Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.frii.net!newsfeed.frii.net!news.compaq.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal From: unrev...@hotmail.com (MEC) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Shakespeare and the Chicken Egg Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 47 Sender: r...@darwin.ediacara.org Approved: robo...@ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <80d0c26f.0312021527.60b3633b@posting.google.com> <3FCF6409.F4029D42@pitt.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1070645827 26782 128.100.83.246 (5 Dec 2003 17:37:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:37:07 +0000 (UTC) X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.149.93.10 "Deaddog" wrote in message news:... > "AR" wrote in message news:3FCF6409.F4029D42@pitt.edu...: > > Pitman does not understand the scientific process. He has the components > > of the process confused, and blended together into a mish mash. > > I've pointed this out to him before. And he has always been unwilling > > to discuss his mistaken notions about the scientific process. > > This explanation certainly makes much of the gibberish that passes as a > reply easier to deal with, if not understand. > > > He cannot produce the correct definition of a theory or a hypothesis > > and he cannot explain the role or either in the scientific process. > > Right, then we should do the job for him: > > So, Sean, if we take some thousand or more amino acids that have never > worked together before and show that they can now evolve to work together in > a functional way, that would satisfy your 'test,' correct? > > And, to avoid an avalanche of "Pay me $150 you lying weasel" strings, please > specify exactly what you mean so that it can be independently verified > whether or not it has already been demonstrated by science. I think my > definition, above, is pretty nifty: we find some set of proteins (whose sum > is > 1000 amino acids) and that have never worked together before in > biology, and show that by using evolution they can now work together to form > a functional pathway. Isn't that really what you're trying to get at? > > Otherwise, well, so far all you've written is a bunch of gibberish that > cannot in any way, shape, or form be reduced to a question, hypothesis, > theory, or even a decent stain under a coasterless glass of lemonade. > > Non-woof Dear Expired Canine I have been following this discussion. Sort of. And I was wondering would Bcr/Abl or Ret/PTC chimeric proteins qualify as an example to the good Dr. Pitman? Both are the results of recombination (chromosome translocation) and both result in the induction of novel signaling pathways, among other novel functions. Both fusion genes cause cancer in humans (chronic myeloid leukemia in the case of Bcr/Abl and medullary thyroid carcinoma for Ret/PTC). Bcr/Abl is >1500 aa long, Ret/PTC is > than 1200 aa, depending on isotype of Ret. Wot you think?