Yes zey do. So long as the periosteum (covering sheath) is intact.
I have to investigate further, but I bet is one of those "your chopped arm will fully grow (in 200 years)" kind of things. Either because that's the time the process will take or it's the time for scientist to figure it out how.
I have to investigate further, but I bet is one of those "your chopped arm will fully grow (in 200 years)" kind of things. Either because that's the time the process will take or it's the time for scientist to figure it out how.
Or like how in every journal there will be some "scientist" who gets an article published on how in a couple of years the world will collapse if we don't get X and Y multi-billion dollar program approved. Like Al Gores "scientific" prediction of the world will end in 10 years (which came and passed). If we can't predict next months weather correctly, a year or decades prediction is probably worthless. Many have tried to get past Occam's razor but all have been cut down by reality. The sad part is that some of us who actually should know better fall for these hype pieces regularly.
Chances are Kitakami's ribs were cracked right off with the power from a light cruisers elbow. Prepare for internal bleeding.
I have to investigate further, but I bet is one of those "your chopped arm will fully grow (in 200 years)" kind of things. Either because that's the time the process will take or it's the time for scientist to figure it out how.
79248cm/s said:
Or like how in every journal there will be some "scientist" who gets an article published on how in a couple of years the world will collapse if we don't get X and Y multi-billion dollar program approved. Like Al Gores "scientific" prediction of the world will end in 10 years (which came and passed). If we can't predict next months weather correctly, a year or decades prediction is probably worthless. Many have tried to get past Occam's razor but all have been cut down by reality. The sad part is that some of us who actually should know better fall for these hype pieces regularly.
Chances are Kitakami's ribs were cracked right off with the power from a light cruisers elbow. Prepare for internal bleeding.
Oh come on, guys...
It was extensively documented fairly recently in a reputed journal. They even have CT scans to prove this.
Takes 'bout 6 months for partial regeneration. Yes, the research is primarily modeled base on mice, but they have a human case study in the same paper with CT scans.
And also, surgeons doing maxillofacial surgery (jawbone repair, among others) like to get the bone they need for materials directly from the patient's ribs. Since they well, grow back (and of course are highly compatible, what being part of the host anyhow). It's a well-documented procedure that is used quite often (including in the case study in the first paper, that's why they took out his ribs). Goes back quite a while too. Here's a review from the eighties:
These ain't theorycrafting pieces or armchair forecasting. They are applied research.
Not to mention that models of climate trends (and not microscopic weather) are fairly accurate anyway, and have only gotten better. I could rebut your point, but this guy does it way better.
Lemme guess, you guys were searched on google and became skeptical because of all the 'Christian scientists' alluding to the above research (which I might add are purely secular) and using them as justification for their crackpot theories, right?
To be fair, don't those papers look more at partial costectomies? The second one specifies 2-3 inch removal only, and the mouse paper was partial also.
When people hear 'ribs grow back', they're more envisaging a total costectomy occurring and then having a complete regeneration withing a reasonable time-frame without any assistance - the same as having an arm chopped off and coming back.
It's reasonable to assume that to an average person that 'ribs don't grow back' (from nothing), but rather that 'ribs can fix themselves'.
It's not that I doubt you, it's just that I've seen so many possible cancer cures, renewable energies, newly discovered habitable planets, recent theory only medical research (tested on mice of course) and murderous big objects coming to earth on "prestigious" scientific magazines (of course without mention of the source or who declares them prestigious) that you can't tell what to believe and what don't. The fact that all those discoveries promise results after the reader is old enough to remember or has died already don't make it any easier.
To be fair, don't those papers look more at partial costectomies? The second one specifies 2-3 inch removal only, and the mouse paper was partial also.
When people hear 'ribs grow back', they're more envisaging a total costectomy occurring and then having a complete regeneration withing a reasonable time-frame without any assistance - the same as having an arm chopped off and coming back.
It's reasonable to assume that to an average person that 'ribs don't grow back' (from nothing), but rather that 'ribs can fix themselves'.
Oh, I was thinking along the lines of "hair growing back" and took it for granted that surgeons wouldn't remove an entire rib (the fictional Medic also only did accidentally break off a piece that couldn't be longer than 8 cm).(Doctors also tend to refer to the partially removed rib growing back instead of repairing itself, since well, the missing piece does grow back, longer and less deformed even. Fixing to me is more like cracked ribs mending themselves over time) Plus retaining the periosteum implies that some part of the rib still remains for it to be attached to. That said, I guess it was partial failure to communicate on my part, so thanks for pointing that out.
rom_collector said:
It's not that I doubt you, it's just that I've seen so many possible cancer cures, renewable energies, newly discovered habitable planets, recent theory only medical research (tested on mice of course) and murderous big objects coming to earth on "prestigious" scientific magazines (of course without mention of the source or who declares them prestigious) that you can't tell what to believe and what don't. The fact that all those discoveries promise results after the reader is old enough to remember or has died already don't make it any easier.
Ah, "popular science" articles tend to like to dramatize things and make bold claims. Entertainment, readership, and actual readability is more important than being technically correct, after all This includes the popular science division of reputable journals like Nature (the good ones usually only make claims that are at least reasonable from a journalistic perspective, and they document their sources properly, even if their claims are bold). The actual scientific papers are usually far more cagier in their claims.
(Grant applications are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)
Huh? Done already kuma?S-Stop it kuma!So I can do anything I please!OP FirepowerI'm... invincible...Paper ArmorThat tickles kuma~💛With the power that makes me worshiped like a God...Kuma!?Oh? Your armpits, is it? Your weakness is your armpits?Wait! Ahahaha!And authority granted to me as Admiral...
