catatonic
Member
- Jun 13, 2006
- 113
- 4
- 16
Look Hobbit, I'm agreeing with you. I already drew the line in the sand at the evolution of one useful protein, let alone 40.
But if one useful protein can evolve, we have to discredit the possibility of there ever being a reason for the 40 to have ever been useful elsewhere and for them to ever have had a reason to come together. Too much for me and many Ph.D.s. Not an ample genetic record of cells to go on. Just the majority opinion.
All these Ph.D.s see the same argument from the same angle fully. If some still think its possible and some don't, the simplest explanation is that the ones that do are more creative. There is a lot creative people see that is too complicated for a paper. You should never accuse a scientist of being in denial, just their use of the scientific method. I'm done editing.
But if one useful protein can evolve, we have to discredit the possibility of there ever being a reason for the 40 to have ever been useful elsewhere and for them to ever have had a reason to come together. Too much for me and many Ph.D.s. Not an ample genetic record of cells to go on. Just the majority opinion.
All these Ph.D.s see the same argument from the same angle fully. If some still think its possible and some don't, the simplest explanation is that the ones that do are more creative. There is a lot creative people see that is too complicated for a paper. You should never accuse a scientist of being in denial, just their use of the scientific method. I'm done editing.