16 Aug '19 22:35>
@wildgrass saidI have one but apparently you don’t have eyes that can see it.
Indeed. You point out that you don't have a point.
@wildgrass saidI have one but apparently you don’t have eyes that can see it.
Indeed. You point out that you don't have a point.
@kellyjay saidThe questions asked in the link are first;
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/the-genius-of-alternative-reading-frames/?fbclid=IwAR2K3VmPyfVqhaR1tEG6Vxjklvqu8a3VeUuLSJx4hesyBYgYMBxvh5_-dAA
Something to read, short and sweet.
@humy said"But as techniques for detecting transcripts have gotten better, and scientists have begun to scan for “alternative reading frames,” they are finding them."
The questions asked in the link are first;
" In protein production in an organism having a diploidal genome, do both strands contribute to protein production?"
and the answer to that is yes, although "both strands" is an odd way of wording it making me suspicious he has misunderstood something here.
Then he asks the question;
"In particular, does the complementary se ...[text shortened]... annot figure out exactly what.
I would say the person asking the questions is just very confused.
@kellyjay saidNot really. Perhaps to you it is.
DNA is much more complex than we first thought.
@sonhouse saidDon't you think a lot of what is as science is conjecture?
@KellyJay
And by alternates is he talking about what I mentioned, say a square frame instead of a spiral ladder structure of DNA? Or maybe a triangle, like how we make antenna towers? Is that what he meant? If so that would be just conjecture.
@sonhouse saidI don't think so, when we look at data we can draw conclusions and running the numbers we can be spot on, does this mean we know we are flawless in our conclusions? If we fail to take things into account all that can play a part in what we are studying, our math will not help. It could even generate a false sense we are on a solid foundation.
@KellyJay
Perhaps but that is just a distraction from my question.
@kellyjay saidNearly all if not all scientific theories are formed by conjecture.
Don't you think a lot of what is as science is conjecture?
@humy said"intelligent educated conjecture based on observation"
Nearly all if not all scientific theories are formed by conjecture.
If there was something wrong with basing something on conjecture then all science wrong and your computer wouldn't work.
Of course, when it comes to real science, what we are taking about here is intelligent educated conjecture based on observation and at least an attempt at reason, not stupid conjecture such as "Goddidit!".