A higher percentage than @gpuccio, @Agauger, and Doug Axe combined.
And you?
I am very, very confident that I am not. I have far more experience studying mutant proteins that he does.
Did you know that, Bill?
1 Like
I some times get the impression Bill has taken it upon himself to act out the pretense that there is a genuine scientific debate going on. As if there are two camps with equally well supported and valid arguments. So Bill will try to come up with some way to couch the preceding discussion in this kind of language where we just “come to different conclusions” and “that’s fine”. See guys, see, it’s a real scientisimaly debate. There are graphs and big numbers! Some of them have PhD’s!
4 Likes
I don’t know for sure but @Art claimed in his PT article that the misrepresentation came from others. I think guys like Meyer have toned down their rhetoric at this point.
If you confident in your position there is no reason to be in denial that the opposing opinion has merit.
The way you shut down the opposition is by creating a model and testing it of how major innovations are formed by what ever natural mechanism you select.
Until that time you are stuck in a debate about what the best inference is given the data.
Bill, this is ridiculous. The antecedent of “that” is the fact that I have far more experience studying mutant proteins that Axe does.
Did you know that, Bill?
Given you are a molecular biologist by trade and proteins are your field of study I would think your probably right.
Unless it has no merit, as evidence by a sample size of ONE.
Already done. Are you shutting down?
There’s no debate. Only one “side” is producing new data and moving the field forward. The other “side” is pretending that it’s about debating, not about producing new data.
Does that cause you to weigh my opinions accordingly, or is agreement with what you wish to be true the only relevant criterion?
What is the model?
Yeah, that’s called the theory of evolution. That’s how it works.
Axe claimed it in the abstract, man!
" The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
How can you take such strong positions when you have so little idea about what’s going on?
1 Like
Maybe is not a strong position. Its a far cry from the ID.position that the experiment proves evolution is impossible.
The ID position comes from Axe. Has he gone further outside the confines of a scientific paper?
Thats an interesting question given the standards of evolutionary biology. I real papers that assume the eukaryotic cell evolved from the prokaryotic cell. That type of assumption is not consistent with the experimental papers I have read in the cancer field. What do you think?
I think you’re making shirt up. On the spot.
2 Likes
This is your opinion but show me a group of papers outside of evolution that make sweeping assumptions about what happened in the past.
No, how about you show those papers that just assume “the eukaryotic cell evolved from the prokaryotic cell”, and the “experimental papers [you] have read in the cancer field” that are supposedly “not consistent” with it?
I mean, this is you making stuff up Bill. Literally just flat out making stuff up.
2 Likes
Biologists make conclusions about what happened in the past based on evidence.
3 Likes
38 posts were split to a new topic: Who has most expertise?