[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: dino dna



Telling listproc to reject messages from non-subscribers has
definitely saved us a lot of trouble.  But it's also caused some.  The
following was submitted by Chip Pretzman, but it was rejected because
he apparently didn't send it from his usual address.  In the future,
I'll probably forward messages like this as well as make provisions
causing listproc to recognize subscribers from alternate addresses
(e.g. if in the future Chip sends mail from the address below,
listproc will know it's him and act accordingly).  In those cases (and
this one!) please make you know who wrote what if you choose to
respond.  Thanks, -- Mickey

  From: Charles I Pretzman <cpretzma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
  Message-Id: <199510291813.NAA22320@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
  Subject: Re: dino dna
  To: Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu
  Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:13:18 -0500 (EST)
  Cc: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu

  Sorry Tom, I have to strenuously disagree. If you have read my other
  postings, morphology is at best representative of only 2% of any
  organisms' genome. My data indicates a mammalian-dinosaur common
  ancestor at the age I indicate.  However, this is not an
  absolute. This is based on a small portion of a certain clock gene,
  which has been proven to be a reliable clock.  Until more DNA data
  is available, there is always a grey area.  Albeit, this data is
  important because it agrees with divergence times shown by fossil
  record. Morphological similarities do not have to be present, and
  their absence in no way implies that the gene tree that I have,
  based on the sequence data, is wrong.  Morphology does not
  accurately reflect eovlutionary history of any organism.  Morphology
  and physiologogy, for all intensive purposes, are unlinked.
  Molecular data reflects far more physiological adaptation than does
  morphology.  By the way, fossil morphology does not, and cannot
  define a species, so that should be a clue to you when you begin to
  compare my gene trees to your morphological trees. I do not wish to
  be offensive, but you need to take a wider viewpoint. You are not to
  blame for your attitude, you are just caught up in a transition
  because hitherto, genetics has not played any meaningful role in the
  study of extinct lifeforms. It is beginning to, and this technology
  will accelerate our understanding of extinct life.  The advent of
  this technology will not result in the waning of paleontology in the
  conventional sense, because, as one other correspondent made clear,
  I can't do anything without the fossils.  
  -Chip Pretzman