Here’s my original comment:
“It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions.”
To which you responded:
“[Shweitzer] was having trouble preparing the slides, and went to a vet histologist who specializes in preparing slides made from bone for help, and she then showed the slides to a pathologist who believed them to be blood cells.
I don’t think it would be obvious to a nonspecialist.”
To which I responded:
“Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.”
To which you replied:
‘A pathologist took a look at it and said, “Do you know you have blood cells in this bone?’
To which I cited the Smithsonian piece which includes the following:
‘The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?”’
Your reply:
‘Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.’
Which has to be misdirection At Best. Because my original statement was that none of the evolutionists, including your precious ‘Gayle’, identified the red blood cells. They were identified by a nameless [per the Smithsonian article] veterinarian at a conference.
Now it turns out I was right. So what are you going to do? Waste my time w more babble, misdirection & dishonesty, or admit I was right?
“Now it turns out I was right. So what are you going to do? Waste my time w more babble, misdirection & dishonesty, or admit I was right?”
—Huh? I already said I misunderstood - when you mentioned the vet I thought you were referring to Gayle. I’m not disagreeing with you, and I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.