What mitochondria and Y chromosomes tell us about marriage...

Posted 23 August 2004 by PZ Myers

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/what-mitochondr.html

The Loom has been quiet for most of the summer, but Carl Zimmer is back with a lucid summary of recent data on human genome evolution—and it may be a little disquieting to those who think monogamy is natural and traditional and the only properly human way to propagate.

8 Comments

Wayne Francis · 23 August 2004

Charlie, I imagine you are mass cross posting this. Please keep it to sites that are relevant. I say this not because of my political views but for respect of others. Sure those that don't care could skip it but if everyone does this then sites like this become like so many others sites that have just got swamped with useless information for what the site was originally set up for.

Don't read into this anything but the fact that PT is place to "discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

While your post might fit under "share good conversation" it is better served in the appropriate location even on PT, The bathroom wall.

PZ Myers · 23 August 2004

Yes, or on my site, where I don't mind blathering about politics. But not here.

Reed A. Cartwright · 24 August 2004

I've dumped Charlie's comments to the bathroom wall.

charlie wagner · 24 August 2004

Charlie, I imagine you are mass cross posting this.

No. That would be spamming, and I disapprove of that. I target very carefully to interested persons. I know how strongly many of you feel about creationism in schools (as do I) so I felt this was a more than appropriate place to offer this information.

charlie wagner · 24 August 2004

sites like this become like so many others sites that have just got swamped with useless information for what the site was originally set up for.

One of the purposes of this site is to "defend the integrity of both science and science education,". George Bush is blatently anti-science and supports the Christian fundamentalist agenda. What could be more appropriate than working to remove him from office? It's certainly a lot more productive than what usually happens here, beating the earth where a horse stood 10 years ago.

PZ Myers · 24 August 2004

I think PT at least aspires to be non-partisan, although I agree that Bush is making that very hard to do.

If you really want to sound off, send a request to me and I can create an open thread on Pharyngula, and everyone can rant away about politics all they want. Here, it would be better if you responded to the actual topic in the opening article.

charlie wagner · 24 August 2004

If you really want to sound off, send a request to me and I can create an open thread on Pharyngula, and everyone can rant away about politics all they want. Here, it would be better if you responded to the actual topic in the opening article.

You don't win these battles being a "summer soldier". Sometimes you have to take risks and annoy people to get their attention. This is too important to ignore. Why don't you post more substantive anti-Bush stuff on your site? Quoting Jon Stewart is all well and good, but there's HARD news out there that never gets to see the light of day, like the new evidence revealed by the Washington Post, that was buried in the 49th paragraph of a news story: "But how did the Post present this new info? Incredibly, they buried the new info way near the end of a lengthy, detailed report. Indeed, if readers wanted to learn these new facts, they had to read almost to the end of a 4100-word story!" http://www.dailyhowler.com

Bob Maurus · 29 September 2004

What happened to the thread about sexual selection? I was really looking forward to Gary McGuire's next post to see if he'd outdo himself.