What part of "The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” do you not understand?
" My source HAD peer review references. Here they are in as you were obviously not smart enough to figure it out.
1. http://www.fhcrc.org/labs/trask/subtelomeres/"
Are you smart enough to post links that actually get to your reference?
"http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf"
From the scientists own words, "...the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown..."
"putatative" definition -
1 : commonly accepted or supposed
2 : assumed to exist or to have existed
"...suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this [putatative] fusion."
"suggests" definition -
"to mention or imply as a possibility"
From the article:
"Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing."
"The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres, as well as by events that stabilize the fusion point."
Oops. Multiple putatative events required to support the initial assumed putatative event. The inverted arrangement of the TTAGGG array and the adjacent sequences are 'similar to' sequences found at present-day human telomeres and are offered as evidence to a putatative event that telomeres are designed to resist. Hmmm.
Then we read:
"These data, along with the observations of others (17, 22), suggest that the terminal regions of human chromosomes are dynamic structures, from which stretches of sequence are gained and lost at a relatively high frequency."
Therefore, more cherry-picking of data is needed to support the initial, putatative assumption.
And you haven't even begun to support your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".
So I needed references, but you somehow do not.
My reference HAD peer review literature references; but you insisted you needed peer review literature references - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE THEY WERE.
All things in science are “putative”; you just parade your own ignorance by fixation upon that word.
The literature obviously supports all my statements.
You have nothing but your own scientific ignorance. But that is to be expected from someone who insists that the Sun circles the Earth.