RE: The code that is DNA
December 24, 2019 at 5:41 pm
(This post was last modified: December 24, 2019 at 7:22 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(December 24, 2019 at 3:26 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: I don't have access to those papers but I do have an access to "Campbell Biology" which is a textbook for high school and college-level classes.
For instance you deny Phylogenie saying that it is just a hypotheses and you say it is not testable. You also seem to claim that relatedness is always an assumption without the absence of known ancestry, which you seem to say that one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness. And yet this is what "Campbell Biology" says
So are you saying that writers of biology textbook know less genetic science that you do?
First, since you're asking me to comment on the excerpt from Campbell, I'm treating this conversation as separate from the quote mining/distortion conversation.
Secondly, since you're disagreeing with me on several points, I want to clarify what they are:
1. That phylogenies are hypotheses.
2. That they are not (or are rarely) testable.
3. That relatedness is an assumption in the absence of known ancestry.
4. That one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness.
I read your excerpt from Campbell. I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're disagreeing with me on before addressing it. Have I represented the points you oppose with the four mentioned above?