Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all
comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread.
g- What I'm trying to say about evolution is not outside the scientific consensus. That is that the way these bacteria evolve is not well explained by the neo-darwin model of evolution.
I've supplied at least one link that should make that clear. (pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/6/2591, for example) I'm sorry that my links/ hints to find this simple fact have not been more helpful.
My comments about my methods are a means of begging some indulgence-- if I google 'competent cells' or 'tuberculosis strain w' I'll find something that makes my point in a few minutes-- I am realizing this is not universally true. (I have a bias that people will do what I do-- I can get over that and be more specific in the future)
You are correct that the original work is long-- that's why I gave the link to amazon and the johnjoe book-- for me it opens to the page that has the relavent information. Apparently others had trouble...
I am not offering a new theory that explains this form of evolution-- rather I am pointing out that it is not time to conclude that "we know about how things have evolved" especially when the current model has known- well known- shortcomings. Consider that the only actual evolution that has been observed does not fit the model and you can understand this is not a small issue. Is this inappropriate for this venue?
My estimate of the probability that human life post dated other life on Earth is 99.9999999(you can add as many 9's as you like)%.
All it takes is a username and password
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?