Sorry, that still doesn't mean you should be looking for information about mutational processes from podiatrists. (Nor does it explain what this paper has to do with supporting your claim.)
No defense of the claim you made, then.
(Also, both here and in reading the New Testament, you might want to learn to recognize non-literal language better.)
There is something fundamental here, that I am constrained to explain by way of principle and acceptance, as I am not the funded scientist I was never born to be anyway. That's not to say my discoveries won't go down in the history books, I have at least two that I can say with a hundred percent certainty will be remembered or recorded for the rest of time. I don't deem you worthy, to share them with you, at this stage (you could easily discover them yourself if God were willing), but suffice it to say, I do at a minimum have a concept of the integrity needed to be meaningfully sustained by the people - I hope someone can say the same about you.
Then start explaining why you think these papers support your claim.I believe I did read each one. Though on occasion, I feel an abstract alone covers the topic well enough.
You should, if you want reliable information.I don't discriminate on my sources.
Who said anything about ignoring your sources? I noted parenthetically that this was unlikely to be a useful paper, but my main point was to ask you why this paper supported your claim. You haven't responded to that request yet.You may ignore any that you choose based on any criteria you choose.
Ah, you're supporting your claim with invisible evidence. Now I begin to understand your posts better. Are you sure you've got a firm grasp on this whole logic thing?None visible to you. That's my plan.
Look, you made a claim about mutations. To support that claim you've offered multiple references that don't, in fact, support it.
And yet the only reading you've offered to support your claims doesn't, and you're completely unwilling to engage in any debate. I'm sorry, but no one is entitled to conclusions about facts; correct conclusions have to be based on evidence and valid logic. My conclusions are based on years of dealing with genetics professionally. So what? They can still be wrong. If I make a scientific statement, I'm willing to defend it, and to retract it if necessary.You are entitled to your conclusions. My viewpoint is built over years of reading and debate.
This would be a more persuasive disclaimer (though still very weak) if you hadn't already tried to support your claim and failed. You have time to provide fallacious reasons for your claim, but not valid ones?And my conclusions are not summed up in 15 minutes of research for your pleasure. If you choose to spend a lot of time supporting one view for one person, I have no objection.
I can support my idea and still not be able to teach it in a forum.
" Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. "
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120503
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?