Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Gish:  Man, Bullfrog, and Ape
Message-ID: <1468@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 17:28:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1468
Posted: Mon Sep 16 17:28:32 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 07:16:34 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 49



There has been in the past, both in this newgroup and in other
forums, mention of a reference to statements by Duane Gish in which he
alleged that there were proteins for which the human version was more
similar to the corresponding protein of the bullfrog than to that of
an ape.

This is usually brought up in context of the implication that Gish is
dishonest and/or incompetent.  I am not interested in that question.
What did interest me was the source of Gish's assertion.  So I wrote
to him and asked about it.  No answer.  Not wishing to jump to a
conclusion, I wrote again, several months later.  This time he
responded, first with warm appreciation for the bug fixes to
references in his book that I sent (note this, people: my letter was
somewhat critical, but he received it gladly), and also with the
explanation.  I'm sure this will be of interest to a number of people.

Gish attended a seminar on human origins at U California-Davis on
March 5 and 6, 1977.  One talk was by Garniss Curtis, who, not liking
the date suggested by such studies for the man-ape split, wanted to
derogate these sorts of investigations.  He said, therefore, that
serum albumins of the bullfrog and man were practically identical and
so man was as close to the bullfrog as the ape.  (I am paraphrasing
Gish's reply because I do not want to quote personal correspondence.)

Apparently an evolutionist wrote to Curtis about this and then he said
that he heard it from another party and was only kidding anyway.  Gish
noted that when he discovered this it was with some surprise, for he
did not feel that this was the intention at the time of the talk, nor
does he get a different impression from listening again to the tape.

Postscript for Bill Jefferys: I said in my mail message that Gish did
not intend to use this information again.  I note now on rereading
that he still assumes the information is correct, just that Curtis
won't stand behind it.  This is a disappointment to me.  I don't think
the assertion should be made until some study is produced as at least
preliminary verification.  So I guess I'll write another letter.


By the way, Gish's book will be coming out in a new edition in a month
or two, and will be retitled _Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record_.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"A mind like cement:  thoroughly mixed and permanently set"         |


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com