No More BS About BS!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it were just a Ph.D. and nothing more maybe. If it was just one man working alone, maybe. But this is a person who has done many research projects with many different co-researchers. Look at his credentials beyond the Ph.D. look at how many places he has been published, look at how many other people have cited his work. Look at who he cited because they provide the foundations for his work.

It is very easy to dismiss science with a simple phrase like, "just because one has a Ph.D." Especially, when one does not have one and has not done what it takes to earn one. So it is a "narrow minded" response in light of all the other facts here. But in the end when an expert like Dr. Toonen says one thing and Sub says he is wrong, my money goes on the Toonens every time. You folks can listen to Sub.

And now we are all happy.
 
Personally, the logic behind the research seems flawed, or at least, the verbiage used to summarize the findings is flawed, regardless of how many people buy into it. That said, feel free to think I'm narrow minded or uneducated. I really do appreciate it when people tell me things about myself that I need to know.
 
Guess there isn't any discussion to be had with TwoTankAmin, since he isn't reading what anyone is saying.

Apparently unless someone has a list of credentials they aren't worth reading.


Since this is a semantics argument, reading is very important. Credentials aren't the issue. The issue is the phrasing used by both the research and people mindlessly parroting that research because of the credentials. They phrase it in a blanket way that gets misrepresented all over the internet to mean something it never should have to begin with.
 
TwoTankAmin said:
So let me see if I understand things here. On one side we have Dr. Rob Toonen, Ph.D. So lets see what we can learn about his side of things.

2008 - present
Associate Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.

2003 - 2008
Assistant Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.

2002
Research Associate
Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis,

2002 Ph.D. Population Biology. Center for Population Biology, University of
California, Davis, CA. Dissertation Title: Molecular Genetic
Analysis of Recruitment and Dispersal in the Intertidal Porcelai
Crab, Petrolisthes cinctipes.

1993 M.Sc. Marine Sciences. Department of Biological Sciences, University of
North Carolina, Wilmington, NC. Thesis Title: Environmental a
Heritable Components of Settlement Behavior of Hydroides
dianthus (Serpulidae: Polychaeta).

1991 B.Sc. Honours Zoology. Department of Zoology, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB. Thesis Title: Limitations of laboratory assessm
of coelenterate predation: Container effects on the feeding
preference of the Limnomedusa, Proboscidactyla flavicirrata

I wanted to list all the papers etc, but there are to many pages of them. Anybody who would like to see the list can find them here. His biography runs 13 pages long several of which list his peer reviewed research. Oh yes, he is also a peer reviewer for others researchers.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DjCEtTK84XKjoIzgoR_mxCg&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg

And now lets look at Sub's qualifications. He works in an LFS and he has a dictionary. If I have got this wrong and he does have graduate degrees in a related field, if he is published in peer reviewed journals, if he is a hands on researcher, I apologize in advance and do so humbly.





Click to expand...
At least I unlike you TTA, am qualified to realize that the issue here isn't Dr. Toonen's competence in his chosen field, but his choice of words to describe his findings. And your own failings of course. But you're too busy trying to make yourself look intelligent. Completely understandable that this would keep you very busy, I'm sure that endeavor consumes the bulk of your free time. And being retired, I'm sure you have quite a bit. And btw I don't work at an lfs, I own a design and maintenance company. But then you apparently doesn't want to consider anything which conflicts with how you know the world should be. I wonder if you're this obnoxious and arrogant in person?
 
Khemul said:
Guess there isn't any discussion to be had with TwoTankAmin, since he isn't reading what anyone is saying.

Apparently unless someone has a list of credentials they aren't worth reading.


Since this is a semantics argument, reading is very important. Credentials aren't the issue. The issue is the phrasing used by both the research and people mindlessly parroting that research because of the credentials. They phrase it in a blanket way that gets misrepresented all over the internet to mean something it never should have to begin with.
Click to expand...
I don't know what degree you have Matt, if any, but you certainly deserve doctorates in common sense and reading comprehension.
 
Sub- love your insults- they are the best thing you seem to be able to contribute on this site. Despite this I am willing to help you. First I am going to try to teach you how to read full sentences. In this case it is the exact quote by Dr. Toonen that you have an issue with.

The same is true of adult brine: they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop.

The phrase is not what you twisted it into, it says largely devoid. The word largely is an adverb that modifies devoid. Now let me help you some more with the Webster Online definition of the word largely.

Definition of LARGELY

: in a large manner; especially : to a large extent : mostly, primarily <words largely unknown a decade ago>

See largely defined for English-language learners »

See largely defined for kids »

Examples of LARGELY


  • The story is largely true.
  • He is largely responsible for the problem.
  • The economy is based largely on farming.


First Known Use of LARGELY

13th century

Related to LARGELY

Synonymsaltogether, basically, by and large, generally, chiefly, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantiallyAntonyms
little, negligibly, nominally, slightlyRelated Wordsabout, more or less, most, much, near, nearly, next to, nigh, practically, some, virtually, well-nigh; approximately, broadly, plus or minus, roughly; commonly, frequently, generally, normally, ordinarily, typically, usually; incompletely, partially, partly, rather, somewhat
Near Antonymscompletely, entirely, fully, perfectly, thoroughly, totally, wholly; barely, hardly, just, marginally, minimally, scarcely; absolutely, categorically, unqualifiedly

So for a start you are not arguing with what he actually said, you had to alter what he said to make your criticism. But maybe I am wrong here, Does anybody out there besides me think that the terms "largely devoid" and "devoid" do not mean the same thing? Or do you think maybe instead of trying to hit me over the head with his dictionary that Sub should be using it himself? Oh yes does anybody think the words at the local petshop is code for all brine everywhere which I missed but the savvy Sub figured out?

But I will leave you all with this information about the nutritional value of brine shrimp with one observation, every reference cited was published after 1986. I do not understand how there have been any advancements in artemia nutritional value since Sub already assured us its all about protein so this is not possible. Nothing in or about the nutritional value of brine could possible have changed, nope, no way, no how.

You may have heard about the long chain Omega-3 fatty acids in the news with regards to human and/or pet nutrition, but they play an equally important role in the nutrition of your fishes and coral reef invertebrates as they do for your dog, or for you. The two Omega-3 fatty acids of primary interest to fish breeders for the past 20 years have been the highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA for short) DHA (docosahaxaenoic acid: 22:6 n-3) & EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid: 20:5 n-3) which are synthesized almost exclusively by marine algae. In fact, one of the major breakthroughs in the aquaculture of marine animals was the discovery that certain highly unsaturated fatty acids were an essential part of the diet, and without them, nutritional deficiencies or arrested development are common problems (reviewed by Watanabe et al. 1983).

For example, newly hatched brine shrimp ( Artemia ) are a simple and easily cultured food for the larvae (juveniles) of many marine organisms, but because these shrimp typically lack sufficient quantities of EPA & DHA, most marine fish fed exclusively on baby brine begin to die off within a week or so after hatching (reviewed by Holt 2003). The widespread success of culturing and breeding many marine animals has come only since the discovery of the importance of including these essential fatty acids in the diet. DHA has been shown to be important in the normal growth and development of the central nervous system, and in particular the brain, eyes and reproductive organs, while EPA is important to cardiovascular health and plays an essential role in certain immune responses. Among the common symptoms of EPA/DHA deficiency in marine animals are1) Sudden fright syndrome - shock, convulsion or even death when the animals are frightened; 2) poor vision, and reduced ability to locate prey; 3) worn or mysteriously eroding fins; 4) poor growth rates or sudden massive die offs during early development; 5) low egg viability or infertility; 6) high mortality and disease rates, particularly when under stress (e.g., shipping or acclimation), and 7) inability to properly heal after being wounded (reviewed by Rainuzzo et al. 1997; Masuda et al. 1998; Fredalina et al. 1999; Furuita et al. 1999; Sargent et al. 1999; Ishizaki et al. 2001; Holt 2003). By "enriching" food items such as Artemia with phytoplankton prior to feeding them to the marine animals being raised, the amount of EPA & DHA is often increased to the point that die-offs and developmental problems previously encountered are completely avoided (reviewed by Rainuzzo et al. 1997; Sargent et al. 1999; Holt 2003).

I love arguing with Sub- he hurls insults and I hurl science. And he is right, I have enough time available now to read the research he cannot.

Sub- let me save you some time for future discussions, I will quote the science and you can just type the appropriate letter from the list below:

A = TTA you are an egomaniac, so I don't have to talk science.
B= I don't have to respond to the actual statement, I am changing it to this so I can respond to something I imagined was said.
C= The 30 old research was good enough, I don't care who did what since.
D= Nobody on the site knows more than me, so when others show I am mistaken, I am really not.
E= I have a dictionary.
F= If I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I will baffle them with bull.
 
TwoTankAmin said:
Sub- love your insults- they are the best thing you seem to be able to contribute on this site. Despite this I am willing to help you. First I am going to try to teach you how to read full sentences. In this case it is the exact quote by Dr. Toonen that you have an issue with.

The same is true of adult brine: they are largely devoid of nutritional value when you purchase them at the local petshop.

The phrase is not what you twisted it into, it says largely devoid. The word largely is an adverb that modifies devoid. Now let me help you some more with the Webster Online definition of the word largely.

Definition of LARGELY

: in a large manner; especially : to a large extent : mostly, primarily <words largely unknown a decade ago>

See largely defined for English-language learners »

See largely defined for kids »

Examples of LARGELY


  • The story is largely true.
  • He is largely responsible for the problem.
  • The economy is based largely on farming.


First Known Use of LARGELY

13th century

Related to LARGELY

Synonymsaltogether, basically, by and large, generally, chiefly, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantiallyAntonyms
little, negligibly, nominally, slightlyRelated Wordsabout, more or less, most, much, near, nearly, next to, nigh, practically, some, virtually, well-nigh; approximately, broadly, plus or minus, roughly; commonly, frequently, generally, normally, ordinarily, typically, usually; incompletely, partially, partly, rather, somewhat
Near Antonymscompletely, entirely, fully, perfectly, thoroughly, totally, wholly; barely, hardly, just, marginally, minimally, scarcely; absolutely, categorically, unqualifiedly

So for a start you are not arguing with what he actually said, you had to alter what he said to make your criticism. But maybe I am wrong here, Does anybody out there besides me think that the terms "largely devoid" and "devoid" do not mean the same thing? Or do you think maybe instead of trying to hit me over the head with his dictionary that Sub should be using it himself? Oh yes does anybody think the words at the local petshop is code for all brine everywhere which I missed but the savvy Sub figured out?

But I will leave you all with this information about the nutritional value of brine shrimp with one observation, every reference cited was published after 1986. I do not understand how there have been any advancements in artemia nutritional value since Sub already assured us its all about protein so this is not possible. Nothing in or about the nutritional value of brine could possible have changed, nope, no way, no how.

You may have heard about the long chain Omega-3 fatty acids in the news with regards to human and/or pet nutrition, but they play an equally important role in the nutrition of your fishes and coral reef invertebrates as they do for your dog, or for you. The two Omega-3 fatty acids of primary interest to fish breeders for the past 20 years have been the highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA for short) DHA (docosahaxaenoic acid: 22:6 n-3) & EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid: 20:5 n-3) which are synthesized almost exclusively by marine algae. In fact, one of the major breakthroughs in the aquaculture of marine animals was the discovery that certain highly unsaturated fatty acids were an essential part of the diet, and without them, nutritional deficiencies or arrested development are common problems (reviewed by Watanabe et al. 1983).

For example, newly hatched brine shrimp ( Artemia ) are a simple and easily cultured food for the larvae (juveniles) of many marine organisms, but because these shrimp typically lack sufficient quantities of EPA & DHA, most marine fish fed exclusively on baby brine begin to die off within a week or so after hatching (reviewed by Holt 2003). The widespread success of culturing and breeding many marine animals has come only since the discovery of the importance of including these essential fatty acids in the diet. DHA has been shown to be important in the normal growth and development of the central nervous system, and in particular the brain, eyes and reproductive organs, while EPA is important to cardiovascular health and plays an essential role in certain immune responses. Among the common symptoms of EPA/DHA deficiency in marine animals are1) Sudden fright syndrome - shock, convulsion or even death when the animals are frightened; 2) poor vision, and reduced ability to locate prey; 3) worn or mysteriously eroding fins; 4) poor growth rates or sudden massive die offs during early development; 5) low egg viability or infertility; 6) high mortality and disease rates, particularly when under stress (e.g., shipping or acclimation), and 7) inability to properly heal after being wounded (reviewed by Rainuzzo et al. 1997; Masuda et al. 1998; Fredalina et al. 1999; Furuita et al. 1999; Sargent et al. 1999; Ishizaki et al. 2001; Holt 2003). By "enriching" food items such as Artemia with phytoplankton prior to feeding them to the marine animals being raised, the amount of EPA & DHA is often increased to the point that die-offs and developmental problems previously encountered are completely avoided (reviewed by Rainuzzo et al. 1997; Sargent et al. 1999; Holt 2003).

I love arguing with Sub- he hurls insults and I hurl science. And he is right, I have enough time available now to read the research he cannot.

Sub- let me save you some time for future discussions, I will quote the science and you can just type the appropriate letter from the list below:

A = TTA you are an egomaniac, so I don't have to talk science.
B= I don't have to respond to the actual statement, I am changing it to this so I can respond to something I imagined was said.
C= The 30 old research was good enough, I don't care who did what since.
D= Nobody on the site knows more than me, so when others show I am mistaken, I am really not.
E= I have a dictionary.
F= If I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I will baffle them with bull.
Click to expand...
While you're in that dictionary, look up the definition of the word "semantics". No food source which is over 50% protein is devoid of nutrition, largely or otherwise. I'm talking apples and you're arguing oranges. But then you yourself agree that you aren't an English major. You wouldn't by chance be attending the Monster Convention would you? I'd love to meet you and look into your eyes as you dissemble.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm a bit slow (I lack a doctorate, you know), but I still fail to see how something that is greater than 50% protein is largely devoid of nutritional value.

Just think, maybe we as hobbyists haven't figured out that a balanced diet is important for our fish, although we know we shouldn't only eat red beans and rice for our own diets.
 
authmal said:
Maybe I'm a bit slow (I lack a doctorate, you know), but I still fail to see how something that is greater than 50% protein is largely devoid of nutritional value.

Just think, maybe we as hobbyists haven't figured out that a balanced diet is important for our fish, although we know we shouldn't only eat red beans and rice for our own diets.
Click to expand...
TTA isn't arguing the point, he's just arguing me. And at this point I'm apparently just arguing him.
 
Rbishop said:
Egg beaters are great for whipping up real eggs, with real bacon, real cheese and scrambling in real butter....
Click to expand...
Bob, I could not agree more! Boy am I hungry! :drool:

What the hell happened to this thread??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom