Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
A good definition of the mutability statistic
The work of Dr. Erie sounds interesting. I don't see that anything I wrote has any bearing on it.
because you probably read just an abstract it was over 12,000 words in PDF
-bump-
Neat stuff.
Apology accepted. :-) And yes, it is a fascinating article. Thanks for posting it.
I'm impressed. I have trouble with with tiny screws on glasses.
"Why?" is often answered with "because." This is well within bounds for science. By whose authority are the limits of scientific inquiry set?
Still, given that both molecules were attached to big glass beads, one has to wonder whether the results were affected by that fact. It sorta sounds like asking somebody to enter a race dragging a ball and chain -- would you expect him to compete differently?
Would an unencumbered RNAP behave the same way? Or would it be able to leap up the ladder in chunks?
Yes, let's immediately get offended instead of trying to understand what is being presented - that always helps to improve a situation...
/sarcasm
Your timely and humble apology is a breath of fresh air. May God ever bless you, dear snarks_when_bored.
Only as a matter of dogma. If one can dismiss something as "non-scientific," then one need not worry about it in discussions such as this.
Jealous?
The theory of evolution (‘the origin of species’), like the “Big Bang” theory, is based solely on the premise that life is an immaculate conception...
(Isn't it ironic the “Big Bang” theory originally came from a JESUIT astronomer?)
Very good post.
I'm eager to see how the ID crowd tries to disassociate themselves from the supernatural with this one. Either they acknowledge the fascinating capabilities of nature or they admit a supernatural agent.
I'd like to know how they stabilized the scope and the subject so that the two either don't move or move in unison. At this scale, somebody slamming a door in the next state would cause it to wobble noticably.
Anybody who reads this article and feels no astonishment is either stupid or not paying attention.
It is possible to feel a sense of awe at the workings of the natural world and not then start looking for supernatural explanations.
Science isn't immune to wonder. In fact, amazement is essential to the process. Science just doesn't let that wonder cloud its thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.