And this is not Stadler’s opinion, in the video (have you watched it?) he says papers had been brought to his attention as possible refutations, so he examined them, and found they did not refute his view.
Well, I was addressing Roy’s complaint that he expected Stadler’s referenced studies to be about knockout experiments, also apparently also claiming that Stadler’s view (or the experimenters’ view?) is that only those two knocked-out mutations could be considered to restore functionality, those two mutations were specifically sought, in the experiment.
And Matheson’s comment, you would consider intelligent discussion? And please explain to me how “outright lying”, for instance, is what I am doing. Lying involves knowingly making a false statement, with malicious intent. How do you all know my intent is malicious? I get these kinds of accusations constantly here, which do somehow get past the moderators…