Here’s what Stiltis claimed to begi nthe whoel ‘argument’ off with:
“First off (and there doubtless many problems with this which I, as a laymen, am not catching, but I caught enough that it reeks...) the article Pitman cites does NOT say, “mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.” It said (underline added): “
Nope- the article certainly doesn’t state that AND pitman NEVER stated that the article did-
It woudl appear that those who are accusign you of reading comprehension problems are the ones with the problem (unless they are just tryign to be itnentionally deceitful?)
Stultis hten goes o nto state:
“An immunoreaction assay, using only four elements against an unsequenced hormone, can’t possibly prove it’s “identical” with anything.”
And hwo is makign that claim that it can? Certainly NOT pitman- but don’t let stop him- Stultis is now claiming Pitman MUST have been insinuating that that test could- after reading what Pitman was stating however, it is CLEAR that he was not infact statign that and was stating that the tests infact throw the commonly held hypothesis into chaos
I guess when soem wish to ‘refute’ someone, it’s alright to insinuate they are sayign somethign they are NOT when defending macroevolution? And he says ‘pitman was beign deceitful’? Cripes!
I guess hte only way for htem to defend macroevolution is to simply make crap up about issues- NOWHERE was ptiman makign hte claim that hte article was pointing out two species systems’ processes as beign identical- the hwoel ‘argument’ was based on MISREPRESENTING what pitman was statign and why he was statign it!
[[We have shown that immunoreactive amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH is identical with the mammalian decapeptide in chromatographic properties and in its interaction with region-specific LH-RH antisera, while immunoreactive LH-RHs from avian, reptilian, and piscine hypothalami are structurally different (King and Millar, 1979, 1980, 1981). These structural differences of LH-RH-like peptides in submammalian vertebrates have not been determined ]]
Hmmm- seems awful similar to what pitman orioginally said
Nope- the article certainly doesn’t state that AND pitman NEVER stated that the article did-
What do you mean??? Pitman wrote, "For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical" and linked to the article. It was your reference? How can you say Pitman didn't claim the article said that?
Talk about making stuff up!