Karl R. Altenburg ("Evolution is a fact.")
North Dakota State University,
Fargo, ND 58105
altenbur@plains.NoDak.edu
Mark Barton ("Excuse a lurker physicist butting in.")
Institute for Cosmic Ray Research,
Tokyo Uni.
mbarton@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Ralph M. Bernstein ("Come on Jeff, answer the question! ")
Department of Micro/Immuno
University of Arizona
ralph@ccit.arizona.edu
http://lamprey.medmicro.arizona.edu
Richard A. Boyd ("ALL evolution relies on mutation.")
Northwest Nexus Inc.
richboyd@halcyon.com
William A. Brindley ("The place to look for answers to evolutionary problems is to the stream of publications from the main-line scientists who have researched these issues.")
Utah State University
brindley@cc.usu.edu
Greg Buchanan ("I dont see how micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution.")
gbuchanan@dhvx20.csudh.edu
James Bush ("Species differentiation is strictly subjective")
University of Washington
jbush@gate.net
Don Cates ("The *pattern* of the differences across different organisms ... is completely consistent with evolution but requires some sort of special pleading for both Dr. S and creationists.")
The University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada
cates@cc.umanitoba.ca
Chris Colby ("Mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation. Without it, evolution would grind to a halt.")
colby@bio.bu.edu
David Coutts ("Does he really suggest that complete and well adapted organisms are supposed to have crawled out of his pond...? This scenario is so absurd that I assume that I have misinterpreted what I have read here.")
d.coutts1@physics.oxford.ac.uk
Joachim Dagg ("He should overthink his ideas, I suggest. I'm convinced of the evidence speaking for Darwinian evolution.")
Technical University of Berlin
Germany
joaccigh@hydra.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Craig Duncan ("Evolution is real.")
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
cgdn@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Jeff E. ("I have found not the theory of evolution hard to grasp, but the insistence of evolutionists to use molecular evidence in supporting the theory.")
jaeseca@delphi.com
Wesley R. Elsberry ("Senapathy probability apparently not only disproves 'common descent', but ordinary descent as well.")
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences
Artificial neural networks
Galveston, TX
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/
welsberr@orca.tamu.edu
Mike F. ("I'm trying to figure out whether or not evolution is actually possible.")
mike_f@delphi.com
D.R. Forsdyke ("There may be other exon theories of genes, as well as the exon theory of genes, i.e. the introns-early theory.")
FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Glenn A. Friedrich ("The hypothesis [the lack of introns in modern prokaryotes could be a more recently evolved adaptation] is really fascinating and probably has shed some light on the long standing debate over whether intron-containing genes existed before the intron-less genes of prokaryotes.")
The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
gfriedri@fred.u.washington.edu
Neil Foglia ("By enabling micro-mutations to take hold more quickly in
smaller populations macro-evolution becomes possible.")
eilfoglia@aol.com
Warren Gallin ("What you are proposing is that pools of
rotting meat spontaneously gave rise to new, variant organisms. What we have here is a theory of special creation, no more, no less. Calling it something different doesn't make it something different.")
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Roger Gary ("[Heterochrony is a mechanism ... that works with selection to produce the patterns of macroevolution we see], and I think this is also evidence that Dr. Senapathy is wrong.")
Senior, Dept. of Geology
College of Natural Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
rodgerdodger@mail.utexas.edu
Greg ?? ("To prove that evolution can occur, there needs to be a
scientifically verified, and indisputable example of evolution above the
species level.")
Monash University
Melbourne, Victoria
Australia
gskas1@cc.monash.edu.au
Moshira Hassan ("I personally strongly believe in the concept of evolution. I tend to consider it a fact.")
mhassan@geomar.de
Josh Hayes ("I could have been hoodwinked on this one,
but I really don't think this person is a creationist.")
Moderator, sci.bio.evolution
Center for Quantitative Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~josh
josh@cqs.washington.edu
Robert B. Hole ("And evolution is a fact. There is a change over time in all lineages that have been examined (here's a simple one: you're not identical to your parents), therefore, evolution occurs.")
rbh2@Ra.MsState.Edu
Guy Hoelzer ("I can't see how it is possible that any hypothesis such as you describe would be at all consistent with the fossil record.")
Dept. of Biology
University of Nevada Reno
Reno, NV
hoelzer@unr.edu
Tom Holroyd ("I like the idea of self-assembly.")
tomh@bambi.ccs.fau.edu
Tim Ikeda ("Why the heck should the mitochondrial and chloroplast
sequences produce the same trees as everything else if not by common
descent?")
Kustu Lab
UC Berkeley
timi@mendel.berkeley.edu
Ingrid Jakobsen ("For me, the theory doesn't even get off the ground. Can we get away from this Senapathy nonsense and back to some science, please?")
Human Genetics Group
John Curtin School of Medical Research
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT
ingrid@helios.anu.edu.au
Steve La Bonne ("Introns-late pulls the rug out from under Senapathy's fundamental argument.")
The University at Albany
labonnes@cnsunix.albany.edu
Cliff Lundberg ("Are we justified in assuming that an intermediate form is a transitional form? The hard evidence -- close fossil sequences among indisputably related organisms -- shows reduction and distortion, not new anatomical complexity originating.")
trola@aol.com
Andrew MacRae ("You have quite a bit more research to do before you can say your model accurately reflects the evidence, let alone refutes evolutionary theory.")
http://geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/current_projects.html
macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
Alix Martin ("The existence of non coding DNA sequences
might be necessary to allow macro-mutations during the evolution process.")
martina@inf.enst.fr
Jeffrey Mattox ("It sounds plausible to me.")
Madison, WI
Email me
Shane McKee ("The dying embers of the Senapathy hypothesis could provide a spark of inspiration for someone in the future.")
Dr Shane McKee
Royal Hospitals
Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Shane@reservoir.win-uk.net
Joe Morlan ("Reality check. Senapathy's theory is clearly false because it presumes a fact [the pond] which is not in evidence.")
Albany, CA
jmorlan@slip.net
Laurence A. Moran ("We recognize that Senapathy's ideas are not supported by the available data (not to mention his strange view of evolution).")
Toronto, Canada
lamoran@utcc.utoronto.ca
Bob Morse ("I've been very disappointed to see the knee-jerkishly arrogant -- and decidedly UNscientific -- reactions to ... his genome research and its implications for evolution theory.")
Badger SoftWerks
Mt. Horeb, WI
morse@inxpress.net
Ron Nadel ("The fossil record is one of the reasons that evolution of life on earth is considered to be a fact.")
NADEL@litc.lockheed.com
Mark Newman ("I also know of at least one case in which an intron has a function, even though it is not translated.")
Research Associate
Cornell Theory Center
newmme@msc.cornell.edu
Phil Nicholls ("Microevolution and macroevolution are
distinguished from each other on the basis of reversibility.")
pnich@globalone.net
Dave Oldridge ("Senapathy simply does bad math, [and] he ignores evidence that doesn't back up his theory.")
doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
Patrick O'Neil ("Senapathy is deluded and clearly does not really understand mutation dynamics, nor statistics. He is nothing more than a cloaked creationist. Senapathy is clueless, to be polite.")
University Of Utah Computer Center
corona!patrick@uunet.uu.net
Pitt ("Natural selection does not demand and instant replay.")
University of Washington
pitt@sci.wfeb.edu
Dan Phelps ("If the information I received is representative, you will be ignored. This is because you have ignored relevant information from fields such as paleontology in which you display remarkable ignorance. I suggest that this nonsense ... be taken to talk.origins where it belongs.")
The University of Kentucky
JFCOST00@ukcc.uky.edu
Steve Pridgeon ("Evolution and natural selection are both observable phenomena; the *theory* is that one is the result of the other.")
uq462@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Keith Robison ("Senapathy's book is utterly awful.
Most of the book is uncritical self-congratulation mixed in with uninformed distortions of evolutionary science.
...
Senapathy's theory is, overall, a complete loss. It simply isn't compatible with an awful lot of data.
...
Of course it is completely absurd! Just about everything is either far beyond the realm of plausibility or completely wrong.
...
Senapathy's assertions are almost universally either contrary to known data or require implausible assumptions.
...
Senapathy can't even get his supporting facts straight -- why let the facts get in the way of a cool hypothesis?
...
Senapathy's book is a grossly flawed exercise in self-delusion.
...
Senapathy's book is nothing but a stew of assumptions, with a seasoning of untruths disguised with a thin glaze of facts.
...
Senapathy's calculations are just smoke.
...
Senapathy is so good with equations because he picks trivial ones.
...
Put in a fair fight with modern evolutionary theory, Senapathy's theory just doesn't offer any promise.
...
Jeff, I am wearing out. I try to stay calm, but his book is just so maddening!")
Harvard University
Department of Cellular and Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI
robison@mito.harvard.edu
Andrew Roger ("It is likely that the common ancestor
of all eukaryotes, if it had introns, had very very few, much less
than 1 per kilobase of mRNA")
Dalhousie University
aroger@ac.dal.ca
Periannan Senapathy ("I find that many molecular biologists at NIH and at universities are open to my arguments, although they are not the ones who post on these forums. It is mostly those who are still bent on not seeing the truth who seem to be posting here. ... I can't help noticing that many of my critics have raised questions that are fully answered in my book, and I therefore feel obliged to note that one can reasonably comment about a theory only when he or she completely understands it.")
Genome International Corporation
Madison, WI
http://www.genome.com/ibo/index.html
sena@genome.com
Una Smith ("Senapathy tries to solve the problem by sweeping vast amounts of messy evidence under his rug, and then trying to distract
everyone by pointing out how neat and small his rug is.")
Department of Biology
Yale University
una@doliolum.biology.yale.edu
Arlin Stoltzfus ("[There is] an objective and falsifiable test of the independent birth theory. One may quantify the expectations for random congruence of tree topologies, as predicted by the independent birth theory, and compare this to observations.")
Dept. Biochemistry
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada
arlin@ac.dal.ca
Peter H. Weis ("The latest wrench thrown into the wheels of evolution are the results of two independent studies where researchers eliminated the genes for glucose assimilation in bacteria, then placed them into a glucose solution.")
pweis@Direct.CA
Weisman ("Even if we assume the proteins are part of the primal pool, could a single cell grow into an entire animal in any conceivable primal pond?")
University of Albany, SUNY
dw3933%albnyvms.BITNET@uacsc2.albany.edu
Chip Young ("I read somewhere, probably Science News, that the supposed non-coding DNA is quite stable.")
Rutgers University
chyoung@gandalf.rutgers.edu
Other (details unknown):
? (ylgdraith@aol.com) ("Senapathy's theory may have some validity, I believe, but I believe he's trying to extend it too far.")
ylgdraith@aol.com
[