Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I did find your pompous attitude revolting though.
What pomposity? You became angry when I stated that it was odd they'd say that deuteration doesn't change conformation. How DARE I question a paper!
But it's a confounder. That's not pompous, that's being discerning.
Lack of interest does not mean anything. How do you call yourself a 'professional' and believe interest has any bearing? The fact is Turin has not
been contradicted, and Turin is not based out of someone's basement, but MIT. The wheel always turns more slowly at first. Pretty much every new idea
works in the same way.
If the fact is that he's not been contradicted, and no one's trying, it might not mean his idea is incontrovertible, but just uninteresting. You seem
to be trying to state that it hasn't been contradicted because it's correct, when it's more a shortage of people trying. THAT is what I stated, and
it's true. If you state that the moon is made of green cheese, and no one replies, it doesn't validate your conjecture.
Yet you have failed at every opportunity I have given you to show the change is significant. If you really were a professional you would understand
change is meaningless unless the change is significant. Significant in this case would mean the change is large enough to prevent the receptors from
In the case of ototopic receptors, again, it's not a condition of "prevent from firing" as much as "change the proportions of what fires". You at
first denied that it did change whatsoever. I presented you with refereed papers that showed it did, and one that states the bond angles and lengths
change 1 to 3% per bond, which you refused to consider.
Let's go farther and look at one cite you endorsed - the one about chiral molecules. That one alone should indicate to you that shape and not QM
resonance is at least one sense modality going on, although it may be a combination of both.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying it's equivocal, and doesn't properly determine anything, which again, I do agree with.
Wrong, that is what he is saying. He is saying the results do not matter. Only an examination of the receptors themselves will convince him. No
behavioral test no matter how thorough or conclusive is enough in his mind.
As we're basically agreeing here, you're just saying "YOU'RE WRONG!!" to be contentious. He's saying that the data is equivocal, and that the
experiments don't tell you what you need to know. He's right. That's what I've been saying since the first post, when you went all non-linear because
I didn't agree that the shape was retained and that the experiment was designed badly.
Then why bring them up, since I cited legitimate peer reviewed information?
(sigh) One...more...time.... you said that the bond angles and lengths changed only in some miniscule way which you refused to believe could be
anything but trivial. I posted a legitimate peer reviewed refutation that they changed from 1-4% per bond. You then started squawking about why you
had to accept ANYTHING that you didn't agree with, and I said "it's not like I'm getting it from alex jones". This is my way of trying to point out to
you "I cited legitimate peer reviewed information". Apparently that's only valid to you when it agrees with your OP.
Look, I'm sorry your original story included a bald-faced confounder that wasn't addressed. There are at least some papers that refute Turin. They're
peer reviewed too. The chiral molecule thing seems to spit in the eye of "QM and only QM". It's possibly both. My gripe, and it's the only one, is
that the deuteration experiment is badly designed to prove that olfaction is solely QM. And the chiral molecule thing pretty much seems to obviate it
for me as well.
That's my viewpoint of this thing. It could be both, but cannot be strictly QM. You may now have the last word.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Bedlam
because: (no reason given)