The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"

[TheLaughingMan]

Let's see, did this "heat transfer modeling" involve "a ton of mathematical equations"? Did you spend lots of time out in the Arctic or Antarctic dealing with the "cold air temperatures"? I'm curious if you reject the concept and theory involving geothermal gradients, and what experience you have that would lead to such a conclusion.

hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah. Bob do actual math or actual science? Nooo, you can't do actual science from your armchair!

 

[bob b]

You might want to look into the primary literature a bit more, bob. Geothermal gradients, permafrost anomalies in Poland and elsewhere, that sort of thing. People do actually work in the field on this stuff.

I have. Nobody I have seen works at the bottom of deep deposits; instead they concentrate at the top.

Let's see, did this "heat transfer modeling" involve "a ton of mathematical equations"? Did you spend lots of time out in the Arctic or Antarctic dealing with the "cold air temperatures"? I'm curious if you reject the concept and theory involving geothermal gradients, and what experience you have that would lead to such a conclusion.

You might take a look at the gradients in the papers before throwing accusations at me. For example the temperature at 15 feet down in permafrost approaches 0 decrees C. But if the material was initially deposited in a supercooled state, then deeper layers of permafrost would still persist for quite some time, possibly several thousands of years.

Instrumentation at the bottom of the deepest permafrost boreholes (over a few decades) would settle it.

 

[Lon]

I know of a few scientists who actually look at this data way more openly. I believe good science keeps a pretty open mind about some of these things and only those who tend to post more impiracly (lecturers and authors) tend to get more worked up about the issues (like 5%). The rest are accepting and open to data because their work stops when they do.

 

[BillyBob]

I wasn't aware that Malamute and Pug DNA had been sequenced yet. Do you have a scientific reference?

I have owned two Malamutes and have seen Pugs. I seriously doubt that "their DNA is indistiguishable from each other". If that were the case why would they grow up to be so different?

It looks as if dog breeds can be distinguished via DNA.

FYI, Pugs would freeze in the Arctic, unlike Woolly Mammoths.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_dogbreeds.html

Dog DNA Study Yields Clues to Origins of Breeds
John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
May 20, 2004

Scientists have completed the first comprehensive comparison of the genes of domesticated dog breeds.

The analysis of 85 common types—including the Pekingese, Great Dane, Border collie, and dachshund—found fascinating clues about how dog breeds are related to one another, and how they may have descended from ancestral dogs in different parts of the globe. Those clues, in turn, could increase understanding about early human migration.


The findings, reported in tomorrow's edition of the research journal, Science, may also offer the first way to determine the breed of a dog based on a genetic sample. The majority of breeds tested have a unique DNA signature, despite the fact that many breeds were created only within the last few centuries.

"Since the formation of breed clubs and official breed standards only happened in the 1800s, it's really surprising that we've found such a high degree of distinction between different breeds," said geneticist Leonid Kruglyak of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Based in Seattle, Washington, Kruglyak is a co-author of the study.

Explosion of Breeds

The distinction found between breeds is much higher than the distinction between human populations on different continents, Kruglyak said. The variation is large enough that an individual dog's breed can be distinguished using its genetic sequence alone, he added.

"It's remarkable to find such differentiation, since the vast majority of the explosion of breeds we see today have a recent origin," commented Robert Wayne, evolutionary biologist and expert on dog genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Most previous research using a different, less-sensitive type of genetic technique had not been able to detect great differences between different breeds, Wayne said.

To collect data, graduate student Heidi Parker, geneticist Elaine Ostrander—both of the Hutchinson center—and other team members contacted breed clubs across the U.S. They also scouted numerous dog shows to take cheek-swab DNA samples from five purebred dogs of each of the 85 common breeds they tested.

Over two years of focused work, with the assistance of the American Kennel Club, the team collected and analyzed DNA from 414 dogs.

 

[BillyBob]

Here's one more.

http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0520SCI-DOG-BREEDS-ON.html

I wasn't aware that Malamute and Pug DNA had been sequenced yet.

Malamutes have, I haven't found Pugs yet....other than the one currently curled up at my feet.

 

[bob b]

BillyBob first claimed with regard to dogs:

"their DNA is indistiguishable from each other", which I disputed.

Now to prove his point he posts a study which shows that DNA can determine which dog breeds are which.

This leaves me wondering which side of this argument he is on ! :think:

 

[BillyBob]

BillyBob first claimed with regard to dogs:

"their DNA is indistiguishable from each other", which I disputed.

Now to prove his point he posts a study which shows that DNA can determine which dog breeds are which.

Not to prove my point, but to concede that I was [in an extremely rare occassion] mistaken.

This leaves me wondering which side of this argument he is on ! :think:

I'm on the side of truth. Always on the side of truth.

You, on the other hand, are on the side of blind religion, false allegations and reckless, deliberate obfuscation.

:BillyBob:

 

[bob b]

Not to prove my point, but to concede that I was [in an extremely rare occassion] mistaken.
I'm on the side of truth. Always on the side of truth.
You, on the other hand, are on the side of blind religion, false allegations and reckless, deliberate obfuscation.
:BillyBob:

Tsk, tsk, such a tantrum.

Actually it was when the blinders fell off my eyes some 23 years ago when I realized that "molecules to Man" via "random mutations plus natural selection" was absurd, that I first began to take the Bible seriously, and since that glorious day I have found more and evidence and reasons that it must have been divinely inspired, since how else could an ancient document be so right about things which science is only beginning to fully reveal today?

 

[BillyBob]

Tsk, tsk, such a tantrum.

Another false accusation. :yawn:

Actually it was when the blinders fell off my eyes some 23 years ago when I realized that "molecules to Man" via "random mutations plus natural selection" was absurd, that I first began to take the Bible seriously, and since that glorious day I have found more and evidence and reasons that it must have been divinely inspired, since how else could an ancient document be so right about things which science is only beginning to fully reveal today?

And there's the blind religion.


:sigh:






:sozo: Go Learn Some Science! :devil:

 

[bob b]

Another false accusation. :yawn:
nd there's the blind religion.
:sigh:
zo: Go Learn Some Science! :devil:

You were more fun before you tried to get serious. :sigh:

 

[BillyBob]

You were more fun before you tried to get serious. :sigh:

Translation: 'You were more fun before you exposed me as a liar and a dupe'. :sigh:

Interstingly, I am still having fun! :banana:

 

[bob b]

Interstingly, I am still having fun! :banana:

So am I. :rotfl:

 

[BillyBob]

I notice in your profile that you are a self proclaimed 'anti-evolutionist'. Doesn't that seem particularly biased and unscientific?

 

[djconklin]

Would he be less biased if he was "pro-evolutionist"?

As for "unscientific" there are lots of Christians who are creationists and scientists.

 

[BillyBob]

Would he be less biased if he was "pro-evolutionist"?

Of course not, neither is a particularly scientific stance.

As for "unscientific" there are lots of Christians who are creationists and scientists.

Anything less than being an unbiased truth seeker is unscientific.

 

[bob b]

Anything less than being an unbiased truth seeker is unscientific.

In my experience this would mean that everyone is "unscientific".

(except BillyBob of course) :rotfl:

 

[BillyBob]

In my experience this would mean that everyone is "unscientific".

Your predisposition is clouding your judgement.

(except BillyBob of course) :rotfl:

I am much more honest than you.

 

[Lon]

Of course not, neither is a particularly scientific stance.

Anything less than being an unbiased truth seeker is unscientific.

I see your point, but not necessarily true. I can be biased and be right at the same time and truth does set bias. In science this is part of postulation, starting from known to unknown in an effort to seek meaning in the unknown realm, but you knew that. Rather the scientist is alway open to truth regardless. If someone purposes an alternate view, it is better not to get worked up about the discrepancy and either catalogue the postulation for later study, reject the idea from prior study, or accept the data. That's what unbiased really means. The tricky part is credibility. A scientist wants the data to come in a science packages because this is best how a scientist perceives his data, but perhaps it would be wise to set aside tunnel vision, get out of the lab, and try studying other disciplines once in awhile for new and fresh perspectives and hobby. It wouldn't hurt him to watch a ball game, date, or go to church. Truth is biased, asking questions is an effort to become biased. The scientist wants to be biased but he also wants to keep asking questions to seek more truth or else science would cease.

 

[Sealeaf]

I would have said that the cardinal virtue of a scientist is that he or she in more interested in learning more that they are in being right. A scientist who's experiment develops in an unexpected direction has been proved wrong but has gained new information. Since gaining reliable information is the whole point of science, this is a win.

 

[djconklin]

I would have said that the cardinal virtue of a scientist is that he or she in more interested in learning more that they are in being right.

Unfortunately, in the real world scientists are still human and we all have an ego problem to deal with. For more info on how things really work in science read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

A scientist who's experiment develops in an unexpected direction has been proved wrong but has gained new information.

That's called serendipity; or, in layman's terms "luck."