HockeyDad
15 years ago
Well there you go.
gringococolo
15 years ago
Did the medicare cuts start already?
ZRX1200
15 years ago
^and every once in awhile Rick's train of though/stream of consciousness yields a gem.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
tweoijfoi #57

"puttin on the ritz."
gringococolo
15 years ago
Rick at your age you must feel like you are evolving into a Shar Pei.
jpotts
15 years ago

Trying to find exactly where you stand on an issue? Are you are incapable of answering a question without becoming argumentative? I am trying to have a conversation with you right now, not an argument.

tweoijfoi wrote:



Where do I stand on the issue? My stand is that you're talking like an idiot.


Yes thank you, I know DNA is constructed to prevent over-mutation. I know that DNA replication occurs in the nucleus of the cell where various enzymes unzip the DNA which is then transcribed and replicated. That is high school biology and no I did not have to look it up.

tweoijfoi wrote:



Ummm...no.

Mutations in DNA changes character traits. Embryonic specilization of cells is defined as "cellular differentiation," not mutation. Mutation occurs when replication is not exact, which is why it is called "replication" in the first place (which means to copy, not modify). Consequently, the term "transcription" means to "transcribe" which is to make an exact copy - not one that is modified.

Words mean things. However, nice try: you still lose.


By you misinterpreted my meaning of mutation. I meant mutation not within cells of already matured things, but mutations when an embryo is created. Those mutations can be fatal, yes. But frequently they are not and result in a small abnormality (as compared to the parents of the being) once grown. For example, a child can grown to be significantly taller or shorter than either of their parents or grandparents. This is an extreme example. Most changes are subtle and unremarkable.

tweoijfoi wrote:



No, I didn't "misrepresent" your meaning of "mutation." I'm simply pointing out that you have no frickin' clue as to what you're talking about.

Furthermore, your illustration is totally bogus, and ignores fundemental concepts like dominence / recessiveness in genes, and all that scientific "lingo." Accroding to you, if both parent have blue eyes, they can produce a child with green skin and bright violet irises because of "mutation." it is utterly bogus.

Again, try reading a book sometime. You may learn something...
jpotts
15 years ago


and now rickamaven is only the second gay dumbest on these
bhoards.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:



Ummm...Rick? I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you.
Users browsing this topic