Mr Dreaming man.
I’ve directed you to my publications. I see you aren’t prepared to do the same. I’ve told you, look on your PubMed site. God, I’d never been there before last night, and I found my way around. Search aro9 ncrassa and be prepared to search. It’s actually the only paper on the subject. It turned out to be very difficult to sequence, and demonstrated multiple polymorphisms when cloned in several vectors and hosts. It’s been of interest to me to see no-one else has managed any work on it since I did.
But no matter how often I tell you of my work, you cant find it and that leaves you free to blame me somehow.
I note you have not answered one of the scientific questions I put up, neither of mine nor of Freds.
I have a simple conjecture - which I’m too honest to call an hypothesis.
1. That the fossil record is incomplete and too minimal to explain how species exist
2. that observations of differences in the morphology of varies species only demonstrates aspects of the use of that morphology and can tell us nothing of how they came into being
3. That when questing possible answers, one can often use a fact that is demonstrated which has a relationship to the question at hand
4. that we do know that all aspects of cellular and molecular structure and activity depend on an array of characteristics of their environment to both structure themselves in a specific way and to be fully functional
5. that everything interacts with everything else around it, one way or another
6. that this offers the “blueprint” that given all the giverns of what life on this earth consists of, which go to defining what life is, there could, ultimately, be only one way that life molecules can exist, and therefor there may be limited ways they can interact, leading to the final, that there is a limited range possible for morphology to be on this earth, and that, withing a narrow range of minor variations, everything that is here has always been here in pretty much its current form.
It’s not difficult to apprehend. It follows all the laws of science, and where it has variations open to debate, they should be debated.
Instead you chose to act, as you put it yourself, like a jerk.
Goodbye Mr. Dreamer.
Still no paper. And it is your paper. Thanks for saying so.
The following term was not found: ncrassa.
See Details.
and only the three Belgian papers on aro9.
please copy and paste the address.
Can you answer any of the criticisms of your “summation” of the “problems of evolution” given by ahayes in post #114? Why should anyone take you seriously when the postulates that led to your “conjecture!!” (double !! mandatory) are so fundamentally ill informed?