The Ivory Tower Legacy . . . . . . .

[Bob Keeter]

What if all of the NSF grants dried up? Taxpayers (and voters)
could make that happen.

www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understanding.ap/-
index.html

Perhaps Darwinian selection applies at the professional as
well as chromosomal levels. Communicate, educate or by virtue
of being cut off from the financial and political support of
an informed public, become extinct?

Or we could wring our hands and rant at the injustice, shrilly
proclaim our innate superiority, alienate the 95% of the world
that is not scientifically oriented, and let everything pass
us by! Then, to everyone's detriment, science loses out to WWF
and we become a whole new class of dinosaur?

Perhaps hobnobbing and TALKING with (not lecturing,
insulting or berating) the common people is the price we all
have to pay! ;-)

Yes that is the smiley face for sarcasm! 8-))

Regards bk

[Ejudy]

Bob Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Perhaps hobnobbing and TALKING with (not lecturing,
> insulting or berating) the common people is the price we all
> have to pay! ;-)
>
> Yes that is the smiley face for sarcasm! 8-))
>
> Regards bk

Your agenda is specific and aimed at one person.

ejudy

[John H. Wi]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8F4CCFD.CA53%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> What if all of the NSF grants dried up? Taxpayers (and
> voters) could make that happen.
>
> www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understanding.a-
> p/index.html
>
bCommunicate, educate or by virtue of being cut off from
> the financial and political support of an informed public,
> become extinct?
>
> Or we could wring our hands and rant at the injustice,
> shrilly proclaim
our
> innate superiority, alienate the 95% of the world that is
> not
scientifically
> oriented, and let everything pass us by! Then, to everyone's
> detriment, science loses out to WWF and we become a whole
> new class of dinosaur?
>
> Perhaps hobnobbing and TALKING with (not lecturing,
> insulting or berating) the common people is the price we all
> have to pay! ;-)
>
Yes, and no. I suspect the rise of fundmentalism was due
to the space race and academic deferments. That is, a
large number of young people who cared nothing for
academic pursuits were sold on the idea of going to
college with a promise of pie in the sky, or with the
immediate benefit of dodging the draft. While they
weren't told this, I suspect many of them figured all
they would have to do would be to copy of the paper of
the nerd. From "Dilbert" and my own experience, some were
able to make careers on this basis. More were told they
weren't smart enough. "Wouldn't you like to have one of
these good jobs - well, you can't. Nyah, nyah, nyah." The
reaction of many was to hell with science. In other
words, all the evils that Standen remarks on in _Science
is a Sacred Cow_ occurred, and in addition, the country
had an excess of academic plant and had to take in a lot
of foreign students, some of whom scoped out the country
for terrorism) which further aggravated the people who
had expected a free ride. The most dedicated creationist
at the Senior Center is a guy with some education in
nautical engineering. Sure, make information available to
those who are interested. Hope the hostile ignore you.
But your last paragraph says it - no point in my
repeating. Cheers john GW

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:37:37 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
<j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:

> Yes, and no. I suspect the rise of fundmentalism was due
> to the space race and academic deferments. That is, a
> large number of young people who cared nothing for
> academic pursuits were sold on the idea of going to
> college with a promise of pie in the sky, or with the
> immediate benefit of dodging the draft. While they
> weren't told this, I suspect many of them figured all
> they would have to do would be to copy of the paper of
> the nerd.

If you have to copy a paper you missed the point of the
educational system. I know people who faked their way all the
way through the educational system and became Val Dictorian.
One guy was high on pot when he recieved his. If your goal is
to cheat life to the fullest, become a business major and buy
a car dealership, and leave this NG.

>From "Dilbert" and my own experience, some were able to make
>careers on this basis.

Of course.

> More were told they weren't smart enough. "Wouldn't you
> like to have one of these good jobs - well, you can't.
> Nyah, nyah, nyah." The reaction of many was to hell with
> science.

Science is not a "real" job. Ever look at the pay scale for
acedemic scientist. Salary sacrafice. If you are headed into
scientist looking for $s you got another thing coming. There
is one guy working here who was in the military, he
essentially has a promotion here over is military title, his
pay is about 1/3rd to 1/2 of military pay.

> In other words, all the evils that Standen remarks on
> in _Science is a Sacred Cow_ occurred, and in addition,
> the country had an excess of academic plant and had to
> take in a lot of foreign students, some of whom scoped
> out the country for terrorism) which further aggravated
> the people who had expected a free ride.

See what Bob doesn't understand that science is something you
have to sacrifice to earn. When he joined the military he went
through a 3 mo boot camp. The graduate student goes through a
5 to 7 year boot camp. Like a soldier who spends his life in
special ops and on 'you don't exist' missions, the product of
scientific education is often too over educated for society to
deal with. The la-de-da-isms of normal social life disappeared
somewhere between the last days of college and the first 18
months of graduate school. IOW, graduate school is designed to
beat the Bob Keeter thinking out of you the same way Boot Camp
is designed to beat the Punk out of you. The end product of
the scientific education is to question, analyze, QUANTITATE,
condition, formulate and hypothesize. This can apply to just
about everything, like why people serve traditional religions
and call it spirituality (even as their priest are screwing
their kids in the ass) to why politicians are in grandious
denial over the fact that we are close to the end of a
predicatable warm age and yet the climate is reaching
temperature levels not seen in the last 1.3 my. Bob Keeter
once in his life should take all his scrambled thoughts and
try, his dang best to create a theory and offer his stuff up a
single acedemic advisory committee like the one that graduate
students have to subject their thoughts and results to. Then I
think Bob would be humbled enough to shut his trap.

> The most dedicated creationist at the Senior Center is
> a guy with some education in nautical engineering.
> Sure, make information available to those who are
> interested. Hope the hostile ignore you. But your last
> paragraph says it - no point in my repeating.

No real scientist I have ever met spent more than a few
glancing moments worrying about creationism. Creationist
thinking is so far down in acedemia that those who do real
studies of molecular evolution would compare it to an annoying
but largely innocuous gnat. There were three creationist
graduate students that were in our department that I know of.
1 eventually graduated, his project turned 'evolutionary' in
the end and he wrenched over the issue, 'well this microbe
over here might have evolved but humans were created'. Two
other students got kicked out because of poor grades and they
pissed off people by hanging pictures of dead fetuses on the
wall. One day one disappeared and 2 months later the other was
gone. In my particular class of student of the 14 students who
entered that year only 6 left with Ph.Ds, I was the only
american of 4 to finish graduate school (hint-hint). Now
imagine a boot camp in which 60% of the trainees die or are
enfirmed because of exhaustion and are unable to continue. The
first 2 or 3 commitee meetings a graduate student goes through
are often literal hell, I had students crying in my lap. In
essence you give everything you have to a project and the
committee wants to know why you havent done more. Through in a
few stupid comments (say creationist thinking) and you will
get raked over the coals.

In the end the creationist will loose out, in the same way
tribal gods loose out to unifying religions, so the 'chaff'
in the unifying religions will loose out to science, it is
but a matter of time, traditionalisms and glorified myth
will be shown as to what it is, and people will create
new-age myths to replace them with. People used to believe
the world was flat, remember. That if you went to far out to
see Sirens would appear and sea monsters would consume your
ship. Cats were the sign of the devil. The earth was the
center of the universe. Women were made from the rib of man.
People lived to be a 1000 years of age. Each of these myth
get scrape back until the core of the myth is challenged.
The tide of belief in society ebbs and flows, it looks like
the creationist have the upper hand now, but remember that
eugenics and supremacy had germany as the strongest nation
on the earth 50-100 years ago. What people in america
believe determines americas destiny, but it does not
determine the destiny of the world. If our beliefs falter,
China is but one step behind us ready to take over our
leadership role in the same way we and the soviets took the
leadership role from germany, who took it from great
britian, who took it from france. And in the same way the
soviets faultered in their ideology we will also faulter.

Look at Bob's beautiful DEMOCRACY today. People took to
smoking, science told them it was real bad for them, so they
stopped, but now they are greatly overweight. Kids don't
work any more, even though our genes were designed that a
kid of 14 would be preparing for building his nest and
having a family, a child less that the age of 14 is
virtually forbidden from any form of manual labor. Our
society knows the danger of gluttony, but these beautiful
religions which could not stop people from being racist in
the <50s, smokers in the 40s to 70s and now glutton in the
80s and 90s. Come to acedemia, how many people in acedemia
are overweight, how many people smoke or are bad-mounthing
rascist. See acedemia is ahead of society, we do the
cost-benefit analysis in our heads we can live on less$s
because our lifestyles are more efficient. We don't need the
surgeon general to warn we warn the surgeon general, and we
come to the answer within ourselves. Whereas "society"
preaches how acedemia is all heathens out to undermine their
religion while they sit aournd all day tossing fat/sugar
calories in their pie-hole and running up everyones health
care cost in total ambivilance while their kids are getting
corn-holed in their local church.

In acedemia you can have a lab with Muslims, Buddhist,
Catholics, Protestant, Jews working side by side, each
tolerant of other beliefs while suppresing their own beliefs
for tolerances sake, because the overriding religion of
acedemia is science, and science unifies all peoples from all
places on this earth where science is done. You don't have to
pledge allegiance to any god to join, kiss someones ring,
where you hat a certain way, cover your face over. The god you
have to put before is the god of integrety, the faith you have
is toward uncovering a better answer than the answer you
brought forth yesterday and creating a better question than
you created the day before, to take unknowns and make them
known. The religious in this land, think that their god is
going to come and rescue them at the last moment and save
their body, the reality is that science is the one who comes
to the rescue with new drugs and techniques. So one can draw
out a couple of possible conclusions.

k. From the bible these people who would have us revoke
evolution from the textbood are Hypocrits.

l. The god that has not revealed himself is science, which
comes their rescue at the last minute as 'miracle' to
remove their tumors and unclog their choked up hearts and
give them the 76 year promised in the bible. It is science
that created the new anti-psychotic drug to treat the
traumatized kiddies so that they don't drive tanks into
cafeterias. They still do not see this god?

Even more to the point, the guy with the sugeons knife (or
computer guided laser) in his hand is more likely to be of
oriental extraction, quasi-buddhist, with parents who don't
have all these hang-ups about religion and evolution
obstructing their vision of their kids future.

If you are in this NG, seems to me your mind should be on
the mechanism of later hominoid evolution and not on whether
or not 3.5 billion years ago a 'strain' of bacteria parted
ways and became 2 strains of bacteria. This is the problem
with this group, we can't have a discussion of more than a
few posts before some idiot drags the conversation off into
pointless 'gutterland'. For all those who are interested in
the discussion of PA and disinterested in creation, just
kill-file all these folks who like to drag the conversation
into OFF-TOPIC land. If you want to discuss creationism, try
TALK-ORIGINS. If your source of information about Evolution
(Harry) is TALK-ORIGINS, then I suggest you go back their
because that is where that information belongs. Bobs
activities may seem musical to himself, but they are more or
less a distraction in every group I've seen him post in. Its
time that he bothered to get himself educated or leave. We
can be tolerant of a person who is trying to improve
himself, but how should we deal with individuals who are
trying to reshape science to their 'gutteral' view of how
science should be. Ivory Towers are frequently wrong, but
the one thing that is clear if you are in those Ivory Towers
is that there is alot of debate going on, as it should be,
and the Ivory Towers know how to correct their
innaccuracies. Religion on the other hand doesn't. I see so
many people 'worried' about how the roman catholic church is
responding to child abuse, which I find incredibly
laughable. The roman catholics (most) I knew in San Antonio
expected the priest to fool around, they had a joke about
every kind of priestly malfeasance you could think of, they
knew it was a TRADITION.

[Father Jaun and the Bandito has to be the funniest though,
cant tell it here]

Its those poor dumb people out their who confuse
traditionalisms for spirituality, those are the ones getting
all tripped up by this scandal. See the roman catholic church
[the organization not the people] takes 100s of 1000s of
years to fix itself, its a tradition based organization. The
problem with these organizations it that they killed for
traditions sake, so change (evolution) is a admittion that
they killed and suppressed for false reasons. Science takes
months, weeks, and few years to fix its missassumptions
generally and moves on. Science, in general, does not kill
people, there is the occasional drug snaffu, but the
scientist of today could give a rat's ass whether another
scientist 10 years ago did something real stupid, in fact
graduate students often take pleasure in 'revealing the
weaknesses' up their advisor or the work of some other
colleage. We accept evolution of science because we have been
seeded with the understanding of the evolution of life.
Society may not like this level of critique, but thats how
science generates so many innovations so rapidly.

Now I am sure you are now primed with all kinds of Quotes
whereby we are going back into the discussion of Neandertal
culture and Comparative cranial capacity. You take from your
literary source and I will take from mine. But the thing about
Ivory Towers is that they give you a feel for what is
meaningful data and what is largely BS. At some point in time
(never) I amy have direct access to the crania of Neandertals
such that I can draw my own conclusions versus the concusions
of 'not very objective' physical PA, and I might find I have
overstated someones case. But as per the issue of mtDNA, I
found such-and-such techniques to be wrong and still reached
virtually the same conclusion by a different set of
techniques. You can argue well 'you may know DNA but you know
nothing about physcial PA', take my word on this one, the
cranial differences between humans and Neandertals is not
simply the reworking of the brain case, alot of things have to
shift for that to be true. The microevolution of behavior
predispositions changes over time, whether or not you see
absolute proof is immaterial to me, because as a biochemist
(even higher up the tower than the molecular clonologist) we
can see the consequences of that change within the tissues of
extant animals. Nothing new remains constant, newly derived
features undergo the most rapid evolutionary change
(refinements) some that you may see, but the large majority
are invisible.

Can you see the increased frequence of alcohol dehydorgenase
in populations of people who frequently drink alcohol. How
about the increased frequency of diabetes resistance in
populations that consume large amounts of sugar. How about
increases in Hb levels and oxygen carrying capacity in peoples
that lived for generations at high altitudes. How about the
ability to resist dehydration in peoples who lived for long
periods in desert climates. How about the differences in
nightime heartrates in the inuit/eskimoe population versus the
non-inuit counterparts living in the same region. See if
you're waiting for some difference to slap you in the face
before you see it, you are probably going to be waiting along
time, of course you could let the study of evolution slap you
in the face and then you would be primed to looked for
differences you otherwise would choose not to see. Philip
[pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu] http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article R4Tz8.21219$mF4.12478@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, John
H. Wilson at
j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 9:37 AM:

>
>> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:B8F4CCFD.CA53%rkeeter@earthlink.net... What if all of
>> the NSF grants dried up? Taxpayers (and voters) could make
>> that happen.
>
>> www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understanding.-
>> ap/index.html
>>
>> bCommunicate, educate or by virtue of being cut off from
>> the financial and political support of an informed public,
>> become extinct?
>
>> Or we could wring our hands and rant at the injustice,
>> shrilly proclaim our innate superiority, alienate the 95%
>> of the world that is not scientifically oriented, and let
>> everything pass us by! Then, to everyone's detriment,
>> science loses out to WWF and we become a whole new class of
>> dinosaur?
>>
>> Perhaps hobnobbing and TALKING with (not lecturing,
>> insulting or berating) the common people is the price we
>> all have to pay! ;-)
>>
> Yes, and no. I suspect the rise of fundmentalism was due to
> the space race and academic deferments. That is, a large
> number of young people who cared nothing for academic
> pursuits were sold on the idea of going to college with a
> promise of pie in the sky, or with the immediate benefit of
> dodging the draft.

Fundamentalism is not really the problem; its apathy. A
fundamentalist that has the gumption to stand up and state his
position is at worst a known enemy and at best a very viable
target for a little bit of scientific prosetylizing. Not the
kind of prosetylizing that demeans his religion or him for
holding to it, but the kind of prosetylizing that shows him
that science is not a threat! APATHY is the enemy! The article
I referenced did mention that there were religious leaders
that had positions on some of the scientific questions, but
today, where are the majorities? The majorities are I suspect
in the "i really couldnt care less" pile.

If you were around and paying attention in the early '60s
EVERY kid wanted to go to the moon, design a new airplane, go
deeper in the ocean than ever before or discover a cure for
cancer. Science, largely because of the space program, was a
big window on "tomorrow" and just about EVERYBODY was in the
bandwagon! Even while the Vietnam war was going on, we were
dumping billions into simply planting a flag and a few
footprints on the Moon. For myself, I remember I could see the
ugliness of Vietnam every night on CBS and I could see the
possibilities of the space program and all of the science that
came spilling out of it, and I KNEW which I preferred.

> While they weren't told this, I suspect many of them figured
> all they would have to do would be to copy of the paper of
> the nerd. From "Dilbert" and my own experience, some were
> able to make careers on this basis. More were told they
> weren't smart enough. "Wouldn't you like to have one of
> these good jobs
> - well, you can't. Nyah, nyah, nyah." The reaction of many
> was to hell with science. In other words, all the evils
> that Standen remarks on in _Science is a Sacred Cow_
> occurred, and in addition, the country had an excess of
> academic plant and had to take in a lot of foreign
> students, some of whom scoped out the country for
> terrorism) which further aggravated the people who had
> expected a free ride. The most dedicated creationist at
> the Senior Center is a guy with some education in
> nautical engineering. Sure, make information available to
> those who are interested. Hope the hostile ignore you.
> But your last paragraph says it - no point in my
> repeating. Cheers john GW
>

Well, John, you can start to see little bits of change. NASA
is publishing, hot off the presses, the Martian Orbiter
pictures for every Tom, Dick and Harry to look at, analyze and
PARTICIPATE in. Think that was not driven by a need to get
some letters to congressmen? Its reality!

Kennedy's assasination and his bold move to make a lunar
landing FACT in less than 10 years galvanized a group of
people. That group of people was the science "congregation".
They sucked up the science sermon and voted the science
dollars. Perhaps almost a religious fascination supporting a
dead president's dream and their own marvel at the things that
were being accomplished.

Get that spark AGAIN and we wont see 60% of dentists,
bookkeepers and burger-flippers not knowing the most basic
elements of science. Science books will fly off the
bookshelves, and who knows maybe even a few science professors
will keep their jobs! And prehaps, somehow we as a
civilization could actually get that drive back into the
system. Ten years of "Apollo progress" would put us where?

The problem is that its hard to win converts by ignoring the
candidates or calling them fools because they dont already
know what we might be able to teach them!

THAT is my Golden Fleece (of Argonaut fame, not Scoop
Jackson). So if I get a bit up on a soapbox, . . . . . 8-)

Take care my friend!

Regards bk

[Ejudy]

"John H. Wilson" wrote:

> Kinda late for me to become a big entrepreniur. Do you
> pay any attention to the biographical details of the
> people you talk to? Man! Or even to what they say. I
> used to have some respect for
you, as
>compared to Paul Crowley, who I regard with amusement. John
>GW
>
>
See!

The voodoo chief was right!

Amusement is taken at heavy price from every side,IMHO. A
social hybridization event or simply a total speciation?
Speciation most definitely cuz the hybrid died before it was
born. There is something rather natural about the process but
first you gotta weigh the price.

I think first we went thru a stereotyping event which sort of
functions to dehumanise ........... maybe thats why folks tend
to not listen and not care to listen cuz its a process.

And how does drift work in this kind of hypothetical
reality diorama?

Time to chill out and eat some tofu. Where i live they just
all pile in the sauna and go till nobody can talk cuz their
heart is racing then you go running like a steamy ghost over
the sand to plunge naked into cold lake superior. Then you
just feel different. Oh, beer helps a little.

And i would like to mention my opinion on fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism kills thought itself from the bottom up.
Doesn't anyone feeling comfortable with it see the news tell
us about schools teaching kids from an incredibly young age to
not use their minds and substitute a repetative propaganda
system for true inquiry?

It breeds intolerance and uses brutal social controls, for
the free spirited adventurous types who might step outside
the circle and learn the truth, and for anyone who is
chosen to become the example just by happenstance. Remember
those burka'd ladies kneeling in the sports arena in
Taliban governed Afghanistan? They had to be destroyed for
laughter, sex, singing, all the incredibly human creative
activities..........This is the extreme but its close to us
and it true. Apathy towards fundamentalism and acceptance
of it is my idea of stupidity. And that is where the
education must aim.

ejudy

[John H. Wi]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:cn20duci9fp7sdc7rvlc1fo1msul9jfvfq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:37:37 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
> <j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, and no. I suspect the rise of fundmentalism was
> > due to the
space
> >race and academic deferments. That is, a large number of
> >young people
who
> >cared nothing for academic pursuits were sold on the idea
> >of going to college with a promise of pie in the sky, or
> >with the immediate benefit
of
> >dodging the draft. While they weren't told this, I suspect
> >many of them figured all they would have to do would be to
> >copy of the paper of the
nerd.
>
> If you have to copy a paper you missed the point of the
> educational system. I know people who faked their way all
> the way through the educational system and became Val
> Dictorian. One guy was high on pot when he recieved his. If
> your goal is to cheat life to the fullest, become a business
> major and buy a car dealership, and leave this NG.
>
Man, posting here is like hollering down a rat hole. Do
you ever read anything others write? For your information
(though I suppose you won't read this, but will answer
it.) I 'cheated' exactly twice in my eight years of
college - because the professors told us to work together
to learn 'teamwork'. That is, I twice gave help to
people, because I thought these chiseling professors
wouldn't count the take home tests anyhow. Kinda late for
me to become a big entrepreniur. Do you pay any attention
to the biographical details of the people you talk to?
Man! Or even to what they say. I used to have some
respect for you, as compared to Paul Crowley, who I
regard with amusement. John GW

[John H. Wi]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8F5ED66.CB2D%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> in article R4Tz8.21219$mF4.12478@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, John
> H. Wilson at
> j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 9:37 AM:
>
> >
> >> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:B8F4CCFD.CA53%rkeeter@earthlink.net... What if all
> >> of the NSF
grants
> >> dried up? Taxpayers (and voters) could make that happen.
> >
> >> www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understandin-
> >> g.ap/index.html
> Fundamentalism is not really the problem; its apathy.
Oh, I think we can lick apathy if we can just get everyone
concerned about it.

A fundamentalist that
> has the gumption to stand up and state his position is at
> worst a known enemy and at best a very viable target for a
> little bit of scientific prosetylizing.

Good luck. Cheers John GW

[Al Zeller]

Bob Keeter wrote:
>

> THAT is my Golden Fleece (of Argonaut fame, not Scoop
> Jackson). So if I get a bit up on a soapbox, . . . . . 8-)

Think that's William Proxmire's claim to fame.

Al Zeller

[Bob Keeter]

in article 4r%z8.27755$iJ.10303@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, John
H. Wilson at
j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 7:07 PM:

>
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:B8F5ED66.CB2D%rkeeter@earthlink.net... in article
> R4Tz8.21219$mF4.12478@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, John H.
> Wilson at
> j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 9:37 AM:
>
>>>
>>>> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:B8F4CCFD.CA53%rkeeter@earthlink.net... What if all
>>>> of the NSF grants dried up? Taxpayers (and voters) could
>>>> make that happen.
>>>>
>>>> www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understandin-
>>>> g.ap/index.html

>>>> Fundamentalism is not really the problem; its apathy.

>Oh, I think we can lick apathy if we can just get everyone
>concerned about it.
>

8-))))) ROTFL. Are you SURE your first name is John and not
Yogi? Mr. Bera probably my favorite philosopher! 8-)

>>>> A fundamentalist that has the gumption to stand up and
>>>> state his position is at worst a known enemy and at best
>>>> a very viable target for a little bit of scientific
>>>> prosetylizing.
>
> Good luck. Cheers John GW
>

Well, thank you for the good wishes! Windmills are a favorite
of mine so I'll just welcome the challenge! Just have to
remember not to call that new convert candidate a damn fool
first! ;-)

Regards bk

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 02 May 2002 00:05:24 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
<j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:

> Man, posting here is like hollering down a rat hole. Do
> you ever read anything others write? For your
> information (though I suppose you won't read this, but
> will answer it.) I 'cheated' exactly twice in my eight
> years of college - because the professors told us to
> work together to learn 'teamwork'. That is, I twice gave
> help to people, because I thought these chiseling
> professors wouldn't count the take home tests anyhow.

The comment was not specifically directed to you [hint-hint].

> Kinda late for me to become a big entrepreniur. Do you
> pay any attention to the biographical details of the
> people you talk to? Man! Or even to what they say. I
> used to have some respect for you, as compared to Paul
> Crowley, who I regard with amusement.

Why should you care what I or Paul Crowley says. That was part
of the point. Why should you care what anybody says?

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article 3CD11B9D.B90E07DB@nscl.msu.edu, Al Zeller at
zeller@nscl.msu.edu wrote on 5/2/02 5:57 AM:

>
>
> Bob Keeter wrote:
>>
>
>> THAT is my Golden Fleece (of Argonaut fame, not Scoop
>> Jackson). So if I get a bit up on a soapbox, . . . . . 8-)
>
> Think that's William Proxmire's claim to fame.
>
>

You know, you are absolutely right! Would like to say that it
was a test to see if anyone was reading, but you got me! ;-)
Can I claim a simple case of Alzheimers, or do you want
blood!! 8-))

Regards bk

[John H. Wi]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8F6074B.CB43%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> in article 4r%z8.27755$iJ.10303@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, John
> H. Wilson at
> j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 7:07 PM:
>
> >
> > "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:B8F5ED66.CB2D%rkeeter@earthlink.net... in article
> > R4Tz8.21219$mF4.12478@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, John H.
> > Wilson at
> > j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/1/02 9:37 AM:
> >
> >>>
> >>>> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:B8F4CCFD.CA53%rkeeter@earthlink.net... What if all
> >>>> of the NSF
grants
> >>>> dried up? Taxpayers (and voters) could make that
> >>>> happen.
> >>>>
> >>>>
www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understanding.ap/-
index.html
>
> >>>> Fundamentalism is not really the problem; its apathy.
>

Some other points did occur to me on this. Well, yes,
generally the average citizen doesn't worry too much
about such grants, I think, though someone is always
doing an expose on money wasted on "useless' research.
The point is, though, the colleges instituted a
philosophy that anyone is entitled to choose a vocation
and is discriminated against if he cannot enter it, even
if he cannot or will not do the work In other words, run
college like grade school. Paul Gans and Brian Scott were
saying that a professor these days cannot kick a student
out of class for cheating. They had "affirmative action"
in the colleges long before the phrase was coined - I
remember the 'scandal' for kicking out a cheating air
force cadet. The policy is nonsense, of course. 23000
lines of work, maybe - the wrong is in being barred into
one line, like housewife, shoeshine boy, or
mathematician, and that is _what the colleges want to do
with bright working students_. I couldn't convince Paul
or Brian of this, and they are probably more open minded
than a fundamentalist. For the current discussion, the
point is such a policy creates resentment. If a person
can get $20000 for cheating and doing nothing, why not
$50000? And of course, you can't give everyone a job or
give them all graduate degrees. When I was a graduate
student, there was just one professor really qualified to
supervise such degrees and who did actually give them. I
counted something like 10 graduate students. And some
colleges had 20 students sign up for engineering, where
one could expect to get a job. Those who were flunked out
went into education to a large degree. I doubt if they
are great fans of science, though I'm always surprised at
how little resentment I see and how much gets done by
labs with the Dilbert policies. .

>
>
> >>>> A fundamentalist that has the gumption to stand up and
> >>>> state his
position
> >>>> is at worst a known enemy and at best a very viable
> >>>> target for a
little bit
> >>>> of scientific prosetylizing.
> >
>
> Well, thank you for the good wishes! Windmills are a
> favorite of mine so I'll just welcome the challenge! Just
> have to remember not to call that
new
> convert candidate a damn fool first! ;-)
>
Well, actually, arguing with people usually doesn't
convince them - they teach that to people who want to
do political block work. But a survey of 73 creative
scientists found that a greater percentage than chance
of them had a background in the more or less minor
religions - not sure about the fundamental ones. So
some can be reasoned with. Most people don't reason,
they rationalize. Cheers John GW

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 02 May 2002 14:00:10 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
<j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:

> For the current discussion, the point is such a policy
> creates resentment. If a person can get $20000 for
> cheating and doing nothing, why not $50000? And of
> course, you can't give everyone a job or give them all
> graduate degrees.

And this is what I am telling you. $50,000 is nothing compared
to what a financial analysts who plugs Enron stock makes. How
about 7 figures. My point which you seemed to missed is that
some people (not pointing the finger at you, OK) take college
and grad school like passing a driving test or learning the
pledge of allegiance. Study real hard, memorize what you need
to, pass a damn test and forget about it. Many med students
are like this, then they get into their 2nd or 3rd year of
college and need to take some form of organic chemistry. You
cannot 'memorize' organic chemistry, you have to understand
the fundementals of the argument. The anal retentives then
have a big problem because they never learned a fundemental in
thier life. Graduate school in the olds days was like this,
now the industry is claiming grad students are overqualified
(IOW know to much and are dangerous to the company) and so
they want dumbed down gradstudents, memorizing, yes men.

> When I was a graduate student, there was just one
> professor really qualified to supervise such degrees
> and who did actually give them. I counted something
> like 10 graduate students. And some colleges had 20
> students sign up for engineering, where one could
> expect to get a job. Those who were flunked out went
> into education to a large degree. I doubt if they are
> great fans of science, though I'm always surprised at
> how little resentment I see and how much gets done by
> labs with the Dilbert policies.

At one point last year for Ph.D. or technicians here we had
about 3 times as many positions posted as people to apply for
them. We had a position posted and every single candidate was
hired before we had a chance to interview them. 9-11 has
changed that somewhat.

> Well, actually, arguing with people usually doesn't
> convince them - they teach that to people who want to
> do political block work. But a survey of 73 creative
> scientists found that a greater percentage than chance
> of them had a background in the more or less minor
> religions - not sure about the fundamental ones. So
> some can be reasoned with. Most people don't reason,
> they rationalize.

Yes, and justify.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article KDbA8.29150$iJ.26510@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, John
H. Wilson at
j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/2/02 9:00 AM:

> Snippage. . . . . . . . the problem; its apathy.
>
>
> Some other points did occur to me on this. Well, yes,
> generally the average citizen doesn't worry too much about
> such grants, I think, though someone is always doing an
> expose on money wasted on "useless' research.
>
And its much easier to see the waste in something that you
dont really understand, particularly if the practitioners are
a bit standoffish, or just plain elitists. Why should the tax
dollars from a farmer in Iowa go to studying the mating habits
of butterflies in Outer Mongolia or whatever, UNLESS of course
that farmer, or some of his family or friends, has been
exposed to the science and appreciates it a bit. THEN the few
pennies from his pockets that go to support sciences, even if
he DOESNT have an advanced degree in insect physiology, are
not resented quite so much. Perhaps even enough that he does
NOT write those letters to the congressmen about the waste,
perhaps even that he gets some value, enjoyment(?) out of the
Discovery Channel show! Who knows, maybe even the next
election he does not have to vote for a fellow who champions
cuts to all things not "farm related". 8-)

Education, be it by doctorates or Discovery is not to be
sneered at when the students go to the ballot box. Call the
man a fool, and I bet he doesnt vote for (or with) you. ;=))

> The point is, though, the colleges instituted a philosophy
> that anyone is entitled to choose a vocation and is
> discriminated against if he cannot enter it, even if he
> cannot or will not do the work In other words, run college
> like grade school.
>
Here in Ma, even that does not work. Everybody is up in arms
because of the MCAS exams (got to pass to get a HS diploma).
People are actually yelling and screaming because little
Johnny would drop out of school rather than study hard enough
to pass a pretty basic set of tests. After all having the
piece of paper (diploma) will mean so much more than actually
having the knowledge that went behind it! Had Harvard gives
out only "A's" 8-(.

> Paul Gans and Brian Scott were saying that a professor these
> days cannot kick a student out of class for cheating. They
> had "affirmative action" in the colleges long before the
> phrase was coined - I remember the 'scandal' for kicking out
> a cheating air force cadet.
>
Well, in that the academies are a bit different. Some would
say "out of tune with society" but last I checked it was still
"I will not lie cheat or steal nor tolerate anyone who does".
Even then, at least as far as I know, the adademies "honor
system" is run by the cadets themselves.

> The policy is nonsense, of course. 23000 lines of work,
> maybe - the wrong is in being barred into one line, like
> housewife, shoeshine boy, or mathematician, and that is
> _what the colleges want to do with bright working students_.
> I couldn't convince Paul or Brian of this, and they are
> probably more open minded than a fundamentalist. For the
> current discussion, the point is such a policy creates
> resentment. If a person can get $20000 for cheating and
> doing nothing, why not $50000? And of course, you can't give
> everyone a job or give them all graduate degrees. When I was
> a graduate student, there was just one professor really
> qualified to supervise such degrees and who did actually
> give them. I counted something like 10 graduate students.
> And some colleges had 20 students sign up for engineering,
> where one could expect to get a job. Those who were flunked
> out went into education to a large degree. I doubt if they
> are great fans of science, though I'm always surprised at
> how little resentment I see and how much gets done by labs
> with the Dilbert policies. .
>
As you've probably guessed, I chose engineering and the
military. . . For some strange reason, probably closely
related to my lack of ever having to STUDY paleontology and
anthropology for coursework its still offering a lot of that
same fascinated 15-yr old flavor. Wont make a buck off of it
but hey everything aint bucks! ;-)

>>
>>
>>>>>> A fundamentalist that has the gumption to stand up and
>>>>>> state his position is at worst a known enemy and at
>>>>>> best a very viable target for a little bit of
>>>>>> scientific prosetylizing.
>>>>>>
>>
>> Well, thank you for the good wishes! Windmills are a
>> favorite of mine so I'll just welcome the challenge! Just
>> have to remember not to call that new convert candidate a
>> damn fool first! ;-)
>>
> Well, actually, arguing with people usually doesn't convince
> them - they teach that to people who want to do political
> block work. But a survey of 73 creative scientists found
> that a greater percentage than chance of them had a
> background in the more or less minor religions - not sure
> about the fundamental ones. So some can be reasoned with.
> Most people don't reason, they rationalize.
>
>Cheers John GW
>

Again you are right, dead on! The trick is not to get people
to abandon their deep set beliefs, merely to TOLERATE your
own. I dont have to make every Southern Baptist into a
champion of Darwinism in order to prove to him that all
scientists are not arrogant asses. All that anonymous "he"
needs to really know is that science will not, in and of
itself, send him as well as his family and friends to a
concentration camp for believers, which Ive heard championed
(thankfully in jest) even on this newsgroup! Disagree with a
man, even strongly, and very few will hold that arguement
against you. call a man a fool and he remembers for a very
long time.

;-)

From counting up those years of schooling and your other
comments I notice that you just may have gone a bit past the
basic HS equivalency! 8-) So Id like to thank you for chiming
in and encourage you to do so more often, perhaps with a
signature block to rival some of the more shrill, less
responsible "champions" of science!

Take care my friend bk

[Bob Keeter]

in article a8r2dukre5qt5conmauhkumm9op6m65fld@4ax.com, Philip
Deitiker at pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu wrote on 5/2/02 11:55 AM:

> My point which you seemed to missed is that some people (not
> pointing the finger at you, OK) take college and grad school
> like passing a driving test or learning the pledge of
> allegiance. Study real hard, memorize what you need to, pass
> a damn test and forget about it. Many med students are like
> this, then they get into their 2nd or 3rd year of college
> and need to take some form of organic chemistry. You cannot
> 'memorize' organic chemistry, you have to understand the
> fundementals of the argument. The anal retentives then have
> a big problem because they never learned a fundemental in
> thier life. Graduate school in the olds days was like this,
> now the industry is claiming grad students are overqualified
> (IOW know to much and are dangerous to the company) and so
> they want dumbed down gradstudents, memorizing, yes men.
>

Geez, Philip ole boy, you do grovel around real nice with this
here, "John
H. Wilson"! Its really got me wondering. . . . . . . . .

Although Google turned up at least two John H. Wilson's with
impecable credentials in molecular biology and the magic of
the genes, didnt notice that either worked for NIH or any of
the other agencies that have pursestrings!

John, are you by any chance one of these two? If so, thanks,
it renews my faith a bit!!!!!

By the way, learning the words to the pledge of allegiance is
about like your memorizing facts for a test. Anybody can
memorize the basic formula, F=MA or the words. For a great
many of us, the complexities of the meaning of the pledge
rival the complexities and implications of "F=MA". Perhaps you
need to look REALLY, really hard at that last last
prepositional clause! You might even be a bit pleased to
recognize that most of us who DO see beyond the words of that
short little pledge, consider even you to be included in that
last "all"! Buuuuuut. . . . . I sorta doubt that you could
appreciate the irony in that.

Snippage. . . . .

>>. . . . . . . . So some can be reasoned with.
>> Most people don't reason, they rationalize.
>
> Yes, and justify.
>

And the justification for insulting people who's religion
happens to differ from your own beliefs is. . . . . . .? 8-)

OBTW, that little "hint. . .hint!" was really cute! Maybe I do
need to see which NIH guy I can invite to come over here and
watch the show. Its shocking to see you civil! 8-)

Regards bk

[John H. Wi]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8F7551E.CC1B%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> in article KDbA8.29150$iJ.26510@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, John
> H. Wilson at
> j.gissw@verizon.net wrote on 5/2/02 9:00 AM:
>
> >
> And its much easier to see the waste in something that you
> dont really understand, particularly if the practitioners
> are a bit standoffish, or
just
> plain elitists
perhaps even that he gets some value, enjoyment(?) out of the
> Discovery Channel show! Who knows, maybe even the next
> election he does
not
> have to vote for a fellow who champions cuts to all things
> not "farm related". 8-)
>

Natural history museums are great for young people. And
the science needn't be too accurate to develop interest -
maybe even a benefit in being wrong on details. People
love to debunk History ng discusses _Braveheart_ at
length, and not so much more accurate movies.

> Education, be it by doctorates or Discovery is not to be
> sneered at when
the
> students go to the ballot box. Call the man a fool, and I
> bet he doesnt vote for (or with) you. ;=))
>

Yep.

> >
> Here in Ma, even that does not work. Everybody is up in
> arms because of
the
> MCAS exams (got to pass to get a HS diploma). People are
> actually yelling and screaming because little Johnny would
> drop out of school rather than study hard enough to pass a
> pretty basic set of tests. After all having
the
> piece of paper (diploma) will mean so much more than
> actually having the knowledge that went behind it! Had
> Harvard gives out only "A's" 8-(.
>

Think England dropped the 11+ too.

> As you've probably guessed, I chose engineering and the
> military. . . For some strange reason, probably closely
> related to my lack of ever having to STUDY paleontology and
> anthropology for coursework its still offering a
lot
> of that same fascinated 15-yr old flavor. Wont make a buck
> off of it but hey everything aint bucks! ;-)

Yes, much of my reading is this, though on a more popular
level, since it is too hard to get to the sources. As you
know, I don't usually post on most threads here (except HN,
and that to point out how little is really known) because
I'm here to pick up the bits of news etc. My information
tends to be ot the popular variety.

>>But a survey of 73
> > creative scientists found that a greater percentage than
> > chance of them
had a
> > background in the more or less minor religions - not
> > sure about the fundamental ones. So some can be reasoned
> > with > >

Another comment. Ministers used to preach up to the sixthly
(i.e. number of points,) Got kids used to listening to a
reasoned argument. Even Lincoln's jokes were different from
Bob Hope's one liners.

>
> Again you are right, dead on! The trick is not to get people
> to abandon their deep set beliefs, merely to TOLERATE your
> own. I dont have to make every Southern Baptist into a
> champion of Darwinism in order to prove to
him
> that all scientists are not arrogant asses. All that
> anonymous "he" needs to really know is that science will
> not, in and of itself, send him as
well
> as his family and friends to a concentration camp for
> believers, which Ive heard championed (thankfully in jest)
> even on this newsgroup! Disagree
with
> a man, even strongly, and very few will hold that arguement
> against you. call a man a fool and he remembers for a very
> long time.
>
> ;-)

Some disagreement between folks on the last paragraph-
some would say, "Yes" and some would say, "Absolutely."

> From counting up those years of schooling and your other
> comments I notice that you just may have gone a bit past the
> basic HS equivalency! 8-) So
Id
> like to thank you for chiming in and encourage you to do so
> more often, perhaps with a signature block to rival some of
> the more shrill, less responsible "champions" of science!
>
> Take care my friend bk
>
Thank you, Cheers John GW

[John H. Wi]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8F759E9.CC1D%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> in article a8r2dukre5qt5conmauhkumm9op6m65fld@4ax.com,
> Philip Deitiker at pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu wrote on 5/2/02
> 11:55 AM:
>
>
> Although Google turned up at least two John H. Wilson's with
> impecable credentials in molecular biology and the magic of
> the genes, didnt notice that either worked for NIH or any of
> the other agencies that have pursestrings!
>
> John, are you by any chance one of these two? If so, thanks,
> it renews my faith a bit!!!!!
>

lNope, you notice I don't post anything on molecular biology.
Don't like to expose my ignorance. OTOH, I argue about HN,
because I know that the only DNA from them is mt, and I also
know that lineages can be lost - probably some in HS have been
lost. Where the evidence doesn't exist, there are no experts.
Little like the doctors of the middle ages. Great surgeons,
but they knew nothing about germs. So anyone who didn't
believe in humors and bleeding was a quack or ignorant. The
argument for different intelligence in HN was that they didn't
adopt the HS technology. Valid, but not so conclusive that
anyone who is unconvinced is not only wrong, but wrongheaded.
In fact, not conclusive at all, IMO - can think of several
reasons for it.

Cheers John GW

[Philip Dei]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 01:15:28 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
<j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:

> Yes, much of my reading is this, though on a more popular
> level, since it is too hard to get to the sources. As you
> know, I don't usually post on most threads here (except
> HN, and that to point out how little is really known)
> because I'm here to pick up the bits of news etc. My
> information tends to be ot the popular variety.

My father had a saying about school which can be just about
applied to anything . . . ."you get out of ____________ what
you put into it". As per this discussion, Phil Nichols saw fit
to create a Journal Club type Newsgroup in groups where papers
could be place on file and discussed 'above' the popular
realm. This is not the same world as in 1996 when I first saw
you plugging post here, there is alot higher quality
information available that I know you are capable of
understanding (even if BK cannot or will not). Gisele has in a
very persistent manner and for whatever reason I can't figure
out, decided to launch a massive study of mtDNA
recombination/Gene conversion and has now, with my help
accumulated over 4000 sequences of various alleles and by
summer may have over 5000, which as it turns out have been
very useful. I threw out the glove to Bob that if he did not
beleive the results of my site or some paper that the
sequences are online, and there was a collection of 2000
alligned, Bob dropped the ball, Gisele did not, she picked up
the ball and with a little coaching has improved that database
by more than a factor of 2. So this person you are arguing
with/agreeing with is a person who will confuscate issues up
to the point in which it means he has to do a little work, and
then its to much for him and he confuscates some other issue
for a while. He contrasts with someone who really cares about
the issues enough to understand them deeply. I don't know that
it takes a Ph.D. to do advanced study, but I do know that it
takes desire.

> >>But a survey of 73
>> > creative scientists found that a greater percentage than
>> > chance of them
>had a
>> > background in the more or less minor religions - not
>> > sure about the fundamental ones. So some can be reasoned
>> > with > >

There is nothing wrong with religion, the problem is not with
religion but orthodification of belief. In science its call
concretized thinking, and people who exhibit and are unable to
get over concretized thinking never go very far. Therefore
fundementalist who chain down their beliefs about reality with
religious orthodoxy limit the extent to which they can think
freely. I am not an athiest. Science is born out of religion,
actually university science was born out of the roman catholic
church. The central tenets of science are born out of
religious philosophy. The gap between religion and science is
that religion remains achored in dogmatized orthodox thinking
and science evolves as fast as it appends knew knowledge [Or
in the case of PA evolves as fast as it can correct past huge
mistakes] Bob here thinks that arrogance of science is why
fundies don't understand enough to vote for mongolian
butterfly studies. It is not scientific arrogance it is
concretized thinking patterns which have been promoted by the
fundementalist and orthodox religious elements in society that
makes it difficult from science to bridge the gap to the
layman. The only exception to this is the Jews, who place a
higher than ordinary focus on education and achieving doctoral
status, because of the requirements of thinking required to
acheive whatever orthodox notion this people have are put
aside for the sake of study, and for this science as been
greatly benefitted. I hate to tell you this Bob, but I and
noone living in "Ivory Towers" can cleanse the orthodox
thinking from the fundies, that search for _________ meaning
has to come from within oneself, I cannot dictate it. But what
I can clearly advocate is that we set a specific sets of
standards for people who go into hard science professions and
medicinal science that a basic requirement is to understand at
some level the 'fundemental' biological processes from the
atom to the earth. If they are incapable because of religion,
because of faulty school boards, because mommy and daddy sent
them to a fundementalist college . . . .then that is their
problem. We are already seeing the screening process going on
here in the U.S. India is now becoming a source of U.S. best
educated students, a thought farm so-to-speak, Is this what we
really want?

>> Again you are right, dead on! The trick is not to get
>> people to abandon their deep set beliefs, merely to
>> TOLERATE your own. I dont have to make every Southern
>> Baptist into a champion of Darwinism in order to prove to
>him
>> that all scientists are not arrogant asses. All that
>> anonymous "he" needs to really know is that science will
>> not, in and of itself, send him as
>well
>> as his family and friends to a concentration camp for
>> believers, which Ive heard championed (thankfully in jest)
>> even on this newsgroup! Disagree
>with
>> a man, even strongly, and very few will hold that arguement
>> against you. call a man a fool and he remembers for a very
>> long time.

Ah, yes but how long will he remember that you killfiled him.
Guess that memory escapes quickly, huh?

>> like to thank you for chiming in and encourage you to do so
>> more often, perhaps with a signature block to rival some of
>> the more shrill, less responsible "champions" of science!

Oh, please . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you knew how to pull
the udder you'de understand why you never get the milk. You
think you are solving a problem but you are compounding it
here. Let us get that strait in your head, you want a bit of
scientific information or you want to research a specific
problem I am more than willing to help you or anyone do that.
But it is clear that what you want to do is pick on the
intelligencia because, for whatever reason, you despise them
you want intelligencia to be the PET FIDO of DEMOCRACY, well
BOB forget it, scientist are part of the obtuse plurality that
keeps this shoestrung society going, we are our own religion!
3/4ths of the time thats why I pick on religion here, because
I want to get under your skin like you try to enflame critical
study. How about I start threads like?

Army Yahoos are Incapable of Handling Science, Totally over
their Heads. Non-acedemic Engineers Have No place try to
Cipher Acedemic Studies. Armed Forces Yahoos Fight For God and
Country, but couldn't define their beleif if their lives
depended on it. Join the Armed Forces and Massage Your Hero
Complex. [apologies to anyone in the armed forces]

All the above are equally off-topic in this group, but as
germane as this thread. You like the feel of it? There are no
ivory towers, asshole, they are a figment in your mind.
2/3rds of science in more akin to muck-farming than anything
else. You create this paper tiger and then take all these
stabs at it. As I told you before, if you don't like
something I say, the fricken data is right there, I'de be
happy to post the accumulated sequence file or you can get
it from Gisele. But I am certain of one thing, you may have
some computer programming experiance and you may know how to
write an algorhythm but when it gets momentarily painful for
you, you will stop run back over here and spread your black
pearls around. Thats were we separate the men from the boys
so to speak, tenacity of cause is the backbone of the true
scientist, and you aint got it. John here will give you a
shoulder to cry on, so be it. And while the rest of humanity
is evolving in thought, in belief trying to pull themselves
forward, you will still be out there throwing poo-poo on the
path seeing if anyone gonna slip up on it 'cause despite
your education, thats your nature. Add something meaningful
in terms of extracts of primary literature or critique of
primary literature or examination of data or go away. I
couldn't give a dead ole hairy rats ass how you vote or how
some beer belching self-proclaimed fundementalist red-nake
feels about science, if this country wants to dig a hole and
bury science it serves these people right for being so
entrenched in their orthodox belief. The history of this
world is that when one people drops the ball, another people
will pick it up, always a succession of better societies,
and we will become the defeated, the unsuccesful. Then you
will have what you wanted, and I will stand outside the wall
and recite the lamentations of Josephus. Philip <pdeitik at
bcm.tmc.edu

[Philip Dei]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 14:22:56 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
<j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Although Google turned up at least two John H. Wilson's
> > with impecable
>> credentials in molecular biology and the magic of the
>> genes, didnt notice that either worked for NIH or any of
>> the other agencies that have pursestrings!
>>
>> John, are you by any chance one of these two? If so,
>> thanks, it renews my faith a bit!!!!!

John Wilson works here in Baylor, my Dept. Wrote a few books
on Mol Bio.

>lNope, you notice I don't post anything on molecular
>biology. Don't like to expose my ignorance. OTOH, I argue
>about HN, because I know that the only DNA from them is mt,
>and I also know that lineages can be lost - probably some in
>HS have been lost. Where the evidence doesn't exist, there
>are no experts.

Here we go again. Trying to beat the dead horse again. Do you
want to know where the most (longest) length missing
connectors are:

A> Europe
B> Asia
C> Americas
D> Australia
E> Africa.

[Hint-Hint of the >4000 sequence I now have in my data base
only a few hundred come from africa, where the population is
approaching 1 billion and has the deepest diversity. With the
exception of segment of the North asia population we can trace
exoafrican ancestry of the vast majority of alleles of lHV1
mutation by mutation back to africa, with persistent ancestral
alleles as intermediates, this step wise regression fails the
moment you cross the sahara.] Also within autosomal loci that
have divergences of more than 500 ky, all except 1 loci show
that diversity stems out of africa (as bleedthrough variation
or post constictive interbreeding). The remaining loci suffers
from undersampling in africa.

> Little like the doctors of the middle ages. Great
> surgeons, but they knew nothing about germs. So anyone
> who didn't believe in humors and bleeding was a quack or
> ignorant.

You can uncover your eyes and grab the handlebars of your
little bicycle, now, John, that Spanish Dagger is get
awful close.

> The argument for different intelligence in HN was that
> they didn't adopt the HS technology. Valid, but not so
> conclusive that anyone who is unconvinced is not only
> wrong, but wrongheaded. In fact, not conclusive at all,
> IMO - can think of several reasons for it.

See: Neanderthal 4954.pdf and 4955.pdf in Files @
Group:PaleoAnthro @ Yahoo

You can make the point that the assumptions of what data is
important what data is not important can be argued, but the
only thing that is wrongheaded is for a person to state that
we should ignore all culture/technology differences between HS
and HN sites. Its almost like saying the primatologist are
stupid for looking at the 'pedality' differences between
bonobos and chimpanzees. Science is about gathering data and
interpreting it not burying our heads in the sand because we
don't like the interpretation. Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

Actually I do have to concede several points to you. I have
not been able to put the desired (and necessary effort) into
studying your "revelations"! Got several higher priorities,
starting with a pair of teenagers, a steady job (amazing that
even ditch digging can be a steady job! 8-) ), and a major
drain on spare time called Johns Hopkins Grad school. Luckily,
I must be benefitting from some sort of intellectual "Equal
Opportunity for Idiots" deal, but my pathetic academic
aptitude, piddling intelect, and all round stinky character is
not held too badly against me. I will make do I guess. So,
yep, you have NOT been getting the attention you so richly
deserve and it IS my fault! My apologies! 8-)

On the other hand, I do appreciate your help! And you know,
this is what I think deep down I like about you, Philip ole
boy. You are absolutely "reliable", and as as the poster boy
for the affliction that reliability is greatly appreciated.
Matter of fact, you preset the issue much clearer, and with
much sharper contrast, than I ever could. I could never paint
that "Ivory Tower" issue as colorfully or as credibly as you
manage in your "laboratory demonstration"! You know, for
simple minded people like me, a non-abstract, hands-on
demonstration is much more effective as a learning tool, and
amazingly it even can be a very powerful teaching tool for the
more intellectual amongst us. The question (and I wont even
ask for a show of hands!) that at least some must ask is, do
they want to join you in that wonderously self-gratifying
Ivory Tower, or slide down the scaling ropes and join the rest
of humanity

Anyway, as the marginally literate, ill educated, bad
mannered, etc., etc., etc., and all-round sick sociopath that
I am, I could never hope to present my arguement in such
clear terms, and couch the proposition in such emotionlessly
clear logic and incontrovertible demonstration of fact! 8-)
Thank you!

Now you just keep on keeping on! I do appreciate it.

Regards bk

in article 3eb5a02b.820502@netnews.worldnet.att.net, Philip
Deitiker at pdeitik@worldnet.att.net wrote on 5/4/02 1:12 AM:

> On Fri, 03 May 2002 01:15:28 GMT, "John H. Wilson"
> <j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, much of my reading is this, though on a more popular
>> level, since it is too hard to get to the sources. As you
>> know, I don't usually post on most threads here (except HN,
>> and that to point out how little is really known) because
>> I'm here to pick up the bits of news etc. My information
>> tends to be ot the popular variety.
>
> My father had a saying about school which can be just about
> applied to anything . . . ."you get out of ____________ what
> you put into it". As per this discussion, Phil Nichols saw
> fit to create a Journal Club type Newsgroup in groups where
> papers could be place on file and discussed 'above' the
> popular realm. This is not the same world as in 1996 when I
> first saw you plugging post here, there is alot higher
> quality information available that I know you are capable of
> understanding (even if BK cannot or will not). Gisele has in
> a very persistent manner and for whatever reason I can't
> figure out, decided to launch a massive study of mtDNA
> recombination/Gene conversion and has now, with my help
> accumulated over 4000 sequences of various alleles and by
> summer may have over 5000, which as it turns out have been
> very useful. I threw out the glove to Bob that if he did not
> beleive the results of my site or some paper that the
> sequences are online, and there was a collection of 2000
> alligned, Bob dropped the ball, Gisele did not, she picked
> up the ball and with a little coaching has improved that
> database by more than a factor of 2. So this person you are
> arguing with/agreeing with is a person who will confuscate
> issues up to the point in which it means he has to do a
> little work, and then its to much for him and he confuscates
> some other issue for a while. He contrasts with someone who
> really cares about the issues enough to understand them
> deeply. I don't know that it takes a Ph.D. to do advanced
> study, but I do know that it takes desire.
>
>>>> But a survey of 73 creative scientists found that a
>>>> greater percentage than chance of them
>> had a
>>>> background in the more or less minor religions - not
>>>> sure about the fundamental ones. So some can be reasoned
>>>> with > >
>
> There is nothing wrong with religion, the problem is not
> with religion but orthodification of belief. In science its
> call concretized thinking, and people who exhibit and are
> unable to get over concretized thinking never go very far.
> Therefore fundementalist who chain down their beliefs about
> reality with religious orthodoxy limit the extent to which
> they can think freely. I am not an athiest. Science is born
> out of religion, actually university science was born out of
> the roman catholic church. The central tenets of science are
> born out of religious philosophy. The gap between religion
> and science is that religion remains achored in dogmatized
> orthodox thinking and science evolves as fast as it appends
> knew knowledge [Or in the case of PA evolves as fast as it
> can correct past huge mistakes] Bob here thinks that
> arrogance of science is why fundies don't understand enough
> to vote for mongolian butterfly studies. It is not
> scientific arrogance it is concretized thinking patterns
> which have been promoted by the fundementalist and orthodox
> religious elements in society that makes it difficult from
> science to bridge the gap to the layman. The only exception
> to this is the Jews, who place a higher than ordinary focus
> on education and achieving doctoral status, because of the
> requirements of thinking required to acheive whatever
> orthodox notion this people have are put aside for the sake
> of study, and for this science as been greatly benefitted. I
> hate to tell you this Bob, but I and noone living in "Ivory
> Towers" can cleanse the orthodox thinking from the fundies,
> that search for _________ meaning has to come from within
> oneself, I cannot dictate it. But what I can clearly
> advocate is that we set a specific sets of standards for
> people who go into hard science professions and medicinal
> science that a basic requirement is to understand at some
> level the 'fundemental' biological processes from the atom
> to the earth. If they are incapable because of religion,
> because of faulty school boards, because mommy and daddy
> sent them to a fundementalist college . . . .then that is
> their problem. We are already seeing the screening process
> going on here in the U.S. India is now becoming a source of
> U.S. best educated students, a thought farm so-to-speak, Is
> this what we really want?
>
>>> Again you are right, dead on! The trick is not to get
>>> people to abandon their deep set beliefs, merely to
>>> TOLERATE your own. I dont have to make every Southern
>>> Baptist into a champion of Darwinism in order to prove to
>> him
>>> that all scientists are not arrogant asses. All that
>>> anonymous "he" needs to really know is that science will
>>> not, in and of itself, send him as
>> well
>>> as his family and friends to a concentration camp for
>>> believers, which Ive heard championed (thankfully in jest)
>>> even on this newsgroup! Disagree
>> with
>>> a man, even strongly, and very few will hold that
>>> arguement against you. call a man a fool and he remembers
>>> for a very long time.
>
> Ah, yes but how long will he remember that you killfiled
> him. Guess that memory escapes quickly, huh?
>
>>> like to thank you for chiming in and encourage you to do
>>> so more often, perhaps with a signature block to rival
>>> some of the more shrill, less responsible "champions" of
>>> science!
>
> Oh, please . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you knew how to
> pull the udder you'de understand why you never get the
> milk. You think you are solving a problem but you are
> compounding it here. Let us get that strait in your head,
> you want a bit of scientific information or you want to
> research a specific problem I am more than willing to help
> you or anyone do that. But it is clear that what you want
> to do is pick on the intelligencia because, for whatever
> reason, you despise them you want intelligencia to be the
> PET FIDO of DEMOCRACY, well BOB forget it, scientist are
> part of the obtuse plurality that keeps this shoestrung
> society going, we are our own religion! 3/4ths of the time
> thats why I pick on religion here, because I want to get
> under your skin like you try to enflame critical study. How
> about I start threads like?
>
> Army Yahoos are Incapable of Handling Science, Totally over
> their Heads. Non-acedemic Engineers Have No place try to
> Cipher Acedemic Studies. Armed Forces Yahoos Fight For God
> and Country, but couldn't define their beleif if their lives
> depended on it. Join the Armed Forces and Massage Your Hero
> Complex. [apologies to anyone in the armed forces]
>
> All the above are equally off-topic in this group, but as
> germane as this thread. You like the feel of it? There are
> no ivory towers, asshole, they are a figment in your mind.
> 2/3rds of science in more akin to muck-farming than anything
> else. You create this paper tiger and then take all these
> stabs at it. As I told you before, if you don't like
> something I say, the fricken data is right there, I'de be
> happy to post the accumulated sequence file or you can get
> it from Gisele. But I am certain of one thing, you may
> have some computer programming experiance and you may know
> how to write an algorhythm but when it gets momentarily
> painful for you, you will stop run back over here and
> spread your black pearls around. Thats were we separate
> the men from the boys so to speak, tenacity of cause is
> the backbone of the true scientist, and you aint got it.
> John here will give you a shoulder to cry on, so be it.
> And while the rest of humanity is evolving in thought, in
> belief trying to pull themselves forward, you will still
> be out there throwing poo-poo on the path seeing if anyone
> gonna slip up on it 'cause despite your education, thats
> your nature. Add something meaningful in terms of extracts
> of primary literature or critique of primary literature or
> examination of data or go away. I couldn't give a dead ole
> hairy rats ass how you vote or how some beer belching
> self-proclaimed fundementalist red-nake feels about
> science, if this country wants to dig a hole and bury
> science it serves these people right for being so
> entrenched in their orthodox belief. The history of this
> world is that when one people drops the ball, another
> people will pick it up, always a succession of better
> societies, and we will become the defeated, the
> unsuccesful. Then you will have what you wanted, and I
> will stand outside the wall and recite the lamentations of
> Josephus. Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[Mb]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

[lot of selfrightous babble]

> There are no ivory towers, asshole,

ah, guess you believe that the field is prepared now for
becoming become insulting?

> But I am certain of one thing, you may have some computer
> programming experiance and you may know how to write an
> algorhythm .....

Guess that means to know how to use MS Word as a "valuable"
tool of bioinformatics =;-)

> Add something meaningful in terms of extracts of primary
> literature or critique of primary literature or
> examination of data or go away.

Oh yes, you king of primary content =8-DDD

Michael

[Gisele Hor]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 10:14:48 -0500, Philip Deitiker
<pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

[...]
>Do you want to know where the most (longest) length missing
>connectors are:
>
>A> Europe
>B> Asia
>C> Americas
>D> Australia
>E> Africa.
>
>[Hint-Hint of the >4000 sequence I now have in my data base
>only a few hundred come from africa, where the population is
>approaching 1 billion and has the deepest diversity. With the
>exception of segment of the North asia population we can
>trace exoafrican ancestry of the vast majority of alleles of
>lHV1 mutation by mutation back to africa, with persistent
>ancestral alleles as intermediates, this step wise regression
>fails the moment you cross the sahara.]

In both the coding region and hypervariable regions, there is
a huge gap between the sequences of sub-saharans and northern
Africans (or, more accurately, a deep divide between sequences
labelled as L1/L2 and
L3). Is this what you are referring to? If so, do you feel
that this is also due to inadequate sampling? (I'm not
inclined to think so but I'm interested in your views on
the subject).

When you write "back to Africa", which group (L1/L2 or L3) are
you referring to?

Gisele

[Mb]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>
> >...... I argue about HN, because I know that the only DNA
> >from them is mt, and I also know that lineages can be lost
> >- probably some in HS have been lost....
>
> Here we go again...

Indeed.. =8-D

> Trying to beat the dead horse again.

Well, I would rather say you´re trying to erect a strawman
again, because....

> Do you want to know where the most (longest) length missing
> connectors are....
>
> .... >4000 sequence I now have in my data base only a few
> hundred come from africa, where the population is
> approaching 1 billion and has the deepest diversity. With
> the exception of segment of the North asia population we can
> trace exoafrican ancestry... and so on

..this addresses anything but J.W's comment, it´s the
usual ballyhoo.

The point was that mitochondrial lineages can be lost.
Basically all analytical investigations of mtDNA are based on
coalescence theory. Random *loss* and random fixation of
alleles is it´s genuine subject.

Coalescence theory hence can say - based on some 6000 samples
- that the various haplotypes observed today can be traced
back to a single lineage about 150ky+. But it does not and it
can not say that at any point of time within this range the
species HSS was characterized by just this lineage and its
descendants. Likely even the stem population in which mtEve
arose might have harbored more than one haplotype.

E.G. therefore the results of Thornes work at LM3 (although
I'd like to see this repeated) which revealed such an
extinct lineage likely was a big surprise only for
those who took the "mtDNA-Eve" literally, probably
inclusive of you.

And that´s why mtDNA analysis aren't sufficient to exclude an
admixture of non-african archaics.

And here we go to the foggy part:

> Also within autosomal loci that have divergences of more
> than 500 ky, all except 1 loci show that diversity stems out
> of africa (as bleedthrough variation or post constictive
> interbreeding). The remaining loci suffers from
> undersampling in africa.
>
and from a separate message you labeled "PDHA1"

> ...I should remind everyone that the overwhelming majorite
> of 'unfixed' genes demonstrate an african origin,
> suggesting bleed through or post constriction african
> contribution the only exception of genes with deep
> diversity is the PDHA1 gene.."

Well so, I guess you´re talking about PDHA1.

And again I´m amazed how heroical you misrepresent the meaning
of a paper and how little you obviously know about the work of
it's author in general. J. Hey has published a number of
interesting articles in the field molecular evolution, and
hence a guy like you who sticks that hard on the primary
literature ;-> should know the general line somebody is
following.

For anybody who´d like to check out the PNAS paper it is this
one:

Eugene E. Harris and Jody Hey X chromosome evidence for
ancient human histories Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1999)
96, 3320-3324

some more stuff for those who are interested in MolEvol from
th esame author:

Eugene E. Harris, Jody Hey Human Demography in the
Pleistocene: Do Mitochondrial and Nuclear Genes Tell the
Same Story? Evolutionary Anthropology (1999) 8, 81-86

Jody Hey Mitochondrial and Nuclear Genes Present
Conflicting Portraits of Human Origins Mol. Biol. Evol.
(1997) 14(2), 166-172

However,

1) this paper is not intended to "show that [PDHA1] diversity
stems [from] out[side] of africa", instead it reveals that
the PDHA1 gene tree is as old as 1.8 million years, is
separated into two main branches whereby one consists
exclusively of african haplotypes and the other of
non-african + one african haplotype and thus is going to
demonstrate that ancient populations had been structurized
into sub-populations.

2)PDAH1 is not "the only exception of genes with deep
diversity". E.G. beta-globin, ZFX, LPL come into my mind.

3)although, considering a world population of some 6 billion
people, any genetic analysis might "suffer from under
sampling", the observed distribution patterns are unlikely
to be due to chance. Anybody should keep in mind that the
contribution of Neanderthals to mtDNA of modern humans is
excluded based on three samples.

Bottom line,

this paper don´t question an african origin of modern human,
it question the model of die-hard ooA proponents, who are
maintaining that modern humans are descending from a single,
isolated population of some thousand individuals located
somewhere in africa, a conclusion which was basically fueled
by mtDNA analysis. Instead it maintains - as mentioned in 1) -
that the ancestrial population was divided into
sub-populations which were geographical separated. Since
haplotype distribution pattern was as described in 1) africa
was considered as the most parsimonious location of the origin
of the sequences.

So fare for the facts.

I´m not going to waste my time in order to counter whatever
might be behind your superficial blurbs, so just some remarks

In a recent publication in Nature...

Berhane Asfaw ..... Tim D. White Remains of Homo
erectus from Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia Nature 2002
(416), 317-320

...T. White presented the investigation of a 1my H.erectus
calvaria and concluded that early "African and Eurasian fossil
hominids represent demes of a widespread paleospecies", which
btw isn´t just his personal opinion. Given that they are
correct and that the oldest eurasian hominids are about 800ky
older this might indicate that the gene flow between the
continents was sufficient to prevent the erection of a formal
speciation barrier.

Additionally it should be noted that modern H.S.S. as well as
transitional forms aged between 100 and 200 kya have been
found from South Africa to Morocco.

The migration coefficient Nm necessary to keep genetic
homogeneity is estimated to be 1, i.e one emigrant per
generation is sufficient to prevent a speciation from happen.
For modern humans Nm has been estimated to be about 2, for
other species values as far as 0,2 have been observed.

All this should be enough data to support at least the gene
flow between african sub populations, which could give eve´s
single population a hard stance.

>
> See: Neanderthal 4954.pdf and 4955.pdf in Files @
> Group:PaleoAnthro @ Yahoo
>

Wow, guess that´s what one would call a proper reference in
the true scientific manner =;-D

> Science is about gathering data and interpreting it not
> burying our heads in the sand because we don't like the
> interpretation.

an important advise, thanks =8-DD

Michael

[Ejudy]

Bob Keeter wrote:

>..... and a major drain on spare time called Johns Hopkins
>Grad school.

And none too soon! That's probably one of the best cures out
there for a severe case of the debilitating "ivory tower
envy" syndrome.

Good for you! (seriously!) Maybe you'll stop the stupid
potshotting when you start getting cured. Oops!!

ejudy ;-)

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will
save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not
have within you [will] kill you." Jesus

[Philip Dei]

On Sat, 4 May 2002 21:36:57 +0200,
musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de (mb) wrote:

>Guess that means to know how to use MS Word as a "valuable"
>tool of bioinformatics =;-)

Actually wordpad was what the 2000 seq database was published
at and modified in wordpad. The Visual Basic Program uses
that as the information database. Word is only used to make
the results of the sinffer program visually appealing to the
audiance, like Gisele, or for example, Gisele want me to see
something she found, to me. I also use paintbrush to make
clads. I suppose I could scribble them on the back of toilet
paper, put them in coke bottles and throw them into the
Bayou, so that you guys might find the on a shore near you.
Use the media in which most people have access to (Word,
Notepad, WordPad, bmp files or jpeg) and you will go far in
this world. Redicule people for using such media, and the
:^DDDs are on you.

Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[Ejudy]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>
>Per exemplar, bob, as to why you would have difficulty in
>advanced study.
>

In all seriousness Phil, i don't think you are accurate on
this point simply because i have known some ace #1 primo
deluxe model, fat on awards and honors and great
accomplishment, PhD's who are actually changing the world by
a different form of resiliency than what you are talking
about. There are all kinds, IOW. Bob here wouldn't do well in
your world and you wouldn't do well in his but there are
almost infinite varieties of folks to fit a great number of
slots. He'll find a teacher who works with his personality
and he'll do great.

Probably in the super heavy metal rockband structure of TMC he
might not do like you in the subjects you are good in. That's
why we are amazed cuz its a tough place and you have to be
sharp like a razor.

But there are alot of different styles and slots. Alot of the
primatologists that i was aquainted with actually did well if
they could work alone in the field or if they could get so
myopically obsessed over one single tiny footbone in some long
extinct primate that they wouldn't even have to deal with any
other specialists because there are no competators in their
field. There are alone in that way. And they can make good
contributions. One lady who started as a group leader at a
science camp i used to call home had no great background and
in her thirties went back to grad school and specialized in in
anthropology merged with midwifery and now is in scientific
american with articles on the Evolution of Human Birth. I
would say phil would probably scare the ____ out of the ladies
he would have had to study to get where she is now. PLus Phil
you probably couldn't stomach seeing all the placental
deliveries either. But her work is great. She let me put some
illustrations in one of her textbooks too....;-) So i just had
to give a counter argument here. :-)

I am not here commenting on the fundies debate as i am totally
insulted by the rightwing coalitions who sneak in from every
side and try to screw up the time element such that chaos
results in probably the most costly stupid things i can
imagine. Costly in greater terms than money. Costly in wasted
extinctions, wasted childrens educations, wasted resources of
so many kinds....destroyed pieces of the puzzle we are trying
to solve. I find that exceedingly offensive and dangerous for
all of our futures. If bob is a pain on that subject, which he
might not be if nurtured by a great teacher, well then he can
just go share the fundies benchseat in purgatory for eternity.
Go sit next to James Watt.

If this statement: "If you are not looking for hard evidence
of tens or hundreds or thousands of species disappearing
each year, then you aren't going to find it." (-Kirk O.
Winemiller Texas A&M) means nothing to you then you are
totally full of it as that is getting pretty darn close to
hard and painful reality.

If you choose not to look then you will not see. Its an act of
maturity to face the world and act responsibly toward more
than just our tight little petty insignificant lives. But
there is a trick to educate educators on how to get folks
beyond this developmental milestone. Making them all mushy and
faint at heart just delays the solutions as the problems
increase exponentially (denial, head in sand etc..).

I think that's what the jist of phil's statement might be...
correct me if i am wrong. That's what education in science
must include to be real. All the laurals mean nothing compared
to that. And that's what's missing from Bob's posts when he
wastes the time on arguing the wrong priority.

ejudy

[Philip Dei]

On Fri, 03 May 2002 17:56:01 GMT, g-horvat@shaw.ca (Gisele
Horvat) wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2002 10:14:48 -0500, Philip Deitiker
><pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>Do you want to know where the most (longest) length missing
>>connectors are:
>>
>>A> Europe
>>B> Asia
>>C> Americas
>>D> Australia
>>E> Africa.
>>
>>[Hint-Hint of the >4000 sequence I now have in my data base
>>only a few hundred come from africa, where the population is
>>approaching 1 billion and has the deepest diversity. With
>>the exception of segment of the North asia population we can
>>trace exoafrican ancestry of the vast majority of alleles of
>>lHV1 mutation by mutation back to africa, with persistent
>>ancestral alleles as intermediates, this step wise
>>regression fails the moment you cross the sahara.]
>
>In both the coding region and hypervariable regions, there is
>a huge gap between the sequences of sub-saharans and northern
>Africans (or, more accurately, a deep divide between
>sequences labelled as L1/L2 and
>L3). Is this what you are referring to? If so, do you feel
> that this is also due to inadequate sampling? (I'm not
> inclined to think so but I'm interested in your views on
> the subject).

I know you know the answer to this Gisele, its the guys who
think 'all things being held equal' they know anything about
mtDNA progression. And discount it without any thing more than
a transient glimpse.

Part of this is due to sampling, its obvious from what we
obtained from the 2000 and then the sequences from what you
collected in NE, and then the brute force appendations that we
made in NE asia that the african population will not be fairly
represented until thousands of mtDNA alleles are added, with
hundreds more required to bridge the missing regions.

Part of it is also do to the assymetric expansion that I have
been talking about which progressed North and East of the
Congo. It is obvious that the links from the Congo to this may
be swamped by displacements in africa and because the total
size of africa (<1 billion individuals/depth of the african
population (>250 million years) is less than the total size of
the exoafrican population
>5 billion/depth of that diversity (<150 million
years) that more sequence information south of the sahara is
going to be lost from the point of major alleles than in
eurasia. We have therefore a compound problem with the study
of african mtDNA. We have (lower than required sampling) x
(expectedly higher exclusion frequencies of major ancestral
alleles due to the age and size of population). IOW both
explanations are true.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article 46e43451.0205041236.19b5a914@posting.google.com,
ejudy at ejudy@my-deja.com wrote on 5/4/02 3:36 PM:

> Bob Keeter wrote:
>
>> ..... and a major drain on spare time called Johns Hopkins
>> Grad school.
>>
> And none too soon! That's probably one of the best cures out
> there for a severe case of the debilitating "ivory tower
> envy" syndrome.
>
> Good for you! (seriously!) Maybe you'll stop the stupid
> potshotting when you start getting cured. Oops!!
>
>
> ejudy ;-)
>

I THOUGHT that the concept was that I would leave you alone
and you would do me the same favor. Is this the "payback"
for the unconciousable sin of pointing you towards the NOAA
Paleoclimatology center? I did so with no comment
whatsoever, and only because it had an answer to your
question. I was not forming a question here and I certainly
was not aiming it at you.

By the way, I do happen to agree with you that TRUE education
is in fact a cure for the ivory tower syndrome and not a
cause. At least in my humble, ignorant, unsophisticated and
uncultured opinion, EDUCATED people, whatever their field,
should recognize the folly of self-serving egotism of ivory
tower climbing.

Perhaps the truely educated people should even try to use
their abilities and knowledge for the betterment of people
instead of simply trying to strut around like a lofty,
detached, belligerent, and ultimately table-bound bantam
rooster. I trust that if ever I manage to gain some credible
insights and such that I do not use any newfound knowledge to
become that self-important "banty rooster" up in an Ivory
Tower of his own construction!

Now, if you note, this thread was NOT aimed in your
direction. Had nothing to do with you whatsoever until you
traipsed in. I ask, ever so kindly, that you abide by your
own request and I quote,

"Again i will ask to be left out of your vendetta agenda from
now on. I will avoid you, too ok? "

Unless there are several Ejudy's out there, Google does not
lie. So, kindly stay out of my "vendetta agenda", field of
fire, or whatever it actually is. You are NOT my enemy, quit
trying so terribly hard to make it so.

Regards bk

[Philip Dei]

On 4 May 2002 13:36:38 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy) wrote:

>"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will
>save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not
>have within you [will] kill you."

Does that mean he had Nails within him, cause we all gonna die
someday. Might as well be in a downspiraling, engines on fire,
flamefest.

Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[John H. Wi]

"mb" <musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:1fbnjvm.f9zhqg1gvt9o4N%musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de...
> Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
> Coalescence theory hence can say - based on some 6000
> samples - that the various haplotypes observed today can be
> traced back to a single lineage about 150ky+. But it does
> not and it can not say that at any point of time within this
> range the species HSS was characterized by just this lineage
> and its descendants. Likely even the stem population in
> which mtEve arose might have harbored more than one
> haplotype.
>
> E.G. therefore the results of Thornes work at LM3 (although
> I'd like to see this repeated) which revealed such an
> extinct lineage likely was a big surprise only for
> those who took the "mtDNA-Eve" literally, probably
> inclusive of you.
> > And that´s why mtDNA analysis aren't sufficient to
> > exclude an admixture
> of non-african archaics.

Breaking my rule of not posting one this sort of thing.
Above is clear. Thanks.

(snip some references - doubt if these are in the local
little college, but will look.)

>
> Bottom line,
>
> this paper don´t question an african origin of modern human,
> it question the model of die-hard ooA proponents, who are
> maintaining that modern humans are descending from a single,
> isolated population of some thousand individuals located
> somewhere in africa, a conclusion which was basically fueled
> by mtDNA analysis. Instead it maintains - as mentioned in 1)
> - that the ancestrial population was divided into
> sub-populations which were geographical separated. Since
> haplotype distribution pattern was as described in 1) africa
> was considered as the most parsimonious location of the
> origin of the sequences.
>
> So fare for the facts.
>
> In a recent publication in Nature...(snip)
>

which I think I can get.

>
>
> All this should be enough data to support at least the gene
> flow between african sub populations, which could give
> eve´s single population a hard stance.
>
And this is what is not clear. Stance? Any further
elaboration possible?

Regards
John GW

[Ejudy]

Bob wrote :

>... Is this the "payback" for the unconciousable sin of
>pointing you towards the NOAA Paleoclimatology center? I did
>so with no comment whatsoever, and only because it had an
>answer to your question.

For the record, only he knows his own conscience.

ejudy

If one finds a ~big enough~ justification does it make ~less
than~ honorable means acceptable?

[Ejudy]

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in article
<3eba97a6.1270367@netnews.worldnet.att.net> :
>On Mon, 06 May 2002 22:51:00 GMT, Bob Keeter
><rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>How may times do you think that the medical researchers and
>>others who were seeking the passage of this bill told the
>>Honorable Senator from Utah that his religion was a farce
>>and that he was a fool for believing in it?
>
>Think about it you come from a state with a developing
>medical center. The mormons are not the same crack-ball
>fundies as the southern babtist, they may ban human cloning
>in their own states, walla- that kind of research is stopped.
>YOu attract those stem cell guys to your neck of the woods.
>You get patients from all over the world to come, your
>medical center grows, you make money.
>
> In 1940s Baylor University Medical (as in bible thumping
> Baylor, Home of the "nations oldest virgins" and highest
> freshman pregnancy rate), moved from its home in Dallas to
> a subdivided cattle ranch along Braes Bayou in houston. It
> was associated with Methodist Hospital. In the 1960s a guy
> by the name of Micheal DeBakey started doing heart surgery.
> Since that time the medical center has grown in size from 5
> to 20% per year to its current size of 200 buildings and
> 70,000 employees, students and volunteers (average salary
> is 45,000/year) supported by about 3 times as many dollars.
> Medical Center is largest in the world. Medical center is
> now know as the '2nd Downtown'. Were so important we are
> going to get our own train, and Houstonians HATE trains.
> Now if you go back to 1960, heart surgery was pretty
> controversial stuff, take body parts out of pigs and other
> people and putting them into humans was considered
> sacrilidge to many people. But here down in the religious,
> bible thumping tip of the bible belt, Houston, some folks
> thought this was our opportunity to be in the spot-light.
> Houston itself didn't exist until about 1880 and population
> was pretty dinky until the advent of airconditioning. So
> ole baylor became independent of Baylor College, Got a
> Jewish institute, built several buildings, added 5 or 6
> departments, took down the Barbers pole and started
> pretending to be a real medical school, and of course if
> you were good you could follow debakey into the operating
> room. That was 1970. today Baylor college is a huge
> corperation, with a high ________ board of trustees, who
> bring in high $ consultants trained at Harvard business
> school (like Jeff Skilling of Enron fame) to tell us how we
> might actually screw ourselves up faster than we might have
> otherwise screwed ourselves up. Mucho Buckos. The target
> grant $ per square foot of space is $400/sq ft/year
> ($35/month compares with rental space around the medcenter
> at $2/month per square foot but the pay the gas and
> electric). Can you imagine what the target rate for space
> was in 1945? They would have paid you to just come and
> occupy the space and pretend to teach all 5 students who
> would otherwise be muck farming the cattle as a means of
> getting though med school. You would be paid but you would
> have to recruit your patients to get paid. And of course
> you could probably get a sympathy grant from the
> government.
>
>Medical Science is Big business, The med center attraction is
>worth all the sports teams and fine arts centers combined.
>Your a center, you got researchers who think they got a whole
>radical new feild of surgery that will open up the med center
>in your state . . . . . .
>
etc....etc....etc...etc....

This must be Phil's way of trying to entice Bob to move down
and do his graduate school in Houston. ;-))) That's a nice
bOnObO solution.
Dr. Ruth would say you guys have worked your disagreements out
rather nicely.

Cheers! ejudy

OoPs! Wrong newsgroup? What? You are booting me out?
hehehe.....:^D

[Ejudy]

Bob Keeter wrote:
>Phil wrote:

>> In 1940s Baylor University Medical (as in bible thumping
>> Baylor, Home of the "nations oldest virgins" and highest
>> freshman pregnancy rate),

>... Why are you dodging the basic question as posed and
>offering up a story about the mating habits of the Baylor
>coed class and heart surgery?
>

EUREKA! I think i found the answer! Apparently he is trying to
tell you that the freshmen class consists of elderly females
perhaps nestled between the ages of 40 and 45 years of age and
entirely insistant upon finding that "number one" to "make it
so" and i think he was cluing you in on this to get you a bit
more motivated as he seems to read your interests like a book.

Anyway, good luck! Thats enough deciphering for today i would
say. Whew!

ejudy

[Ejudy]

ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy) wrote in article
<46e43451.0205071523.7c041661@posting.google.com> :
>Bob Keeter wrote:
>>Phil wrote:
>
>>>..... Home of the "nations oldest virgins" and highest
>>>freshman pregnancy rate),
>
>
>>... Why are you dodging the basic question as posed and
>>offering up a story about the mating habits of the Baylor
>>coed class and heart surgery?
>>

>Apparently he is trying to tell you that the freshmen class
>consists of elderly females perhaps nestled between the ages
>of 40 and 45 years of age and entirely insistant upon finding
>that "number one" to "make it so" and i think he was cluing
>you in on this to get you a bit more motivated....

.....and the heart surgery specialists are for safety &
reassurance! You are no spring chicken right?

I think this may in fact be a test to see if you can stay
glued to the prime directive.... a test to see what kind of
grad student you would make, "would he chase the elderly
freshman's skirts or keep his nose in the books," IOW.

Man-oh-man, i am good at this de-encryption stuff, eh? Just
pose the questions and i'll find the answers!

ejudy

[Bob Keeter]

in article 46e43451.0205081144.12361f2b@posting.google.com,
ejudy at ejudy@my-deja.com wrote on 5/8/02 2:44 PM:

> Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Per exemplar, bob, as to why you would have difficulty in
>> advanced study.
>>
>
> In all seriousness Phil, i don't think you are accurate on
> this point simply because i have known some ace #1 primo
> deluxe model, fat on awards and honors and great
> accomplishment, PhD's who are actually changing the world
> by a different form of resiliency than what you are
> talking about.

Is it "resiliency" to treat one's fellow man like pond scum
because he does not bow to "truths" brought down from the
proverbial mountain of personal knowledge? Check as I may I
can not find a single definition for "resiliency" that comes
close! And as for the the "ace #1, primo deluxe model, fat on
awards and honors and great accomplishment, PhDs" that you
know, how many of them change the world by spewing invective
and hate at whole classes of people because of religion or
simply because they happen to disagree on some point or
another? How many, Philip excluded of course.

> . . . . . . . . If bob is a pain on that subject, which he
> might not be if nurtured by a great teacher, well then he
> can just go share the fundies benchseat in purgatory for
> eternity. Go sit next to James Watt.

But you see the real PROBLEM is that I dont share that seat.
Matter of fact I feel the exactly same revulsion for the
bigotry and insulting self-congratulating egotism on that side
of the camp as well. Some of the "fundies" as you would call
them, are just as arrogant, just as bigoted, just as
egotistical as Philip at his worst! I think that the problem
is that I CAN separate myself from the pathetically
self-serving religious fanatics because Im simply not very
religious myself. I cant separate myself from science and I
take great offense when someone insist on perpetrating the
image of a scientist way up in that "Ivory Tower" way above
and totally oblivious of the realities of the human world. I
get all pumped up not because Im a religous fanatic, but
because someone, who in a certain sense I might even consider
"family", would insist on crapping right in