Wallaces conclusions are almost prophetic.
I cannot think of a single scientific work out their that has stood the
test of time and critique they way Darwin's work has. Even Einstein had
lapses, like his rejection of uncertainty and other works, Einstein often
tried to overstep the bounds of information he had with complex
mathematics. Had uncertainty and Plank's work been proven before Einstein
began his studies his conclusions might have been different; however,
without those basic elements would require some foresight, some
anticipation about the direction science was going
For Darwinian thinking requires consideration of uncertainty theories
before they existed, some sort of mendelian-like genetics scheme before
it existed. Some sort of logical mechanistic construct (see below) before
it existed. One had to have some sort of faith that such things were in
play before any information on these existed. IOW Darwin took a mental
snapshot of extrapolated chronology of the natural world and
recapitulated it into a theory and his snapshot was so robust that it has
withstood the test of time. Intrinsically he must have understood that
this process was backed up by some mechanics which would later be proven.
Post by John Wilkins
Geneticists often misunderstand the ideas of evolution, I find,
particularly molecular geneticists, who are not taught either
phylogenetics or a proper appreciation of the nonlinearity of
population genetics over longer periods.
But my point is that Kimura is a little like Mendel, his work has been
out their for 50 years, and is still largely ignored by groups of
scientist supposedly experts, in the exact same way that many were not
fully considering the impact of Mendels or Darwins work. Because of this
fact many still vainly try to hold onto MREH. Its the same analogy, if
scientist of postDarwinian/Mendelian accepted these as ultimate truths in
biological systems, then they would have dropped Proteins and RNA as
heritable material and started looking for something that did not have
the high cellular turn over. The basic problem is many molecular
biologist did not get themselves into the logic of what is required to be
heritable material.

1. Longlived molecules (implicit)
2. Maintained (implicit otherwise how would)
3. Large linkage groups (much larger than proteins are long) 1910-1920s
4. Fidelity of replication.

Its only when the N15 experiments were done that it was shown that DNA
outlived the cell cycle, and many people started to flux into the
direction of DNA as the heritable material and lifelong stability of DNA.
As long as protiens were in the picture, many felt that proteins some how
imprinted themselves on the next generation of proteins, this is a
lamarkian idea, but many biochemist did follow this thinking.

The point to people like Eric and Inger, Darwins are very rare even in
his time, most of Darwins peers were shown to be wrong in most of their
conclusions. In the scope of 21st century most will not survive long
enough to reach Darwin's capacity to create a 'composite' theory, and
even so if you did this you would likely see that theory be proven wrong.
It is better to take tiny proven steps than try to throw hail Mary
passes, and even so as you have stated Darwin had written previous
communications. In his day in age there was so many neglected connections
that needed to be brought together after the data was collected and
presented that only a person who had this 'snapshot' of biology in his
head could do. He worked in a feild that was smaller than a football
team.
But now we still have this lag effect within science, a molecular
geneticist knows that genetic drift may have an impact on the
interpretation of his results; however, that individual still does not go
through all the logical implicits that need to be done.

I repeat.
1. Is there an expection for MRCAs?
2. Is this expection affected by different ploidies.
3. Is there an expected distribution.
Answer if 1 yes, then 2 yes and 3 yes then
4. You have to derive a distribution
5. Compare your MRCA to that distribution
6. And compare it to others of same ploidy within that distribution.
7 Derive significance.

Many authors get 1, some get 2, with the exception Takahata none have
extended their interpretations beyond 3.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
John Wilkins
2003-08-29 00:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by John Wilkins
I did distinguish between evolution and selection (that is, between
transmutation and common descent or the one hand and natural selection
and secondarily sexual selection on the other).
I think your looking at the history with Rose colored glasses, probably
from a more anglo point of view.
The theory did arise in an anglophonic environment, Phil. But note that
despite the objections of von Baer and others, Germany was a major locus
of evolutionary biology for the next fifty years, and even of an
obsession with selection. Nobody got thrown out for accepting it so far
as I can tell even in the ideal morphology departments.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by John Wilkins
You appear to have garbled something here, Phil. Early in the 20thC,
Mendelian genetics was all triumphant - within about 6 years of the
initial "rediscovery", it was universally accepted - only a few
neo-Lamarckian holdouts existed. What people were opposing WRT Darwin
were two items: the efficacy of natural selection, and the idea that
use and disuse biases the transmission of traits, both of which were
peculiarly Darwinian.
Muellar caught hell for it (as with a few other things). Ended up in
USSR.
Say what? HJ Müller or someone else? If you'll recall your Soviet
biology, Mendelism-Minchurism was a thought crime there, and Vavilov
died in a Gulag. Mendelism was opposed in post-revolutionary Russia and
most Russian geneticists such as I'urii Filipchecko (Dobzhansky's
teacher) left for Germany or the USA as soon as they could, including
Dobie who worked in Morgan's fly room.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by John Wilkins
But common descent, descent with modification, and biogeographic
dsitribution were accepted within a decade of the Origin by all who
worked in the disciplines concerned. What was at issue c1900 was
Weismannism (sequestration of gametes) and Mendelism put that firmly
into lore.
Right, only after 40 years of complete ignorance by the scientific
community. Traces of mendelian inheritance can be traced back to biblical
times, it was one of the most overlooked phenomena in human history.
Elsewhere, the Track record ain't that good. Yes there was a long of
foundational work done.
It is arguable that Mendel was rediscovered or that people who developed
"Mendelian" genetics hooked on Mendel to avoid a priority dispute. In
fact Mendel's ratio had been independently discovered by Pierre
Maupertuis in the 1770s and forgotten.

As for Weismann's Barrier, the debate c 1900 was whether or not
information about the organism's experienced lifecycle was inherited or
not. Most (happily evolutionist) neo-Lamarckians thought that it was,
but this was also Darwin's opinion, so most of them thought they were
quite Darwinian in that respect. "Darwinian" did not equal "Weismannian"
until the 1920s or later, with the reconciliation of "Mendelian"
genetics and selection theory by Fisher and others.

It is my experience that scientists make the worst historians of
science, largely because they garble history into what they think
*should* have happened. Take care here.

The following is much more recent than the period we have been
discussing. You cannot leap from this to conclusions about things that
happened a century earlier.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Alot of people who did that work, for example, on cytochrome C and
Hemoglobin, are not given credit for finding genetic parsimony between
pre-gene sequencing phenotypic analysis and the morphological/fossil
record. Ever heard of Gerald Braunitzer?
From a molecular point of view the mechanics of inheritance struggled
from the time of Darwin until the 1960s, and some would argue
until Arthur Kornberg took his sabatacal and all hell broke out in
his lab (lol). Alot of the reasoning for this is that people tinkered
At 1960 you had 2 events converge.
1. The definition of DNA structure.
2. The codon usage table of tRNAses.
The reason this took so long is that everyone almost ignored DNA (in the
cells they were studying) as the hereditary molecules. Though these
substances were identified, many considered it cellular junk, continuing
to focus on protein as putative hereditary material.
Therefore even inside the feild of people looking for the mechanism,
there were still alot of questions. Many people felt something like
Darwinian evolution was occuring however the mechanisms they were
proposing were more lamarkian than darwinian, and that in some instances
things evolved in Mendelian fashion, but it was not altogether clear that
there was a systematic process controlling it until after the 1930s and
really not confirmed in the minds of many people until late 1950s. Check
the literature on this, you will find alot of arguments that would appear
silly, almost religious, on the issue of hereditary mechanics. Many more
arguments that are wholey laughable today than arguments that have stood
the test of time. Mendel did not really theorize the importance of
mendelian inheritance, what is remarkable is that Darwin theorized based
on a very chaotic data set with no experimentation and his summary is
largely correct. If you compare Darwin's theory with other works of his
time, randomly, Darwin
work is so close to being right based on the weakest mechanistic
knowledge that his and Wallaces conclusions are almost prophetic.
What, about use and disuse affecting the frequency of a trait being
inherited? Or about particles from the body of unused energy being
gathered together in the blood (and later in the lymphatic tissues) and
affecting the pangenes? Come one. Darwin's theory had to be trimmed of
his pangenesis to fit Mendelian and later molecular genetics.

Don't misundertake me, as Cheech and Chong might say, Darwin was
amazingly correct on evolutionary matters, and even his selectionist
account of speciation is getting a show these days, but on heredity, the
best he could say and all of what he said that has survived is that it
happens and there are variants.
Post by Philip Deitiker
I cannot think of a single scientific work out their that has stood the
test of time and critique they way Darwin's work has. Even Einstein had
lapses, like his rejection of uncertainty and other works, Einstein often
tried to overstep the bounds of information he had with complex
mathematics. Had uncertainty and Plank's work been proven before Einstein
began his studies his conclusions might have been different; however,
without those basic elements would require some foresight, some
anticipation about the direction science was going
For Darwinian thinking requires consideration of uncertainty theories
before they existed, some sort of mendelian-like genetics scheme before
it existed. Some sort of logical mechanistic construct (see below) before
it existed. One had to have some sort of faith that such things were in
play before any information on these existed. IOW Darwin took a mental
snapshot of extrapolated chronology of the natural world and
recapitulated it into a theory and his snapshot was so robust that it has
withstood the test of time. Intrinsically he must have understood that
this process was backed up by some mechanics which would later be proven.
I don't disagree here, but I perfer more measured approaches like
Ghiselin's _Triumph of the Darwinian Method_. It doesn't pay to do
hagiography in science.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by John Wilkins
Geneticists often misunderstand the ideas of evolution, I find,
particularly molecular geneticists, who are not taught either
phylogenetics or a proper appreciation of the nonlinearity of
population genetics over longer periods.
But my point is that Kimura is a little like Mendel, his work has been
out their for 50 years, and is still largely ignored by groups of
scientist supposedly experts, in the exact same way that many were not
fully considering the impact of Mendels or Darwins work. Because of this
fact many still vainly try to hold onto MREH. Its the same analogy, if
scientist of postDarwinian/Mendelian accepted these as ultimate truths in
biological systems, then they would have dropped Proteins and RNA as
heritable material and started looking for something that did not have
the high cellular turn over. The basic problem is many molecular
biologist did not get themselves into the logic of what is required to be
heritable material.
1. Longlived molecules (implicit)
2. Maintained (implicit otherwise how would)
3. Large linkage groups (much larger than proteins are long) 1910-1920s
4. Fidelity of replication.
Its only when the N15 experiments were done that it was shown that DNA
outlived the cell cycle, and many people started to flux into the
direction of DNA as the heritable material and lifelong stability of DNA.
As long as protiens were in the picture, many felt that proteins some how
imprinted themselves on the next generation of proteins, this is a
lamarkian idea, but many biochemist did follow this thinking.
The point to people like Eric and Inger, Darwins are very rare even in
his time, most of Darwins peers were shown to be wrong in most of their
conclusions. In the scope of 21st century most will not survive long
enough to reach Darwin's capacity to create a 'composite' theory, and
even so if you did this you would likely see that theory be proven wrong.
It is better to take tiny proven steps than try to throw hail Mary
passes, and even so as you have stated Darwin had written previous
communications. In his day in age there was so many neglected connections
that needed to be brought together after the data was collected and
presented that only a person who had this 'snapshot' of biology in his
head could do. He worked in a feild that was smaller than a football
team.
But now we still have this lag effect within science, a molecular
geneticist knows that genetic drift may have an impact on the
interpretation of his results; however, that individual still does not go
through all the logical implicits that need to be done.
I repeat.
1. Is there an expection for MRCAs?
2. Is this expection affected by different ploidies.
3. Is there an expected distribution.
Answer if 1 yes, then 2 yes and 3 yes then
4. You have to derive a distribution
5. Compare your MRCA to that distribution
6. And compare it to others of same ploidy within that distribution.
7 Derive significance.
Many authors get 1, some get 2, with the exception Takahata none have
extended their interpretations beyond 3.
I have nothing to say about the foregoing. I wonder why, in this
context, you do.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Eric Stevens
2003-08-29 03:15:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:13:21 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by John Wilkins
I have nothing to say about the foregoing. I wonder why, in this
context, you do.
Because getting published and having a widely required work
widely used are two separate things. The argument really
stands that Darwin would not be published ...
You may remember that I started this off and you responded. My
original point was that at that time Darwin's work was sufficiently
novel that it would have been hard to impossible to find peer
reviewers and followed that up by concluding that such reviewers as
could be found were more likely to reject Darwin's ideas than to
accept them.

In Message-ID: <***@4ax.com> my exact
words were:

"For Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the
preceding 25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS.
Had it been submitted for peer review it was more likely to
have been rejected than published."

I don't want to rehash what we have just been through but it is clear
that I did NOT say "that Darwin would not be published".

--- snip ----



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-29 11:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
I have nothing to say about the foregoing. I wonder why, in this
context, you do.
Because getting published and having a widely required work
widely used are two separate things. The argument really
stands that Darwin would not be published, that is a
non-issue now-a-days, he would be published, somewhere in
some form. The real issue is how long would people take to
recognize the full potential of his work and apply it to
what they are doing. In the case of Kimura as an example,
after 50 years and being widely discussed the issue of drift
is still neglected. In the case of Mendel and the other
fellow you mentioned its the same thing, the need arises,
Darwinian evolution, signs from the animals genetics and all
of a sudden Mendel is the father of genetics. Of course you
can say scientist are not good historians, but as a matter
of fact we are living the current histories and
unfortunately I see scientist making a whole lot of blunders
that were made in the 1900s. Thus I bring it up to make a
point, publishing is not the problem. It really depends on
how widely scientist read, its the use and uptake of
published material. How good our scientist at scanning what
they need to scan. Publication is not the problem, the
problem is what should be published and what should be read,
and what should be read should be taken to heart.
That is a good attitude, or rather it would be if more textbook
histories were accurate. Scientists frequently spend a lot of time
reinventing old wheels in part because the histories are inaccurate
enough, and whiggish enough, to misrepresent the *actual* errors of the
past and to laud and sanctify the heroes. To get an idea of this I
strongly recommend chapter ten of Hull's _Science as a Process_ (in fact
I strongly recommend the entire book, but it's 573pp+ index and
preface)..

In my own thesis I find not only that the history of the species cocnept
is false as usually presented, but that the "same" solutions and ideas
are continuously reinvented or recycled endlessly, it seems, from
Epicurus and Aristotle onwards. Yet when I talk to specialists about
this, they are entirely unaware that the idea of a species as an
individual, for example, was invented in the 14th C, or that species
were considered to be distributional types throughout the middle ages.
<snip personal anecdotes, with the caveat that the singular of "data" is
*not* "anecdote" even in the social sciences>
The power of the machine is when everyone gets onto the same
page and pushes forward. When people drag their feet in
old-thinking and with closed minds then science can drag of
for years for the simplist problems. And outsiders and
unproffessionals start reaching better conclusions than they
do, this is where science gets in trouble. Molecular
Anthropology is a very troubled feild, there are some signs
that it is coming around, but the real hang ups are in
applying the basic consequences of evolution (just as in the
biology paper) that were outlined 50 to 150 years ago.
Well, my supervisor has said that molecular systematics is revisiting
the ultimately fruitless ideas of biogeography of 50 years ago, looking
for ancestors and centres of origin, too. Perhaps you are right, but in
the end it is use (and contrariwise, disuse) of scientific ideas that
counts...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-29 14:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
In my own thesis I find not only that the history of the species cocnept
is false as usually presented, but that the "same" solutions and ideas
are continuously reinvented or recycled endlessly, it seems, from
Epicurus and Aristotle onwards. Yet when I talk to specialists about
this, they are entirely unaware that the idea of a species as an
individual, for example, was invented in the 14th C, or that species
were considered to be distributional types throughout the middle ages.
I was going to mention species also, because a number of
papers have come out saying this or that hominid could not
have been a species. But this blanket denial is a denial of
speciation, again this goes back to uncertainty as a
consideration in evolution. While you can statistically show
that species form after some long period of time. Apriori
sitting down and watching two closely related species you
don't know (without much deeper analysis)

1. When they formed
2. And when the next round of the process will occur.

So a statistical generality is not an answer, the fact that
speciation occurs means that most of the time a grouping of
animals is a species, but at some point in time they stop
being a species and become 2 or more species. If you check
out the paleoanthropology literature for the past 5 years
you can find at least 3 papers that appear totally ignorant
of this.
Post by John Wilkins
<snip personal anecdotes, with the caveat that the singular of "data" is
*not* "anecdote" even in the social sciences>
But these instances are still popping up.
Post by John Wilkins
The power of the machine is when everyone gets onto the same
page and pushes forward. When people drag their feet in
old-thinking and with closed minds then science can drag of
for years for the simplist problems. And outsiders and
unproffessionals start reaching better conclusions than they
do, this is where science gets in trouble. Molecular
Anthropology is a very troubled feild, there are some signs
that it is coming around, but the real hang ups are in
applying the basic consequences of evolution (just as in the
biology paper) that were outlined 50 to 150 years ago.
Well, my supervisor has said that molecular systematics is revisiting
the ultimately fruitless ideas of biogeography of 50 years ago, looking
for ancestors and centres of origin, too. Perhaps you are right, but in
the end it is use (and contrariwise, disuse) of scientific ideas that
counts...
In a way, yes, and in a way no, from the position of
autoimmunity we want to know why one combination of alleles
in one population causes disease, and the same combination
in another does not. Whereas in the second population
another combination causes diseases. With certain haplotypes
I have seen p values drop to 1 x -10^8 in one population,
skip all the way across the world and see the same p value
in a seemingly unrelated population. However when I dug
deeper, the two unrelated populations were not unrelated.
The issue then becomes how they were once related, and
what is key about that ancestral relationship to a
particular disease.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-28 03:23:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:11:09 GMT, Philip Deitiker
As I said, at *that* time it was one hypothesis that applied to a number
of disciplines. Hence, anyone who was competent in those disciplines was
competent to render a judgement, Lyell above all others. And they did,
with something like 95% of those specialists accepting evolution (if not
selection) within a decade, according to Hull's and Sulloway's research.
In certain areas, however it was not genuinely embraced
everywhere. If you were to talk about Germany and England.
If you compare the acceptance of Tom Cech's ideas and
Charles Darwin's the comparative rate of acceptance is like
comparing the speed of light with the speed of sound.
People in the early 20th century were still arguing against
darwinian evolution.
-- snip ---
Here you have papers written in genetics journals
were the referees are supposed to know this stuff.
This was really the point I was getting at when I threw Darwin into
the discussion.

Its bad enough when you have referees who don't know what they should.
Its even worse when you get refreees who 'know' something quite
different.




Eric Stevens
Ross Macfarlane
2003-08-27 05:28:56 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.
I stand corrected. Presumably that is the reason Darwin took 25 years
to publish? Did it take 25 years to convince his friends that his
ideas had merit?
No, I'd suggest it had a good deal more to do with his being a
naturally cautious man who wasn't keen on the public outrage that he
correctly anticipated would follow the publishing of his work.

Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
Post by Eric Stevens
Lyell was a geologist and primarily could only have leant a
sympathetic ear. Hooker and Gray were botanists and could perhaps
after 25 years have understod where Darwin was coming from.
I agree Agassiz remained one of Darwin's leading critics and would not
have approved if the book had been submitted to him in advance for
review.
However, none of them knew anything about evolution ...
I can't agree with that. There had been a growing movement for a
century questioning the immutability of species. The movement was
driven in no small part by geology & the development of the concept of
deep time. Lyell was a central figure in this.

Darwin's genius wasn't inventing the idea of evolution, it was
describing the mechanism.
Post by Eric Stevens
... and would not have
qualified as peer reviewers in the strict sense as it is applied today
(always excepting Philip (I can review anything) Deitiker).
The strict sense is what John took issue with. It is inaccurate for
you to say that Darwin's work was not peer-reviewed.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.
... [snip crypto-political palaver]

Ross Macfarlane
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 08:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Macfarlane
...
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.
I stand corrected. Presumably that is the reason Darwin took 25 years
to publish? Did it take 25 years to convince his friends that his
ideas had merit?
No, I'd suggest it had a good deal more to do with his being a
naturally cautious man who wasn't keen on the public outrage that he
correctly anticipated would follow the publishing of his work.
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Post by Eric Stevens
Lyell was a geologist and primarily could only have leant a
sympathetic ear. Hooker and Gray were botanists and could perhaps
after 25 years have understod where Darwin was coming from.
I agree Agassiz remained one of Darwin's leading critics and would not
have approved if the book had been submitted to him in advance for
review.
However, none of them knew anything about evolution ...
I can't agree with that. There had been a growing movement for a
century questioning the immutability of species. The movement was
driven in no small part by geology & the development of the concept of
deep time. Lyell was a central figure in this.
Darwin's genius wasn't inventing the idea of evolution, it was
describing the mechanism.
I agree on that too. However, there then was no emerging consensus on
even the fact, let alone the mechanism of evolution.
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Post by Eric Stevens
... and would not have
qualified as peer reviewers in the strict sense as it is applied today
(always excepting Philip (I can review anything) Deitiker).
The strict sense is what John took issue with. It is inaccurate for
you to say that Darwin's work was not peer-reviewed.
That wasn't my original point. My original point was that if something
as revolutionary as Darwin's work had emerged on the contemporary
scene there would have been few, if any people, who would have been
available to peer review it. That there were **some** people who could
have peer reviewed it does not mean that they would necessarily have
been selected for the task. The formal process could have seen all of
them bundled as cranks or kooks, along with Charles Darwin.
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by John Wilkins
In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.
... [snip crypto-political palaver]
Ross Macfarlane
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 19:58:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.





Eric Stevens
Peter Ashby
2003-09-01 14:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.
What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their
opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed
opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions,
certainly.

Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer
reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic
games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking
that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you
to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt
condolences for your profound ignorance.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-09-01 20:15:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:39:39 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
In fact, it seems that Wallace's letter was published without peer
review. Darwin was asked for his opinion as, no soubt, so were many
other people. As I have aqlready said (bleow) this does not amount to
peer review in the modern sense.
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.
What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their
opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed
opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions,
certainly.
But only the publisher had the power of veto. Only the publisher had
the power to change what was published. Otherwise you might as well
say theatre critics in the news paper are 'peer reviewers'.
Post by Peter Ashby
Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer
reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic
games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking
that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you
to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt
condolences for your profound ignorance.
Peter, I don't know what's getting at you but you are unusually both
wrong and excessively condescending. The discussion has always been
about the peer review process (if any) to which Darwin was subject. My
point is that, what it was, it was not peer review as we now know it.
Modern peer reviewers don't just give their opinion. They have the
effective power to withold publication of a paper, either permanently
or until certain changes are made. As far as I know, none of Darwin's
reviewers were in that position. That is why I keep making the
distinction between Darwin's reviewers and modern peer reviewers. The
distinction is not just a semantic (or any other kind of) game. It is
real and at the core of the present discussion.



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-09-02 11:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:39:39 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
In fact, it seems that Wallace's letter was published without peer
review. Darwin was asked for his opinion as, no soubt, so were many
other people. As I have aqlready said (bleow) this does not amount to
peer review in the modern sense.
Sigh. It's going to depend on what you *mean* by "peer review in the
modern sense". For instance, most peer review is anonymous today, but
not all (I have known who was reviewing two of my papers). Wallace's
essay was reviewed by two of the leading experts in the field and
recommended for publication, quite apart from Darwin's own peer review
(let us not forget *he* was a leading expert in the field, which is why
Wallace wrote to him in the first place). But anonymous peer review by
professional journal editorial nominees did not then exist, sure...
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.
What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their
opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed
opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions,
certainly.
But only the publisher had the power of veto. Only the publisher had
the power to change what was published. Otherwise you might as well
say theatre critics in the news paper are 'peer reviewers'.
Not exactly - it was standard practice of the day for publishers to ask
for the opinion of experts, or at least well informed amateurs, before
publishing a technical book (and this applied in theology, history and
so on as well as in science).
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer
reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic
games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking
that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you
to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt
condolences for your profound ignorance.
Peter, I don't know what's getting at you but you are unusually both
wrong and excessively condescending. The discussion has always been
about the peer review process (if any) to which Darwin was subject. My
point is that, what it was, it was not peer review as we now know it.
Modern peer reviewers don't just give their opinion. They have the
effective power to withold publication of a paper, either permanently
or until certain changes are made. As far as I know, none of Darwin's
reviewers were in that position. That is why I keep making the
distinction between Darwin's reviewers and modern peer reviewers. The
distinction is not just a semantic (or any other kind of) game. It is
real and at the core of the present discussion.
It's a bit like saying, "They weren't scientists in those days because
they didn't have the use of electron microscopes and other modern
techniques". *Nobody* got that sort of treatment in those days; not even
Lyell or Cuvier or Agassiz or Gray. It was a *different* system, and had
Darwin not met the standards of the science of the day, he would likely
not have had the Origin published unless, like Chambers, he ran the
publication company...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Eric Stevens
2003-09-02 20:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:39:39 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
In fact, it seems that Wallace's letter was published without peer
review. Darwin was asked for his opinion as, no soubt, so were many
other people. As I have aqlready said (bleow) this does not amount to
peer review in the modern sense.
Sigh. It's going to depend on what you *mean* by "peer review in the
modern sense". For instance, most peer review is anonymous today, but
not all (I have known who was reviewing two of my papers). Wallace's
essay was reviewed by two of the leading experts in the field and
recommended for publication, quite apart from Darwin's own peer review
(let us not forget *he* was a leading expert in the field, which is why
Wallace wrote to him in the first place). But anonymous peer review by
professional journal editorial nominees did not then exist, sure...
My point exactly.
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.
What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their
opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed
opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions,
certainly.
But only the publisher had the power of veto. Only the publisher had
the power to change what was published. Otherwise you might as well
say theatre critics in the news paper are 'peer reviewers'.
Not exactly - it was standard practice of the day for publishers to ask
for the opinion of experts, or at least well informed amateurs, before
publishing a technical book (and this applied in theology, history and
so on as well as in science).
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Ashby
Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer
reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic
games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking
that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you
to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt
condolences for your profound ignorance.
Peter, I don't know what's getting at you but you are unusually both
wrong and excessively condescending. The discussion has always been
about the peer review process (if any) to which Darwin was subject. My
point is that, what it was, it was not peer review as we now know it.
Modern peer reviewers don't just give their opinion. They have the
effective power to withold publication of a paper, either permanently
or until certain changes are made. As far as I know, none of Darwin's
reviewers were in that position. That is why I keep making the
distinction between Darwin's reviewers and modern peer reviewers. The
distinction is not just a semantic (or any other kind of) game. It is
real and at the core of the present discussion.
It's a bit like saying, "They weren't scientists in those days because
they didn't have the use of electron microscopes and other modern
techniques". *Nobody* got that sort of treatment in those days; not even
Lyell or Cuvier or Agassiz or Gray. It was a *different* system, and had
Darwin not met the standards of the science of the day, he would likely
not have had the Origin published unless, like Chambers, he ran the
publication company...
As you havevquoted above, I have always been careful to distinguish
between 'peer review' and "peer review in the modern sense".




Eric Stevens
Peter Ashby
2003-09-03 14:49:11 UTC
Permalink
It may be rejected by the editor or the inhouse editorial staff ( :^) )
If your paper is rejected you can submit it to other venues,
Or you can argue vociferously if you think you're hard enough. An old
boss of mine did that with Nature once and succeeded in getting the
paper sent for review. We got it in too, so sometimes it can pay not to
take rejection lying down.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 22:00:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
I have already replied to this once but it seems as good a point as
any to inject the results of some digging I have been doing:

I have been investigating the circumstances of the publication of
"Origin of Species" and have come across
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm which seems
to summarise Darwins life reasonably well. In particular, I noted that
it states:

" ... Huxley started challenging 'Creation' in his lectures at the
Government School of Mines in Piccadilly, while Darwin finally
- the years of procrastination over - began a huge tome,
projected at three volumes, which he called Natural Selection.

then on 18 June 1858 came a letter from a specimen-collector
Alfred Russel Wallace from the Malay Archipelago, detailing a
similar theory. It frightened Darwin into starting a shorter book
to retain priority. Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read
jointly at the Linnean Society on I July 1858 to a resounding
silence. Darwin, his eighteen-month-old retarded son having
just died, stayed away - but it was the kind of absenteeism
that would mark his last years. His hastily-finished popular
book, one to go over the heads of the experts - On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection - was published by
John Murray in November 1859. "

This deals with a lot of the matters raised in this part of the
thread. From my point of view, and with respect to 'peer review', the
important aspects are:

1. The reception at the Linnean Society of both Darwin's and
Wallace's ideas suggested that they would not in general
have been approved by a contemporary general editorial
or peer review committee of his peers formulated in the
fashion of such bodies today.

2. 'Origin of Species' was never subject to any independent
review process.

3. If it is correct that his book was "one to go over the heads
of the experts", it is likely that a peer review committee
composed of the 'experts' of the time would neither have
understood nor approved of the publication of Darwin's ideas.

The first edition of 1859 comprised 1,250 copies (all sold the first
day) and was published by John Murray. John Murray was a specialty
publisher founded in 1768 and published the works of authors as varied
as Lord Byron and Jane Austen. I have not yet established whether or
not John Murray took on the publication of 'Origin of Species' as a
commercial proposition or whether Darwin paid for the publishing
himself. Certainly Darwin's financial circumstances were such as to
enable him to have done that. It seems not unreasonable that he should
do so if he was motivated by the desire to beat Wallace to the draw.

I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.



Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-28 01:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
I have already replied to this once but it seems as good a point as
I have been investigating the circumstances of the publication of
"Origin of Species" and have come across
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm which seems
to summarise Darwins life reasonably well. In particular, I noted that
" ... Huxley started challenging 'Creation' in his lectures at the
Government School of Mines in Piccadilly, while Darwin finally
- the years of procrastination over - began a huge tome,
projected at three volumes, which he called Natural Selection.
then on 18 June 1858 came a letter from a specimen-collector
Alfred Russel Wallace from the Malay Archipelago, detailing a
similar theory. It frightened Darwin into starting a shorter book
to retain priority. Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read
jointly at the Linnean Society on I July 1858 to a resounding
silence. Darwin, his eighteen-month-old retarded son having
just died, stayed away - but it was the kind of absenteeism
that would mark his last years. His hastily-finished popular
book, one to go over the heads of the experts - On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection - was published by
John Murray in November 1859. "
Desmond is a good source, but the original letters, and material are
better. I recommend Janet Browne's biography is you are interested in
this - she edited the complete letters.
Post by Eric Stevens
This deals with a lot of the matters raised in this part of the
thread. From my point of view, and with respect to 'peer review', the
1. The reception at the Linnean Society of both Darwin's and
Wallace's ideas suggested that they would not in general
have been approved by a contemporary general editorial
or peer review committee of his peers formulated in the
fashion of such bodies today.
No, the reception was due to the fact that they had sat through a long
series of papers prior to this, and it was hot. Basically they were
bored. It suggests nothing about how an individual reviewer with the
papers in front of him might have reacted.
Post by Eric Stevens
2. 'Origin of Species' was never subject to any independent
review process.
John Murray did solicit opinions before publishing it - I vaguely recall
one of them was Chambers... but the ideas OoS was discussing were
subject to peer review. Let's not get too caught up on this point -
Darwin was checked by the leading men in the English-speaking
professional world of the time.
Post by Eric Stevens
3. If it is correct that his book was "one to go over the heads
of the experts", it is likely that a peer review committee
composed of the 'experts' of the time would neither have
understood nor approved of the publication of Darwin's ideas.
Again, you are over-extending your inferences to suit a prior
conclusion. In fact, the Origin is a summary - Darwin and Murray called
it an "abstract" - of a much longer manuscript that Lyell and Hooker had
seen.
Post by Eric Stevens
The first edition of 1859 comprised 1,250 copies (all sold the first
day) and was published by John Murray. John Murray was a specialty
publisher founded in 1768 and published the works of authors as varied
as Lord Byron and Jane Austen. I have not yet established whether or
not John Murray took on the publication of 'Origin of Species' as a
commercial proposition or whether Darwin paid for the publishing
himself. Certainly Darwin's financial circumstances were such as to
enable him to have done that. It seems not unreasonable that he should
do so if he was motivated by the desire to beat Wallace to the draw.
So argued a number of authors - I list them on the "Precursors" web page
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html>, but I am
unconvinced there is sufficient evidence to suggest anything improper on
Darwin's part. However, he clearly wanted priority (and note that
Wallace was for his entire life happy to grant it). Murray was uncertain
about the commercial viability of Darwin's book, but took it on since
Darwin had published several other books with him. After the first
printing he was aware he was on to a good thing. Another book published
almost at the same time that was an equal commercial success was the
first self-help book, by the aptly named Samuel Smiles (a popular writer
- I have another book by him at home, also published by Murray). AFAIK
Darwin did not pay Murray anything to publish OoS.
Post by Eric Stevens
I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
And I think you are wrong.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Eric Stevens
2003-08-28 02:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Ross Macfarlane
Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
asked for his opinion.
For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
the semantic games and have some good grace.
I have already replied to this once but it seems as good a point as
I have been investigating the circumstances of the publication of
"Origin of Species" and have come across
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm which seems
to summarise Darwins life reasonably well. In particular, I noted that
" ... Huxley started challenging 'Creation' in his lectures at the
Government School of Mines in Piccadilly, while Darwin finally
- the years of procrastination over - began a huge tome,
projected at three volumes, which he called Natural Selection.
then on 18 June 1858 came a letter from a specimen-collector
Alfred Russel Wallace from the Malay Archipelago, detailing a
similar theory. It frightened Darwin into starting a shorter book
to retain priority. Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read
jointly at the Linnean Society on I July 1858 to a resounding
silence. Darwin, his eighteen-month-old retarded son having
just died, stayed away - but it was the kind of absenteeism
that would mark his last years. His hastily-finished popular
book, one to go over the heads of the experts - On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection - was published by
John Murray in November 1859. "
Desmond is a good source, but the original letters, and material are
better. I recommend Janet Browne's biography is you are interested in
this - she edited the complete letters.
Post by Eric Stevens
This deals with a lot of the matters raised in this part of the
thread. From my point of view, and with respect to 'peer review', the
1. The reception at the Linnean Society of both Darwin's and
Wallace's ideas suggested that they would not in general
have been approved by a contemporary general editorial
or peer review committee of his peers formulated in the
fashion of such bodies today.
No, the reception was due to the fact that they had sat through a long
series of papers prior to this, and it was hot. Basically they were
bored. It suggests nothing about how an individual reviewer with the
papers in front of him might have reacted.
Post by Eric Stevens
2. 'Origin of Species' was never subject to any independent
review process.
John Murray did solicit opinions before publishing it - I vaguely recall
one of them was Chambers... but the ideas OoS was discussing were
subject to peer review. Let's not get too caught up on this point -
Darwin was checked by the leading men in the English-speaking
professional world of the time.
Post by Eric Stevens
3. If it is correct that his book was "one to go over the heads
of the experts", it is likely that a peer review committee
composed of the 'experts' of the time would neither have
understood nor approved of the publication of Darwin's ideas.
Again, you are over-extending your inferences to suit a prior
conclusion. In fact, the Origin is a summary - Darwin and Murray called
it an "abstract" - of a much longer manuscript that Lyell and Hooker had
seen.
Post by Eric Stevens
The first edition of 1859 comprised 1,250 copies (all sold the first
day) and was published by John Murray. John Murray was a specialty
publisher founded in 1768 and published the works of authors as varied
as Lord Byron and Jane Austen. I have not yet established whether or
not John Murray took on the publication of 'Origin of Species' as a
commercial proposition or whether Darwin paid for the publishing
himself. Certainly Darwin's financial circumstances were such as to
enable him to have done that. It seems not unreasonable that he should
do so if he was motivated by the desire to beat Wallace to the draw.
So argued a number of authors - I list them on the "Precursors" web page
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html>, but I am
unconvinced there is sufficient evidence to suggest anything improper on
Darwin's part.
Are you suggesting that it was improper for Darwin to pay for the
publishing of his own book? Surely not!
Post by John Wilkins
However, he clearly wanted priority (and note that
Wallace was for his entire life happy to grant it). Murray was uncertain
about the commercial viability of Darwin's book, but took it on since
Darwin had published several other books with him.
I wasn't aware of this. Presumably John Murray was well rewarded for
his pains.
Post by John Wilkins
After the first
printing he was aware he was on to a good thing. Another book published
almost at the same time that was an equal commercial success was the
first self-help book, by the aptly named Samuel Smiles (a popular writer
- I have another book by him at home, also published by Murray). AFAIK
Darwin did not pay Murray anything to publish OoS.
Post by Eric Stevens
I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
And I think you are wrong.
We shall have to differ.




Eric Stevens
Bob Keeter
2003-08-28 02:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Snippage. . .
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
And I think you are wrong.
Hopefully Charles Darwin WOULD have trouble getting his 'Origin of Species'
published and accepted in his day and in ours (assuming that the state of
science was the same in both cases of course). Unlike it is portrayed by
some, i.e. either as a total impediment to any progress or as a vehicle for
a little bit of ego fluffing, the scientific process SHOULD be to be very
wary of any revolutionary or radical theory. If there were not a very high
bar for "acceptance" and an even higher for "proof", what value would there
be to what is called science? If any and every "wacked out" idea had the
inalienable right to "acceptance" without compelling supporting evidence,
and was considered "fact" just because a universally compelling and absolute
"disproof" could not be offered, what would be the difference between the
science and SciFi bookshelves in the library!

Remember the old story, you formulate a hypothesis based on some initial
data set, seek out and present supporting data and possibly even
demonstrable examples supporting that hypothesis. THEN it rates being a
called theory ONLY if you and all of your critiques can not find one single
contradictory piece of undeniable fact! Or something close to that. . . .

That's a pretty steep hill to climb be it in front of the Royal Society of
the 19th century or the reviewers of a credible modern journal. And I would
contend that it should not be any other way.

Regards
bk
Eric Stevens
2003-08-28 03:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . .
Post by John Wilkins
Post by Eric Stevens
I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
And I think you are wrong.
Hopefully Charles Darwin WOULD have trouble getting his 'Origin of Species'
published and accepted in his day and in ours (assuming that the state of
science was the same in both cases of course). Unlike it is portrayed by
some, i.e. either as a total impediment to any progress or as a vehicle for
a little bit of ego fluffing, the scientific process SHOULD be to be very
wary of any revolutionary or radical theory. If there were not a very high
bar for "acceptance" and an even higher for "proof", what value would there
be to what is called science? If any and every "wacked out" idea had the
inalienable right to "acceptance" without compelling supporting evidence,
and was considered "fact" just because a universally compelling and absolute
"disproof" could not be offered, what would be the difference between the
science and SciFi bookshelves in the library!
Remember the old story, you formulate a hypothesis based on some initial
data set, seek out and present supporting data and possibly even
demonstrable examples supporting that hypothesis. THEN it rates being a
called theory ONLY if you and all of your critiques can not find one single
contradictory piece of undeniable fact! Or something close to that. . . .
That's a pretty steep hill to climb be it in front of the Royal Society of
the 19th century or the reviewers of a credible modern journal. And I would
contend that it should not be any other way.
I agree with you. However, the situation was even worse in the 19th
century when it came to matters like evolution. Evolution has always
been recognised as being in direct opposition to 'creation' and then,
far more than now, academia was stuffed with people to whom
contradicting the word of the bible just could not be contemplated.



Eric Stevens
Bob Keeter
2003-08-29 20:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Snippage. . . .
Post by Eric Stevens
I agree with you. However, the situation was even worse in the 19th
century when it came to matters like evolution. Evolution has always
been recognised as being in direct opposition to 'creation' and then,
far more than now, academia was stuffed with people to whom
contradicting the word of the bible just could not be contemplated.
Eric Stevens
Perhaps. On the other hand, I would contend that in the 19th century, even
in disagreement there was a better brand of "civility" and decency amongst
those educated enough to actually care about the science or religion
involved. People at least were expected to be human ahead of being a
"scientist", whatever that term really means.

The other thing you have to consider is the huge "quantum change" between
the basic creationist mindset and the Darwinist midset. A complete change
of paradigm. Today we get our shorts in a knot over far, far smaller shifts
of theory. Perhaps in those days they did not have their reputation resting
on a 30 year old thesis! 8-)

Regards
bk
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-28 03:19:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:12:32 GMT, ***@wehi.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

[on the issue that Darwin would not be published had his
idea come for in the 21st century]
Post by John Wilkins
And I think you are wrong.
For one, there are a whole lot of journals out there, and
there is the internet. There is no way of stopping someone
from publishing. The problem that Eric and Inger have is
they are great at harassing people with their ideas, but how
good are they at combining them and creating a simple thing
like a nicely logical and explanatory website, even in paper
format would be real nice. Eric's point is moot because he
complains about a process that he is afraid to challenge in
the form that it must be challenged in. And since he and
Inger do not write up in formal style, whether or not Darwin
would be published in immaterial, they will never be
published because they have nothing to publish.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-28 03:23:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:19:01 GMT, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
[on the issue that Darwin would not be published had his
idea come for in the 21st century]
Post by John Wilkins
And I think you are wrong.
You have somehow munged that. It should be:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by Philip Deitiker
I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
And I think you are wrong.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by Philip Deitiker
For one, there are a whole lot of journals out there, and
there is the internet. There is no way of stopping someone
from publishing. The problem that Eric and Inger have is
they are great at harassing people with their ideas, but how
good are they at combining them and creating a simple thing
like a nicely logical and explanatory website, even in paper
format would be real nice.
Once again, I'm not speaking for Inger but, just tell me one idea I
have put forward in this news group under circumstances which could be
described as 'harassing'.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Eric's point is moot because he
complains about a process that he is afraid to challenge in
the form that it must be challenged in.
I'm not afraid to challenge anything - when challenge is warranted. I
have no desire to challenge the peer review process. All I want to do
is to acknowledge that it is run by people and suffers from all the
problems that come with people. As you yourself have now acknowledged,
its not the answer to everything.
Post by Philip Deitiker
And since he and
Inger do not write up in formal style, whether or not Darwin
would be published in immaterial, they will never be
published because they have nothing to publish.
Unfortunately the majority of my work is confidential and cannot be
published in the public arena. Nevertheless it is subject to the
strongest possible peer review and generally survives intact.




Eric Stevens
John Wilkins
2003-08-27 03:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
had been established.
I don't want to step into the larger issue of this thread, but it seems
to me we often misread older science through lenses made more recently,
and with an agenda.
Well from a biochemical perspective if you read papers prior
to world war I most of it is was awful. Seriously I read
several issues of the Journal of Biological Chemistry from
the turn of the century and most of what was discussed
sounded more like alchemy and many of the papers conclusions
were, nice at it can be said, dead wrong. Some other feilds
of studies like physics and mathematics were more progress.
But when it comes to biochemistry and organic chemistry,
that's a whole different thing. And from Darwin's point of
veiw, the two key insights. mendels genetics and watson and
cricks DNA helix. There were many papers prior to 1930 that
claimed proteins were the heritable material . . . . . . So
from the perspective of the feild in which Darwin
specifically was in between that feild and pure chemistry
was a whole big old land of bunk. In that time properties of
life were refered to as ethers.
Proteins were thought to be the hereditable substrate until the 1940s, I
believe. But there is a critical point to make - nobody said that it had
been shown they were, and even Pauling merely proposed hypotheses that
had to be tested (like the failed triple helix).

Once something had won the day, as it were, it is rarely the case in
*basic science* (i.e., I'm excluding the social sciences, engineering,
and medicine for obvious reasons) that it is shown later to be false. It
might be only partial (like the ideal gas law) but at least it holds in
most of the domain in which it was established.

Can't speak to your biochemistry; don't know enough about it, but I am
guessing that *established results* then hold true (enough) today.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Peter Ashby
2003-08-27 10:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
there was the small matter of the Royal Societies Eric of which Darwin
was member. it was expected that to be accepted and taken seriously you
had to present work at the meetings. The proceedings from those meetings
are still held in University Libraries if you want to reference them. I
have a paper submitted at the moment with two citations to papers in the
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London from the 1890's for eg.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 19:58:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:10:22 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
there was the small matter of the Royal Societies Eric of which Darwin
was member. it was expected that to be accepted and taken seriously you
had to present work at the meetings.
Did Darwin publish or present on his theory of evolution?
Post by Peter Ashby
The proceedings from those meetings
are still held in University Libraries if you want to reference them. I
have a paper submitted at the moment with two citations to papers in the
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London from the 1890's for eg.
Eric Stevens
Bob Keeter
2003-08-27 01:00:32 UTC
Permalink
"Eric Stevens" <***@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
Snippage. . . .
I find archive's useful. Don't you?
There you go, Eric, being a real stick in the mud and highlighting hypocracy
and dishonesty. . .. Tsk, tsk, tsk.. . . . . . We will just have to add
that to your growing list of crimes! 8-))

Regards
bk
Peter Ashby
2003-08-26 15:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
3. Scientific Issues, How has the authors dealt with critiques
of similar types of works, or with logical inconsistencies
or weakness in approach. Experience of referees may often
give information on how a particular experimental approach
give deceptive results, how one can retest in a different way
to confirm. Is the work reproducing someone elses work. Is it
a trivial variation of someone elses work.
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
On the Origin of Species was not a peer refereed paper, it was a book
which is a different thing entirely. Darwin had a number of papers in
the monograph literature. Try another analogy, or perhaps you have run
out of cheap shots?

If you had your way the literature would be full of stuff noone could
trust, noone could check, noone could replicate. That is not science, it
is vanity publishing.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-26 21:03:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:04:46 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Philip Deitiker
3. Scientific Issues, How has the authors dealt with critiques
of similar types of works, or with logical inconsistencies
or weakness in approach. Experience of referees may often
give information on how a particular experimental approach
give deceptive results, how one can retest in a different way
to confirm. Is the work reproducing someone elses work. Is it
a trivial variation of someone elses work.
How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
On the Origin of Species was not a peer refereed paper, it was a book
which is a different thing entirely. Darwin had a number of papers in
the monograph literature. Try another analogy, or perhaps you have run
out of cheap shots?
If you had your way the literature would be full of stuff noone could
trust, noone could check, noone could replicate. That is not science, it
is vanity publishing.
It's not a cheap shot. It's a perfectly valid question. My question
was centred on Philip's part-sentence "How has the authors dealt with
critiques of similar types of works ... ". This criterion could not
be applied to Darwin as at that time there were no 'similar types of
work'. That point remains equally valid irrespective of whether he
published en masse (as he did) or in a steady flow of papers.

The book was not a 'peer reviewed paper' if only for the reason that
at that time in that field he had few, if any, peers. It doesn't
matter that he published his ideas all at once. He would in any case
have run into the violent oppostion, remnants of which remain even
today (although not now in the scientific world).



Eric Stevens
Peter Ashby
2003-08-27 10:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
It's not a cheap shot. It's a perfectly valid question. My question
was centred on Philip's part-sentence "How has the authors dealt with
critiques of similar types of works ... ". This criterion could not
be applied to Darwin as at that time there were no 'similar types of
work'. That point remains equally valid irrespective of whether he
published en masse (as he did) or in a steady flow of papers.
there were other works out there, his grandfather Erasmus had written
one, there was Lamark and a couple of others. The idea of evolution did
not start with Charles Darwin. His contribution was a functional
mechanism backed up with a mountain of data and close argument intended
to counter things like Lamarkianism.

Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-27 19:58:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:02:30 +0100, Peter Ashby
Post by Peter Ashby
Post by Eric Stevens
It's not a cheap shot. It's a perfectly valid question. My question
was centred on Philip's part-sentence "How has the authors dealt with
critiques of similar types of works ... ". This criterion could not
be applied to Darwin as at that time there were no 'similar types of
work'. That point remains equally valid irrespective of whether he
published en masse (as he did) or in a steady flow of papers.
there were other works out there, his grandfather Erasmus had written
one, there was Lamark and a couple of others. The idea of evolution did
not start with Charles Darwin. His contribution was a functional
mechanism backed up with a mountain of data and close argument intended
to counter things like Lamarkianism.
Fair comment. I wasn't aware of contributions by Erasmus Darwin.




Eric Stevens
Bob Keeter
2003-08-27 00:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Snippage. . . .
Post by Eric Stevens
Mistakes certainly can be published. Even outright fraudulent material
has been published in refereed journals. But so what?
Eric Stevens
Lets see, that means that humans can err, even if it required an error on
the part of the author AND the reviewers. Most compentant reviewers I would
hope would limit themselves to grammatical and style errors if they did not
KNOW the science involved, but hey, some people can referee just about any
article on any subject! 8-))) Or at least think that they should be
granted that god given right! 8-) Somehow I would think that it would be
about as satisfying as giving yourself a birthday present! 8-))

As for the fraud, we have abundant proof that refereed journals can be
defrauded, all it takes is a referee too egotistical to simply say "I don't
know" or "Im not competant to judge". Fraud is a bit different, unless you
would like to say that a reviewer who does not excuse himself from the jury
is fraud. Fraud, in the case of "manufactured data" or falsified results,
is just a matter of a "Emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt". Too bad
that the perpetrators of such insults to science dont usually end up as
comically redeeming as the original bearer of that epitaph! 8-)

Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
2003-08-27 00:47:15 UTC
Permalink
"Philip Deitiker" <***@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:i5C2b.114182$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Snippage. . . . . . . ..
Post by Philip Deitiker
I can referee any paper in just about any feild even a feild
that I am not well studied in (there is always pubmed).
Nice little trick, changing around that addressing. Lets see now, I've got
about four or five of your "aliases" in my kill file already, but given such
humble statements as the above, I can always find room for another!

Lets see now, what is that phrase you use when you just pretend to kill file
someone . . . oh yeah. . . .

<Plonk>

Regards
bk

ps. If the considerate, erudite and most professional Dr. Deitker would
simply quit morphing around his address line, I will most gladly continue to
abide by the wishes of some other, more sympathetic and forgiving members in
the group and keep my evil claws (not fingernails, since those are only for
those who can "referee any paper in just about any feild . . . " including
English spelling I must suppose), off of his pathetically scrawny throat.
John Wilkins
2003-08-27 03:50:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:01:50 GMT, "res6l2wx"
How are you able to detect plagiarism if you are not familiar with the
literature.
You look, but more importantly I have had instances were a
paper was submitted and then a roughly identical paper is
submitted to the same journal six months after the first was
published.
Not to take sides in this, but you all might care to comment on the
earliest papers in chaotic behaviour.
Not on your life.
Wilkins is here, I'm sure he'd love to take a stab.
Before Rene Thom?
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
res6l2wx
2003-08-27 20:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:01:50 GMT, "res6l2wx"
Not to take sides in this, but you all might care to comment on the
earliest papers in chaotic behaviour.
Not on your life.
Wilkins is here, I'm sure he'd love to take a stab.
Before Rene Thom?
--
Dunno, I've forgotten the sequence of papers on this. I just remember
that the earliest efforts to elucidate this were quite vague, and could be
called speculation.. Actually, I gather that some of Poicare's work dealt
with long term stability.
However, any numerical analyst capable of rational thought was aware
that certain equations and systems acted chaotically, and that this had
nothing to do with the particular method used, thought of course that choice
could add another reason for instability. Try telling that to people in
the 60's and 70's, though.
Incidentally, there was a journal, "Speculations in Science and
Technolgy" which published a while back. Not sure if it is still around,
and maybe sort of vanity press, but, in any case, covered too many fields to
be worth following. Could toss out speculations though - I did a couple
which are probably unprovable either way.
Regards
John GW
deowll
2003-08-24 03:09:46 UTC
Permalink
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that
whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating
the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
As soon as you stop being one, I will.
Look, oh anonymous one, you know that what you said about
anthropologists
isn't true.
Let's see: Entering a colder environment during an Ice Age. Sounds
like the intelligence of a mollusk to me. (Nothing with a brain is
that stupid. I would've said hydra or sponge, but they're sessile and
thus we can't test if they're that stupid.)
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
There are still small game around. And some of those big game were
herbivores.
True, but I did say 'could have' and 'some big game'.
Here's a possibility: Warmer temperatures select for a higher surface
area/volume ratio. Mammoths, dire wolves, and other Pleistocene
species didn't have that ratio.
There could be more than one reason and that could be one of them.
"Man did it" is just a way of saying "We don't know" I still say small
animals would encounter the brunt of man's selection. I take the
absence of megafauna in Antarctica as evidence against the overkill
theory. (Unless you want to assume the Yagan canoed to Antarctica just
to slaughter them.)
Small animals have a very high reproductive rate and a much higher total
population. Recovery time is much less for a population decline. Most kinds
of mega fauna have low reprodution rates. Even if humans weren't the only
factor if they hunted them at all, and the evidence says they did, then the
damage they could do would be huge. Throw in a habit for setting fires for
various reasons and a lot of wildlife could be in very big trouble.
thomas
2003-08-31 04:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for posting those links Steve. Since I have only paid
casual attention to this case up until now, I was unaware of
the full extent of the Army Corps and DOI's shockingly
irresponsible behavior. It can be dismaying to see
government functioning up close, and to observe how the
foundational principles of civil society can be so
cavalierly dismissed by our public servants.
Yes, like the Corps losing those femurs for example?
I'm not familiar with this microdebate over the femurs, but it
is clear that the Corps has plenty of other sins to account for
in the broader Kennewick affair. The Corps' destruction of the
site comes to mind.
I was also unaware that representatives of the five
tribes had stolen some of the remains.
The only thing dismaying is the lynch-mob mentality. Guilty until
proven innocent where you come from, right? Were you there? Did you
witness the alleged theft?
It was a finding of fact in the federal judge's decision. Do you
know of evidence that would prove otherwise? Until your post, I
hadn't heard anyone contesting this finding.

And I'm still waiting for you to point to evidence supporting
Hutt's criticisms of the decision.
res6l2wx
2003-08-31 15:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Chatters' book page 106 "...in the original wooden box in which I had
placed them."
Chatters' book page 108
"...that I had packed in the box."
In the box *singular* and Johnson would have had no reason to go back
into that singular wood box and place the femurs in a separate box.
More than likely the skeleton left the Chatters' home in two boxes and
the two boxes were separated somehow at the sheriff's office, as
Johnson's words reveal below.
How can you _possibly_ know that the bones left Chatters' home in two
boxes - by omphalloskepsis? All kinds of people handled those bones after
that - for example, to remove some for DNA testing.
And just why should anyone take your statement of this over Chatters'?
At best, the Corps failed to keep a proper account of the bones, which,
considering the fuss the tribes made over them, suggests that the objection
is to the information that might be obtained, rather than any concern for
sentiment.
And, as thomas points out, the the Corps has abundantly deserved the
reputation that would make one suspect them.
John GW
Lee Olsen
2003-09-02 04:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by res6l2wx
Chatters' book page 106 "...in the original wooden box in which I had
placed them."
Chatters' book page 108
"...that I had packed in the box."
In the box *singular* and Johnson would have had no reason to go back
into that singular wood box and place the femurs in a separate box.
More than likely the skeleton left the Chatters' home in two boxes and
the two boxes were separated somehow at the sheriff's office, as
Johnson's words reveal below.
How can you _possibly_ know that the bones left Chatters' home in two
boxes - by omphalloskepsis?
1+1=2
Post by res6l2wx
All kinds of people handled those bones after
that - for example, to remove some for DNA testing.
Since the Corps was never given the femurs in the first place, how did
all those people handle them, by omphalloskepsis?
Post by res6l2wx
And just why should anyone take your statement of this over
Chatters'?

By
Post by res6l2wx
Johnson's words reveal below.
I didn't make a statement over Chatters; I quoted Johnson, who made a
statement over Chatters, the evidence of which you cleverly and
deceitfully snipped out.
Post by res6l2wx
At best, the Corps failed to keep a proper account of the bones,
At worst, the femurs were illegally withheld (under terms of the ARPA
permit) from the Corps.
Post by res6l2wx
which,
considering the fuss the tribes made over them,
Since you didn't understand this any better than thomas, I'll repeat
again what the case is all about:

ROBSON BONNICHSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al.,
Defendants.
"All we ask is an opportunity to examine the skeleton free of
inappropriate restrictions."
Post by res6l2wx
suggests that the objection
is to the information that might be obtained, rather than any concern for
sentiment.
As reasoned by someone who has proven himself incapable of
understanding the simplest of statements. What part of this ("Once
Johnson saw the box, suddenly his memory returned.") did you have so
much difficulty understanding that you needed to snip it out?
Post by res6l2wx
And, as thomas points out, the the Corps has abundantly deserved the
reputation that would make one suspect them.
John GW
The Corps never received the femurs that they were accused of losing.
This is a perfect example of how they got that *suspect*
reputation---from people who have made false accusations.

The only deserved reputation, that's been demonstrated so far in this
thread, is that you and thomas can't read.
Lee Olsen
2003-09-04 20:49:24 UTC
Permalink
"Some typical scientific thinking in the Kennewick man case."

I'll go over this again, since you can't quite grasp what transpired.

1. Chatters lies to the court.
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES C. CHATTERS
DATED this 14th day of September, 1999.
"First, the government "lost" most of both femora."

2. Femurs found in sheriff's locker, they never made it to the Corps,
so impossible for Corps to lose them.

3. Chatters, with egg dripping off his face, writes book and doesn't
have the decency to apologize for "First, the government "lost" most
of both femora."
Your soaring eloquence and compelling logic has convinced me
Trying to change the subject? What does all that have to do with
Chatters' lie, which is public record, so what eloquence and logic of
mine are you referring to?
that
Chatters and Johnson were responsible for trashing the site,
Like the Corps lost the femurs.
keeping the
bones in too dry an environment,
Says who? Chatters' basement was temperature and humidity controlled?
not using precautions to prevent indians
from stealing bones,
Guilty until proven innocent, lots of your type around. Vigilante is
correct word here.
and generally exhibiting a determination to prevent any
information from being gleaned from KM.
What planet did you say you were from? See NPS site. However, the
study of a skeleton that has no provenance is somewhat a waste to
begin with.
Indeed, your picture of the Corps
as an abused waif
Where did I say that? Have you been a compulsive liar all your life,
or is it just when you post on Google lists?
in a cold, cruel world brought bitter tears to my eyes.
My sobs were simply uncontrollable.
More likely a symptom of uncontrolled bias.
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
Chatters' book page 106 "...in the original wooden box in which I had
placed them."
Chatters' book page 108
"...that I had packed in the box."
In the box *singular* and Johnson would have had no reason to go back
into that singular wood box and place the femurs in a separate box.
More than likely the skeleton left the Chatters' home in two boxes and
the two boxes were separated somehow at the sheriff's office, as
Johnson's words reveal below.
Try reading all of p. 108, where the FBI made no effort to check the Corps,
In hindsight we now know the FBI was looking at the right people,
since the Corps never had the femurs in the first place. Chatters lied
to the court and this has been proven.

Page 108 is not sworn testimony, or didn't you know that? Did you know
Chatters and Johnson's version of who did what at Chatters' home
didn't match?

If you have any more trouble understanding *the Corps never had the
femurs in the first place* let me know, I'll explain it to you again.
and where Chatters presented a videotape and five witnesses to show which
bones he had packed in each of the two boxes he mentions.
He mentions singular box (large wooden) on page 106 and 108 because
that is were he claims the femurs were placed, obviously thinking the
rib fragments in the second box were trivial. Yet it appears that it
is in this box that the femurs were found 3 years later. No wonder the
FBI didn't believe him. Chatters claims (on page 77) femurs were first
to go into large wood box. Later at evidence locker, both he an
Johnson "consolidated"(p. 83) the rib fragments into the large wood
box. At this point the smaller box should have been empty. I can see
overlooking a rib fragment, but two large femurs (that would have had
to be unpacked and removed from the bottom of the large wood box) is
almost impossible.
Also, a good
historian asks if a person is in a position to know what he is saying, is
likely to remember, and has as little bias or liklihood of lying as
possible.
If Chatters wanted to play hanky panky, he could have made money by giving
a false inventory.
Pleading the 5th isn't hanky panky?

What does a good historian have to do with anything? A third grader
could grasp that * First, the government "lost" most of both femora.*
wasn't true after the femurs turned up.
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
How can you _possibly_ know that the bones left Chatters' home in two
boxes - by omphalloskepsis?
1+1=2
Better yet because Chatters says so - had forgotten that.
Chatters says so-- what? Chatters same guy who said: "First, the
government "lost" most of both femora."
The issue is,
where were the femurs?
OK, I'm convinced, you are not from this planet.
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
All kinds of people handled those bones after
that - for example, to remove some for DNA testing.
I'm also wrong here -
Yes, as usual.

Darcy, Thomas, various police, Johnson, Chatters, Krantz,
Hackenberger, Jenny Chatters, Reid, Scott Turner, MacMillan, and
others all handled the bones long before the Corps ever saw them. Not
to mention plopping the skull into a plastic bucket and sitting in a
polluted lake for at least six months. This clip shows closely what
the Columbia looks like in Kennewick.

http://www.theresab.com/ironeyes.htm

Suddenly the Corps is guilty of mishandling the bones? Chatters
claims 9 people handled bones while in Corps care, I get at least 11
before the Corps received them, no bias here—right? Most of
Kennewick's bones were in zip-lock bags during time of alleged
atrocities. Buy the way, cedar is a preservative and bug repellant, at
least Kennewick Man didn't get fleas thanks to the tribes.
doubt is many people got into the evidence room.
Not as many that abused the bones before the Corps got them. In spite
of reality, in your mind, the Corps is guilty and those who abused the
bones before they got them are innocent. Your logic sucks.
Post by Lee Olsen
Since the Corps was never given the femurs in the first place, how did
all those people handle them, by omphalloskepsis?
I mentioned bones, not femurs.
And I mentioned Chatters accusing Corps of losing femurs before you
mentioned bones. The other bones you mentioned were totally
irrelevant.
Bones were stolen,
That is an unproven assumption, which is what my point was in the
first place, guilty until proven innocent is how too many people
operate in this world.
though not KM's -
maybe. Rib fragments missing under Corps control.
Why do you exaggerate? One rib (maybe) fragment is singular.
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
And just why should anyone take your statement of this over
Chatters'?
By
Post by res6l2wx
Johnson's words reveal below.
I didn't make a statement over Chatters; I quoted Johnson, who made a
statement over Chatters, the evidence of which you cleverly and
deceitfully snipped out.
But you took Johnson's word as definitive
Bull, I cited Chatters, who claimed Johnson was "above reproach." You
better read p. 108 again.
and made categorical
statements depending on them.
Oh, so you think Chatters lied about Johnson's character?
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
At best, the Corps failed to keep a proper account of the bones,
At worst, the femurs were illegally withheld (under terms of the ARPA
permit) from the Corps.
There must be intent in order to commit a crime.
If Chatters/Johnson had no use in stealing the femurs, it's pretty
obvious that both had every reason to be vindictive and even Chatters
admitted so in book (p. 83).
Post by Lee Olsen
As reasoned by someone who has proven himself incapable of
understanding the simplest of statements. What part of this ("Once
Johnson saw the box, suddenly his memory returned.") did you have so
much difficulty understanding that you needed to snip it out?
And who says this memory is correct
Yep, there can only be three guilty people in this matter. Chatters,
Johnson and the deputy that accompanied Johnson. But the Corps is out
of the picture and was falsely accused.
- try reading Elisabeth Loftus _
Eyewitness Testimony_. The casual witness is likely to be error on matters
occurring long in the past.
Or both Chatters and Johnson know exactly what happened; as Chatters
said on
p.83—"...but would volunteer nothing."
Post by Lee Olsen
Post by res6l2wx
And, as thomas points out, the the Corps has abundantly deserved the
reputation that would make one suspect them.
John GW
The Corps never received the femurs that they were accused of losing.
This is a perfect example of how they got that *suspect*
reputation---from people who have made false accusations.
And this is a perfect example of a defense of people who are clearly in
the wrong on some issues and naturally suspected on some other issues.
This applies equally to those who have lied about the actions taken by
the Corps. I said, and you so dishonestly snipped out: "Some typical
scientific thinking in the Kennewick man case." I said typical, what
makes you think there isn't more to come? Or are you just hoping
Chatters lie to the court was it? The Hutt brief and the Jones and
Stapp paper (you did read them didn't you?) are just the start.

Your logic also applies equally to Jeldricks' previous decision
concerning Native American issues----it was thrown out.

Suspected isn't proven. You, and a lot of others don't seem to realize
this.
Any
bum can use this argument and will. Ignore what is a true bill and
concentrate on suspicions that have been proved false.
What *have been proved false* are the major points and *true* are the
irrelevant points.
Furthermore, the
FBI made no effort to investigate the Corps on this point
According to Dr. 5th himself? Actually they did investigate Nickens
and his assistant.
Why do you keep lying?
and so your claim
that they have been subjected to a false campaign is nonsense.
Coming from someone who says: "The issue is, where were the femurs?"
It was
Chatters who had to prove his innocence, in spite of the unliklihood in the
first place of him stealing bones.
When people start giving contradictory stories, then they earn the
suspicion. And now in hindsight, rightfully so.
It was Van Pelt who wanted the bones
left in the river, it was the Corps who tried to run a coverup.
John GW
Coverup? Have you been reading the National Enquirer?

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...