Jump to content

poo thrower

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

poo thrower's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. ok; but i think you maybe misunderstanding that i have told you NO 2x already (- if you kept your telephone outside of your house in the public domain you wouldn't be able to hear it ringing... (- it would quickly become another cells property)) i will stop posting in your thread on account of our obvious "crossed wires" with the following link that i hope will be helpful ?:
  2. i don't think you would get to see this because the cell would be post apoptosis already (i think / as above (?)). if they are the "wrong way around" then there can be "nothing to effect" (like rRNA ("protein synthesis") as example) - "the cell would be pointless" THUS apoptosis - (rRNA was just plucked from thin air i think as intended "cellular life versus death" juxtaposition). it's a one way system i think with no exceptions as above / below (BUT i am not 100% (biology being biology....))
  3. no https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3141009/ wiki: genome (ancestary) > species (divergence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_divergence it's seemingly a "trick" evolution question ?
  4. peanuts are butter... also i competely disagree about hydroponics, because (in addition to cost) you need to control the whole system thereafter, which would be completely implausable to scale... (where are the people going to be dumping the spent salts ?). (the earth prefers poop to salts).
  5. psychopaths do tend to inflict "hell" on animals... and by way of the confines of their minds. - nature is far more clever then that which it has produced (and yet it's produce STILL claims to be it's owner...) if there is annihaltion it will not be profound, it will be from stupidity.
  6. i believe so, and also there is no basis to assume there is single universe, nor if the multiple have any basis of equivalance to one or another. science [versus theology translation.] highly intelligent people will not even open to the premise of the question (because this world is for the meek...).
  7. can you explain / example how they get their receptors "backwards" please ? (because that sounds to me like a "RNA error" (= "apoptosis" (?)) - i don't think so, because every cell needs to self-regulate, and does so by signalling to ITS OWN rRNA by the methods you have stated... and i believe it would be a big error to "signal outside" as opposed to apoptosis... but i dunno for certain, nor if that was infact what you were asking.
  8. wouldn't that just test the immune response though ?; like saying "boo to a goose" (and for no reason) - our bodys already know that they are harmful... no... because "nearly" / not "perfect" is not good enough; you can't learn this one mutation down the line...
  9. ola, if you know they are from the same genus, but have progressed independantly ("isolated"); and "express variablility of the same "common" ancestoral genetic" THEN - how can this be "redundant / non-viable" ? unless...; maybe you picked "the wrong organism for your thesis"; that has not yet been "coded" (- "no biologist; to this time, has yet "reconstructed phlogeny of said isolated development of common ancestoral genus"") ?. meaning for; in plain english; your thesis as it stands - is for the future, because people do not have the "understanding of the history of the organism you are talking about" ? (- i.e. you would need to have the biology degree already to say so - and herein lies the problem; maybe you either "need a different subject for your thesis" OR luck that people will take for granted the "non-viable" (BUT common sense, very high probability) information that can "NOT YET be proven" in order for everything to be "viable". ?.
  10. it's the way genes work, you have "convergent evolution" because there is the consideration of recombination of genetics at some point in time and also independant assortment of genetics (inclusive of recessive traits etc) thereafter - it's about it's family tree vs it's evolution to reference point of today. (yes i agree that a thylacine is blatently "more dog than kangaroo"... but that's an argument between "choice of two animals", not the bits they are comprised from) https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-classical-genetics/hs-introduction-to-heredity/a/the-law-of-independent-assortment
  11. maybe it will open the oportunities for frequency (or pheromone ("wave" interception") based contraception methods. you know how currently people make children just because it makes their genitals feel good / want to upload themselves through omnipotence (no puns intended), through their progeny... and; by way of either method; completely ruining the next generation (irregardless of "potential" (see mendel)). with the foreward obviously; that the window opportunity is PRIOR to mitosis, obviously (so as to not ruin things). "how to make sure the moth doesn't reach the flame, by way of not destroying the beauty of the moth NOR the flames capacity for fire". (- by making the "flight" more alluring then the fire OR the flame not receptive to the moth ?)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.