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 - DaveGodfrey

If this "sixth digit" in the development of the embryo actually exists then there is a disconnect with the dino to bird theory since no adult archosaur has six distinct digits.
How would the pterosaur to bird theory deal with this? If indeed there is a "sixth digit" in the development of the bird embryo.
What we need is an archosaur with a digit anterior to digit I but no dinosaur archosaur meets that requirement. That is the disconnect with the archosaur to bird theory.

Are you intimating that pterosaurs aren't archosaurs now?
If this "sixth digit" in the development of the embryo actually exists then there is a disconnect with the dino Pterosaur to bird theory since no adult archosaur has six distinct digits.
Its just as fatal for your idiot idea as it would be for any dinosaur one. Pterosaurs are archosaurs too y'know.
So it looks like you don't have it correct after all then.

Quelle surprise.
I was actually just thinking that if they wanted to do a sprawling multicharcter mega-epic, why don't they just do Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt". Which takes as its starting point "what if the Black Death wiped out 90% of the population of Europe, rather than just 1/3rd"?
So the UK is fucked if it wants to do science.
That's bollocks and you know it. Without some kind of frameshift you cannot explain the pattern of Hox gene expression. A simple PRH would just leave you with the gene expression that you get with the middle digits of the hindlimb replicated in the forelimb. You absolutely need some kind of change in digit identity or this model has to be rejected, or strongly modified in some manner.
No, we can't. Because nobody has proposed that.
Nah, not really.
No, no, it really doesn't.
No, we're really not. You see, unlike you we are capable of understanding more than just snippets from a paper and relating what that means. Before any form of the PRH was proposed a loss of outer digits and phalanges proposed something that was "contrary to any model of avian digit identity proposed so far" wasn't it?

You know why their research concluded something "contrary to any model of avian digit identity so far proposed"?

Because the results they found could not be fitted into any model of avian digit identity so far proposed. INCLUDING THE PRH.
I'd like to see them take stuff that still happens today, and just put it in there, and make them important story points. Fictionalised versions of the murder of Trayvon Martin, police brutality that we see happen, and which nobody gets punished for, etc, etc. Obviously the excuse in this world for not doing anything about it is that the people are slaves, and therefore property. Which I would hope would lead the audience to think about why exactly the same lack of justice happens in our world where everything's supposed to be fine now because we elected a black president.
a bunch of other major defeats early in the war, and suddenly the civilians in the North are all "just let them go",
this actually happened though
Yes, but not enough for it to actually elect a president who was willing to allow it.
a show that takes a close look at that would be super interesting.

but if they go down the route of character-driven drama, then it could end up like Man in the High Castle, which went to shit pretty quickly.
I've still not seen that, but having read the book I don't see how they have enough plot for one season, let alone however many they're on now.
I wonder if the "second civil war" took place during WW2, so you ended up with the Confederacy being ostensibly allied to the Axis, but dropped out early when they realised they were going to lose, and that way avoided being invaded.

I think it should be rather more complex as to why the South suceeded in rebelling- capturing Washington is a start, but you need more than that, maybe killing off Lincoln a few years earlier, and a bunch of other major defeats early in the war, and suddenly the civilians in the North are all "just let them go", and before the North can get into gear and use its superior manufacturing capability to beat the South (and can get places like the UK to boycott Southern cotton, etc), war weariness and poor leadership allows the South to force a peace settlement.

I don't really see how the Confederacy would survive 150 years though, especially as it would be treated worse than South Africa was during the apartheid years. Who the hell would trade with them? Unless places like Brazil didn't get rid of slavery until much later?
When in doubt go back to the actual evidence. What is the evidence? Digit I is not there. Digits II, III and IV are there with one less phalange each and digit V is not there.
That is the evidence - right?
Now, does digit II differ in some other way than just having one less phalange?
Yes, it shows a pattern of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 expression that looks like the pattern we see in digit I in other taxa (and indeed the foot of the same animal), but not like the pattern we see in digit II of these taxa (and the animal's foot).
Are you going to explain how it is sufficient any time soon? Why does digit II show the "developmental individuality" of digit I?
The PRH cannot explain the pattern of explanation of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, right?

If it can, please show how. "Teach". Your "student" is asking you a question, Fucking answer it, or admit you can't.
What do you think? What does the next line of the paper you're quoting snippets from and intimating things about say?

And what does the PRH predict the expression pattern look like pray tell?
I asked my question first "teach". How does the PRH explain the results?
What advantage is there for cells to know where in the hand they are and what kind of finger they should form?

Also, how does the PRH explain the fact that the digit they predict should be digit II has a pattern of expression that matches digit I, when digit II in the foot does not.
And what of the first forelimb digit eh Sucky? How does the PRH explain that?
Nobody said anything about the others not being consistent with a frameshift dickhead. Please copy, paste, blah, blah anything that shows they aren't.

Go on, Do it. Stop intimating bullshit, and actually state how they aren't consistent.,

Or admit you can't.
Considering the functions of the forelimbs and hindlimbs are different why is the first digit the same?
Are you folks tired of pretending yet?
Who said it was exactly the same? Please copy and paste and quote, and blah, blah, blah...
Why, if the first digit on the hand is really digit II does it show the exact same pattern of Hox expression as the first digit on the foot, which is clearly digit I, and similarly does it show similar pattern of expression to the first digit in other animals which have not lost digits?
Because the PRH doesn't account for the pattern of expression of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13. Hypotheses involving frameshifts do.