Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Faid

1
As a sidenote, it seems that the 2014 Salinas-Saavedra paper (the one with the experimental inducing of a frameshift) also provides some evidence against the TDH.

I'd explain it, but there's no chance in hell "socrates" would understand, even if he wanted to.
2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_Down_A_MolecularMorphogenetic_Approach_to_Avian_Digit_Homology
Quote
The new approach presented here traces the origins of both the FSH and the PRH to a common source: the loss of digit I. We propose a morphogenetic‐molecular model in which the changing transcriptome as well as the altered phalanx number in birds are direct consequences of the reduction of the anterior‐most digit. Because this effect is thought to be triggered once digit I is lost, we have dubbed it the thumbs down hypothesis (TDH).


This seems to be an alternate way to interpret the evidence. If I interpret it correctly, they are analyzing at the molecular level and have a hypothesis that does not include a frameshift. This seems to be different than the earlier study (2011) that we have been looking at.

::)

So, a theoretical hypothesis, that simply proposes future experiments, is "analyzing at the molecular level"...

But an actual transcriptomic analysis with experimental results and data is just showing that "foot digit I is like hand digit II. Nothing else. Nothing".

Looks like you're all wet, socks. :D
3
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Quote
Overall, these results suggest that the second and third wing digits diverged and may have acquired derived digit identities during theropod evolution, making it difficult to find corresponding digit identities in the hindlimb.

Specific mention of digit 1 shifting while specifically saying "second and third wing digits diverged". Are people pretending the authors are claiming that digits II and III shifted when they specifically say they diverged? This must be another of your famous bluffs. Not worth arguing about.

:facepalm:

It is truly fascinating to watch someone get so triggered over the use of the word "constrained" instead of "conserved" (even if the meaning is essentially the same in the context of the discussion)...

...And then casually imply that "derived" is the opposite of "shifted". ::)


Once again. "socrates", just in case you are STILL confused (and not Just Pretending, which, I gotta say, seems more likely):

As the authors make abundantly clear, the derived identites of the second and third digit refer to them not having 'true homologues' in the hindlimb.

They have nothing to do with whether those digits, derived identities or not, underwent a frameshift in the manus.

Their derived identities mean that we cannot trace which hindlimbs they once corresponded to as homologues.

However (and quite unfortunately for you) we can do that for the FIRST digit, which has a CONSERVED identity and remains a 'true homologue' of a hindlimb digit...


...The FIRST hindlimb digit.


End of the line, champ.
4
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Love this guy. Love him. He should really consider playing second lead in a Mob comedy- Oh wait.
5
But first:
Show me WHERE the authors claim that "two of the digits didn't shift", "socrates".

Let's see whether you're a shameless liar or not. The PRH can wait.
Well I won that bet.

"Socrates" posts a blatant lie, gets called out and makes no effort to either support or retract.

End of the line.
6
But first:
Show me WHERE the authors claim that "two of the digits didn't shift", "socrates".

Let's see whether you're a shameless liar or not. The PRH can wait.
7
And since they have said that "digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient" then the evidence is also consistent with a PRH.
Nope:
Again, this is what you have to deal with:

Quote
We compare the transcriptomes of the wing and foot digits and find a strong signal that unites the first wing digit with the first foot digit, even though the first wing digit develops from embryological position 2.

Quote
there is a strong signal that identifies the anterior-most digits in the forelimb and hindlimb as homologous, in spite of the fact that they develop in different embryological positions.

Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Hopefully, by tomorrow, you'll have explained how it all fits with the PRH. Good luck- You'll need it.

(Although I suspect you're too much of an incompenet coward to even try. Let's see if I win that bet)

Worth repeating.

(And no, "They said 'likely', that means they're not 100% certain, that means they're wrong" doesn't cut it.)
("They said 'consistent'" doesn't cut it either)
8
Show me WHERE the authors claim that "two of the digits didn't shift", "socrates".

Let's see whether you're a shameless liar or not. The PRH can wait.
9
Until their study the FSH people were proclaiming that all the digits shifted. They were just having a hard time showing how. Now they have to contend with the fact that two of the 3 digits did not shift.
Bull.

Shit.

Show me WHERE the authors claim that "two of the digits didn't shift".

"Derived identity" does not mean "No shift", "socrates".

And you know it. You're just dishonest (and stupid enough to think we would let that slip by).
10
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Actually the frameshift hypothesis was stronger before this study was done. Now they have a study that shows the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far!
Which has nothing to do with the actual SUPPORT the study provides for a frameshift, through the digit that does NOT have a derived, but a CONSERVED identity! Oh Emm Gee!!

...


...You STILL don't have a clue, do you?
11
Again, this is what you have to deal with:

Quote
We compare the transcriptomes of the wing and foot digits and find a strong signal that unites the first wing digit with the first foot digit, even though the first wing digit develops from embryological position 2.

Quote
there is a strong signal that identifies the anterior-most digits in the forelimb and hindlimb as homologous, in spite of the fact that they develop in different embryological positions.

Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Hopefully, by tomorrow, you'll have explained how it all fits with the PRH. Good luck- You'll need it.

(Although I suspect you're too much of an incompenet coward to even try. Let's see if I win that bet)

Worth repeating.

(And no, "They said 'likely', that means they're not 100% certain, that means they're wrong" doesn't cut it.)
12
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
The authors keep letting the cat out of the bag. In one sentence they are assertive as can be, then they quietly say it is simply "likely". But the other two digits do not play along, so their case gets weaker and weaker. People here are pretending not to get that.
Oh noes! thay said "likely"! That means it's NOT likely! Of course! Nature is Amaziiiiiiiiiing!

You're pathetic. Any more word-nitpicking to do, or are you done evading the actual points and evidence?


Also: Why don't the other two digits "play along", "socrates"? I've asked you repeatedly. Why do you continue to LIE that blatantly?
13
Quote
We conclude that the most anterior digit in the wing is likely to be homologous to digit I.
Quite a ringing endorsement! Perhaps it is not "constrained" at all. Perhaps it is just a possibility.
A possibility supported by the evidence... If only there was a name for that... ::)
14
Again, this is what you have to deal with:

Quote
We compare the transcriptomes of the wing and foot digits and find a strong signal that unites the first wing digit with the first foot digit, even though the first wing digit develops from embryological position 2.

Quote
there is a strong signal that identifies the anterior-most digits in the forelimb and hindlimb as homologous, in spite of the fact that they develop in different embryological positions.

Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.

Hopefully, by tomorrow, you'll have explained how it all fits with the PRH. Good luck- You'll need it.

(Although I suspect you're too much of an incompenet coward to even try. Let's see if I win that bet)
15
Missed your edit:
Quote
So it CAN be for a PRH explanation.
Show us HOW.

With references, links and copy and paste.

"Whatevs, Nature is amazing" doesn't cut it.
16
"digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient".
It CAN be!
SURE it CAN! But it CAN'T for the FIRST digit, because it ISN'T! As the DATA shows! OMGWTFBBQ!
17
Yeah, as a matter of fact I do (there is no difference with "conserved" in this context). But that is irrelevant to what the AUTHORS say:
Quote
there is a strong signal that identifies the anterior-most digits in the forelimb and hindlimb as homologous, in spite of the fact that they develop in different embryological positions.
18
Quote
These results provide evidence that the second and third wing digits are developmentally distinct from the second to fourth hindlimb digits, indicating that digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient.

If digit individualization can be dynamic and evolutionarily transient then that can be true for the anterior-most digit as well. Right?
Wrong.

Because the actual DATA shows that this is NOT the case for the FIRST digit:
Quote
there is a strong signal that identifies the anterior-most digits in the forelimb and hindlimb as homologous, in spite of the fact that they develop indifferent embryological positions.
Quote
We don't actually need a frameshift. There is another explanation.
Feel free to PROVIDE one.

:popcorn:
19
Indeed.

But the FIRST one is not.

So:
This is perhaps a good time to remind "socrates" of this unaddressed question:
For those concerned about this, I suggest that for PRH that is a sufficient explanation.

Give us the explanation, then.

Why is it that, for the PRH, the forelimb digit developing from position II, is the true homologue of hindlimb digit I?

Should be easy to explain.

:popcorn:
20
This is perhaps a good time to remind "socrates" of this unaddressed question:
For those concerned about this, I suggest that for PRH that is a sufficient explanation.

Give us the explanation, then.

Why is it that, for the PRH, the forelimb digit developing from position II, is the true homologue of hindlimb digit I?

Should be easy to explain.

:popcorn:
21
Why do they say "that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far? How is what they are saying contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far ?
Because they are the ones that propose derived identities. As we have told you a dozen times.

Now how come they say their result is "consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity"?
22
The data can be explained by translocation from digit position 1 to position 2*.
But the data does not "show" that.


* it is not a parsimonious explanation
Says who?

You?

:rofl:

Get back to us when you have some actual arguments, "Dr". Not to mention references, links and copy-pasted material.
23
As a sidenote it is not correct to have said that "These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2". What is correct is the bold part.
Because "socrates" thinks he can tell the authors which "parts" are correct, and which are not.

:rofl:
24
But let us not just skip by the correct assertion (in bold) from the authors:
Quote
These data show that in the stem lineage of birds the first digit underwent a translocation from digit position 1 to position 2,and further indicate that the posterior wing digits have unique identities contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far
And let's not also forget the OTHER correct conclusion:
Quote
This result suggests that, in the theropod hand, the embryological position of digit I has changed from position 1, as in the ancestor of amniotes, to position 2 in the stem lineage of birds, consistent with the frameshift hypothesis of avian digit identity.
25
We have now reached the "so what?" stage. A very interesting stage. You folks have made very good progress.
You, on the other hand, seem firmly stuck in the "Just Pretending" stage. With a dose of "Double Down" for measure.

But you're not getting away that easily:
Nowhere in the study does it say or indicate that there was "a frameshift just for digit I and specifically not for the other digits".

You are shamelessly LYING here.

Who do you think you're fooling?