AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Starbuck

form_srcid: Starbuck

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: Starbuck

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Starbuck%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2011/11/11 11:28:07, Link
Author: Starbuck
Regarding the last link to Kirk K Durston's paper, you might want to point him to this:

Date: 2011/11/12 11:28:04, Link
Author: Starbuck
His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have  both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it?

<a href="">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects.

But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population.  And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations.

Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights.  And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations.  Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

Date: 2011/11/12 17:52:19, Link
Author: Starbuck
I was responding to Southstar's link. By "His" I meant Jerry Fodor.

Date: 2011/12/02 09:15:31, Link
Author: Starbuck
Aren't chondrites more than enough to get the job done?

Date: 2012/01/11 23:00:25, Link
Author: Starbuck
Not sure what you're talking about, small proteins are evolutionarily recent additions to the repertoires of molecules. Moreover, proteins that are part of metallomes such as the proteins harboring single metal atoms are relatively recent, especially the Zinc fingers [see paper by Dupont et al. PNAS 107: 10567 (2010)], which are gene regulatory factors that act very specifically on DNA.

There is a model that is supported by phylogenomic data on how modern biochemistry proceeded in evolution and in the model ran associated with proteins appears quite late in evolution well after metabolic protein enzymes.

Date: 2012/01/12 10:17:38, Link
Author: Starbuck
Where does it say that?

Date: 2012/01/12 14:06:49, Link
Author: Starbuck
The seeming incongruity is caused by the diversity of Zn fingers, or the small cysteine-rich Zn binding protein
folds.  There are 28 "fold superfamilies" that are small cysteine-rich Zn binding proteins and 76 protein families nested within that.   Most of these evolved very late and most are only found in eukaryotes.  But it looks like there are a select few zinc fingers and beta ribbons that evolved very early and are found in all bacteria and archaea as well.

Date: 2012/02/14 11:40:43, Link
Author: Starbuck
SRP-GTPases are post-LUCA ( Leipe et al., J
Mol Biol. 2002 Mar 15;317(1):41-72.)

Date: 2012/02/17 06:56:16, Link
Author: Starbuck
Sorry meant to write "pre". (wires crossed)

Date: 2012/03/05 14:41:52, Link
Author: Starbuck
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

Date: 2012/03/09 12:08:30, Link
Author: Starbuck
I don't see the data as consistent with there being clean splits and a large effective population size after the split
from gorilla and before that between chimpanzee and human.  This doesn't mean that there was no later interbreeding, it is just not necessary to infer that.

Date: 2012/05/31 10:57:02, Link
Author: Starbuck
Whenever i go to it takes me to an error page. I can probably fix that for you.

Date: 2012/05/31 13:57:19, Link
Author: Starbuck
<a href="">These guys</a> aren't even trying to hide their creationism anymore.


With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once.  We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.
habilis.  But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

Date: 2012/05/31 13:58:17, Link
Author: Starbuck
Messed that up. Referring to here

Date: 2013/04/16 12:14:49, Link
Author: Starbuck
Is that the four horsemen of ID

Date: 2014/01/13 16:34:29, Link
Author: Starbuck