Your colleagues are, which means you're not and your other assumption (not fact) is well wide of the mark too. As you're down to spurious speculation and spelling's, there's not a lot more to be said.
So I can't possibly know because I'm not a paleontologist, do you not see the irony there? Assuming you have discussed this with a paleontologist yourself, who were they and what University are the based at?
I didn't say you couldn't know. I was pointing out that working with them, doesn't mean YOU are an expert. If you're at Uni, you could work with people in all sorts of fields, it doesn't make you (or them) the definitive opinion. As for the colleges and universities, some were not based at Universities, but it's imaterial.
I've had it in a lasagne and a pasta bake and it was alright, but in a bolognese where there's not such a flavour explosion it's bloody vile, actually does taste like paper.
I sat eating quorn and mads the mistake of googling what it was. It's a fungus that was originally proposed as animal feed, but the animal people rejected it. I still eat it mind.
As PhD's, post-docs and associate professors our research is the stuff that is published to become the current scientific understanding on that subject, it stands unless later work is able to disprove it. Nothing is definitive in active research but that's the nature of academics. There is almost zero research conducted on this through private or government enterprise, suggesting whoever you claim to have spoken is not involved in this type of research.
Its a bit of a grey area, our bodies can process fish easily and the health problems we develop from meat are significantly smaller. However we are not physiologically suited to catching fish, suggesting it was never a natural habit, but one we later developed. Its well documented that we ate shell fish long before meat, as it was easy to scavenge on shorelines.
Cheers, I'll tell them they've been peer reviewed by you when next I meet any of them. I'm sure they'll be impressed. Some research conclusions tend to depend on who is funding the research.
Nah, it's not something that interests me enough. But I do think some people are mixed up with what a circular argument actually is.
Publications are almost never peer reviewed by someone not in that research field, it defeats the object. Your right, however the majority of this type of research is funded by NERC or similar institutions and so is essentially blue sky science.
To be fair that has never stopped him in the past. Regarding eating meat, if we weren't meant to eat it, why's it taste so good??
I only ever join in when i know. If I don't know, I tend to say and ask questions. Mind you, it's not as if you'd ever know if something's right or wrong.
Can't win an argument so drag it into inane drivel, your good at this, have you ever done it before perchance?
