Lagoon Island Pearls

Au contraire, mon frère. I made it quite clear. I am a scientist, by academia and trade. I'm quite certain, I know the difference, as such I'll consider that as berated. In fact, all you've discussed is your version of the letter of the law, from an amateur viewpoint (you're not a lawyer, right?), with a questionable (if not entirely absent) version of the spirit of the law. Gun advocates don't have exclusive interpretation on either point, so what you say only stands at face value, not necessarily reality. Nowhere have you repudiated irresponsibility under any moral authority nor offered proactive steps for resolution. Likewise, you were asked to support several points with scientific facts by other posters and an administrator, but continue skirting the issue. As to law. I reviewed an early post. I take back "criminal negligence" on the hooks thing. If a gun on hooks is legal in some states, there's no criminal intent. However, I will replace that with "negligence, gross negligence, reckless endangerment or contributing to a minor" when accidents happen.

A question followed by an assertion. Normally I'd view that as controlling the narrative, but in this case it speaks to the problem. The last time I checked, criminal negligence causing death is not legal. What's worse, when one's right to be paranoid or violently defensive trumps the life and liberty of one's children, one has stooped to the lowest form of human being and the society that enabled it. You see, legality has nothing to do with any of it. It's irresponsible to hide behind the law if it puts kids in danger. In the absence of morality, a parent ceases to be so. Even worse, children are pawns in the never ending circle of violence you've created for yourselves. America's biggest enemy is not terror. It's other Americans.

Increased partial pressure treatment in a hyperbaric chamber is common in medicine for treating many diseases or infections. Oxygen toxicity was mentioned in diving. At 33ft (2atm), pure oxygen is toxic at 2.0pp, but it's often used in decompression stops beginning at 30ft, because most commercial divers are assessed for O2 tolerance during their training. The idea being the sooner you get enriched oxygen into the bloodstream, the quicker nitrogen is purged. Helium is the most common noble in mixed gas operations these days, but it's not so inert as some may think. Helium has a huge affinity for heat, hence divers using it must have an external heat source supplied by the umbilical, namely hot water. Likewise, when any gas is decompressed, it gets colder. Neon and argon have been used in diving too, but breathing concentrations of it cause massive hallucinations. Even hydrogen has been used, but there's no need to explain the danger in that. Most dives are short in duration. Bounce dives can be be mere minutes. Even really deep open circuit dives are under two hours. Mixed gas, four hours, but saturation diving is days, sometimes weeks. Ascending too soon or too fast might seem the same, but are actually two different events. Too soon, short term maladies may be Caisson's disease (bends), skin rashes, exploding dental fillings, which are fluids converting to gas in the bloodstream or joints. Too fast, pneumothorax, mediastinal or subcutaneous emphysema, embolism or sinus/ear reverse block are caused by gas expansion in the lungs or skull. Commercial divers don't have careers expanding across decades, generally. Bad ears and sinuses are often complaints, but osteoarthritis is well documented as one the most common long term effects experienced by deep divers. I'm a diver on my own pearl operation. Commercial decompression diving is not allowed, unless a chamber is immediately available. (which I don't) I get white streaks across my fingernails when I dive for several days in a row, especially on days when I calculate surface intervals between dives, strictly adhering to the tables. Interestingly enough, it's not necessarily pressure itself that causes these issues, but how decompression is managed.

Uptake is one thing, retention is another. Everyone's different. As to preservatives, the same applies for things like sugar, where some folks eat lots and never gain weight while some eat a little and gain a lot, so without an extensive physical examination it would difficult to say how this may apply to you, or anyone for that matter. It's fair to say a lower exposure to preservatives might provide for a lower uptake, but that's not to say how much may be retained in any event. Heavy metals, not chemicals tend to be retained longer in lipid cells, nails, hair etc., where most preservatives are flushed away via the kidneys in the short term. My reply may be a little ambiguous, but I don't think there's a clear "yes or no" answer to the question, albeit a good one!

I did that. They didn't fit, weren't comfortable and seem to get stuck in the mouth a lot. This is a science forum where facts are accepted based upon sound studies and rigourous testing. Rhetorical gibberish or ideological epithets are discarded as falsehoods or irrelelvent. Unilateral terms of reference hatched up by you are not the rules for discourse. Not just because your facts are not germain to the topic, but meant to control the narrative and steer away from the issue in a discordant mannner. Just because you say so, does not make so. Beating around the bush, brash assertions, obstinate positioning is not a discussion, so don't pretend to be having one here. In the absence of answering pointed questions, you're merely soapbox preaching as though the title of the this thread is false, or worse not up for change, or even worse yet unspeakable and unassailable. You are not interested in common ground, by walking in other's shoes. I've not seen you do it on other's behalf. (even though you'd demand it of them) You've made it quite clear that some people want more guns and less rules even if it means more kids will die. As to revisiting law, you claim to say "good luck" on one hand, yet spew "not happening" on the other. Any fool could see, your version of good luck was sarcastic, not genuine. Fail. I put myself in your shoes on the nails over the door thing. While I was in the bathroom, the crook kicked in the door an low and behold, what was the first thing he found?.... my loaded gun hanging there. That's really bright, duh huh?

If that's what you are doing, fine, but you are not. You've shown to be a contrary, irrational pro-gun advocate at any cost by default, not a legislate, lawyer nor judge. An amateur's take on law is not worth the spit that uttered it, although it stands as proof of the ongoing conspiracy to shape the issue into something it's not. To satisfy that agenda, numerous gun advocates are entrenched in a fight-at-all-cost bias, not predisposed to solutions. Solutions require compromise, not tyranny or intransigence. The laws you claim are unchangeable are changeable whether you like it or not, that's why they call them "amendments". "Inalienable" can be thrown out at the stroke of a pen and there'd be nothing anyone can do about it except to revisit or live with it. The latter, is workable and used in pretty much every other civil country on the planet, despite how gun advocates claim otherwise through willful ignorance Gun lobbists may equivocate to the end of time, but it's that not-so-scientific "yankee doodle dandy stick-to-your-guns" harbinger that kills kids yet does NOTHING to prevent it and EVERYTHING to exacerbate it. Gun advocates largely choose to belittle those who oppose, with an infantile interpretation of the law and a draconian way to function within it. Counting myself, I know multiple gun owners who view this issue a tragedy. and rightly so, They have been greatly proactive in securing their weapons that children may not access them, often at a cost of another level of security as a priority, no other reason.Gun nuts refuse to give up that right and a such, knowingly put their own children at risk to suit adult ideologies.The defense argument is weak at best. Robbers don't teleport directly to the bedroom of a strange house in the dark in every case. If I hear an intruder downstairs, I'll have plenty of time to access the Remington pump Simply put, by not raising a singular shred of a pro-active solution and suggesting gun owners hang loaded guns on nails by the door, demonstrated unwillingness to be lawful (in most states) and children are acceptable collateral damage in the ill perceived war on gun control. Beside that, a well regulated militia or inalienable rights are not the prerequisite to self defense. Here in Canada, (among numerous other civil countries) we have strict gun laws, but self defense comes under the same rule of law as the USA, so all the drivel pointing to the constitution as the standard, is moot. A false premise. A non-issue. It's not objective saying no to everything by default. You've only derided the one's presented, automatically not thoughtfully nor sincerely. That is not discussion, it's tyranny. The very thing the gun laws were meant to prevent. Look around, kids are dead. There's nothing imagined here, it a very real scenario based upon sound data from multiple sources, agencies and institutions, yet those most responsible are the least proactive or more often, dismissive and contrary. Not one shred of scientific evidence has been presented by the gun lobby to suggest otherwise, only opinions. I'll ask it again for the umpteenth time, seeing how your little video and rude comments didn't contribute anything meaningful (other than set a bad example to otherwise responsible gun owners). WTF does a well regulated militia or inalienable rights have to do with preventing child mortality, as opposed to enabling it? Respond if you like, but never mind actually, don't waste your breath and our ears with more cowardly, nonsensical spin. Let me answer, if you will. It has nothing to do with it and the parallels drawn to test the law are little more than propaganda for the purposes of deflection, not resolution. "That could never win" isn't a process in law you can throw out there as to cause everyone to surrender to this issue. It's pulled out of the butt and wiped over everything as truth, but it at the end of the day, it's just more $hit. Therein lies the rub. Until the gun lobby themselves say stop, kids will continue to die with same callous indifference, so clearly demonstrated in this thread. Giving/selling/permitting crazy people guns is even crazier, but quite acceptable by the gun lobby because it's profitable and perpetrates their agenda, while in the same breath lay it back at the feet of the government to manage, despite otherwise irrational claims that the government is already too big or too incapable to address social issues effectively.

You parrot repeatedly, but say nothing. What does any of that have to do with irresponsible gun owners killing their kids?

Oh I'm late, therefore my right to free speech is removed by a non-admin contributor. Thanks for demonstrating that little bit of fascism though, it speaks volumes to the issue.

How can "well regulated" not involve government? Regulations are imposed by government. Gun locks, permits etc. are regulations. What does "well" even mean? Well can mean healthy or it can mean abundant. The founding fathers meant health, while the gun nuts think abundant. It perverts the meaning in the same way terrorists pervert the term jihad. Both cause death, but domestic guns kill infinitely more, yet nary a peep from gun advocates. Far be it they'd be silent if a terrorist killed a kid. I don't see "self regulated" written there, which is what you spinning this to be. So don't come in here and preach comprehension when you make an exception for it yourself. You have failed to address the title of this thread. Instead parroting the statute repeatedly with your biased version of it, how about presenting some real facts explaining the causes of childhood mortality. In return I will do the same. In 2011, the CBSA (Canadian Border Service) seized 673 illegal firearms from Americans. However, in that same year the RCMP seized 33,727 weapons. Of that, 3/4 were brass knuckles, butterfly knives etc. Here's were it gets telling... of the remaining eight thousand, more than half were taken from individuals who were permitted in the United States. Given that sheer volume, tells me that even the majority of so-called responsible gun owners are not. Of the 33,727 weapons, more than 90% of them were undeclared. Some plead ignorant, which is no excuse under any law. Some thought it was legal by reciprocal agreement, which it's not. Others knew it to be wrong, but thought it tolerable nonetheless. We put them in prison for a long time, because they are negligent criminals, nothing less.

On the contrary, I have the highest respect for the courts. Unlike your illogical assumptions, I take the law at face value, not under interpretation. I don't see it written anywhere that a well regulated militia means that kids dying from negligent gun deaths is an acceptable coincidence, especially at a time when no civil unrest, military actions or disasters are in effect. It's very telling how your grasp the wording of an amendment as "inalienable", when by virtue of the term itself meant the law was revisited for change. On every other issue, the word "unchallenged" rolls off your tongue as to be dismissive or unspeakable. So which one is it? You seem to go back and forth as it suits you, but suffice it to say, appears hypocritical on every level. United States was founded by revolutionaries, you say. Oh boy, thank you for opening this little history can of worms lesson from a malcontented American revisionist. Who'd have thought a revolutionary takeover was something so unique and exceptional to America that nobody ever thought or adopted it themselves, no less lead by that example. All the countries who did in history, including mine... Canada don't have even remotely the per capita death rate from guns as your homeland. I have lots of guns. Hunting guns, target guns, spud guns, nail guns, clam guns but no hand guns, automatic, semi automatic or military weapons. I never pointed a gun at another person, nor will I, unless I intend to use it. You see, you are not much different than me in reality, other than you have chosen to live in a much more dangerous place than me. No sir, I don't think you are a bad person. I have no reason to think you'd intentionally harm anyone. However, I think you are selfish person. A paranoid and cowardly person with a penchant for discord rather than resolution or conciliation. A troll. Get over yourself, the law isn't on "your" side, it's on everyone's side. In fact, you've openly advocated thwarting, ignoring and defying many laws currently on the books. Nowhere in this thread do I see proponents of gun control suggest anyone act illegally or in open defiance of protecting kids in the meanwhile. If a single child got killed by a terrorist, your ilk would be screaming from the rooftops how the government is not doing enough to keep us safe.

Unless your the leader or member of a "well regulated militia" with legitimate standing, everything you've stated is ridiculous and meaningless. Why don't you just man up and say your perception of guns, gun ownership and gun laws trump the lives and liberties of our kids instead of hiding behind this militia nonsense. There are no militias. There are only gun nuts pretending to be. They are neither "well-regulated" nor wholly law abiding. Cliven Bundy was mentioned, as if he's something to be revered or respected example to uphold the law, when in fact they're lawless, self serving and outright dangerous to anyone outside their realm. They co-opted public land for their own selfish purposes, refused to pay taxes and threatened authority with violence and retribution. Only an idiot would view them as "well regulated". "Well regulated" requires rigorous government involvement, not the absence of it as gun advocates and republicans would have it. That level of hypocrisy fails the argument before it even begins. Meanwhile, how many kids died since my last post. Probably one or two, but hey... who cares? I do, that's who. A couple posters have proven in spades, they don't. What's worse, most often for reasons that have nothing to do with issue itself. Every school shooting a boon for gun manufacturers clambering to stock up for heavy sales before the proverbially imagined "liberals" threaten to "take their guns" even though after hundreds of mass shootings and death, nobody has actually stepped up to amend the amendments. Proof positive, gun advocates are not rational insomuch as over reactionary and underhanded in their viewpoint.

My health and demeanor are not at issue. However I'll thank you for demonstrating you'd rather dismiss or belittle others than debate issues objectively. Actually, you've done well to show that your interpretation of the Constitution and intransigence to proactive actions are the underlying reasons why kids die. It's not the illegal immigrants or the terrorists kids need to worry about. It's the likes of radical gun advocates with chips on their shoulders who refuse to even address the issue beyond self interest or ideology and nothing more, by hiding behind a warped interpretation of an archaic law. Much the same way radicalized fundamentalists pervert their interpretation of the bible, q'ran or statutes in law to push their agendas upon others with indifference, violence and even death. That's no broad statement pulled out of thin air either. Gun advocates turn a blind eye that statistically, the USA has the highest gun related death rate than anywhere else in the world, supported by hundreds if not thousands of credible scientists, statisticians and agencies around the planet.

It's already happening in nature. In fact, when one considers the huge surface area of basalt in our oceans (2/3 of the planet) and the rate of naturally occurring carbon sequestration, any efforts by mankind to replicate or accelerate the process may seem futile. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt "Compared to other rocks found on Earth's surface, basalts weather relatively fast. The typically iron-rich minerals oxidise rapidly in water and air, staining the rock a brown to red colour due to iron oxide (rust). Chemical weathering also releases readily water-soluble cations such as calcium, sodium and magnesium, which give basaltic areas a strong buffer capacity against acidification. Calcium released by basalts binds up CO2 from the atmosphere forming CaCO3 acting thus as a CO2 trap. To this it must be added that the eruption of basalt itself is often associated with the release of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere from volcanic gases. Carbon sequestration in basalt has been studied as a means of removing carbon dioxide, produced by human industrialization, from the atmosphere. Underwater basalt deposits, scattered in seas around the globe, have the added benefit of the water serving as a barrier to the re-release of CO2 into the atmosphere."

The majority of those who cling to the 2nd amendment are often those most critical of every other amendment, especially when it comes to terrorism or religion. They maintain a position of "not even up for discussion", yet insist immigrants must learn to speak English, denounce their religion or impose their beliefs upon others (ie) gay marriage, abortion etc. (1st amendment), no burkas or hijab in public (1st amendment) searched without warrant (4th amendment), detained without speedy trial (6th amendment), denied process of law (5th amendment), tax revolt (16th amendment) To them, those are up for discussion, challenge, change. They expect other religions or races to repudiate bad actors, yet defend child mortality with archaic interpretations of law or ideology that have nothing to do with the actions of irresponsible gun owners or mentally deranged individuals. Self centered hypocrites, to the egregious degree they'd willingly trade childhood mortality for two hundred year old frontier justice. Not to mention the ridiculous "Why should you be worried if you have nothing to hide" attitude of the Patriot Act and the NSA's policies. Those screaming the loudest about threats from abroad claim the government is not doing enough to "keep them safe", yet take every opportunity to derail any discussion toward reducing real deaths of real children, who are real citizens. It's entitlement of the highest order, yet when it comes to any other entitlement they'll deride welfare as enabling, reproductive rights as murder, immigrants as criminals or heath care as one step away from gulag imprisonment. Hanging a gun on nails above one's door for easy access is not freedom. It's imprisonment in one's own home. It's living life in paranoia, fear, aggression and very often manifested by indoctrination or hatred towards another group. I cannot count the times I've heard "I'll blow that n-----'s head off if they try to break in here." from gun toting racists. Don't tell me they don't exist because they do, in great numbers. Most illegal guns were once legal. Likewise, knock off imported guns get paid for with US dollars. Like anything else, refuse to pay then the item goes off the market. Fall over yourselves to buy weapons, they'll produce more and the problem only increases. More guns, more death. Period.

Your grasp of the Constitution is matched by your grasp of the English language.

Perhaps homogeneity is not the correct term as applied to this hypothesis. These are examples of universality... not genetics For example, a person needing a transplant or skin graft. Language, religion and political philosophy would be irrelevant where it comes to tissue compatibility. Race may or may not necessarily apply in every case. Likewise, interactions with other beings is normal in any society. Pets, livestock, agriculture, medicine, ecology are but a few examples of social xenogeneic behavior.

Seeing how Canada is mentioned in the title, I add some comments. I am aware of more attacks by cougars on humans than vise versa. I'm in my fifties and don't know anyone who hunts cougars for sport. Not in the past, not now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America In 1988, while I was with the Canadian Coast Guard, I saw for myself what cougars are capable of. I live on Vancouver Island, where more fatalities occur by cougars than anywhere. I knew the boy and his parents very well. His mother almost my whole life, being the same age from the same town. The animal was shot by a neighbour. He sat where the body was recovered and moaned for little more than a few minutes. The cat boldly reared his head long enough to have it's brain matter relocated in the wilderness. The post mortem revealed human remains in the digestive tract. The animal was four years old and appeared in perfect health. Blood, tissue and stool analysis showed no signs of infection, injury, parasites or starvation. The boy was a target of opportunity, not despair. In all of my years, I've seen or heard of dozens, if not hundreds of other cornerings, crossings or attacks on humans or pets. Most are chased away, never to be seen again. My electric generator is in a shed, several hundred meters along a narrow path from the living space. Very often, I'll walk in the dark with a flashlight to start or shut it down. I never, ever do the walk without my trusty pry bar in hand, because I expect I may be jumped at any time. A gun is useless when jumped from behind, no less forced rapidly to the ground with the wind knocked out of you. I wear a hat with eyes on the back of it. I wear a coat with a high, padded collar every single time. I'll always insist others do the same. With the high incidence locally, scat and footprints everywhere and knowing how food can be scarce occasionally, I, no less anyone else I know embarks upon a mission to hunt them down for the sake of anything. It goes with the territory. I don't accept your assertion that hunters are psychotic. You've not stated an opinion because you're not qualified to substantiate it, you've made an accusation. There is a difference. By your own logic, vegetarians savoring a carrot are every bit as psychotic for their indifference to the destruction of animal, insect and plant habitat for the purposes of agriculture. How does being labeled as psychotic sit with you? Not very well, I'd bet. In fact, it's tantamount to abusing fellow humans for the sake of making yourself feel important, activist or holier-than-thou, under the guise of something else that will never happen.

I can use those those same absurdities to bolster my point too. Like: Why are all those vegetarians causing all the bees to be killed? They'd have them penned like chickens to be infested in mites, simply because they think honey is superior sugar. Agricultural runoff is known to be one of the world's greatest pollution sources. It displaces wild animals from their habitat. Tilling, fertilizers and pesticides destroy entire ecosystems, plant or animal. Why are they destroying all those cute gophers so they can stuff themselves with soybeans or cereal grains? Surely they can do without tofu or granola bars.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. There is no difference between creatures great or small. Very telling how most animal rights activists seem to only pick the cute or furry creatures as tokens for their righteous indignation. They're often the one's least affected by them or who's obsessive compulsive nature prevents them from objectively addressing all of the fact issues.

You didn't answer my question. You've dismissed it. I will ask again, needlessly killing living things you can't see is acceptable then?

Seeing how you've brought this up, let me ask you a question. Do you wash your hands often? I'm not talking about the obvious times, like after using the facilities or working with dirty things. More like before meals, after a nap or just because it feels good. Hand washing kills millions of bugs. Most of them are harmless, many are beneficial. Chances are if you didn't wash your hands in many instances, it's unlikely you'll die or even get sick. If you've answered yes to any part of this question, how can you be so cruel to needlessly massacre so many helpless creatures, whilst brashly judging others as psychopaths for killing one? Perhaps it's the luxuries of technology that have blinded you to this fact. The guilty dog always barks first. Just saying...

Hacking does not necessarily imply illegal or surreptitious activity. A "hack" is a crude, temporary or ad hoc alternative for working around a problem. It should be used in the same context as a gun. Gun ownership and usage does not always mean killing or illegality. For example, in the 90's I was given an Amiga computer for free because the previous owner upgraded to a new model. The catch was, it didn't come with a monitor and an IBM compatible monitor wouldn't work, even though the plugs were the same. However upon looking at the 15 pin specs, I realized Amiga monitors operated on the same standard, except the horizontal and vertical syncs were swapped. I took the plug apart, rolled two pairs of wires, re-soldered them, then had a working monitor. I used to fix vending machines in my younger days. Sometimes replacement parts were expensive, unavailable or took a long time to ship. A vending machine sitting on a shop floor does not produce revenue. Very often, I'd "hack" similar parts to get it back in service. Cannibalizing is form of hacking. I've written code to prevent unauthorized access or abuse of networks. If you discover a security issue and no fix is currently available, one could "hack" a workaround. Likewise, I've made hacks to known viruses for the sole purpose of destroying themselves. Instead of starting from scratch, a few simple alterations are made to the code base (ie) changing WRITE to DELETE. Again, a hack. Duct tape and hay wire are famous hacking tools. If they get you home or get the job done, no harm... no foul.

I call BS. You have not proven to you can positively identify the species pearls from a picture and an RGB interface. You demanded I cite my work, yet you have not provided any credible evidence to support yours. You invited me, through another web site, to contribute to this thread, but told me to leave when your methods were criticized. That's not even bad science, it's tyrannical, intransigent and absurd. The only reason I stayed this long, because there's been some interesting discussion with others, but you....well that's just a whole other thing. Your gift to the world? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: My upbringing as a gentleman prohibits me from saying what I really think you and this quackery, in a public setting. In lieu of that action, I will self regulate and remove myself from the discussion. As it stands, I do not endorse this folly. It's been debunked. Period. PS. Others, questions or comments, PM me. Be well my friends.

I can only support or contradict your thought process and math to the extent they to be proven. Thus I'll propose a trial. To satisfy the OP's assertion this can be done by anyone, at any given time. More than one person must perform the trial and the results must be unanimous. The OP's terms of reference require a digital representation of a pearl and a shell of the same species. I've attached images of natural pearls from a confirmed species, Mytlus californianus. aka California mussel in a previous post. Likewise, a shell lining of the same species, which I'll affirm yielded natural pearl(s) in one of those images. We'll consider it as a single blind (I'll submit the information to an impartial third party beforehand, as to not give any false impressions after the fact). Although it's impossible to take two images at precisely the same moment, in the hypothetical case let us presume focal length/distance, ISO, aperture, speed, resolution, rendering and lighting to be identical. Compliant to your proposed standard, select five RGB values that match. (though, I cringe at the thought of suggesting confirmation bias) Problem: The OP claims that once a baseline is established, a shell is not necessary for positive identification of a pearl's species. This is person confounding, because two objectives are targeted, yet not reconciled. When may a disambiguation be determined? Problem: We'll have to prove exhaustion. How does one do that? When the last mussel is sacrificed? I submit it cannot be done for several reasons, but again, let's presume it to be true for the sake of moving on. Problem: We have the burden to prove these are unique to Mytilus californianus. I submit it's not practical nor even possible unless every other known untreated pearl from every other species on the planet has been recorded, but then again, in the hypothetical, let's presume it's true that we may move on. Problem: We'll need every personal computer, software program, CCD, video chip, video monitor, digital camera, lighting situation etc. calibrated to one standard and the operators collecting the data certified accordingly. So again, being the devil's advocate, let's presume this to be done and true. Problem: Which pearl(s) came from that shell? Problem: What's the point? It's already known. On the other hand, namely identification in the absence of a shell, the OP claims this to be an affirmative method in the absence of utilizing sophisticated instrumentation. It reality, it's taking the long way around a lesser problem. For the reasons of exaggeration alone, the theory is debunked. The differential diagnosis (heuristic, if you will, aka Occam's Razor) with an applied margin of error remains the order of the day in pathology (after all, pearls are biotic lesions) for simplicity's sake. Obviously, one cannot reach these hypothetical scenarios as irrefutable in a theoretical model, no less as an arbiter between published models. Hence the theory is debunked.

Whatever It is estimated there are nearly nine million species on earth. Of that less than two million have been authored into taxonomy. Here is a single example: The Pacific Oyster Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Bivalvia Order: Ostreoida Family: Ostreidae Genus: Crassostrea Species: C. gigas As you see, it contains very basic information, but sufficient enough to reasonably represent a species' place in the world. To get this far required the cumulative efforts of thousands, possibly millions of scientists over many centuries. Scarcely any of them were know-it-alls or wannabees, but to excel in one branch of knowledge. By you own admission, you do not have the credentials of Linnaeus. Given that, I'd doubt you'll progress at his rate. His work isn't done yet. In fact, less than a quarter of it's done and tens of thousands of modern scientists can barely scratch the surface of the deficit. Until that work is finished, your work "identifying the world" will never be finished. By the way, he died in 1778. Again, by you own admission, selecting one or two colors out of 16 million is a lengthy, burdensome process. That is confirmation bias, otherwise known as "cherry picking". To have any credibility in science, you cannot do that. You must address all 16 million available colors in the RGB scale, collectively, individually and exclusively as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether they can or cannot fit the theory. Even in the absence of variables, which are proven to be numerous, it would take millennia. Are you beginning to grasp the magnitude of this yet, no less the futility? If not, how do you propose to resolve the problem? Reality check. It certainly will not be by cajoling a small, anonymous group of scientists to work for nothing. I seriously doubt very many are going to do your field work in all corners of the planet for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to create and administrate a database for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to write code for nothing. I doubt anybody is going create algorithms to interpret the data for nothing. Moreover, I doubt any scientist worth their salt would enable this for a contingent fee agreement either. Even if they did, how much? and when? I hope your line of credit is sufficient to guarantee it. I acknowledge you for having backed down on some of your entrenchment, but you still have a long way to go. I'd highly recommend you take a heartfelt retrospect and grasp the meaning of contributor Strange's comment: "Or maybe just yet another example of apophenia." Given the responses to this thread, I'm quite sure we're not the only two contributors who've considered it to be the case.