blueAgent:


My Bro, you go wait tire, Evolutionists has kept us waiting for over 100yrs yet no evidence of past,present or future Evol-illusion
am tired of waiting.

As in, you and felixomor should go and destroy evolution once and for all. The world is waiting, share on nairaland when your science shattering proofs are ready.

LightandDarkness:


As in, you and felixomor should go and destroy evolution once and for all. The world is waiting, share on nairaland when your science shattering proofs are ready.

We need not destroy what doesnt exist

felixomor:


We need not destroy what doesnt exist

Ranchhoddas, MrMontella and LightandDarkness.
This is the link to the article he quoted, no wonder he was hiding the source.
http://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
Institute for Creation Research. Fuckkking hilarious.

Ranchhoddas:
Please read the thread.
This was already published in 2005 by NOTABLE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer.
His discovery was not new.
In science when something is discovered, the next thing is to begin to make postulates which Mary Schweitzer did.
Nothing is accepted as absolute truth in science until it is foolproof.
You guy did not. He went and began to tell everyone that his discovery validates his beliefs. Very unscientific and he got fired.
The University settled because it will be cheaper in the long run than a drawn out legal battle.
Anyone who knows the American legal system will see that it was a prudent move.
Do a Google search.
Mark Armitage is a renowned pseudoscientist.

Hypocrisy at it's finest. So evolution is foolproof?

Horlufemi:


Hypocrisy at it's finest. So evolution is foolproof?

No it isn't. That is why research continues till tomorrow.

CatfishBilly:
Ranchhoddas, MrMontella and LightandDarkness.
This is the link to the article he quoted, no wonder he was hiding the source.
http://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
Institute for Creation Research. Fuckkking hilarious.

I knew it.
That guy is just slightly brighter than Doctor you-know-you.

Ranchhoddas:
I knew it.
That guy is just slightly brighter than Doctor you-know-you.

They showed you the content
You still tried to convince yourself otherwise
They said read the content, you said No
They told u who did the research, you refused to verify

And eventually you found a quack who massaged the desire.... Into your subconscious
That the research was from apologetics people
And that quickly became your dopamine

After this rant,
Then eventually you will come tell us, you are smart.
You will tell us, we attack messenger and not message.

Sleep very well o.

Horlufemi:


Hypocrisy at it's finest. So evolution is foolproof?

Thanks for spotting the same hypocrisy I told him about

CatfishBilly:
Ranchhoddas, MrMontella and LightandDarkness.
This is the link to the article he quoted, no wonder he was hiding the source.
http://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
Institute for Creation Research. Fuckkking hilarious.

Dr Misdiagnosis
No need to start a new "sarcasm" journey.
Hehehe
We are still waiting for your ground breaking pathophysiology on the other side

So Far,

We have had different views from different people including the well researched and including those who copy and paste without reading what they are addressing.

Mark Armitage found soft tissue Osteocytes in a 70 million year old fossil,
Yet someone went to google and used argument on heme to adress the topic.

As if that is not enough, a quack and another supposedly intelligent being suported it and said the issue has been addressed and that we were only copying apologist websites.

Those of us who took time to read and know science clearly know that Osteocytes dont carry heme.

Unfortunately, the quack and the others dont know this.

Even an article from a Darwin Evolution website , clearly shows and states the problem this discovery poses for evolution.
The website even criticised the evolutionists who hang on to the heme explanation



Read
-----------------
"Hold your hadrosaurs; this does not solve the evolutionists’ problem. For one thing, Schweitzer and, independently, Mark Armitage, found osteocytes (bone cells) in their samples, not just blood vessels. The osteocytes retain their original structure, including their delicate dendrites. For another, two years of preservation is .000001% of 145 million years. On what basis can they justify extrapolating such exquisite preservation that far, when the ostrich bone was “recognizable,” indicating some degradation had occurred? Nobody on earth has “experienced” 65 million years, let alone a few thousand (provided that written records can substitute for personal experience). The evolutionists are assuming the long ages, not demonstrating them. In spite of this strong evidence against millions of years, they are hanging onto that belief like a baby gripping its pacifier.

"The articles betray a subtext of desperation. Pappas described the soft-tissue claims as “amazing” and “seemingly impossible.” They seem relieved that this iron hypothesis “may” provide an answer. Yet other admissions in the articles support the creationist Flood interpretation. “The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly,” Pappas noted. “They’re also buried in sandstone….” Try to imagine circumstances in which a T. rex strutting across a desert suddenly became completely buried, such that burrowing creatures were unable to reach it and disarticulate it. There aren’t too many options available. Even so, up till the surprising discovery by Schweitzer, “scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions.” They weren’t looking for it; they were shocked when they saw it with their own eyes. For years they have been scrambling to answer the “obvious question” – how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years.” Have they ever considered the obvious answer? It can’t, and it didn’t.

The evolutionists show no shame for their falsified long ages. Instead, they boast as if they will find soft tissue millions of years older! They are like the delusional man in a joke who claimed he was dead. His doctor attempted to prove him wrong, asking, “Do dead men bleed?” The man replied, “No, dead men do not bleed.” The doctor proceeded to prick him with a needle, showing blood oozing from the man’s arm. “Well, I’ll be darned! Dead men do bleed!” Like the delusional man, evolutionists will never give up their belief in millions of years, even when the facts bleed otherwise right in front of their eyes."

Source:

https://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft-tissue-explained/

===============
This is a call to implore those who copy and paste without reading to desist and improve their lives.
Even an evolution website can critically spot the desperation by its own people.
Yet someone foolishly claims we are copying apologetics websites.

More contributors please.

felixomor:
So Far,

We have had different views from different people including the well researched and including those who copy and paste without reading what they are addressing.

Mark Armitage found soft tissue Osteocytes in a 70 million year old fossil,
Yet someone went to google and used argument on heme to adress the topic.

As if that is not enough, a quack and another supposedly intelligent being suported it and said the issue has been addressed and that we were only copying apologist websites.

Those of us who took time to read and know science clearly know that Osteocytes dont carry heme.

Unfortunately, the quack and the others dont know this.

Even an article from a Darwin Evolution website , clearly shows and states the problem this discovery poses for evolution.
The website even criticised the evolutionists who hang on to the heme explanation



Read
-----------------
"Hold your hadrosaurs; this does not solve the evolutionists’ problem. For one thing, Schweitzer and, independently, Mark Armitage, found osteocytes (bone cells) in their samples, not just blood vessels. The osteocytes retain their original structure, including their delicate dendrites. For another, two years of preservation is .000001% of 145 million years. On what basis can they justify extrapolating such exquisite preservation that far, when the ostrich bone was “recognizable,” indicating some degradation had occurred? Nobody on earth has “experienced” 65 million years, let alone a few thousand (provided that written records can substitute for personal experience). The evolutionists are assuming the long ages, not demonstrating them. In spite of this strong evidence against millions of years, they are hanging onto that belief like a baby gripping its pacifier.

"The articles betray a subtext of desperation. Pappas described the soft-tissue claims as “amazing” and “seemingly impossible.” They seem relieved that this iron hypothesis “may” provide an answer. Yet other admissions in the articles support the creationist Flood interpretation. “The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly,” Pappas noted. “They’re also buried in sandstone….” Try to imagine circumstances in which a T. rex strutting across a desert suddenly became completely buried, such that burrowing creatures were unable to reach it and disarticulate it. There aren’t too many options available. Even so, up till the surprising discovery by Schweitzer, “scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions.” They weren’t looking for it; they were shocked when they saw it with their own eyes. For years they have been scrambling to answer the “obvious question” – how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years.” Have they ever considered the obvious answer? It can’t, and it didn’t.

The evolutionists show no shame for their falsified long ages. Instead, they boast as if they will find soft tissue millions of years older! They are like the delusional man in a joke who claimed he was dead. His doctor attempted to prove him wrong, asking, “Do dead men bleed?” The man replied, “No, dead men do not bleed.” The doctor proceeded to prick him with a needle, showing blood oozing from the man’s arm. “Well, I’ll be darned! Dead men do bleed!” Like the delusional man, evolutionists will never give up their belief in millions of years, even when the facts bleed otherwise right in front of their eyes."

Source:

https://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft-tissue-explained/

===============
This is a call to implore those who copy and paste without reading to desist and improve their lives.
Even an evolution website can critically spot the desperation by its own people.
Yet someone foolishly claims we are copying apologetics websites.

More contributors please.

You went on rampage oga. Your finishing move is epic

CatfishBilly:
Ranchhoddas, MrMontella and LightandDarkness.
This is the link to the article he quoted, no wonder he was hiding the source.
http://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/
Institute for Creation Research. Fuckkking hilarious.

Herbalist your mumu did not tell you that as long as content which is posted word for word was not messed with a simple check on google would show you the link ba?

So the link disproves content or the content speaks for itself?

And you wonder why you love articles so much and not their links

Hypocrisy much I see.

Every credible science site is speaking the same language only those who want to defend a lie just like you would see the truth and still choose otherwise.

Herbalist quack in scrubs!

felixomor:
So Far,

We have had different views from different people including the well researched and including those who copy and paste without reading what they are addressing.

Mark Armitage found soft tissue Osteocytes in a 70 million year old fossil,
Yet someone went to google and used argument on heme to adress the topic.

As if that is not enough, a quack and another supposedly intelligent being suported it and said the issue has been addressed and that we were only copying apologist websites.

Those of us who took time to read and know science clearly know that Osteocytes dont carry heme.

Unfortunately, the quack and the others dont know this.

Even an article from a Darwin Evolution website , clearly shows and states the problem this discovery poses for evolution.
The website even criticised the evolutionists who hang on to the heme explanation



Read
-----------------
"Hold your hadrosaurs; this does not solve the evolutionists’ problem. For one thing, Schweitzer and, independently, Mark Armitage, found osteocytes (bone cells) in their samples, not just blood vessels. The osteocytes retain their original structure, including their delicate dendrites. For another, two years of preservation is .000001% of 145 million years. On what basis can they justify extrapolating such exquisite preservation that far, when the ostrich bone was “recognizable,” indicating some degradation had occurred? Nobody on earth has “experienced” 65 million years, let alone a few thousand (provided that written records can substitute for personal experience). The evolutionists are assuming the long ages, not demonstrating them. In spite of this strong evidence against millions of years, they are hanging onto that belief like a baby gripping its pacifier.

"The articles betray a subtext of desperation. Pappas described the soft-tissue claims as “amazing” and “seemingly impossible.” They seem relieved that this iron hypothesis “may” provide an answer. Yet other admissions in the articles support the creationist Flood interpretation. “The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly,” Pappas noted. “They’re also buried in sandstone….” Try to imagine circumstances in which a T. rex strutting across a desert suddenly became completely buried, such that burrowing creatures were unable to reach it and disarticulate it. There aren’t too many options available. Even so, up till the surprising discovery by Schweitzer, “scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions.” They weren’t looking for it; they were shocked when they saw it with their own eyes. For years they have been scrambling to answer the “obvious question” – how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years.” Have they ever considered the obvious answer? It can’t, and it didn’t.

The evolutionists show no shame for their falsified long ages. Instead, they boast as if they will find soft tissue millions of years older! They are like the delusional man in a joke who claimed he was dead. His doctor attempted to prove him wrong, asking, “Do dead men bleed?” The man replied, “No, dead men do not bleed.” The doctor proceeded to prick him with a needle, showing blood oozing from the man’s arm. “Well, I’ll be darned! Dead men do bleed!” Like the delusional man, evolutionists will never give up their belief in millions of years, even when the facts bleed otherwise right in front of their eyes."

Source:

https://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft-tissue-explained/

===============
This is a call to implore those who copy and paste without reading to desist and improve their lives.
Even an evolution website can critically spot the desperation by its own people.
Yet someone foolishly claims we are copying apologetics websites.

More contributors please.

Did I claim any cell or molecule aside from hemoglobin carries heme?

Do osteocytes not receive blood?

I don't understand why you and the person who wrote this article proudly call yourself scientists when you quickly disregard scientific method when it doesn't suit you. As evidenced by your previous refusal to accept results from mass spectrometry and carbon dating.

What's worse is this so called scientist apparently believes the flood actually happened with no supporting geological evidence for it.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you and your fellow creationists can successfully disprove evolution, you would have done it already. Instead you are here posting articles on nairaland-I have said it before and I'll say it again- You are a doctor yes, so I challenge you to write a review article, put your credentials on it, and publish it

butterflylion:


Herbalist your mumu did not tell you that as long as content which is posted word for word was not messed with a simple check on google would show you the link ba?

So the link disproves content or the content speaks for itself?

And you wonder why you love articles so much and not their links

Hypocrisy much I see.

Every credible science site is speaking the same language only those who want to defend a lie just like you would see the truth and still choose otherwise.

Herbalist quack in scrubs!

So institute of creation research work with the scientific method and publish in peer reviewed science journals? Desperate creationists passing of pseudoscience as actual science. There are a thousand and one reputable scientific journals and not one mentioned the pseudoscientific crap you posted up there.

felixomor:
So Far,

We have had different views from different people including the well researched and including those who copy and paste without reading what they are addressing.

Mark Armitage found soft tissue Osteocytes in a 70 million year old fossil,
Yet someone went to google and used argument on heme to adress the topic.

As if that is not enough, a quack and another supposedly intelligent being suported it and said the issue has been addressed and that we were only copying apologist websites.

Those of us who took time to read and know science clearly know that Osteocytes dont carry heme.

Unfortunately, the quack and the others dont know this.

Even an article from a Darwin Evolution website , clearly shows and states the problem this discovery poses for evolution.
The website even criticised the evolutionists who hang on to the heme explanation



Read
-----------------
"Hold your hadrosaurs; this does not solve the evolutionists’ problem. For one thing, Schweitzer and, independently, Mark Armitage, found osteocytes (bone cells) in their samples, not just blood vessels. The osteocytes retain their original structure, including their delicate dendrites. For another, two years of preservation is .000001% of 145 million years. On what basis can they justify extrapolating such exquisite preservation that far, when the ostrich bone was “recognizable,” indicating some degradation had occurred? Nobody on earth has “experienced” 65 million years, let alone a few thousand (provided that written records can substitute for personal experience). The evolutionists are assuming the long ages, not demonstrating them. In spite of this strong evidence against millions of years, they are hanging onto that belief like a baby gripping its pacifier.

"The articles betray a subtext of desperation. Pappas described the soft-tissue claims as “amazing” and “seemingly impossible.” They seem relieved that this iron hypothesis “may” provide an answer. Yet other admissions in the articles support the creationist Flood interpretation. “The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly,” Pappas noted. “They’re also buried in sandstone….” Try to imagine circumstances in which a T. rex strutting across a desert suddenly became completely buried, such that burrowing creatures were unable to reach it and disarticulate it. There aren’t too many options available. Even so, up till the surprising discovery by Schweitzer, “scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions.” They weren’t looking for it; they were shocked when they saw it with their own eyes. For years they have been scrambling to answer the “obvious question” – how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years.” Have they ever considered the obvious answer? It can’t, and it didn’t.

The evolutionists show no shame for their falsified long ages. Instead, they boast as if they will find soft tissue millions of years older! They are like the delusional man in a joke who claimed he was dead. His doctor attempted to prove him wrong, asking, “Do dead men bleed?” The man replied, “No, dead men do not bleed.” The doctor proceeded to prick him with a needle, showing blood oozing from the man’s arm. “Well, I’ll be darned! Dead men do bleed!” Like the delusional man, evolutionists will never give up their belief in millions of years, even when the facts bleed otherwise right in front of their eyes."

Source:

https://crev.info/2013/11/dinosaur-soft-tissue-explained/

===============
This is a call to implore those who copy and paste without reading to desist and improve their lives.
Even an evolution website can critically spot the desperation by its own people.
Yet someone foolishly claims we are copying apologetics websites.

More contributors please.

The author of this rubbish you quoted is a creationist nutjob.
Looks at it here http://creation.mobi/david-coppedge
The guy is not even a paleontologist, he is a fuckkking IT guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He has his own entry in the encyclopedia of American Loons http://americanloons..com.ng/2015/10/1487-david-coppedge.html?m=1

Crev.info is not an evolution website. It's a young earth creationist website you fuckkking liar. Lying for Jesus.


So, with all these your scientific breakthrough, y'all still cant find a scientific journal to publish you?
It screams pseudoscience to me.

So far, the 2 websites they've brought as proof to back them up are 2 pseudoscientific websites run by creationist loons who have no single idea about the scientific method.


When Christians have to depend on non scientists publishing pseudoscientific facts to push their agenda, then you know that Christianity is running on fumes.

Bunch of clowns.

CatfishBilly:

The author of this rubbish you quoted is a creationist nutjob.
Looks at it here http://creation.mobi/david-coppedge
The guy is not even a paleontologist, he is a fuckkking IT guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He has his own entry in the encyclopedia of American Loons http://americanloons..com.ng/2015/10/1487-david-coppedge.html?m=1

Crev.info is not an evolution website. It's a young earth creationist website you fuckkking liar. Lying for Jesus.


So, with all these your scientific breakthrough, y'all still can find a scientific journal to publish you?
It screams pseudoscience to me.

"About Creation-Evolution Headlines
Since August 2000, Creation-Evolution Headlines has brought breaking news and “color commentary” to the origins debate. Unlike most science reporting sites, CEH is not slavishly devoted to defending Charles Darwin’s views, but critically examines the evidence and the underlying assumptions of evolutionism. "


================+=======
So Address the topic or shut up!
Swallow your argumentum ad hominems

Firstly, its obvious you dont even know what Osteocytes are. Let alone knowing that heme isnt found in osteocytes.

Secondly, we are still waiting for your groundbreaking pathophysiology.

Ranchhoddas:
No it isn't. That is why research continues till tomorrow.

So why not look into other alternatives like ID? If you can't look at ID as an alternative It just shows you have faith in Evolution (Just like theists).

For me ID is more scientific while Evolution assumes toooooooo much. And calling assumptions fact makes if faith.

CatfishBilly:
So far, the 2 websites they've brought as proof to back them up are 2 pseudoscientific websites run by creationist loons who have no single idea about the scientific method.


When Christians have to depend on non scientists publishing pseudoscientific facts to push their agenda, then you know that Christianity is running on fumes.

Bunch of clowns.

Hahahahahahaha non scientists that floored a university in court.
The joke is on you.

You have posted almost 5 times
And you cant offer any scientific talk on the topic

Speaks much on your quackery. You are the only clown here.

LightandDarkness:


Did I claim any cell or molecule aside from hemoglobin carries heme?

Do osteocytes not receive blood?

I don't understand why you and the person who wrote this article proudly call yourself scientists when you quickly disregard scientific method when it doesn't suit you. As evidenced by your previous refusal to accept results from mass spectrometry and carbon dating.

[s]What's worse is this so called scientist apparently believes the flood actually happened with no supporting geological evidence for it.
[/s]
I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you and your fellow creationists can successfully disprove evolution, you would have done it already. Instead you are here posting articles on nairaland-I have said it before and I'll say it again- You are a doctor yes, so I challenge you to write a review article, put your credentials on it, and publish it

Are you trying to cop out?
Or you want to argue that osteocytes carry heme?

felixomor:


"About Creation-Evolution Headlines
Since August 2000, Creation-Evolution Headlines has brought breaking news and “color commentary” to the origins debate. Unlike most science reporting sites, CEH is not slavishly devoted to defending Charles Darwin’s views, but critically examines the evidence and the underlying assumptions of evolutionism. "


================+=======
So Address the topic or shut up!

Firstly, its obvious you dont even know what Osteocytes are. Let alone knowing that heme isnt found in osteocytes.

Secondly, we are still waiting for your groundbreaking pathophysiology.

Osteocytes contain canaliculi and the function of canaliculi is to transport nutrients to the osteocytes and nutrients are transported in blood to the osteocytes and blood contains hemoglobin........ you see where I'm going with this? Olodo rabata.


That rubbish you posted up there was what the idiot wrote on his website, but going through his contents, it's a young earth creationist website. Lying for Jesus

felixomor:


Hahahahahahaha non scientists that floored a university in court.
The joke is on you.

You have posted almost 5 times
And you cant offer any scientific talk on the topic

Speaks much on your quackery. You are the only clown here.

This is not my debate. I've had this debate with you, I'm not going to put myself through that again.

My only job here is to expose them pseudoscientific websites you guys put up. That's all.

Bunch of clowns.

CatfishBilly:

Osteocytes contain canaliculi and the function of canaliculi is to transport nutrients to the osteocytes and nutrients are transported in blood to the osteocytes and blood contains hemoglobin........ you see where I'm going with this? Olodo rabata.


That rubbish you posted up there was what the idiot wrote on his website, but going through his contents, it's a young earth creationist website. Lying for Jesus

Sharrap please.
Nutrients to osteocytes exchange via gap junctions by osmosis and other means.

You have exposed your quckery again.
Butterflylion, come and see, the quack ediort is out again!

CatfishBilly:

This is not my debate. I've had this debate with you, I'm not going to put myself through that again.
My only job here is to expose them pseudoscientific websites you guys put up. That's all.

Bunch of clowns.

Cop out.
Ediort.
He always jumps out when it gets to the intelligent part

felixomor:


Sharrap please.
Nutrients to osteocytes exchange via gap junctions by osmosis and other means.

You have exposed your quckery again.
Butterflylion, come and see, the quack ediort is out again!

Receive sense. https://www.reference.com/science/function-canaliculi-3b676589b529f17#

You don't even know the function of gap junctions, and gap junctions don't use osmosis as there's no semipermeable membrane and gap junction transports ions not the solvent as is in osmosis.
A simple link to explain osmosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis
Gap junctions and osmosis are 2 parallel lines.

What are the "other means" you're talking about?
God.

Horlufemi:


So why not look into other alternatives like ID? If you can't look at ID as an alternative It just shows you have faith in Evolution (Just like theists).

For me ID is more scientific while Evolution assumes toooooooo much. And calling assumptions fact makes if faith.

Yeah.
For you.

felixomor:


Are you trying to cop out?
Or you want to argue that osteocytes carry heme?

Again understand what you are typing Mr scientist, no other cells or tissues relevant to this debate aside from red blood cells carry hemoglobin and thus heme. Osteocytes do not "carry heme" which is why I asked you where I said they did.

Arguing with you exposes your ignorance Mr Scientist.

First off Mark Armitages article did not state he found osteocytes but instead osteocyte like cells and structures.

"Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length."

Sourced from the abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

Schweitzer also discovered osteocyte like structures in addition to blood vessels and fibrous bone matrix and analysed their molecular properties in the article referenced below. It was in these osteocyte like structures she identified the proteins tubulin and actin using immunohistochemistry and MS. Two of the three proteins I mentioned earlier as resistant to degradation, collagen is also associated with bone.


It seems you and the ignoramus that wrote the article failed to read Dr Schweitzer's papers and also failed to realise bone contains tubulin, actin, collagen, and blood vessels. Before you ignorantly claim bones do not contain blood vessels ask yourself how bone cells receive Oxygen and nutrients without vessels.

The bone cells used in the paper also possessed high iron content and red staining characteristic of iron association which is mentioned in the methods, discussion and results. Again consistent with the iron hypothesis.

It should tell you something Mr scientist when I'm the one here willing to reference scientific papers while you rely on creationist websites as ignorant as you are.

The paper can be downloaded here: https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b147/25b7a98555f65ec55e23e94a114120be0ce9.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjcgJrQvuXVAhVBEVAKHbU_BFsQFggjMAA&usg=AFQjCNGGoVg3mt97gG3n-zdlYG5pF2tchg

Ranchhoddas:
Yeah.
For you.

Imagine someone saying ID is more scientific than evolution.

Where has ID been observed? Tested? What experiments have been conducted to prove ID? What testable hypothesis does ID have?

Just stupid

LightandDarkness:


Imagine someone saying ID is more scientific than evolution.

Where has ID been observed? Tested? What experiments have been conducted to prove ID? What testable hypothesis does ID have?

Just stupid

He has the Adam and Eve hypothesis...

CatfishBilly:

Receive sense. https://www.reference.com/science/function-canaliculi-3b676589b529f17#

You don't even know the function of gap junctions, and gap junctions don't use osmosis as there's no semipermeable membrane and gap junction transports ions not the solvent as is in osmosis.
A simple link to explain osmosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis
Gap junctions and osmosis are 2 parallel lines.

What are the "other means" you're talking about?
God.

Shut up that dirty mouth.
And where is the blood there?
Shebi u said osteocytes receive nutrients from blood which contains heme?
So the heme is now "gap junction"?

You just demonstrated ignorance on osteocytes and it's going to stay with you for long.

Ediort.

LightandDarkness:


Again understand what you are typing Mr scientist, no other cells or tissues relevant to this debate aside from red blood cells carry hemoglobin and thus heme. Osteocytes do not "carry heme" which is why I asked you where I said they did.

Arguing with you exposes your ignorance Mr Scientist.

First off Mark Armitages article did not state he found osteocytes but instead osteocyte like cells and structures.

"Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length."

Sourced from the abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

Schweitzer also discovered osteocyte like structures in addition to blood vessels and fibrous bone matrix and analysed their molecular properties in the article referenced below. It was in these osteocyte like structures she identified the proteins tubulin and actin using immunohistochemistry and MS. Two of the three proteins I mentioned earlier as resistant to degradation, collagen is also associated with bone.


It seems you and the ignoramus that wrote the article failed to read Dr Schweitzer's papers and also failed to realise bone contains tubulin, actin, collagen, and blood vessels. Before you ignorantly claim bones do not contain blood vessels ask yourself how bone cells receive Oxygen and nutrients without vessels.

The bone cells used in the paper also possessed high iron content and red staining characteristic of iron association which is mentioned in the methods, discussion and results. Again consistent with the iron hypothesis.

It should tell you something Mr scientist when I'm the one here willing to reference scientific papers while you rely on creationist websites as ignorant as you are.

The paper can be downloaded here: https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b147/25b7a98555f65ec55e23e94a114120be0ce9.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjcgJrQvuXVAhVBEVAKHbU_BFsQFggjMAA&usg=AFQjCNGGoVg3mt97gG3n-zdlYG5pF2tchg

Your refusal to read keeps highlighting ignorance in your talk.
At first, you showed ignorance about what armitage discovered and claimed it was not written.
I had to bring it out to douse your lack of readership

All of a sudden you have become the expert on what Armitage discovered and trying to approximate it to "osteocyte like cells"

Please allow shame to catch you.
Once again, read the news in whole.
Stop chasing rabbits.