9
   

Experts Concluse that Asteroid Impact Wiped Out Dinosaurs

 
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Youre walking in my court
Stop sounding ipse Dixit as **** for brains is found of saying. Or will you yet again mention the seminar you went to ...

Quote:
I dont know of any discoveries of Trex (or any dino) DNA.
What you dont know could fill a library.

Quote:
Stop sounding like a creationist.
I will express whatever opinion I have..stop sounding like an aetheist.

Quote:
Youve been reading at a 2nd grade level again.
What you really mean is you are far cleverer than me... been to a seminar on that too ? There are two ways to seem important..one is to stand there and say I am the greatest...you dont have the guts for that...the second is to pull everyone else down and by inference you are superior. Well, good luck with that.

Quote:
I said : Thinking about it, who says they are extinct ? Ever eaten a chicken ? It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken.
To which you replied

Quote:
WHO THE HELL HAS T-rex DNA??
Your inference is that it is based on complete DNA strands. Do you disagree with the original that the chicken is the closest living relative ?

You really should get **** for brains to teach you how to google, then I wouldnt have to do it for you. As for the rest of the world, I will tell them not to say anything about DNA without running it past you first.

Quote:
To a large degree, most of the chemical studies that have been done suggest proteins are more durable than DNA and they have almost the same kind of information because they use DNA as their template....said Dr Schweitzer


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/816703-dinosaur-dna-rebuilt-from-ancient-eggs

BASED ON DNA...
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:38 pm
@farmerman,
HOW TO MAKE A FAMERMAN

STEP 1) Take a retired Geologist

Step 2) Have him go to one seminar on DNA

Step 3) Convince him he is an expert on DNA

Step 4) Have him join a forum to keep his mind active in old age

Step 5) Have him twist the original statement to suit his 2nd grade reading level

Step 6) Make him too arrogant to apologise when it all goes horribly wrong

Step 7) Watch him insult others out of age induced lack of testosterone

Step 8) Enjoy !
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:54 pm
@Ionus,
Youre attempt at cleverness doesnt make you correct. You know nothing of me and my work or sidebars. If you want to continue in your delusion that Trex DNA is out there and discovered, knock yerself out fool!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:01 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Your inference is that it is based on complete DNA strands. Do you disagree with the original that the chicken is the closest living relative ?

You really should get **** for brains to teach you how to google, then I wouldnt have to do it for you. As for the rest of the world, I will tell them not to say anything about DNA without running it past you first

I can keep this up waaay longer than you. You stated that chickens and Trex are relatives based upon DNA. I dont know how you reached this erroneous conclusion because there is NO TREX DNA with which to compare to a chicken. ALL DNA references are from Ratite BIRDS which, it IS ASSUMED, are ornithischian relatives of certain dinosaurs.
THERE IS NO DINO DNA .



Oh, just in case you forgot it with your head up your ass like that


THERE IS NO DINO DNA


Youre talking DNA strands, IM SAYING TO YOU WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF CONTRADICTION THAT THERE ISNT EVEN THAT!! so dont keep trying to cast your line in the hopes that itll stick somehwere. JUST DROP THE POINT !! and move on before some kid jumps in and gives you a lesson in phylogennetics or reading comprehension ( whichever works for ya)
Quote:
one is to stand there and say I am the greatest...you dont have the guts for that...
Im not the greatest, Im just better than you in this area.
Youre trying to become an insulting fool because Ive challenged something you said. If you say something incorrect or silly(especially in areas of my field) Im gonna call you on it and , having done so, rether than just saying "Oh I must have interpreted that article incorrectly", you want to fight it out like some kid and try to squirm around and change the very simple declarative statement that you made. BAck when you made the "DNA or Chicken v TREX" it would have been easy to back out and retain "FACE" . By showing us the very article that youve relied upon which doesnt say that TREX DNA has been isolated , youve removed all doubt.

I wont continue the embarrasment Ill ignore any further assertions by you (unless of course you get too personal), and we move on talking about all this other nice stuff.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:01 pm
I am Great.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:10 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Thinking about it, who says they are extinct ? Ever eaten a chicken ? It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken.
That is my original statement. As this is a learning experience for you, I will take you through it slowly. I am saying, "Who says dinosaurs are extinct ?" They have a living descendant in the chicken. Some take extinction to mean that it did not evolve and that it was a dead end. This is the general trend to which I was replying.

Now you seem to be having trouble with the word "based"....

Quote:
Based....Verb
•S: (v) establish, base, ground, found (use as a basis for; found on) "base a claim on some observation"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=based

The proteins are BASED on DNA. The finding of proteins tell them a good deal about the DNA. Your assumption that they found whole strands of DNA is BASED on misreading to suit your own ends. A clever person would have asked for clarification if they thought there was the possibility of a misinterpretation.

Quote:
knock yerself out fool!
You could have called me a lot of things and got away with it but you chose the least believable insult that you could have. I am not saying you are a fool, but that statement certainly suggests you are capable of saying foolish things.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:14 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
The proteins are BASED on DNA. The finding of proteins tell them a good deal about the DNA.
BULLSHIT AGAIN. There are proteins in the stars (l/R rotatory proteins) ASO far weve seen about 4 and only 1 is even associated with life. SO whats yer point . Youre projecting from ignorance again.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:31 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I can keep this up waaay longer than you.
Does that make you right where you come from ? Because here it just makes you look foolish.

Quote:
Oh, just in case you forgot it with your head up your ass like that
Ouch ! Oh, the pain ! My feelings have been mortally wounded.

Quote:
THERE IS NO DINO DNA .

Quote:
THERE IS NO DINO DNA

Are you a rote learner ?

Quote:
JUST DROP THE POINT !!
Dont get hysterical, old man.

Quote:
Youre talking DNA strands,
It is perfectly obvious to everyone what I am talking about but not to you apparently.

Quote:
Youre trying to become an insulting fool
I am ? But am I as successful as you, thats the point ....

Quote:
Youve been reading at a 2nd grade level again.
If you want to continue in your delusion
knock yerself out fool!
Oh, just in case you forgot it with your head up your ass like that
Im just better than you

Let me know when I am as good as you.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:36 pm
@farmerman,
You still have not addressed my point,
Quote:
It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken.

I said :
Quote:
The proteins are BASED on DNA. The finding of proteins tell them a good deal about the DNA.

You said :
Quote:
BULLSHIT AGAIN.


Quote:
Tiny bits of protein extracted from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur bone have given scientists the first genetic proof that the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken.

"It's the first molecular evidence of this link between birds and dinosaurs," said John Asara, a Harvard Medical School researcher, whose results were published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

I hope you understand when I say you are full of **** and I choose to believe experts currently working in the field.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:37 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
There are proteins in the stars (l/R rotatory proteins) ASO far weve seen about 4 and only 1 is even associated with life.
Does that statement mean anything to you because it really looks like a poorly worded red herring to me.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:01 pm
@Ionus,
MAybe we can turn this into teaching moment> I went and searched out how far SChweitzer et al have made it in their "soft tissue" work. They have detected connective tissue made of collagen. Collagen is not DNA. Collagen is a connective tissue component of muscle fibre and blood vessels. It is also the gelatenoid substance in hooves and bone. DNA can be entwined by collagen but its not even a close comparison. DNA is like the blueprint of a 747 and collagen would merely be the wire that comnnects all the electronics and hydraulic sensors.

Collagen is porimarily glycine while RNA/DNA has over 64 amino acids and only 5 subcomponents.

So no comparisons to any ancient DNA have been possible, even the dinosaur DNA that was found in mosquitos in Jurassic Park. (THAT WAS FICTION)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:05 pm
@Ionus,
I like the way that you broke the two parts of your past post so that it appears that the word DNA doesnt appear to be foundational

Quote:
"It's the first molecular evidence of this link between birds and dinosaurs," said John Asara,


THE molecular evidence is the collagen . not DNA. As I said before youve incorrectly inferred that at the center of the statement was DNA. Im not gonna keep it up any further or else Im gonna look like some bullhead.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:08 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
The proteins are BASED on DNA. The finding of proteins tell them a good deal about the DNA.
I SAID BULLSHIT BECAUSE you have no idea of what youre speaking on this. The proteins in collagen are not th base pairs of DNA . DNA isnt made up of proteins but sugars, phosphate and nucleotides that make hexadecimal sets creating amino acids which then combine to form proteins.
Youre confusing blueprints and components again.
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:11 pm
@farmerman,
But doesn't cartilage contain DNA? Something made it grow.

Puzzled in Australia
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 07:13 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
There are proteins in the stars (l/R rotatory proteins) ASO far weve seen about 4 and only 1 is even associated with life.
Its not poorly worded, its poorly spelled .

"There are proteins in the stars (we have spectral evidence of several) [LEFT AND RIGHT rotatory proteins]. SO far weve seen about 4 [in the starry spectra] and only 1 (glycine) is even associated with life"

Anybody with an interest in this would have understood.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:11 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
DNA isnt made up of proteins but sugars, phosphate and nucleotides that make hexadecimal sets creating amino acids which then combine to form proteins.
I knew that. Exactly how does that mean the following is bullshit : The proteins are BASED on DNA. The finding of proteins tells them a good deal about the DNA.

Quote:
you have no idea of what youre speaking on this.
Your english is an indication of not thinking before you write.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
even the dinosaur DNA that was found in mosquitos in Jurassic Park. (THAT WAS FICTION)
Really ? You understand that much ?

Clearly you cant read what I write. Go back to the beginning and start again..read slowly...breathe deeply...your sideline issues are a chance for you to fluff your feathers and have a threat display but they have nothing to do with what I said. As for you disagreeing with experts, I dont believe you. I believe them.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:20 pm
@farmerman,
You appear foolish. The whole direction you have taken is to demonstrate your self proclaimed expertise. What is "foundational" as you put it is that dinosaurs may not be extinct because they have descendants here today. The whole trend of the thread was about whether they had been wiped out. You have never addressed the real issue nor responded to what I have said.

Quote:
As I said before youve incorrectly inferred that at the center of the statement was DNA.
I said BASED on DNA. Are you losing your mind ?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:23 pm
@Ionus,
(((((yawn)))))
now your just peddling, Youre no fun after all. You watch Discovery Channel and feel like youve become a paleogeneticist.


Quote:
The finding of proteins tells them a good deal about the DNA.
har har har. Dont quit yer day job .

Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:28 pm
@farmerman,
I said :
Quote:
The finding of proteins tells them a good deal about the DNA.

You said :
Quote:
har har har. Dont quit yer day job .

Dr Schweitzer said :
Quote:
To a large degree, most of the chemical studies that have been done suggest proteins are more durable than DNA and they have almost the same kind of information because they use DNA as their template....


I think (seriously) you should ask your doctor about senile dementia and alzheimers disease. Really...I am not trying to be rude...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 09:48:27