"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:8HYcd.2581$Fg2.1057385@newshog.newsread.com...

Tim K. wrote:

Ok, let's take a physics class to learn biology.

All of the MD/PhDs that I know surely did, lots of them in fact.

No one that I know did, I sure didn't.  Biology wasn't even mentioned.

It helps to understand the theory behind the equipment design and the
processes involved,

What equipment?

I'm a geneticist and I'm doing a series of experiments to map genes.

Using equipment that was designed using scientific methods, which surely
involve interdisciplinary knowledge within the domains of mathematics,
physics and chemistry, which have their foundations in QM and GR and
classical mechanics.

You completely dodged that question.
I'll try again - how do you control for quantum effects?
You can't.  You can't even measure them at the level of a gene.  Therefore
they are not relevant.  And you don't even know what they are.

 I have
no doubt you know how that would be done.  Tell me, oh great poster of
irrelevant weblinks who can say nothing by himself, how do I control for
quantum level effects?
How would *you* design the experiment?   hmmm...????

With equipment designed using scientific methods involving
interdisciplinary knowledge within the domains of mathematics, physics
and chemistry.

You would use equipment to measure reproductive isolation??!!  Which
equipment exactly?
You're just making this shit up as you go aren't you?  Clueless.

I'm studying character traits in a ring species as I'm interested in the
role of reproductive isolation in speciation.  How do I control for the
uncertainty principle?  You design the experiment and make that subatomic
stuff relevant.

It surely is relevant within the framework of scientific methods.

But not enough so that you could articulate it in any way.  The best you can
do is circular reasoning.  I ask you to demonstrate how it's relevant and
all you do is say that it's relevant.  You have no idea how to prove it.