Subject: Re: +quot;Carboniferous human bones+quot; -- last call for Ed to make predictions

========
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.bio.paleontology,alt.fan.publius,sci.skeptic,alt.catastrophism,alt.chistnet
Subject: Re: "Carboniferous human bones" -- last call for Ed to make predictions
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:34:10 GMT


macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) wrote:


>Okay.  This is my last attempt to get some predictions from Ed about the  
>results of the thin section prepared for his specimen.  This is the  
>opportunity to make your case and impress people if the results turn out  
>the way you expect.  Please respond promptly.

>Ed:

>1) What does the inner, soft zone of the specimen you sent represent?  Is  
>it supposed to be marrow of the bone?  What does the difference between  
>the inner soft zone and outer cemented zone represent?

>2) What size (i.e. in distance measurement units) are the haversian canal  
>structures you expect to be found in this specimen?  I will accept  
>whatever measurement unit you like -- millimetres, microns, inches,  
>whatever.

>3) In case you can not provide an answer for #2, how big are these  
>structures at a magnification of, say, 100x?  To they fill the entire  
>field of view of the microscope?  A tenth the diameter?  What?  Saying  
>they are "seen at 100x" is almost meaningless.  I can see sand grains 100  
>microns (0.1 mm) in size with a 10x hand lens.  At 100x, they just look  
>bigger, and I can accurately describe their shape.

>4) What mineral composition is the wall of the haversian canal preserved  
>as?

>5) What mineral composition is the channel of the haversian canal  
>preserved as?


>	Please respond to as many of these questions, or with whatever  
>information you can provide.

>	-Andrew
>	macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
>	home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew:
I am quite perplexed by your questionnaire.
First of all, this could never be your LAST attempt to "get some
predictions" from me concerning the thin section simply because there
really never was a first time, a second time, a third time, a fourth
time, etc., etc.
Have you been smoking anything lately?
Besides, I think you have come to the wrong place to demand
predictions. I'd suggest you call up the Nostradamus home page where
you'll get all of the predictions you want.

However, I'll play your little game by answering your questions --
every one  that is applicable to your search for Haversian systems
(the undisputed denominating factor in determining if a  specimen is
or is not petrified bone).
Here are my answers:
1)
2}
3}
4}
5}
---
THERE! 
Now are you satisifed with my answers to all  of your questions that
are applicable.
Oh, you don't see any? Hmmm! Well, that's because NONE of your
questions amount to a hill of beans.
A few of your questions seek predictions about "mineral composition"
of the specimen but, the fact, this is a horse of another fire
department.
Mineral composition is of absolutely no consequence here since there
is no question the specimen -- which the late Wilton M. Krogman,
author of "The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine,"  had personally
and patiently examined and pronounced to be a portion of a tibia --
undoubtedly contains an assortment of minerals, etc., because of the
fact that the bone has been transformed to its rock-like state.

Need I remind you that "Science in Archaeology" emphatically states
that, no matter the age of bone or the fact that it has petrified, can
remove the presence of the Haversian systems (since the concentric
canals, the passageways by which both food and oxygen are transported
to living bone, cannot be replaced in the petrification process since
there was nothing permanent inside the canals to be begin with.)

Meanwhile, you have asked quite a few rather perplexing questions
demanding specific answers about the Haversian systems which experts
at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center and Teledyne Isotopes
(among others) have viewed in one or more of my specimens -- and have
had the courage to say so in writing, beneath their letterheads.

Meanwhile, Andrew, you are making a mountain out of a molehill by
demanding answers to questions about ``distance measurement units,"
"size of the haverisan canal structures" and "the difference between
the inner soft zone and the outer cemeted zone."
If you're an honest scientist, these answers will be obvious to you if
you examine the thin section the way you should've done in the first
place -- using "back-lighting" (the light striking the slide from
below) and patiently increasing or decreasing the magnification of
your microscope until the magnificent, majestic Haversian systems can
clearly be seen.
                                                     _ Ed Conrad