poo thrower

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 ?:

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....))

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 ?

...

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).

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.

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...).

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.

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...

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". ?.

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

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 ?)

non-dualistic quadruple concession. "kisses".

then there is little reason to apologise...

yes... because for it to be physics it has to be explained with the universal "language" of maths OR other people have no idea what you are talking about, (further to it completely not allowed to be written in the sciences.) with "spoken word" ("language"), people get told to "F-OFF AND DON'T QUOTE ME." etc (there is a kind of big difference). "i will just put these soap particles in the washing machine and then watch them wave about a little bit prior to letting somebody else sort out my washing" kind of thing ?

language... - physics is MATHS: no because, if one is two things and at one time, and you have picked one of the two things that it can not be, then that is called "avoiding eating vegetables to save more room for pudding (...and then going to play with spaceships)" see: i came back (in not time...) because spacial relativity is too difficult but one imagines time machines can not be built from cardboard... thank god for f5 f9 on kerbals space program.

point taken... sorry for being argumentative and thankyou for the help and direction. as sure as an ape, will not only use said matter as protectile, he will ALSO aim directly for your face.. i am going to quit (the forums...) whilst i am behind, safe in the aquired, from you, knowlege (thankyou); that time is non-linear, and photons are INFACT high velocity electon poop, hitting EVERYTHINGS faces, ALL OF THE TIME. physics is rather poetic, we can all agree on that.

so wrist watches are fine then... so because "physicists can't keep up with them" they have exluded them from einsteins model..... "oh right". also; how can you label them a particle if they have no mass, are never at rest AND don't even have a valid reference frame ?

thankyou (relativity is seemingly outside of my functioning of brain...) - can anybody help me with - you know with the equivalance principle (vs. relativity (vs. my most fundamental force being "stupidity"). why this doesn't apply to photons then ? - i don't get it... like how do they know that time is the thing that is not linear ? (AND as opposed to me trying to understand relativity....).

are you 100% ? if "they don't have "clock mechanisms" / measure particle frequency ? (and like i say i can't do maths and am "self educated via kerbals space program"... but) i figured they "would have the same reading because of "quantum entanglement"" - is that incorrect ?. (if they "are as rubbish as wrist watches", then kind of waste of time building them imho ???. (confused)) thankyou! - thats my mind proverbialed for the forseeable future - i will attempt to do some reading (hieroglyphs "great"....).

thankyou very much - yes sorry; i was thinking IF (big if) everything conformed to "shapes" ("spheres") and the universe conformed to circular orbits - THEN would newtons maths be bang on ? (i can't do times tables let alone calculus). "i will concede the principle of equivilance, if you concede i am a figment of your imagination"... so i would be right if there was no such thing as "time" ? (time is over-rated...). they have quantum clocks nowadays i believe so maybe that does not hold correct to this day (? i very much don't know ?), but i am asking because; "gravity" seems like a "explaination" of melding of the positives and negative poles of electromagnetism - i.e. a "wonky bridge to explain electromagnetism (of the earth) prior to that knowlege being available" (??). i believe that perhaps newton didn't plagurise hooke per sey..., because hooke couldn't work out "electromagnetism" at that time, newton could (kind of...) and it became "gravity".... ...then einstein came along and said "that bridge is wonky"; see; you need to glue it with "space time", ....and then quantum physics came along and said "you can't fix wonky bridges with metaphysical glue that is neither in solid nor liquid state..." and here we are today.... with the limit of our computer power (quantum super state computers) STILL not being able to model "electromagnetism" and yet newton predicted the bending of light, but was not accurate enough or something (i can't do math thus don't understand the relevance). ----- can anybody please help me with - you know physicists say "newton works well in A) example but fails B)" can anybody give me a real real laymens example of it's success and failings ? - like person throwing tennis ball thought experiment kind of thing ? versus ?? that would be very much appreciated, thankyou

...THEN - would there be "no need whatsoever for general or spacial relativities" ?. i.e. we could all have got on with our lives after newton - or is that not right ? (- i can't do math). thanks.

no... because that is called "inbreeding depression to the point of "why would you even want to do that"" ?. if you s1, 1x then you already have homozygous offspring... ("randomly assortment of"). mendel worked on phenotype because "nobody prior to him" (?) knew about patterns passed to progeny (...and now nobody nowadays will believe we can be read like peaplants).