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 - VoxRat

2
well, it's just one ditch of several.  and they're getting past it by being vague.  now they have to find 50 senators who actually agree on a particular bill.  they couldn't find that before.  not clear how they'd find it now.  what's changed?
Trump's escalating threats?
3
If Voxrat has an issue he should take it up with the authors of the study.
Nowhere in their paper do they oxymoronically suggest there could be a "frame" shift involving only one digit.
You still lack Clue One.
4
Is "Socrates" still under the impression that a frame shift can involve just one digit?

5
A "frame shift" involving only one digit is obviously an oxymoron.

Well... obvious to anyone with the first clue, anyway.
Worth repeating.
Worth repeating, yet again, as "Socrates" still seems not to get it.
6
A "frame shift" involving only one digit is obviously an oxymoron.

Well... obvious to anyone with the first clue, anyway.
Worth repeating.
7
It's guaranteed to pass.
If the MTP passes, does that mean it's game over?
8
A "frame shift" involving only one digit is obviously an oxymoron.

Well... obvious to anyone with the first clue, anyway.
9
Can anyone can say how a frameshift of the most anterior digit would be inconsistent with a pterosaur to basal paraves digit transition? If so, please do and give reference link(s) and copy and paste if possible.

You know, "Socrates", the fact that no one can give you "reference link(s) and copy and paste" for how a frameshift of the most anterior digit would be inconsistent with a tortoise to basal paraves digit transition  is not a particularly compelling case that birds evolved from tortoises.
10
I was just remembering the article discussed earlier that showed that only one of the digits experienced a frameshift. The two posterior digits did not.
That's odd.
I see no reference, link or copy-pasted relevant material.

:dunno:
inb4 "Socrates" tries to sneak his unsupported claims in with his deceitful attacks on others' memory.
11
I was just remembering the article discussed earlier that showed that only one of the digits experienced a frameshift. The two posterior digits did not.
That's odd.
I see no reference, link or copy-pasted relevant material.

:dunno:
12
  <   posts self-quote stating that the argument in said self-quote was definitely not worth stating    >
 <    proceeds to repeat argument just stated to be not worth stating  > 

:ohdear:
13
<   posts a massively nested pointless self-quote   >
<   posts the exact same massively nested pointless self-quote, again   >
<   states a confused argument   >
<   states that that argument was not worth stating   >
The neurological damage seems to be accelerating.     :ohdear: 
14
It seems like the plan is to pass a placeholder bill that can somehow be filled in after the fact without having to get full congressional votes on it.
I have no idea how that would work, constitutionally. But I get the distinct impression that's what's happening.
15
Here is another non-frameshift hypothesis that may be simpler and more elegant...

And the reason that it has been ignored by the scientific community in the 12 years since it was published has something to do with that community's deceitful political agenda.
amirite "Socrates" ?
16
It is quite fascinating how a very complicated set of genes etc can be applied in different combinations to produce the very different sets of digits found in Nature.
I wonder what combination of gene actions it takes to produce platitudes of such gobsmacking vapidity as this one.
17
That is not a scientific statement. That is a political statement.
::)

The authors are not native English speakers, you moron.
If they had written "deceptively", it would not have seemed "odd" in the least.
The difference between "deceitfully" and its etymologic twin, "deceptively",  is connotative, not denotative.
The connotation is that the digit somehow intended to deceive.
Only a moron as dense as "Socrates" would read some sort of "political" agenda into that.
18
* it is a form of PRH with the influence of Socs2 on digit IV. Digit V was already lost within pterosaur.
And, of course, the influence of GreatPretender1 on digit I.
19
To repeat I have presented a plausible set of steps.
That depends entirely on who is supposed to be plausing.
20
In vertebrate anatomy, isn't a "digit" - pretty much by definition - distal to its corresponding metacarpal (or metatarsal, as the case may be).
22
Funny. People had the chance to make points about the "sixth digit". In fact, I even asked. Too late now folks.
Oh, damn!
We missed the boat.
The paper raising the "sixth digit" issue was published in 2005.
And, 12 years later "Socrates" gave several minutes to find some reason why it wasn't perfectly compatible with his "pterosaur to bird theory".
But - apparently - no one convinced him in that unstated time frame, so now we're no longer allowed to point out the fractal wrongness of this latest brick in the wall of his "theory".

:sad:
23
Things are not looking good for the "pterosaur to bird theory".   :(
24
For now I will take it as a sixth digit anterior to digit I. So we need to look for a possible ancestor that has a digit anterior to digit I.
From the paper that raises the "sixth digit" proposition:
Quote
Hinchliffe and Hecht (1984) identified an intriguing triad of postaxial elements: (a) the vestigial meta- carpal V, lying laterally along the proximal part of metacarpal IV, and becoming reduced or disappearing completely; (b) the elongated pisiform, lying at the lateral border of the wing, near the palmar aspect of the carpus; and (c) an element ''X,'' possibly an avian apomorphy, that lies near the proximal end of metacarpal IV and near the palmar aspect of the carpus, and that may persist to adulthood (see also Montagna 1945). Element X was formerly identified as an extension or process of the pisiform (Montagna 1945; Hinchliffe 1977). Part of element X was described by Montagna (1945) as fusing with his ''centrale IV,'' whereas another part was said to persist in the adult wing as a tuberosity on metacarpal III.
Doesn't sound like something "anterior to digit I" now, does it?