Dessication versus Poison
JTEM
Sense," the only problem being that what exactly
constitutes "Common Sense" depends so much on a
person's perspective.
...and perspective, of course, is heavily influenced
by everything from one's personal history to whatever
emotions they happen to be feeling at that moment.
Anyhow, here's an example of differing "Perspective"
which may be less emotions-based than others:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
The above is a picture of Archaeopteryx. I went with a
drawing rather than a photo of a fossil because it better
illustrates the evidence here. That is, you can clearly see
the position of the body, the bending-back of the neck in
particular.
Me, well, now I look at that and I think, "No doubt about
it, that thing was dessicated. 'Probably explains the
excellent preservation... being mummified and all." Augray,
in a recent exchange, favors a different view. Yup. He
cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe,
and their view that it indicates poisoning.
This blog here does an excellent job of explaining the view,
while relieving me of any necessity to post the icky photos
myself (don't click on them if you're bothered my that sort
of thing).
http://microecos.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/death-throes-pt-2-opisthomonotony/
For the A.D.D. crowd, let me sum up the two arguments:
Dessication: The animals died. They were dried out by
the hot dry weather and/or the heavily salted environment.
At some point after this natural mummification took place,
water levels rose, placing it at the very bottom of a new
sediment layer.
Poison: The animal died, most likely of poison. The resulting
neurological damage is what causes the dying animals to
assume these rather bizarre, seemingly unnatural positions.
They plop down into oxygen-dead waters and are perfectly
preserved.
Now here's my problem with the poison idea. See, poisons
rarely work THAT fast -- and by THAT fast I mean fast enough
to have it plop from the sky in mid-flight, presumably.
Nobody has identified a single arboreal adaptation of Archaeopteryx,
much less any aquatic adaptations!
The whole beauty to the "Poison" theory is that it actually gets
these dead things /into/ the water, where the sediment can
start collecting on them, WITHOUT scavengers and the weather
ripping them apart.
Dessication requires that they stay AWAY from water, for at least
a little while. Not the easiest sell, especially in formations that
include aquatic creatures...
Red Tide __Seems__ a likely culprit...
http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14217
Problem is, the waters these animals (the dinos, not the birds from
the cite) called home were, according to Augray, anoxic.
If they weren't, that creates a new mystery: How could these animals
have gotten preserved at all?
So, what were they eating?
Oops, sorry, it's only the "Bottom Layers" which were supposed
to be anoxic...
Well that presents some issues...
Your standard beach, for example, can't be anoxic. You really
need a contained space. No, not necessarily "Isolated," but...
well... "contained."
Your typical basin just won't do, as that would require a very
ill creature to fly (or, worse, "Glide") over a very long distance
before finally succumbing to toxins.
The poison theory has these things deathly ill, they ain't
traveling. They've got to be dropping dead sea-side, and
then pulled into some kind of basin....
But, hey, if that's the case, why not dessication?
All-Seeing-I
It looks like it was in a fight, a mortal blow sustained in the air;
It then fell to the ground in a clump.
I saw a rather large bird hit a big picture window. When it fell to
the ground, it was in a position similar to the picture at the first
link.
Also. Anyone can see this is just a bird and not a transitional.
heekster
Birds have teeth now, ament?
Damn, you're stupid.
All-seeing-I
Obviously some of them back then did.
gosh you are dumb
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boikat
And theropod claws and tails? You do know that one specimen or
Archaeopteryx was initially classified as a small theropod untill it
was discovered that the bones were identical to the Archaeopteryx, so
minus the feathers, "Archy" would also have been classified as a small
theropod, too.
>
> gosh you are dumb
Irony or projection?
Boikat
Ye Old One
A know-nothing no-nothing like you would. Someone with even basic
knowledge with quickly see that is a transitional, one of many
transitionals we know of.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
All-seeing-I
This shows a transition -->how?
>
>
>
> > gosh you are dumb
>
> Irony or projection?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
heekster
So that would be a transitional feature, nicht wahr, ament?
>gosh you are dumb
>
Partially deaf, actually.
But I have this tremendous evolutionary advantage over you, in that I
can learn.
Boikat
Because it contains features of both birds and theropod dinosaurs
However, you lack the perceptive abilities to recognize them.
Boikat
Kent Paul Dolan
[snipped]
Did you notice how the troll intruded, and not a
single follow-up paid any attention to your post's
contents, nor directly responded to your posting,
but instead each responded only to the troll's
idiocy? A vast lack of self-control by supposedly
sane participants is what I see here.
This catering to the trolls rather than to the
science is what destroys meaningful dialogue here.
xanthian.
Anoxic pools near the shoreline are quite possible,
especially near the shoreline of lakes, just to be a
bit on topic.
Augray
<ff483d7a-76a9-4236...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> :
>On Dec 23, 10:20�pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now a lot of what gets argued around here is "Common
>> Sense," the only problem being that what exactly
>> constitutes "Common Sense" depends so much on a
>> person's perspective.
>>
>> � � ...and perspective, of course, is heavily influenced
>> by everything from one's personal history to whatever
>> emotions they happen to be feeling at that moment.
>>
>> Anyhow, here's an example of differing "Perspective"
>> which may be less emotions-based than others:
>>
>> http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
>>
>> The above is a picture of Archaeopteryx. I went with a
>> drawing rather than a photo of a fossil because it better
>> illustrates the evidence here. That is, you can clearly see
>> the position of the body, the bending-back of the neck in
>> particular.
[big snip]
>Also. Anyone can see this is just a bird and not a transitional.
It obviously *is* a transitional, as can be seen in
http://geology.cwru.edu/~huwig/catalog/slides/695.I.7.jpg
Augray
wrote in
<b88d115c-4fb6-4b37...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>Now a lot of what gets argued around here is "Common
>Sense," the only problem being that what exactly
>constitutes "Common Sense" depends so much on a
>person's perspective.
>
> ...and perspective, of course, is heavily influenced
>by everything from one's personal history to whatever
>emotions they happen to be feeling at that moment.
>
>Anyhow, here's an example of differing "Perspective"
>which may be less emotions-based than others:
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
>
>The above is a picture of Archaeopteryx. I went with a
>drawing rather than a photo of a fossil because it better
>illustrates the evidence here. That is, you can clearly see
>the position of the body, the bending-back of the neck in
>particular.
>
>Me, well, now I look at that and I think, "No doubt about
>it, that thing was dessicated. 'Probably explains the
>excellent preservation... being mummified and all." Augray,
>in a recent exchange, favors a different view. Yup. He
>cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe,
>and their view that it indicates poisoning.
No, that's false. I'm surprised that you can't even be bothered to
read the abstract of the paper. Here's the relevant bit:
It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms
resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system
that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic
posture is the result of "death throes," not postmortem
processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture
before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long
recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from
asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients,
environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes.
When discussing Archaeopteryx, the most relevant word here is probably
*asphyxiation*.
>This blog here does an excellent job of explaining the view,
>while relieving me of any necessity to post the icky photos
>myself (don't click on them if you're bothered my that sort
>of thing).
>
>http://microecos.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/death-throes-pt-2-opisthomonotony/
>
>For the A.D.D. crowd, let me sum up the two arguments:
In fact, there are *eight* arguments in the paper. It would be great
if you had read it before commenting on it.
>Dessication: The animals died. They were dried out by
>the hot dry weather and/or the heavily salted environment.
>At some point after this natural mummification took place,
>water levels rose, placing it at the very bottom of a new
>sediment layer.
Faux & Padian reject this view.
>Poison: The animal died, most likely of poison. The resulting
>neurological damage is what causes the dying animals to
>assume these rather bizarre, seemingly unnatural positions.
>They plop down into oxygen-dead waters and are perfectly
>preserved.
But as the blog page also says:
In addition to congential defects and poisoning, this posture can
also result from infectious disease as seen in this human malaria
victim... and hypoxia due to drowning or asphyxiation.
There's that word *asphyxiation* again. And drowning works too.
>Now here's my problem with the poison idea. See, poisons
>rarely work THAT fast -- and by THAT fast I mean fast enough
>to have it plop from the sky in mid-flight, presumably.
>
>Nobody has identified a single arboreal adaptation of Archaeopteryx,
Absolutely false. Claw curvature, pedal phalangeal proportions, and
flight feathers on the hindlimb all suggest an at least partially
arboreal lifestyle.
>much less any aquatic adaptations!
>
>The whole beauty to the "Poison" theory is that it actually gets
>these dead things /into/ the water, where the sediment can
>start collecting on them, WITHOUT scavengers and the weather
>ripping them apart.
>
>Dessication requires that they stay AWAY from water, for at least
>a little while. Not the easiest sell, especially in formations that
>include aquatic creatures...
>
>Red Tide __Seems__ a likely culprit...
>
>http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14217
>
>Problem is, the waters these animals (the dinos, not the birds from
>the cite) called home were, according to Augray, anoxic.
That's what the evidence indicates.
>If they weren't, that creates a new mystery: How could these animals
>have gotten preserved at all?
>
>So, what were they eating?
>
>Oops, sorry, it's only the "Bottom Layers" which were supposed
>to be anoxic...
>
>Well that presents some issues...
>
>Your standard beach, for example, can't be anoxic. You really
>need a contained space. No, not necessarily "Isolated," but...
>well... "contained."
>
>Your typical basin just won't do, as that would require a very
>ill creature to fly (or, worse, "Glide") over a very long distance
>before finally succumbing to toxins.
>
>The poison theory has these things deathly ill, they ain't
>traveling. They've got to be dropping dead sea-side, and
>then pulled into some kind of basin....
>
>But, hey, if that's the case, why not dessication?
Because desiccation doesn't result in the neck being bent in the
fashion preserved in Archaeopteryx. And I tend to reject the poisoning
theory as well.
Dan Listermann
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:727fj5h4gvu4k4upv...@4ax.com...
Yea but, yea, but, yea but . . . ...
.
chris thompson
>
> For the A.D.D. crowd, let me sum up the two arguments:
>
> Dessication: �The animals died. They were dried out by
> the hot dry weather and/or the heavily salted environment.
> At some point after this natural mummification took place,
> water levels rose, placing it at the very bottom of a new
> sediment layer.
>
> Poison: �The animal died, most likely of poison. The resulting
> neurological damage is what causes the dying animals to
> assume these rather bizarre, seemingly unnatural positions.
> They plop down into oxygen-dead waters and are perfectly
> preserved.
>
> Now here's my problem with the poison idea. See, poisons
> rarely work THAT fast -- and by THAT fast I mean fast enough
> to have it plop from the sky in mid-flight, presumably.
"Rarely" is not the same as 'never'. Try:
or
Or this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Chris
JTEM
Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> Anoxic pools near the shoreline are quite possible,
> especially near the shoreline of lakes, just to be a
> bit on topic.
I agree. Not that they would be common, but we are
talking about finds spanning tens of millions of
years, making "Rare" not quite so relevant.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Me, well, now I look at that and I think, "No doubt about
> >it, that thing was dessicated. 'Probably explains the
> >excellent preservation... being mummified and all." �Augray,
> >in a recent exchange, favors a different view. Yup. He
> >cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe,
> >and their view that it indicates poisoning.
>
> No, that's false. I'm surprised that you can't even be
> bothered to read the abstract of the paper.
I did. It doesn't contradict me. The part you quote deals
with WHEN the contortions occurred (before or after they
died) and not how...
You should be embarrassed.
> � � �It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem
> muscle spasms [...]
> When discussing Archaeopteryx, the most relevant
> word here is probably *asphyxiation*.
Not at all. How the animal died is next to irrelevant.
The issue is and always was how (or why) is assumed
the position it was found in.
If you go back and read your own cite, you will likely
notice that NOBODY is claiming that the position
resulted from asphyxiation. What they're claiming is
that the position lead to asphyxiation.
> >For the A.D.D. crowd, let me sum up the two arguments:
>
> In fact, there are *eight* arguments in the paper.
No. The argument is effectively postmortem versus
perimortem.
You're confusing "Causes" with "Arguments."
> It would be great
> if you had read it before commenting on it.
Irony. Yum.
> There's that word *asphyxiation* again.
> And drowning works too.
Fine. Show us. Let's see some cites demonstrating
this.
> > Nobody has identified a single arboreal
> > adaptation of Archaeopteryx, much less any
> > aquatic adaptations!
> Absolutely false.
Nope. It's 100% true.
> Claw curvature,
Nope. Not only is the claim lacking any data on
terrestrial Maniraptorans, but the claim is for
a post-flight, perching adaptation....
> pedal phalangeal proportions,
Explain.
> and flight feathers on the hindlimb
This is nonsense. It's a given that feathers
were pretty damn common, at least at that
point. So, unless you're taking a creationist
view that flight feathers were invented by some
God, and only ever served one purpose, you are
major wrong here.
> > Problem is, the waters these animals (the dinos, not the
> > birds from the cite) called home were, according to
> > Augray, anoxic.
>
> That's what the evidence indicates.
You're confused. It indicated no such thing.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Rarely" is not the same as 'never'. Try:
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/poison-gas-cloud-that-killed...
Yeah, doesn't translate very well...
They're talking about as many as 100 thousand
deaths today, out of, what, 40 million people?
And the number of deaths would only be so high
because of modern medical science keeping alive
so many people who would have already been dead
centuries ago?
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ykwj5hc
Exact same story...
> Or this one:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
This is actually more of what I had in mind, less
of what Augray was thinking...
Augray
wrote in
<92c1bc8f-b011-41b2...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> :
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:20:23 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <b88d115c-4fb6-4b37...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >Now a lot of what gets argued around here is "Common
>> >Sense," the only problem being that what exactly
>> >constitutes "Common Sense" depends so much on a
>> >person's perspective.
>> >
>> > ...and perspective, of course, is heavily influenced
>> >by everything from one's personal history to whatever
>> >emotions they happen to be feeling at that moment.
>> >
>> >Anyhow, here's an example of differing "Perspective"
>> >which may be less emotions-based than others:
>> >
>> >http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
>> >
>> >The above is a picture of Archaeopteryx. I went with a
>> >drawing rather than a photo of a fossil because it better
>> >illustrates the evidence here. That is, you can clearly see
>> >the position of the body, the bending-back of the neck in
>> >particular.
>> >
>> >Me, well, now I look at that and I think, "No doubt about
>> >it, that thing was dessicated. 'Probably explains the
>> >excellent preservation... being mummified and all." �Augray,
>> >in a recent exchange, favors a different view. Yup. He
>> >cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe,
>> >and their view that it indicates poisoning.
>>
>> No, that's false. I'm surprised that you can't even be
>> bothered to read the abstract of the paper.
>
>I did. It doesn't contradict me.
Yes, it does. You said that "...He cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and
Kevin Padian, I believe, and their view that it indicates poisoning",
but in fact, it can indicate a number of things. As the abstract
states:
The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted
individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or
essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections,
among other causes.
>The part you quote deals
>with WHEN the contortions occurred (before or after they
>died) and not how...
...asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients,
environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes.
Note the word "causes".
>You should be embarrassed.
For pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about? Why
would I be embarrassed by that?
>>Here's the relevant bit:
>>
>> It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms
>> resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system
>> that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic
>> posture is the result of "death throes," not postmortem
>> processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture
>> before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long
>> recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from
>> asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients,
>> environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes.
>>
>> When discussing Archaeopteryx, the most relevant
>> word here is probably *asphyxiation*.
>
>Not at all. How the animal died is next to irrelevant.
*Sigh*. One more time, from the abstract:
The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted
individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or
essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections,
among other causes.
So much for "How the animal died is next to irrelevant".
>The issue is and always was how (or why) is assumed
>the position it was found in.
>
>If you go back and read your own cite, you will likely
>notice that NOBODY is claiming that the position
>resulted from asphyxiation. What they're claiming is
>that the position lead to asphyxiation.
That's completely wrong. From the paper:
Events that result in asphyxiation or respiratory failure
and lead to brain injury�such as traumatic injury, drowning,
dehydration, or poisoning�can result in opisthotonic posturing.
Note the "...*result* in opisthotonic posturing". Similarly:
It seems most plausible that asphyxiation *resulted* in
opisthotonus... [my emphasis]
I have to admit that it boggles my mind how you think you can get away
with claims that are blatantly contradicted by your sources.
>> >For the A.D.D. crowd, let me sum up the two arguments:
>>
>> In fact, there are *eight* arguments in the paper.
>
>No. The argument is effectively postmortem versus
>perimortem.
Then why did you list Desiccation and Poison?
>You're confusing "Causes" with "Arguments."
Then why did *you* use the term "Arguments"?
>> It would be great
>> if you had read it before commenting on it.
>
>Irony. Yum.
You must be self-sustaining.
>>>Dessication: The animals died. They were dried out by
>>>the hot dry weather and/or the heavily salted environment.
>>>At some point after this natural mummification took place,
>>>water levels rose, placing it at the very bottom of a new
>>>sediment layer.
>>
>>Faux & Padian reject this view.
>>
>>
>>>Poison: The animal died, most likely of poison. The resulting
>>>neurological damage is what causes the dying animals to
>>>assume these rather bizarre, seemingly unnatural positions.
>>>They plop down into oxygen-dead waters and are perfectly
>>>preserved.
>>
>>But as the blog page also says:
>>
>> In addition to congential defects and poisoning, this posture can
>> also result from infectious disease as seen in this human malaria
>> victim... and hypoxia due to drowning or asphyxiation.
>>
>>There's that word *asphyxiation* again. And drowning works too.
>
>Fine. Show us. Let's see some cites demonstrating
>this.
Why not look up the cites in the Faux & Padian paper? Heck, why not
look up the Faux & Padian paper itself?
>> > Nobody has identified a single arboreal
>> > adaptation of Archaeopteryx, much less any
>> > aquatic adaptations!
>
>> Absolutely false.
>
>Nope. It's 100% true.
If you say that, it must be false.
>> Claw curvature,
>
>Nope. Not only is the claim lacking any data on
>terrestrial Maniraptorans,
Since a large part of the claim is *based* on terrestrial and arboreal
maniraptorans, this is obviously false.
>but the claim is for
>a post-flight, perching adaptation....
No, it's not, and even if it is, doesn't perching doesn't qualify as
an arboreal adaptation?
>> pedal phalangeal proportions,
>
>Explain.
How about "anatomy means something"? See:
Hopson, J. A. 2001. Ecomorphology of avian and nonavian theropod
phalangeal proportions: Implications for the arboreal versus
terrestrial origin of bird flight. In "New perspectives on the Origin
and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International
Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven,
Connecticut", edited by J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 211-235. New
Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.
>> and flight feathers on the hindlimb
>
>This is nonsense. It's a given that feathers
>were pretty damn common, at least at that
>point. So, unless you're taking a creationist
>view that flight feathers were invented by some
>God, and only ever served one purpose, you are
>major wrong here.
Flight feathers on the *hindlimb*. HINDLIMB. Can you at least try to
give the illusion that you're paying attention?
>> > Problem is, the waters these animals (the dinos, not the
>> > birds from the cite) called home were, according to
>> > Augray, anoxic.
>>
>> That's what the evidence indicates.
>
>You're confused. It indicated no such thing.
Since you don't even know what the evidence is, how would you know?
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Yes, it does. You said that "...He cited Cynthia Marshall
> Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe, and their view that it
> indicates poisoning", but in fact, it can indicate a
> number of things.
None of that is irrelevant. All that the appropriately
names "Faux" & Pal do is demonstrate the argument over
WHEN the animal assumed the position.
As I pointed out before, and you failed to grasp, it's
all about postmortem versus perimortem. Exactly which
means -- precisely -- for achieving this position you
are anyone else happens to favor has no bearing on this
exchange what so ever. It is an uninteresting aside.
> >The part you quote deals
> >with WHEN the contortions occurred (before or after they
> >died) and not how...
>
> � � �...asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients,
> � � �environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes.
I ask you for the second time tonight: Are you retarded?
I only ask because you just cherry-picked a quote which
not only DOESN'T contradict what I just said (Hint: that's
a laundry list of possible means for achieving THE RESULT),
but you had to know this, AND you had to know I wouldn't
let you get away with pulling anything THAT stupid.
....yet you did it anyway.
The name of the paper authored by Faux & Padian, the one
you are currently pretending ISN'T arguing postmortem V.
perimortem -- it's titled:
} The opisthotonic posture of vertebrate skeletons:
} postmortem contraction or death throes? by Cynthia
} Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian Paleobiology 33(2), 2007.
*Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt*
On the bright side, pulling an imbecilic, totally
asshole move like you just did is no different than
wetting your pants in the middle of a flood. Ain't
nobody here gonna notice...
Augray
wrote in
<a9c18a1d-2c26-4f21...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>>>> >cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian, I believe,
>>>> >and their view that it indicates poisoning.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's false. I'm surprised that you can't even be
>>>> bothered to read the abstract of the paper.
>>>
>>>I did. It doesn't contradict me.
>>
>>Yes, it does. You said that "...He cited Cynthia Marshall Faux and
>>Kevin Padian, I believe, and their view that it indicates poisoning",
>>but in fact, it can indicate a number of things. As the abstract
>>states:
>
>None of that is irrelevant.
That's why I brought it up, because it wasn't irrelevant. You, on the
other hand, seem to bring up irrelevant things on a regular basis.
>> As the abstract
>> states:
>>
>> The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted
>> individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or
>> essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections,
>> among other causes.
As they say, the posture can have multiple causes. That you zeroed in
on poison and ignored the others shows, once again, that you don't
know what you're talking about.
>All that the appropriately
>names "Faux" & Pal do is demonstrate the argument over
>WHEN the animal assumed the position.
Actually, they do far more than that. Once again, I suggest you read
the paper you're commenting on.
>As I pointed out before, and you failed to grasp, it's
>all about postmortem versus perimortem.
And it still demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking
about, and can't even keep track of your position, since you were
claiming a postmortem cause (desiccation) and Faux & Padian
demonstrate that it's perimortem. That's why I brought it up in the
first place. Talk about missing the point.
>Exactly which
>means -- precisely -- for achieving this position you
>are anyone else happens to favor has no bearing on this
>exchange what so ever. It is an uninteresting aside.
Apparently, you think that desiccation can occur before death.
>> >The part you quote deals
>> >with WHEN the contortions occurred (before or after they
>> >died) and not how...
>>
>> � � �...asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients,
>> � � �environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes.
>
>I ask you for the second time tonight: Are you retarded?
Keep in mind that you're the one who can't keep track of their own
argument. Heck, you can't even read what you wrote in your previous
post, as we'll see.
>I only ask because you just cherry-picked a quote which
>not only DOESN'T contradict what I just said (Hint: that's
>a laundry list of possible means for achieving THE RESULT),
It would seem that "achieving THE RESULT" has nothing to do with *how*
it was done. Cause and effect are of no interest any more.
>but you had to know this, AND you had to know I wouldn't
>let you get away with pulling anything THAT stupid.
>
> ....yet you did it anyway.
You're the one who said that
The part you quote deals with WHEN the contortions occurred
(before or after they died) and *not* *how*... [my emphasis]
yet you seem completely oblivious to the phrase "among other causes",
as in
The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted
individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or
essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections,
*among* *other* *causes*. [again, my emphasis]
>The name of the paper authored by Faux & Padian, the one
>you are currently pretending ISN'T arguing postmortem V.
>perimortem -- it's titled:
>
>} The opisthotonic posture of vertebrate skeletons:
>} postmortem contraction or death throes? by Cynthia
>} Marshall Faux and Kevin Padian Paleobiology 33(2), 2007.
And again, they disprove your claim that desiccation is the cause of
the posture of the Archaeopteryx fossils.
>*Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt*
Are you seizing up?
>On the bright side, pulling an imbecilic, totally
>asshole move like you just did is no different than
>wetting your pants in the middle of a flood. Ain't
>nobody here gonna notice...
I suspect you're merely trying to deflect attention from your own
pant-wetting.