@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.
