Argent

You were making a point in a petulant manner. This was despite the fact that I had politely informed you that your OP was ambiguous. You know, the bit where I said "There may be as many answers to this as there are couples. Perhaps you also believe this and are seeking some examples." I was acknowledging that maybe you wanted to receive specific ideas, so making your point was quite unnecessary. If you genuinely believe that your OP was clear and unambiguous, and are unwilling to acknowledge I pointed this out to in my response, then . . . . . . Edit: I see from your profile you are 14. Ignore everything I said.

The most important thing he has to do right now is sleep. Edit: so you plan to go into an exam in a sleep deprived state. Welcome to world of resits.

There is no need to apologise. I simple acknowledgement of your error would have been sufficient, but thank you. However, you still don't have it. DNA is not composed of amino acids. The four nucleobases, thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine (plus uracil in RNA) all have ring structures. While this is true of a handful of amino acids, none of the nucleobases have the amine and carboxyl groupings found in those. I repeat my concern. Given this very weak grasp of some basic biochemical ideas it is presumptuous to question basics in the critical manner you seem to have adopted so far.

Don't get your knickers in a twist because your OP was somewhat ambiguous, an ambiguity I recognised in my reply. I took the time to consider your question and the time to make a response. The least I would ask for in return is some courtesy, not a hissy fit.

I've gone forty hours plus without sleep a number of times. In my experience paranoia sets in around the 36 - 42 hour mark. Alcohol appears to delay the onset slightly. Contrary to what the OP hopes for, but in line with what others have expressed, all mental functions, physical reactions and attitudes are below par.

There may be as many answers to this as there are couples. Perhaps you also believe this and are seeking some examples. The trite answer is "one in which both parties are mutually satisfied". The details, as noted, depend on the couple.

Since when have DNA molecules been proteins? That's a rhetorical question. DNA molecules are assuredly not proteins. That leaves me with a non-rhetorical question. If your knowledge level in regard to basic biochemistry is so low you are unaware that DNA is not a protein, should you be implicitly pontificating about biochemical matters? It seems a bit presumptuous.

It is probable that we have already introduced microbes to Mars and by using a careful selection process. i.e. those that could survive the less than perfect sterilisation process for the Mars landers.

Exactly. And why cannot the mastodon hunters not be homo sapiens? 130,000 years is comfortably within the 180k-200k appearance of the species.

I am confused, Derps, by your description of your friend's condition. You say that she sees yellow as green and green as yellow. That means that she can distinguish between yellow and green. She sees them as different colours. That is not colour blindness. For example, red-green colour blindness is a common form. People with this are unable to distinguish a red object from a green object. They appear to them as the same colour. Your friend just seems to be confused as to what to call certain colours, but is able to distinguish one form the other. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, so please correct me if possible.

This is misleading. I am presently sitting in front of a fire. The result is pleasant and comforting, nor am I experiencing any injury. At the same time the TV set is sending out a series of shockwaves. The only injury they are creating is a sense of outrage at the antics of politicians as reported on the news. @gene098, the point made by several other posters needs to be emphasised, as you seem to be missing it. The primary thing about fire is that it is a chemical reaction that, in terrestrial conditions, is generally an exothermic oxidation reaction. i.e. one or more chemicals combine with oxygen, giving off heat in the process. The secondary thing about fire is that, since heat is involved, the particles move faster in a vibration mode. The shock waves that occur in an explosion involve particles moving faster. momentarily, in a linear fashion.

Evolution often makes alternative use of features. These are intended to be used for speaking sensibly, but as we can see they can also be put to an alternative use.

You might wish to consider these points - Several people have misinterpreted your argument. Each of these people has, at least, a sound reputation on the forum for an understanding of science. No one has chosen to defend your position. It is therefore possible (and I think, probable) that you just presented your idea rather badly. Conclusion - blaming others for your own poor writing is funny when the topic is about "monkeys" writing Shakespeare.

That is not the the experiment or process you proposed. Language involves the use of symbols to represent various types of concept. The concepts precede the symbols. When our ancestors first agreed on a word for rain, they knew what rain was and understood the relationship of the word "rain" to the phenomenon. The process you have proposed for evolving language in monkeys eliminates their understanding of the meaning of the words they type accidentally. I'm simply astonished to find someone on a science forum proposing such a distorted experiment that reveals a misconception of the nature of language and of sound experiment. Have the public schools gotten this bad?

I sense that you have no interest in learning and probably little capacity for it. Consequently, I'm out.