Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Recent Posts

11
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.

The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
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 saying that the changing transcriptome is the consequence (result) of the loss of digit I. And everyone accepts the idea of the loss of digit I.
It seems that the bird fingers (II, III, and IV) form due to the loss of digit I. There is no need for a frameshift.
12
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.

The more parsimonious hypotheses do not require a frameshift. I would like to understand better the effect of the loss of digit I. It seems that may be the key to everything.

Quote
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)
13
Where are you?  I see the entire paper and I don't have any Nature credentials.

Shit, I can see it now--thanks. It wouldn't load last time I tried.
14
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.
15
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
16
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.
17
You guys are a laugh. You think if you repeat mindless insults they magically become true. Who do you think you are fooling?
If insults to a person are in fact true, and are about this person's intelligence, could be that this person cannot see the difference between mindless and mindful insults? Could it be that such a person cannot see that the insults were true first and are repeated because they continue to be true?
The guest think it could.
Is there anyone beside yourself who does not think this is actually going on here? It would be interesting to see if such people exist.
Perhaps someone will come along.
All these years no-one ever has.
Will the cows ever come home?
What if the cows are already home, but they happen to live somewhere else than you thought?
18
You guys are a laugh. You think if you repeat mindless insults they magically become true. Who do you think you are fooling?
If insults to a person are in fact true, and are about this person's intelligence, could be that this person cannot see the difference between mindless and mindful insults? Could it be that such a person cannot see that the insults were true first and are repeated because they continue to be true?
The guest think it could.
Is there anyone beside yourself who does not think this is actually going on here? It would be interesting to see if such people exist.
Perhaps someone will come along.
All these years no-one ever has.
Will the cows ever come home?
19
You guys are a laugh. You think if you repeat mindless insults they magically become true. Who do you think you are fooling?
If insults to a person are in fact true, and are about this person's intelligence, could be that this person cannot see the difference between mindless and mindful insults? Could it be that such a person cannot see that the insults were true first and are repeated because they continue to be true?
The guest think it could.
Is there anyone beside yourself who does not think this is actually going on here? It would be interesting to see if such people exist.
Perhaps someone will come along.
All these years no-one ever has.
20
You guys are a laugh. You think if you repeat mindless insults they magically become true. Who do you think you are fooling?
If insults to a person are in fact true, and are about this person's intelligence, could be that this person cannot see the difference between mindless and mindful insults? Could it be that such a person cannot see that the insults were true first and are repeated because they continue to be true?
The guest think it could.
Is there anyone beside yourself who does not think this is actually going on here? It would be interesting to see if such people exist.
Perhaps someone will come along.