Psycho

How does it make them relevant because they are facts...that is a fallacy. Yes it does, you just have no idea of medical definitions. Plants make plenty of oxygen and most bacteria aren't photosynthetic, ironically it is the exact opposite for what we should actually be thankful to them for. I never said that and neither did anyone else. They don't do that, we can metabolise them fine after acid hydrolysis and proteolytic cleavage. No it isn't and that isn't what they allows us to do, mitochondria have nothing to do with breathing, they create a proton motive force. That isn't what it does and you can consume nutrients just fine without them. We would survive fine as the environment would be sterile. Well done you wrote an entire post that was wrong

This is true that the eggs of the donor would be younger and age of the eggs in the ovum is thought to be one of the main contributing factors of trisomy 13 (the cause of down syndrome), down syndrome is caused by a defect in the eggs DNA that means there are to many copies of chromosome 13, rather than being a problem with mitosis. I can't think of any specific problems with anti-rejection medication however it does weaken your immune system so this may be a problem, you would have to talk to your doctor about the specific prescription you are taking and the effects of it.

Indeed this is true, this is done through an amniocentesis which has its own risk of miscarriage of 1:100 (1%) however, it is highly recommended in women over 35 and standard procedure due to the increased risks of chromosomal abnormalities.

By definition a bacteria has to have a phospholipid bilayer and these aren't stable at extremely high temperatures +100oC though Geothermobacterium ferrireducens can grow at 100oC which is pretty good going, however the key definition of a hyperthermophile is that its optimum temperature for growth must be above 80oC and while these can survive above this it isn't their optimum. In the case of archaea they have a monolayer which are very similar to bilayers except the fatty acid chains are joined in the middle of the membrane and while phospholipid bilayers bind the hydrocarbon chain to the the glycerol via an ester, archaea monolayers use an ether bond. This allows from lower levels of fluidity of the membrane making it more stable at high temperature however below 60oC archaea monolayers freeze, so they are very specialised for their environment.

The risk of down syndrome significantly increases depending on maternal age, being: 1:384 at age 35 1:112 at age 40 1:28 at age 45 1:12 at age 49 Though at later stages of life IVF maybe an optimal choice and then this could be screen for pre-implantation.

To be fair, that Nature paper is wrong, but I can easily see as it is published in Nature that it should be a valid source. It was obviously published before proper reproduction of the results were carried out. Currently the highest temperature any known organism can grow at is 122, though I think the archaea is call Strain 121, which is rather confusing.

Actually science does have an expiry date, it is when it's wrong. Up to date science. Odd though, because that paper is incorrect, what do they do with papers that are shown to be wrong, are they still available (online of course rather than in paper form) or are they removed? I never said there weren't thermophilic bacteria, I said there weren't hyperthermophilic ones which is what is relevant if you go back to the original posters question. Edit: Because hypervalent_iodine edited to add more links

Though most likely correct, people have been shown to be able to regulate there body temperature and heart rate (to non-dangerous level) at will so there is no reason someone wouldn't be able to control blood flow to their extremities at will given some concentration.

Yeah why not... I mean assuming you don't have an immune system, but who wants to be alive anyway.

No there is an article about Archaea in hydrothermal vents, and the highest temperature any known Archaea can survive at is 121 degrees as I already stated, quoting a nature article published 30 years ago in a science that is relevantly only 90 years old is hardly a good source, especially considering its archaic wordage, Archaea and bacteria have been classified differently by taxonomy and microbiologists for a long time. Hyperthermophilic bacteria don't exist, it is an impossibility due to their definition as already stated.

How about you just go back to basics and learn what evolution actually is before try to discuss it.

Bacteria can't survive boiling water by the definition of their name. There is also a vast difference between "live in a volcano" and "live around a volcano". No there isn't. They live in the intermediary region between the high temperature of the hydrothermal vent (400 degrees) and the sea (4 degrees) with some not even adapted to the extreme much at all and just using the excess sulphur and nutrients dissolved in the water.

Can you cite a case of spontaneous human combustion that has been proved to be that with no other source of ignition.

There isn't one gene that changes eye sight, in a cat the whole structure of the eye is different and the way they perceive the world is also thought to be different will lesser colour vision as well as the fact that me writing this would be useless as you would be so long sighted you wouldn't be able to read it.

Depends what you mean by well, it can get through the whole of the earths atmosphere down to the ground but when it reaches the sea only 22% of visible light makes it 10 meters deep. But I don't really have a comparison to other liquids, so that could be quite far. I also fail to see how this question is relevant to the forum it has been put in.

That isn't what a shift to the right means, the shift means that a higher partial pressure of O2 is need to create a 50% saturation rate of foetal haemoglobin, and what self respecting scientist creates a graph that looks like that.

A balanced insertional rearrangement is where two breaks occur in two different chromosomes and they swap the two pieces around. If this has been successful no DNA will be lost. So that statement is accurate. Primarily all the information is there it just hasn't been filed properly, this can cause problems in reproduction later in life. In an unbalanced rearrangement this means that 2 bits have swapped over and been put back in the wrong place but some of one or both the bits has been lost or doubled up on the way, this means that some genes maybe expressed at the twice the level they should (in duplication) or not at all (in deletion) however deletion or duplication could also be asymptomatic if it is in an intronic region (region not used by the DNA) however this is less likely.

In the past a lot of research was done into this area, I think the problem was it never had much success. The main reason for this is most likely the fact that it is very hard to understand what is going on inside the earth due to it being to hot to put sensors there, this means you have to use an indirect source of measurement and maybe these aren't accurate enough to collate data which is relevant. We know quite a lot about what happens in earthquakes but prediction isn't possible, most systems now act to warn people of an imminent earthquake so people can stop surgery and other dangerous jobs before it arrives, but this is only possible if they aren't at the epicentre.

Both of these facts are irrelevant, not to mention the second being incorrect as bacterial genes out number your own 100:1. I am sitting in a house, am I therefore part of a house, no, I am completely separate, just because you are inside something doesn't mean you are part of it. The best example would be eating a marble, it passes right through your gastrointestinal tract but is never part of you, not to mention that anything that passes through or resides in your gastrointestinal tract never enters your body, under a medical definition.

That is a terrible definition of intelligence, all most bacteria do is respond to their surroundings and have a built in response to them, they are defined by cause and effect, they aren't choosing to do anything, if they don't do it they die therefore their genes aren't in the system any more and the ones that still prosper are, that isn't intelligence, in most cases it is chance. Your assertion is based on a complete and utter lack of understanding of the way bacteria and pathogens work and evolve, so I don't even know why you are proposing them in the definition of intelligence.

It would be far easier just to regulate the scrap dealers properly and give them massive fines for accepting the goods, or forcing them to hand over CCTV footage and descriptions to the police when suspect products appear as well as the police sending out information to dealers about items that may turn up. It is the lack of regulation in a dodgy industry that doesn't care where its raw materials come from that is the problem, if you can't sell it without being arrested there is no point in stealing it.

The problem is so specific no one is going to be able to give you an answer here, the physician isn't being evasive, it is the fact that there isn't any common information relating to it and therefore the little information available maybe unreliable or irrelevant. There is this website that maybe able to help but I couldn't find anything specifically relevant to that abnormality. Link

Indeed, intelligence is a philosophical notion hence most pure scientist don't try and define what it is, at best in the future they will define what is required to show various types of it. The assertion that intelligence is one thing and trying to define it is like trying to describe colour as one thing and trying to define it, yes it is the perception of different wave lengths of light, but that doesn't explain its perceived characteristics or its nuances, what we perceive it to be doesn't exist, it is just a construct created by the brain.

I don't think concentrated NaOH would be defined as safe for school.

When someone refers you to something you are supposed to read it before posting again. I like how in section you 4 you have an "other" category, which all the categories might as well be put in as well as they have little neurological basis. What you have proposed isn't a theory it is a hypothesis, theory has a specific defined meaning in science and people should get around to learning it.