Maybe his programming doesn't allow him to give specifics only vague assertions and bitchute links



oh fuck you got me

This post was edited by Sioux on Dec 27 2021 03:02am

? this is the day after christimas

RNA world hypotheses being retracted was very specific..........

A single article supporting a single assertion about how the RNA world hypothesis came to be. The entire theory did not get retracted dum dum.

ya it was. it was complete dog shit. "we where blinded by our belief" an honest admission that very much surprised me.

Ok explain to me why it was dogshit in your own words? I just skimmed the original article, and read their retraction notice. It's an issue of minutia in science, not the big picture idea of how the RNA world hypothesis began. I could explain it to you, but you seem to have such a great understanding you should be able to tell me simply what hte issue in the original paper was that caused the retraction.

I think it speaks well to the ethics and integrity of science that the lab that published the paper found an error in their old work and retracted it rather than just moving on. How many times have your idols been wrong and never confessed to it? How many bitchute videos have you posted that are obvious garbage that you're unable to own up to? Scientists are inherently more ethical people than conspiracy theorists apparently.

This post was edited by Sioux on Dec 27 2021 03:12am

atheist shit science been foul from the very beginning. at least darwin was honest about it. the clowns after him deciding with zero scientific backing deciding that it was fact (macro evolution aka monkey to man).
science sure has been cruel to the atheist

lol your an article skimmer but will argue much about it. that makes you untrustworthy at the very least

idols? atheist/antitheists say batchit crazy things constantly

This post was edited by TiStuff on Dec 27 2021 03:26am

So you're telling me you read the paper in Nature Chemical Biology that was retracted and fully understand why it was retracted? Please explain to me. I've linked it, if you just summarize one part of figure 4 I'll believe you actually read it enough to understand it. Thanks!

https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2551.epdf?shared_access_token=_6aqIqPczWW4tTT0RrSuIdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NXtWCSXYjhBd2CLhe5OnX7S5ulLnul7cJtFXuLB_nqQmwDwQvwGwqRA7J5b2JygWGeMXhBtemYgNw7jyn3m6N4VAr23w-qiwN3hi60DwtWOA4VIG2FNUVvR6XRR1ibSn0%3D

Or are you someone that only read's articles about articles? So getting someone elses opinion about a fact instead of going to the source to form your own opinion. Probably worse than someone that skims through a research article imo.

This post was edited by Sioux on Dec 27 2021 03:26am

why dont you go for once, typical atheist/antitheist thinking they are some kind of authority others should defer to. your clown azz paper "rna world hypothesis " was retracted like hel am i going to let you make some kind of cheese play its retracted cry about it

and whats this crap?
"How many times have your idols been wrong and never confessed to it? "

If you're using a single retraction to indict all of scientific research, you should probably understand the basics of what you're talking about. If you don't understand it, you don't understand it but you should at least admit as much. There's no shame in admitting you don't have the intellectual capacity. Synthetic biology is complicated, there's lots of people who don't understand it.