Oxford Dental Claim: Fill & Download for Free

Nobody has ever said that. It is a big lie. No linguist or any serious researcher of Dravidian studies has ever claimed like that.Principle of “descent with modification" in evolution:The claim that the present or an existing species is derived from the other existing species is illegal and such a claim does not support the principles of evolution. Human Language(s) are products of evolution. the idea is that products of evolution change over time, giving rise to new species that share a common ancestor.Not only Tamil, but also Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam or any other present or Modern Dravidian language can be considered as the mother of any other Dravidian language.2. Shared Phonological Innovations:Tamil has undergone scores of sound changes and morphological changes. No living language can be inert. It keeps changing continuously. If two or more languages share the same changes then we can say that they are siblings. For example consider the following rule:*e, *o > i, u/_Ca;i.e. the change of mid vowels becoming high vowels when the next syllable has a low vowel is shared by Tamil and Malayalam but not by Kannada and Telugu. Therefore, Kannada and Telugu are not descendants of Tamil. Similarly, the following rule:*ẓ > ḷ | y ;The above change is dialectally found in Tamil but not in Malayalam. Also the following rule:*ṯ > ṟ > r;The above change which is found in Tamil is not shared by Malayalam. Therefore, Malayalam cannot be derived from Tamil.Finite verbs of Malayalam do not show agreement but Tamil does show agreement as in the following examples:Malayalam:Tamil:In Malayalam, 1st person pronoun has an initial palatal nasal whereas Tamil shows dental nasal.Ex. Ma. ɲān “I” ::. Ta. yāṉ/nāṉ “I”.In other words, not all characteristics found in Tamil are shared by Malayalam. Similarly, not all the characteristics that are seen in Malayalam are found in Tamil. Therefore, neither of these is to be considered as the parent of the other.Similar is the case with Telugu and Kannada. Dozens of characteristics attested in these language are not shared among Tamil or Malayalam.3. Shared innovations in morphology:There are certain morphological innovations either confined to Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada or only to Tamil and Malayalam and not Telugu and other Dravidian languages. The following are some such examples.Telugu, Goṇḍi, Koṇḍa, Kui, Kuvi, Pengo, Maṇḍa, of South Central Dravidian along with Kolami, Naiki, Parji, Ollari, Gadaba, of the Central Dravidian, and Kurukh, Malto, and Brahui retained the nominative masculine singular suffix -ṉṯu on masculine third person pronouns and pronominal endings as in *avaṉṯu ‘he, distal', *ivaṉṯu 'he, proximate: The South Dravidian languages have inmovated by losing that to have the corresponding avan and ivan as Tamil, Malayalam, and avanu and ivanu in Kannada.South Dravidian languages have inmovated by creating tripartite gender system in singular pronouns and nouns as in avan 'he', avaḷ 'she', and atu 'it' against the Telugu and other South Central Dravidian and Central Dravidian and north Dravidian languages where we have bipartite gender system in the singular which represents the original Dravidian as in the Proto-Dravidian *avaṉṯu 'he', vs. *atu 'she, it' and *avar 'they (hum.) vs. away 'they (nonhum.)'.Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada have lost independent use of plural suffixes -k, and -aḷ, instead extended their combined usage as -kaḷ.Because of such reasons, Tamil cannot be treated as source for other Dravidian languages.4. Shared Lexical Inheritance:A simple and easier evidence that can be understood by anyone who doesn't have any knowledge of historical linguistics is shared etymologies or Dravidian vocabulary between the four major Dravidian languages.The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary Revised version published in 1984 (Oxford) compiled by Burrow, T. and Emeneau, M.B. listed 5672 Etymological roots as sources for all the Dravidian vocabulary in all the Dravidian languages.A simple arithmetic count of the occurrence of roots in each language shows that not every language has inherited all these 5672 roots. To be precise, Tamil has only 3541 i.e. 62.42% of the Dravidian roots.Kannada has 3162 that makes up to 55.74% of the roots. However, Tamil and Kannada have only 2318 common (shared) roots. But, what is interesting is Kannada has 844 roots which are not found in Tamil but found in some or other Dravidian language.Similarly, Telugu has 2812 total Dravidian roots but shares with Tamil only 2083 Dravidian roots, which means Telugu has 729 Dravidian roots which do not occur in Tamil but they can be found in other Dravidian languages.Similar is the case with Malayalam which has 2899 Dravidian roots but only 2610 are common with Tamil which means there are 289 Dravidian roots in Malayalam which are not found in Tamil.The sharing patterns of Dravidian etymologies across the Dravidian languages clearly demonstrate that neither Tamil nor any other existing language like Telugu, Kannada or Malayalam can be parent of any other existing Dravidian language.

Medical Tourism: Top DestinationsMedical tourism is expected to grow 25 percent a year over the next decade, according to a study by Visa and Oxford Economics.To fly to another country to have surgery or to carry out medical examinations would it become a commonplace act?At the ITB fair in Berlin (Germany), open until Sunday, medical tourism specialists have just shown that this sector is currently booming.It already weighs several billion dollars, but is expected to grow 25% per year over the next decade, according to a recent study by Visa and Oxford Economics."The demand is growing partly because of the aging of the population, but also because of a growing middle class around the world, which is, through the Internet, informed that there are treatments elsewhere for them," explained to the Agence France Presse (AFP) Julie Munro, chair of the Medical Travel Quality Alliance (MTQUA).An increasingly global tourismFor this organization, which ranks the ten best hospitals for travelers, medical tourism is far from being an activity reserved for a few countries, or of being limited to inhabitants of rich countries going to less expensive countries.United States, Turkey, Thailand, Singapore, but also Spain or Germany, its map reveals flows in all directions.The purpose of these trips, escape long waiting lists, or access care not offered in his country or too expensive."Medical tourism is truly global. In Germany, for example, many Germans go to Poland or Croatia to receive cheaper dental care, but there are also many Russians and inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula coming to Germany because there are quality hospitals and care they do not have in their countries, "Thomas Bömkes, director of the marketing agency Diversity Tourism , told RelaxNews .A very varied offerAnother example of this boom is the network of ophthalmic clinics Worldeye (Dünyagöz), first present in Turkey, but also in Germany and soon in the Netherlands.It claims to receive every year 50,000 foreign patients from 107 countries."We work with (travel) agencies and we offer complete packages" with hospitality from the airport, said Jacco Vroegop, director of clinics in Amsterdam and Frankfurt.Dental care, cosmetic surgery, reproductive medicine, cancer or cardiac treatments, rehabilitation but also preventive examinations, the offer of medical tourism is very varied.

Ancestral sequence reconstruction as a method is fairly new, yet the idea is probably 50 years old, or more. As I understand it, its practical application here is reliant upon the assumption that degraded proteins will be more readily obtainable, and possibly more complete, than degraded DNA samples of similar age. Which substantially improves the odds of a successful reconstruction.[1]It does present an opportunity, although we are trusting that the degraded sample of any biomolecule can be faithfully reconstructed from its residues, byproducts and interactions over a very long time, and that any comparison with extant molecules is a valid one. And of course, finally, that any Ancient DNA inferred or back-formed from the reconstructed protein is similarly valid. [2]Protein decomposition can be slowed, but not stopped. Tens, and certainly hundreds of millions of years of preservation to any reasonable, and readable, standard is thus a huge challenge. Many claims of confident reconstruction from samples of “millions” of years in age are often routinely disregarded. Each such claim should be carefully considered.[3]Nevertheless protein remnants have been used to infer and reconstruct Ancient DNA from output products (the degraded proteins), mostly using the mass spectrum method[4][5]And at least one published claim of complete proteome reconstruction from 1.77my dental material exists.[6]Which is a promising start. Still, 1.77my is not “tens or hundreds” of millions of years.Indeed the preservation of Ancient DNA or any proteins found within 100 million year old amber, in which has been embedded (say) a tick, swollen with what may be dinosaur blood, make interesting reading, but the fragility of these biomolecules make the reality less compelling.Nevertheless a possibility emerges of increasingly accurate modelling of the possible decomposition of a biomolecule over time, such that a prediction and reconstruction could be madeCareful comparison with known, more modern samples, coupled with estimated rates of DNA degradation and molecular change, allow for some speculative reconstruction.[7][8][9]Preservation is known to be enhanced by certain soil types, by freezing, encapsulation (in the aforementioned amber, say) and by low exposure to U.V. light, or other potentially damaging interactions. Bone and teeth are also favoured for preservation potential.Our confidence in the resulting reconstruction may be relatively low, however, and is highly dependent upon sample quality and knowledge of the preserving environment over time.[10]Ancient DNA (aDNA) preservation well under a million years is more reasonable and, in the right circumstances (around 700kya in permafrost), can be considered realistic.[11] Although somewhat compelling claims of up to 1.4mya have been made.[12]Sample amplification (typically by polymerase chain reaction) and contamination control are key, and improvements are being made. Additionally, DNA half-life may be longer than be think.[13]Rather than relying upon ‘preservation’ per se, it’s more about knowing what rate of degradation happens over time in specific environments, as proteins or other biomolecules break down and produce byproducts, and detecting and recognising those bio-traces in paleontological materialOnce the degree of degradation is matched against predictions, analytical and predictive modelling can be used to reconstruct biomolecules within certain degrees of confidenceBone and teeth-related sampling has higher confidence values. Cross-checks can also be made against geochemical observations, including carbon isotope analysis. [14]As I wrote earlier, but just to reinforce the idea, aDNA modelling can also be used to infer likely changes over time from more recent high-confidence samples, including average rates of mutational change. As we get better samples and refine our models, we’ll presumably get ever closer to actually exceeding what today may be a 1 or 2 my limit on DNA reconstruction, or somewhat more from more readily obtainable proteins.[15]Which is about all that I can think of right now. Hope that helps.Footnotes[1] Ancient protein - Wikipedia[2] Reconstruction of ancestral proteomes - Oxford Scholarship[3] Ancient DNA studies: new perspectives on old samples[4] Mass spectrometry - Wikipedia[5] Ancient protein - Wikipedia[6] Reconstructing the evolution of all species[7] Ticks That Fed on Dinosaurs Found Trapped in Amber[8] Dinosaur DNA and proteins found in fossils, paleontologists claim[9] Dinosaur DNA and proteins found in fossils, paleontologists claim[10] Molecular paleontology - Wikipedia[11] Comparing ancient DNA survival and proteome content in 69 archaeological cattle tooth and bone samples from multiple European sites[12] Ancient DNA - Wikipedia[13] 'Jurassic Park' May Be Impossible, But Dino DNA Lasts Longer Than Thought[14] Tooth be told: Millions of years of evolutionary history mark those molars[15] Human mitochondrial molecular clock - Wikipedia