9
   

Experts Concluse that Asteroid Impact Wiped Out Dinosaurs

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:47 pm
@Setanta,
Mea culpa mea culpa, mea megambo culpa
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 05:48 pm
oh, Ionus is from Oz? I thought he was a Brit twit.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:00 pm
@farmerman,
It is amazing how disagreeing with some people can drive them to be insulting. Now you just watch how CB comes back with how this is all my fault..this should be fun...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:01 pm
@Setanta,
Its OK **** for brains..I dont think he meant an arsehole like you ...you are ina different league....more the needs wiping kind of arsehole.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 01:09 am
@Ionus,
I can sorta see where Ionus got his "DNA bullcrap when he was stating that chickens and T Rex share the same DNA. Sean Carroll and JAck Horner have proposed an extension of Ken Millers thesis that "we dont create new genes in evolution, we just ask existing ones to do new things"

On a "discovery show" Carroll was exhorting his audience to accept that dino and chicken DNA are the same because of "inferred homologous functions". It is sort of a

"Trust me, I know that T Rex DNA and chicken DNA are the same because we can create chicken "teeth" by messing with that section of a chickens genome that has its teeth genes "turned off"

Perhaps this is where Ionus got his authoritative sounding statement. . The difference is that, for CArroll and Horner, Its a working hypothesis that has yet no evidence in fact and , no matter what we can do by turning "fossil genes" on or off, we will never know what the genome of a TRex is about unless we actually are able to sequence one from some fossil. There are many other animals seemingly unrelated to each other who develop homolgous functional groups that ariase from adaptation mutation or some other means. (We dont know which is correct)

So, Im gonna give Ionus some ability to draw conclusions from watching a TV show that purports to be good science. What Ionus is unaware of, is that the controversy involved in genomics and proteomics is in the detail that is waay over his pay grade. Im not saying that hes ineducable, merely ignorant of the real controversy in genomics and so he will accept the latest and most entertaining dinosaur tale , and the hell with the controversies that try to keep Carroll and Horner in check.
All science is self correcting and sooner or later, the truth will be ferreted out. Unfortunately, the desire for media to make all science accessible to us all, has resulted in us getting overly simplified explanations of things that are not as obviously simple and elegant as we want them to be.

For example, single nucleotide polymorphs and "Hopeful monsters" , the results of new gene and chromosome formation stare us in the face and complicate what otherwise sounds like a very entertaining and simple story of the fact that maybe genes are just turned off and on and all else is just minor mutation. However, we have the glaring example of new genes in the human genome, where the entire no 2 chromosome is actually a fused form of chromosomes 2A and 2B of the genome of pongid apes (Mostly seen in chimps). That why humans have 1 less chromosome pair than do chimps. This is new DNA by recombination.

We(humans) were , perhaps , a "hopeful monster" that came down from the trees and develop by adaptation. (The no 2 chromosome in humans contains the very genes (along with genes on chromosome 16) that are conveniently those that reflect our skull/ vertebral couple. This couple , the migration of the chondyle , allows us to walk upright and (maybe) grow a BIG BRAIN. However , all this detailed understanding of human/pongid connections (by DNA) sre clearly able to be sequenced and tested for function because pongid apes are contemporary with humans and share the divergent products of adaptive evolution.

Many times, when we learn stuff from TV shows, remember, the science youre getting is there mostly to sell you products (the show is merely a delivery trick for the vast amount of commercials that we get on basic cable). Thats what I say whenever I watch a show on "Mathturbation" or whats popularly known as "String theory" . We ashould always try to go a bit deeper and not get all tied up in TV how science.



Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 02:16 am
@farmerman,
Now that, famerman, was a post worthy of the respect I have for your expertise and knowledge. But I am unaware of the show you speak of. I would fault your post in one place : DNA bullcrap ? Is that a scientific term ? Or an expression of emotion that is out of place with science ?

From my time at Uni (working) I have several friends that I hold in high esteem and they enjoy a frank conversation with me. A PhD in Psychiatry and a PhD in History/ Archaeology are my two closest friends and we love to discuss the latest in science. I have never discussed my true love, String Theory and Quantum Theory because it has never really come up.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 03:32 am
@parados,
Quote:
Since the geological record shows that the Colorado river cuts through rock wouldn't that show that humans can't dam the river with a rock like substance?
This is factually true parados..what your critics have assumed is the time scale. They want a small time scale...clearly daming a river with rock is inadequate to a river that chews through rock. The dam is temporary.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 03:37 am
@Ionus,
Those dams are going to be totally silted up long before the river *cuts through anything. There is a reason it's called the Colorado.

Barring failure due to geological issues, anyway.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 10:45 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Now that, famerman, was a post worthy of the respect I have for your expertise and knowledge. But I am unaware of the show you speak of. I would fault your post in one place : DNA bullcrap ? Is that a scientific term ?


That post was an attempt to try to understand how someone who claims to be educated could make large leaps in logic and, when questioned about his sources, merely uses bully tactics to try to shout down dissent. Most educated people I know have learned that they arent always right or even close, but when seeing the facts, learn to accept same and embrace them. You seem to be on a campaign which is heavy in denial .

You say that you trust men whove been in combat. That too is some self serving pile of ****. I can tell you that combat has only left me with a crippled arm and a fear of guys like you who believe their own press.

SCience is self correcting by means that usually involve heavy doses of abrasion of "pet theories". Im merely providing the "pumice grit" to insure that you dont forget that when we ask for a certain degree of precision in our discussions, youll know that we mean it.

Ive been intellectually trashed by several on these fora and , instead of going postal, like you, Ive used the opportunities to learn more. Several others of us fight like good Democrats and still respect our small areas of expertise. You, sir, seem to be invested in a typical military attitude (trust me Ive seen it in Non Com marines) "I may not always be right but Im never wrong".

SO, Im neither impressed with your intellectual capacity nor your self congratulatory "This is no-****" military references.

Ill exit this thread also because, with this post, I see Im being as petulent as you so I should ignore myself and give me a hearty thumbs down.
I atleast worry about how Im percieved, when Im being an asshole

Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 07:29 am
@farmerman,
And you dont know what condescending means ?

Quote:
That post was an attempt to try to understand how someone who claims to be educated could make large leaps in logic and, when questioned about his sources, merely uses bully tactics to try to shout down dissent. Most educated people I know have learned that they arent always right or even close, but when seeing the facts, learn to accept same and embrace them. You seem to be on a campaign which is heavy in denial .
It staggers me that you can correctly identify the problem but attribute it all to me. You are a sad man who needs things this forum can not provide.


Quote:
You say that you trust men whove been in combat. That too is some self serving pile of ****. I can tell you that combat has only left me with a crippled arm and a fear of guys like you who believe their own press.

Well except for you of course.

Quote:
Ive been intellectually trashed by several on these fora and , instead of going postal, like you,
You and one or two others, cant even read my posts without going postal. Your arrogance and lack of knowledge is extraordinary. You simply can not understand the concept of being wrong. You make assumptions as to what I mean without asking because you are driven by fear and ego.

If you are the great scholar you think you are, how come you didnt know the point I was making ? That dinosaurs may not be extinct. That they may be around us in birds, the closest to them being the chicken ? Why is it you had no prior knowledge of that ? If I try to meet you halfway, you think you have won and get all uppity again. Well **** you, gomer, I dont like you and I will save my respect for someone who deserves it, not some broken down and bitter army reject who thinks he knows everything.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 09:50 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
That dinosaurs may not be extinct. That they may be around us in birds, the closest to them being the chicken ? Why is it you had no prior knowledge of that ?
. If youve ever read any of my past posts on evolution you could have seen that I was quite aware of the "popular thinking" about T rex and birds , and chickens in particular. My own comments were about how much T _REX tastes like chicken (I guess trying to be light hearted around you is like a fart in a wet suit).
I merely questioned your source for the DNA statement. You couldnt provide one, you then went ballistic on me and took off on a tirade about how my very question was some kind of insult . YOU actually carried the whole issue out far longer tha n it even deserved , and by doing so, I dont think that Im the one that looks like the fool . I think ya ought to exmine how far you want to take this, Ive got all the time in the world and Im always interested in finding whose found some DNA from a dicosaur. Ive got stores of information on this subject that I havent trotted out and its so technical that I know Id lose you in the dust.





Quote:
If I try to meet you halfway, you think you have won and get all uppity again. Well **** you, gomer, I dont like you and I will save my respect for someone who deserves it, not some broken down and bitter army reject who thinks he knows everything.


There is no "halfway" when we make dumb statements out loud. Youre just trying to recapture some minimal credibility . Ive tried to understand where you could have gotten the erroneous information and discovered that perhaps TV played a role. Well, yousay that you didnt watch any TV programs about Dino genetics so I assume you got this from discussions with your peers. (I hope since Ive explained it in detail via PM that youve corrected their misconceptions)

AS far as your final statement about me as a GOMER, I can accept that with a smile (actually Im a GOOBER), but I hope you realize how silly you sound. There you are excoriating me for going postal and then youre winding up your post with a "**** you Gomer".
Thats funny .
, really.



I
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 12:09 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
You and one or two others, cant even read my posts without going postal. Your arrogance and lack of knowledge is extraordinary. You simply can not understand the concept of being wrong. You make assumptions as to what I mean without asking because you are driven by fear and ego.
If you're trying to make a complete ass of yourself; it's working.

No one here has any difficulty understanding what you write, except you. Every 5th grader knows that as theory has it; birds and dinosaurs are related. But you went ahead and claimed your knowledge was "based on DNA" and have furiously backpedalled like an idiot ever since, rather than simply admitting your error like an adult. No one here is stupid enough to buy your idiotic explanation for this error, and attacking Farmerman for responding to your DNA claim mostly serves to fortify assumptions about your ignorance.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 01:31 pm
Farmerman is sufficiently familiar with the literature, and can cite authors and works easily enough that i take him at his word. Certainly i haven't looked up the authors to whom he refers to either confirm what he writes, nor to deny it. But if someone is familiar with a subject, sufficiently familiar to cite authors and their works, i take them at their word because we live in a society of expertise where it would be foolish to assume that one knows enough about all subjects to challenge people's remarks outside one's own area of expertise.

I have a problem with those who simply make statements from authority, and can't even be bothered to offer an explanation for their position, let alone any references to books or articles with which they can claim some external authority.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 04:38 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
You cite 5th grade like a true 6th grader.
Quote:
claimed your knowledge was "based on DNA" and have furiously backpedalled like an idiot ever since
But of course this is only opinion. When I care for your opinion I will look for you in the barn with gomer.

Quote:
No one here is stupid
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Hilarious ! Do you do Bar Mitzva's ?

Would you like my opinion on what self sefving over opinionated clowns like you really are ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 06:01 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Ive got stores of information on this subject that I havent trotted out and its so technical that I know Id lose you in the dust.
You dont think your ego is a problem ? I dont worship you like billy boy and **** for brains so I must be wrong. One clown even thinks I am back peddling. I have had to repeat it several times so far, but what the hell..

Quote:
Ionus : 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:
If youve ever read any of my past posts on evolution
Is that like publishing a paper ? Getting the Nobel Prize ? Or is it just more ego based bullshit on your part ?

Quote:
I merely questioned your source for the DNA statement. You couldnt provide one,
The very next post, dickhead..
You had better hope the suck holes out there who thing you are a little darling cant read or your stupidity might damage your fan base. I know it wont change your inability to concentrate and remember.

Quote:
If youve ever read any of my past posts on evolution
Ive got stores of information on this subject
I was quite aware of the "popular thinking"
I know Id lose you in the dust.
Youre walking in my court
I dont know of any discoveries
in case you forgot it with your head up your ass like that
Im just better than you
You know nothing of me and my work or sidebars.
Youre projecting from ignorance again.
Jurassic Park. (THAT WAS FICTION)
Im sure that over 70% of what Ionus says is true. My only problem is that he often throws in the other 30.
Anybody with an interest in this would have understood.
And your version of what this expertise has meant on this thread ?
Quote:
I merely questioned
Do you belive that is all you did ? There was no shock to your ego ?

As your comprehension skills are lacking let me repeat :
Quote:
Ionus : 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.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 06:40 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Those dams are going to be totally silted up long before the river *cuts through anything. There is a reason it's called the Colorado.....

Any cutting done by the Colorado river is at most 6 million years old - the older rock formations at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon geological formations are almost as old as our planet, 4.6 billion years old. Seems there's been some influence by falling asteroids and comets:
Quote:
This is what made up the rocks below the lower-most strata in the Grand Canyon, the earth's proto-oceans..... The earth was growing by the impact of meteorites and comets some 4.6 billion years ago.

http://www.t-rat.com/images/GeologicalHistoryGrandCanyon/earlyocean2.jpg
http://www.t-rat.com/Pages/GeologicalHistGrandCanyon.html
Most of those layers deposited over those 4++ billion years were sediments accumulating under ancient seas. Not sure what caused the actual canyon chasm, since the river didn't, maybe some massive earthquake? Could an asteroid direct hit have done it? Thanks to anyone with info!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 06:40 pm
I've always thought dinosaurs collapsed under their own hegemony by being unable to stop eating. Shagging without heavy lifting gear must have been a bit of a strain.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 08:34 pm
@High Seas,
Actually , the river did and wed have to go back several more millions of years. The controversy of how the GC was formed and when is still raging. It involves multiple uplifts, intervening lakes and splayed drainage, with a little plate tectonics thrown in. I never worry too much cause some Phd student will soon do the "definative" analysis and well all feel comfortable at having solved the whole thing and then some Creationist will start to plotz about all the interlaminary "Flood Deposits".
Heres some light reading and followed up by a moree cartoonish version with the lake as a principal feature.

[/url]
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 08:42 pm
So I watch all these science channels on tv. I love them. I was watching the history channel the other night and there was an interesting program on. I am interested in what you guys have to say about it.

Apparently there was a dinosaurs that was found. They did some testing on it. I have no idea what they did. But they did it several times and each time they got the same results. Apparently when the test was done, it resulted in tissue from the bones. These were dated and found to be over 65 millions years old. Visible blood vessels were seen in the tissues as well. I didn't get to catch the whole show because I had to run out or something.

Anyone hear about this?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 08:42 pm
@farmerman,
DAYUM, forgot to post the url. The one Ive included is a simplified but very comprehensive synthesis based upon available evidence and plaeo"slope" data. The site is pretty good for geo students and old geologists who slept during the discussions about the GChttp://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/canform.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 08:03:53