Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
It means that I know how to formulate and test hypotheses.
Then you'll know that testing a hypothesis concerning resistance in bees will involve real bees, double-blinding arrangements, control groups. So what are particulars of these test? Or, is there, in this case, some reason why such tests are not necessary.

Its a simple question.

Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post

Responding to some of what folks write simply goes too far afield from the main thrust of my argument or the thread.
That's easy. Do my questions above come into that category?

Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
I've previously tested these bees for insertions at the site of interest and have detected many, and sequenced a few. They're already there. I've used and studied transposable elements before, and have even developed methodologies to get them to insert into sites preferentially.
And this is proof of what? Surely its wisely known that these things can be done. What's needed is confirmation that they work, and designs to show how they might be put to use.

WLC, this is all pretty typical. You've answered questions I haven't asked, and haven't responded to those I asked. You haven't addressed my criticisms, nor responded to my suggestion that there was a bit of confusion abroad due to different views of the meaning of the key term. All you've done is parroted your positions.

You've claimed 'proof' without acknowleging the point that proof lies in empirical demonstration - or explaining why that isn't necessary in this case.

This isn't dialogue. It isn't constructive. Its simply repetition of belief and refusal to take any notice of valid criticism.