I did not save all of my moderation edits, especially the short ones, because most of them were issued via a board mechanism called Private Message (PM). I only have copies of those I happened to save in MS Word before I copied them to the PM send page. The Jimlad message is from an email I sent myself from work to home.


PM (MS Word date): Jan 10, 10:05pm

>Your post in "Evolutionists, I like the way you think" dated Jan.
>08 2002,06:31 would have been deleted under the new guidelines,
>but will remain due to the Super Administrator's decision to
>grandfather posts before the new guidelines took affect last night.
>Posts that falsely use the word "lie" will simply be deleted. You
>need to learn the difference between "lie" and "mistake". In this
>particular case it is very clear that the creationist was
>mistaken, not lying.
>Your use of the phrase "fundamentalist ghetto" would have also
>disqualified the post as a troll.
>Please read the updated guidelines. I checked some of your other
>posts, and you seem to be OK most of the time.
>Your most recent post in the thread is acceptable.
>Moderator 3
>Faramir's reply:
>Your comments noted and taken on board.



(Note: Unfortunately JB did not receive this. See Footnote 2)

PM (MS Word date): Jan 10, 10:34pm

Post deleted


Your recent post in "Mosaics" has been deleted. Please read the recently updated guidelines.

For your convenience I have included it below if you choose to make the necessary modification (sorry about the formatting).

In short, the line "Perhaps you just got the idea from extrapolating an out-of-context Gould quote about mosaics as they apply to evolutionary theory?" was the reason your post was removed, as this is an unsubstantiated claim. The rest of your post was acceptable. In fact, reviewing other posts you have made indicates to me that you won't have much of a problem adhering to the new guidelines.

Please take this as an adjustment phase, or shall I say "adaptation" phase, toward the guidelines OCW now wishes to adhere to.

Moderator 3


Jimlad, your post below has been deleted. The primary reason is your request that Remine explain to you for a third time why you are wrong regarding the neutral rate. Two explanations were more than sufficient.

My comments appear in [].

Moderator 3


Jan. 12 2002,21:19    

Quote (Walter ReMine @ Jan. 13 2002,02<!--emo&)
On Haldane's Dilemma

The question is whether you have evidence that [genetic diversity happened rapidly]

No, the question was whether Haldane's Dilemma is a problem for the rapid creation of "genetic diversity".  Answer: No.  They are largely separate issues.

I don't know who you're quoting here, but that's certainly not what I said.
Let's look at what I really said:

The question is whether you have evidence that
b) the genetic load incurred by this tremendous mutation rate [producing deleterious mutations] can be circumvented.

Moderator: [ why did you elipse out a)? If you read your statement, particularly a), it certainly sounded like you were referring to “rapid creation of genetic diversity". I got this impression before I read Walter's reply. However, the biggest problem with your post follows…]

Either you were quoting someone else or you are misrepresenting me...

But further up you really did quote me:
I merely pointed out that the mutations have to be fixed; the fixation speed is 4Ne, so even assuming very small populations, a horrendous number of neutral mutations would have to be fixed in parallel. (Jimlad)

I did not misread his post.  He is mistaken.  The overall average neutral substitution rate is given solely by the neutral mutation rate, and the population size is irrelevant.  The "fixation speed" of a given neutral mutation is likewise irrelevant, because the are "fixed in parallel".

In what way am I mistaken?

Moderator: [Jimlad, Remine has already answered this twice. You are cluttering this thread by continually asking why you are wrong on what is a black&white issue, and thus why I removed your post. Population size is irrelevant to fixation rate of neutral mutations. Any population genetics textbook will give you your answer.]

I never claimed that the time it takes a mutation to reach fixation determines the substitution rate.

My point was that all these neutral mutations would have to have been substituted in parallel and this would necessitate very high mutation rate.

Do you have evidence for this [high mutation rate]?