blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 05 2008,18:41) | | Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,10:13) | Wow. Your response is "There are two authors"?
Really. No address of the issue of evidence and testing of hypothesis? Just noting the fact that there are two authors?
Did the second author bother to test anything? Does there being a second author somehow advance your case? Or answer the question? |
I was at work. I didn't have time for a thorough response.
As for evidence, there's a table that spans six pages listing the evidence for functional repetitive DNA.
Did you look at it? |
Yes. The table you speak of is found in a section titled "DOCUMENTATION OF DIVERSE GENOMIC
FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT
CLASSES OF REPETITIVE DNA ELEMENTS".
It is a list of repetitive DNA elements just as it says. It is not really (I may be wrong--not reading biology papers for a living) evidence of their conclusion.
It seems to be a list of things that exist. To cite that as evidence of their conclusion seems incorrect. It would rather be like me concluding "Baseball is the Best Sport" and claiming as evidence the following table:
1. There are 4 bases
2. 3 strikes and you're out
3. There are 90 feet between bases
I may be wrong, of course. I'll leave it to professionals to correct me (as I often need correcting).
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
