You should have made that more clear, especially since the initials CNRS (or
even CRNS) without any further explanation sound like the initials for a
creationist society. You weren't trying to mislead me, were you?
However, it makes no difference. Your revelation only shows that scientists
themselves can be seriously wrong, especially if they try to do research in
fields they are unfamiliar with.
I had shown your previous post to a colleague of mine, a PhD who does
research in domestic animal metabolism and digestive systems, just to make
sure I wasn't barking up the wrong tree. He stated that whoever did that
research (I didn't mention creationists to him) had come to the wrong
conclusions because they were starting from the wrong premises, namely the
fecal pellets were equivolent to cuds. He said that that was simply not
true, no matter how much one might rhetorically argue otherwise. The
research results you reported in your post simply do not lend credence to
the claim that fecal pellets should be seen as cuds; in fact they contradict
Kevin L. O'Brien