IS IT GETTING MEAN AROUND HERE??

Of course, if you just enjoy watching him continue to prove himself unethical...keep him going. In a perverse way, it is fun to watch.

I read the opinion of an expert - Dr Schwietzer. I made the comment that it is possible that Trex is related to chickens. There are other fields where this is also expressed. I always had high regard for you, and when you said about the DNA on another thread, I defferred because of your expertese. I didnt expect that to be used against me. I will continue to respect your opinion because you clearly are an expert which is why I was baffled that you didnt understand what I was saying. I still dont think I said anything wrong. If you wish to restrict this forum to only experts in a particular field, then start your own forum.

I was not being rude when I suggested your health might be suffering still. As a (former) leader of soldiers, I can respect someone, worry for them and still not like them.

MAry never said that proteins require DNA to form. Thats just crap , and it got her and Asara into a bit of a flap on this very subject. When Schweitzer and Johhn Horner sent out the ground up material from the T Rex, they chose Asara at HArvard cause he did a lot of protein sequencing on ostriches. WHen the stuff was sequenced, It wound up matching

1Frogs and newts
2Chickens
3Ostriches.

The work was then published (TOO quickly in my mind) and a real maverick bioinformatics guy named Pav Pevner who took no prisoners. Pevzner railed that the spectra (Asara used a mass spec) were "too clean". There werenet the sequences of junk information that paired the v arious pepetides. (They actually found 8 pepetides and several of these matched the OSTRICHES not chickens). What you didnt know and where I like us to be precise in our talks is that the peptides tha ID'd ostriches was probably contamination from previously run sequences of ostrich protein. When the comments appeared in NAture by PEvzner and some others, they included an article that claimed to ahve found dino DNA in the mid 1990's. That article, it later turned out was a raging fake that was underwitten by someone associated with the entertainment industry . (WAs it marketing for Jurassic Park II?). Its been quietly covered over these years.

This is all part of a relatively new field called paleoproteomics which, even till today is like gangland Chicago in the 1920's. There is much "reputation protection" and "career enhancement" being done and several magazines that are willing to publish **** in the hopes that some of it sticks. The editorial boards of several journals will be shaken up over several bad science articles on dinosaurs, DNA, global warming, and cancer. SO
when I got torqued off at you for using the DNA connection I was treating you like another colleague and not an interested lay person who wouldnt be familiar with all the internescine garnbage that has gone on in the last 5 years or so .
Joun Asara refused to release his spectra and that tipped off the Pevzners that maybe all the hoo haw was nothing mopre than contamination of bad peptides because the mineralization in the Hell Creek Formation is loaded with phosphate rock (called apatite) which, when treated with various enzymes (based on an assumption that proteins ARE actiually there) maybe created the glycine, and alanine in ratios that parroted living connective tissue. The actual cells found(and this was never published) was OSTRICH HAEMOGLOBIN. So Pevzner went back and forth after Horner, Schweitzer, and Asara,.

So, when they found a HAdrosur in 2006 and , after the big flap began, they actually resequenced the connective tissus from a HAdrosaur on a BRAND SPANKIN NEW MASS SPEC, which could hve no previous contamination. They did (hallelujiah) manage to sequence REAL peptides and then Pevzner joined in to use his own statistical sequencing programs to mathematically reconstruct the proteins, and these matched the birds I stated. They also lost the frog peptides and had some of the necessary "junk" that got Pevzner suspicious to begin with.

ASO, what does this have to do with us?
You couldnt possibly be part of any University team whose been nitpicking on SChweitzers work because you openly accepted the chicken association without any comment

I jumped on the DNA connection because Mary was misquoted in print several times about proteins and DNA . Her only refutation was to state emphatically that peptide sequences were successfully detected because (when questeioned about DNA, proteins were there first and they also reside longer than DNA because they dont ahve phophorylated connections .and no evidence of the GACT seuences wre ever mentioned or detected).

SHe speaks from the heart and hates it when misquotes are made that appear in magazined=s that are sold for public display. My own publications have always had to do with rare earth elelnts and several strategic metals. Ive alway had several groups of readers before publication and What Horner et al did, was t get all hopped up about a "quick publish" figuing their data was fully rigorous. It wasnt.

Proteins predate DNA. thexNA family was an artifact of a complexifying life sequence that occured in the Phanerozoic and production of peptides like glycine and alanine (two rel simple proteins) were the pre building blocks of life a billion years before anyone even thought of RNA

Out of some weird sense of respct for what you said about your own delicate health conditions, I am not going to post your PM reply to me AFTER I CLEARED UP YOUR MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT dinosaurs and DNA and how Trex IS NOT a direct ancestor of a chicken.
I wont post it but if you continue with your obsessive insistence, Ill reconsider
I didnt ,make ANY mistake in my information to you.

but tell everyone the real reason you cant use a spell checker

Trex IS NOT a direct ancestor of a chicken.

You know what you are saying here ? That it is impossible for T-rex to be related to chickens . Why is that

I would also remind YOU that your spelling of "NeoArchean" was so atrocious

Another bald faced assrtion (nd lie). You didnt "correct my spelling" youtried to argue that I mde up the word. Cmon ,try to be honest.

you keep reminding us of your own "delicate condition"

You did correct my spelling of Pliocene , to which I acknowledged the mistake.

what I said

Quote:

Trex IS NOT a direct ancestor of a chicken.

what you make believe I said

Quote:

You know what you are saying here ? That it is impossible for T-rex to be related to chickens . Why is that

Are you unfamiliar with the intended precision of language.

I must also remind you of your posts where you were verbally assaulting my intellegence for using a term "NeoArchean"

Quote:

I would also remind YOU that your spelling of "NeoArchean" was so atrocious

PS, the first "A" is NOT capitalized , its all one word.

what I said

Quote:

Trex IS NOT a direct ancestor of a chicken.

Those days are gone I know. I mourn the demise of such civility.