4
   

Does "strain the credulity" mean "highlight the recklessness"?

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 05:15 pm

Context:

Some of these may have been lost in one species or the
other, but many of them remain in a position that is most
consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a com-
mon mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along
ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actu-
ally functional elements placed there by the Creator for a
good reason, and our discounting of them as "junk DNA" just
betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some
small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles.
But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that ex-
planation. The process of transposition often damages the
jumping gene. There are AREs throughout the human and
mouse genomes that were truncated when they landed, re-
moving any possibility of their functioning. In many in-
stances, one can identify a decapitated and utterly defunct
ARE in parallel positions in the human and the mouse
genome (Figure 5.2).
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 673 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
Bazza6
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 08:21 pm
@oristarA,
The author has confused the word 'credulity' with 'credibility'

A person can be gullible, too ready and willing to believe something - a credulous person

an explanation can be credible - convincing, able to be believed

But an explanation cannot be gullible.

'strain the credibility of that explanation' :
Is there "junk DNA", carried over and along as life evolved? Is it that nature hasn't emptied her rubbish bin? Is that the explanation for this DNA?
OR
Does it still "play important regulatory roles?" Well, when we look for proof , we find examples that make it hard to believe that explanation - it doesn't seem credible. It strains our capacity to believe that that is the real explanation.
It strains our credibility, our capacity to believe it.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 11:10 pm
@Bazza6,
Bazza6 wrote:

The author has confused the word 'credulity' with 'credibility'

A person can be gullible, too ready and willing to believe something - a credulous person

an explanation can be credible - convincing, able to be believed

But an explanation cannot be gullible.

'strain the credibility of that explanation' :
Is there "junk DNA", carried over and along as life evolved? Is it that nature hasn't emptied her rubbish bin? Is that the explanation for this DNA?
OR
Does it still "play important regulatory roles?" Well, when we look for proof , we find examples that make it hard to believe that explanation - it doesn't seem credible. It strains our capacity to believe that that is the real explanation.
It strains our credibility, our capacity to believe it.


The examples hamper our ability to believe it?
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 12:11 am

Bazza is right....there IS a phrase "To strain the credulity" but the author has misused it.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 12:12 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
The examples hamper our ability to believe it?


yes.

Quote:
It strains our credibility, our capacity to believe it.


No

It strains ITS credibility, its "believeability", I would say.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does "strain the credulity" mean "highlight the recklessness"?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 08:42:39