At 06:00 AM 06/07/2000 +0800, you wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>Here are excerpts from BBC, Electronic Telegraph and CNN from 18 May-6 June
>2000, with my comments in square brackets.
>
>Steve
>
>=====================================================
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_778000/778413.stm BBC
>... 5 June, 2000 ... Celera finished
>mapping Drosophila melanogaster in March and believe as many as 60% of
>the fly's genes will be found in human beings. This science, comparative
>genomics, is expected to open many new areas of research into the way
>genes work and the role they play in disease." [It is interesting that the
>closer they get to sequencing the human genome, the more cautious are the
>assessments of its immediate usefulness!]
It is also extremely interesting that you ignored the main point of this
article which is that Drosophila and humans share a majority of their "design."
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000113078204876&rtmo=LlLGdNLd&atmo=ttttllSd
>&pg=/et/00/5/31/nsec31.html
>Electronic Telegraph ... 31 May 2000. Poll boost for Section 28 ... ... Mr
>Souter said he would drop his campaign if the importance of marriage were
>stressed in teaching and said the "moderate" demands had already been
>conceded by Westminster. He said: "Holyrood is now looking isolated and
>extreme." [Probably off-topic, but it does shows that adherence to
>traditional `Christian' morality is not yet dead among ordinary people, who
>may not have had the `value' of a materialist university education, even
>if it
>may be dead among most politicians and bureaucrats who have!]
Definitely off topic, not that you've ever been bothered by that. You
snipped this bit:
"However, George McGregor, of the pro-repeal campaign, said: 'Brian Souter
spent millions on this ballot. We are delighted that the people of Scotland
have rejected such a shameful chequebook democracy and that 72 per cent of
Scots have snubbed Souter.'"
and thanks for this peek into macromutations:
>"We conclude-unexpectedly-that there is little evidence for the neo-
>Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence
>supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect
>are sometimes important in adaptation." (Orr H.A., & Coyne J.A., "The
>Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," The American Naturalist, Vol.
>140, No. 5, November 1992, p.726)
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 20:21:17 EDT