Is This For Real?

OR: A Question for Evolutionary Biologists

My buddy runs a Yahoo Group called Quazipseudo. It's kinda personal, and only a few of us are on it by invitation so far. For that reason, I'm not linking to the group.

Today he posted a link with the humorous headline:
"oh no, dad,,,, we're all devo" which linked to a story on the World Science website. The site is new to me, but a quick perusal shows an accurate assortment of current topics in science news and ... well, below is my take on the story. I've really been quite happily busy workin' at my day job (lol!) and haven't had any real chance to Google this. Then it occurred to me to post on it here.
mostly because I really don't give a **expletive**.


> why don't you do the research - i don't read past the headlines much, but i
> always thought this site was pretty scientific, which is why i bother to read
> the headlines.
>Feign outrage.
>> i suspect a hoax
>> jK

Oh my JimJimmyJim! LOL!

Well, it's NOT what you would call a Hoax. It's a fairly, hhhmmm, poorly worded but, apparently, valid theory.

The fact is that "devolution" is more of a loaded term than, to my knowledge, a serious concept.

Devolution is Evolution. Evolution simply means
change in allele frequency over time. This naturally describes the overall process of biological existence. Species evolve, not forward or backward, but simply over time..

Without further study of the particulars of Uner's research, I'll just say that he appears to be onto an extraordinary neuro-muscular disorder which
appears to have a genetic modifier. That last is what could quite possibly give it some importance in understanding some of the details of the evolution of our own species.

It's funny how "human" scientists are. You'd think they were, um, well, like the rest of us or something.


Thanks for the link Jack. Maybe I'll run it by one of the biology professors I read to see what they think of this disorder and Uner's treatment of and theories on it.

My hope is that someone more knowledgable who may be passing by might have some information or a more educated opinion, at any rate, on the veracity of Dr Tan's research.

If I've made a mess of my explanation to the group, as is always the case, I am quite open to taking a good dressin' down on the relevant points. I unequivocally do
not want to be a one who spreads BS, no matter how good are my intentions.

As I say in the comment to the group, I really don't think it's a hoax. But there's just something peculiar tingling' my non-scientifically-trained-spidey-senses on this story.

Of course, if I don't get any feedback on this here, I'll do the Google. I'm just not exactly sure how to go about dehoaxificatin' a workin' scientist's work. The length of this post should be evidence that I don't really lack the time nor motivation to do as much.
(I promise boss! I'm workin' on a laptop and two desktops along with this post!!! .)

Hopefully Yours



Popular Posts