--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "evolutionary deterioration." >
Foget that all the papers sited reference only this one guy who's paper there is no sign of, and who has not performed a single experiement in support of his hypothisis (which is what it is). Zhang actualy references ED which is a very questionable hypothysis. IMMHO (and teaching)->(minor in bio) It's been 5 years but I did take a whole class on evolution and diversity and the prof did spend a whole 2 sessions debunking ED. Evolution only happens when there is a significant force, and usualy a geographic seperation. Genes don't just deteriorate unless there is a significant reason why that gene was a disadvantage. (over specialization is still a disadvantage). So curious George Zhang needs to provide a test showing that pheramones do not work at all in humans. And have a model that explains why pheramones were a disadvantage. As it is George claims that the genes for our pheramone erseptors are "pseudogenes---they don't function any more" but we know this not to be the case. Unless of course you beleive that others have published "statistical bumps". But that only happens in exploritories. You generaly don't get statistical anomolies with a large enough sample space,and if you do, the secondaries generaly find it. Fool, why don't you run off and find us some nice papers on "statistical bumps" and ED? Becouse this is really were we disagree. BTW the paper seems to have been pulled from PNAS. Also you might want to take a look at this (http://www.eeb.lsa.umich.edu/eebfacultydetails.asp?ID=96) I am not sure I trust this source for this sort of information. ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
