Genady

I'd like to learn what and how this research adds to our understanding of eukaryote evolution.

Metals are not chemicals and insects are not animals.

They don't synthesize organic matter. They consume it.

This is an example of what I've referred to earlier: Study: Female sharks can reproduce without males | The Seattle Times

Any time.

No. They give birth to their own genetic clones.

I don't know about the birds you've mentioned, but I know that other species do. For example, sharks. PS. Sharks... not laying eggs, of course, but giving birth without a male.

This is NOT what the GR equations show. This is just wrong.

Yes.

I didn't say that. The OP did.

I think the spelling should rather be, Фак Путин. I agree either way.

Religion is a phenomenon and it can be rationally studied as such. Science of religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

as you said, "a tool used to alleviate followers from responsibility. ..."

Thank you.

Is there a correlation?

If you show how you get to these numbers maybe we can see where the mistake is...

I don't see in this research suggestion of a new hypothesis about the emergence of eukaryotic features from prokaryotic ancestors, neither a new support for any existing hypothesis. I see a way of storing DNA in gigantic bacteria.

This was my definite impression.

I'd think that in a) it's rather n=9 and r=4... The author was right.

You have just mentioned a possible rational foundation of religion, i.e.

“Science should be about the open questions that everyone is trying to solve, and not about who was right and who was wrong,” said Dr Julia Bodensteiner, a co-author of the study from the ESO who proposed the “vampire star” explanation. Black hole that was closest yet found does not exist, say scientists in U-turn | Black holes | The Guardian

This question is OT. There is a Psychiatry forum for this, I think.

I hope you know that, just like so many other "quotes" from Einstein, Einstein never said that. Einsteins insanity quote (alternatememories.com)

The age of the universe in cosmology is referred to in the comoving reference frame, which would be time of the observer who is at rest relative to CMB.

Hence, if somebody (e.g. @eric in a post above) claims that the fact of not detecting sparticles in LHC refutes string theory, this claim is equally valid to all SS theories, not only the string theory? Or, other SS theories predict much heavier sparticles to begin with?