9
   

Experts Concluse that Asteroid Impact Wiped Out Dinosaurs

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 08:43 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
I think (seriously) you should ask your doctor about senile dementia and alzheimers disease. Really...I am not trying to be rude...
Really? Than you are failing miserably at whatever you are trying to be.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:03 pm
@dlowan,
cartliege is only connective tissue. Not every tissue has cells with nucler material and Mitochondria. Extra cellurar DNA is connected by fibrils of collagen but is not DNA. ALL the SChweitzer team has been able to find was collagen. This is enough because collagen is a protein unique to warm blooded animals which includes birds and < presumably , T Rex'
HOWEVER, the entire point that Ionus made was that DNA was the center of the connection between chickens and T REX and thats just flat wrong. NOBODY has found anything remotely close to DNA in fossils older than about 100K years. EVEn if the T Rex and HAdrosaur collagen were a huge amount the protein is usually glycine. No nucleotides or amino acids mentioned so the connection is a dream world right now. Im not sure they will be able to recreate osteocalcin and hence, ancient DNA.


Hey, I musta taken a seminar somewherest. GYHYUCK !!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:09 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
think (seriously) you should ask your doctor about senile dementia and alzheimers disease. Really...I am not trying to be rude...
YES YOU ARE YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE. You obviously dont even understand what SChweitzer was saying . SHes talking about durability , period. The fact that all of a animals body is coded by DNA is something that even a 9 year old kid knows, so youre not onto anything, Now youre merely attempting to deconstruct what you originally said which was a total pile of crap and the product of an education wanting in basic biology.

Im not here to educate you for free, Remain an ignorant asshole all you wish. Keep making these fatuous statements and trying to dig your ways out of holes of your own creation.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:26 pm
@farmerman,

This is the detail of the specimen of collagen and its chemical makeup isolated from the"soft tissue" of T Rex and The Hadrosaur studied by SChweitzers team.



Quote:
First, microscopic images of bone samples showed structural features spaced about 70 nanometers apart, matching the scale of tiny structures that collagen forms in living creatures. Second, the chemical analysis of bone samples identified many of the amino acids found in collagen. The most common of those substances, glycine and alanine, appeared in a 2.6-to-1 ratio, similar to the 2.5-to-1 ratio of the substances in the collagen of chickens.

Finally, antibodies that react with a certain type of chicken collagen also reacted to a powdered and purified sample of the T. rex bone, says Schweitzer. She and her colleagues report their findings in the April 13 Science.



This was from a 3 year old newsletter
IT had nothing to do with DNA (I know Ionus wants to try to make a connection that anything having to do with proteins is DNA related. Well, science is a bit more demanding than bumper sticker aphorysms.
BTW, this was determined in 2007 nd the chicken collagen and T REX collagen were similar enough to enable Schweitzer to propose the connection. HOWEVER, similar studies on ratites and Buteos show similar ratios of the glycine and alanine.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:49 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ionus wrote:
I think (seriously) you should ask your doctor about senile dementia and alzheimers disease. Really...I am not trying to be rude...
Really? Than you are failing miserably at whatever you are trying to be.






Wink
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 09:58 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
In the case of President Reagan, he was wounded and his health never recovered. He needed a two to three hour nap in the afternoon and constantly munched on jelly beans just to stay alert. Obviously his health failed and he rather quickly developed alzheimers after that.

Not everybody who tells you how attractive you are is doing you a service. Not everyone who cautions you is trying to humiliate you.

In the worst case, if I was being insulting, which I maintain I wasnt, is it no more than what he started ? But as farmerman was recently wounded, and is obviously having a struggle to understand anything of what was said, I thought I should ask him to check his health.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 10:09 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Ionus made was that DNA was the center of the connection between chickens and T REX
After all this time, you still dont get it ! Unbelievable ! Assuming we have correctly derived the proteins made by chickens DNA, and those proteins are similar to the proteins extracted from dinosaur material, then BASED on DNA they are similar and may be related. Why do you go on about your verbose bullshit when clearly that is not the issue. You might as well talk about the trainset you got for Christmas. You are full of irrelevant extraneous bullshit. And you wonder why I mention your mental health.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 10:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
YES YOU ARE YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE.
And exactly how do you know my thoughts ? Was there a seminar on that you senile twit ? Now, see, there I was trying to be rude...

Quote:
You obviously dont even understand what SChweitzer was saying . SHes talking about durability , period.
You are rapidly approaching the dumbest bunny I have ever met and I have met some beauties.
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....

Just exactly how stupid are you ? Cant you read ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 10:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Well, science is a bit more demanding than bumper sticker aphorysms.
Well, science is a bit more demanding than a seminar.

Quote:
the chicken collagen and T REX collagen were similar enough to enable Schweitzer to propose the connection.
You have just agreed with me. That didnt hurt, did it ?

Quote:
...similar studies on ratites and Buteos show similar ratios of the glycine and alanine.
What are you trying to do now ? Impress first year students ? Exactly how does that disprove the connection between T-Rex and chickens ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:58 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
What are you trying to do now ? Impress first year students ? Exactly how does that disprove the connection between T-Rex and chickens ?
In the clear light of morning I find your pathetic weaseleing funny. You seem to have an inability to admit when youve been in error, so you try to engage only in cheap shots rather than substance. I admit that I like to deliver cheap shots too but youll see that in each of my posts Ive maintained substance while all youve been doing is making schoolyard responses like "Oh YEah"? or "Sos yer mom". .

If you state that I agree with you, WHY didnt you simply explain the relationship that I posted when you posted your "DNA connection between chickens and T Rex".. It would have been far simpler and , not to mention, waaay more to the point and ACCURATE. You seem to have an affinity for claiming that DNA is responsible for everything when there are many proteins that occur in somatic and muscle cells that are minimally related to cellular DNA. These connective tissues are still being studied as examples of extra-nuclear (epigenetics) structures. The results of that are not in the publishing pipeline at this time, so Im certain your degree of scientific sophistication is coming up short.

Quote:
Quote:
...similar studies on ratites and Buteos show similar ratios of the glycine and alanine. What are you trying to do now ? Impress first year students ? Exactly how does that disprove the connection between T-Rex and chickens
If you had a critical mind (rather than one that just reads pop science magazines), youd have seen that the relationship with chickens may be just a convenient aphorysm for the Discovery Channel set. The ratios of glycine/alanine are similarly close to the 2.6 :1 for TREXand chickens so , it may be that TREX is actually just as close to ostriches or hawks.

I recall going around with you once before about DNA and what its actually accomplishing . You tried to obfuscate then too so , for future reference lets try to be accurate in our pronouncements, rather than look like the "know it all who shows up in the barbershop". When you discuss something with which I have working relationships, please try to remember that precision in your utterings is appreciated. I dont like "Sloppy" thinking when it comes to stuff like this. I do consider this a classroom in which I have relevant experience and skills and apparently you do not.
When you utter your wisdom about airplanes I usually take your pov (unless Georgeob disagrees with you then I normally go with the practiced experience and training).
As far as fish depletion Ill argue as an informed layman. In this field, Im sorry but your posted relationship between what SChwietzer found and DNA is totally bullshit and you must acknowledge that for yourself , otherwise your going to miss the actual excitement that was going around a few years ago when this was news.

Structurally, noone has found any DNA in any old fossils, so you can forget Jurassic PArk. Actually Schweitzers synthesis of the proteins and the crystallization and xray detection is a fascinating subject that is even more complex than PCR sequencing (I used to be a chemist before I was a geologist). The use of autoimmune responses to detect species similarities is a trick that has been developed fairly recently even though autoimmune detection had been used for "pregnancy testing" for years.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 07:50 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
You seem to have an inability to admit when youve been in error....youll see that in each of my posts Ive maintained substance
Are you serious ? You have obfuscated every error you have made by throwing in surperfluous bullshit in the hope of many words make heavy reading. You have demanded you be believed because you are an "expert" by your own modest admission. My original statement was correct, and you have dragged the debate so far away from it that you clearly do not want to resume the topic. Clearly you are ego driven to avoid it rather than admit you were wrong.

Quote:
You seem to have an affinity for claiming that DNA is responsible for everything when there are many proteins that occur in somatic and muscle cells that are minimally related to cellular DNA.
You cant see the forest for the trees. How did those proteins get there without DNA ?

Quote:
If you had a critical mind (rather than one that just reads pop science magazines), youd have seen that the relationship with chickens may be just a convenient aphorysm for the Discovery Channel set.
Do you really think this holier than thou bullshit is working ?

Quote:
If you state that I agree with you, WHY didnt you simply explain the relationship that I posted when you posted your "DNA connection between chickens and T Rex"..
Here's a better question why did you post this crap ?
Quote:
WHO THE HELL HAS T-rex DNA??


Quote:
The ratios of glycine/alanine are similarly close to the 2.6 :1 for TREXand chickens so , it may be that TREX is actually just as close to ostriches or hawks.
Exactly how does that disprove the connection between T-Rex and chickens ? I have asked that twice now and it seems to be your prefernce to dodge the hard ones.

Quote:
I recall going around with you once before about DNA and what its actually accomplishing .
You asked me what I thought it did, I told you and you responded. Out of deference for your opinion I chose not to argue even though I knew you were missing the big picture. You asked me once too often to tolerate your stupidity simply because you feel you are an "expert".

Quote:
The results of that are not in the publishing pipeline at this time, so Im certain your degree of scientific sophistication is coming up short.

Do you think that is a fair criticism when I said :
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.


Quote:
so you can forget Jurassic PArk.
You keep saying that...why are you obsessed with Jurasic Park ? It is only a movie...

Quote:
your posted relationship between what SChwietzer found and DNA is totally bullshit and you must acknowledge that for yourself
You annoying little clown....I used Schwietzers own words..how can that be wrong if I repeat what Schwietzer wrote ?

Quote:
Structurally, noone has found any DNA in any old fossils,
You are obsessed with this...I have explained to you many times I never said that...you said it...so I want you to explain to everyone why you beat your wife.

Here's the bottom line....you were wrong to extrapolate any other meaning than what I said. That is wishful thinking on your part and is hardly worthy of your ego's opinion of yourself as an expert. You were wrong to attack the messenger. Clearly you have raced around and now made yourself familiar with the point I introduced, as reading your changing story shows.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:06 am
@Ionus,
Gentlemen - if you could tone down the personal digressions for a moment and focus on the substance here (the topic is asteroids), posters with training in orbital paths calculations but no background in biology might be able to follow your arguments: any connection to the Murchison meteorite? Thank you.
Quote:
The team dissolved and analyzed samples of the Murchison meteorite. The asteroid fragment had crashed into Australia in 1969 and is thought to be 4.5 billion years old"as old as our solar system....The results also showed that the nucleobases contained a large ratio of a heavy form of carbon rarely found on Earth...The nucleobases could have formed in space or in the interiors of asteroids, where the molecules would have been shielded from harsh ultraviolet light and other radiation, study leader Martins said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080618-meteor-earth.html
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:22 am
@High Seas,
An interesting read, but I am not sure of the logic of this :
Quote:
The finding supports an idea first proposed by astronomer Carl Sagan and a colleague in 1992. Some of life's crucial building blocks, they said, were forged in the hearts of roving comets and asteroids, which seeded them throughout the cosmos.
Given the speed of these things and without a growth mechanism it seems hard to believe a spread type theory. Wouldnt it be more reasonable if they were of local manufature in most stellar ort clouds ?

High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:31 am
@Ionus,
Trajectories of all manner of curves I can calculate; astrophysics and biology are sadly beyond my ken - even Oort clouds. Thank you for upping the signal-to-noise ratio here, hope my good friend Farmerman will follow suit so the rest of us can get some DNA insights Smile
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:08 am
@farmerman,
...and oh, one last question from me here until either of you DNA experts come back: how can any precursor to life conceivably survive at zero Kelvin?!
Quote:
Typical noontime temperatures are four degrees Celsius above absolute zero. As temperatures move toward absolute zero, the kinetic energy of the molecules approach a finite value. Absolute zero should not be considered a state of zero energy without motion. There still remains some molecular energy, although it is at a minimum, at absolute zero.....The Oort cloud is the source of long-period comets and possibly higher-inclination intermediate comets ....

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/oort.htm
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:58 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
How did those proteins get there without DNA ?
Thats like saying that "we know everything is the result of the big bang so therefore chickens are related to T Rex as a result oif the big bang. You would flunk even basic biology when you anwer with making all your fatuous statements.


Quote:
The ratios of glycine/alanine are similarly close to the 2.6 :1 for TREXand chickens so , it may be that TREX is actually just as close to ostriches or hawks.Exactly how does that disprove the connection between T-Rex and chickens ? I have asked that twice now and it seems to be your prefernce to dodge the hard ones.
Youve asked totally different questions each time and Ive answered them. The fact that the ratios are NOT UNIQUELY CHICKEN, casts doubt on the entire statement .
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:13 am
@High Seas,
Sorry for the diversion here but You understand how it is when people are not precise in their descriptions.

I only know that the Murcheson meteroite contained two nucleotides, Uracil and xanthine and that both had their C in the form of C13. SO, of the two, only Uracil is in the base grouping and is contained in RNA, but C13 or left rotatory Carbons are usually not associated with life but are produced in means other than the (x)NA sequencing. The carbonatites that were assayed by Zaire in the MArtian 00084(?) meteorite were similarly C13 and were dropped from further considerations as a life lab.

OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 01:44 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
In the worst case, if I was being insulting, which I maintain I wasnt, is it no more than what he started ?
To this layman, yes; you sound like an imbecile trying to overcome an expert's argument with petty insult, and hastily gathered fragments of evidence you don't, yourself, fully understand. (Just a friendly heads-up, I'm not trying to be insulting or anything.)

You seem to be relying heavily (entirely?) on a couple of quotes from Schwietzer. Have you read Schwietzers ' published opinion about Dino-DNA? (No, you haven't.) A quick Google revealed there is certainly no consensus among Schwietzer's peers, even if you had.

I did find an interesting guide to extracting Dinosaur DNA, however:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4598/dinodnachart.jpg

As near as this layman can figure; this method has yet to yield Dino-DNA.


Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 02:00 pm
Ionus -- I suggest you quit while you're still in third or fourth or fifth place. No sense in making a total ass of yourself. Or, is it already too late for that?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 03:22 pm
@farmerman,
So does that provide support to the late Prof. Sagan's theory that meteorites or comets brought early precursors of DNA-RNA to earth? I understand C13 isn't a likely element, but how about the others? And is Ionus's suggestion of some link with the Oort cloud - that was also Sagan's hypothesis - correct? I've a vague recollection that Sagan's probability calculation for extraterrestrial life was based on precisely that mechanism. Thanks.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 07:53:12