Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well then, we'll just disagree. I tend to think the fact that not one single scientific entity has adopted or currently uses Noble's framework is a very good indication that the arguments he made years ago have had little to no impact. You apparently think the opposite.False, the only evidence would be credible scientific sources rejecting Noble’s assertions.
You're not keeping track of your own arguments and are now back to (mistakenly or dishonestly) equating the EES with Noble's arguments. Try and do better.No, it is the other way around. It’s their assertions that Noble agrees with. Noble cited these other scientists (Shapiro JA, Mattick JS , etc.) because he agrees with their assertions as explained above.
Noble is not the only scientist advocating a paradigm shift to replace Neo-Darwinism. You ignored Gerd B. Müller (#911) and all other leading specialists from a dozen countries interviewed in Suzan Mazur’s book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.”
James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.
All these scientists are against the Neo-Darwinizam /Modern Synthesis that advanced Darwin’s obsolete ideas into a dogma. They are all against the dogmatic constrictions suppressing the progress of science. See #911 and #1597
LOL...you really think "his paper has been cited" is the same as "his framework is used in actual research"?Really, why was his lecture cited numerous times by other scientists/publications and without any contrasting statements? None.
Hilarious.
Oh now this is just priceless. So the reason why no one is utilizing Noble's claims in their work is not because they rejected them, but because of a conspiracy?If your reasoning were true, then it would only demonstrate dogmatic resistance, not a scientific refutation. Do you understand?
Again....hilarious.
I don't have to....his arguments have long since slipped into irrelevance. You may as well demand that I disprove phrenology.Again, if you want to prove his assertions wrong, you have to provide a credible scientific refutation, there is no other way but how can you provide it? It doesn’t exist.
Um...what? It most certainly is not "speculation", it's direct and confirmed identification of function.t’s a speculation of function through the comparison of genetic counterparts in different organisms.
Correct, and in 2013 SIFTER was honored as the best-performing sequence-based protein function prediction method in the Critical Assessment of Function Annotation.It’s a matter of interpretations through the utilization of different available software tools/ algorithms to process the sequences with varying levels of accuracy (SIFTER is only one model among many other inference algorithms).
So again, if evolutionary relatedness isn't true, why does a model that's based on it generate such useful results?
An argument no one has made. Please pay attention.Regardless, the similarities of building blocks and its functions don’t mean these organisms evolved from each other.
Nope, see above link. When compared against a variety of other methods SIFTER was the superior method.False, what other methods?
Again....nope, see above link.The article claims SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) to be the most accurate. Other articles claim otherwise.
Again, there's no way I'm taking your empty say-so over the work of professionals.And again, genome sequence studies provided empirical evidence that disproved the assumptions of the ToE/MS.
Well then if you were approaching this objectively and rationally, you'd have to conclude that the framework of evolutionary relatedness does indeed provide very useful info and produces important results.My point boils down to the accuracy of the process
Sorry, but your baseless "Nuh uh" isn't at all meaningful or compelling.Again, scientific advances of multiple disciplines such as epigenetics, physiology, genomics, ecology, plasticity research, population genetics, network approaches, novelty research, behavioural biology, microbiology and systems biology didn’t emerge/progress due to the ToE
You think his 9 year old paper that argues for a framework that no one has since employed constitutes "the latest"?Noble's assertions are summarizing the latest and necessary changes
Hilarious.