9
   

Experts Concluse that Asteroid Impact Wiped Out Dinosaurs

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 04:59 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
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 are prone to stupidity but that exceeds even your considerable ability. Well done.

Quote:
The fact that the ratios are NOT UNIQUELY CHICKEN, casts doubt on the entire statement .
Damn, youse dumb. Do you honestly think that a dino cant be related to a chicken because it also might be related to large land birds and vultures/raptors ? This means your great grandmother cant be related to you because she might also be related to your cousin. And you cant see this ?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Sorry for the diversion here but You understand how it is when people are not precise in their descriptions.
You waffle on throwing everything you know in the hope people will stop reading out of boredom and you think you were precise ? And to top it all of you agreed with me. Seek help.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:14 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Just a friendly heads-up, I'm not trying to be insulting or anything
I shall take it in the spirit it is given.

Quote:
As near as this layman can figure; this method has yet to yield Dino-DNA.
Please tell me you are joking. You are doing exactly what country bumkin did. Show me where I said they have found dino DNA. Show me those words or **** off. I have explained several times, imbecile. Read what I wrote :
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:
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.

And I quoted Dr Schweitzer
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....

Quote:
Have you read Schwietzers ' published opinion about Dino-DNA? (No, you haven't.)
If you want to answer your own questions then fine, talk to yourself in private.

Quote:
there is certainly no consensus among Schwietzer's peers,
Where did I say there was ? Or am I wrong for siding with an expert and not your deer country bumpkin darling ? If you want to hold his hand because you think he is useless, dont let me stop you.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:16 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Now we have the entire senior home agitated. You want to hold country bumpkins hand too ? I only suggested he was incapable, apparently you and imbecile know he is incompetent and have to help.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:18 pm
@High Seas,
Dont know much about Oort's Cloud or why it should be a "cradle". (Water, energy, functional gases, etc are ome of the supposed recipes). I am concerned about the isotopic ratios of C13/C12. Nowhere on earth do we have any suspect sources or carbonaceous fossil beds (like the Chatanooga or Isua Formations) that have anything but high positives for C12.

One of the reasons for considering the Isua Formation as a terrestrial cradle is its C12 abundance .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:20 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
And is Ionus's suggestion of some link with the Oort cloud - that was also Sagan's hypothesis - correct?
From my understanding of what Sagan was saying, he thinks there is a mechanism for transporting these molecules through the galaxy. I was suggesting it might be more plausible if they were of local manufacture everywhere, say a second generation sun's ort cloud. Perhaps he was saying the same thing, but it seemed he was suggesting a transport mechanism to other solar systems.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:59 pm
@Ionus,
I wrote a response to Himslef and then trashed it. Im gonna try to be the "grownup" and deny myself the childish sport of responding to someone in kind.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:04 pm
@farmerman,
I hope we can put this in the past, and the next time we discuss something I would prefer not to be insulted. You most certainly wouldnt do it without the safety of several thousand miles separation. I have appreciated your expert opinion in the past and will continue to do so. If I defer to your knowledge, I do not expect it to rebound in a later discussion on a different but broadly related matter.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:09 pm
@Ionus,
You both have interesting things to say and it's hard to locate them in the crossfire! Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:55 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
how can any precursor to life conceivably survive at zero Kelvin?!

Sorry, missed your question somehow in the first read. It isnt zero kelvin, and it is not certain what would happen at that temp but it is definitely a very cold state that is very close to absolute zero.

Low energy preserves most chemicals, because they dont have the energy to change. Life and pre-life chemicals require comparatively high energy chemical activity, the best temp range being in liquid water and there are ionic reasons for that as well. If I may read into your question, the ort cloud preserves through very low activity any "complex" molecules made either during the formation of the solar system or during an orbit that takes it close to the sun and provides the energy. As it is not clear exactly what the story is here, I am reluctant to speculate but I hope that answers the question somewhat.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:29 pm
@Ionus,
Thanks. What I don't know about molecular thermodynamics fills libraries, so I have to think about possible sequences for a while. Appreciate your and Farmerman's explanations.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 12:34 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
As near as this layman can figure; this method has yet to yield Dino-DNA.
Please tell me you are joking. You are doing exactly what country bumkin did. Show me where I said they have found dino DNA. Show me those words or **** off. I have explained several times, imbecile. Read what I wrote :
Ionus wrote:
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.

Laughing So your statement about "the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken" was based on DNA that you never said has been found? Laughing Pretty neat trick, that! http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/images/smilies/backpedal.gif
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 12:49 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Already said I know no biology, but backtracing DNA from known sources involves a mathematical calculation (Markov chains with intermediate midpoints). You can take it as far back as you like - of course with increasing uncertainty in the algorithm's error term - if you have a target date you're aiming for. I don't know if that's been done in the case of dinosaurs (over 65 million years), but it's done all the time for viruses like AIDS.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 01:39 pm
@High Seas,
It's amazing how suddenly chaos theory plays no part in that calculation High Seas making it impossible to calculate.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:25 pm
@parados,
LOL. This is a projection into the PAST. Unknowable in detail, but nothing to do with chaos theory - that's predictions about the FUTURE. Is it your mathematics or your English stopping you from grasping this simple point? No offense meant, just hope you'll think it over before replying. FYI, the past can only have followed a path that may be unknowable, but is mathematically unique at each and every point, whatever the coefficients of the Markov chains. It is ex POST, not ex ANTE. Others here may be able to explain this simple point to your in non-mathematical terms - hope we'll hear from them soon.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:10 pm
@High Seas,
PS that's an attachment with C++ code to a theoretical article on memory-efficient dynamic programming backtrace >
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/btn308/DC1
> original article is here, but you may do better by downloading the code first:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668612/
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:36 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
LOL. This is a projection into the PAST. Unknowable in detail, but nothing to do with chaos theory

So in other words chaos theory can NOT be use to argue CO2 is not the cause of warming.
Nor can it be used to argue that warming doesn't exist.
Nor can it be used to argue that the models are inaccurate when back testing them.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:44 pm
@parados,
CO2 can be shown from recent ice core data to be a FOLLOWING indicator during warming spells. They look at Oxygen isotope ratios and Co2 concentrations and makeup of the C isotopes in the ice cores. They show a fairly good and convincing argument (to me anyway) that climate change doesnt seem to be caused by CO2, but these cores also show that sun cycles correlated fairly well with climate change sequences.

I dont know what the hell Mandelbrot stuff would do to explain climate change in the past?

I love chaos expressions that predict sedimentation sequences in various environments. Its magic how close the predictions compare to actual lab data and field measurem,ents.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:45 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I apologise for my previous response. You are treating that post with more dignity than it deserves.

I still maintain that based on DNA means exactly that, as opposed to based on appearance, or based on an intermediate link. That the DNA is unsuitable for comparison because of its theorised nature from proteins is a separate argument. Based on DNA does not mean DNA was found, simply the connection was based on our knowledge of DNA. I made the statement "It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken" because other scientific fields have voiced this opinion without any basis on DNA.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:03 am
@farmerman,
Would you also argue the grand canyon is evidence that we can't dam the Colorado River?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 11:41:47