Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I see a flying anus . Hes gone up the chute again, poor guy.

Well--alright. That's as maybe. But here it is again-



Why the "suggests"? Why not "proves beyond a shadow of doubt"?

What's "demineralization"? What's "multiple analyses"? What are "fibrous cortical and medullary tissues "? What is the value of "support"? What difference does it make what these chancers "propose"? And then it's only "possible". And even then it only "may contribute". Which allows that it "may not". What's "endogenous protein"? Which "may validate hypotheses ". And again allowing for it "may not" doing.

It's pure bullshit effemm and if you can't see it, or daren't see it, you are the ******* sap.

And I could pick it to pieces a lot more elaborately that I have done. It's pure bullshit. Full stop. No question about it.

It's about looking good in front of an audience who never learned to read or write properly. Shamen stuff. Mumbo jumbo. Goodstyle.

You're either a genius or have camel **** in the place of that large wrinkley organ in your head.

Holy crap. I hope you aren't being serious...

Well seeing as you aren't a biologist, I don't think any of us would expect you to know those terms. Neither do we expect you to attempt to deny their professional, knowledgeable collective conclusions on the basis of that they don't fit in with a stone age book clearly, to any vaguely intelligent person, a hodge-podged, filtered, deceitful, unsupported piece of propanda claiming soundness of the basis of manipulative men from primitive cultures.

There were no conclusions.

I meant what did "they" mean by "demineralisation". Same with the other terms.

You explain them for us ap. Scientifically.

The argot of several disciplines is used by the CSience abstract. The word "Suggest" is one where data for evidence is presented and the reader is allowed to comment about what the author suggests the data is showing. Noone presumes that theyve thought of everything first time out. If you dont like it, try to better understand what science says and how it says it. Evencourts dont have "Guilty beyond all shadow of a doubt", In our system the phrase is "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" There is a big difference. AS one who seems to be sensitive about language (especially when its spoken by others), you sometimes fail to get nuanced terminology.



Demineralize means to remove the mineral matrix that surrounded the soft tissue. In this case a demineralizing solution of HF was used because the matrix was siliceous.

Multiple ANalysis-means that the tissue was probably subject to overlapping yet different types of analyses

Fibrous cortical and medullary tissues are specific to the area studied, cortical means covering or associated with cells and medullary(in this case refers to the bone) so its really a single phrase. In this paragraph, the word "support" refers to the mineral matrix which "held" the fibrous medullary tissue under investigation. Support has nothing to do with "underpinning" a hypothesis. (Youre being prposely obtuse?)

To "propose" a possible pathway is to develop and calculate a way, that the preservation of soft tissue , held in a matrixof siliceous CEMENT could happen over 65 million years. Its a bit of jargon but, try to work on the entire thought and not a single word at a time. Youll only confuse yourself more (unless youre trying to make some assinine comment about the tentative language of discovery)

Its not bullshit. Im afraid that you are merely talking the language of ignorance. SCience isnt always pompous as you, when contributions to understanding are made, the teams usually refer to their work as a possible mechanism or a finding that may help in the understanding of the evolutionary relationships between Tyrannosaurs and chickens.

Your hammy attempts at syntactical analysis are more humorous than instructive. I enjoy discussions where we parse words out of phrases to better understand the overall meaning. However, I think what you were doing was more with a spirit of eternal hope that you could expose a flaw in the reports presentation. ACtually all youve done is expose us to your level of ignorance .AFTER 4 years of you hopping in and out of these discussions, Id have thought that some of the argot phrases unioque to evolution and the sister sciences would have been second nature to you. Apparently not. Ive learned alot about Spengler and la Meittrie from your posts, and its apparent that youve not availed yourself to the language of the sciences.

OH WELL. I suppose when we make life companions with drafts of pilsners , bitters, and lagers, we can always dreg up from our past cortical entries so we dont sound completely stupid. We just have problems with short term memory. Maybe thats your trouble.

Im goin with the camel **** option. Data would "Suggest" such an option and, if proven by medical science, would contribute much to the etymology of the phrase , "**** for brains"

I believe the primary objective of the study was to augment the dinosaurs to modern birds link which it did. I've been following this since the discovery of the fossil:

That looks like a lump of rock, which no doubt effemm can name, into which somebody has chisselled some patterns he's seen in a comic. It looks softish rock which is what I would expect. It's just that carbon dating the rock doesn't give the date of the chisselling.

It looks horrifying. I wouldn't show it to kids myself. I'm not having cheese for supper tonight after seeing that thing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090116-feathered-dinosaur.html

I enjoyed your post effemm.

The data I've seen suggests that the chancers were pushing the boat out for funds which come more easily when the title of the source of the funds is linked to high level research in the public mind. It redounds to the credit of the source of the funds you see. Funds go to those who the source of the funds approves of. And that's anybody who links their name to cutting-edge science, whatever the science.

"Suggests" suggests impatience.

Science is "beyond a shadow of doubt" isn't it? If there's a doubt ID will come under the tent-flap. Nose first.

We know what "demineralisation" is in the ideal type. One can demineralise only so far. It's an asymptote job. Or one might give a bit of a rinse or a lot of rinses. You won't demineralise. You won't remove the lot.



That made me laugh most.



No that did.

"To "propose" a possible pathway is to develop and calculate a way" -- to raise funds for further studies and the usual accompanying facilities to which the chancers have become accustomed.

How many taxpayers are interested in the relationship betwee Tyrannosaurs and chickens. The Colonel from Indiana will be whirling in his grave.

I had no thought of exposing any flaws in the report's presentation because I thought nothing had been presented apart from some vague speculations couched in mesmerising, equally vague, scientific word patterns designed, successfully it seems, to give the impression to those who can't read properly that something has been said that hasn't been said.

You haven't convinced me it wasn't bullshit. I'm confident I could stand it up before a jury and prove it is just that.

I like short term memory. The long term stuff is a bit depressing.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090209/LIFE/902090318

You do whatever you wish. If you do it in public I just like to hear you make a fool of yourself. You have no defense of your ignorance no matter how loud you bray.As far as standing in front of a jury, I strongly doubt it. Your communications skills arent vested in making convincing arguments. You instead think that random insertions of irrelevancies are capital.Youre an idiot, plain and simple

I guess Im missing your point. The work done by SChweitzer HAD NOTHING to do with proving bird /dino associations. It was a simple excavation at Hell Creek , where a T rex was discovered. During excavation, it was disclosed that "soft tissue" was located in the interiror of the Femural bone. Further treatment to release this soft tissue was done and , like any good science, they sent the stuff off to several labs for chem and tissue analyses. It was later found that the chromatin layers were similar to the substances found in chicken. That was not a planned direction of the excavation, it was a neat outcome of detailed study.

The fossils from Laioning are mostly species of early raptors starting with coelophysis. The caution is that several of these, including the 2 shown in the Nat Geo article, were FAKES. The fossil entrepreneur who sold it to the NYM Nat History had been found out after detailed study of the fossil. NY museum has, instead of hiding this, has had several shows celebrating "paleofrauds" and fake fossils that were used to make points in "missing linkology".
Fortunately, there are many hundreds of actual bird dino fossils from Laioning . However, no real connection can be made on a temporal scale because the ages of sctual birds can be seen to be from the previous geologic period. SO the actual bird precursors came during the Jurassic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25dino.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Goggle "T rex soft tissue birds" and there's over 60 M hits. National Geographic used quotation marks around "Confirmed."

Primary relation by the DNA are ostriches.

More than 90% confirmed are good odds I'd bet on.

Were discussing over each other. My statement was that Schweitzer NEVER went in to prove the relationship between T rex and birds, that was a nifty outcome of the field work. The hits are following up on the soft tissue analyses almost 3 years after the 2005 excavation.
DOnt give credit where none is due. Most of the findings in pAleo are just dumb luck (really theonly one recently that Im aware of is the expeditions planned by Neil Shubin and PAul Deschler to areas underlain by fluvial Devonian sediments in order to see wqhether they would fing the speciment that was ultimately named Tiiktalik.

Even Darwin never understaood till almost 3 years after he returned that most all of the different bird species he gathered in the Galapogos were finches. Edward Drinker Cope was famous for mounting dinosaurs ith heads on the wrong end. And the fakes, ahh yes the fakes.

They dont have ANY DNA from dinosaurs. DNA degrades within 60000 years. We can use osteocalcin as a sub , but that degrades in about 200000 years. The mylo-chromatin is preserevd because of its unique structure (very little water )

I never wanted to intimate that the initial findings confirmed the dinosaur to bird theory and had stated earlier that I was following this discovery but not for the past year. That's why I thanked Wandji for bringing it up. I did a misleading grammatical exclusion on the DNA factor:

From the NYT article.

In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.

End of quote

Yes, I'm aware of the fake factory out of China and so are all the scientists after the first fake was unmasked.

I thought thats where you were heading. The written word, in our "first draft" world makes perfect logic to the writer but the reader is often confused. I know I do that many times and wind up restarting my thought later.

THeyve got a new birdee saur at the Phila Academy of science and this one, from Laioning, is really clear that it was a feathered
dynoninchus. Im convinced that feathers werent a dino to bird modification. Instead, I believe that birds and dinosaurs (sharing the same ancester) also shared feathers as an adaptive modification that came along with warm blood.